Religious fundamentalism may be a ‘mental illness’ that can be ‘cured’

biko

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/30/leading-neuroscientist-religious-fundamentalism-may-be-a-mental-illness-that-can-be-cured/

A leading neurologist at the University of Oxford said this week that recent developments meant that science may one day be able to identify religious fundamentalism as a “mental illness” and a cure it.
During a talk at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday, Kathleen Taylor was asked what positive developments she anticipated in neuroscience in the next 60 years.

“One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated,” she explained, according to The Times of London. “Somebody who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology – we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance.”

“I am not just talking about the obvious candidates like radical Islam or some of the more extreme cults,” she explained. “I am talking about things like the belief that it is OK to beat your children. These beliefs are very harmful but are not normally categorized as mental illness.”

Now, of course this is good news for us atheists as we've been claiming all along there is something wrong with religion but classing being religious (even bat**** fundamentalist crazy) as mentally ill seems like a winding road to hell (pardon the pun fellow atheists).

Neuroscience is absolutely fascinating and very helpful in many many ways but this seems like it could get 1984-ish in my opinion.

“They cannot be morally neutral, these world-shaping tools; when the aspect of the world in question is a human being, morality inevitably rears its hydra heads,” she wrote. “Technologies which profoundly change our relationship with the world around us cannot simply be tools, to be used for good or evil, if they alter our basic perception of what good and evil are.”

Gbear

biko wrote: »

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/30/leading-neuroscientist-religious-fundamentalism-may-be-a-mental-illness-that-can-be-cured/



Now, of course this is good news for us atheists as we've been claiming all along there is something wrong with religion but classing being religious (even bat**** fundamentalist crazy) as mentally ill seems like a winding road to hell (pardon the pun fellow atheists).

Neuroscience is absolutely fascinating and very helpful in many many ways but this seems like it could get 1984-ish in my opinion.

If someone is experiencing some delusion - that they're Charles de Gaulle or can talk to bats - they'd be considered mentally ill. While the same can't be said of all religious people - most of them barely believe and compartmentalise their belief so that they never have to think about how silly it is - there certainly are fundamentalists whose belief is a mental illness.

Shenshen

I somehow dislike the notion - it smacks too much of those "doctors" who will try and cure gay people and turn them straight.

If they don't harm anyone, let them get on with their lives, please.

Start treating them when they're getting violent, maybe.

biko

I'm fearing it could be misused by a regime that wanted to do away "legally" with religious nuts, much like the Soviet Union would declared dissidents mentally ill and have them locked up.
Of course this scenario is far away in the future but nevertheless it's a possibility.

krudler

Gbear wrote: »

If someone is experiencing some delusion - that they're Charles de Gaulle or can talk to bats - they'd be considered mentally ill. While the same can't be said of all religious people - most of them barely believe and compartmentalise their belief so that they never have to think about how silly it is - there certainly are fundamentalists whose belief is a mental illness.

There's a thin line between delusion and belief to be fair.

Replace "God spoke to me in a dream and told me I'd get that job I wanted" with "Vin Diesel spoke to me in a dream" and people would think you were nuts, only difference is Vin Diesel really exists :pac:

KyussBishop

It's undeniable that religious fundamentalism can lead to all sorts of problems, including severe mental illness and intellectual/social impairment, but I don't know if it can be considered an illness itself.

It is so potentially harmful to people, especially vulnerable children indoctrinated into it (leading to all sorts of harmful, irrational and impairing beliefs - depending on how extreme the religion), that I think there is certainly a case that it could be considered extremely neglectful (at best) or even abusive to children.

I know directly, through a friend who has lifelong issues pretty much entirely caused by her overly religious parents, and has been seeking treatment for the problems it's causing with her life.

Turtwig

Pardon the cynicism. Seeing as atheism is typically the exception rather than the rule shouldn't it be considered a mental illness?

Sulla Felix

Jernal wrote: »

Pardon the cynicism. Seeing as atheism is typically the exception rather than the rule shouldn't it be considered a mental illness?

But mental illness isn't defined by relative scarcity. If everyone woke up in the morning with x illness, it wouldn't mean that it wouldn't require treatment.

joseph brand

Shenshen wrote: »

I somehow dislike the notion - it smacks too much of those "doctors" who will try and cure gay people and turn them straight.

If they don't harm anyone, let them get on with their lives, please.

They may not harm anyone personally, but they are supporting an organisation which does a lot of harm and promotes ignorance as a bloody virtue. If you ask questions, you're probably the devil.

Shenshen wrote: »

Start treating them when they're getting violent, maybe.

Prevention is better than cure.

Religion is, for the most part, a product of indoctrination. We see that it's still being pumped into our children's heads every day in school, and then a half hour mass on a Sunday (for some).

But I have to say that, the 'mental illness' part seems about right as regards converts, i.e; christian -> muslim and the born-agains, since these are grown adults making a concious decision.

My dad was telling me once, about his work mate who is a born-again. He rented out 'Bad Santa' (great film), and had to turn it off after a few minutes due to the bad language. This guy is in his late 50's ffs??

I don't think there's any way of helping people like that.

Turtwig

Sulla Felix wrote: »

But mental illness isn't defined by relative scarcity. If everyone woke up in the morning with x illness, it wouldn't mean that it wouldn't require treatment.

Yeah, I agree there. The problem is though how is this gal establishing the baseline for what is a 'normal' brain structure. Most mental illness have a debilitating component to a persons standard of living. It's not really clear how being religious or atheist is intertwined to one's health.
That said, if she has evidence brain structures are different from moderate religious to fundies then colour me very intrigued.

Actually, thinking about this further I wonder would extreme fundamentalist anti-theism exhibit similar characteristics to religious fundamentalists. Or are atheists and theists brains markedly different?

Sin City

Start off with the religious , then move on to Liverpool supporters , and anyone else that I dislike

sbsquarepants

Sin City wrote: »

Start off with the religious , then move on to Liverpool supporters , and anyone else that I dislike

I'm a liverpool supporter and even i agree that i must be bloody mental to stick with them. But as my religiously inclined fellow mentallers would say - you gotta have faith. So that's pool supporters, religious nuts and eh, george michael, an unholly trinity if ever there was one:D

Sin City

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm a liverpool supporter and even i agree that i must be bloody mental to stick with them. But as my religiously inclined fellow mentallers would say - you gotta have faith. So that's pool supporters, religious nuts and eh, george michael, an unholly trinity if ever there was one:D

Turtwig

I'm sorry, but what are you guys talking about? Speak english please.

joseph brand

joseph brand wrote: »

My dad was telling me once, about his work mate who is a born-again. He rented out 'Bad Santa' (great film), and had to turn it off after a few minutes due to the bad language. This guy is in his late 50's ffs??

I don't think there's any way of helping people like that.

I don't like excessive bad language if there's no point to it either.
Or too much violence in movies. I hated kill bill. So there!

Time for my re-programming


eta: I've never seen bad santa, so I don't know if it WAS excessive or not

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't like excessive bad language if there's no point to it either.
Or too much violence in movies. I hated kill bill. So there!

Time for my re-programming


eta: I've never seen bad santa, so I don't know if it WAS excessive or not

Yay! Reprogam me too.:D Can't stand gratuitous violence or nudity. (Ok, the nudity I can tolerate. :pac: But it's still cheap. )


Also:

nagirrac

This is the type of thing that can make one paranoid about the power of STEM to lead to negative outcomes rather than positive. It is not that distant imo from eugenics theory which at the time it was proposed (mid 19th century) seemed to have merit until it was implemented to devastating effect by a regime claiming that science justified their efforts.

In Taylor's version of utopia, who is going to decide which beliefs are worthy of being retained and which ones should be treated as mental illnesses? Would you trust your government with that power? In exploring the website of the author (neurotaylor.com), I came across a nugget of wisdom, her "Credo of Atheism", which ends with the following:

"and will one day bring about a perfect world".

That should scare the bejesus out of anyone, religious or athiest. It is the sort of twaddle that has millions of children and teenagers on unnecessary ritalin and anti-depressants in the US in an attempt to make them "normal". The greatest threat to children in today's western society is not religion, which increasingly they are being sheltered from, it is tinkering with their minds by parents aided by medical "professionals" who want to make their little future citizen "just the same as everyone else".

The true threat to humanity is not religion, even fundamentalist religion, it is a broken "democratic" system where our elected representatives are totally dependent on funding from a tiny percentage of its citizens (Lawrence Lessig). Thats the issue worth fighting against, not getting angry about theists and what was written in their holy books 2,000 years ago.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

nagirrac wrote: »

In Taylor's version of utopia, who is going to decide which beliefs are worthy of being retained and which ones should be treated as mental illnesses?

On a slightly different, but related, tack I find the thread reminding me of that story about the

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/serpico-script-transcript-al-pacino.html

Well, there was this king, and he ruled over his kingdom. Right in the middle of the kingdom there was a well. That's where everybody drank. One night, this witch came along and she poisoned the well. And the next day, everybody drank from it except the king and they all went crazy. They got together in the street and they said

''We got to get rid of the king, 'cause the king is mad.''

And then that night, he went down and he drank from the well. And the next day all the people rejoiced because their king had regained his reason.

I think interventions like Taylor's are welcome, because they illustrate the need to deliberate on issues of co-operation, authority and control.

Kiwi in IE

I think religion does qualify as delusional ideation. Having worked for years in mental health, the only difference between religion and a certifiable delusion is that one person believes the certifiable delusion and with religion many people believe the same delusion.

However most people have or experience a mental illness at some point during their life. Many are not honest about it, or it is unrecognised making the statistics highly underestimated.

We have no right to do anything about, or interfere with other peoples mental illnesses unless a) they ask for help, or b) they are a risk to themselves and/or others.

Whether or not religion can be considered in the 'risk to others' catagory is arguable. There are many recent and historical atrocities which have been carried out directly because of religion (Inquisition, Witch Trails, Magdeline Laundries, ongoing treatment of gays, suicide bombings, abuse cover ups etc) which provide a pretty good argument that it is a risk to others. I personally believe religious institutions certainly are a risk to others, while the vast majority of individual religious people are not.

There is certainly enough of an argument to have it immediately removed from state education due to it being unhealthy to indoctrinate children with delusional ideation.

Kidchameleon

Gbear wrote: »

While the same can't be said of all religious people - most of them barely believe and compartmentalise their belief

Have you any evidence that most religious people don't believe their religion? Its just from my observations the opposite is true....

Delirium

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Have you any evidence that most religious people don't believe their religion? Its just from my observations the opposite is true....

how do you observe their thoughts/beliefs?

nagirrac

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think religion does qualify as delusional ideation. Having worked for years in mental health, the only difference between religion and a certifiable delusion is that one person believes the certifiable delusion and with religion many people believe the same delusion.

Although there are plenty examples of delusional religious figues and their followers, David Koresh and Jim Jones spring to mind, I wouldn't agree that the broad history of religion is delusional or for that matter the great majority of religious adherents are delusional.

The definition of delusion from the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference regarding external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitues incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinary held by other members of a person's culture or subculture".

I don't believe an honest assessment of the above would lead to your conclusion today. Perhaps in a generation or two if religion goes the way of the dodo then the argument could be made. However, religion has been with us in one form or another since the dawn of human cognition so we have to make the assumption that it evolved. The most obvious selective criteria is that a society based on cooperation led to man's survival and eventual domination of the earth.

From a psychological standpoint I would argue that being part of a tightly knit commmunity and engagement with a community has great benefits and one's that perhaps we underestimate in today's "me" society. The big question is what, if anything, will replace religion as we know it and what will be the long term impact on human culture if nothing does. A good example is your issue with religious instruction in schools, a secular view I share. We need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the US for example where religion has been banished from public schools, nothing has replaced it in terms of ethical instruction. That has to be a concern, as we can hardly rely on all kids getting good ethical instruction at home.

Kidchameleon

koth wrote: »

how do you observe their thoughts/beliefs?

By talking to them about it

MrPudding

nagirrac wrote: »

The definition of delusion from the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference regarding external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitues incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinary held by other members of a person's culture or subculture".

Perhaps that is an issue, or a limitation of the DSM-IV manual. I don't think it is sensible, or realistic, to diagnose delusion on the basis of how many people do or do not believe it, though it would leave religion in a difficult position were it not one the the criteria.

Also, I have an issue with "[...]person's culture or sub-culture." I would consider a cult to be a sub-culture, but I am also quite happy to hold the view that all the members of certain cults are delusional. I don't think that is an unreasonable position, but it is not one supported by DSM-IV.

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't believe an honest assessment of the above would lead to your conclusion today. Perhaps in a generation or two if religion goes the way of the dodo then the argument could be made. However, religion has been with us in one form or another since the dawn of human cognition so we have to make the assumption that it evolved. The most obvious selective criteria is that a society based on cooperation led to man's survival and eventual domination of the earth.

The only part where it falls down, really, is the numbers of people believing. If you made a slight change to the DSM-IV definition:

"A false belief based on incorrect inference regarding external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitues incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinary held by other members of a person's culture or subculture" religion would be firmly in there. Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true.

nagirrac wrote: »

From a psychological standpoint I would argue that being part of a tightly knit commmunity and engagement with a community has great benefits and one's that perhaps we underestimate in today's "me" society.

Hmmm, tell that to the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh and however many other have died because of a firmly held belief, which was apparently not a delusion because it was shared with the majority of people in their sub-culture.

MrP

Gbear

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Have you any evidence that most religious people don't believe their religion? Its just from my observations the opposite is true....

I'm inferring it based on the idea that religion is crazy bull**** and most people don't appear to be crazy.

Kidchameleon

Gbear wrote: »

I'm inferring it based on the idea that religion is crazy bull**** and most people don't appear to be crazy.

Just because somebody isn't crazy doesn't mean they don't believe their religion.

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just because somebody isn't crazy doesn't mean they don't believe their religion.

How about someone that was claiming to be religious, but didn't believe in god?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=percentage+of+catholics+that+don%27t+believe+in+god

MrP

nagirrac

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, tell that to the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh and however many other have died because of a firmly held belief, which was apparently not a delusion because it was shared with the majority of people in their sub-culture.MrP

I said at the beginning of my post that I believed personality cults such as Koresh and Jones are delusional in that they are outside the mainstream of religious belief. Religious belief is based on belief in and worship of God, not worship of a living human. Its true the concept of God may vary between religions, but imo there is a distinction to be made between belief in God which is widespread and hero worship. In addition, belief in a benevolent God is not or should not be psychologically damaging, whereas hero worship is deeply troubling as we have seen numerous times in history, whether religious (Koresh, Jones) or political (Stalin, Hitler, Mao).

I don't believe cults are a sub culture, I would classify them as outside mainstream belief. I would say you have American culture which is a melting pot of people with beliefs and non beliefs, and you have a sub culture of Christians (the differences between mainstream Christian churches are effectively miniscule compared to how much belief they share). Hero worship of figures like Koresh and Jones is completely outside mainstream Christian belief, and they were effectively tiny minorities.

I didn't write the DSM-IV definition and you can't just change it to suit your argument. Religion in the broad sense of the word still would not qualify in my opinion as there is no "incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence" for the non existance of God, any more than there is no incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence for the existance of God. The issue is that the great majority of people believe in a higher power and have done so for many thousands of years, and I don't see how you can call this delusional if it has a positive impact on the vast majority of believers. To call them delusional I think borders on elitest snobbery.

Sulla Felix

Jernal wrote: »

Yeah, I agree there. The problem is though how is this gal establishing the baseline for what is a 'normal' brain structure. Most mental illness have a debilitating component to a persons standard of living. It's not really clear how being religious or atheist is intertwined to one's health.
That said, if she has evidence brain structures are different from moderate religious to fundies then colour me very intrigued.

Actually, thinking about this further I wonder would extreme fundamentalist anti-theism exhibit similar characteristics to religious fundamentalists. Or are atheists and theists brains markedly different?

Just an absolute guess, but I'd imagine that fundies of all stripes would light up similar patterns in the brain under an MRI. I think the obsessive and compulsive parts are the parts found in biology, the subject matter is probably largely social/cultural.

Kiwi in IE

nagirrac wrote: »

Although there are plenty examples of delusional religious figues and their followers, David Koresh and Jim Jones spring to mind, I wouldn't agree that the broad history of religion is delusional or for that matter the great majority of religious adherents are delusional.

The definition of delusion from the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference regarding external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitues incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinary held by other members of a person's culture or subculture".

I don't believe an honest assessment of the above would lead to your conclusion today. Perhaps in a generation or two if religion goes the way of the dodo then the argument could be made. However, religion has been with us in one form or another since the dawn of human cognition so we have to make the assumption that it evolved. The most obvious selective criteria is that a society based on cooperation led to man's survival and eventual domination of the earth.

From a psychological standpoint I would argue that being part of a tightly knit commmunity and engagement with a community has great benefits and one's that perhaps we underestimate in today's "me" society. The big question is what, if anything, will replace religion as we know it and what will be the long term impact on human culture if nothing does. A good example is your issue with religious instruction in schools, a secular view I share. We need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the US for example where religion has been banished from public schools, nothing has replaced it in terms of ethical instruction. That has to be a concern, as we can hardly rely on all kids getting good ethical instruction at home.

I agree that ethics needs to be taught in all schools. Ethics however have no relation to religious 'morals'. For example it is unethical to discriminate against gay people or to refuse a termination of pregnancy to save a woman's life. Many religious 'morals' are wrong, harmful and should not be espoused by state funded institutions simply on the basis that they are religious 'morals'.

The words Mr P has crossed out in the below quote were added as part of the definition for the sole purpose of ensuring religion does not qualify. Otherwise it surely does. However, a large percentage of the world is not yet ready to face that reality.

MrPudding wrote: »

"A false belief based on incorrect inference regarding external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitues incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinary held by other members of a person's culture or subculture" religion would be firmly in there.
MrP

Kidchameleon

MrPudding wrote: »

How about someone that was claiming to be religious, but didn't believe in god?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=percentage+of+catholics+that+don%27t+believe+in+god

MrP

I can think of a few religions that don't believe in a god.

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I can think of a few religions that don't believe in a god.

Cop on for a second. We are talking about Jews, catholics and other christians saying they don't believe in god.

MrP

Grim_Reaper12

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I can think of a few religions that don't believe in a god.

I can think of a religion in which every person is god. I am talking about atheistic dogmas. There is no cure in this religion

Turtwig

Grim_Reaper12 wrote: »

I can think of a religion in which every person is god. I am talking about atheistic dogmas. There is no cure in this religion

Buddhism does tell people to look inwards. I don't think they're meant to puff up their egos up to the point of seeing themselves as gods though. That's the only atheistic dogma I can think of. Which one specifically were you referring to?

That said you do have a point, if the criteria quoted in the OP is to be accepted then fundamentalism atheism would probably fall under the banner of mental illness as well.

Grim_Reaper12

Jernal wrote: »

Buddhism does tell people to look inwards.

To find god within yourselves and ultimately become god.

Jernal wrote: »

Which one specifically were you referring to?

for example, clever atheists are not human beings merely without a belief in God, but human dogmatically announcing God dosnot exist through positively worded statements like:

1) There is no scientific evidence for a maker.

b) Science gives there is no maker.

c) All things have naturalistic explanations.

There is no difference between dogmatic atheist and dogmatic theist. Both are filled with anger, with hatred and is obsessed with conformity and will spew a tirade of angry words against anyone who does not conform to their own particular world view. They have their own Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” There is no freedom of thought in a world of orthodox views. Skepticism and orthodoxy cannot coexist. To be a skeptic is not the same as being a cynic; cynicism is merely taking a negative view to a particular issue without giving it thought, while skepticism is an approach to information.

Sarky

You're funny. I like you.

nagirrac

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I agree that ethics needs to be taught in all schools. Ethics however have no relation to religious 'morals'. For example it is unethical to discriminate against gay people or to refuse a termination of pregnancy to save a woman's life. Many religious 'morals' are wrong, harmful and should not be espoused by state funded institutions simply on the basis that they are religious 'morals'.

The words Mr P has crossed out in the below quote were added as part of the definition for the sole purpose of ensuring religion does not qualify. Otherwise it surely does. However, a large percentage of the world is not yet ready to face that reality.

The question of where human ethics came from is an interesting one but religion most certainly played a large part as it has been entwined with human culture for most of our history as a species. To say that ethics has no relation to religious morality is a bit tenuous I think, as most human ethics either have a religious or philosophical source.

Even if you remove the wording regarding the relative numbers that believe in something or don't, how does religion qualify as delusion? The basis of all religions with the exception of Buddhism is that God exists, and even Buddhism does not deny God exists, it does not address the question of God. How can you state that there is "incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence" that God does not exist? Belief in God and disbelief in God are both faith positions.

Although I firmly share your views on the separation of church and state, I think you are misrepresenting the religious positions on the two topics you mentioned. There are no religions that I am aware of that hold the position that the termination of a pregnancy should be denied to a woman whose life is endangered. Any medical professional who denies a termination to save a woman's life should not be involved in the medical profession and does not even understand their own religion. Even the strictest religions, Catholic and Muslim, allow for termination of a pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, and I believe that most Muslims allow for abortion up to a certain point. The primary moral problem religious people have with abortion is its use as a form of contraception, a view shared by many non religious people.

As far as far as I know, there are no religions that openly advocate discrimination against homosexuals, other than the issue of marriage. The state should not decide who should marry, but surely religions have the right to decide who they should and should not marry?

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

You're funny. I like you.

What about me?
:mad:

Sarky

YOU'RE DEAD TO ME.

Hotblack Desiato

Sarky wrote: »

YOU'RE DEAD TO ME.

Linky?

nagirrac wrote: »

In Taylor's version of utopia, who is going to decide which beliefs are worthy of being retained and which ones should be treated as mental illnesses? Would you trust your government with that power?

Would you trust a church, any church, with that power?
It's not all that long since heretics and atheists were burned at the stake.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

Would you trust a church, any church, with that power?
It's not all that long since heretics and atheists were burned at the stake.

I wouldn't trust any organization with that power, and the more power it has the less I would trust it. In that respect I would say that today (rather than the several centuries ago you cite), we have far more to fear regarding erosion of personal liberties from our governments than from churches. Participating in religion is a voluntary activity, being subject to the decisions of corrupt and greedy politicians is not.

clairefontaine

There probably is somethng to that theory. If you consider that fundamentalists read things very literally and are extremist it might indicate some kind of splitting in the personality. So yes I do suspect its linked to madness.

Grim_Reaper12

Sarky wrote: »

You're funny. I like you.

who? me, Bring your grims so I can reap

Zombrex

Sarky wrote: »

YOU'RE DEAD TO ME.

Ah but is he resurrected dead?

Sarky

Grim_Reaper12 wrote: »

who? me, Bring your grims so I can reap

Yeah, you. I always loved the delusional, insane rubbish you posted. It was great watching people rip your asinine claims to shreds and show them up for the idiocy they were. Particularly the women, whom you held in such low regard.Man, that must eat at you, being upstaged by women who are clearly so much more educated and wittier than you. I always wondered how it felt to be humiliated like that. Ah well, I'm sure your next insipid re-reg can fill us in.

the culture of deference

nagirrac wrote: »

The big question is what, if anything, will replace religion as we know it and what will be the long term impact on human culture if nothing does. .

Nothing needs to replace religion.

Grim_Reaper12 wrote: »

T

There is no difference between dogmatic atheist and dogmatic theist. Both are filled with anger, with hatred and is obsessed with conformity and will spew a tirade of angry words against anyone who does not conform to their own particular world view.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

If you are going to re-reg, do it in a way that last longer than 6 posts.

nagirrac wrote: »

The question of where human ethics came from is an interesting one but religion most certainly played a large part as it has been entwined with human culture for most of our history as a species. To say that ethics has no relation to religious morality is a bit tenuous I think, as most human ethics either have a religious or philosophical source.

Yes, BUT the religious morality according to biblical source's allow you to murder every new born male in a country, wipe out continents, rape and enslave women, steal and sell children, destroy civilizations on the word of a dictator like the popes in history.

nagirrac wrote: »

How can you state that there is "incontrovertible and obvious proof and evidence" that God does not exist?

The god of the bible does not exist, he is man made.

nagirrac wrote: »

There are no religions that I am aware of that hold the position that the termination of a pregnancy should be denied to a woman whose life is endangered. Any medical professional who denies a termination to save a woman's life should not be involved in the medical profession and does not even understand their own religion.

As far as far as I know, there are no religions that openly advocate discrimination against homosexuals, other than the issue of marriage. The state should not decide who should marry, but surely religions have the right to decide who they should and should not marry?

I think you will find that Ireland has just had the Savita case, and a Catholic Church-run school or hospital can currently discriminate against, refuse to hire or even dismiss an LGBT employee, for example, because their sexuality is seen to offend against the religious ethos of a Church that is intolerant of homosexuality. Similarly, such a school or hospital can discriminate against a lone parent employee – again because of religious doctrine that is against non-marital relationships.

nagirrac

the culture of deference wrote: »

The god of the bible does not exist, he is man made.

I think you will find that Ireland has just had the Savita case, and a Catholic Church-run school or hospital can currently discriminate against, refuse to hire or even dismiss an LGBT employee, for example, because their sexuality is seen to offend against the religious ethos of a Church that is intolerant of homosexuality. Similarly, such a school or hospital can discriminate against a lone parent employee – again because of religious doctrine that is against non-marital relationships.

I agree that the interventionist God of the bible does not exist, as it is a bit strange that he did not intervene when his "chosen people" were being slaughtered in their millions by the Nazis. However, as I think you are well aware, thats not the concept of God I was referring to, nor is it even the God that Christians should believe in if they have read the sayings of the man they are followers of.

On the Sativa case, as far as I know even the Catholic church does not teach that medical treatment should be withheld from a woman to save a fetus. This case imo was a combination of medical malpractice (don't terminations occur in Ireland where the woman's life is endangered?) and legal confusion stemming from a moronic government at the time (1982) agreeing to an unwise constitutional referendum, and an electorate not understanding the legal issues such a constitutional amendment would result in (unsurprising given their so called leaders didn't understand this either). The Catholic church in Ireland were a thundering disgrace during that referendum, but nothing new there.

If discrimation is still occuring against LGBT and single parent employees in state funded organizations in Ireland then that is a disgrace. Are there recent examples? Privately funded schools however should be free to hire whomever they want, depending on their ethos. If for example there were enough Mormons in Dublin to start a Mormon school they should be allowed by the state to hire Mormon teachers, if that's what their paying subscribers want. That is the basis of separation of church and state, the state not favoring any religion, and the freedom of individual citizens to practice their religion, including bringing up their children in a faith based ethos at their own cost.

Hotblack Desiato

And where the faith teaches that homosexuality is instrinsically disordered, that non-marital hetersexual relationships are wrong, etc. etc. they should be able to discriminate in employment on those grounds? Remember this is currently legal in Ireland, but only for religious managed institutions. A shopkeeper who hates gays can't legally refuse to employ one, but a school can.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

And where the faith teaches that homosexuality is instrinsically disordered, that non-marital hetersexual relationships are wrong, etc. etc. they should be able to discriminate in employment on those grounds? Remember this is currently legal in Ireland, but only for religious managed institutions. A shopkeeper who hates gays can't legally refuse to employ one, but a school can.

The state is funding these institutions though, right?

In my opinion any state funded school should be secular and not allowed to enforce any type of discimination. If a school is privately funded however, surely they have the right to decide who to employ or admit as students? I know its a thorny issue, and personally I have an issue with any discrimination, but I cannot see how it is not government overreach to force privately funded religious schools to modify their ethos. I believe the US Supreme court has ruled at least once that the government cannot, through its anti-discrimination laws, force groups such as privately funded schools to convey a message they don't wish to convey. That's the other side of the separation of church and state issue, the freedom to practice one's religion.

If all state funded schools were secular I don't think it should be an issue. Why would anyone want to pay to send their child to a school where they found the ethos of the school offensive, or for that matter work at such a school?

Leinsterr

nagirrac wrote: »

The state is funding these institutions though, right?

In my opinion any state funded school should be secular and not allowed to enforce any type of discimination. If a school is privately funded however, surely they have the right to decide who to employ or admit as students? I know its a thorny issue, and personally I have an issue with any discrimination, but I cannot see how it is not government overreach to force privately funded religious schools to modify their ethos. I believe the US Supreme court has ruled at least once that the government cannot, through its anti-discrimination laws, force groups such as privately funded schools to convey a message they don't wish to convey. That's the other side of the separation of church and state issue, the freedom to practice one's religion.

If all state funded schools were secular I don't think it should be an issue. Why would anyone want to pay to send their child to a school where they found the ethos of the school offensive, or for that matter work at such a school?

Completely agree. Every public school in the country should be secular. I am unfortunately in the case where i am in a public secondary school where the ethos is based on a Catholic religious organisation. I see no logic in atheist parents sending a child to a privately owned Catholic school and then giving out about the heavily Christian based education they might receive. There would be no sympathy for any parent who sent a Catholic child to a privately owned Muslim school and complained that the school taught Islam to the students.

Sarky

Popped into t'other forum to see what they were saying about same sex marriage:

Festus wrote: »

It's about society and what same sex marriage means for marriage in the context of society. if same sex marrige is allowed it means that marriage is worthless. Do same sex couples want a worthless union?

I dunno about religion being a mental illness, but if f*cking ridiculous leaps of fuzzy logic could be cured I'm all for it.