Is religion a mental disorder?

charles1952

Atheism resolves the religious question of God by saying He doesn't exist

Here’s your problem

The atheist position is a bit more complicated than that, atheism can be split into two camps – strong atheism which looks like the definition you want to use and weak atheism which is just a lack of belief in the god(s) claims made by religion

Theist A provide evidence for why he thinks his religion is true – if you find that evidence unconvincing then you won’t join that religion – it’s that simple

If you find all other religious claims have not met your burden of proof then you are not a theist – so you must be an atheist


you might like this:
www.patheos.com...

the Dawkins scale

reply to post by racasan


No not even that... He really is a narcissistic cult leader and possible peadophile.

www.molyneuxrevealed.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

molyneux-cult-watch.blogspot.co.uk...

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


thanks for that

I have been looking at some of the posts on the forum you linked to and even the people on there seem to agree with much of what Molyneux says about ethics, freedom, economics but are put off by other stuff such as:
Molyneux arrogant
Molyneux a narcissist
Molyneux and the mods on the fdr website are heavy handed and don’t like criticism
And so on

Well I can agree with much of that, I have watched a few of his youtube things and much of it I liked other stuff not so much and he does come across as a bit arrogant

This seems representative
dana.nutter.net...



The Tom/Barbara Weed cult accusation is more serious
Here is a blog post about it from 2009
scienceormadness.blogspot.fi...

but after briefly looking into this I don’t think there’s anything to the accusation

perhaps you are just put off Molyneux because of his very anti-religious position?

reply to post by racasan


His philosophy is junk there is not one Iota of truth to it, but that's not what i take issue with. There is a much darker side to Stephen Molyneux that most people are unaware of. He basically tells susceptible children who are members of his site that their parents are trash and never loved them etc and gets them to abandon there entire family and friends and move to Canada where he lives with his wife.

www.youtube.com...

beatbox

This is not an attack on religious people. It's a very valid question that I've been asking myself for some time.

Now it brings me to this:

Start @7:30

in this piece Cnn tries to connect "conspiracy theories" to mental health. If you question the govt you're a threat and need mental health treatment before you shoot up a school or mall but if you actually think about it..you have grown men and women waiting for an in visible person to come down from the sky and save them or you have some who say their god talks to them...so how is that not mental illness?


The point I'm trying to ask is this:

How does questioning the govt or talking about the NWO(which we all know exist or atleast been referenced by the pope and other world leaders on more then one occation) calls for mental health treatment but you have millions of ppl who believe or have faith in something that has never been proven to exist...it's almost like Santa clause for adults...

Again I'm nt trying to attack anyone. I'm just looking for answers...because this whole thing confuses me.

edit on 15-11-2013 by beatbox because: (no reason given)

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Religion has to say philosophy is junk.
It's a threat to everything it represents.
They themselves can't even admit that the philosophical aspect of theology is the only part about it that might make any sence, but when that philosophy threatens what they choose to believe they discard it like bad poker hand.
Hypocracy at it's finest.
Insanity in it's purest form.
Religion preys on the young and vulnerable then tries to convince others it's not predatory in nature.
It can't even keep the priests off the children yet claims it has virtue.
It has no facts to back up it's claims but asserts it is logical.
It performs no function outside of empty emotional solace for those who have need of it yet claims it is necessary for all.
Everything in the bible is a contradiction yet it is claimed to make sence.
Only the insane do & think such things.

-Peace-

reply to post by charles1952


What's wrong with it is it's not accurate.
As I JUST pointed out before your post there are a number of rational and mathematical proofs that definitely don't support the existance of god.
Then you spout off: "NO PROOF".

Hehehehe....no proof you want introduced to the arguement is more like it.
I will agree with THAT but go no further with everything else you claim.
No offence but proof means proof for everyone...not just those of faith who can conveniently forget facts when it suits their purpose.

-Peace-

RevelationGeneration

Okay...let's start at the top:

Molyneux Revealed is a website started by ex-members who were kicked for starting fights with the others members. They tried to enforce their OWN thinking over the other atheists and insulted or attacked anyone of opposing points of view. They were labeled "bad thinkers" and were booted from the site where they began their own website which was dedicated to attacks and misdirection, much like a "Heaven's Gate" cult.
Instead of just posting the link...what you SHOULD have done is examined the forums and watched what was being said. Had you done this for a day or so I'm pretty sure you'd have dropped using "Revealed" as an example. Especially since you implied pedophilia which is EVERYTHING molyneux hates about religion.
It's like saying Jewish people LOVE deathcamp nazi's...false dichotomy...and once more you'd have known that if you checked around a little first.


The second thing you brought up was "DEFOO". Trying to imply it's some insane practice. Here is the truth:

IF your parents or family are hurting or abusing you...you have the RIGHT as a human being to separate yourself from them for your mental and physical well-being. What you propose is that people who are being beaten or abused by family have no recourse but to remain in that abusive environment.
So, the second link is likewise a waste of time since we ALL know abusers HATE to be singled out for what they are and will say or do anything to hide their own inequity and shift blame onto someone other than themslves.

You're so desperate to find evidence that allows you to conclude atheism is a cult that you use blogs?
You could only be more irresponsible with your research if you used graffiti as a source.
Then you mentioned the suicide...

I think anyone who ever listened to Judas Priest or Black Sabbath knows full well what to say about such spurious charges of suicide. Their parents tried to accuse those bands of killing their son but were no more successful that YOU have been at demonizing atheism. The only error Christina made was dispensing psychiatric knowledge on air without a licence. That was the ONLY charge that stuck so your suicide claim is once more...a bad joke. A parent who tortured their own offspring who tries to scream foul? Of COURSE the abusive parents will try like he77 to get their child back...the kid might talk. It was THEIR abuse which drove this person to suicide...not the realization that they don't have to remain a victem.

I'm sorry sir...you'll have to do WAY better than that if you want to prove atheism is insane.
If anything, your inability to grasp simple facts mixed with your propensity for clouding circumstances for your own benefit only reinforces the OP's premise.
What else ya got?

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


Your hatred for the truth is affecting your ability to be reasonable.

We was talking about Stephen Molyneux then you go on a rant about 'Religion'.

Why do you say peace when “There is no peace,” says the LORD, “for the wicked.” Isaiah 48:22 ?

Stephen Molyneux is an evil man and people who follow him will be led astray.

Edit: Nvm you've decided to start defending him, probably not because you think theirs nothing wrong with what he does, but due to the fact you hate God so much that you want to defend him from a Christian. For that reason our dialogue will end.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Typical.
Have no facts?
That's okay, just get angry and quote scripture.

(And for the record...I'm not an FDR member...I'm just about the facts.)

-Peace-

The question isn't right.
Religion can't be a mental disorder.... you should ask "Is believing in God a mental disorder"

or "Is talking to God or hearing God a mental disorder"

blupblup
The question isn't right.
Religion can't be a mental disorder.... you should ask "Is believing in God a mental disorder"

or "Is talking to God or hearing God a mental disorder"

I believe it's more likely to be demonic voices than mental disorder.

I would go insofar as saying 75% of people with so called schizophrenia are possessed or suffering some kind of demonic affliction.

reply to post by racasan

Dear racasan,

Very useful post, and an interesting idea in theory (Dawkin's scale). It seems, to me, to have a weakness which I'd thank you for clearing up for me.

He claims that if you have a belief in the existence of God with a certainty of between 100% and 50.01%, you're a Theist of some kind. If your belief is between 0% and 49.99%, you're some degree of Atheist. Dawkin's claim, therefore, is that aren't really any Agnostics, just that tiny handful who are balanced exactly, microscopically, in the middle. That flies in the face of any current understanding of Agnosticism.

Does it not make more sense to say that Theists are those who have enough confidence in the existence of God to accept it as true until powerful evidence can be produced to show otherwise? The opposite would hold true for Atheists. Agnostics would then be known as those who don't accept either position and are still open to, and desirous of, finding more evidence. Those who don't care would be simply apathetic.

I don't see that the correct division is between "weak" Atheist and "strong" Atheist. If one doesn't believe there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God, and lives and works under the tentative conclusion that He doesn't exist, then that person is an Atheist.

Consider. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of rainbow unicorns. The fact that none have yet been found is evidence that they don't exist, but not proof. I live my life based on the assumption they don't exist. I'm not a "strong" or "weak" rainbow unicorn "Atheist," I simply don't believe in them. The important point is that I live, and think as though they didn't exist, even though I'm not absolutely certain that they don't.

It's impossible to be a "strong" Atheist under Dawkin's definition, God's existence can't be disproven. The question is "How do you live, act, and think?" As a quick guess, and without bothering to look anything up, I would suppose about 75% of the world are Theists, maybe 5% Atheists, and 20% Agnostics and Apathetics. The actual numbers aren't important right now.

What I'm trying to stress is that the proper division isn't how certain you are in your belief, but which belief you live under.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Eryiedes

Your arguement is flawed...emotional but flawed.
For something to be a religion is must have a dogma.
Atheism has no dogma.
Therefore...it's not a religion.
Say it as many times as you wish it still won't change the facts.

"There is no God" isn't a dogma? It is the inverse of "there is a god", which is a dogma. The very fact that atheists attempt to sell this ideal as more true than other ideals and opinions proves dogmatism.

dogma |ˈdôgmə|
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

dogmatism |ˈdôgməˌtizəm|
noun
the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.

It is a fact that atheism is afforded the same protection as religions under the first amendment, and therefor a religion in the United States. it is a fact that there are Churches dedicated to "atheism". Saying the opposite doesn't change the facts.

reply to post by Eryiedes

OK, let's see where we're at.

You've have still not provided any evidence to support your libelous statement about Christians. An honorable person would withdraw the remark and clearly and openly apologize. That's Ball #1.

You deal with Ball #2 by saying God's existence can be proven scientifically. To do this you supply a video. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you posted the video to start a new thread and ask for comments. My belief is that it would not be thrown into the trash bin, but would be a possible candidate for the LOL bin.

Look at it. The "proof" is that if you take one God and add the "nothingness" of the universe before it was created, that equals adding 1 and 0, resulting in 1 (The original God). If that is your strongest argument against God then you may as well claim you're an emotional Atheist, because there is no reason behind the belief.

Problem #1 You've heard of comparing "Apples to Oranges." Comparing God to absolute nothingness is infinitely worse. It's like adding an explosion to the inside of a bubble and deciding it doesn't add up to 2.

Problem #2 God is infinite, the nothingness was infinite. Math gets weird when you start playing with infinities.

Problem #3 The math is only window dressing, it's just putting an Atheist claim in a different language. It's simply claiming that God cannot create. That's not proof, it's just a restatement. How in the world do you know that God, who goes by the alias of "The Creator," can't create?

The "proof" is not a proof. It is simply an argument which does not stand up. What I was hoping for when you said "proof" was something like.

"No being can create something out of nothing.
God is a being.
Therefore God can not create something out of nothing."

That, at least, is an argument. Very weak, invalid, and misleading, and certainly not a proof, but at least it would have been a start.

Aphorism
"There is no God" isn't a dogma? [

That's right, it's just a fact and a fact is not dogma (like 1+0=2 is a self-detonating statement), no matter how much you wish it to be. Take it up with the people who invented the english language and mathematics, I'm just the messenger.

It is a fact that atheism is afforded the same protection as religions under the first amendment, and therefor a religion in the United States.

That's kinda stupid because all atheism is, in the absence of god, is pure free speech.

Saying the opposite doesn't change the facts.

You seem to be the one mixing them up.

-Peace-

reply to post by charles1952


All I will say about my research is I am sitting with a friend as he combs old and I new testaments with me for two hours an evening by hand. The work is slow and tedious and may take me a little while.
If you contend proof is no longer proof if it isn't exactly when you demand it, I can do nothing about that except assure you I am looking for the passage I refer to.
As for rational proofs....I'll take advanced physics over unicorns anyday.
And finally, No sir...
My arguement was on the effects of childhood/adult trauma being the source of the mental disorder that is religion. You've all tried to dance around the evidence and few tried to touch it let alone refute it. The rest of the things I am saying are simply observations based off that premise. I need no more proof of the insanity inherent after the medical data is taken into account.
Become insulted if you wish...it'll save me the research time.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

That's right, it's just a fact and a fact is not dogma (like 1+0=2 is a self-detonating statement), no matter how much you wish it to be. Take it up with the people who invented the english language and mathematics, I'm just the messenger.

What confirms this fact? Did you flip over a stone and find "There is no God - The Universe" inscribed underneath? This isn't a fact; it is an opinion.

That's kinda stupid because all atheism is, in the absence of god, is pure free speech.

This is an opinion that is contrary to facts. Fact is, atheism is afforded the same protection as other religions. The facts speak for themselves. Opinions do not.

You seem to be the one mixing them up.

Opinion.

Aphorism
What confirms this fact? Did you flip over a stone and find "There is no God - The Universe" inscribed underneath? This isn't a fact; it is an opinion.

You mistake my intent. I am not here to talk you or anyone else out of anything as you seem to think. You were not reasoned into religion with facts in the first place so reason and facts will not do anything here either.

This is an opinion that is contrary to facts. Fact is, atheism is afforded the same protection as other religions. The facts speak for themselves. Opinions do not.

Atheism is only an idea...that must be why it frightens the religious so much.

Opinion.

Cherrypicking isn't reputable.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

Religion has to say philosophy is junk.
It's a threat to everything it represents.

How does that explain that many basic philosophers were not just religious, not just Christian, but Catholic?

Pascal
Mortimer Adler
Roger Bacon
Jacques Maritain
William of Ockham
Augustine of Hippo
Thomas More
Duns Scotus
Descartes
Alexis de Tocquville
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Peter Kreeft

And those are only some of the most famous ones. Socrates was a believer in the gods. I would think you'd be hard pressed to find a dozen influential Atheist philosophers before, say, 1850. (and I think I'm being generous) Religion and philosophy are after the same thing, truth.

You follow that with a list of statements that are false or misleading. Please, think about what you are saying. I know it's easy to get carried away in the heat of a discussion, but i was hoping for a little more depth than slogans and common half-truths.