Why isn't religious belief considered to be a form of mental illness?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Chuck_Schumer
What is the fundamental difference between someone who believes an ancient man is to descend from the heavens and save all of humanity, to the extent where they formulate their life around it, and your average schizophrenic who is able to function in the real world but suffers from delusions?


Google modern day prophets and you will find countless articles of individuals who claim to be, yet are laughed at and/or institutionalized.

Mohammad was a schizo, and so was Yesus.

Flyattractor
eh... It makes more sense then most Political,and Scientific Beliefs People on the Left have.

But then they are ....

https://media.giphy.com/media/xUA7bazBa69nSu6lPy/giphy.gif

The Spectre+
the OP should just shut up. if you dont believe in it thats your buisness, nobody has qualms with that. but brandin religious beliefs as mental illness is crossing boundaries.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by The Spectre+
the OP should just shut up. if you dont believe in it thats your buisness, nobody has qualms with that. but brandin religious beliefs as mental illness is crossing boundaries. well put.

Bentley
I'm going to pretend this is not a hateful rant and answer the topic at hand.

There is a cultural logic to religious belief, in almost all personnal context there is a potential cultural gain that comes from religious practice. If you talk about Jesus and Mohammad as mentally ill then you fail to realize that their teachings and narratives where so in tune with the societies that spawned them that they succesfully became influential over multiple nations in litte time. Religion serves a social propose that is based in how it's practiced and not in the specific beliefs or faith of its carrier.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Bentley
I'm going to pretend this is not a hateful rant and answer the topic at hand.

There is a cultural logic to religious belief, in almost all personnal context there is a potential cultural gain that comes from religious practice. If you talk about Jesus and Mohammad as mentally ill then you fail to realize that their teachings and narratives where so in tune with the societies that spawned them that they succesfully became influential over multiple nations in litte time. Religion serves a social propose that is based in how it's practiced and not in the specific beliefs or faith of its carrier. Absolutely true.

jaden_2.0
Seems to me religion is effective at 2 things. Helping people cope with existential dread and fleecing gullible people out of money.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Chuck_Schumer
What is the fundamental difference between someone who believes an ancient man is to descend from the heavens and save all of humanity, to the extent where they formulate their life around it, and your average schizophrenic who is able to function in the real world but suffers from delusions?


Google modern day prophets and you will find countless articles of individuals who claim to be, yet are laughed at and/or institutionalized.

Mohammad was a schizo, and so was Yesus.

He has a point. And religious belief can enhance mental illness (like it did with my schizophrenic brother who killed himself as a result of getting mixed up in the dogma of the Christian religion).

If a single person believed what millions of people do, they would be locked up, institutionalized. But since millions of people also believe it, it's considered normal. Religions are just cults with way more followers.

Surtur
Originally posted by Chuck_Schumer
What is the fundamental difference between someone who believes an ancient man is to descend from the heavens and save all of humanity, to the extent where they formulate their life around it, and your average schizophrenic who is able to function in the real world but suffers from delusions?


Google modern day prophets and you will find countless articles of individuals who claim to be, yet are laughed at and/or institutionalized.

Mohammad was a schizo, and so was Yesus.

Lol calling Muhammad a schizo is being very kind to him. I'd go with "pedophile warlord who really hated poets".

Jesus was mostly chill. 99% chill, 1% a belt he beats people with. I think both these religions are awful but even I know Jesus is the way nicer fictional character. He's the prophet you'd want to show up if they were real. Muhammad is the one you'd want to show up if you really like to see kids get raped and beheaded.

BrolyBlack

BrolyBlack
Jesus even said pay your taxes

Surtur
Jesus straight up allowed people to beat and torture him and then kill him. Muhammad murdered poets who said bad things about him lol.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Seems to me religion is effective at 2 things. Helping people cope with existential dread and fleecing gullible people out of money. It also gives people who have nothing hope. From Incel extremists to a mother in Africa who has lost her family to Ebola.

dadudemon
It would be more accurate to say atheists have a mental illness.

But more accurate to say neither is a mental illness.

More accurately, in research, atheists seem to not activate the "God spot" in the brain. Even in modern countries that are not religious, they "remain deeply spiritual" because you cannot undo tens of thousands of years of evolution very quickly.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201208/the-god-spot-revisited


So I'll say this with 0 levity: I truly think that atheists, who do not exhibit a "god-spot" in their brain are the next step in human evolution. A "god-spot" is much better seen an unnecessary and vestigial element in modern societies. This is not to say that we should mock and look down on the religious. But religion is not as necessary when you live in a society that provides all the basic needs and bonuses.

I liken this to another vestigial evolutionary "problem": people who are light sleepers vs. people who are deep sleepers. A deep sleeper would be higher on the evolution ladder because have lived beyond the need to be light l to be wary of nocturnal predators. It's just not necessary. In fact, our babies are so very loud and annoying because we've grown beyond the need to worry about predators. That's how badass humans are. But we still carry vestigial traits from our primate ancestors that had to be light sleepers to quickly react to avoid being eaten.

BrolyBlack

Putinbot1
Originally posted by dadudemon
It would be more accurate to say atheists have a mental illness.

But more accurate to say neither is a mental illness.

More accurately, in research, atheists seem to not activate the "God spot" in the brain. Even in modern countries that are not religious, they "remain deeply spiritual" because you cannot undo tens of thousands of years of evolution very quickly.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201208/the-god-spot-revisited


So I'll say this with 0 levity: I truly think that atheists, who do not exhibit a "god-spot" in their brain are the next step in human evolution. A "god-spot" is much better seen an unnecessary and vestigial element in modern societies. This is not to say that we should mock and look down on the religious. But religion is not as necessary when you live in a society that provides all the basic needs and bonuses.

I liken this to another vestigial evolutionary "problem": people who are light sleepers vs. people who are deep sleepers. A deep sleeper would be higher on the evolution ladder because have lived beyond the need to be light l to be wary of nocturnal predators. It's just not necessary. In fact, our babies are so very loud and annoying because we've grown beyond the need to worry about predators. That's how badass humans are. But we still carry vestigial traits from our primate ancestors that had to be light sleepers to quickly react to avoid being eaten. each religion tends to have a moral code and deal with specific human issues. Religion and Atheism are both easily justified. I'm as Atheist as they come and I believe in nothing spiritual or religious and whilst I'm 99% sure I'm right, I still could be wrong. And myths and legends are some of the best stories, fact or fiction. So thanks religions for entertaining me.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by dadudemon
It would be more accurate to say atheists have a mental illness.

But more accurate to say neither is a mental illness.

More accurately, in research, atheists seem to not activate the "God spot" in the brain. Even in modern countries that are not religious, they "remain deeply spiritual" because you cannot undo tens of thousands of years of evolution very quickly.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201208/the-god-spot-revisited


So I'll say this with 0 levity: I truly think that atheists, who do not exhibit a "god-spot" in their brain are the next step in human evolution. A "god-spot" is much better seen an unnecessary and vestigial element in modern societies. This is not to say that we should mock and look down on the religious. But religion is not as necessary when you live in a society that provides all the basic needs and bonuses.

Lol, what the hell are you talking about? Where did this "god-spot" nonsense come from?

Putinbot1
.missed that God voices told people what to do in complex situations. It's possible the God spot is to do with that it was a 70s theory, didn't know it was around still.

BrolyBlack
Satan told me to do it is equally used.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Satan told me to do it is equally used. good point, but the God voice as I remember dealt with reasoning. Satan told me is probably schizophrenia.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Satan told me is probably schizophrenia.

They're both just your own inner voice.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
They're both just your own inner voice. oh Definately, the issue in the 70s was are they your same inner voice. Don't know if they ever decided. Don't think it matters tbh.

Patient_Leech
https://data.whicdn.com/images/256446937/original.gif

What happens when people develop a bad relationship with their inner voice, and don't get comfortable with it.

And guess what, teaching kids that there's angels and demons is not a good way to train people to be okay with their inner thoughts. I know that may be a big surprise. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Surtur

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
https://data.whicdn.com/images/256446937/original.gif

What happens when people develop a bad relationship with their inner voice, and don't get comfortable with it.

And guess what, teaching kids that there's angels and demons is not a good way to train people to be okay with their inner thoughts. I know that may be a big surprise. roll eyes (sarcastic) very true most people not suffering a disorder don't really hear direct voices, they might mull things but it's more q and a than an order.

Flyattractor
Kind of like when they cite Anything from the Athiest Bible.
"...Yeah We Got Nothing".

Good Stuff.

Surtur
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Kind of like when they cite Anything from the Athiest Bible.
"...Yeah We Got Nothing".

Good Stuff.

I do enjoy the atheists who are so hardcore into being an atheist they treat it more or less like a religion.

Patient_Leech
Don't encourage Fly in his strange, delusional world.

Flyattractor
Yes. IT aint always the "Religion' That Puts the KOOKOOMACHOO in the People. Lots of times it is the other way around.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Lol, what the hell are you talking about? Where did this "god-spot" nonsense come from?

Neuroscience and psychology.

If religion and spirituality are born from evolution, then there should be some sort of biological evidence for this. And we found it and confirmed it in many different forms and many different ways.

As an atheist, you should be happy to run into this new information as it confirms one of your positions on the hotly debated topic.

Flyattractor
If the "Science" was done by a University or Place of Higher Education...Its findings are automatically suspect.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by dadudemon
Neuroscience and psychology.

If religion and spirituality are born from evolution, then there should be some sort of biological evidence for this. And we found it and confirmed it in many different forms and many different ways.

As an atheist, you should be happy to run into this new information as it confirms one of your positions on the hotly debated topic. I'm always suspicious of anything being truly proved with consciousness, as so much in neuroscience gets revised so often, and we end up reading the statement, "was thought to be involved with x, but new studies show it is in fact a process of y etc."

Robtard

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
Neuroscience and psychology.

If religion and spirituality are born from evolution, then there should be some sort of biological evidence for this. And we found it and confirmed it in many different forms and many different ways.

As an atheist, you should be happy to run into this new information as it confirms one of your positions on the hotly debated topic.

It would be funny to see certain atheists get tested for this "god spot". I imagine the results would be like when nazis do DNA tests and find out they have some black in them.

Emperordmb
There was something Jordan Peterson said about a disagreement between Freud and Jung.

Freud viewed religion more as the outward pathologizing of ****ed up family dynamics more or less, something of an Oedipal complex so to speak.

Jung on the other hand viewed religion as the emergence of people seeking the transcendent and upward aim, something of an attempt of self-actualization as a heroic figure.

You could definitely find religious people who fit either of these descriptions. As a religious person myself, I hope to be more of the latter.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
It would be funny to see certain atheists get tested for this "god spot". I imagine the results would be like when nazis do DNA tests and find out they have some black in them.

They've done this and have results.

It's not an "all x and all y" thing.

Also, they haven't proven if one leads to the other or if you are just born that way.

It's more like, "If the brain doesn't light up under this and that, they are far more likely to be an atheist than the population average."

All they do is prove, with statistical significance, this correlation.

What is not (yet) known is if you become atheist, this area stops lighting up. Or if that area is already "dark" and you are just more "susceptible" to becoming an atheist.

The "God-Spot" is also about experiencing spirituality so some atheistic forms of Buddhism are also harder to "feel" for those same people where spirituality is necessary.

And it is not a binary feeling, either. There are probably a myriad of states of "feeling" along the way where one can experience spirituality or a transcendent connection. Also, due to neuroplasticity, who is to say that the brain would not adapt and create a new God-Spot if a person is very much trying hard to have transcendent experiences? Shrooms (psilocybin and other psychedelics) may help this. Your brain actually changes, permanently, even after one therapeutic dose of MDM. You can literally see the neurological changes on a brain scan after just a single dose. How effing fascinating is that?

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by dadudemon
Neuroscience and psychology.

If religion and spirituality are born from evolution, then there should be some sort of biological evidence for this. And we found it and confirmed it in many different forms and many different ways.

As an atheist, you should be happy to run into this new information as it confirms one of your positions on the hotly debated topic.


Sounds interesting, but this is the first I've heard of it, so I doubt it's anywhere near confirmed science.

In either case it's not needed as any sort of confirmation for atheism. The evidence of reality and just the general rationale already do that.




It's just that you almost went full-retard when you said...

Originally posted by dadudemon
"It would be more accurate to say atheists have a mental illness..."

...because in my experience reasonable atheists are the only ones at least attempting to honestly and rationally make sense of existence in this universe.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's just that you almost went full-retard when you said...

...because in my experience reasonable atheists are the only ones at least attempting to honestly and rationally make sense of existence in this universe.

But you conveniently skipped the next statement which said neither descriptor is accurate. Why? I feel like you got upset after reading that, stopped reading my post immediately, and responded. sad


Also, there is no "one" god spot which is why I put it in quotes. It's a complex emotional and intellectual experience.

Eternal Idol
Personally, religious belief and practice is a waste of time and effort, as well as a delusional coping mechanism. I believe it has cultural value, but that's about as much credit as I'll give it. I love religious art, and I value religious stories as mythology intertwined with a bit of history. I avoid talking to religious people about religion, because it's a futile exercise of circular reasoning that will ultimately end--at the very least, awkwardly--with "Well, that's just what I believe", or "I have faith", or "I just feel it", or "You'll understand someday", or any other variation of those four.

That said, I wouldn't go as far as to call it a mental illness, like George Carlin does, as beliefs can change with new experience and information...nor would I even go out of my way to personally attack someone's beliefs.

MeWZjTMnUAA

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by dadudemon
But you conveniently skipped the next statement which said neither descriptor is accurate. Why? I feel like you got upset after reading that, stopped reading my post immediately, and responded. sad


Also, there is no "one" god spot which is why I put it in quotes. It's a complex emotional and intellectual experience.

No, I read it. And I got what you were saying. That's why I said, "almost went full retard." Just wasn't a good way to start off is all.

Patient_Leech
Just found a good response to the original question for this topic...

Aron Ra was asked...




I thought that was a good answer.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Chuck_Schumer
What is the fundamental difference between someone who believes an ancient man is to descend from the heavens and save all of humanity, to the extent where they formulate their life around it, and your average schizophrenic who is able to function in the real world but suffers from delusions?


Google modern day prophets and you will find countless articles of individuals who claim to be, yet are laughed at and/or institutionalized.

Mohammad was a schizo, and so was Yesus.
How is atheism any different from your view? Why should atheism be not identified as a form of mental illness? Because atheist believe that atheism is correct?

Religion is about CULTURE and ORDER for the 'sustainability' of a society in the long-term. Religions have a lengthy history in construction of new societies, and reforming ancient societies. Secularism is a modern-era substitute but may not necessarily ensure sustainability of every society in the long-term.

Pointers for the naive:

http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2005/09/apo-nid2765-1101686.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527763/

Secondly, science is not about proving or disproving God. Don't be naive.

Robtard
Not that I buy into the "all religious people are mental" sentiment, but come on now, who's more mental, the person who believes in a magical Skyfather or the person who rejects the idea.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
How is atheism any different from your view? Why should atheism be not identified as a form of mental illness? Because atheist believe that atheism is correct?

You're really missing the point. Because by definition atheists don't believe in things on insufficient evidence. In other words they avoid delusion, rather than prize it as a virtue. (Delusion being a symptom of mental illness.)


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Religion is about CULTURE and ORDER for the 'sustainability' of a society in the long-term. Religions have a lengthy history in construction of new societies, and reforming ancient societies. Secularism is a modern-era substitute but may not necessarily ensure sustainability of every society in the long-term.


So I think I can see where you're going with this because I know the type.

I'm guessing that you're not necessarily proclaiming the truth of religion, but rather it's utility in maintaining morality and order. People need scary delusions to be controlled and pacified. I've always found that point of view kind of messed up, like the way cynical dictators manipulate their masses.

And in case you hadn't noticed the way our species evolved, religions were born of our ignorance and fear, so throughout human history before we knew as much about the universe as we do now, superstitious and religious people were basically all there was. There was no one else to do the job. There's never really been a truly secular society. But in fact, the United States is one of the closest examples of a secular government, and it's actually quite prosperous. And Judeo-Christian values have not been seen to significantly improve morality of culture. Morality is an evolved construct like everything else. It's not handed down by G-O-D.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You're really missing the point. Because by definition atheists don't believe in things on insufficient evidence. In other words they avoid delusion, rather than prize it as a virtue. (Delusion being a symptom of mental illness.)





So I think I can see where you're going with this because I know the type.

I'm guessing that you're not necessarily proclaiming the truth of religion, but rather it's utility in maintaining morality and order. People need scary delusions to be controlled and pacified. I've always found that point of view kind of messed up, like the way cynical dictators manipulate their masses.

And in case you hadn't noticed the way our species evolved, religions were born of our ignorance and fear, so throughout human history before we knew as much about the universe as we do now, superstitious and religious people were basically all there was. There was no one else to do the job. There's never really been a truly secular society. But in fact, the United States is one of the closest examples of a secular government, and it's actually quite prosperous. And Judeo-Christian values have not been seen to significantly improve morality of culture. Morality is an evolved construct like everything else. It's not handed down by G-O-D.


Wow. You can tell Leech went to college.

Cause it takes a College Education to be that....SPECIAL!!!!!!!

eek!

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Wow. You can tell Leech went to college.

Cause it takes a College Education to be that....SPECIAL!!!!!!!

eek!

Yeah, college, where they teach all that godless ev-o-lu-shun trash.

Sad that education and intellect is looked down upon now. Thanks, tRUMP culture!!

Flyattractor
Oh if ONLY Evolution was all they taught in College now.

Instead of the Segregation of the Races. Toxic Masculinity. Fascist Levels of Feminism. Transgender Nonsense and "Its a Safe Place Bro" bullshit.

Best Education You get in College now is Masters in Hate.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Oh if ONLY Evolution was all they taught in College now.

Instead of the Segregation of the Races. Toxic Masculinity. Fascist Levels of Feminism. Transgender Nonsense and "Its a Safe Place Bro" bullshit.

Best Education You get in College now is Masters in Hate.

It's really not that bad, Fly. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. There has been some of that popping up, but the degree to which it is a problem is still somewhat unclear.

But yes, it exists and that's a problem.

But what *I* find amusing is this overreaction and jump to the far-RIGHT as a result. Which solves nothing, it only adds fuel to the fire.

Emperordmb
Come on Patient Leech, I honestly expect more from you. The far-right?

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Come on Patient Leech, I honestly expect more from you. The far-right?

It's no mystery that many people voted Trump into office because of their general annoyance with political correctness. To them it didn't seem to matter that Trump is an obvious demagogue without even a ounce of rationality. And Trump has energized the far right. So yes, that sort of overreaction is absurd.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Come on Patient Leech, I honestly expect more from you. The far-right? He's right.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's no mystery that many people voted Trump into office because of their general annoyance with political correctness. To them it didn't seem to matter that Trump is an obvious demagogue without even a ounce of rationality. And Trump has energized the far right. So yes, that sort of overreaction is absurd. I couldn't agree more thumb up

dadudemon
Originally posted by Putinbot1
He's right.

He is. Intentional or not, Trump has emboldened far-rightists, racists, and the toxicity of some kinds of incels.

Emperordmb
He has, but as a larger point he's emboldened people who disagree with the "progressive left." That includes the far right, but not exclusively.

I could by the same token argue someone like Bernie Sanders emboldens actual marxists, but Bernie himself is just arguing his stances and though he calls himself a democratic socialist he comes across more as a social democrat. I'm going to judge him off of his own policy positions, not the policy positions of the worst people that happen to be emboldened by him.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by dadudemon
He is. Intentional or not, Trump has emboldened far-rightists, racists, and the toxicity of some kinds of incels. Yup, particularly on the internet.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Emperordmb
He has, but as a larger point he's emboldened people who disagree with the "progressive left." That includes the far right, but not exclusively.

I have been vocal about the idiocy of Political Correctness long before Trump. I don't need a moron like Trump to embolden me. In fact, I should feel like an idiot if I needed someone like Trump to embolden me to speak out against Political Correctness.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I could by the same token argue someone like Bernie Sanders emboldens actual marxists, but Bernie himself is just arguing his stances and though he calls himself a democratic socialist he comes across more as a social democrat. I'm going to judge him off of his own policy positions, not the policy positions of the worst people that happen to be emboldened by him.


There's nothing wrong with actual pure communism. In fact, that is the ideal society. Humans are just incapable of stopping their selfishness. "Communism" is used as a dirty word but I'm okay with communists being emboldened by Bernie Sanders. Here's hoping that humans can evolve enough to form something similar to the United Federation of Planets and money becomes meaningless.


But all the rest of what you say about Bernie...man, I really could not care less about those meaningless nuances.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Just found a good response to the original question for this topic...

Aron Ra was asked...




I thought that was a good answer.
Not really. If you look at the definition you posted it specifically talks about something that contradicts generally accepted as reality or rational argument, but most of the world believes in a higher power of some sort. So going by that definition Atheists would actually be the delusional ones.

As for how Aron Ra himself seems to define it, it' based on believe in the presence of conflicting evidence... but there's not actually any hard evidence to prove that God DOESN'T exist so what he's saying isn't applicable.

Jmanghan
Why isn't being a complete ******* considered to be a form of mental illness?

Wait... It is.

Eon Blue
Originally posted by Robtard
Not that I buy into the "all religious people are mental" sentiment, but come on now, who's more mental, the person who believes in a magical Skyfather or the person who rejects the idea.

thumb up

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by darthgoober
Not really. If you look at the definition you posted it specifically talks about something that contradicts generally accepted as reality or rational argument, but most of the world believes in a higher power of some sort. So going by that definition Atheists would actually be the delusional ones.

Nice attempt to turn it around. I like that. But there's nothing wrong with believing in "a higher power of some sort," (in theory), but the problem is an anthropomorphized God who answers prayers, writes books (many different contradicting ones) and generally gives a shit what people do or think or say. The problem is this idea of revelation. For that there's no good evidence. And the other flaw in your reasoning is that just because lots of people believe it doesn't make it true. Belief doesn't make reality. Reality should lead to belief. In other words, you should only believe something if there's good reasons to do so.



Originally posted by darthgoober
As for how Aron Ra himself seems to define it, based on in the presence of conflicting evidence... but there's not actually any hard evidence to prove that God DOESN'T exist so what he's saying isn't applicable.

Look up the "burden of proof" (see attached). It rests on the person making the claims to provide convincing evidence. I'm not required to disprove claims. Atheism is merely a lack of belief due to lack of evidence. It is not an assertion that there is no god.

https://pics.me.me/illegal-proofreversal-attempted-toshift-burden-of-proof-onto-the-doubter-24557426.png

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have been vocal about the idiocy of Political Correctness long before Trump. I don't need a moron like Trump to embolden me. In fact, I should feel like an idiot if I needed someone like Trump to embolden me to speak out against Political Correctness.

thumb up


Originally posted by Emperordmb
He has, but as a larger point he's emboldened people who disagree with the "progressive left." That includes the far right, but not exclusively.

I could by the same token argue someone like Bernie Sanders emboldens actual marxists, but Bernie himself is just arguing his stances and though he calls himself a democratic socialist he comes across more as a social democrat. I'm going to judge him off of his own policy positions, not the policy positions of the worst people that happen to be emboldened by him.

Fair point, but...


Originally posted by dadudemon
There's nothing wrong with actual pure communism. In fact, that is the ideal society. Humans are just incapable of stopping their selfishness. "Communism" is used as a dirty word but I'm okay with communists being emboldened by Bernie Sanders. Here's hoping that humans can evolve enough to form something similar to the United Federation of Planets and money becomes meaningless.


But all the rest of what you say about Bernie...man, I really could not care less about those meaningless nuances.

...Communism is at least an attempt to amplify the best in human nature and incentivise helping people whereas far-right idealogy ampiflies the worst of human nature. Also Bernie Sanders isn't an obviously irrational and moronic demagogue.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Nice attempt to turn it around. I like that. But there's nothing wrong with believing in "a higher power of some sort," (in theory), but the problem is an anthropomorphized God who answers prayers, writes books (many different contradicting ones) and generally gives a shit what people do or think or say. The problem is this idea of revelation. For that there's no good evidence. And the other flaw in your reasoning is that just because lots of people believe it doesn't make it true. Belief doesn't make reality. Reality should lead to belief. In other words, you should only believe something if there's good reasons to do so.
I'm pretty sure the majority of Earth's population follows one of the Abrahamic religions(it's possible that's shifted though, it's not a figure I closely follow year to year), thus by definition, they're not delusional. I totally understand people who are atheists, I'm simply disputing the notion you put forth that religious people are delusional because they don't meet the criteria set forth in the definition of the word you posted since most people believe.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Look up the "burden of proof" (see attached). It rests on the person making the claims to provide convincing evidence. I'm not required to disprove claims. Atheism is merely a lack of belief due to lack of evidence. It is not an assertion that there is no god.

https://pics.me.me/illegal-proofreversal-attempted-toshift-burden-of-proof-onto-the-doubter-24557426.png
Look at what the guy you posted said "psychiatric definition of a delusion is a persistent false belief which does not change in spite of conflicting evidence". In order for the religious people to be considered delusional by his definition you do in fact need to conflicting evidence in order for it to be a delusion. Thus one can only make the claim that the religious people are delusional if they have proof that God doesn't exist. That doesn't mean they should be assumed to be right until they're proven wrong, but they can all be wrong without being delusional.

It's very possible that you can find a some recognized mental disorder in which religious people could fit into, but delusional just doesn't fit the bill as it is defined. At the end of the day, the Joker is not the Riddler.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Robtard
Not that I buy into the "all religious people are mental" sentiment, but come on now, who's more mental, the person who believes in a magical Skyfather or the person who rejects the idea.


Neither is mental based on that basis alone.

Mindship
IMHO:

Religion doesn't kill; people do. Religion serves a valuable function: it addresses the best in us, our highest, most noble aspirations, in the context of death terror. But unfortunately, it can be abused (religionism -- history is rife with it), like any other belief system. If a person is bent on doing harm, to herself or others, she will find any excuse to justify her actions, be it religious, political, whatever.

We are the *problem*. Not our tools.

Darth Thor
Yeah its like Tony Robbins Robbins (or any of the self help gurus) dangerous.

And a lot of them do believe in a higher power for us to connect with. Doesnt make them mental lol

Robtard
Originally posted by Mindship
IMHO:

Religion doesn't kill; people do. Religion serves a valuable function: it addresses the best in us, our highest, most noble aspirations, in the context of death terror. But unfortunately, it can be abused (religionism -- history is rife with it), like any other belief system. If a person is bent on doing harm, to herself or others, she will find any excuse to justify her actions, be it religious, political, whatever.

We are the *problem*. Not our tools.

Well said, sir.

Said myself many a time and by no means am I original here: Religion is what the individual takes out of it. eg A Christain can take and push "God loves us all" in the same measure they can take "F@ggots need to die!", it's their choice.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Well said, sir.

Said myself many a time and by no means am I original here: Religion is what the individual takes out of it. eg A Christain can take and push "God loves us all" in the same measure they can take "F@ggots need to die!", it's their choice.

I mostly agree. However, Jesus Christ was extremely clear on some things and no amount of Christian-mental-gymnastics can justify some of the more terrible things Christians have done.

For example, you can't say you're a Christian (follow the teachings of Christ) but also claim to be an emancipated, independent, US Citizen to get out of paying taxes. That's not "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

You also cannot knowingly murder innocent people (such as our military conquests where we have expected civvy causalities built into our operations...WTF?) and still call yourself a Christian. So on and so forth for things like adultery, doing drugs, and selfishness.

Reality is, these kinds of people would like others to believe they are good and want others to think they follow Christ's teachings but really they're hypocrites who want to create idealized versions of themselves.


I'm a God-fearing Christian and a good person!

*Systematically demonstrates racism, drinks alcohol, cheats in relationships, and supports murder (any non-defensive wars)*

Yup, such a great Christian.

Flyattractor
Wow. You really Cherry Picked your Talking Points there.

And then pushed the usual "Out of Context/Lies" about it.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
I mostly agree. However, Jesus Christ was extremely clear on some things and no amount of Christian-mental-gymnastics can justify some of the more terrible things Christians have done.

For example, you can't say you're a Christian (follow the teachings of Christ) but also claim to be an emancipated, independent, US Citizen to get out of paying taxes. That's not "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

You also cannot knowingly murder innocent people (such as our military conquests where we have expected civvy causalities built into our operations...WTF?) and still call yourself a Christian. So on and so forth for things like adultery, doing drugs, and selfishness.

Reality is, these kinds of people would like others to believe they are good and want others to think they follow Christ's teachings but really they're hypocrites who want to create idealized versions of themselves.


I'm a God-fearing Christian and a good person!

*Systematically demonstrates racism, drinks alcohol, cheats in relationships, and supports murder (any non-defensive wars)*

Yup, such a great Christian.

For sure. But in fairness, it's nigh impossible to be a perfect Christian and not be a hypocrite in some fashion. Best one can strive for is to be the best Christian they can and as you just said, some oversteps are FAR worse than others.

Imho, to be a Christian* means to follow at least Christ's basic teachings, strive to do "good", help those less fortunate and do not judge others, as judgment is God's alone (James: 4-12) . Anecdotal: Sadly enough, I've met very, very few that even meet these modest standards.

*Similar goes with other religions/theist

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
For sure. But in fairness, it's nigh impossible to be a perfect Christian and not be a hypocrite in some fashion.

I disagree. The Catholics do have a great approach to this: humility. They take the "I am a dirty, filthy sinner, who is a terrible person!" a bit too far but that's their approach. You can claim to be a Christian while not being a hypocrite. "I'm not perfect but I'm trying" is an honest approach and there's nothing wrong with that.

Edit - I don't think we disagree. After reading your post a second time, you hold a similar position. I just take a stronger stance.


Originally posted by Robtard
Best one can strive for is to be the best Christian they can and as you just said, some oversteps are FAR worse than others.

Imho, to be a Christian* means to follow at least Christ's basic teachings, strive to do "good", help those less fortunate and do not judge others, as judgment is God's alone (James: 4-12) . Anecdotal: Sadly enough, I've met very, very few that even meet these modest standards.

*Similar goes with other religions/theist

I agree. It's just that Christians are easier to pick on since Jesus was such a nice, loving, guy, who just so happens to be the foundation for Christianity. So it's easier to say, "Weeeeeell...that's not super Christlike" because of how clear He made some of the positions.


IMO, the average Republican is not a good and honest Christian. That's not very Christlike of me to be judgmental like that, I know.

MythLord
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, college, where they teach all that godless ev-o-lu-shun trash.

Sad that education and intellect is looked down upon now. Thanks, tRUMP culture!!
Evolution? More like evilution. Amirite?

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's really not that bad, Fly. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. There has been some of that popping up, but the degree to which it is a problem is still somewhat unclear.

But yes, it exists and that's a problem.

But what *I* find amusing is this overreaction and jump to the far-RIGHT as a result. Which solves nothing, it only adds fuel to the fire.


To us the Point of this Threads actual Topic. The Biggest lie the Devil Pulled off was to convince the world He dosen't Exist....



eek!

MythLord
As for the question at hand: Religion really is sort of a neutral thing. It's like any story, proverb or anecdote out there. You can take from it what you will and it really depends on the person if it'll be giving yourself up to a noble cause or bashing your father's head in with a hammer because he missed one day of Church.

Mindship
Originally posted by Robtard
Said myself many a time and by no means am I original here: Religion is what the individual takes out of it. eg A Christain can take and push "God loves us all" in the same measure they can take "F@ggots need to die!", it's their choice. This is why I make the distinction between religion and religionism. The last few years has also had me thinking a lot about the nature and function of belief systems.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm a God-fearing Christian and a good person!

*Systematically demonstrates racism, drinks alcohol, cheats in relationships, and supports murder (any non-defensive wars)*

Yup, such a great Christian. Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), Christianity is hardly alone in this. Regardless, I've also been thinking about those who stay silent while backing serial liars.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mindship
This is why I make the distinction between religion and religionism.

hmm


That's good. I'm stealing it.


Originally posted by Mindship
Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), Christianity is hardly alone in this. Regardless, I've also been thinking about those who stay silent while backing serial liars.

Yes, complicit silence. But some of them are silent in the real world but raging supporters online under the digital cloak of anonymity. Some of these are incredibly quite and cowardly in real life and only use that fake persona to act larger than they are.

Many of these are also griefers in video games (that kill other players over and over, to no benefit to themselves, other than to make some stranger's life miserable). Interesting that cowards in real life seem to support Trump in huge margins. Oh, wait, we were supposed to be maintaining a modicum of decorum with thinly veiled references to Trump. My bad. I'm not good at this. haermm

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, wait, we were supposed to be maintaining a modicum of decorum with thinly veiled references to Trump. My bad. I'm not good at this. haermm Temptation is a toughie. At least I didn't mention his #2 by name.

Bentley
I should start using a "I agree with DDM" on my sig.

With that said, I feel I can make an awesome mental gymanstics argument on how technically Jesus never downright made a hard rule on adultery on the Gospels.

(Obviously cheating and lying is still not compatible with christian values, I'm really fishing for the anecdote here)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.