oh please ....
Actually no.
Unlike an atheist, one doesn't require to contextualize another's argument with one's own values/premises to watch their visions of reality become more myopic than a one eyed bunny with myxomatosis
Religion as socially-accepted mental illness
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Unlike an atheist, one doesn't require to contextualize another's argument with one's own values/premises to watch their visions of reality become more myopic than a one eyed bunny with myxomatosis
It's true. This is a science forum.
Oh bullshit. Your entire argument relies on the premise that there is some supernatural realm beyond the material one.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Everybody with an education above 3rd grade knows what "religion" means. I'm using it in its well-understood and agreed upon sense that is used every day by people all over the planet. Why would you even ask such a strange question? Do you have some personal definition of religion you want to introduce here? No..start your own thread if you wanna do that.
Last edited:
science doesn't equate with atheism .. or even reality for that matter ... what to speak as being an automatic disqualifier for any religious/spiritual claim
yet one can notice that I don't have to cite it as a pre-requisite when explaining the limitations of empiricism for example ... if however we start to look at the manner you analyze religious/spiritual concepts .....
:shrug:
I don't know how you can say science doesn't equate with reality--another one of your "This statement requires you to believe that supernatural realms exist"--but this being a science forum does imply that people's view of the term "religion" will follow the definition as outlined by the evidence, which is that of a man-made phenomenon entirely unrelated to any hypothetical spiritual realm.
Of course you do, otherwise you comments are gibberish. For empiricism to have limits (aside from natural limits such as not being able to directly observe the Big Bang) there must exist some realm beyond its reach.
And the only point of asking MR to define religion is to obfuscate the discussion and degrade it into a semantic catfight, as your kind is wont to do.
there is nothing at all strange in asking you to define your argument.
you mentioned religion as an illness.
can you at least state why you feel that way?
you are the one that brought the subject up, not me.
You're really just trolling now, leo. You even quoted his reasons for believing that religion is a mental illness. Don't pretend he hasn't given it to you.
Right, you're just the one trying to pretend you don't know what he means by "religion." Because it's such a vague concept, after all...
Mental illness is based off of the current population, a group that deviates from the norm. The norm cannot be termed as mental illness.
Lets say that color-blind people see red as green, and blue as yellow, and its a rare mutations that prevents your eyes from processing and recognizing colors. What if the actual mutation was much more common and resulted in the general population having a deficiency of seeing green as red, and yellow as blue, and the color-blind people are actually seeing the correct wavelength/color match, albeit less people possess the normal gene. This isn't a good example, but I guess it gets the point across.
It'll never be thought of as a mental illness because they are in the majority, and to label the majority of humans as mentally ill and to think there's a bunch of crazy people roaming the street around us everyday, would just result in pandemonium
Lets say that color-blind people see red as green, and blue as yellow, and its a rare mutations that prevents your eyes from processing and recognizing colors. What if the actual mutation was much more common and resulted in the general population having a deficiency of seeing green as red, and yellow as blue, and the color-blind people are actually seeing the correct wavelength/color match, albeit less people possess the normal gene. This isn't a good example, but I guess it gets the point across.
It'll never be thought of as a mental illness because they are in the majority, and to label the majority of humans as mentally ill and to think there's a bunch of crazy people roaming the street around us everyday, would just result in pandemonium
I don't know how you can say science does equate with reality ... unless you have some pretty whacky ideas about how reality has substantially diversified and even changed in the bast 300 years ....
and as stated numerous times already, that is not a scientific statement, but rather something that draws from your values/beliefs on the subject.
actually I don't - although it does seem clear that you have trouble with different key words like "metonymic", "explicit/tacit" and even "empiricism" for that matter
and you are trying to say that there isn't and that empiricism has been a stagnate field of investigation for the past 300 years?
actually the only point of asking him to explain "reality" is because its kind of essential to a discussion about who is deluded or whatever ,,, but as I said previously, there's a particular creed of atheist who seems overly blase about it while streaming on for pages about who is and isn't in touch with it.
:shrug:
Its a pertinent question since the working model of religion that MR gave in the OP is certainly not one you will find anywhere except on atheist hate-sites.
:shrug:
Many atheists simply don't have the mental stamina to elaborate on precisely what reality is, yet they can stream on for literally days on end about how religion isn't (which certainly fulfills more than one criteria on that list given for a mentally deranged person :scratchin
I look forward to your thread titled "What reality is" appearing on this forum in the near future.
Because surely you have the mental stamina required. If anybody can do it, you can. Go on. Enlighten us.
apparently Magical Realist (and many others before him) beat me to it with the OP on this one (albeit one that totally cuts to the car chase, giving his conclusion about reality, without bogging down the dialogue with any pesky premises and such) ....
Never too late for a crash course in philosophy I guess ....
:shrug:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I already stated why in the OP. All the traits by which we conclude that someone is deranged--delusions of invisible beings and magical powers, paranoia, grandiosity, depersonalization, and repetitive ritualization-- are equally exhibited by the religious. And the more fanatical the religious person is the more obvious this becomes. See I am of the conviction that delusional states of mind are really bad things that ultimately lead to delusional behaviors. That the same logic that tells a mother that her kids are demon-possessed also justifies her drowning them in the bathtub. That a man who believes the president is the Antichrist can also believe it is his divine mission to assassinate him. That a group of teens who believe the story of Sodom and Gomorah might equally believe it is ok to go out some Saturday night and burn the local gay bar down to the ground. That a fanatical Muslim father who follows the Koran faithfully may have no problem slitting the throat of his own disobedient daughter. Am I weird to think that delusions are bad things no matter HOW normal and accepted they are by one's culture or society?
And what's the balm to your BS? Oh, right, direct engagement and logical arguments. Do that, and wynn disappears into the night, never to be seen in the thread again!
I can show the reality of that claim quite easily - just look at this thread and note the complete absence in Magical Realists Op or subsequent posts that has anything to do with the previous links I gave.
will the irony never end?
good point, i likewise find it virtually impossible to envision an intelligent, invisible, all loving, all powerful entity.
personally i find it next to impossible.
there are many things our cave dwelling ancestors would find "magical" about todays society.
paranoia is defined as an irrational fear or fear without a cause.
i do not see many "religious" people that fit that description.
how do the above equate to "religion as an illness"?
i am positive you go through many rituals during a normal day.
the "fanatical religious" IS NOT the norm.
would you seriously prosecute the many over the acts of a few?
you can rest assured that EVERY president we have ever had was the anti-christ to someone.
if they can't use religion they use will some other excuse such as a powerhead that wants to take over the world.
have you dug into the ancient history of israel and jerusalem?
when it comes to gays i have my own personal opinion and i seriously doubt you want to hear it.
the keyword here is again "fanatic".
not weird, but you have mistaken a few things.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member