Religious folks: do you think autism is caused by demons?
01 Aug 2010, 11:34 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Well, it would follow logically that young earth creationists would be most likely to believe this.
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
That's a fail even for a strawman.
well, the issue is that creationists are still creationists regardless they don't connect autism with demon possesions, and even so, some may still believe that demon possesions can actually take place, given biblical literalists, the accounts on the gospels about possesed people and Jesus casting out the demons are to be believed as if they were literally, no?, although that seems more evident with catholics. Not only that, but autism would very likely be considered to be demon possession around 1 AD given that epilepsy was.
I highly doubt that Judaism and Christianity were that friendly with people with mental disorders or conditions until the heretics found out what the real deal is.
I don't know about the first century AD, but after Middle English was around, the word "dunce" was in usage. At that time most of the English speaking world were Christians and the age of the earth wasn't such an issue as that of monarchs wishing to assert their "divine right of kings" versus the population saying "forget that!".
I'm hardly able to see where you are going with that last comment, other than to support that Christianity saw "dunces" as something to separate from their children, which supports them seeing the neurodiverse as demons or possessed.
As for my argument being a strawman, no, I'm afraid it was an all out joke. About as worthy of serious consideration as the original premise of the OP. I guess you could call it sophistry though I would call it satire, with the intent of pointing out the ridiculous nature of all arguments that lead to supernatural conclusions. ie, that they are "concocted" in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that one desires in the first place by manipulation of the premises to allow for that conclusion.
I think it is highly possible for people to see whatever they like in the words that anyone speaks or writes ever.
However, no. The word "dunce" referred to a slow learner, with nothing demonic associated.
Actually, it was putting down a philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus
^The original dunce....Duns.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
01 Aug 2010, 11:39 pm
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Well, it would follow logically that young earth creationists would be most likely to believe this.
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
That's a fail even for a strawman.
well, the issue is that creationists are still creationists regardless they don't connect autism with demon possesions, and even so, some may still believe that demon possesions can actually take place, given biblical literalists, the accounts on the gospels about possesed people and Jesus casting out the demons are to be believed as if they were literally, no?, although that seems more evident with catholics. Not only that, but autism would very likely be considered to be demon possession around 1 AD given that epilepsy was.
I highly doubt that Judaism and Christianity were that friendly with people with mental disorders or conditions until the heretics found out what the real deal is.
I don't know about the first century AD, but after Middle English was around, the word "dunce" was in usage. At that time most of the English speaking world were Christians and the age of the earth wasn't such an issue as that of monarchs wishing to assert their "divine right of kings" versus the population saying "forget that!".
I'm hardly able to see where you are going with that last comment, other than to support that Christianity saw "dunces" as something to separate from their children, which supports them seeing the neurodiverse as demons or possessed.
As for my argument being a strawman, no, I'm afraid it was an all out joke. About as worthy of serious consideration as the original premise of the OP. I guess you could call it sophistry though I would call it satire, with the intent of pointing out the ridiculous nature of all arguments that lead to supernatural conclusions. ie, that they are "concocted" in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that one desires in the first place by manipulation of the premises to allow for that conclusion.
I think it is highly possible for people to see whatever they like in the words that anyone speaks or writes ever.
However, no. The word "dunce" referred to a slow learner, with nothing demonic associated.
Actually, it was putting down a philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus
^The original dunce....Duns.
"...argued scripturally for the immaculate conception of Mary."
Methinks I see why.
01 Aug 2010, 11:44 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Well, it would follow logically that young earth creationists would be most likely to believe this.
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
That's a fail even for a strawman.
well, the issue is that creationists are still creationists regardless they don't connect autism with demon possesions, and even so, some may still believe that demon possesions can actually take place, given biblical literalists, the accounts on the gospels about possesed people and Jesus casting out the demons are to be believed as if they were literally, no?, although that seems more evident with catholics. Not only that, but autism would very likely be considered to be demon possession around 1 AD given that epilepsy was.
I highly doubt that Judaism and Christianity were that friendly with people with mental disorders or conditions until the heretics found out what the real deal is.
I don't know about the first century AD, but after Middle English was around, the word "dunce" was in usage. At that time most of the English speaking world were Christians and the age of the earth wasn't such an issue as that of monarchs wishing to assert their "divine right of kings" versus the population saying "forget that!".
I'm hardly able to see where you are going with that last comment, other than to support that Christianity saw "dunces" as something to separate from their children, which supports them seeing the neurodiverse as demons or possessed.
As for my argument being a strawman, no, I'm afraid it was an all out joke. About as worthy of serious consideration as the original premise of the OP. I guess you could call it sophistry though I would call it satire, with the intent of pointing out the ridiculous nature of all arguments that lead to supernatural conclusions. ie, that they are "concocted" in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that one desires in the first place by manipulation of the premises to allow for that conclusion.
I think it is highly possible for people to see whatever they like in the words that anyone speaks or writes ever.
However, no. The word "dunce" referred to a slow learner, with nothing demonic associated.
Actually, it was putting down a philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus
^The original dunce....Duns.
"...argued scripturally for the immaculate conception of Mary."
Methinks I see why.
I've heard the argument before. She had to have been without original sin to be able to give birth to Jesus without OS so therefore, she would have also been immaculately conceived.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
01 Aug 2010, 11:54 pm
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Well, it would follow logically that young earth creationists would be most likely to believe this.
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
That's a fail even for a strawman.
well, the issue is that creationists are still creationists regardless they don't connect autism with demon possesions, and even so, some may still believe that demon possesions can actually take place, given biblical literalists, the accounts on the gospels about possesed people and Jesus casting out the demons are to be believed as if they were literally, no?, although that seems more evident with catholics. Not only that, but autism would very likely be considered to be demon possession around 1 AD given that epilepsy was.
I highly doubt that Judaism and Christianity were that friendly with people with mental disorders or conditions until the heretics found out what the real deal is.
I don't know about the first century AD, but after Middle English was around, the word "dunce" was in usage. At that time most of the English speaking world were Christians and the age of the earth wasn't such an issue as that of monarchs wishing to assert their "divine right of kings" versus the population saying "forget that!".
I'm hardly able to see where you are going with that last comment, other than to support that Christianity saw "dunces" as something to separate from their children, which supports them seeing the neurodiverse as demons or possessed.
As for my argument being a strawman, no, I'm afraid it was an all out joke. About as worthy of serious consideration as the original premise of the OP. I guess you could call it sophistry though I would call it satire, with the intent of pointing out the ridiculous nature of all arguments that lead to supernatural conclusions. ie, that they are "concocted" in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that one desires in the first place by manipulation of the premises to allow for that conclusion.
I think it is highly possible for people to see whatever they like in the words that anyone speaks or writes ever.
However, no. The word "dunce" referred to a slow learner, with nothing demonic associated.
Actually, it was putting down a philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus
^The original dunce....Duns.
"...argued scripturally for the immaculate conception of Mary."
Methinks I see why.
I've heard the argument before. She had to have been without original sin to be able to give birth to Jesus without OS so therefore, she would have also been immaculately conceived.
If this is continued out, then it would trace out to the first ancestor. Also, that argument would only be valid if lack of original sin were necessary for a person to be selected or used by God. And in Mary's case in particular to be a surrogate.
02 Aug 2010, 12:04 am
Yes, it presents an infinite regress, which should immediately end the argument.
As for "slow learner" vs "neuro diverse" well the neuro diverse would be included in the slow learner then... especially considering at that time there was only one right, and everything else was wrong, by definition. So anyone going about learning in an alternative way or viewing things from alternate perspectives would be seen as a dunce. We all would've worn those caps. Heck if they still had that archaic hat in my catholic school, i would've been wearing it from about grade 2 to grade 6 constantly.
02 Aug 2010, 12:05 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Well, it would follow logically that young earth creationists would be most likely to believe this.
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
That's a fail even for a strawman.
well, the issue is that creationists are still creationists regardless they don't connect autism with demon possesions, and even so, some may still believe that demon possesions can actually take place, given biblical literalists, the accounts on the gospels about possesed people and Jesus casting out the demons are to be believed as if they were literally, no?, although that seems more evident with catholics. Not only that, but autism would very likely be considered to be demon possession around 1 AD given that epilepsy was.
I highly doubt that Judaism and Christianity were that friendly with people with mental disorders or conditions until the heretics found out what the real deal is.
I don't know about the first century AD, but after Middle English was around, the word "dunce" was in usage. At that time most of the English speaking world were Christians and the age of the earth wasn't such an issue as that of monarchs wishing to assert their "divine right of kings" versus the population saying "forget that!".
I'm hardly able to see where you are going with that last comment, other than to support that Christianity saw "dunces" as something to separate from their children, which supports them seeing the neurodiverse as demons or possessed.
As for my argument being a strawman, no, I'm afraid it was an all out joke. About as worthy of serious consideration as the original premise of the OP. I guess you could call it sophistry though I would call it satire, with the intent of pointing out the ridiculous nature of all arguments that lead to supernatural conclusions. ie, that they are "concocted" in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that one desires in the first place by manipulation of the premises to allow for that conclusion.
I think it is highly possible for people to see whatever they like in the words that anyone speaks or writes ever.
However, no. The word "dunce" referred to a slow learner, with nothing demonic associated.
Actually, it was putting down a philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus
^The original dunce....Duns.
"...argued scripturally for the immaculate conception of Mary."
Methinks I see why.
I've heard the argument before. She had to have been without original sin to be able to give birth to Jesus without OS so therefore, she would have also been immaculately conceived.
If this is continued out, then it would trace out to the first ancestor. Also, that argument would only be valid if lack of original sin were necessary for a person to be selected or used by God. And in Mary's case in particular to be a surrogate.
I never said it was a good one. There aren't many realistic arguments for YHVH or the other major players and their stories.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
02 Aug 2010, 12:16 am
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Well, it would follow logically that young earth creationists would be most likely to believe this.
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
So... if you don't believe in evolution, then you likely don't buy the whole issue of genes.
Thus... genes are demons, created by evil people, invoking satan, the lord of the earth's unholy name.
So... I guess by that logic Autism is caused by demons.
Interesting side note... the best anagram I can get out of my full name is "See Unholy King Satan" and I'm pretty sure I'm aspie. Fitting, eh?
That's a fail even for a strawman.
well, the issue is that creationists are still creationists regardless they don't connect autism with demon possesions, and even so, some may still believe that demon possesions can actually take place, given biblical literalists, the accounts on the gospels about possesed people and Jesus casting out the demons are to be believed as if they were literally, no?, although that seems more evident with catholics. Not only that, but autism would very likely be considered to be demon possession around 1 AD given that epilepsy was.
I highly doubt that Judaism and Christianity were that friendly with people with mental disorders or conditions until the heretics found out what the real deal is.
I don't know about the first century AD, but after Middle English was around, the word "dunce" was in usage. At that time most of the English speaking world were Christians and the age of the earth wasn't such an issue as that of monarchs wishing to assert their "divine right of kings" versus the population saying "forget that!".
I'm hardly able to see where you are going with that last comment, other than to support that Christianity saw "dunces" as something to separate from their children, which supports them seeing the neurodiverse as demons or possessed.
As for my argument being a strawman, no, I'm afraid it was an all out joke. About as worthy of serious consideration as the original premise of the OP. I guess you could call it sophistry though I would call it satire, with the intent of pointing out the ridiculous nature of all arguments that lead to supernatural conclusions. ie, that they are "concocted" in such a way as to lead to the conclusion that one desires in the first place by manipulation of the premises to allow for that conclusion.
I think it is highly possible for people to see whatever they like in the words that anyone speaks or writes ever.
However, no. The word "dunce" referred to a slow learner, with nothing demonic associated.
Actually, it was putting down a philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Duns_Scotus
^The original dunce....Duns.
"...argued scripturally for the immaculate conception of Mary."
Methinks I see why.
I've heard the argument before. She had to have been without original sin to be able to give birth to Jesus without OS so therefore, she would have also been immaculately conceived.
If this is continued out, then it would trace out to the first ancestor. Also, that argument would only be valid if lack of original sin were necessary for a person to be selected or used by God. And in Mary's case in particular to be a surrogate.
I never said it was a good one. There aren't many realistic arguments for YHVH or the other major players and their stories.
I never thought that you considered it as one.
03 Aug 2010, 6:43 pm
Exclavius wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Just like the whole "mental illness is a lie/myth and unbiblical" conspiracy, I think it's kinda funny.
How true you are, the fact that people still believe the bible, is proof positive that mental illness is alive and well.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
04 Aug 2010, 1:08 am
Dnuos wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Just like the whole "mental illness is a lie/myth and unbiblical" conspiracy, I think it's kinda funny.
How true you are, the fact that people still believe the bible, is proof positive that mental illness is alive and well.
It's the way that one form of atheist desires to regard theists, probably because their "high priest" Dawkin's declared that religion is "pathological".
04 Aug 2010, 2:23 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Just like the whole "mental illness is a lie/myth and unbiblical" conspiracy, I think it's kinda funny.
How true you are, the fact that people still believe the bible, is proof positive that mental illness is alive and well.
It's the way that one form of atheist desires to regard theists, probably because their "high priest" Dawkin's declared that religion is "pathological".
Unfortunately a great many psychotic people have no clue as to how troubled they are.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
04 Aug 2010, 2:27 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Just like the whole "mental illness is a lie/myth and unbiblical" conspiracy, I think it's kinda funny.
How true you are, the fact that people still believe the bible, is proof positive that mental illness is alive and well.
It's the way that one form of atheist desires to regard theists, probably because their "high priest" Dawkin's declared that religion is "pathological".
Unfortunately a great many psychotic people have no clue as to how troubled they are.
And of course, you imply that "religious people" are psychotic. You are so not cool.
04 Aug 2010, 3:00 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Just like the whole "mental illness is a lie/myth and unbiblical" conspiracy, I think it's kinda funny.
How true you are, the fact that people still believe the bible, is proof positive that mental illness is alive and well.
It's the way that one form of atheist desires to regard theists, probably because their "high priest" Dawkin's declared that religion is "pathological".
Unfortunately a great many psychotic people have no clue as to how troubled they are.
And of course, you imply that "religious people" are psychotic. You are so not cool.
"Not cool." Does that mean unpopular? I have no doubts about that.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
04 Aug 2010, 3:04 am
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Just like the whole "mental illness is a lie/myth and unbiblical" conspiracy, I think it's kinda funny.
How true you are, the fact that people still believe the bible, is proof positive that mental illness is alive and well.
It's the way that one form of atheist desires to regard theists, probably because their "high priest" Dawkin's declared that religion is "pathological".
Unfortunately a great many psychotic people have no clue as to how troubled they are.
And of course, you imply that "religious people" are psychotic. You are so not cool.
"Not cool." Does that mean unpopular? I have no doubts about that.
Being cool is not necessarily about being popular. You actually seem quite popular with other atheists of your ilk, but that's nothing to brag about.
04 Aug 2010, 3:43 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
Dnuos wrote:
Just like the whole "mental illness is a lie/myth and unbiblical" conspiracy, I think it's kinda funny.
How true you are, the fact that people still believe the bible, is proof positive that mental illness is alive and well.
It's the way that one form of atheist desires to regard theists, probably because their "high priest" Dawkin's declared that religion is "pathological".
Unfortunately a great many psychotic people have no clue as to how troubled they are.
And of course, you imply that "religious people" are psychotic. You are so not cool.
"Not cool." Does that mean unpopular? I have no doubts about that.
Being cool is not necessarily about being popular. You actually seem quite popular with other atheists of your ilk, but that's nothing to brag about.
Brag? What's there to brag about? There's nothing sensational about being able to make reasonable sense of the world. That's just a very small beginning. But at least it's the right direction.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| BBC News: 'autism caused by sodium valproate' |
14 Feb 2024, 4:18 pm |
| What is a problem that an NT caused, and did not realize... |
07 Mar 2024, 5:38 pm |
| For older folks, do you still feel young for your age? |
24 Apr 2024, 8:27 pm |
| Why is it so hard to meet autistic folks who are gay? |
17 Apr 2024, 8:12 pm |
