Religion is a Mental Illness

[Teflon Kris]

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..

Exactly

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.

Yep, and the disease is not in the original scripture, just as there is no disease in the scripture of the guys dying on a cross. Although, lets be honest, Mohammed did promote war on polytheism (not monotheism though). None of the scriptures logically lead to the Crusades, Colonisation and Conversion, dropping the Atom Bomb, Hitler's actions, Israeli expulsion of non-Jews from the 'Holy Land', US Economic Control, 9-11, or George Bush's Crusades.

Is it coincidence that actions such as the above, the disease, have been perpetrated in the name of religion, or with religious support or justification, by predominantly right-wing politicians/leaders/warlords? Ok, so the left may have committed barbarism, the USSR's half of the proxy cold war over 3 continents, China gobbling-up Tibet, but religion is not a tool the left use to gain acceptance of their actions.

Twisting religion is the disease of the right. It is not their only trick by a long shot, but it is a powerful one.

Bringing back earlier points, 'christianity' is perhaps popular today because the right find it easier to twist. Roman politicians weren't stupid when they switched their polytheism for Christianity. Perhaps it is similar with 'islam'?

[pimpdave]

One has to be mentally ill to think child rape benefits society.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

wat

The manipulative are the worst for humanity. With authority and power, watch them grow.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Wait, so how you compare that answer with this:

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)

Here it's implied that the decline of homicide is explained by some change in the variable of "religious people."

[Teflon Kris]

One has to be mentally ill to think child rape benefits society.

Would be interesting to compare the religious affiliations of child rapists to the control group of the general population to see if there are deviations? Only problem would be that we would only get results from a small minority of US armed forces child-rapists.

[Lootifer]

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.

My point was: can these benefits be supplied by something else other than religion?

Because if they can, and assuming that there is no other justification for religion, then would it not be better to be free ourselves from the burden of religion?

e.g. Say we could define a moral and ethical code that replaced the need for religion in terms of societal benefits; firstly would this not satisfy any diety worth praying to (moral code would be defined along similar lines to the typical religious text teachings)? secondly by transparently defining the code through rational, rather than by threats from the supernatural/afterlife, would we not engage better as a society (rather than being pushed into moral behaviour, we would find moral behaviour on our own)? and thirdly by taking away the "because god said so" we are being forced, even at the low intelligence end of the spectrum, to think critically, is this not to be encouraged?

[tzor]

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.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, because I can't see the connection. The former is the case of maintaining a belief despite all evidence to the contrary. This isn't unique to religion, politics also has its share of such fanatics. I could go into a plethora of examples (no really, if you don't know what a plethora is how can you tell my clear disgust at this point) from all sides. The most two extreme cases could be the absurd notion that "gun control" lowers gun violence and that Republicans win big when they support immigration reform.

(Personally I think that arresting students for pointing their fingers is far more worse in the education system than spouting nonsense fantasy, not that I find either acceptable.)

But the later is an entirely different problem. Religion doesn't convince people of anything, power hungry despots convince people to kill themselves. Ironically power hungry despots love to wrap themselves around religion. The case of Islam is subtle because the appeal to authority and the one making the appeal are different, but it is the authority of the one making the appeal that causes the sheep obey. In the case of the Emperor of Japan, for example, who managed to convince his own troops to die IN HIS NAME, the cult of personality over specific religious tenets is more obvious.

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.

I think it is a lot more doable than you might otherwise think. Ironically it generally tends to be nationalistic or cultural differences that drive most of the conflicts. In pre-Christian days, while there were "wars" they were generally wars to promote the national culture, not the national religion (Alexander the great wanted to promote Greek culture, more than Greek gods, the same was true for Rome who allowed any worship as long as they included theirs - Israel getting an exception because they were annoying and mostly harmless).

And that is the key. Everything that you might want to attribute to "religion" can be attributed to other factors. The problem is, that for a few small exceptions, religion is a part of almost all the history of the world. But so has politics, so has power, so has sexual lust and so on and so forth.

[crispybits]

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.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, because I can't see the connection. The former is the case of maintaining a belief despite all evidence to the contrary. This isn't unique to religion, politics also has its share of such fanatics. I could go into a plethora of examples (no really, if you don't know what a plethora is how can you tell my clear disgust at this point) from all sides. The most two extreme cases could be the absurd notion that "gun control" lowers gun violence and that Republicans win big when they support immigration reform.

(Personally I think that arresting students for pointing their fingers is far more worse in the education system than spouting nonsense fantasy, not that I find either acceptable.)

But the later is an entirely different problem. Religion doesn't convince people of anything, power hungry despots convince people to kill themselves. Ironically power hungry despots love to wrap themselves around religion. The case of Islam is subtle because the appeal to authority and the one making the appeal are different, but it is the authority of the one making the appeal that causes the sheep obey. In the case of the Emperor of Japan, for example, who managed to convince his own troops to die IN HIS NAME, the cult of personality over specific religious tenets is more obvious.

But in the case of politics, a rational debate can be had. We have both political and religious threads on these forums and their nature is very different. In the politics threads there is name calling and flaming just like in the religious threads, but in the end the "winners" of the debates (in ""s because these forums very rarely actually change anyone's basic principles) in the politics threads are those who can show, with facts and evidence and examples from systems that employ their preferred solutions and succeed, or employ their opponents' preferred solutions and fail. The battle grounds are clear, and there is a clear way to win. In the real world politics has developed this cult of personality, and more's the pity because it's harmful to the process, but the basic rules of the debates are well established and while the best choices may not always be made, at least the process is (to an extent) transparent and we know why we're writing law X to deal with problem Y (ignoring the behind the scenes lobbying stuff which I'm also not a fan of at all)

Contrast this with religious debates, where nobody has any evidence that their story is the correct story, everyone calls each other wrong and unless the biblical end days or whatever any of the other equivalents are starts up exactly as in those books tomorrow, or God appears to us all and makes it clear who or what he/she/it is, and what he/she/it wants us to do with our lives then nobody will have the right to call their claim "truth". But all of them do. A politician can claim the high ground from invoking the truth (though it's rare in these days of spin) and win an argument, the religious arguments are just opinion and wishful thinking (even if by sheer dumb luck one of them is actually correct). The disease is the way that large sections of society swallow this religious claim to truth, when they wouldn't hold any other claim to the same lack of scrutiny or believe in it so fiercely without any evidence of it's accuracy.

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.

I think it is a lot more doable than you might otherwise think. Ironically it generally tends to be nationalistic or cultural differences that drive most of the conflicts. In pre-Christian days, while there were "wars" they were generally wars to promote the national culture, not the national religion (Alexander the great wanted to promote Greek culture, more than Greek gods, the same was true for Rome who allowed any worship as long as they included theirs - Israel getting an exception because they were annoying and mostly harmless).

And that is the key. Everything that you might want to attribute to "religion" can be attributed to other factors. The problem is, that for a few small exceptions, religion is a part of almost all the history of the world. But so has politics, so has power, so has sexual lust and so on and so forth.

As above, the other factors already have sense checks in place for their truth statements. Some of them could be made stronger, but the religious claims to the truth have no form of possible sense check, it's pure cult of personality and cult of tradition. Tell me how we put that check in place or tell me how we reduce religion to a personal level rather than an institutional one and I'll be right behind you either way.

[Phatscotty]

All too often I see people who's entire views on religion, or even specifically Christianity, molded by some kind of statement like "slave owners used the bible to justify owning slaves". But that is not "Christianity", that is mankind twisting things (not just religion) to suit their own needs. Like I pointed out earlier, it's also true that the Abolitionists used the Bible and it's principles for good.

It's not the religion in these cases, it's the people and how they use it. There are some areas where the religion itself takes the blame, and even more when the religion is supposed to stand for good, but the practitioners are inactive or special interests take precedent, or "after the election, but not now".

I usually blame the people for what they do, not their religion. Nobody is perfect. What matters most is that people realize that they made a mistake, understand why it was a mistake, ask for forgiveness, find personal healing and peace, and learn from mistakes so you can try to be better prepared or be more likely to do the right thing next time.

[john9blue]

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.

Wait, so how you compare that answer with this:

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)

Here it's implied that the decline of homicide is explained by some change in the variable of "religious people."

i don't think the variable of "religious people" has changed much at all. again, we don't really have any non-religious societies like ours to compare homicide rates with.

[john9blue]

My point was: can these benefits be supplied by something else other than religion?

Because if they can, and assuming that there is no other justification for religion, then would it not be better to be free ourselves from the burden of religion?

e.g. Say we could define a moral and ethical code that replaced the need for religion in terms of societal benefits; firstly would this not satisfy any diety worth praying to (moral code would be defined along similar lines to the typical religious text teachings)? secondly by transparently defining the code through rational, rather than by threats from the supernatural/afterlife, would we not engage better as a society (rather than being pushed into moral behaviour, we would find moral behaviour on our own)? and thirdly by taking away the "because god said so" we are being forced, even at the low intelligence end of the spectrum, to think critically, is this not to be encouraged?

why would people care about societal benefits? they are, first and foremost, self-interested.

give them pascal's wager and a time-tested religion, though, and their self-interest will cause them to act in ways that benefit society. that's how it's always been.

[crispybits]

Indeed PS, for once I actually agree with most of one of your posts.

What I am arguing isn't that "all religion is bad full stop mmkay", it's that religion should be severely limited in it's power and influence. I know you wouldn't support a government that demanded the population turn up once a week ina government building to pay homage to the president and praise him, who claimed credit for the good things happening in the country whilst hiding behind "governments work in mysterious ways" or "it was part of the government's plan for us, they know best" when bad things happen. Why support an NGO that does the same and exerts more control over it's subjects than any government would ever dare to, whilst all the time failing to give any evidence that it's got any foundation in reality for asserting that kind of control. It seems like an oddly contradictory position for you to take to attack big government as passionately as you do, yet be an apoligist for big religion.

[Woodruff]

All too often I see people who's entire views on religion, or even specifically Christianity, molded by some kind of statement like "slave owners used the bible to justify owning slaves". But that is not "Christianity", that is mankind twisting things (not just religion) to suit their own needs. It's not the religion in these cases, it's the people and how they use it.

Sure, it's the humans that suck, not so much the message itself. I certainly agree with that. Just like with the ideal of communism. So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

[2dimes]

So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

Because of the humans sucking. Instead of everyone working hard to make lot's of great things to share like on the posters. People hide and hope to come back and get the stuff. Soon there are only a few things of questionable quality and everyone is in line for most to miss out on them.

There were a couple of things that were somewhat good because the people making them wanted to make something good like airplanes.

[Phatscotty]

Indeed PS, for once I actually agree with most of one of your posts.

What I am arguing isn't that "all religion is bad full stop mmkay", it's that religion should be severely limited in it's power and influence. I know you wouldn't support a government that demanded the population turn up once a week ina government building to pay homage to the president and praise him, who claimed credit for the good things happening in the country whilst hiding behind "governments work in mysterious ways" or "it was part of the government's plan for us, they know best" when bad things happen. Why support an NGO that does the same and exerts more control over it's subjects than any government would ever dare to, whilst all the time failing to give any evidence that it's got any foundation in reality for asserting that kind of control. It seems like an oddly contradictory position for you to take to attack big government as passionately as you do, yet be an apoligist for big religion.

Don't lie! You agreed with one other post of mine before too!

wait a sec, you think a church (assuming that's what you mean by NGO) exerts more control over it's subjects than any government would ever dare to? Can you elaborate on this a bit?

Is the church taking 25% out of every persons paycheck? Or is giving the church money optional?
Does the church wiretap everyone phones? Can the church throw you in jail? Isn't going to church optional? or are people being forced into church?

big religion? How do you get that from my general statements about how people use religion to suit their own needs both good and bad???

I think you are way off base saying the church controls people, but the government doesn't. Maybe that's how it is in your country or something, but here Church is optional.

How do NGO's control people?

[crispybits]

Really? So churches don't tell you who you can and can't have sex with and try and dictate on contraceptive methods or having to go through with a ceremony before you're even technically allowed to do it at all? Churches don't tell you that you can only eat certain kinds of food or only meat from animals slaughtered in a certain way? Churches don't tell you which kinds of thoughts you're allowed to have?

Yes joining a church is optional, but if you choose to join then they control wayyyy more aspects of your personal life than government would ever try and do. In a way government is optional, don't like yours then emigrate to a country that is more suitable for you. Nothing is forcing you to stay. And while the churches stick and carrot are less noticable than a police officer turning up and throwing you in jail, or a social worker coming along and removing your kids from your care, they (if believed) are much, much more harsh in that the punishments they threaten are infinitely worse than anything the government could ever do to you.

(and yes, by NGO I meant church, I was trying to make a political comparison between you hating governments trying to control things, and you being an apologist for a non-government organisation doing the exact same thing within a different, longer timescale context)

[Woodruff]

So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

Because of the humans sucking.

Yes. That's what I said. So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

[Phatscotty]

Really? So churches don't tell you who you can and can't have sex with and try and dictate on contraceptive methods or having to go through with a deremony before you're even technically allowed to do it at all? Churches don't tell you that you can only eat certain kinds of food or only meat from animals slaughtered in a certain way? Churches don't tell you which kinds of thoughts you're allowed to have?

I would call that healthy advice, certainly not control. It's not like the Church can makes things illegal, or tax things, and it's all according to the lifestyle the follower has voluntarily chosen to learn about. Can I ask when is the last time you were in Church? Where are you getting that from that the Church tries to control your sex life and dictating contraceptives? That's plain ridiculous. Even if it were true, what does the Church do to you if you have sex with someone you are not supposed to, or use contraceptives? answer: nothing! They would only know if you voluntarily told them, and even then, so what, it's not like you go to jail or something....

Yes joining a church is optional, but if you choose to join then they control wayyyy more aspects of your personal life than government would ever try and do. In a way government is optional, don't like yours then emigrate to a country that is more suitable for you. Nothing is forcing you to stay. And while the churches stick and carrot are less noticable than a police officer turning up and throwing you in jail, or a social worker coming along and removing your kids from your care, they (if believed) are much, much more harsh in that the punishments they threaten are infinitely worse than anything the government could ever do to you.

c'mon man. Sure, you can leave the country if you don't like the government, but if you don't like the church, you simply don't have to go, or you can go to another one.....You are way exaggerating this whole issue of control. But humor us, give us some examples about how a church controls people. Contraceptives and sex life don't count, because the church cannot force you to do or not do something, and even if you do, you can keep it to yourself. It's just healthy advise. And the bit about government being optional because you can just renounce your citizenship, cmon man! No way church control comes anywhere close to government control, but I would explore anything examples you could give on the matter.

(and yes, by NGO I meant church, I was trying to make a political comparison between you hating governments trying to control things, and you being an apologist for a non-government organisation doing the exact same thing within a different, longer timescale context)

I don't hate government. I am part of the government for crying out loud!! I'm not an apologist simply because I made a post about the values of Christianity. What you are saying is so super stretched I'm not even sure we are going to be able to communicate when everything you say/believe about me is inaccurate, according to me anyways. But I'm not giving up on ya. Show me some good examples of how the church controls people in ways the government would never dream of, and if they are in fact good examples, I will have no choice but to agree with ya! If you really want to make a case out of the contraceptive/sex life issue as "control" I will listen to what you have to say, but I would like to hear about how that is "control"

Not to mention, there is constant government rules, regulations, taxes, procedures, etc etc that we all have to deal with everyday, and there are consequences if you step out if line even in the slightest way, like not wearing your seatbelt. I can't think of a single way the Church affects my life, certainly not on a daily basis. My church has ZERO power over me, and my government can take my property or my life and make it a living hell or audit me or ruin my reputation or force me out of business in a heartbeat anytime they want to. THAT's control!

[2dimes]

So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

Because of the humans sucking.

Yes. That's what I said. So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

Oh, sorry. I skimmed that one.

Religion can be awful. Similarly because of that sentence you quoted. One of the extra features of religion is the spread of negativity toward those outside of it.

Fake example, "We only eat celery with peanut butter. Those who don't, get a kick in the left eye." I suppose that might be true of Communism sometimes also.

[Phatscotty]

So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

Because of the humans sucking.

Yes. That's what I said. So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

Oh, sorry. I skimmed that one.

Religion can be awful. Similarly because of that sentence you quoted. One of the extra features of religion is the spread of negativity toward those outside of it.

Fake example, "We only eat celery with peanut butter. Those who don't, get a kick in the left eye." I suppose that might be true of Communism sometimes also.

I think it's mostly the people who are awful.

What is it about religion that makes it awful? The fact that not every single follower practices it perfectly at all times?

Communism is awful because it has killed more people in the 20th century than all religious wars combined since the beginning of time.....for one

[2dimes]

Religion is the people.

I think there is tons of bland basically neutral religion that just plods along, pretty much unnoticed by those outside of it.

Then sometimes there is incredible beauty and life that stems from religion. Also sometimes there is brutality or something else bad.

[john9blue]

crispy, you can join a church without accepting everything they teach.

don't most christian couples use contraception?

[Phatscotty]

crispy, you can join a church without accepting everything they teach.

don't most christian couples use contraception?

Nancy Pelosi and John f'n Kerry, "devout" Catholics, made sure every woman can get contraceptives for free, regardless of age. They have not been excommunicated from the Church or anything.

I have never really thought about this too much, but I'm starting to think that the Church doesn't really control anything. It might be different where Crispy is from though, like the Queen heading the Church. She can probably leave a mark on you if she finds out you wore a condom.

Does anyone want to take a stab at why the the Church does not officially endorse contraceptives? Anyone who is certain of the answer should let a few guesses fly.

[Woodruff]

Really? So churches don't tell you who you can and can't have sex with and try and dictate on contraceptive methods or having to go through with a deremony before you're even technically allowed to do it at all? Churches don't tell you that you can only eat certain kinds of food or only meat from animals slaughtered in a certain way? Churches don't tell you which kinds of thoughts you're allowed to have?

I would call that healthy advice, certainly not control.

I would say that the threat of excommunication serves as significant control.
Tricking women who may want an abortion could certainly be seen as an attempt at control, if you're looking for something that is...perhaps less than legal.
And certainly the Church's moves into influencing lawmaking certainly is an attempt at control.

It's not like the Church can makes things illegal

They certainly try to, very hard, here in the United States.

Where are you getting that from that the Church tries to control your sex life and dictating contraceptives? That's plain ridiculous.

Where are you getting the idea that the Church doesn't try to do that here in the United States?

(and yes, by NGO I meant church, I was trying to make a political comparison between you hating governments trying to control things, and you being an apologist for a non-government organisation doing the exact same thing within a different, longer timescale context)

I don't hate government. I am part of the government for crying out loud!!

Being a public speaker for the Tea Party doesn't make you a member of the government.

I'm not an apologist simply because I made a post about the values of Christianity.

Certainly true. You're an apologist for more than that.

What you are saying is so super stretched I'm not even sure we are going to be able to communicate when everything you say/believe about me is inaccurate, according to me anyways.

That last phrase is beautiful, in the way it absolves you of everything. Simply scintillating.

[Woodruff]

So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

Because of the humans sucking.

Yes. That's what I said. So why is communism so awful then, but religion isn't?

Oh, sorry. I skimmed that one.

Religion can be awful. Similarly because of that sentence you quoted. One of the extra features of religion is the spread of negativity toward those outside of it.

Fake example, "We only eat celery with peanut butter. Those who don't, get a kick in the left eye." I suppose that might be true of Communism sometimes also.

I think it's mostly the people who are awful.

What is it about religion that makes it awful? The fact that not every single follower practices it perfectly at all times?

Communism is awful because it has killed more people in the 20th century than all religious wars combined since the beginning of time.....for one

Do you even think about what you're writing? You say that religion isn't awful because people misuse it. You say that communism is awful because people misuse it. Your dishonesty is incredible.