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 8th January 2019, 07:26 PM   #281
attempt5001
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
It does, though, if you think of Teddy living in the midst of uncommonly ignorant and/or gullible folks who literally believe his accounts of his delusions, and who do literally pander to his insanity simply by taking him at his word.
Ah. I see what you mean. I didn't interpret JoeMorgue's post that way, but maybe that was what he was describing.
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 8th January 2019, 07:46 PM   #282
attempt5001
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Here’s the post . . .

No! I’m pretty sure the "guy with the deluded beliefs" was meant as a parallel for all guys with all deluded beliefs. The point of the analogy as I interpret it was that JoeMorgue was using it to ask you if any deluded belief has less negative social consequences is it less of a mental illness? Less negative social consequences in this case because society goes along with the delusion. Mental illness cured by social lying. I think the point is less negative social consequences don’t make for less mental illness. Perhaps JoeMorgue might care to clarify?
Alright, I'll suspend my presumptions about the interpretation and consider yours. I'm thinking it through as I type here, but I suppose if there are degrees of negative consequence, then it follows that there are degrees of severity of mental illness. JoeMorgue's post imagines a scenario where the severity of the consequence is diminished by societal acquiescence (or as was suggested above, by the society being persuaded to believe the delusion). I think his purpose was to highlight the apparent strangeness of the potential relativity of mental illness. Strange as it may seem when presented that way however, I think the logic holds.

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".
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 8th January 2019, 07:54 PM   #283
attempt5001
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If Ted thinks he's Napoleon that's a mental issue because one cannot leave thinking they are Napoleon without severe hardship and difficulty in day to day life.

So if society where just to start going along with Ted, telling him "Sure, you're Napoleon" and making it so he stops having to deal with the consequences of thinking he's Napoleon, would it suddenly stop being a mental illness?
The other trouble with this post is that it is self-contradictory. It first describes a scenario in which "severe hardship and difficulty" are unavoidable, then presents a recourse by which those negative consequences are alleviated. (c'mon, you've got to concede that small point at least)
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 8th January 2019, 08:32 PM   #284
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
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".
Don't worry - I'm accustomed to it. And yeah, I think you've got it pretty much spot on at this point.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
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 8th January 2019, 08:39 PM   #285
8enotto
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 156
When I was a teen m woul
8enotto 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 8th January 2019, 09:13 PM   #286
attempt5001
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Don't worry - I'm accustomed to it. And yeah, I think you've got it pretty much spot on at this point.
I can tell from your number of posts that you're not put off by contrary thoughts and opinions, which is the point of engaging here of course, though I think the polite discourse has a lot more potential to be productive in the end. Cheers!
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 8th January 2019, 10:30 PM   #287
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 3,038
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.
__________________
Over we go....
xterra 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 8th January 2019, 11:24 PM   #288
llwyd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 446
I think mentally ill is a pretty non-fuzzy medical concept (though there can be some gray areas). Most people holding irrational beliefs (or for that matter people proclaiming very rational but personally highly dangerous beliefs in primitive theocratic societies...) just don't fit into this category.

Btw, I kind of like that second case - I would be very tempted to call a person in Saudi-Arabia or Afghanistan proclaiming publicly that there is no god and that Quran is pure fiction totally bonkers... I mean he/she would be quite right and rational, but at the same time totally suicidal and dangerous even for his loved ones.
llwyd 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 9th January 2019, 06:29 AM   #289
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 865
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
Ah. I see what you mean. I didn't interpret JoeMorgue's post that way, but maybe that was what he was describing.

Irrespective of whether Joe meant it that way -- and I think he did -- it seems to me that the starting point of most religions (most, or at least many, although probably not all) would be some kind of delusion. Either that, or some bona fide mystical experience. Given that we don't have evidence of the latter, I'd suggest the former. (In the discussion in the thread you started, there was a suggestion, as you may have seen, of a third possibility: epilepsy!)

Of course, around that core (of epilepsy-fueled visions, and/or delusion, and/or bona fide mystical experience) a whole host of other factors coalesce, to get a religion up and running and flourishing. Or so it seems to me.


[Although, thinking about this, I suppose any kind of visions, whether epileptic or narcotic-induced or simply a dream or whatever -- unless it were some kind of bona fide mystical experience which somehow does connect us to something outside of us, of which of course we do not have any evidence -- would qualify as delusion, if the 'seer' took his visions to be part of the outer reality, as opposed to recognizing it as simply a manifestation of his brain and nerves.]

Last edited by Chanakya; 9th January 2019 at 06:39 AM.
Chanakya 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 9th January 2019, 07:55 AM   #290
8enotto
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
When I was a teen m woul
Technical issues overcome...

Mom would drag five of us to confession Wednesday nights. There was one older woman always present and took forever to do her turn.

She did mass every day and never missed on any event. Yet she was not social. She was a recluse curtain peeker and only went for food and Church stuff.

I look back now and see she did all her social at the church. As I do most of mine online and have limited contact with most locals for lack of common interest.
I simply cannot drink that much cheap beer and talk sports.

A form of mental illness if your norm is to be social. A new way to fill that need and get the same results and be normal while looking alone and lonely on the surface.

She found her normal in a closed group of people that centered on church.
Mine is chatting with folks around the globe on common interests . People I will never see in person yet miss some dearly when they check out.
Yet Juan the drunk and his five unnamed buddies I pass daily could vaporize tomorrow and I may not notice.

When we all are mentally ill in the eyes of another mindset it becomes a question of how much tolerance we choose to display.
8enotto 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 9th January 2019, 07:59 AM   #291
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,994
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Irrespective of whether Joe meant it that way -- and I think he did -- it seems to me that the starting point of most religions (most, or at least many, although probably not all) would be some kind of delusion. Either that, or some bona fide mystical experience. Given that we don't have evidence of the latter, I'd suggest the former. (In the discussion in the thread you started, there was a suggestion, as you may have seen, of a third possibility: epilepsy!)

Of course, around that core (of epilepsy-fueled visions, and/or delusion, and/or bona fide mystical experience) a whole host of other factors coalesce, to get a religion up and running and flourishing. Or so it seems to me.


[Although, thinking about this, I suppose any kind of visions, whether epileptic or narcotic-induced or simply a dream or whatever -- unless it were some kind of bona fide mystical experience which somehow does connect us to something outside of us, of which of course we do not have any evidence -- would qualify as delusion, if the 'seer' took his visions to be part of the outer reality, as opposed to recognizing it as simply a manifestation of his brain and nerves.]
The starting point of religions wasn't delusion. They started as attempts to make sense of the world and our place in it. That ancient people hadn't developed scientific methods to do that in the manner we approve is hardly something we can fault them for. Being mistaken is not the same as being delusional.
__________________
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 9th January 2019, 08:18 AM   #292
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
As long as we're talking about the colloquial, non-technical, wooly definition of "insane", then I agree.
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?
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 9th January 2019, 08:21 AM   #293
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,463
We're stuck in a loop.

"It can't be insane because it's socially acceptable" doesn't leave us anywhere to go.

Mental... offness whether you wish to define it literally as an illness or colloquially as just... insanity exists both in groups and individuals.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 9th January 2019, 12:40 PM   #294
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
We're stuck in a loop.

"It can't be insane because it's socially acceptable" doesn't leave us anywhere to go.

Mental... offness whether you wish to define it literally as an illness or colloquially as just... insanity exists both in groups and individuals.
Important to remember that the specific “it” in this thread is the belief that invisible, magical, gods actually exist, despite the fact there’s no credible evidence they do or even could actually exist.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
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 9th January 2019, 01:09 PM   #295
8enotto
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 156
Who needs proof when the very belief is so strong?


The sun shining and a good crop on the field is enough proof for many.

A good portion of the population goes an entire lifetime not questioning any woo as long as life is good.
When war or drought hit home then faith steps up again as a diety saves or punishes them.

Both warring tribes will proclaim god is on their side going in but the loser rarely blasphemes the same god later. Even if both sides know the same god..

No one ever notices that little dilemma.
8enotto 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 9th January 2019, 01:47 PM   #296
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,463
Okay so here's a question.

If it's not "crazy" (technically or colloquially) to hold the opinion that "Insert Religious Belief X Here* why is it is crazy to act on that opinion?

Why isn't "God told me to kill him" not a valid defense in our courts? Why isn't "God hates gay people" an actual factor in how we as a society should decide how to treat gay people? Why should we teach that universe was poofed into existence 5,000 years ago along side... what actually happened?

This is all just the myth of Wishy-washy equal nice. Not holding people to standards and never telling them they are wrong doesn't make you a better person.

*And actual religious beliefs that actually exist in actual meaningful numbers in the actual real world, not hypothetical cotton candy versions that are so unsubstantial as to be meaningless or tiny minority exception that don't hold social and political power and influence.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 9th January 2019, 02:09 PM   #297
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,372
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Who needs proof when the very belief is so strong?


The sun shining and a good crop on the field is enough proof for many.

A good portion of the population goes an entire lifetime not questioning any woo as long as life is good.
When war or drought hit home then faith steps up again as a diety saves or punishes them.

Both warring tribes will proclaim god is on their side going in but the loser rarely blasphemes the same god later. Even if both sides know the same god..

No one ever notices that little dilemma.

This is something that I find intriguing also and perhaps attempt5001 (As our resident theist albeit evolving) may have an insight into this phenomena. I started a thread about it some time back and little was offered as explanation.

After Hurricane Katrina caused so much destruction and death in Florida just a few years back, some of the faithful who survived claimed their faith had been strengthened! Churches experience a high incidence of lightening strikes ( Their spires and location at the top of hills may have some bearing on this.), but the faithful go on undaunted. It seems so contrary to the theme of a loving caring god but the impact on belief is just not there.
__________________
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 9th January 2019, 02:20 PM   #298
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,372
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay so here's a question.

If it's not "crazy" (technically or colloquially) to hold the opinion that "Insert Religious Belief X Here* why is it is crazy to act on that opinion?

Why isn't "God told me to kill him" not a valid defense in our courts? Why isn't "God hates gay people" an actual factor in how we as a society should decide how to treat gay people? Why should we teach that universe was poofed into existence 5,000 years ago along side... what actually happened?

This is all just the myth of Wishy-washy equal nice. Not holding people to standards and never telling them they are wrong doesn't make you a better person.

*And actual religious beliefs that actually exist in actual meaningful numbers in the actual real world, not hypothetical cotton candy versions that are so unsubstantial as to be meaningless or tiny minority exception that don't hold social and political power and influence.

To believe something kooky is OK. To act on that belief is not ..... yes, a hard one to figure.

Mind you in some parts of the World, where religion has the strangle hold, acting on it is Ok. Easy to point the finger at Islamic countries who have Sharia law enforcement but what about a Catholic country like El Salvador?
__________________
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 9th January 2019, 02:23 PM   #299
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,463
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
To believe something kooky is OK. To act on that belief is not ..... yes, a hard one to figure.?
And here's the thing. It's not just hard to figure, it's unfair.

I've brought this up before but I will not do my fellow human beings a disservice by expecting them hold these honest, deep beliefs and never act on them. That's not fair to them. It's too narrow of a rope to expect them to walk. So if I can't leave with them acting on their beliefs, I can't, without reservations at least, condone the beliefs themselves.

I won't put people in the position to run full sprint at "the line" and get mad at them when they can't stop in time.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 9th January 2019 at 02:30 PM.
JoeMorgue 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 9th January 2019, 02:24 PM   #300
8enotto
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 156
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.
8enotto 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 9th January 2019, 02:38 PM   #301
attempt5001
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
This is something that I find intriguing also and perhaps attempt5001 (As our resident theist albeit evolving) may have an insight into this phenomena. I started a thread about it some time back and little was offered as explanation.

After Hurricane Katrina caused so much destruction and death in Florida just a few years back, some of the faithful who survived claimed their faith had been strengthened! Churches experience a high incidence of lightening strikes ( Their spires and location at the top of hills may have some bearing on this.), but the faithful go on undaunted. It seems so contrary to the theme of a loving caring god but the impact on belief is just not there.
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Who needs proof when the very belief is so strong?


The sun shining and a good crop on the field is enough proof for many.

A good portion of the population goes an entire lifetime not questioning any woo as long as life is good.
When war or drought hit home then faith steps up again as a diety saves or punishes them.

Both warring tribes will proclaim god is on their side going in but the loser rarely blasphemes the same god later. Even if both sides know the same god..

No one ever notices that little dilemma.
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.

8enotto, I wasn't sure if you meant your post to be sarcastic, but you're quite right. If one has a belief system that he feels is "working for him", there is very little impetus to change it, or even to consider changing it. And even if it "doesn't hold" (e.g. the crops fail one year), it can be a lot easier to think "maybe next time" and move on that to try to reevaluate ones basic concept for understanding/succeeding in the world. I think some atheists might say "yes, but science has all the answers now so you don't need to believe in god anymore." presuming this is a more enticing option, which for many (for varied reasons) it is not.
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 9th January 2019, 03:41 PM   #302
LarryS
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 920
[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.
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 9th January 2019, 03:41 PM   #303
8enotto
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 156
No sarcasm intended. While not logical a "why change what works?" does keep many happier and they still function in society.

If the village needs a shoe maker does matter his faith? His shoes matter far more.
8enotto 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 9th January 2019, 05:27 PM   #304
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
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?
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".
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
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 9th January 2019, 05:30 PM   #305
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Why isn't "God told me to kill him" not a valid defense in our courts?
For the same reason that "aliens told me to kill him" isn't a valid defense.

A person who claims that God told them to kill someone, and then acted on that, may be referred to a mental health professional by the court. Their diagnosis would be schizophrenia (or some other psychosis), not religion.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
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 9th January 2019, 07:18 PM   #306
attempt5001
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
No sarcasm intended. While not logical a "why change what works?" does keep many happier and they still function in society.

If the village needs a shoe maker does matter his faith? His shoes matter far more.
Yes. I agree.
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 9th January 2019, 07:34 PM   #307
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
No sarcasm intended. While not logical a "why change what works?" does keep many happier and they still function in society.

If the village needs a shoe maker does matter his faith? His shoes matter far more.
His religious beliefs, doctrines and faith matter if he imposes them in the affairs of the village and on members of the village that don’t want them. If he only provides his shoe making craft to the community of the village that’s fine (by me at least).
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
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 9th January 2019, 08:39 PM   #308
8enotto
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 156
That can go both ways
Our shoemaker imposes his beliefs upon the village and they get shoes from the next village. The village imposes upon his beliefs and he goes to another village to do business.

Respect has to be on the part of all involved for best results.
8enotto 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 9th January 2019, 09:30 PM   #309
RolandRat
Thinker
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 177
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 people who hold those ignorant beliefs will not be swayed by any argument, they should simply be mocked and left to get on with their delusions. The youth are, in every generation, far less inclined to believe in this rubbish. It wont be much longer (in the grand scheme of things) before we as a species can put this archaic nonsense behind us.
RolandRat 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 9th January 2019, 09:45 PM   #310
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
Ignorant bigots who hold medieval beliefs.
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.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
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 9th January 2019, 10:15 PM   #311
8enotto
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
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 people who hold those ignorant beliefs will not be swayed by any argument, they should simply be mocked and left to get on with their delusions. The youth are, in every generation, far less inclined to believe in this rubbish. It wont be much longer (in the grand scheme of things) before we as a species can put this archaic nonsense behind us.
Most times these people are valuable to society in their other roles in life. The butcher, the baker and the mechanic that do the things you did not specialize in.

Their beliefs are or should not be an issue to the primary role they take in the community.

Start openly mocking them in public places and watch how the services you need later on get more expensive and harder to contract.

True, religion in general is less practiced but it's far too early to start burning bridges now.

Last edited by 8enotto; 9th January 2019 at 10:18 PM.
8enotto 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, 03:35 AM   #312
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
That's a pretty inaccurate summary of what I was talking about.



What I was saying is that there is an actual definition of mental illness, which I posted verbatim from the DSM. For convenience, I will post it again.







What you so pithily and inaccurately report as "a definition of mental illness as being something that may lead to self harm" is, as you can see, quite a lot more complex than that and doesn't say what you say it says. I suggest you read it again.



The first definition I posted (Post #25) was a paraphrase of the section on Wikipedia, which I will quote:







Significant impairment of personal functioning (note - not necessarily self-harm which itself has its own specific definition) is a part of the diagnostic criteria for mental illness. After all, if someone isn't experiencing significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities, then they probably won't even seek a diagnosis. Involuntary admission to a mental health unit is possible, but it is not an option that is chosen lightly.



I find it interesting that you feel that this was somewhat comprehensively "dealt with" given that you gave no indication of actually understanding what I was talking about.


The DSM is mostly a USA reference work, whilst it overlaps with other similar reference works it should not be used and quoted as *the* authority. There is some fair criticism of the DSM as being too USA culturally influenced, reflecting a culture that likes to label everything, that tends to over medicalise everyday life. Other countries such as the UK will primarily use something like the ICD as the primary “go to” reference authority.

Ironically in this thread It appears you are using the DSM as the bible in regards to mental healthcare assessment, I’d be very wary of doing that. To use it like that is to really miss what it strengths are.
__________________
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, 03:49 AM   #313
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
Hey T2. Lots in there to respond to. Of course I can only speak about the teaching and experience that is common to the church group I've been a part of and has resonated most for me.



Regarding confidence in salvation, three scriptures come to mind that are often used to consider the question, (they are in a number of the gospels, so I'll just note the one that comes up first in a google search - nope, I don't have them memorized ).



One is Matthew 19:16 (follow the commandments and sell your possessions to give to the poor), but that seems more to be a discussion about the tension between selflessness and selfishness (as well as grace vs. legalistic thinking) to me.



Another is when someone asks Jesus what is the greatest commandment in Matthew 22:34 (Love God, and similarly, love your neighbour as yourself - this summarizes all the law and the prophets). By the way, right before that is the bit where the educated people of the time/culture try to trap Jesus by asking him about what happens in heaven to a man who married multiple times. I don't expect the answer will satisfy many here, but if you're expecting any better answer from me I'm sorry to disappoint you



But back to salvation, the simplest response (that I think most Christian groups go to) is in Romans 10:9, where is says "if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." I think that's why a lot of christian groups do a sort of "if you believe in Jesus, say this 'repeat-after-me' prayer", so they can check the "believe" and "confess" requirements and feel that the salvation is "secure".



Based on that last definition, salvation is not presented as being difficult to attain. You're quite right though, that there can be a sense of pressure to demonstrate your faith in a variety of ways from kindness to charitable giving to speaking in tongues (I have participated in all of these things, inevitably with some desire to fit in, but not under pressure). No doubt it can be tempting to "go along" with these sorts of things to avoid wondering if you really "believe in your heart" and are therefore really "saved", so I understand your question and point. In most of my church experience though, believers have been encouraged to have confidence/peace in their salvation and I think that has born-out in general.


My family’s primitive Methodism made it very easy to understand who was “saved” who would have eternity in the presence of god, everyone (even when pushed admitting that included the RCs). It was very simple God forgives us all of our sins. Whether we believe in him or not, whatever evil we have committed he has ultimate compassion.

My infant and junior schooling was in a Methodist school (but not quite the same primitive Methodism my family was into) so it was strange when I was exposed to the beliefs say of some of my cousins who were equivalently CofE raised. I wonder if being exposed to such different views, I.e. that we were all sinners and god would forgive us all our sins v only the right sinners would be forgiven and some would be punished for eternity made me suspect something didn’t quite add up with this religious malarkey.
__________________
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, 03:58 AM   #314
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes I think many Christians struggle with that one together with the camel and eye of the needle thing. The prosperity gospel folk just throw it in the bin I think. The best counter to it I have heard is Jesus was just demonstrating how inadequate man was in getting over the high bar of absolute morality. (How did I do there. Think I would make a good preacher? )







Yes, verse 37 in my King James version:



"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."



Always had trouble with the idea of being commanded to love. From my experience love is something that wells up inside you, when the loved has earned it somehow. Jesus (as God) certainly didn't endear himself to the multitude in the following chapter when you unleashed about Hellfire and such.



Interesting that Jesus struggled with the multiple wives thing. Possibly hadn't thought it through perhaps.







All a little wishy washy for me I'm afraid.







Interesting but the difficulty of being saved is stressed in the Bible also. So on the one hand you have people practicing self flagellation, getting nailed to crosses and so on, and at the other end of the spectrum folk attending happy clappy type churches (definition cutesy of arthwollipot) to get salvation. Mind you contradiction is nothing new when wrangling with scripture is it?


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.
__________________
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, 04:00 AM   #315
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I find it odd that someone might ask this question since I have twice now quoted the official definition of mental disorder that is accepted by psychologists and mental health professionals across the world.


As I mentioned above, no it’s primarily the descriptive used in the USA, and just done a little bit of research and it seems Australia. Please don’t keep using it as an absolute authority, it isn’t.
__________________
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, 04:14 AM   #316
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
I don't get why people are acting as if the definition of mental illness having personal distress or life-impairment as a component were at all doubted or controversial or just one forumite's personal opinion or such. It's the standard in psychology & psychiatry, and it has been for ages, as shown by the links that have already been given and any other source you care to bother checking. In any basic introductory psychology class at any college, that definition is not just first-day stuff; it's first-minute stuff. It's like having a "debate" or "dispute" over whether or not meteorology involves air.


No, at best it is how we practically have to deal with mental health issues at the moment. We really are a long way from having the necessary tools to diagnose and cure mental health issues. Just as none of us are in perfect “physical health” it is a matter of where we set a threshold for action. As a practical, pragmatic approach I understand it being used as probably the best threshold we can these days but I think it is a very poor threshold criteria. For instance I think it is possible to be very depressed but not trigger the subjective threshold so someone could go through their entire life and never be “diagnosed” as depressed. It is also possible because of where someone is in a society for as I said earlier for the same symptoms to be considered an illness or an eccentricity and so on. That should not be what determines if someone is unwell or not.

That someone does not trigger the current threshold should not be used as a determinant as to whether they have a mental illness.
__________________
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, 04:16 AM   #317
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Back in the day most explanations would pretty much have to be paranormal/supernatural. And not all that long ago really. I'm not an expert, but I don't think there was some cabal of astrophysicists peddling woo to the masses. I also think religion predates the profit motive.


Depends if you only mean profit in terms of monetary profit, someone could profit in terms of social standing.
__________________
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, 04:19 AM   #318
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
That's pretty much why I'm asking the question. You've pretty much answered the op with that but there still seems to be a some defending the idea that just being religious is tantamount to insanity. I'd like to know what they think insanity is.


Killing a person because you are trying to exorcise a demon, killing albinos for their magic, thinking wine and wafers change into human blood and flesh because of a magic spell.
__________________
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, 04:23 AM   #319
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Again, what you colloquially consider "insane" is not the same thing as being a diagnosable mental disorder. The OP is asking whether religion is a mental disorder, not whether religious people can be colloquially called "insane". If you just want to insult religious people, you are free to do so - I think it's more than a little petty, but you're free to do so. Perhaps start a thread in Humor titled "The insane thing religious people do".



Don't mix that up with diagnosable mental health conditions. Take mental health seriously.


Holding delusional beliefs is certainly part of many descriptions of a mental illness in the DSM. And because of the DSM being such a USA tome they of course have to find a way to exempt delusional USA mainstream religious beliefs from many of their diagnostic criteria.
__________________
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, 04:32 AM   #320
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,545
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Important to remember that the specific “it” in this thread is the belief that invisible, magical, gods actually exist, despite the fact there’s no credible evidence they do or even could actually exist.


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!
__________________
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
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 04:48 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.