First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Are there people out there who believe religion is linked to mental illnesses?
mxdan 
11422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/4/17 , edited 1/4/17

auroraloose wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:

Man, talk about a blast from the past! Last time I heard that argument was in 2008 in middle school! Atheism. A lack of belief in gods. Theism - belief in a god. Religion - follows gods.

Hence atheism is not a religious belief system. Is it a system in the lack of belief in deities. God this reminds me of when I was asked "Do you hate god?" No, I cant hate something that doesn't exist. Jesus this post was so 2008.

The rest of your argument holds some merit... but you lost so much calling atheism a religious belief system. So middle school... Jesus.


Actually, as I said earlier,



To be blunt about it, atheism is also a system of unproven and disputable claims that is used to justify certain values. We can make rationalizations for these claims (though the rationalizations themselves depend on what we value), but neither science nor some other field of knowledge rubber-stamps them as incontrovertible. Further, one can start with atheism and reason towards different moralities - highlighting the subjectivity and ambiguity inherent to it.


Has it been proven that a god does not exist? No. Are there enough people around who can make reasonable arguments that Christianity/Islam/whatever else you like are actually supported by data? Yes. This data isn't necessarily airtight, but understand that, as I said earlier, "the answers to such questions are in the exact same category as the supernatural." Since atheism claims to answer these questions, it must necessarily fall into the same category as a belief system with a god. Call it whatever you want, but it has exactly the same properties as a religion. Don't chafe at the label; the noumenal wall exists for everyone. Be honest with yourself.

Though it's not all that relevant, the concept of god certainly exists and affects the world. And you can hate that.


Affects our interpretation of the world**

The problem I have with your argument is that it is completely circumstantial. The people making claims on data are doing so on completely circumstantial things. There is no scientific basis for god existing. The fact that there was an initial big bang and singularity (Most likely) is not evidence of intelligent design. It's simply the scope of our ability to understand thus far.

If I don't know what is happening inside the house three places from me it isn't evidence that there is a floating labrador...
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 1/4/17

Dark_Alma wrote:

And this thread has lost me like I lost my enjoyment of American Flavored Imitation Pasteurized Processed Cheese Food (yes it exists).

I can see no one in this thread is even worth arguing with as they are ingrained too deeply in their own beliefs. Have a great day. You few guys who know who I am talking about... You do you. Don't force it on others. Don't dogmatize. Let people find out for their own. Tschüss!


That's not all that nice. I have given you plenty opportunity to respond and dispute my points, and you haven't done so. (I wonder - have you heard of the noumenal wall before?) I'll also note that the statements "Let people find out for their own," "Don't dogmatize," and "Religion is a crutch for people who don't understand something or are scared of something" aren't all that harmonious.

Further, I don't think you should define "worth arguing with" in that fashion. You made a rather charged statement in your first comment, and instead of flooring you for it I engaged you rather reasonably. We're all people, and we have feelings as well as beliefs, so making blanket condemnations isn't going to get you very far. You could very well convince someone here if you were more understanding.
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 1/4/17 , edited 1/4/17

mxdan wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

Actually, as I said earlier,



To be blunt about it, atheism is also a system of unproven and disputable claims that is used to justify certain values. We can make rationalizations for these claims (though the rationalizations themselves depend on what we value), but neither science nor some other field of knowledge rubber-stamps them as incontrovertible. Further, one can start with atheism and reason towards different moralities - highlighting the subjectivity and ambiguity inherent to it.


Has it been proven that a god does not exist? No. Are there enough people around who can make reasonable arguments that Christianity/Islam/whatever else you like are actually supported by data? Yes. This data isn't necessarily airtight, but understand that, as I said earlier, "the answers to such questions are in the exact same category as the supernatural." Since atheism claims to answer these questions, it must necessarily fall into the same category as a belief system with a god. Call it whatever you want, but it has exactly the same properties as a religion. Don't chafe at the label; the noumenal wall exists for everyone. Be honest with yourself.

Though it's not all that relevant, the concept of god certainly exists and affects the world. And you can hate that.


Affects our interpretation of the world**

The problem I have with your argument is that it is completely circumstantial. The people making claims on data are doing so on completely circumstantial things. There is no scientific basis for god existing. The fact that there was an initial big bang and singularity (Most likely) is not evidence of intelligent design. It's simply the scope of our ability to understand thus far.

If I don't know what is happening inside the house three places from me it isn't evidence that there is a floating labrador...


This is just Gaunilo's objection, and it doesn't work: while a floating laborador has little to do with what's happening inside the house next door, the existence of some kind of entity containing enough information and power to spawn a universe is relevant to the origin of the universe. Physicists don't actually believe something can come from nothing, and the ones that say they do have to play word games with nothing that reveal how ignorant of philosophy they are. Now, whether this entity is a person is a different question, and has to be answered differently.

And to give an example, I think the people saying that 500 people saw Christ after he rose from the dead aren't talking about circumstantial evidence. I am most acquainted with Christianity, but I imagine Islam has similar arguments and evidence.

2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 1/4/17

ran76 wrote:

The only religious people with mental illness are the ones that use their religion as an excuse to be shit stains to others.


Come now - one doesn't need religion to be a shit stain on this lovely planet. I think we should also object to the relation between being "shit stains" and having a mental disorder.
11301 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 1/4/17

auroraloose wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:

And this thread has lost me like I lost my enjoyment of American Flavored Imitation Pasteurized Processed Cheese Food (yes it exists).

I can see no one in this thread is even worth arguing with as they are ingrained too deeply in their own beliefs. Have a great day. You few guys who know who I am talking about... You do you. Don't force it on others. Don't dogmatize. Let people find out for their own. Tschüss!


That's not all that nice. I have given you plenty opportunity to respond and dispute my points, and you haven't done so. (I wonder - have you heard of the noumenal wall before?) I'll also note that the statements "Let people find out for their own," "Don't dogmatize," and "Religion is a crutch for people who don't understand something or are scared of something" aren't all that harmonious.

Further, I don't think you should define "worth arguing with" in that fashion. You made a rather charged statement in your first comment, and instead of flooring you for it I engaged you rather reasonably. We're all people, and we have feelings as well as beliefs, so making blanket condemnations isn't going to get you very far. You could very well convince someone here if you were more understanding.


The reason I will no longer argue, I have deemed it impossible to ever change your view on what I have to say. Many people refuse to change their way of thinking. I have had people change mine my entire life. I am always open to change. If any god came to me, or an extra terrestrial being such as Azathoth... I would change my mind. The burden of proof lays on the gods and other beings, however.

You have offered me nothing that is even able to change an iota of what I think. Even if I offered such, you and others have shown a lack of care to think otherwise (some not even reading the links). Why dispute points if there is no chance to change someone? It is a waste of my time and energy I could be using to game, watch anime or work a bit more on my thesis on ophiolites.

Dogmatism - the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.
Let them find on their own - Don't do ^, let the person find their own truths.
Religion is a crutch... - In the year 000 BCE, people were scared of death, had a lack of science etc. Christianity was born. Dogmatism allowed this to be passed down for 200+ generations. Hense this dogma became "fact." This fact is known as the teaching of the bible (or other holy books if you change the readings).

I know this will fall onto deaf ears. They are all connected in my eyes. The first and latter connect easily. The secondary requires the basis of manipulation a baby since birth to follow your set of beliefs. My parents never did this, and my sister and I became atheists after going to 3 different church religions and asking questions and getting poorly done answers (Buddhism, 5 different Xtian churches and Islam). My parents didn't dogmatize us. They let us find out our own truths. We came to our own conclusions. That is what I wish with the second statement.
10627 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 1/4/17

ChinaCat89 wrote:
I don't think religious beliefs have anything to do with mental illness, but some beliefs can exacerbate severe mental illnesses. If someone thinks that the voices in their head are God, they may be more inclined to listen to those voices.


It doesn't really work like that.
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 1/4/17

Potentsaliva wrote:

I think theism, atheism, and agnosticism can be and tend to be somewhat of a pathology on the psyche because of the assumptions of their cosmology and how imaginary a lot of it is. ( cause in my opinion they're all kind of the same , but that doesn't mean it's good or bad/right or wrong or any of this stupid bullshit, it just depends on what you want, how you go about it, if you really like it and it works for you, etc...)


Xxanthar has no idea what he/she/it's talking about; you make good comments.
1543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/4/17

auroraloose wrote:


ran76 wrote:

The only religious people with mental illness are the ones that use their religion as an excuse to be shit stains to others.


Come now - one doesn't need religion to be a shit stain on this lovely planet. I think we should also object to the relation between being "shit stains" and having a mental disorder.


guess you missed the part where I wrote "...use their religion as an excuse..."

mxdan 
11422 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/4/17 , edited 1/5/17

auroraloose wrote:

This is just Gaunilo's objection, and it doesn't work: while a floating laborador has little to do with what's happening inside the house next door, the existence of some kind of entity containing enough information and power to spawn a universe is relevant to the origin of the universe.


On what terms do you make those claims? Again, you're making claims on their being information necessary to create the the big bang. But our understanding of science breaks down at that point. What I'm saying is that we can't understand what happens prior to that point because it independent of time and energy. Meaning something independent of our understanding of reality. So making the claim that there is a necessary force to cause it, a god if you will, is making the claim that you understand the principals of the universe prior to the big bang.

You don't. No one does. What catalysts the universe ends at a mystery until we can understand more. It doesn't make inferences at there being some presence to catapult it.



Physicists don't actually believe something can come from nothing, and the ones that say they do have to play word games with nothing that reveal how ignorant of philosophy they are. Now, whether this entity is a person is a different question, and has to be answered differently.


They also don't understand what happens prior to singularity. It doesn't mean causation.

2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 1/4/17

Dark_Alma wrote:


auroraloose wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:

And this thread has lost me like I lost my enjoyment of American Flavored Imitation Pasteurized Processed Cheese Food (yes it exists).

I can see no one in this thread is even worth arguing with as they are ingrained too deeply in their own beliefs. Have a great day. You few guys who know who I am talking about... You do you. Don't force it on others. Don't dogmatize. Let people find out for their own. Tschüss!


That's not all that nice. I have given you plenty opportunity to respond and dispute my points, and you haven't done so. (I wonder - have you heard of the noumenal wall before?) I'll also note that the statements "Let people find out for their own," "Don't dogmatize," and "Religion is a crutch for people who don't understand something or are scared of something" aren't all that harmonious.

Further, I don't think you should define "worth arguing with" in that fashion. You made a rather charged statement in your first comment, and instead of flooring you for it I engaged you rather reasonably. We're all people, and we have feelings as well as beliefs, so making blanket condemnations isn't going to get you very far. You could very well convince someone here if you were more understanding.


The reason I will no longer argue, I have deemed it impossible to ever change your view on what I have to say. Many people refuse to change their way of thinking. I have had people change mine my entire life. I am always open to change. If any god came to me, or an extra terrestrial being such as Azathoth... I would change my mind. The burden of proof lays on the gods and other beings, however.

You have offered me nothing that is even able to change an iota of what I think. Even if I offered such, you and others have shown a lack of care to think otherwise (some not even reading the links). Why dispute points if there is no chance to change someone? It is a waste of my time and energy I could be using to game, watch anime or work a bit more on my thesis on ophiolites.

Dogmatism - the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others.
Let them find on their own - Don't do ^, let the person find their own truths.
Religion is a crutch... - In the year 000 BCE, people were scared of death, had a lack of science etc. Christianity was born. Dogmatism allowed this to be passed down for 200+ generations. Hense this dogma became "fact." This fact is known as the teaching of the bible (or other holy books if you change the readings).

I know this will fall onto deaf ears. They are all connected in my eyes. The first and latter connect easily. The secondary requires the basis of manipulation a baby since birth to follow your set of beliefs. My parents never did this, and my sister and I became atheists after going to 3 different church religions and asking questions and getting poorly done answers (Buddhism, 5 different Xtian churches and Islam). My parents didn't dogmatize us. They let us find out our own truths. We came to our own conclusions. That is what I wish with the second statement.


How have I shown a "lack of care"? I have but responded to your points, and you haven't responded to mine. This leaves me - and readers - with the impression that you are incapable of doing so. I imagine that's not entirely true, but I have no idea, since you haven't actually done it.

I have offered you a couple things - in particular what I presented to you about atheism as a subjective system of unproven claims used to derive certain values. Can you contest that? Have you shown that the answers atheism gives lie in a separate category from religion? I also contested your characterization of religious followers as sheep, and asked you whether you came up with that yourself. You didn't say anything about that either. I argued that your contention that we should let people decide for themselves what to think contradicts your attitude about religious people. Will you leave these unanswered? Are you willing to change your own thinking? I seem to be offering you philosophical perspectives you haven't considered or heard of before; direct revelation from space aliens isn't the only way one can be enlightened. Have you read any Bertrand Russell? I found his Why I Am Not A Christian pleasant but somewhat weak, but it's far classier and more intelligent than trash like The God Delusion New Atheists put out nowadays. They seem to have a disdain for philosophy, which is sad because it means they've made a lot of expert knowledge unavailable to themselves. You, like many atheists these days, seem to know pieces of atheist argument but not its philosophical background. Immanuel Kant - the guy who came up with the concept of the noumenal wall - also wrote some powerful objections to Aquinas's proofs of God's existence. For that, though, you'd want to read his Critique of Pure Reason, one of the more difficult philosophical works in existence. The first 25 pages are fun, but then the next couple hundred are painful. Then he gets to the more interesting stuff in the last few hundred pages.

It doesn't really matter whether things connect "in your eyes", just as your own individual moral reasoning isn't necessarily that good; you've got to demonstrate the connection to everyone else. Was everyone scared of death 2000 years ago? Was it dogmatism that caused people to pass down Christianity through the generations? Do you think that, for over a millennium, no one in Western Europe thought for themselves and argued against Christianity, or that Christian scholars didn't consider whether what they believed actually made sense?

Stating value judgments without explanation - like that arguments remind you of middle school, that we've offered you nothing that can change your thinking, or that you are the kind of person open to change - is a lazy way of arguing and a good way of BSing. Because instead of answering my objections, you're obfuscating. So feel free to leave in a huff and tell us we're just unwilling to understand. Everyone else can see that that's false.
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 1/4/17

ran76 wrote:


auroraloose wrote:


ran76 wrote:

The only religious people with mental illness are the ones that use their religion as an excuse to be shit stains to others.


Come now - one doesn't need religion to be a shit stain on this lovely planet. I think we should also object to the relation between being "shit stains" and having a mental disorder.


guess you missed the part where I wrote "...use their religion as an excuse..."



No, because using something as an excuse is not a mental disorder.
2546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Online
Posted 1/4/17

mxdan wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

This is just Gaunilo's objection, and it doesn't work: while a floating laborador has little to do with what's happening inside the house next door, the existence of some kind of entity containing enough information and power to spawn a universe is relevant to the origin of the universe.


On what terms do you make those claims? Again, you're making claims on their being information necessary to create the the big bang. But our understanding of science breaks down at that point. What I'm saying is that we can't understand what happens prior to that point because it independent of time and energy. Meaning something independent of our understanding of reality. So making the claim that there is a necessary force to cause it, a god if you will, is making the claim that you understand the principals of the universe prior to the big bang.

You don't. Know one does. What catalysts the universe ends at a mystery until we can understand more. It doesn't make inferences at there being some presence to catapult it.



Physicists don't actually believe something can come from nothing, and the ones that say they do have to play word games with nothing that reveal how ignorant of philosophy they are. Now, whether this entity is a person is a different question, and has to be answered differently.


They also don't understand what happens prior to singularity. It doesn't mean causation.



Well, first of all, I can make claims about Gaunilo's objection because I know philosophy, and about physics because I'm a physicist. Actually, physicists do think about what happened "before" the big bang, and their ideas/theories all include the existence of physical laws and structures able to produce a big bang. People like Lawrence Krauss call such pre-big bang structures and laws "nothing", which makes philosophers giggle.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.