Is religion a form of mental illness?

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

And you also retired a multi-millionaire at 50 and thought: I know, I'll manage a two Cessna DZ and hump Tandems now.

Not quite multi, and the DZ is a labor of love.  I get to change peoples lives in a way that I never could in corporate banking.  A person gives me a hug and tells me that I have changed their life,  that never happen when I approved a $200,000 dollar loan.  I cant describe the feeling I get when I look at my guys teaching a FJC, when it was just a short six years ago that I was teaching them.  

[nigel99 143]

49 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Simply and LITERALLY false.  You said that religion was pivotal.

It is funny how we have perceptions that shape our views of people.

I am/was genuinely surprised to see you on the same side of the fence as Jakee. My perception of you is that you would have agreed with Brents view. 

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Given that religion is omnipresent across all cultures, and given that all Neolithic societies has roughly the same technology and resources, one of the only differentiating   factors is religion.  I encourage you to look into it yourself.  

Your position is STILL the very definition of a logical fallacy. Either restate it, or admit you were wrong. And stop lying about what you said, we can all bloody read it for ourselves ffs.

Given that societies have trended more secular in recent decades/centuries, it's a much easier argument to make that religion helped early development but then became more of a hindrance than benefit.

[billvon 2,396]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Given that religion is omnipresent across all cultures, and given that all Neolithic societies has roughly the same technology and resources, one of the only differentiating   factors is religion.

By using the same logic, you could argue that without rape, plague and dysentery we would not have civilization.  Since we've never seen a civilization without those things.

[jakee 1,254]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Site me just one advanced civilization that was secular, just one.  Just a single example from any of the hundreds of societies that transitioned from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age.  Just one.....I'm waiting.....still nothing....? 

Japan. Shinto is an animistic religion that worships entities who inhabit individual trees and frogs, not omnipotent angry gods.

 

Regardless of which, your logic is still broken.

[jakee 1,254]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I never said that, I said that no civilization DID advanced without religion. 

You absolutely did say that civilisation couldn't advance without religion. Several times.

 

[jakee 1,254]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Given that religion is omnipresent across all cultures, and given that all Neolithic societies has roughly the same technology and resources, one of the only differentiating   factors is religion.  I encourage you to look into it yourself.  

All neothilic societies have the same resources? That's ridiculous. Couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

All neothilic societies have the same resources? That's ridiculous. Couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

I said roughly. (that means about or almost or close to) in other words they were all Neolithic societies 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

It is obvious that none of you have actually studied this in an academic sense and like BillV are equating religion to smoking, the black plague and driving an SUV.  These aren't MY opinions. Hop on your google horse and learn about it for yourself.  I know it can be confusing and downright scary when actual facts are in conflict with your world view, but hang in there tiger, it will be alright.

 

Perhaps if I replaced "religion" with "culture" it would be less incendiary.  After all "culture" sounds very secular and has nothing to do with religion. (just ask the Ayatollah) 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by brenthutch

[jakee 1,254]

32 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I said roughly. (that means about or almost or close to) in other words they were all Neolithic societies 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic

Surprisingly enough I don’t need you to tell me that all Neolithic societies were Neolithic societies. Clue’s in the name, dude. No, it’s how you fathom that they all had the same resources available to them that Is the hilarious part.

”Perhaps if I replaced "religion" with "culture" it would be less incendiary.  After all "culture" sounds very secular and has nothing to do with religion. (just ask the Ayatollah) “

 

You could do that, but it wouldn’t be the same as the argument you’re currently trying to make. But then it’s evident that you’re just making it up as you go along right now so no great surprise.

[brenthutch 383]

5 minutes ago, jakee said:

 it’s how you fathom that they all had the same resources available to them that Is the hilarious part.

What part of roughly did you not understand?  Can you give me an example of a Neolithic society that had measurably more resources than another? 

[ibx 2]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

What part of roughly did you not understand?  Can you give me an example of a Neolithic society that had measurably more resources than another? 

Any 2 neolithic societies where one lives in Africa and the other in Europe. 

[brenthutch 383]

Which one was better resourced and what were those resources?

[ibx 2]

Are you being purposely obtuse? 

Africa is way better resourced. Plants grow all year round. You can eat pretty much everything. There is no real winter. The land is much easier to traverse since our ancestors lived mainly in the african steppe and Europe has dense forests making movement much harder requiring more resources for smaller distances. Also you need to have shelter in Europe requiring resources to build and maintain, in Africa your fine outside most of the time. 

If you don't prepare for winter, you starve in Europe forcing you gather more resources in shorter period of time. 

 

This is not rocket science. 

 

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

Just checking.

[Coreece 190]

14 hours ago, nigel99 said:

believing in god is delusional. . . mental illness is the result of people being unable to face the pain of taking responsibility for their own actions. I have found most religious people use god as a scapegoat to avoid having to take responsibility.

Everyone, quiet in the peanut gallery!   Call the APA, call Sweden, update you DSMs, Nigel has found that which has eluded scientists for decades - that it's the inability to take personal responsibility that causes mental illness and has discovered it's prevalence throughout the entire god-deluded religious community!  Get ready folks because we're about to pathologize 6 Billion people worldwide!  

Nevermind the pragmatic limitations!  Nevermind that religious beliefs tend to form under normal cognitive functioning and produces positive social cohesiveness whereas traditional delusions manifest under cognitive dysfunction and are typically idiosyncratic and stigmatizing.  Nevermind that bio-cultural scientists are trying to develop a "comprehensive and nuanced theory of belief formation and malformation that situates religious belief and delusions in a multidimensional doxastic landscape that illuminates the connections and differences between the two."

It's hereby warranted that all religious people be committed, starting in the US and then working toward the east beginning with Russia.  Suspend their voting privileges, confiscate their guns, send a memo to the NICS, and admit their children to re-education camps to reverse the brain damage with which they've been afflicted by the hands of these sick people.   China has graciously offered their facilities to accommodate any overflow until we have an efficient infrastructure in place.  Get ready for progress, get ready for change, get ready for a revolution for the time has come to rid the world of this disease once and for all!

 

But seriously dude, are you for real with that argument, because I don't know if it's just that you haven't really looked into this subject and that's the best you've got,  or if Wendy is right and you people are just fucking with me. 

[RonD1120 58]

14 hours ago, nigel99 said:

A favourite author of mine Scott Peck states that mental illness is the result of people being unable to face the pain of taking responsibility for their own actions. I have found most religious people use god as a scapegoat to avoid having to take responsibility. Before you get your nose bent out of shape Scott Peck was a Christian (past tense because he’s dead). He also has stated he has had patients healed by finding religion/god, and patients who have been healed by losing religion/god. If you are a person who likes to read it is the book ‘The Road Less Travelled’

Keep in mind that the goal of the therapist, psychiatrist, is to assist the client or patient in reaching a comfortable, productive level with himself, his family, and society. The values of the clinician are secondary to the values of the client/patient.

[RonD1120 58]

16 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Indeed. It's called the Placebo Effect. 

In the paradigm of non-linear reasoning the results will always appear as placebo to those in the paradigm of linear thinking. Logic is basic in the latter, but elusive in the former.

[kallend 1,623]

2 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

In the paradigm of non-linear reasoning the results will always appear as placebo to those in the paradigm of linear thinking. Logic is basic in the latter, but elusive in the former.

I’m sure that circular reasoning is far better, like “what the Bible states is correct, because the Bible says it is”.

[RonD1120 58]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

I’m sure that circular reasoning is far better, like “what the Bible states is correct, because the Bible says it is”.

You can bet your life on it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

23 minutes ago, kallend said:

I’m sure that circular reasoning is far better, like “what the Bible states is correct, because the Bible says it is”.

 

19 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

You can bet your life on it.

I wouldn't.

 

Science & logic will save your life.

Prayer & religion won't.

 

Fortunately, the courts will find parents who let their kids die because the parents 'didn't believe in medicine' and prayed instead guilty of murder.

This is only one case. There are a lot more out there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/03/a-diabetic-boys-parents-didnt-believe-in-doctors-now-theyre-guilty-of-his-murder/

[RonD1120 58]

22 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

 

I wouldn't.

 

Science & logic will save your life.

Prayer & religion won't.

 

Fortunately, the courts will find parents who let their kids die because the parents 'didn't believe in medicine' and prayed instead guilty of murder.

This is only one case. There are a lot more out there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/03/a-diabetic-boys-parents-didnt-believe-in-doctors-now-theyre-guilty-of-his-murder/

Linear thinking

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, RonD1120 said:

You can bet your life on it.

Go ahead. Just stop trying to bet my life on it.

[RonD1120 58]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Go ahead. Just stop trying to bet my life on it.

Not guilty. Your life, your choices. 

[billvon 2,396]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It is obvious that none of you have actually studied this in an academic sense and like BillV are equating religion to smoking, the black plague and driving an SUV. 

Not even close.  I said that your logic was bad - not that "religion is equal to smoking."  

When you have to lie to make your points they're probably not very good points.  But I must say that it is fun to watch you backpedal faster than a French tank.

[billvon 2,396]

2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Keep in mind that the goal of the therapist, psychiatrist, is to assist the client or patient in reaching a comfortable, productive level with himself, his family, and society. The values of the clinician are secondary to the values of the client/patient.

That is an excellent point, and is the strongest possible argument for religion.  If belief in religion helps a patient (or practitioner) reach a comfortable, productive level within society, it has done some good.