Re: Why isn't religious belief considered to be a form of mental illness?
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.
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.
Re: Re: Why isn't religious belief considered to be a form of mental illness?
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Come on Patient Leech, I honestly expect more from you. The far-right?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Jan 17th, 2019 at 01:04 AM
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.
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.