Religion is a Mental Illness

[jonesthecurl]

Sorry, did you just switch sides again? I'm simply asking for some semblance of a defense of the idea that rligion stops us nuking each other.

[john9blue]

you actually asked for a statistic.

but, for starters, religious people are more likely to view the human race as uniquely valuable in the universe, and therefore less likely to take drastic actions with the possible consequences of eliminating human life (or most of it)

religion also usually staunchly advocates for morals such as the ethic of reciprocity and the idea that we shouldn't kill each other, both of which would help prevent someone from bombing someone else.

[Woodruff]

but, for starters, religious people are more likely to view the human race as uniquely valuable in the universe, and therefore less likely to take drastic actions with the possible consequences of eliminating human life (or most of it)

religion also usually staunchly advocates for morals such as the ethic of reciprocity and the idea that we shouldn't kill each other, both of which would help prevent someone from bombing someone else.

Those seem more humanist ideas than religious ones, to be honest.

[Haggis_McMutton]

you actually asked for a statistic.

but, for starters, religious people are more likely to view the human race as uniquely valuable in the universe, and therefore less likely to take drastic actions with the possible consequences of eliminating human life (or most of it)

Are we talking about the same religious people who think people are born with sin and need to bow and scrape before some superior being begging for forgiveness their whole life for perceived crimes that are an inherent part of being human?

Are we also talking about the group of people that think this human life is some sort of test/demo of insignificant length/value when compared to the "real thing" which can only begin after death?

So these guys value value human life more than the group that thinks this life is all we have and that our destiny is ours to make?

religion also usually staunchly advocates for morals such as the ethic of reciprocity and the idea that we shouldn't kill each other, both of which would help prevent someone from bombing someone else.

Yeah, cause
1. religion is totally necessary to understand the golden rule.
2. religion could in no way whatsoever lead to people concluding that any kind of horror is excusable in this pitiful life in order to get to the "real deal" in the afterlife.

[Teflon Kris]

John, you said "religion prevents nukes" and went on about how 'religious' the US is.

Unless you have some kind of philosophical argument that means logic does not apply to these statements then you have proved yourself wrong.

The point here is that you guys throw religion into politics to help you justify, and maintain voter support, for military and economic power manouvres.

I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.

God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did . . . .

*


* Bush's grandfather of course was called "Hitler's Angel" by the New York Tribune for his financing of the Fuher's rise to power (as well as many Bush family links with Zionism).

[john9blue]

Are we talking about the same religious people who think people are born with sin and need to bow and scrape before some superior being begging for forgiveness their whole life for perceived crimes that are an inherent part of being human?

Are we also talking about the group of people that think this human life is some sort of test/demo of insignificant length/value when compared to the "real thing" which can only begin after death?

So these guys value value human life more than the group that thinks this life is all we have and that our destiny is ours to make?

if they think that their actions in this life could doom them to an eternity of torture... then yeah, i think they would be a lot more careful in this life lol. wouldn't you?

Yeah, cause
1. religion is totally necessary to understand the golden rule.
2. religion could in no way whatsoever lead to people concluding that any kind of horror is excusable in this pitiful life in order to get to the "real deal" in the afterlife.

1. it's not necessary, but it helps. people are more likely to accept the golden rule if it's a central teaching of their religion. shouldn't this be obvious?

2. when those horrors go directly against a core teaching of your religion... then no, i don't really see how it could lead to that. but if people want to bomb someone badly enough, then they will do it regardless of their religion.

John, you said "religion prevents nukes" and went on about how 'religious' the US is.

Unless you have some kind of philosophical argument that means logic does not apply to these statements then you have proved yourself wrong.

The point here is that you guys throw religion into politics to help you justify, and maintain voter support, for military and economic power manouvres.

i said that religion is part of the reason why we haven't nuked ourselves off of the planet yet. i never said that it prevents a country from using nuclear weapons when it is a good idea to do so.

[jonesthecurl]

but, for starters, religious people are more likely to view the human race as uniquely valuable in the universe, and therefore less likely to take drastic actions with the possible consequences of eliminating human life (or most of it)

Why do you think this?

[Teflon Kris]

i said that religion is part of the reason why we haven't nuked ourselves off of the planet yet. i never said that it prevents a country from using nuclear weapons when it is a good idea to do so.

Wow, the US would be even more evil without religion then?

[Metsfanmax]

if they think that their actions in this life could doom them to an eternity of torture... then yeah, i think they would be a lot more careful in this life lol. wouldn't you?

...

1. it's not necessary, but it helps. people are more likely to accept the golden rule if it's a central teaching of their religion. shouldn't this be obvious?

2. when those horrors go directly against a core teaching of your religion... then no, i don't really see how it could lead to that. but if people want to bomb someone badly enough, then they will do it regardless of their religion.

I am guessing based on this that your argument is: yes there are religious people who use their religion to outwardly justify their violence, but that these people are bad either way and would have done it regardless. Suppose that's true. Then what you're arguing is that bad people are going to do bad things and good people are going to do good things, in which case why should we even bother with religion? On the other hand, maybe there are some people who are morally confused and could be persuaded to do bad things or good things depending on how they are raised, and these are the correct targets for religion. The problem with this method of thinking is that by making religion a morally acceptable thing to choose, you justify the ones that corrupt people just as you justify the ones that you think lead people to goodness. If it is acceptable to select a religious belief system as the basis for your morals, how can you say anything negative about the ones who choose a belief system that leads them to different morals than you? If you say "well they just should have chosen Christianity," then you have presupposed this as the correct choice -- and then it's not really about religious belief in general, just your particular system of moral tenets.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are we talking about the same religious people who think people are born with sin and need to bow and scrape before some superior being begging for forgiveness their whole life for perceived crimes that are an inherent part of being human?

Are we also talking about the group of people that think this human life is some sort of test/demo of insignificant length/value when compared to the "real thing" which can only begin after death?

So these guys value value human life more than the group that thinks this life is all we have and that our destiny is ours to make?

if they think that their actions in this life could doom them to an eternity of torture... then yeah, i think they would be a lot more careful in this life lol. wouldn't you?

What explains the general decline in homicides over the past 2000+ years?

(It ain't religion).

[Gillipig]

If there weren't religious people stopping me I'd totally detonate a nuclear bomb just for the thrill of it!! I believe I only have one life so that naturally leads me to wanting to waste it as quickly as possible! Johnny blue is so correct it is eery. How is he able to understand the atheist mind so well??

[Woodruff]

but, for starters, religious people are more likely to view the human race as uniquely valuable in the universe, and therefore less likely to take drastic actions with the possible consequences of eliminating human life (or most of it)

religion also usually staunchly advocates for morals such as the ethic of reciprocity and the idea that we shouldn't kill each other, both of which would help prevent someone from bombing someone else.

Those seem more humanist ideas than religious ones, to be honest.

No?

[tzor]

I am guessing based on this that your argument is: yes there are religious people who use their religion to outwardly justify their violence, but that these people are bad either way and would have done it regardless. Suppose that's true. Then what you're arguing is that bad people are going to do bad things and good people are going to do good things, in which case why should we even bother with religion?

The assumption here is that there is only one reason for religion. If you eliminate that reason you eliminate all reasons for religion. But the assumption is wrong. There are many reasons for religion and eliminating one does not eliminate all reasons. Now, obviously, the case for "religion" is something that can be debated, which is what we are doing here. Never the less, religion is not a "cure" for humanity; all people will do great evil and great good and attribute that to whatever they feel attached to at the moment.

Going back to the original question, "why bother with religion" I have to go back to the silly question of "what is religion?" I think it might be argued that at the very core, man is a societal creature, preferring to organize around like minded groups. The nature of these groups has radically changed in the internet era, but it still exists. Moreover, there is a tendency to want to associate with various groups based on the various aspects of our own nature. Thus one may have a political affiliation, a musical affiliation, a sports affiliation, and a spiritual affiliation.

Having a religious affiliation is no more (and no less) logical than having a sports affiliation. (Being a Met fan is not a "mental illness" although I can't really prove that in the case of a Cubs fan.)

Remember, no religion so accursed can be, that some good in it, a loving eye can see.
Did not Islam (who those who destroyed the towers claimed as their guide) also give us the number zero and a positional number system?
(Well no, actually, it was the people who gave us that and as we said before, some people are good and some people are bad. And that is my point.)

[crispybits]

But the question "why bother with religion?" still remains after all that tzor.

If there are simply good people and bad people and religion is a tool then it is our moral duty ("our" as in all of everyone) to ensure that it has certain safety features built into it (like electrical devices come with an earth cable and/or electrically insulated handle for example).

Then we get to that "what is religion?" question with a sense of purpose. Yes as you say it's an affiliation of like mided individuals around a shared spiritual ethos. But where musical/sporting tastes are perceived by society in general as just that, opinions and subjective preferences, religion has somehow managed to get into marketing itself as "truth". This is where the mental illness bit seeps in. I wouldn't think a cubs fan was mentally ill for being a cubs fan, I wouldn't even think he was mentally ill if he said he got the greatest enjoyment from watching the cubs, but if he started saying with all honestly and passion that the cubs were the only true team and only through supporting the cubs could we ever have eternal paradise.... now the story changes.

You've seen universalchiro and viceroy and lionz and the others over in the post any evidence for god thread - if they were just concentrated on a sports team we could laugh them off as obsessed fanatics and live safe in the knowledge that they aren't going to hurt anyone (except maybe by persuading them to follow a shit team), but because that completely unsubstantiated truth claim comes in we suddenly find boards of education inserting creationist mumbo-jumbo into school biology lessons, we have populations more willing to follow leaders who credibly (to them) invoke the power of their preferred God, we have men willing to give their lives up flying planes into buildings containing thousands of innocent people.

Religion raised the stakes a long time ago to all or nothing, mankind is finally starting (just starting, after hundreds of years of realising the facts) to call it on that bluff. I have every confidence religion does not hold any of the cards it claims to (whether God really exists in some form or not). I think religion is going to put up one hell of a fight though because there are a lot of people who cannot seem to function without that particular crutch to make them feel special and loved, and it's up to the rest of us not just to show them that the crutch doesn't have any real power beyond what they give it, but also that the alternative is not bleak and hopeless, but actually gives the short life we all live here even more meaning. This isn't the dress rehearsal before the main eternal stageshow, this is it, and we should make what existence we do have, however short, count for something.

(and yes, I'm guilty of putting more effort into the destructive side of that equation on this forum, but trust me the me you all see on here is a different me to the me out in the really real world every day - this is the stress relief where I can call the worst of the fruitloops on their nutjob theories without losing real friends over it while I play gentle with the ones I meet out there)

[Metsfanmax]

The assumption here is that there is only one reason for religion. If you eliminate that reason you eliminate all reasons for religion. But the assumption is wrong. There are many reasons for religion and eliminating one does not eliminate all reasons. Now, obviously, the case for "religion" is something that can be debated, which is what we are doing here. Never the less, religion is not a "cure" for humanity; all people will do great evil and great good and attribute that to whatever they feel attached to at the moment.

I wasn't attempting to address all possible reasons for religion; just tackling the question of the (lack of the) relationship between our religions and our morals.

Having a religious affiliation is no more (and no less) logical than having a sports affiliation. (Being a Met fan is not a "mental illness" although I can't really prove that in the case of a Cubs fan.)

I agree. However, I am not so rabid a fan that I would insist on passing a law saying that Cubs fans cannot get married to each other.

[tzor]

But the question "why bother with religion?" still remains after all that tzor.

Yes it does remain. Unfortunately it is a rather deep subject that can't be handled well in this forum.

You've seen universalchiro and viceroy and lionz and the others over in the post any evidence for god thread - if they were just concentrated on a sports team we could laugh them off as obsessed fanatics and live safe in the knowledge that they aren't going to hurt anyone (except maybe by persuading them to follow a shit team), but because that completely unsubstantiated truth claim comes in we suddenly find boards of education inserting creationist mumbo-jumbo into school biology lessons, we have populations more willing to follow leaders who credibly (to them) invoke the power of their preferred God, we have men willing to give their lives up flying planes into buildings containing thousands of innocent people.

I still can't see how they are harmful. You have people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. You have people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya. And they all debate these things on forums all the time. You also have people trying to push all sorts of strange things into the school curriculum all the time. Eternal vigilance is the price of a decent curriculum.

You don't need religion to be a stupid fanatic. It's not religion that forces China's one child policy with regional officials beating any woman who dares to get pregnant after her first child and dragging them to hospitals for forced abortions and sterilizations. It's not religion that forces hospitals in Africa to work only on a small solar panel driven power system that requires them to decide between lights for the hospital room or power for the refrigerator that holds the medicine when there is ample fuel available and other countries will throw orders of magnitude more CO2 into the air than they ever will.

Religion is not the only emotional button that the despot pushes; it's just generally the first one on the list.

[tzor]

I wasn't attempting to address all possible reasons for religion; just tackling the question of the (lack of the) relationship between our religions and our morals.

That is because religions tend to think about and write about morals, but there is nothing specific to the religion with the morals that they come up with. That is why the whole evolution of "natural law" and "inalienable rights" were so easily accepted by people who were not convinced about the tenants in the Nicene Creed. (Adams was a Unitarian; Jefferson was generally an Agnostic; Franklin was clearly an Agnostic.)

I agree. However, I am not so rabid a fan that I would insist on passing a law saying that Cubs fans cannot get married to each other.

I'm pretty sure that there is a requirement in the "Church" of the Red Sox, that the spouse, should they be a Yankee Fan, must convert before the marriage is properly accepted. Failure could be grounds for annulment.

Besides, we know that your faith allows for large sentient baseballs to get married, because IIRC Mr. Met is Married.

In the 1960s, he occasionally appeared in print with a female companion, Lady Met (sometimes known as "Mrs. Met"), and less frequently with a group of three "little Mets" children; the smallest was a baby in Lady Met's arms.

Boy does that give a different angle to "Met the Mets."

[crispybits]

But the question "why bother with religion?" still remains after all that tzor.

Yes it does remain. Unfortunately it is a rather deep subject that can't be handled well in this forum.

You've seen universalchiro and viceroy and lionz and the others over in the post any evidence for god thread - if they were just concentrated on a sports team we could laugh them off as obsessed fanatics and live safe in the knowledge that they aren't going to hurt anyone (except maybe by persuading them to follow a shit team), but because that completely unsubstantiated truth claim comes in we suddenly find boards of education inserting creationist mumbo-jumbo into school biology lessons, we have populations more willing to follow leaders who credibly (to them) invoke the power of their preferred God, we have men willing to give their lives up flying planes into buildings containing thousands of innocent people.

I still can't see how they are harmful. You have people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. You have people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya. And they all debate these things on forums all the time. You also have people trying to push all sorts of strange things into the school curriculum all the time. Eternal vigilance is the price of a decent curriculum.

You don't need religion to be a stupid fanatic. It's not religion that forces China's one child policy with regional officials beating any woman who dares to get pregnant after her first child and dragging them to hospitals for forced abortions and sterilizations. It's not religion that forces hospitals in Africa to work only on a small solar panel driven power system that requires them to decide between lights for the hospital room or power for the refrigerator that holds the medicine when there is ample fuel available and other countries will throw orders of magnitude more CO2 into the air than they ever will.

Religion is not the only emotional button that the despot pushes; it's just generally the first one on the list.

Viceroy and Dr Chiro and Lionz are not harmful themselves (in all likelihood), but the movements that spawned them are. They are the symptom rather than the disease in this context. The disease is the thing pushing unscientific nonsense into science classes under the "teach both sides" banner (even when there is only one "side" and one load of nutters who believe in literal interpretations of ancient science fiction/fantasy literature). The disease is the thing that helps people convice young muslims to forfeit their lives and kill many others with the promise of eternal paradise.

Like I said, I would have no problem with religion if there could be some sort of safety net designed into it, if somehow we could convice the world that their God story is to be regarded on the same level as their taste in music or their choice of sports teams. And I think the key is in this unsubstantiated claim to truth. I don't know how you could have a religion without an unsubstantiated claim to truth though - any ideas? I'm seriously very interested to hear them if you have any, because religion of personal choice, of personal influence and of personal character is not something I have any problem with, my problem is with the fact that every single religion on the planet is political (as in it tries to infect the lives of not just it's believers but the entire world). And no answer except the answers from -insert holy book name here- can be the "right" answer to a set of questions where nobody can claim to have any solid and reliable answers at all.

I have my theories about God, should it exist, but in terms of these debates I'm firmly atheist because these debates tend to revolve around people trying to prove THEIR God, not proving God. If someone came in here and, without adding all their own particular brand of extra "privileged insight" just concocted a proof for God, that is provided a definition and made a claim based on evidence that the thing that fits that definition must exist, and their claims and their evidence all stood up to cross-examination, then I'd accept that happily. The problem is that Viceroy and Dr Chiro and Lionz, and the more moderates like you and D1G, come along and tell me that not only does God exist (without evidence btw), but that he is revealed through a bunch of old parchments that just happened to be the most popular books on the subject for the last coupla thousand years and that you know things about him beyond his existence. Prove his existence first, and then we can build from there, but ask me to take anything from any holy book seriously without doing that first and I would honestly say you have a mental illness and you should seek serious medical help...

[john9blue]

but, for starters, religious people are more likely to view the human race as uniquely valuable in the universe, and therefore less likely to take drastic actions with the possible consequences of eliminating human life (or most of it)

Why do you think this?

because their religion tells them that god created man in his image...

but, for starters, religious people are more likely to view the human race as uniquely valuable in the universe, and therefore less likely to take drastic actions with the possible consequences of eliminating human life (or most of it)

religion also usually staunchly advocates for morals such as the ethic of reciprocity and the idea that we shouldn't kill each other, both of which would help prevent someone from bombing someone else.

Those seem more humanist ideas than religious ones, to be honest.

No?

No.

What explains the general decline in homicides over the past 2000+ years?

(It ain't religion).

i'd say it's due to higher intelligence and therefore higher empathy.

this doesn't mean that intelligent individuals have the highest empathy... in fact high intelligence can isolate someone and cause them to not care about others. but i do think that the intelligence of a species overall gives them a higher capacity for empathy.

I am guessing based on this that your argument is: yes there are religious people who use their religion to outwardly justify their violence, but that these people are bad either way and would have done it regardless. Suppose that's true. Then what you're arguing is that bad people are going to do bad things and good people are going to do good things, in which case why should we even bother with religion? On the other hand, maybe there are some people who are morally confused and could be persuaded to do bad things or good things depending on how they are raised, and these are the correct targets for religion. The problem with this method of thinking is that by making religion a morally acceptable thing to choose, you justify the ones that corrupt people just as you justify the ones that you think lead people to goodness. If it is acceptable to select a religious belief system as the basis for your morals, how can you say anything negative about the ones who choose a belief system that leads them to different morals than you? If you say "well they just should have chosen Christianity," then you have presupposed this as the correct choice -- and then it's not really about religious belief in general, just your particular system of moral tenets.

you misunderstand me. i think religion CAN cause good people to do bad things, and cause bad people to do good things. that's the whole basis behind my argument that it's good for society.

in fact, i made the argument in another thread that the religions which cause people to do good things more often are more likely to stick around. they operate by "survival of the fittest" just like anything else. this is one of my pieces of evidence for why i believe christianity has a large potential to improve society.

[Lootifer]

Is that societal improvement exclusive to christianity (or any religion that fits your criteria) though?

[john9blue]

Is that societal improvement exclusive to christianity (or any religion that fits your criteria) though?

what criteria?

christianity doesn't have a monopoly on "religions that benefit society", but it's certainly been the must successful.

[Woodruff]

but, for starters, religious people are more likely to view the human race as uniquely valuable in the universe, and therefore less likely to take drastic actions with the possible consequences of eliminating human life (or most of it)

religion also usually staunchly advocates for morals such as the ethic of reciprocity and the idea that we shouldn't kill each other, both of which would help prevent someone from bombing someone else.

Those seem more humanist ideas than religious ones, to be honest.

No?

No.

You should look into humanism then, because you'd be wrong.

[Woodruff]

As they say, "Today's mythology is yesterdays religion".

[chang50]

Is that societal improvement exclusive to christianity (or any religion that fits your criteria) though?

what criteria?

christianity doesn't have a monopoly on "religions that benefit society", but it's certainly been the must successful.

Depending very largely on how one defines successful..