It would explain a lot.

no

It could be said that they stem from disease.

Which one isn’t?

subtle bob
does, generalizes
yes the lot
putting dis in ease

There is an argument for religion merely being a generally successful self-propagating meme.

religions are not mental diseases

QED

>…religion merely being..”

what does “merely” mean, above…

The need to rationalise the fear that comes from the unknown is hard wired into our brains.

transition said:

>…religion merely being..”

what does “merely” mean, above…

in this instance ‘merely’ is an adverb; it means ‘just’ or ‘only’

>in this instance ‘merely’ is an adverb; it means ‘just’ or ‘only’

little ol’ got that far

now to what the word was meant to do, in context….

transition said:

>…religion merely being..”

what does “merely” mean, above…

It means they are nothing more special than any other meme, like “Measure twice, cut once”.

>It means they are nothing more special than any other meme

thanks…….asked beccause often the more important stuff is in the merelies

Carmen_Sandiego said:

transition said:

>…religion merely being..”

what does “merely” mean, above…

It means they are nothing more special than any other meme, like “Measure twice, cut once”.

“two girls, one cup” is probably better example

In my experience – yes, religion is a mental illness.

What about the possibility that ideas of God are a projection of minds’ executive.

I mean the box of tools and tricks performed by minds to generate that conscious executive thing don’t exactly make obvious how it does whatever it does, being generated by unknowns as it does.

transition said:

What about the possibility that ideas of God are a projection of minds’ executive.

I mean the box of tools and tricks performed by minds to generate that conscious executive thing don’t exactly make obvious how it does whatever it does, being generated by unknowns as it does.

I get the impression that the concept of God is comprehension of absolutes defining outcomes and results without any science to measure these abolutes against. ie; the awareness that just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it isn’t dead certain.

Organised religion then becomes a method to direct the community toward overcoming ignorance and establishing dominance over nature. It only survives as long as ignorance is a decohesive quantity in the community.

For the two cents it is worth…..

I would describe organised religion as mutually arranged mental asylum facilitation.

Religion is just a racket.

Religion is just a racket.

oh i dunno, some of the gregorian chants are quite melodious.

I hate doing the “define” thing. On forums I have found it is more a means to stop debate, but I think in this case it is needed, if religion includes a belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen and experienced, then it is a persistent thing and I suspect hard wired into our brain as being akin to the perceptions of wonder and also urge toward understanding. If disease implies impairment I would say it doesn’t qualify as a disease.

ChrispenEvan said:

Religion is just a racket.

oh i dunno, some of the gregorian chants are quite melodious.

some religions have bands that plays on stage, some of those born again Christians sing and play in bands,

they can make a racket

AwesomeO said:

I hate doing the “define” thing. On forums I have found it is more a means to stop debate, but I think in this case it is needed, if religion includes a belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen and experienced, then it is a persistent thing and I suspect hard wired into our brain as being akin to the perceptions of wonder and also urge toward understanding. If disease implies impairment I would say it doesn’t qualify as a disease.

Is it hard wired into our brains?

Or is it passed on from parent to child?

I think its the latter

People who believe in Nothing or things that do not exist could be seen as a disease

People who believe in Gods that don’t exist, Gods created by humans, Gods that are totally imaginary, and Gods that only exist in the realm of fiction

yes these people could be seen as having a mental disease, or lots of people who just have bad observation

there seems to be a lot of them, people with bad observation

Preachers who preach that a god exists while having absolutely no proof of any gods existence could be seen as fraudulent

so many fraudulent preachers who keep getting away with fraud

it is a successful meme, one that’s been going on for thousands of years

and as a social meme?

Is religion a social MEME? cause it certainly appears that way

maybe a Religion MEME seems more a social dysfunction than a disease

consider all the billions of people who go to church to pray to something that does not exist, seems a waste of time to me

and from a biological point to view towards the human species Religion is not very efficient, as it wastes billions of human hours

billions of human hours gone down the drain, which could have gone into something more productive

like writing a fiction story for people to imagine monsters and saviors and living in another space/time after they die

CrazyNeutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

I hate doing the “define” thing. On forums I have found it is more a means to stop debate, but I think in this case it is needed, if religion includes a belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen and experienced, then it is a persistent thing and I suspect hard wired into our brain as being akin to the perceptions of wonder and also urge toward understanding. If disease implies impairment I would say it doesn’t qualify as a disease.

Is it hard wired into our brains?

Or is it passed on from parent to child?

I think its the latter

People who believe in Nothing or things that do not exist could be seen as a disease

People who believe in Gods that don’t exist, Gods created by humans, Gods that are totally imaginary, and Gods that only exist in the realm of fiction

yes these people could be seen as having a mental disease, or lots of people who just have bad observation

there seems to be a lot of them, people with bad observation

Preachers who preach that a god exists while having absolutely no proof of any gods existence could be seen as fraudulent

so many fraudulent preachers who keep getting away with fraud

it is a successful meme, one that’s been going on for thousands of years

and as a social meme?

Is religion a social MEME? cause it certainly appears that way

maybe a Religion MEME seems more a social dysfunction than a disease

consider all the billions of people who go to church to pray to something that does not exist, seems a waste of time to me

and from a biological point to view towards the human species Religion is not very efficient, as it wastes billions of human hours

billions of human hours gone down the drain, which could have gone into something more productive

like writing a fiction story for people to imagine monsters and saviors and living in another space/time after they die

Bit hard to read. You could have just put it into a paragraph, but if I get the gist of what you are saying, I think it is the same process that allows some people to believe in science as allows others to believe in a religion. The desire to explain or have it explained is the same.

Postpocelipse said:

I would describe organised religion as mutually arranged mental asylum facilitation.

The Branch Davidians did that really well didn’t they

“Waco Siege”

AwesomeO said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

I hate doing the “define” thing. On forums I have found it is more a means to stop debate, but I think in this case it is needed, if religion includes a belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen and experienced, then it is a persistent thing and I suspect hard wired into our brain as being akin to the perceptions of wonder and also urge toward understanding. If disease implies impairment I would say it doesn’t qualify as a disease.

Is it hard wired into our brains?

Or is it passed on from parent to child?

I think its the latter

People who believe in Nothing or things that do not exist could be seen as a disease

People who believe in Gods that don’t exist, Gods created by humans, Gods that are totally imaginary, and Gods that only exist in the realm of fiction

yes these people could be seen as having a mental disease, or lots of people who just have bad observation

there seems to be a lot of them, people with bad observation

Preachers who preach that a god exists while having absolutely no proof of any gods existence could be seen as fraudulent

so many fraudulent preachers who keep getting away with fraud

it is a successful meme, one that’s been going on for thousands of years

and as a social meme?

Is religion a social MEME? cause it certainly appears that way

maybe a Religion MEME seems more a social dysfunction than a disease

consider all the billions of people who go to church to pray to something that does not exist, seems a waste of time to me

and from a biological point to view towards the human species Religion is not very efficient, as it wastes billions of human hours

billions of human hours gone down the drain, which could have gone into something more productive

like writing a fiction story for people to imagine monsters and saviors and living in another space/time after they die

Bit hard to read. You could have just put it into a paragraph, but if I get the gist of what you are saying, I think it is the same process that allows some people to believe in science as allows others to believe in a religion. The desire to explain or have it explained is the same.

Why do some people here find my way of writing hard to understand?

Isnt it actually harder to read text that is spaced on each line?

>>>> I think it is the same process that allows some people to believe in science as allows others to believe in a religion. The desire to explain or have it explained is the same.

with science, scientists go towards some effort in explain the things they study

Religions people seem to take a shortcut in explaining God, maybe because they cannot explain creation or what a God is?

If I were to have a crack at which science developed from which philosophy I would imagine the camp fire arguments would have developed along these lines.

Hunter Philosophy : Logistics, Diplomacy, Politics

Gatherer Philosophy : Economy, Capital, Distribution,

Once a comprehension of diplomacy establishes a development of politics the hunter and gatherer philosophy corners develop an intermediary philosophy corner for those who focus on politics.

Politics philosophy : Education, Theatre, Ideology

I guess religion develops when philosophical ideology diversity becomes less than coherent.

Postpocelipse said:

If I were to have a crack at which science developed from which philosophy I would imagine the camp fire arguments would have developed along these lines.

Hunter Philosophy : Logistics, Diplomacy, Politics

Gatherer Philosophy : Economy, Capital, Distribution,

Once a comprehension of diplomacy establishes a development of politics the hunter and gatherer philosophy corners develop an intermediary philosophy corner for those who focus on politics.

Politics philosophy : Education, Theatre, Ideology

I guess religion develops when philosophical ideology diversity becomes less than coherent.

So philosophical ideology diversity lost out to religion because of a group of old men who were smoking something thousands of years ago somewhere

Great!, that’s theater for you.

CrazyNeutrino said:

So philosophical ideology diversity lost out to religion because of a group of old men who were smoking something thousands of years ago somewhere

Great!, that’s theater for you.

blame it on the Thespians!!! Charge/………………./

I think its fair to say that religions started out as story telling.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think its fair to say that religions started out as story telling.

Each tribal group would find a niche philosophy and related science to develop around providing

Warfare, Agriculture, Carpentry, Stonemasons, Trade

Once metallurgy develops the religious camps develop along with the capcacity to comprehend the development of that science. That is probably where the delusion/reality divide starts seperating exponentially.

Medicine and education would have been slowed down by testing congestibles on oneself, which would only have developed the thespian skill with exaggeration and embellishment. Maybe the Oscars are the contemporary appeasement of the spirits.

I wonder if the discovery of metal made some people think it was magic

those who only saw the final product, not understanding how metal was made

no easy access to validate the manufacturing process of metal

CrazyNeutrino said:

I wonder if the discovery of metal made some people think it was magic

those who only saw the final product, not understanding how metal was made

no easy access to validate the manufacturing process of metal

the only chemistry they had to compare it with might have been alcohol…….

You’re out alone…..it’s dark…….you get that spooked feeling…..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman

Bogeyman (also spelled bogieman, boogeyman, or boogie man, and pronounced /bʊɡimæn/ or /boʊɡimæn/; see spelling differences) is a common allusion to a mythical creature in many cultures used by adults or older children to frighten bad children into good behavior. This monster has no specific appearance, and conceptions about it can vary drastically from household to household within the same community; in many cases, he has no set appearance in the mind of an adult or child, but is simply a non-specific embodiment of terror. Parents may tell their children that if they misbehave, the bogeyman will get them. Bogeymen may target a specific mischief—for instance, a bogeyman that punishes children who suck their thumbs—or general misbehaviour, depending on what purpose needs serving. In some cases, the bogeyman is a nickname for the Devil.

heh heh…. err… nice transition……

explaining where babies came from would have only added to the confusion……

Postpocelipse said:

explaining where babies came from would have only added to the confusion……

I doubt it. Wouldn’t take much observation of themselves and the animal world/seasons to figure out what caused babies.

AwesomeO said:

Postpocelipse said:

explaining where babies came from would have only added to the confusion……

I doubt it. Wouldn’t take much observation of themselves and the animal world/seasons to figure out what caused babies.

it provides the question of origin to confuse

>explaining where babies came from would have only added to the confusion……

i’m not sure that were such a mystery to our ancestors, not way back anyway.

copulating creatures were around (no less ones own species)…..and there were and are quite a few things about attractions, bonds and pregnancy and having babies that hint at what causes what.

transition said:

>explaining where babies came from would have only added to the confusion……

i’m not sure that were such a mystery to our ancestors, not way back anyway.

copulating creatures were around (no less ones own species)…..and there were and are quite a few things about attractions, bonds and pregnancy and having babies that hint at what causes what.

But until Darwin there was no established science on evolution. I am only agreeing with your including parents explaining things to children as contributing to the development of superstition and religion.

>it provides the question of origin to confuse

Gogs did a special grunt for ‘what do you think’, another grunt for ‘look at this’…….‘look at that’ may have been the same grunt, but I’m getting nuances distinguishing the two, so maybe not….and pointing is a very useful thing too. These words similarly are grunts pointing.

There appear to be grunts for bringing things together also, with great similarities across cultures and languages.

And there’re dismissive grunts, indifferent grunts, hostile grunts, puzzled grunts, grunts of intrigue….

Quite a range.

>But until Darwin there was no established science on evolution.

there is though the evolved creatures themselves, and there’s possibly more ‘information’ in your DNA and biological expression courtesy evolution than all the books on the subject in existence…..maybe.

it was a bloke called Wallace I think that pipped Darwin to the post when it came to the realisation of evolution. he was dissuaded from doing much and Darwin told to put a wriggle on it to make sure he beat Wallace to popularise evolution .

wookiemeister said:

it was a bloke called Wallace I think that pipped Darwin to the post when it came to the realisation of evolution. he was dissuaded from doing much and Darwin told to put a wriggle on it to make sure he beat Wallace to popularise evolution .

You’re just a Bill Bailey propagandist!

wookiemeister said:

it was a bloke called Wallace I think that pipped Darwin to the post when it came to the realisation of evolution. he was dissuaded from doing much and Darwin told to put a wriggle on it to make sure he beat Wallace to popularise evolution .

Can you provide a reference for that, please?

You’re just a Bill Bailey propagandist!
—-
Black Books reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Natural_selection_and_Darwin

Michael V said:

You’re just a Bill Bailey propagandist!
—-
Black Books reference?

Nah, Bill Bailey did a serious doco series about Wallace and re-traced his tour around the Indonesian islands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXBHwJr3oNQ

Interesting show if you’ve got a decent internet coinection – which I don’t think you do at RB.

look at tony Blair

started a war on the Middle East with false evidence , couldn’t be bothered to see the thing through then had the hide to convert to Catholicism

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

You’re just a Bill Bailey propagandist!
—-
Black Books reference?

Nah, Bill Bailey did a serious doco series about Wallace and re-traced his tour around the Indonesian islands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXBHwJr3oNQ

Interesting show if you’ve got a decent internet coinection – which I don’t think you do at RB.

Unfortunately no, I don’t yet.

Surprisingly, my mother thinks Bill Bailey looks like me (or I look like him). I can’t see it. Not for the life of me.

“In the early 1980s, two books, one written by Arnold Brackman and another by John Langdon Brooks, even suggested not only that there had been a conspiracy to rob Wallace of his proper credit, but that Darwin had actually stolen a key idea from Wallace to finish his own theory. These claims have been examined in detail by a number of scholars who have not found them to be convincing. Research into shipping schedules has shown that, contrary to these accusations, Wallace’s letter could not have been delivered earlier than the date shown in Darwin’s letter to Lyell.”

(From the reference provided by JudgeMental. My emphasis.)

So, no conspiracy, it seems.

Ah, the Wallace of “The Wallace Line”.

they had the idea basically at the same time. darwin being in england was in a much better position to publish. plus wallace didn’t appear to hold any grudges. there is a similar thing with calculus between newton and liebintz(sp), we actually use the latters notation afaiaa.

that is the guy. i have a good book about his travels and works.

ChrispenEvan said:

that is the guy. i have a good book about his travels and works.

Wallace seems an interesting person. Contributed a lot, in several disparate fields.

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that is the guy. i have a good book about his travels and works.

Wallace seems an interesting person. Contributed a lot, in several disparate fields.

Thanks for providing the reference. It was interesting.

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that is the guy. i have a good book about his travels and works.

Wallace seems an interesting person. Contributed a lot, in several disparate fields.

Thanks for providing the reference. It was interesting.

He was kind of gypped in terms of not being viewed as the founder of the theory of evolution.

ChrispenEvan said:

they had the idea basically at the same time. darwin being in england was in a much better position to publish. plus wallace didn’t appear to hold any grudges. there is a similar thing with calculus between newton and liebintz(sp), we actually use the latters notation afaiaa.

I thought Darwin had been sitting on the idea or a long time, and the arrival of a letter from Wallace revealing that he had the same idea coincidentally arrived the same time Darwin eventually published.

i guess it comes down to publication. bit like penzias and wilson and the cmbr. they weren’t actually working on that unlike peebles and dicke.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

There is an argument for religion merely being a generally successful self-propagating meme.

This.

Skeptic Pete said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

There is an argument for religion merely being a generally successful self-propagating meme.

This.

I agree.

To call all religions “mental diseases” is not only insulting to followers of religions, it fails to recognise that historically every known successful culture has had a religion of some sort.

Religions evolved in very different circumstances from those that exist today, which is a direct contributory cause of many problems that exist today, but it isn’t helpful to ignore the contribution that religions have made to stable societies in the past.

I tend to see a lot of what humans do to have about it something that is for the attainment and maintenance of enjoyable, comfortable or bearable internal mental states. It’s a reliable way of seeing things IMO. Seen this way it’s within the broad definition and workings of homeostatic mechanisms. Ideology, or ideologies can be understood this way too.

From this I could argue that the medicalization of a broad range of minor human discomforts and treatments of with common analgesics is part of ideology, and that some portion of the modern world have an acceptable drug habit.

But back to internal mental states.

People have a bunch of mind tools, which, if you take the idea that the mind is a proximate mechanisms for survival, you might generalize the mind is, at least in part, for the purpose of having nice thoughts, keeping things comfortable in your head, and of course for your entire body, which involved the environment over time it operates in.

Godless individuals are no less about attaining and maintaining desirable internal mental states. No less about comfortable thoughts.

They too have a bunch of idealizations that help keep the soft fleshy thing in equilibrium, that bring experience of the world home (in the head) in a way that suits the wetware.

The Rev Dodgson said:

To call all religions “mental diseases” is not only insulting to followers of religions…

I don’t care. Personally I’ve been insulted, discriminated against, persecuted, ignored etc etc by a wide variety of religions. Until fairly recently it didn’t really bother me. Something changed a few years back and now IDGAF about insulting followers of any religion. Deal with it.

kii said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

To call all religions “mental diseases” is not only insulting to followers of religions…

I don’t care. Personally I’ve been insulted, discriminated against, persecuted, ignored etc etc by a wide variety of religions. Until fairly recently it didn’t really bother me. Something changed a few years back and now IDGAF about insulting followers of any religion. Deal with it.

IDGAF what you DGAF about, so there is nothing to deal with.

Stereotyping people according to membership of broad cultural groupings is bad, OK?

>Stereotyping people according to membership of broad cultural groupings is bad, OK?

known as ‘hostile generalizations’

The Rev Dodgson said:

kii said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

To call all religions “mental diseases” is not only insulting to followers of religions…

I don’t care. Personally I’ve been insulted, discriminated against, persecuted, ignored etc etc by a wide variety of religions. Until fairly recently it didn’t really bother me. Something changed a few years back and now IDGAF about insulting followers of any religion. Deal with it.

IDGAF what you DGAF about, so there is nothing to deal with.

Stereotyping people according to membership of broad cultural groupings is bad, OK?

Sorry, the “deal with it” part wasn’t directed at you. A bit distracted here.

It’s more I don’t have the energy to put into figuring out other peoples’ fantasies/beliefs and I no longer care if people think that is a bad thing. Too many people have worn me down and worn me out with their religious beliefs.

kii said:

Sorry, the “deal with it” part wasn’t directed at you. A bit distracted here.

It’s more I don’t have the energy to put into figuring out other peoples’ fantasies/beliefs and I no longer care if people think that is a bad thing. Too many

OK, sorry for the over-the-top knee-jerk response :)

kii said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

kii said:

I don’t care. Personally I’ve been insulted, discriminated against, persecuted, ignored etc etc by a wide variety of religions. Until fairly recently it didn’t really bother me. Something changed a few years back and now IDGAF about insulting followers of any religion. Deal with it.

IDGAF what you DGAF about, so there is nothing to deal with.

Stereotyping people according to membership of broad cultural groupings is bad, OK?

Sorry, the “deal with it” part wasn’t directed at you. A bit distracted here.

It’s more I don’t have the energy to put into figuring out other peoples’ fantasies/beliefs and I no longer care if people think that is a bad thing. Too many people have worn me down and worn me out with their religious beliefs.

This isn’t about passing judgment over if the beliefs of an individual are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (what ever that is suppose to mean); the original question was asking if religions were a form of mental illness – which of course they are not.

And I disagree with you, diddly. I think they are. Is that okay…if I have a different opinion to you?

kii said:

And I disagree with you, diddly. I think they are. Is that okay…if I have a different opinion to you?

It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of medical definition.

diddly-squat said:

kii said:

And I disagree with you, diddly. I think they are. Is that okay…if I have a different opinion to you?

It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of medical definition.

That’s nice, dear.

i think it isn’t defined as a medical issue purely because it is so prevalent that it is accepted as “normal”. if i believed in the supernatural and thought that it would help me in my life and went around telling everyone that they too should believe in my “god” i would probably be regarded and mentally ill.

Haven’t read the whole thread.

What if you were so brainwashed as to believe a God would cure your child and you refused medical care? Is brainwashing and gullibility a sign of mental illness?

kii said:

diddly-squat said:

kii said:

And I disagree with you, diddly. I think they are. Is that okay…if I have a different opinion to you?

It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of medical definition.

That’s nice, dear.

You see this is where you need to work on your communication skills kii… you can’t simply change the definitions of terms to suit your own purposes. There is a very clear medical definition for the term ‘mental illness’ and religion simply doesn’t fit in that category.

It may be fair however to suggest that some religious people are delusional.

Also some people with brain damage or epilepsy have religious experiences. For example the woman who founded seventh day Adventism had religious visions after being hit in the head with a rock. She also started having seizures.

so it seems to me that if you go along with a mainstream religion then you are ok but if you branch out with your own religion then you’re a nutter.

That Martin Luther bloke, what a headcase.

unfortunately i can’t wait a few hundred years for my religion to be accepted. i want followers now dammit.

ChrispenEvan said:

so it seems to me that if you go along with a mainstream religion then you are ok but if you branch out with your own religion then you’re a nutter.

no… there are plenty of nutters embedded in mainstream religion.

Individuals, not institutions, suffer from mental illness.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Skeptic Pete said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

There is an argument for religion merely being a generally successful self-propagating meme.

This.

I agree.

To call all religions “mental diseases” is not only insulting to followers of religions, it fails to recognise that historically every known successful culture has had a religion of some sort.

Religions evolved in very different circumstances from those that exist today, which is a direct contributory cause of many problems that exist today, but it isn’t helpful to ignore the contribution that religions have made to stable societies in the past.

Which is why I said what I said in my first post.

ChrispenEvan said:

unfortunately i can’t wait a few hundred years for my religion to be accepted. i want followers now dammit.

david Koresh did it in a few years.. and Charles Manson did it too.. spectacularly I must say.

ChrispenEvan said:

unfortunately i can’t wait a few hundred years for my religion to be accepted. i want followers now dammit.

Need charisma mate.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

unfortunately i can’t wait a few hundred years for my religion to be accepted. i want followers now dammit.

Need charisma mate.

I think that worked better before science. Modern day gods are the scientists that have established their various fields. Unless you accept sporting resilience to determine who is righter or wronger………

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

unfortunately i can’t wait a few hundred years for my religion to be accepted. i want followers now dammit.

Need charisma mate.

I think that worked better before science. Modern day gods are the scientists that have established their various fields. Unless you accept sporting resilience to determine who is righter or wronger………

if that were true cult behavior wouldn’t exist.. but it does and still going strong.. even with science (some even pretend ‘science; is part of their doctrine

I suppose at one time ‘science’ was thought to be a ‘cult’

Arts said:

if that were true cult behavior wouldn’t exist.. but it does and still going strong.. even with science (some even pretend ‘science; is part of their doctrine

I suppose at one time ‘science’ was thought to be a ‘cult’

I wasn’t attempting a broad definition. Those who have limited technical dexterity AND are on a losing team somehow would likely be more inclined to provide their own answers.

diddly-squat said:

You see this is where you need to work on your communication skills kii… you can’t simply change the definitions of terms to suit your own purposes. There is a very clear medical definition for the term ‘mental illness’ and religion simply doesn’t fit in that category.

It may be fair however to suggest that some religious people are delusional.

Well, diddles, dear old bob did not ask for a medical definition or the thread would stop at the first response…which was your response.

It was an open ended question, well that’s how I read it. So in my opinion and experience – religion is a mental illness.

(Plus there’s probably some conspiracy thingy that the medical world has to play by the rules of the churches and can’t come out and say something like: You’re all nuts! It could make a good movie.)

(I think my communication skills are fine, thank you.)

kii said:

diddly-squat said:

You see this is where you need to work on your communication skills kii… you can’t simply change the definitions of terms to suit your own purposes. There is a very clear medical definition for the term ‘mental illness’ and religion simply doesn’t fit in that category.

It may be fair however to suggest that some religious people are delusional.

Well, diddles, dear old bob did not ask for a medical definition or the thread would stop at the first response…which was your response.

It was an open ended question, well that’s how I read it. So in my opinion and experience – religion is a mental illness.

(Plus there’s probably some conspiracy thingy that the medical world has to play by the rules of the churches and can’t come out and say something like: You’re all nuts! It could make a good movie.)

(I think my communication skills are fine, thank you.)

Yes, if a kiddy took its imaginary childhood friend into adulthood, serious questions would be asked.

With gods its apparently ok….shrug.

dv said:

That Martin Luther bloke, what a headcase.

If he believed the religion he preached, he would have submitted to the lawful authorities over him, put there by God.. (ie the whites)

jjjust moi said:

kii said:

diddly-squat said:

You see this is where you need to work on your communication skills kii… you can’t simply change the definitions of terms to suit your own purposes. There is a very clear medical definition for the term ‘mental illness’ and religion simply doesn’t fit in that category.

It may be fair however to suggest that some religious people are delusional.

Well, diddles, dear old bob did not ask for a medical definition or the thread would stop at the first response…which was your response.

It was an open ended question, well that’s how I read it. So in my opinion and experience – religion is a mental illness.

(Plus there’s probably some conspiracy thingy that the medical world has to play by the rules of the churches and can’t come out and say something like: You’re all nuts! It could make a good movie.)

(I think my communication skills are fine, thank you.)

Yes, if a kiddy took its imaginary childhood friend into adulthood, serious questions would be asked.

With gods its apparently ok….shrug.

well no… there is a significant difference in being delusional and having religious beliefs

diddly-squat said:

jjjust moi said:

kii said:

Well, diddles, dear old bob did not ask for a medical definition or the thread would stop at the first response…which was your response.

It was an open ended question, well that’s how I read it. So in my opinion and experience – religion is a mental illness.

(Plus there’s probably some conspiracy thingy that the medical world has to play by the rules of the churches and can’t come out and say something like: You’re all nuts! It could make a good movie.)

(I think my communication skills are fine, thank you.)

Yes, if a kiddy took its imaginary childhood friend into adulthood, serious questions would be asked.

With gods its apparently ok….shrug.

well no… there is a significant difference in being delusional and having religious beliefs

Hate to disagree with Diddly… but the very definition of delusion is

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

>..It was an open ended question..”

the master bob i’d expect would have been aware of what an entirely pointless thread would come of the question

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

jjjust moi said:

Yes, if a kiddy took its imaginary childhood friend into adulthood, serious questions would be asked.

With gods its apparently ok….shrug.

well no… there is a significant difference in being delusional and having religious beliefs

Hate to disagree with Diddly… but the very definition of delusion is

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

“A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

>>A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

Pretty much sums up religion ;)

Dropbear said:

>>A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

Pretty much sums up religion ;)

except for the second sentence

>>>A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

would that include the fear my dog has when there’s thunder, when he’s indoors…..

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

>>A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

Pretty much sums up religion ;)

except for the second sentence

the inability to change a closely held belief when presented with superior evidence is still delusional.. Your second sentence means that religious people would not be classed as “delusional” by psychiatrists…

I

transition said:

>>>A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

would that include the fear my dog has when there’s thunder, when he’s indoors…..

You’d need to talk to the dog about that

ie: the belief that the earth is 6000 years old is delusional..

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

>>A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

Pretty much sums up religion ;)

except for the second sentence

the inability to change a closely held belief when presented with superior evidence is still delusional.. Your second sentence means that religious people would not be classed as “delusional” by psychiatrists…

I

I’m glad we agree

>You’d need to talk to the dog about that

point being, do you need a framework of word-concepts for whatever to be a belief…and if you do how representative of reality are worded constructions anyway…..

transition said:

>You’d need to talk to the dog about that

point being, do you need a framework of word-concepts for whatever to be a belief…and if you do how representative of reality are worded constructions anyway…..

I’ve got no idea what you’re trying to communicate.

>I’ve got no idea what you’re trying to communicate.

wont try too hard to raise your interest….

is a dog’s reaction of fear to the sound of thunder a belief

it goes to the question of what a belief is

transition said:

>I’ve got no idea what you’re trying to communicate.

wont try too hard to raise your interest….

is a dog’s reaction of fear to the sound of thunder a belief

it goes to the question of what a belief is

There is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary that can be communicated to a dog.

>There is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary that can be communicated to a dog

do you experience any fear of lightning and thunder….

transition said:

>There is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary that can be communicated to a dog

do you experience any fear of lightning and thunder….

not personally, but my wife does, and readily accepts that this is an irrational fear

Dropbear said:

transition said:

>There is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary that can be communicated to a dog

do you experience any fear of lightning and thunder….

not personally, but my wife does, and readily accepts that this is an irrational fear

I wonder if she has Mongol blood……..

>not personally, but my wife does, and readily accepts that this is an irrational fear

why is fear of lightning and thunder an irrational fear, given it regulary injures and and kills people, is associated with storms, flooding, winds and cold that can kill…

transition said:

>not personally, but my wife does, and readily accepts that this is an irrational fear

why is fear of lightning and thunder an irrational fear, given it regulary injures and and kills people, is associated with storms, flooding, winds and cold that can kill…

because if you do a risk analysis, you’re safe inside a house… if you said that fear of thunderstorms inside a house was rational, then you’d be too catatonic with fear to ever drive in a car.

Dropbear said:

transition said:

>not personally, but my wife does, and readily accepts that this is an irrational fear

why is fear of lightning and thunder an irrational fear, given it regulary injures and and kills people, is associated with storms, flooding, winds and cold that can kill…

because if you do a risk analysis, you’re safe inside a house… if you said that fear of thunderstorms inside a house was rational, then you’d be too catatonic with fear to ever drive in a car.

Do they specifically teach risk analysis principals in primary school these days?

>because if you do a risk analysis, you’re safe inside a house… if you said that fear of thunderstorms inside a house was rational, then you’d be too catatonic with fear to ever drive in a car.

bit of an indoors perspective

the point wasn’t of shades and extremes of fear, but of the shades I would say there is something around the threshold of where fear starts/ends, a lower level where it might become something more like wariness maybe

the point was of if or if not such a fear, completely unworded even, may pass as ‘belief’.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

transition said:

>not personally, but my wife does, and readily accepts that this is an irrational fear

why is fear of lightning and thunder an irrational fear, given it regulary injures and and kills people, is associated with storms, flooding, winds and cold that can kill…

because if you do a risk analysis, you’re safe inside a house… if you said that fear of thunderstorms inside a house was rational, then you’d be too catatonic with fear to ever drive in a car.

Do they specifically teach risk analysis principals in primary school these days?

I wish they would… but then again we don’t expect primary school kids to be totally rational either.

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

transition said:

>not personally, but my wife does, and readily accepts that this is an irrational fear

why is fear of lightning and thunder an irrational fear, given it regulary injures and and kills people, is associated with storms, flooding, winds and cold that can kill…

because if you do a risk analysis, you’re safe inside a house… if you said that fear of thunderstorms inside a house was rational, then you’d be too catatonic with fear to ever drive in a car.

Do they specifically teach risk analysis principals in primary school these days?

it’s not specifically called ‘risk analysis’ but students are prompted to identify things that could go wrong and are asked to think about what they could do to fix or avoid the problem.

Dropbear said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

because if you do a risk analysis, you’re safe inside a house… if you said that fear of thunderstorms inside a house was rational, then you’d be too catatonic with fear to ever drive in a car.

Do they specifically teach risk analysis principals in primary school these days?

I wish they would… but then again we don’t expect primary school kids to be totally rational either.

I expect the onus is largely on parents to instill ‘common sense’ in children.

i think there is some confusion about being worried about something and being fearful (irrationally) about it.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

because if you do a risk analysis, you’re safe inside a house… if you said that fear of thunderstorms inside a house was rational, then you’d be too catatonic with fear to ever drive in a car.

Do they specifically teach risk analysis principals in primary school these days?

it’s not specifically called ‘risk analysis’ but students are prompted to identify things that could go wrong and are asked to think about what they could do to fix or avoid the problem.

About all you could reasonably expect. Thanks for the fill in.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Do they specifically teach risk analysis principals in primary school these days?

it’s not specifically called ‘risk analysis’ but students are prompted to identify things that could go wrong and are asked to think about what they could do to fix or avoid the problem.

Anytime I hear the sesame street song with the line ‘one of these things just isn’t the same’, I hear “can you tell which man is the fiddler?”. What a world huh?

Just occasionally I find myself working in lightning storms, fear has me out of the vehicle as little as possible and doing what I need to do outside the vehicle as quickly as possible, like I might be on the top of a hill standing in three hundred litres of water on the ground. The probability of being directly hit or a near-enough strike or lightning branching that might kill me is not calculable.

Indoors here during a storm when go from one buiding to another, similarly the probability is unknown and unknowable.

Even indoors the probability of electric shock or electrocution is unknown. Though it maybe quite low, it is still unknown.

Was only last year a cousin was leaning against his vehicle, there seemed no immediate danger from a lightning storm, the car he and another chap was leaning against was hit, some of the electrical charge went down his body and out his boot on the ground, both were thrown away from the vehicle(probably a nerve response). The vehicle electrical system was damaged and vehicle wouldn’t operate, was under warranty still but turned out to be an insurance job.

Anyway, what does this have to do with religion…

I think I’m saying that an (overbelief) belief in ones own ‘rationalism’ can be or lend to delusion also.

nice example of a rational concern for ones safety there, onty.

>nice example of a rational concern for ones safety there, onty.

I hurry though, which has other incalculable risks.

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

because if you do a risk analysis, you’re safe inside a house… if you said that fear of thunderstorms inside a house was rational, then you’d be too catatonic with fear to ever drive in a car.

Do they specifically teach risk analysis principals in primary school these days?

it’s not specifically called ‘risk analysis’ but students are prompted to identify things that could go wrong and are asked to think about what they could do to fix or avoid the problem.

Don’t approach the Mr Whippy Van

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

Postpocelipse said:

Do they specifically teach risk analysis principals in primary school these days?

it’s not specifically called ‘risk analysis’ but students are prompted to identify things that could go wrong and are asked to think about what they could do to fix or avoid the problem.

Don’t approach the Mr Whippy Van

If I started a mobile business selling a range of whips I suppose I would have to call it Mr Lashy.

AwesomeO said:

I hate doing the “define” thing. On forums I have found it is more a means to stop debate, but I think in this case it is needed, if religion includes a belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen and experienced, then it is a persistent thing and I suspect hard wired into our brain as being akin to the perceptions of wonder and also urge toward understanding. If disease implies impairment I would say it doesn’t qualify as a disease.

Intersting point A_O. You refer to belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen. Our learning has always been guided by physics. GR is intuitive and generally provides the results one might expect so a person does not have to understand it to make use of it. SR provides many dynamics that are counter-intuitive to the rules one learns from GR. SR is definable as an unseen realm that has provided obstacles to humans in seeking to comprehend their environment. It wasn’t until Newton that GR began to become defined as a science. Until people can figure SR out on their own it probably isn’t reasonable to
expect people to have the comprehension to not resort to genetically imprinted reflexes.

.

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

I hate doing the “define” thing. On forums I have found it is more a means to stop debate, but I think in this case it is needed, if religion includes a belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen and experienced, then it is a persistent thing and I suspect hard wired into our brain as being akin to the perceptions of wonder and also urge toward understanding. If disease implies impairment I would say it doesn’t qualify as a disease.

Intersting point A_O. You refer to belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen. Our learning has always been guided by physics. GR is intuitive and generally provides the results one might expect so a person does not have to understand it to make use of it. SR provides many dynamics that are counter-intuitive to the rules one learns from GR. SR is definable as an unseen realm that has provided obstacles to humans in seeking to comprehend their environment. It wasn’t until Newton that GR began to become defined as a science. Until people can figure SR out on their own it probably isn’t reasonable to
expect people to have the comprehension to not resort to genetically imprinted reflexes.

.

My statement about not generally seen was attempting to encompass all the aspects of religion or spirituality from animism to monotheism and everything in between and the not generally seen being some people do indeed claim to see realms or have experiences that they cannot explain other than to invoke supernatural explanations.

AwesomeO said:

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

I hate doing the “define” thing. On forums I have found it is more a means to stop debate, but I think in this case it is needed, if religion includes a belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen and experienced, then it is a persistent thing and I suspect hard wired into our brain as being akin to the perceptions of wonder and also urge toward understanding. If disease implies impairment I would say it doesn’t qualify as a disease.

Intersting point A_O. You refer to belief in a realm seperate to the generally seen. Our learning has always been guided by physics. GR is intuitive and generally provides the results one might expect so a person does not have to understand it to make use of it. SR provides many dynamics that are counter-intuitive to the rules one learns from GR. SR is definable as an unseen realm that has provided obstacles to humans in seeking to comprehend their environment. It wasn’t until Newton that GR began to become defined as a science. Until people can figure SR out on their own it probably isn’t reasonable to
expect people to have the comprehension to not resort to genetically imprinted reflexes.

.

My statement about not generally seen was attempting to encompass all the aspects of religion or spirituality from animism to monotheism and everything in between and the not generally seen being some people do indeed claim to see realms or have experiences that they cannot explain other than to invoke supernatural explanations.

Parents have been handing down religion to their children for thousands of years so yes it is a persistent thing and a rather annoying one

CrazyNeutrino said:

Parents have been handing down religion to their children for thousands of years so yes it is a persistent thing and a rather annoying one

Are you suggesting we outlaw natural births and proceed with a planned incubation program?

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Parents have been handing down religion to their children for thousands of years so yes it is a persistent thing and a rather annoying one

Are you suggesting we outlaw natural births and proceed with a planned incubation program?

I’d like to suggest that parents stop handing down religion to their children

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Parents have been handing down religion to their children for thousands of years so yes it is a persistent thing and a rather annoying one

Are you suggesting we outlaw natural births and proceed with a planned incubation program?

That’s very Emperor Palpatine if you are………

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Parents have been handing down religion to their children for thousands of years so yes it is a persistent thing and a rather annoying one

Are you suggesting we outlaw natural births and proceed with a planned incubation program?

I’d like to suggest that parents stop handing down religion to their children

I think you would have to provide them with educational programming similar to how Neo got his kung-fu moves before you would having a shot at a globally convincing argument.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Parents have been handing down religion to their children for thousands of years so yes it is a persistent thing and a rather annoying one

Are you suggesting we outlaw natural births and proceed with a planned incubation program?

That’s very Emperor Palpatine if you are………