Is religion a mental disorder?

reply to post by CornShucker


I wouldn't worry about it none.
We're all supposed to friends here even if only in theory.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes and Everyone else


(I see, now that I've completed this post, that it has elements of the rant about it. I don't think I'll apologize for that. But, I still want you to answer the question this post poses as a favor to me. Thanks. - C -)

I really don't know what to do, and could use some advice. (That's why the "Everyone else" is in the header.) As you've observed, we're veering dangerously close to total irrationality.

In support of the theory that God doesn't exist, I've heard two proofs. One assigned the number "1" to God, and the number "0" to the nothingness that existed before anything was created. (You'll notice that the proof there is no God requires the assumption that at some point the Universe was created. Presumably by Smurfs.) Then, by adding 1 + 0, you obtain the answer "1" Which supposedly proves mathematically that God couldn't create the Universe, therefore He doesn't exist.

Now that you've recovered from your laughing fit, may I present the second proof? God has to be able to change the future, and to know the future. Since He can't do both, He doesn't exist. (A vulgar barnyard term comes to mind.)

Unable to prove God doesn't exist, the claim is made that medical science shows that deciding to believe in God is proof of insanity. Forgetting, of course, that many doctors and mental health professionals are believers. This medical evidence seems to have as it's primary support the following:

Child physical, verbal, and sexual abuse correlates with many various problems later in life. Teaching a child about religion is child abuse, therefore people who believe in religion are suffering the trauma of child abuse. (The same evidence mentions that 90% of the child's brain develops by age 4, so discussing the Protestant Reformation, Papal Infallibility, and the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance, with your toddler is an especially bad idea.

The other theme, which I have to admit I gave up on, observes that challenging a person's religious beliefs causes brain activity in roughly the same area which becomes active when you challenge their political beliefs, no doubt proving something or other.

Eryiedes points out that he is still, after a couple of days, been able to find any evidence supporting his libelous remark about current Christian attitudes towards murder. "But," he protests, "No one has even tried to refute my medical evidence proving that religion is insanity. Other than my comments above, and the observation that by playing with definitions you can call anything insanity (which is what is done here) There has been no evidence provided that I can see, and the logic is faulty, as I wrote earlier in the thread.

The argument for defining religion as a mental disorder seems to be as follows:

God is imaginary,
People who believe (or hear, or talk with) imaginary beings are "Nuts," (To use the correct clinical term.)
People who believe in God, therefore, are nuts.

If you are applying reason and common experience, you will see that both of the premises can be questioned, therefore the conclusion can be questioned.

The claim is made "God is imaginary." OK, prove it. Since you can't, it's a little questionable to use that as your major premise.

The minor premise is also shaky. Two days ago, I saw a creature that was kind of yellowish-beige, shaped a little like a barrel, walking on two legs, having four legs coming out of it's torso. I couldn't see it's head, but it was coming towards me about the same speed I can run. I will swear on anything holy that this is true. Does it matter that it occurred in a dream? I truly believed in that imaginary creature, and if you'll give me a minute, I'll find a copy of my sanity certificate.

So anyone who says Religion is a mental illness has shown themselves to be people who have trouble constructing a logical argument. Is that a mental illness?

I assume Eryiedes will not withdraw and apologize for his libel.

So, finally, my question to Eryiedes and all of you is "What do we do with thread?" Do we:

A----Abandon it as so clearly irreparable that it's not worth any effort to fix it.

B----Isolate the virus and try to get on with the uninfected parts of the thread.

C----Continue to attempt to apply megadoses of reason in an attempt to subdue the infection.

D----Declare that the virus is more wise and powerful than the body it inhabited, and the body should convert to the virus' cause.

I'm really at a loss here. What do you think is the best course of action? A, B, C, D, or something else?

reply to post by racasan

Dear racasan,

What an unusual experience. I thought about a reply to your thread as I was falling asleep last night, and somehow convinced myself that I had written it. Things always seem better in our drifting thoughts, so please accept this corrupted version of what I thought I had sent you.

That's the point where I begin my polarization. The question of the existence of God seems to me to be the single most important question in the Universe.

The claim has been made, and almost universally accepted since man began that there is a God. With the arrival of Jesus, His claims, and the acts attributed to Him, we have a new way of exploring the question of the existence of God.

He puts the question to us bluntly, "Who do you say I am?" Obviously, He expects an answer. Depending on your answer, or more generally, your answer to the question of whether there is a God, I would think your entire life would be affected. Consider all the questions that flow from answering that there is a God. What is He like, what does He want, etc.

If the answer is that Jesus is not God, or there is no God, a different set of questions flow like, Are there any logical limits to what I can do? What is right and good? Why am I here? Even, can I trust my thoughts to be more than random molecular collisions?

Many people fall into those two camps, Jesus is God, or Jesus was a cool dude. God exists, or the Universe has no particular plan.

But some have not decided which camp they're in. It may be because they're looking to find the answer, but haven't yet found it. That's my third pole.

My fourth pole is those who say "Meh, who cares, it's not important. I'll do what I feel like doing and toss this problem in the garbage heap. I have decided not to decide."

Which is why I completed my post with:

For me, this is a cop-out, a man shirking his duty. Each of the other three I can understand and accept, even though I might disagree, but the fourth pole contains those who are wandering lost, and perfectly happy to stay that way. Their lot is the saddest.

my response might be more like:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius,

Funny you should bring up Aurelius. He was the man who was discussed by Stanford University Philosophy as follows:

Finally, Marcus uses ‘providence or atoms’ in the Meditations to drive out an impious attitude:
"Are you discontented with the part you have been assigned in the whole? Recall the alternatives: Providence or atoms, and how many are the demonstrations, that the cosmos is a city." (iv.3.2)

To understand what the thought, ‘providence or atoms’, is doing here we have to connect it with the discontent that is the topic of the passage. Marcus is admonishing himself for his discontent with things as they stand, saying to himself, ‘if you are finding fault with things as they are, then you must think that they are not due to Providence. But if they're not due to Providence, then they're the result of random causes.’

plato.stanford.edu...

Even Aurelius is presenting you with choice Jesus did. God, or random causes?

With respect,
Charles1952

Eryiedes
reply to post by CornShucker

 

I wouldn't worry about it none.
We're all supposed to friends here even if only in theory.

-Peace-

Thanks, it isn't theory. I've read to much of your stuff, I should have known better.

My sincere apology. They say stay off-line if your are under the influence. In my case it's chronic pain and not some misguided chip on my shoulder.

Sincere apology. At the moment it feels as if someone has already been able to drive an ice pick up through C2 into my C1. It feels as if, knowing the device is cleanly placed, someone walks up from the right rear and can't resist a little snap to the handle with his index finger.

Last one dragged on from June of last year to this January.

Don't be surprised if I'm absent for a while.

I'd like to ask you, as a friend, to not worry about it. Really boils down to I shouldn't have been on when I felt this bad.

(Sincerely) All My Best,
CS

reply to post by wildtimes and everyone else.


I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE READ.

Dear wildtimes,

I can't tell you how grateful I am for you. You are so thorough in spotting my many mistakes and bringing them to my attention. I'm sure I'll have clearer thinking because of you. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "fictional-realism." It indicates, as it did to you, a mix of fiction and realism.

I know this isn't absolutely conclusive, but I found many interesting things in a (heavily footnoted) Wiki article. As you would suspect, some believe it's an entire fabrication (but that's a small minority), and the rest have various opinions on the amount of factually accurate information the New Testament contains. contain.

On the subject of "fictional-realism," I found this to be telling:

Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis notes that "we must conclude, then, that the genre of the Gospel is not that of pure 'history'; but neither is it that of myth, fairy tale, or legend. In fact, 'gospel' constitutes a genre all its own, a surprising novelty in the literature of the ancient world."

Wiki also has a much longer section on the earliest expressions of Christian faith:

Scholars believe that some of these creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem. Though embedded within the texts of the New Testament, these creeds are a distinct source for Early Christianity. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 reads: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." This contains a Christian creed of pre-Pauline origin.

The antiquity of the creed has been located by many Biblical scholars to less than a decade after Jesus' death, originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community. Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text," whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."

Other relevant creeds which predate the texts wherein they are found that have been identified are 1 John 4:2: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God", "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, this is my Gospel",

Romans|1:3-4: "regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.",

and 1 Timothy 3:16: "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory," an early creedal hymn.

This is amazing to me. I didn't know of it. Just a few years after Jesus' death, and before any of the Gospels were written, the believers wrote in their creeds about the miracle of Jesus' resurrection, and that Jesus was God in a body.

The Gospels didn't tell them that, Rome didn't tell them that, yet they knew it. I have to accept there were eyewitnesses who told the story.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


As an outsider looking in at Christianity (and you can include Islam in this as well) its clear to me that Christianity is nothing more than a primitive but effective form of social control

I was raised in Europe and my history lessons included the horrors of the church and its interference with people all over the world and not having a religious upbringing I don’t just accept the presupposition that there is a god or that Jesus was real

To me its clear that the Roman Empire (the New World Order of its day) didn’t end, it transformed its self into a theocracy and the catholic (universal/all encompassing) church forced all the different religions in Europe at the time to be under the control the pope (the emperor?) and burned all those who didn’t get with the program

Given the above I’m sure you can see why I think the Aurelius quote is a good response to the god question

I swear.
I've never seen this much ado over absolutely nothing, pretending Jesus is real.



-Peace-

I don't think religion is a mental disorder, but I think it can definitely become one. Some people take their belief to really sick extremes.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, belief could be classified as a delusion, so that would make religion a mental illness.

reply to post by charles1952


Jeez what a drama-queen.
It's been two days.
I am going through text page by page with another person with both old and new testaments to satisfy you. I guess the old saying is true...there's no pleasing some people.
Thank you for relieving me of my burden.
It's obvious to me now that when I found the passage I refered to, you'd still deny it or protest so why should I bother to fulfil my word to you when you just pout and rant for not getting your way like a child. Thank you for wasting my time and the time of others in this thread.
Accordingly, I am going to ignore your request for verification from here on in and recover three hours to each day I was wasting in locating the proof you asked.
It's obvious you don't want proof of anything since you've demonstarted you'll just ignore it anyways.
Libelous?
I can't slander god or the church.
One of them's not real and the other is not even worthy of respect.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the validity of religion and go our own ways.
Not for nothing...lack of patience for others of no faith while extolling patience for those of faith is a mental dysfunction in and of itself. Physician heal thyself.
Unable to prove god doesn't exist?
No you have that backwards sir but most religious people do because they despise "the burden of proof".
Religion has never proven god to be real.
The religious want to manipulate the arguement so that it's up to atheists to disprove god but they ignore the core tenets of logic to do that.
You see dear Charles, it's not up to the individual who claims something ISN'T real to bear the burden of proof.
THAT falls upon those who insist it IS real.
SO...if YOU can't conslusively prove god exists...which must I remind you, no one has done yet in the history of mankind...then YOU sir are the one leading a delusional life of contradiction and fallacy.
I know...logic and facts suck but they prevent those of us willing to embrace wizards, unicorns and leprechauns as reality, from inflicting said stupidity on the unwitting masses who may not be initiated enough to see through or defend against the child abuse of religion.

As for what do "we" do?
It would seem you forgot option E...
After your tantrum, I don't intend to do anything for you.
I don't honestly care what you do and never have.
To me, you are just another abused child who's trying to spread a gospel of abuse and misinformation because he wasn't loved enough to be taught the truth about reality and so you go about repeating the same mistake on others as was done to you under the guise of saving their soul?
That's pretty weak.
I can hardly think of anything more dispicable and unfortunate than that.
Call me crazy Charles, but I think somehow you'll live despite all the virgin mama-drama you love so much.
So, you still CAN'T refute my medical and psychological data and want to stomp your feet over the nature of christianity claiming, it's not proof enough to valid or taken as fact.
Hmm...validated medical & psychological documentation...disregarded as faked or fallacy...and how exactly is that not insane again?
That's the great thing about facts.
They don't need YOU or GOD to believe in them to be what they are...and it's a good thing too.
You may come across to the religious as well-rounded, but to atheists, you are still and always will be insane even if you have read a few books.
Now go your way in peace or stop whining because since you can't refute the medical and psychological data at ALL you have no choice but to concede the arguement of this OP which is NOT "does god exist".
You won't but that's part of the charm of truth not being designated by you when it suits your purpose. You can't cherrypick the nature of reality and still consider yourself to be sane.
I can only hope one day you finally see the folly of your delusion and return to the human race as someone useful and not another religious zealot looking to spread the lie of Jesus because they are afraid of their own mortality.

-Good Bye-

reply to post by Eryiedes


Eryiedes,
I just watched the vids you posted. They are all very much in league with what I practiced and taught as a professional, and still try to do as a retired one.

I can scarcely believe that the star that I gave you is THE ONLY ONE that you received. It makes me feel so powerless...

I very much appreciated the description/delineation of why reason and evidence do not sway people's firmly held beliefs. I guess I've been wasting my time here for these years....but, maybe not.

Information such as you posted -- those videos -- presented by a non-member (who is immune from attack by those he is describing scientifically) and backed up by statistically proven FACTS about how the brain works highlight how VERY IMPORTANT it is to examine oneself. EARLY CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE is WHAT CAUSES US "THINK" and "OPERATE" THE WAY WE DO.

Rigid, intolerant attitudes CAN be helped BY THERAPY. Bravo for posting these.
:thumb up:

Cheers, mate.
There truly ARE some of us here, who are working toward educating people as to these truths. It's a rough job, but...well...at least we're Representin' ! Better than not having anyone on ATS who is willing to do so, even knowing we will be attacked.

Thank you.

Restricted
I don't think religion is a mental disorder, but I think it can definitely become one. Some people take their belief to really sick extremes.

On the other hand, now that I think about it, belief could be classified as a delusion, so that would make religion a mental illness.

actually at the cradle of knowledge and learning... the Greek already been thru this similar debate.

it comes down to majorities...

if 4 people out of 5 people agree that the sky is blue and one person says it is yellow, then the 1 minority is incorrect and their reality is false and not truth.

When you find yourself in Flatland, your ramblings about 3-D will be considered symptoms of a mental disorder by the natives.

When you find yourself in Religionland, your ramblings about science will be considered symptoms of a mental (spiritual?) disorder by the natives.

It's just a social mechanism.

reply to post by charles1952

Child physical, verbal, and sexual abuse correlates with many various problems later in life. Teaching a child about religion is child abuse, therefore people who believe in religion are suffering the trauma of child abuse.

Charles, I'm sorry to be contrary, but if you'll allow me the leeway to speak as an educated professional on this particular matter: the statement above IS TRUE.

(The same evidence mentions that 90% of the child's brain develops by age 4, so discussing the Protestant Reformation, Papal Infallibility, and the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance, with your toddler is an especially bad idea.

This is ridiculous.

Those subjects are for adults. A toddler can not POSSIBLY understand them. Hell, most ADULTS can't even understand them. The point is that WHEN A CHILD IS TERRORIZED BY BEING SOLD "FEAR OF HELL AND ABANDONMENT BY "GOD" (read: OTHERS on whom they depend: particularly parent-figures/care-givers), THEY ARE TRAUMATIZED. It is medical science. It is brain-training at its worst. It IS how the presentations in the videos Eryiedes depict it. There is no arguing that. It has been proven.

No one said anything about "talking to a young child about the HISTORY of religion" being abusive. Nono. The point is when a child is INDOCTRINATED at a young age to believe ONE and ONLY ONE set of constructed beliefs, as taught by the care-giver, and that they are failures, deserving of hell-fire.

THAT IS ABUSE. It instills insecurity, which later emanates as fear and loathing, violence, hatred, and reaction to the imagined "terror" of being discarded by "the Supreme Parent" for reasons they have no control over. It's crap. I am very fond of you, Charles, but I want you to consider what the videos present (Eryiedes frustrated abrasiveness notwithstanding - we all get that way from time to time), as objectively as possible. They are science.

The other theme, which I have to admit I gave up on, observes that challenging a person's religious beliefs causes brain activity in roughly the same area which becomes active when you challenge their political beliefs, no doubt proving something or other.

What's to give up on? Did you look at the freedomainradio.com references? It's not that hard to find the studies that resulted in the findings. MRIs don't lie.

Other than my comments above, and the observation that by playing with definitions you can call anything insanity (which is what is done here)

No, it wasn't done here.

There has been no evidence provided that I can see, and the logic is faulty, as I wrote earlier in the thread.

It is not faulty. I'd be happy to help you get a grasp on it. Sometimes we 'advanced learners' about psychology and the science attached to it forget that lay-people don't have the necessary training, background, or ability to assess the information.

Just as many people are not adequately PREPARED to understand, let alone to grasp the esoteric, philosophical fine points of "religious" or "political" dogma (their brains simply can't do it - as so wisely observed by Plato and many others).

If nothing else in the videos has any influence on your worldview, I encourage you to take the advice to get some professional "therapy" to help you decipher how you came to have it in the first place.

With much love,
wild

BlueMule
When you find yourself in Religionland, your ramblings about science will be considered symptoms of a mental (spiritual?) disorder by the natives.

It's just a social mechanism.

that is exactly the opposite of what we have in the real world which is outside of the ATS fourms.

in the real world the humans of planet earth are about 98% theistic minded... the theistic minded otherwise wouldn't notice the babbling idiot on the street if they were not being directly aggressive towards them.

only Buddhist are passive I believe...?

SisyphusRide

BlueMule
When you find yourself in Religionland, your ramblings about science will be considered symptoms of a mental (spiritual?) disorder by the natives.

It's just a social mechanism.

actually that is exactly the opposite of what we have in the real world which is outside of the ATS fourms.

in the real world the humans of planet earth are about 98% theistic minded... the theistic minded otherwise wouldn't notice the babbling idiot on the street if they were not being directly aggressive towards them.

only Buddhist are passive I believe...?

edit on 23-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

...would otherwise wouldn't notice? Could you re-phrase that so I can parse it.

Oh and Buddhists aren't as passive as you might think. For example the Samurai were Zen Buddhists.

reply to post by wildtimes


(Humbly bows)
The pleasure is all mine WT.
As always, it's refreshing to cross paths with another voice of sanity out in the wilderness.
I'd still say the same things even if no one agreed with me but it's nice to know there are some who do. Cheers.

-Peace-

BlueMule

SisyphusRide

BlueMule
When you find yourself in Religionland, your ramblings about science will be considered symptoms of a mental (spiritual?) disorder by the natives.

It's just a social mechanism.

actually that is exactly the opposite of what we have in the real world which is outside of the ATS fourms.

in the real world the humans of planet earth are about 98% theistic minded... the theistic minded otherwise wouldn't notice the babbling idiot on the street if they were not being directly aggressive towards them.

only Buddhist are passive I believe...?

edit on 23-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

...would otherwise wouldn't notice? Could you re-phrase that so I can parse it.

Oh and Buddhists aren't as passive as you might think. For example the Samurai were Zen Buddhists.

edit on 23-11-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

you would probably have better luck with teaching science to the Buddhist and telling them it is the god of truth.

in the real world science is not a god as the men who deify it claim... science is a vessel, a tool, created by theistic minded people who believed in God in a much different way than we do now.

science was created by them as a tool to better understand the natural world around them and bring them closer to the understanding of their god.

Scientology is enough... we've had enough new religions thank you... what's next? deification of the God Particle?

reply to post by SisyphusRide

you would probably have better luck with teaching science to the Buddhist and telling them it is the god of truth.

reply to post by wildtimes


have they changed...?

short answer, no

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Dude...you were just proven wrong.
Ditch the bravado and move on.

-Peace-