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

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.

Leinsterr

I am of the firm opinion that teaching a child Christianity is a form of pyschological torture. Think about it. A parent is teaching a child that this particular God sent down his son to Earth. He then offered his son up as a human sacrifice, which involved barbaric torture and eventually an execution, so he could forgive mankind. This is a God who would not just say to his son "I forgive you" but instead would like to torture him. I was taught that if I broke any of the 10 commandments that I would go to Hell by my teachers. Obviously, they weren't that blunt but they told us the 10 commandments and how important it is that you follow them and if you disobeyed God by not following the 10 commandments, you could go to Hell. For a number of years, whenever I was going to make a decision, I had to run it by the 10 commandments and make sure that that decision didnt go against them as I didnt want to go to Hell. These teachings are crazy. I was also taught that God was with me for every waking and sleeping minute, that he would always be with me and he could read my thoughts and judge me whilst I dreamt. I remember specifically when I was 10, I couldn't get to sleep one night for some reason and I just thought that God was with me at this moment. I pictured him just staring right at me and I couldnt do anything about it. It freaked me out completely. I was taught that God doesn't like homosexuals, but the teachers never said it was a bad thing. That got me questioning over whether I was gay or not and if I was gay would God hate me and would I burn in Hell forever. Imagine a 12 year old boy who understands that he is gay but yet has been told about Hell and God's treatment to homosexuals. Imagine how he must be feeling inside, thinking that he is wrong and that God doesnt love him and that he will be sent straight to Hell. And people claim that God is a loving figure.............

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

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.



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.

It is very amusing but some what disconcerting that people who expose liberal and progressive views have no problem at all urging that some institution, presumably the state, control what people think and what their beliefs are, so long of course that those beliefs are not your own.

Zombrex

jank wrote: »

It is very amusing but some what disconcerting that people who expose liberal and progressive views have no problem at all urging that some institution, presumably the state, control what people think and what their beliefs are, so long of course that those beliefs are not your own.

Who urged that?

Sarky

I think jank just did. That's pretty scary.

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

I think jank just did. That's pretty scary.

Yeah jank, you need to dial it back a bit.

MrP

Zombrex

Sarky wrote: »

I think jank just did. That's pretty scary.

Well yes, leaving aside the irony of a Christian claiming such idea to be "disconcerting", I can't actually see anyone calling for that on this thread.

Maybe I missed something.

jank

Prevention better then a cure?

Zombrex

jank wrote: »

Prevention better then a cure?

Well prevention is a massively better funded educational system and social security system to both educate people in reasoning and critical thinking and to provide support for those in need so they don't fall through the cracks and into the hands of religion where they are manipulated based on their social issues. Religion feeds on ignorance, fear and need.

So unfortunately prevention more expensive than a cure it would seem.

MrPudding

Zombrex wrote: »

Well prevention is a massively better funded educational system and social security system to both educate people in reasoning and critical thinking and to provide support for those in need so they don't fall through the cracks and into the hands of religion where they are manipulated based on their social issues. Religion feeds on ignorance, fear and need.

So unfortunately prevention more expensive than a cure it would seem.

Anyone remember that documentary on the Alpha Course? Once they caught a whiff of the injured participant they were all over him.

MrP