Religion and it's responsibility for insanity

[Medicine*Woman]

QuantumQuack: There are many examples of what most people would consider as insane religious beliefs based on the experiences of the participants.

Psychiatric institutions have many many psychotic persons who fell that they have significant religious potentiality.

The question I ask is how religion it self is creating this monster and further more perpetuating the insanity of many.

It could be argued that the often irrational reasoning involved only aids an unwell personality to achieving an insane state. How can religion prevent overzealous beliefs and behaviour when it's very belief structure is designed to promote just that?

*************
M*W: I agree. Scientists have done studies on a molecule called "DMT" that is found in the brain to be the cause of religious thoughts, experiences and visions including hallucinations. It is known that DMT occurs naturally in the body and in some plants. It is activated in the pineal gland during sleep. That is why some people have unusual or amazing real dreams, although it can be activated at anytime. I believe it is this molecule that has caused entire religions to be created. It is also this molecule that causes religions to get outta control. I bet if one would take a poll of people they know, they would find those with religious convictions probably are also the wackiest people they know. It doesn't surprise me that most psychotic people are extremely religious people. On the downside to the DMT molecule, it can also activate visions of demons and elves and ETs. Again, this molecule is found in human beings and plants. Some tribes in Brazil smoke these plants to get high.

That's my take on how religions are formed and how they so easily control people who naturally have this molecule in their brains. So, who needs religions when DMT proves that religious experiences are just a figment of our imagination?

 

[Quantum Quack]

What would you normally expect as an outcome if your children are expected to deal constantly with a paradox of reason?

I would anticipate that we would have confused children.

Surely an acceptance of inconclusivity would be better position that to foster a paradox.

The children I know who have been given the opportunity to maintain a position of "Don't know" seem to be healthier and more reasonable that others.

Am I alone in this observation.

 

[Neildo]

Religion is just a tool for the insane. An insane person is insane regardless of what they do with their insanity.

DMT, heh, that's a crazy ass psychedelic drug. I'd recommend everyone trying it at least once in their lifetime. The weird thing about DMT though is that many people tend to see the exact same things while under it's effects and that's the crazy part that makes me think about it a lot. How can people, even those who hadn't heard of its effects by others, see the same stuff? Magical runes all around them, mechanical elves running about, DNA strands flowing all around, etc. Some actually believe it to be a real plane of existance due to everyone seeing most of the same things while on it. Weird stuff.

- N

 

[Quantum Quack]

Neildo, I disagree with the notion that religion is just a tool for the insane.

Some people would suggest that rationality is more a tool for the insane than religion per see.

I just find it saddening that alot of persons will rationalise with something that is essentially "irrational" and there in create a problem.

Humanity can be defined as many things and irrational is one of them. But insanity could be described as the rationalisation of the irrational.

 

[§outh§tar]

Sorry if I seem confused.

If religion does not dictate how the gospels should be interpreted then I ask what does determine how they should be interpreted?

The Spirit of Holiness.

... which I hope you are familiar with. After the oracles of God were given to the Jews, Jesus promised He would be sent.


---
For clarification:

When I say essential doctrine, I mean for example:

Christians believe Christ is God.

There is no other way of interpreting this. There is no way of Christians reading the Bible without arriving at this conclusion, hence the lack of debate on this.

This is called an essential doctrine.

When Christians deliberate over who the Antichrist will take the form of, that is called unessential, for obvious reasons. That does not concern us, and knowing or not knowing will be of no benefit.

 

[§outh§tar]

What would you normally expect as an outcome if your children are expected to deal constantly with a paradox of reason?

I would anticipate that we would have confused children.

Surely an acceptance of inconclusivity would be better position that to foster a paradox.

The children I know who have been given the opportunity to maintain a position of "Don't know" seem to be healthier and more reasonable that others.

Am I alone in this observation.

Are you therefore a supporter of ignorance?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Actual to the contrary, I support awareness of the entire issue from all perspectives and not just the religious one. And I ask you the same question: Are you therefore a supporter of ignorance?

 

[Neildo]

Neildo, I disagree with the notion that religion is just a tool for the insane

An insane person is insane from the very begining. What they choose to do with that insanity is a whole other thing. People can choose to become a Messiah, mow down people in a post office, spout off nonsense to themselves and others, talk to their imaginary friend, or whatever the case.

However, obsession does also lead to insanity and that's where religion can fit in, but again, it can be anything in general. Those so obsessed with religion can think they're the Messiah but someone obsessed with kung fu movies can think they're Bruce Lee too. In that sense, the person was weak-willed from the begining and had that insanity gene in them (or whatever you wanna call it) that would have led them to eventually be a nutcase, it's just a matter of when and with what.

- N

 

[Quantum Quack]

Neildo, for what it's worth I think you are quite right. Having given this thread topic a litttle more thought and read the responses I was a little "insane " in my approach to this question.

The reason for posting this thread was really all about institutionalised acceptance of unsupportable reasoning and how this can impact on those not so comfortable with dealing with a "reasoning paradox"

On one hand the courts and society in general expect sane reasoning from it's participants and yet allow the reasoning paradox to go on.

"Do you swear on the bible that you shall tell the ruth and nothing but the truth so help you God?"

In this I wonder whether you agree that if society was free of such confusion there may actually be less general and specific insanity in the world today?

 

[Paula]

John Hinckley attempted to kill President Reagan because he thoguht that would get him a date with Jodi Foster. Lunatics use any number of scenarios to act out their fantasies.

Meanwhile, the medical community has released a number of studies in recent years that show generally religious people recover more quickly and completely from disease, suffer fewer diseases in the first place and are less likely to have to undergo psychiatric treatment. Interestingly enough, there seems to be no differentiation between the religions in this regard.

Of course, like everything else, religion has to play a balanced part on your life for it to be of benefit. Fanaticism, whether in your career, your relationship, your sport or your faith can lead to some severe consequences.

 

[Preacher_X]

saying religion is the cause for insanity is bull. in many of the places where religions where revealed, the people were on the brink of destruction and it was the religion that saved them.

also ethics morals and laws are mainly derived originallly from religions. for example European Law bases itself around laws of Christianty.

lets say religions didnt come, then mankind will be like wild animals and it wiould of probably took a couple more thousand years extra for us to become civilised.

however, religion is causing a lot of problems these day but this is because of misrepresentation of religion and false beliefs etc. Religion can all live in peace, no doubt but it ainat happening now is it.

 

[§outh§tar]

Actual to the contrary, I support awareness of the entire issue from all perspectives and not just the religious one. And I ask you the same question: Are you therefore a supporter of ignorance?

I believe the Truth cannot be supressed.

There are those who suppress the truth however in threads like these, full of the seeming pomp of philosophy and unsound doctrine. I ask, do these support ignorance?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Personally I think religion was an essential part of the evolution of mankinds ability to learn and find a better state, from the anarchy of the cave to the civilisation we have today and on to the civilisation we will have tomorrow.
However it is also part of this evolution that we learn from the religious period and move forward to a more holistic and sound form of reasoning.

Religion had it's place but that place is changing.

Religion being a phase of evolutionary growth in mans ability to be self determined and to think for himself with out the crutch of a traditional God supporting our values and philosophies.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There are those who suppress the truth however in threads like these, full of the seeming pomp of philosophy and unsound doctrine. I ask, do these support ignorance?

Listen Southstar, the reason for discussion and debate is to attempt to make an "unsound doctrine" as you put it more sound. If the doctrine one has was sound it would not be needed to enter into discussion, thus we learn and grow.

Before making such allusions as to the unsoundness or soundness of the doctrines that others have it may be worth taking a look at some of your own.
It is also worth noting that all posts become a permanent record and thus stand as testimony as to the integrity of that persons personal doctrine.

With out quoting directly from your past postings I would suggest that you re-consider your own position before making statements that show us you own precarious mental state and personal doctrine.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Bravo, QQ!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thanks MW but I assure you I take no joy in posting my last post in fact it is a very sadenning thing for me to do.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Thanks MW but I assure you I take no joy in posting my last post in fact it is a very sadenning thing for me to do.

*************
M*W: QQ, what do you mean "your last post!" Please don't go! I admire you and await your posts!

 

[§outh§tar]

Listen Southstar, the reason for discussion and debate is to attempt to make an "unsound doctrine" as you put it more sound. If the doctrine one has was sound it would not be needed to enter into discussion, thus we learn and grow.

Merely one facet of discussion, and a little one I might add. Discussion is usually to share differing view points on a subject. Just because there are two differing viewpoints or a hundred differing viewpoints doesn't make the doctrine any less sound.

Before making such allusions as to the unsoundness or soundness of the doctrines that others have it may be worth taking a look at some of your own.
It is also worth noting that all posts become a permanent record and thus stand as testimony as to the integrity of that persons personal doctrine.

With out quoting directly from your past postings I would suggest that you re-consider your own position before making statements that show us you own precarious mental state and personal doctrine.

I have no personal doctrine. Either get to your point or cease to make such fomenting statements. Vanity of vanities.

 

[Quantum Quack]

M*W: QQ, what do you mean "your last post!" Please don't go! I admire you and await your posts!

The "last post" was in referrence to the post I made that you congratulated me on.

Listen Southstar, the reason for discussion and debate is to attempt to make an "unsound doctrine" as you put it more sound. If the doctrine one has was sound it would not be needed to enter into discussion, thus we learn and grow.

Before making such allusions as to the unsoundness or soundness of the doctrines that others have it may be worth taking a look at some of your own.
It is also worth noting that all posts become a permanent record and thus stand as testimony as to the integrity of that persons personal doctrine.

With out quoting directly from your past postings I would suggest that you re-consider your own position before making statements that show us you own precarious mental state and personal doctrine.

Southstar when you are able to contribute to the discussion about institutionalised irrationality and it's insane outcomes then I will be pleased to enter into a discussion with you.

You say you have no personal doctrine and I ask if it is not yours then maybe you can tell the reader who is writing your posts?

 

[Leo Volont]

It will be difficult to convince societies of today that suicidal terrorists are mentally ill. But, if those dangerous to themselves and society are to be placed under careful watch in nut houses, terrorists belong there.

Yes, indeed, it would be difficult to 'convince' society that a criminal problem is the same as a cognitive disorder.

Insane people are delusional. Their minds project psychological content onto their perceptions so that the insane person honestly has only a clouded and confused notion of Objective Reality, not being able to distinguish between the objects of mental projections and actual things and events.

The distinction is important. For the Sane Terrorist, we can each evaluate fairly his circumstances and discern his reasons and provocations, as they are as clear to our eyes as they are to his. But for the delusional individual, it is impossible to know how much the horrible and frightening hallucinations of insanity contribute to the disorders of his judgement.