ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th January 2019, 04:38 AM   #321
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,690
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Some people are content being simple and letting woo guide them through life. Half of rural Mexico is dominated by them.
Most are not hearing voices telling them to hurt another.

Others are ambitious and driven to know more and have more. They cannot rest until it is theirs. These folks change the world and achieve big things. For good and for bad.

Who are we to change the lives of others with no such ambition and make them unhappy in what they can achieve and enjoy?

My wife complains I am too content and I am a bit frustrated there are things I cannot achieve. But I do know how to do some of it. Just takes time and labor.
We have a nice big home and eat well but she wants more. I do too just not big luxury items like she would have.

It makes her miserable to not have stuff.
Yet our poorer neighbors are not miserable. Poorly educated and faithful they somehow have something we do not.


Someone saying “Jesus spoke to me and told me to sell all my possessions and take myself, my wife and our child to live in poverty in a shanty town and preach his gospel” is in the USA probably not only acceptable but praiseworthy. “Jesus spoke to me and told me to force people to give me their money so I could give it to the homeless” not so much.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 04:42 AM   #322
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,690
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
[for example] A table with 8 adults sitting around, a firearm is placed in center of table. Person#1 picks up gun, checks chamber and clip to check if gun is loaded. Perhaps Person#1 repeats this check several times. Even after verifying weapon is not loaded, will not point weapon at anyone. Person#1 hands weapon to Person#2 . . . Person#2 also checks if weapon is loaded even though Person#1 just verfied it is unloaded, perhaps checks several times. Also will not point weapon at anyone.
Are the above belief and rituals insane or irrational? (to treat all weapons as though they are loaded even though all evidence points to a weapon being not loaded)
No, because there are beliefs which go against all evidence (there is no evidence the gun is loaded), beliefs that are actually false, yet the beliefs and practices have positive outcomes.
Personally I have no interest in demonstrating that religious beliefs have positive or negative outcomes - only to demonstarte that beliefs and rituals that have no evidence to support them are not necessarily irrational or insane.


How does person 2 know the same gun has been handed to her? How does she know person 1 hasn’t slipped in a bullet when checking it? How does she know person 1 is telling the truth? Your scenario really doesn’t work to support your argument.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 04:45 AM   #323
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,690
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Sure, you can call them that, if childish insults are your thing. It's not the same as saying that they have a mental illness.


What is childish about those insults? Not saying they aren’t insults but they are not childish insults. I’d say using that phrase is an attempt to poison the well (albeit with a very weak poison). All you are doing is disregarding that opinion not explaining why you disregard it.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:29 AM   #324
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 608
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Someone saying “Jesus spoke to me and told me to sell all my possessions and take myself, my wife and our child to live in poverty in a shanty town and preach his gospel” is in the USA probably not only acceptable but praiseworthy. “Jesus spoke to me and told me to force people to give me their money so I could give it to the homeless” not so much.
As a freestanding statement I can fully agree with this. What confuses me is how it applies to my post.

Explain please?
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 07:41 AM   #325
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Attempt5001, think of the Napoleon example or the Ted example as if it were the Emperor's new clothes fable. The emperor goes right on ruling, making fine decisions, notwithstanding his delusion. If the delusion begins to affect his ability to rule, do we then begin to call it a mental illness or similar?


Similarly, we had a user here some years ago who firmly and fervently believed that John Edward gave her a message* from her father. Many members of this forum tried to explain exactly how Edward used cold reading. Despite this, she was -- as far as I could determine by evidence within her posts and by evidence otherwise available on the Internet -- a functional member of society, who raised her kids decently, held a good job, contributed to her community, etc.

I would certainly not call her mentally ill or insane in the clinical sense. On the other hand, on that one topic, I would say she was "nuts," obsessed, convinced of unreality, whatever other way you want to express it.




You may remember my describing an ex-friend who had experienced being born again via a personal experience. He became incensed when I said that his experience was not sufficient evidence for me, and he in effect cursed me with John 3:18, although he didn't use that exact reference.


For me, the three situations are analogous. If you prefer to say that the emperor was duped, the person who believed in John Edward's contact with "the afterlife" is nuts, and my ex-friend is religious....




*The proof of the presence of her father? John Edward said that Dad told him that she'd bought a new refrigerator.
Hi xterra. Yes, I understand what you mean. That seems to be the crux of the discussion here. For some, religion (and their preferred generalized religious person) are "nuts". For others, not. For me, it's been interesting to read posts discussing why some feel one way or the other, and even more interesting to hear why people think others feel differently.

From my experience, I've seen faith and religion have a positive impact on lives and communities and it's that impact that leads me to disagree with the OP (at least as a blanket statement). I can definitely understand how others could reach a different general conclusion (albeit with many individual exceptions I expect) using the same criteria. I can also understand how others may use different criteria altogether (e.g., it's incongruous with well-established science), but I would content by that type of criteria, every person in all of history is also nuts (to varying degrees).
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 08:57 AM   #326
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,285
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, I don't, but I'm not qualified to diagnose mental health conditions. If a qualified mental health professional were to disagree with me, then I'd trust their judgement.

Furthermore, once again I would like to repeat that a religious person may suffer from mental illness, but their diagnosed mental illness would be depression, or anxiety, or schizophrenia, or something else. The diagnosis wouldn't be "religion".
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
You guys seem to like giving Arth quite the ribbing, but I think he has a good point that there is a bit of an underlying sense to this thread of "okay, most religious people don't fit the official definition of mentally ill, but it would make me feel better if we could just agree it's okay to call them crazy".
I'd just like to say, I basically agree with Arth. I do think its a bit strange to present a definition of psychological disorder, "psychological dysfunction in an individual that is associated with distress or impairment" and then refuse to say it is because you're no expert. Sure, nobody thinks he's a psychologist.

Anyrate, my only disagreement with arth on this subject is that I'm perfectly willing to characterize some extreme religious beliefs as effectively a psychological disorder. Things like faith healing in lieu of cancer treatment is pretty much a psychological dysfunction that is associated with distress or impairment. It would be silly and bordering on a psychological disorder to characterize all or even most religious people as suffering a disorder them selves. That would certainly cause me a great deal of distress to think that 90 some percent of my species suffered from the same psychological disorder. It would also make the phrase useless, it would just mean neuro-typical at that point.

I have a sister who is bi-polar and religious. It is often difficult to tell which is driving her choices. It's part of her churches belief to witness to folks including coworkers, that has caused her distress on multiple occasions.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 10:25 AM   #327
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,918
It seems to me that many posters here think that belief in something that is not real is good enough to qualify as a mental illness. Therefore, if a person believes in God they are mentally ill by definition. Aside from the fact that such is not the official definition used by professionals, that definition strikes me as problematic.

Morals, for example, are not real. They are simply precepts that we made up. I would say most of us live our lives according to some moral compass. Are we clinically insane?

Social customs are also things made up by people. For example, etiquette. Do you believe that one should remove their hat in a restaurant? Many people do but such a belief strikes me as irrational. If that guy over there is wearing a hat, how does that affect anyone else? There is nothing real to base this belief on. Is a restaurant owner who requires people to remove their hats insane?

We all harbor irrational beliefs in things that are not real or are very subjective. Who cares if those unreal/subjective things are moral principles, social customs or religious ideas? All of those things make sense in social/cultural context.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 11:14 AM   #328
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 928
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
How does person 2 know the same gun has been handed to her? How does she know person 1 hasn’t slipped in a bullet when checking it? How does she know person 1 is telling the truth? Your scenario really doesn’t work to support your argument.
That is my point - whether the passing around a weapon is totally transparent or not . . . . even if someone I trust and a known firearm expert checks the weapon and verifies it's not loaded and passes it directly to me . . . I will still check it and will not point it at anyone.
The point is we all have 'intuitions' and heuristics we believe and follow even in the absense of evidence - because they have positive outcomes.
From another thread, object permanance is another 'intuition' with positive outcomes. (We can't prove the object is really there outside of perception/sensations directly or via proxy.)
LarryS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 12:20 PM   #329
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Morals, for example, are not real. They are simply precepts that we made up. I would say most of us live our lives according to some moral compass. Are we clinically insane?
I'm sorta of done explaining to people the difference between "intellectual concepts" and "real, physical things" every time we have the God discussion.

Morals are one. Gods are another other.

Comparing "There's a God" to "Here's opinion on whether or not to pull the lever in the trolley problem" as making equal statements about what is "real" is absurd.

Quote:
Social customs are also things made up by people. For example, etiquette. Do you believe that one should remove their hat in a restaurant? Many people do but such a belief strikes me as irrational. If that guy over there is wearing a hat, how does that affect anyone else? There is nothing real to base this belief on. Is a restaurant owner who requires people to remove their hats insane?
If he demands people to remove their hats when they aren't wearing hats, indeed there's no evidence that hats even exist, then yes.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 12:30 PM   #330
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,316
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It goes beyond that, the it is that god exists and interacts with the world in ways we can comprehend and observe. The god in the majority of the religions followed in countries like the USA is not a hidden god, it is a god that the religions claim speaks directly to people, that physically alters the world around us in observable ways. The “it” is not some weird internet created god that no one actually believes in!
True. Well at least, I agree.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
To make truth from beliefs is to make truth mere make-believe.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 01:01 PM   #331
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
Hi Guys. Sure. My two cents. I think what gets missed sometimes is that for many theists, the idea of a world without a God (at least one that is on their side) is fundamentally unappealing. So anything they perceive to be evidence of God (even awful tragedy) is encouraging to them as a reassurance that God exists. I think that's why we see the confusing juxtaposition. The idea that there is no God so unappealing that any premise that includes the existence of God, however awful, feels better than the alternative.

Hard for me to get my head around this sorry.

If you are attending a service in a church that is struck by lightening killing many, wouldn't that give you pause? If you were predisposed to believe in a god anyway, wouldn't it suggest to you the god you were worshiping may be the wrong one, and the right one was pissed?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 01:07 PM   #332
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The multiple husbands thing is dependent on how a particular version of Christianity looks at what it means by heaven. None of the widespread and larger churches doctrines today have you living a life like we do on earth but with wings and compulsory harp playing, heaven is usually defined as being in the presence of god, more a gestalt thing.

But, but, but, there is stuff about harp music in the Bible.

Sort of contradictory to the notion of meeting up with your loved ones after death that the faithful put such a high emphasis on though isn't it?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 01:11 PM   #333
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,718
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Hard for me to get my head around this sorry.

If you are attending a service in a church that is struck by lightening killing many, wouldn't that give you pause? If you were predisposed to believe in a god anyway, wouldn't it suggest to you the god you were worshiping may be the wrong one, and the right one was pissed?
You can always work around that by adding more to the story. The lightning killed everyone, yes, but now they're in bliss in the afterlife where they can eat all they want without getting fat, they can fly, and all the TV shows that shouldn't have been cancelled are still being made.

If you are going to believe in stories for comfort, make 'em good stories.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 01:26 PM   #334
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 608
Strangely it's a real mindset.
A casual chat with a lady I was dating lead to a question of what church I attended, none. Then followed by a god beliefs round of questions and my answers shocked her.

She could not imagine a godless world with all the marvels of nature around us. It terrified her. My acceptance of simply not knowing how a tree came to be or why man is so much more than any animals didn't help.
She knew why and asked me to attend JW version of Sunday school to learn.

This was the last time I seen her.
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 01:29 PM   #335
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Don't you think the belief in faith healing, snake handling pretty much fits the DSM's definition though? If you're dying of some treatable disease and decide to pray it away?
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, I don't, but I'm not qualified to diagnose mental health conditions. If a qualified mental health professional were to disagree with me, then I'd trust their judgement.

Just caught this before it slipped though the cracks.

After giving us the benefit of your extensive knowledge about mental illness and the definition thereof, you try to dodge ahhell's excellent question with this!
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 01:48 PM   #336
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm sorta of done explaining to people the difference between "intellectual concepts" and "real, physical things" every time we have the God discussion.

Morals are one. Gods are another other.

Comparing "There's a God" to "Here's opinion on whether or not to pull the lever in the trolley problem" as making equal statements about what is "real" is absurd.
The trolley problem isn't real; it's a contrived scenario to spark useless philosophical debate about subjective ideas. It is no more instructive or useful in the real world than any religious concept.

If we can take a step back and view the larger picture, we can see moral/ethical positions as largely the same as religious positions. IOW, they are (as you put it) intellectual concepts: subjective, culturally/socially influenced and are not reflective of any kind of "absolute truth." But I don't think anyone here would classify philosophers as mentally ill.

And I get it: the big thing is that religious people think their Gods are real physical beings. But it seems to me that, given that God ideas have been around as long as humans have been around, God ideas are part of the human psyche even if many of us reject them. It's a part of every human culture and is still very much a part of the fabric of human society. As such, it seems . . . wrong to say that religious beliefs are a form of mental illness.



Quote:
If he demands people to remove their hats when they aren't wearing hats, indeed there's no evidence that hats even exist, then yes.
That seems like avoiding the question. It happens all the time in high end restaurants in the real world. Is this practice, one that has no basis in anything real, a sign of mental illness or not?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 01:58 PM   #337
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Strangely it's a real mindset.
A casual chat with a lady I was dating lead to a question of what church I attended, none. Then followed by a god beliefs round of questions and my answers shocked her.

She could not imagine a godless world with all the marvels of nature around us. It terrified her. My acceptance of simply not knowing how a tree came to be or why man is so much more than any animals didn't help.
She knew why and asked me to attend JW version of Sunday school to learn.

This was the last time I seen her.

You dated a JW! Now that is unusual I think as they tend to date only with their own.

An ex wife of mine came from a JW family who were very staunch in the faith. It just didn't take on my wife, but she maintained contact with her two sisters and their families. They stayed with us a couple of times so I got to talk with them a bit. I have never before or since met folk who were so naive and unworldly. Quiet astounding. I found their whole network of friends were in the JW community so there interaction with us was a rarity.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 02:26 PM   #338
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 608
Yeah, didn't work out well either. It is a closed culture within everyone else out there.

I would never take a faith or lack thereof as a pass-fail point and ended up with several ladies that needed a conversion from me before we had a future. Not gonna happen.
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 02:38 PM   #339
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
If we can take a step back and view the larger picture, we can see moral/ethical positions as largely the same as religious positions.
Absolutely across the board false. A total false equivalency.

Religious positions are actual factual claims about the world that are wrong. They aren't subjective opinions about how the world should be.

This is basically the "You can't 'prove' you love your wife the same way religious people can't prove there is a God" argument slightly reworded into a more esoteric version and just as meaningless.

Simply stating that you hold an opinion or viewpoint about the world is as fundamentally different from the claim that there is God as possible.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 03:57 PM   #340
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
What is childish about those insults? Not saying they aren’t insults but they are not childish insults. I’d say using that phrase is an attempt to poison the well (albeit with a very weak poison). All you are doing is disregarding that opinion not explaining why you disregard it.
Yeah. I disregard insults basically on principle. If you're insulting someone, I take it as a signal that you have nothing better to say and you can (and should) therefore be ignored.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 03:59 PM   #341
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Just caught this before it slipped though the cracks.

After giving us the benefit of your extensive knowledge about mental illness and the definition thereof, you try to dodge ahhell's excellent question with this!
I didn't dodge. I said "No, I don't". I answered ahhell's question.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 04:18 PM   #342
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
From my experience, I've seen faith and religion have a positive impact on lives and communities and it's that impact that leads me to disagree with the OP (at least as a blanket statement). I can definitely understand how others could reach a different general conclusion (albeit with many individual exceptions I expect) using the same criteria. I can also understand how others may use different criteria altogether (e.g., it's incongruous with well-established science), but I would content by that type of criteria, every person in all of history is also nuts (to varying degrees).
If you want to argue from anecdotes, I've seen faith and religion murder children. It was one of those "we don't need doctors, Jesus will heal us" sects, and one particular set of parents decided their faith applied to their kid's insulin. Turns out prayers are a poor treatment for diabetes.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:38 PM   #343
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,918
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Absolutely across the board false. A total false equivalency.

Religious positions are actual factual claims about the world that are wrong. They aren't subjective opinions about how the world should be.

This is basically the "You can't 'prove' you love your wife the same way religious people can't prove there is a God" argument slightly reworded into a more esoteric version and just as meaningless.

Simply stating that you hold an opinion or viewpoint about the world is as fundamentally different from the claim that there is God as possible.

I do understand your argument and even agree with it somewhat. I’m trying to approach it from the “is this mental illness?” standpoint.

What I see in this thread is much like this: “I am convinced there is no God; therefore, anyone who believes in God is mentally ill.” As if being wrong or simply disagreeing about something makes someone clinically insane. Given a sociocultural environment where religion is a powerful force, reasonable people can disagree on the God question much as we disagree on moral/ethical positions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2019, 06:57 PM   #344
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,642
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I do understand your argument and even agree with it somewhat. I’m trying to approach it from the “is this mental illness?” standpoint.

What I see in this thread is much like this: “I am convinced there is no God; therefore, anyone who believes in God is mentally ill.” As if being wrong or simply disagreeing about something makes someone clinically insane. Given a sociocultural environment where religion is a powerful force, reasonable people can disagree on the God question much as we disagree on moral/ethical positions.
That's not quite what's being argued. Those who are on the side of religion = mental illness are saying that religious people experience literal delusions. People who claim that God speaks to them are hallucinating, etc. Not even to mention the more extreme fringes of religion that people always love bringing up.

The claim isn't that they disagree with the faithful. It's that the faithful are actually mentally ill.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 12:39 AM   #345
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,690
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yeah. I disregard insults basically on principle. If you're insulting someone, I take it as a signal that you have nothing better to say and you can (and should) therefore be ignored.
Then you are not actually engaging in discussion, as some insults are true, for example I have encountered quite a few people over the years who are bigots, should we never then state those people are bigots because that is an insult? How are we then meant to describe them, describe their views and so on?

All you seem to be doing is using the fact that someone has used an insulting term as an excuse to avoid having to deal with their opinion/argument/conclusion.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 12:54 AM   #346
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,690
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I do understand your argument and even agree with it somewhat. I’m trying to approach it from the “is this mental illness?” standpoint.

What I see in this thread is much like this: “I am convinced there is no God; therefore, anyone who believes in God is mentally ill.” As if being wrong or simply disagreeing about something makes someone clinically insane. Given a sociocultural environment where religion is a powerful force, reasonable people can disagree on the God question much as we disagree on moral/ethical positions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do we need to hold back when we say there is no special magic in the bones and other organs of albinos? Some religious folk hold such magic exists and they feel morally justified in killing albinos to obtain the magic.

I suspect that you will hold that to be wrong, regardless of there being a sociocultural environment where religion is a powerful force so reasonable people can disagree on the magic question much as we disagree on moral/ethical positions.

It is very hard for all of us to take a step back to look at our own society and culture the same way we do other cultures we do not belong to. This is why it is fair to raise as a critism of the DSM that it has to find ways to allow the majority of religious beliefs found in the USA to be excluded from diagnosis and descriptions such as not being able to distinguish a delusion from reality. Anyone who believes God speaks to them, reveals himself to them in actions in the world are suffering from at least a sympton of many mental illnesses as described by the DSM. The DSM however attempts to sweep that under the carpet because of how powerful religion still is in the USA.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:06 AM   #347
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,690
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That's not quite what's being argued. Those who are on the side of religion = mental illness are saying that religious people experience literal delusions. People who claim that God speaks to them are hallucinating, etc. Not even to mention the more extreme fringes of religion that people always love bringing up.



The claim isn't that they disagree with the faithful. It's that the faithful are actually mentally ill.
If someone claimed that Winston Churchill speaks to them, tells them how to behave and so on someone using the DSM would note that as sympton of many mental illnesses, change that name from Churchill to Jesus and then the DSM will not look you in the eyes, will shuffle its feet and proclaim "well that's just different".

Any one who claims to hear voices not their own (in the old fashioned phrase) "in their head" should be checked out, whether they claim that voice is God or the next door's cat.

All you seem to be wanting to argue is if the person label's their delusion as "God" we treat it differently to if they label it as "The Alein". I profoundly disagree, hearing voices in your head not your own should always be treated as a sympton of illness, just like having a fever is always a sympton of illness, we may decide that treatment isn't required in either case but that doesn't mean illness isn't present.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:08 AM   #348
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,120
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Then you are not actually engaging in discussion, as some insults are true, for example I have encountered quite a few people over the years who are bigots, should we never then state those people are bigots because that is an insult? How are we then meant to describe them, describe their views and so on?
Not all people who are religious are bigots, though, or even ignorant of anything, much less ignorant in some general sense, and calling all religious people "ignorant bigots" is not a mere description - it's saying something for the purpose of being condescending and hurtful.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:18 AM   #349
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,120
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
This is why it is fair to raise as a critism of the DSM that it has to find ways to allow the majority of religious beliefs found in the USA to be excluded from diagnosis and descriptions such as not being able to distinguish a delusion from reality. Anyone who believes God speaks to them, reveals himself to them in actions in the world are suffering from at least a sympton of many mental illnesses as described by the DSM. The DSM however attempts to sweep that under the carpet because of how powerful religion still is in the USA.
I don't think it's because of the power of religion - I think it's because most irrational religious beliefs have a different etiology than irrational beliefs which are the result of psychotic disorders. There are no pills which will cure/treat religious beliefs, because they're not caused by neurological malfunction. It's a GIGO problem, not a processing problem.

I do see a great many people's political beliefs as being just as nutty and dangerous as people who have talked and brainwashed themselves into thinking they're regularly getting messages from god. They're not "clinically insane", though, because their goofball beliefs aren't the result of neurological malfunctioning.

Now, I DO think the culturally-induced and environmentally-induced whackadoodle beliefs probably should have some sort of..."honorable mention" in the psychiatric literature. Figuring out what to include and exclude would be a social and political minefield, though.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:24 AM   #350
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,120
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
All you seem to be wanting to argue is if the person label's their delusion as "God" we treat it differently to if they label it as "The Alein". I profoundly disagree, hearing voices in your head not your own should always be treated as a sympton of illness, just like having a fever is always a sympton of illness, we may decide that treatment isn't required in either case but that doesn't mean illness isn't present.
Most the people who think they communicate with aliens aren't clinically mad, either. It's kind of a cult, very much a religion of sorts.

And a vast majority of people who say they "hear the voice of god", if you press them, don't report something that sounds like a hallucination. More often it's something like "being struck with a sense of certainty, and an otherworldly peace with that certainty" which they basically decide is "god" talking to them.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 06:18 AM   #351
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,507
"I ignore insults" always, always translates to "I reject opinions I don't want to hear because they are 'mean.'"
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 06:18 AM   #352
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
If someone claimed that Winston Churchill speaks to them, tells them how to behave and so on someone using the DSM would note that as sympton of many mental illnesses, change that name from Churchill to Jesus and then the DSM will not look you in the eyes, will shuffle its feet and proclaim "well that's just different".
Actually I think they'd be treated the same. As long as Winnie isn't telling you to go across the channel and kill jerries (or more accurately, as long as you don't start doing it), you're as technically not crazy as the next guy. Which works pretty well in terms of not providing justification to lock people up for thoughtcrime, but also means arguing from the DSM isn't very helpful in the context of an informal conversation where we're trying to split a hair between cray and cray cray.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 06:27 AM   #353
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,507
This is trying to semantic (yes I'm using semantic as a verb) non-religious people into defining being religious as "crazy" while simultaneously dismissing them as mean for calling religion "crazy."

So here, so there's no way to spin it:

- Whether or not a socially acceptable irrational opinion is "crazy" while a socially unacceptable irrational opinion is not is a matter of pure meaningless categorization and semantics.

- Social acceptability is the only meaningful, objective factor that separates most all religious beliefs from things we do call "crazy."

If anyone reads that and immediately jumps to "OH SO YOU'RE CALLING ME CRAZY YOU'RE DA MEAN AND I NEED MY FAINTING COUCH!" so be it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 11th January 2019 at 08:14 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 07:02 AM   #354
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,721
Until very recently it wasn't socially acceptable to not be religious. It still isn't in much of the world. Are atheists crazy?
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:03 PM   #355
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,120
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"I ignore insults" always, always translates to "I reject opinions I don't want to hear because they are 'mean.'"
It can also mean "I ignore people who are being excessively mean just for the sake of being mean."
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:03 PM   #356
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Then you are not actually engaging in discussion, as some insults are true, for example I have encountered quite a few people over the years who are bigots, should we never then state those people are bigots because that is an insult? How are we then meant to describe them, describe their views and so on?

All you seem to be doing is using the fact that someone has used an insulting term as an excuse to avoid having to deal with their opinion/argument/conclusion.
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Not all people who are religious are bigots, though, or even ignorant of anything, much less ignorant in some general sense, and calling all religious people "ignorant bigots" is not a mere description - it's saying something for the purpose of being condescending and hurtful.

You do not make a good argument by putting words in people's mouths. How you can assume what you say here about motive is beyond my grasp.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:07 PM   #357
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,120
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You do not make a good argument by putting words in people's mouths. How you can assume what you say here about motive is beyond my grasp.
The post being discussed said:

Quote:
Why do people tiptoe around the religious? In this day and age we should be calling them out for what they are. Ignorant bigots who hold medieval beliefs.
"The religious" unqualified implies "all of the religious".
If someone means "many" or "most", then they should add qualifications to their words indicating such.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:30 PM   #358
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The post being discussed said:



"The religious" unqualified implies "all of the religious".
If someone means "many" or "most", then they should add qualifications to their words indicating such.

Oh yes, I do remember Darat making some comment like that way back. If that was the post being discussed maybe you should have pasted it above your response. Didn't get a response to my question about your penetrating ability to perceive motive from a few words however.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:36 PM   #359
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,507
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It can also mean "I ignore people who are being excessively mean just for the sake of being mean."
Not if you can't give me a "non-excessively mean" way to word my opinion, one that doesn't change the meaning.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 02:05 PM   #360
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It can also mean "I ignore people who are being excessively mean just for the sake of being mean."

That penetrating insight into motive again.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.