Is Religion A Mental Illness?

[Hallistar]

I think its only a mental illness for those who each day claim they've actually seen their entity/spoke with them in person and are the kind that would go insane if you told them there was a possibility their religion was wrong...most beliefs are just based on something that there is no concrete proof of even existing, just mainly people's emotions and interpretations of things..technically though since it is unfalsifiable their religion could have a probability of being the correct one, but it wouldn't be so signifigant...

Still though, i dont have a problem with people having beliefs, its just the ones that are completely un-reasonable and that tell me i'm going to hell outright for not instantaneously accepting their god, are the one's i'll give my true thoughts to. I don't look at religious people as any different, I judge them by their person and even though i'll probably dislike their religion, i won't think they're any less intelligent for believing in it, i just think people are less intelligent if they are zealots about it and never stop to look back and question what they are doing

I personally am an agnostic, but my thoughts do tend to lean heavily towards flat-out atheism at times

[Jormengand]

Militant Atheists:

Why is it so goddamn important that you systematically 'enlighten' the populace?

So they don't try to ram religeon-induced racism, sexism, homophobia and other unwanted ideas into the mind of the innocent.

[The Antarticans]

Sometimes.

[Hallistar]

Militant Atheists:

Why is it so goddamn important that you systematically 'enlighten' the populace?

So they don't try to ram religeon-induced racism, sexism, homophobia and other unwanted ideas into the mind of the innocent.

Not going to lie..I think parents shouldn't be allowed to make their kids have to believe in a certain faith, i think they shouldn't bring in religion until the children are older, and then at that time let them make their own decision

[Jormengand]

So they don't try to ram religeon-induced racism, sexism, homophobia and other unwanted ideas into the mind of the innocent.

Not going to lie..I think parents shouldn't be allowed to make their kids have to believe in a certain faith, i think they shouldn't bring in religion until the children are older, and then at that time let them make their own decision

I support this. WA material, maybe...
Another thread, I think.

[Czechanada]

So they don't try to ram religeon-induced racism, sexism, homophobia and other unwanted ideas into the mind of the innocent.

Not going to lie..I think parents shouldn't be allowed to make their kids have to believe in a certain faith, i think they shouldn't bring in religion until the children are older, and then at that time let them make their own decision

Good God, man. The first instance of rationality on NSG.

[Greater Tezdrian]

Militant Atheists:

Why is it so goddamn important that you systematically 'enlighten' the populace?

So they don't try to ram religeon-induced racism, sexism, homophobia and other unwanted ideas into the mind of the innocent.

Ah, so you don't have to worry about the spread of ideas you have arbitrarily declared 'unwanted' whilst wanting to change or influence the behaviors of others to fit within your narrow mindset. Not like, say, evangelical Christians at all then.

[The Alma Mater]

So they don't try to ram religeon-induced racism, sexism, homophobia and other unwanted ideas into the mind of the innocent.

Not going to lie..I think parents shouldn't be allowed to make their kids have to believe in a certain faith, i think they shouldn't bring in religion until the children are older, and then at that time let them make their own decision

So.. you'd support making churches, mosques etc offlimits to children below age X, similar to how they are also not allowed in casinos, whorehouses and pubs ?

What should age X be then ? 12, 16, 21, 50... ?

[Jormengand]

Good God, man. The first instance of rationality on NSG.

Not the first. Won't be the last. Just that most of it is subdued by the amount of crap NSG suffers.

[Hallistar]

Not going to lie..I think parents shouldn't be allowed to make their kids have to believe in a certain faith, i think they shouldn't bring in religion until the children are older, and then at that time let them make their own decision

So.. you'd support making churches, mosques etc offlimits to children below age X, similar to how they are also not allowed in casinos, whorehouses and pubs ?

What should age X be then ? 12, 16, 21, 50... ?

Whenever they're able to start questioning different beliefs, and know that they have the right to not be forced by their parents or anyone else into a belief, and without fear of being alienated by their parents

[Hallistar]

So they don't try to ram religeon-induced racism, sexism, homophobia and other unwanted ideas into the mind of the innocent.

Ah, so you don't have to worry about the spread of ideas you have arbitrarily declared 'unwanted' whilst wanting to change or influence the behaviors of others to fit within your narrow mindset. Not like, say, evangelical Christians at all then.

People can discuss their ideas and share them all they want. They just can't try to force them on others, especially over something unfalsifiable and unproven to even exist somehow in the firstplace. While it does have the same small probability of perhaps somehow ultimately existing as do other faiths, the probability isn't signifigant as, say, 50% chance the christian god correct and 50% chance no god is correct

[Jormengand]

So they don't try to ram religeon-induced racism, sexism, homophobia and other unwanted ideas into the mind of the innocent.

Ah, so you don't have to worry about the spread of ideas you have arbitrarily declared 'unwanted' whilst wanting to change or influence the behaviors of others to fit within your narrow mindset. Not like, say, evangelical Christians at all then.

Inasmuch as that any sane individual would not want them.

[Greater Tezdrian]

Ah, so you don't have to worry about the spread of ideas you have arbitrarily declared 'unwanted' whilst wanting to change or influence the behaviors of others to fit within your narrow mindset. Not like, say, evangelical Christians at all then.

People can discuss their ideas and share them all they want. They just can't try to force them on others, especially over something unfalsifiable and unproven to even exist somehow in the firstplace. While it does have the same small probability of perhaps somehow ultimately existing as do other faiths, the probability isn't signifigant as, say, 50% chance the christian god correct and 50% chance no god is correct

So the problem isn't with religion, but the politicalization of it?

[The Alma Mater]

So.. you'd support making churches, mosques etc offlimits to children below age X, similar to how they are also not allowed in casinos, whorehouses and pubs ?

What should age X be then ? 12, 16, 21, 50... ?

Whenever they're able to start questioning different beliefs, and know that they have the right to not be forced by their parents or anyone else into a belief, and without fear of being alienated by their parents

But this poses a problem. Technically, all that stuff requires them to be adults and living on their own.
Most religions however have certain requirements that may be relevant well before then. Like commandments surrounding sex.
And of course, things like circumcision or baptism of infants would be forbidden in your system (assuming you agree that toddlers do not meet the requirements you described) - so there already would be a problem there.

So.. how to solve this ? Tricky one :s

[Hallistar]

People can discuss their ideas and share them all they want. They just can't try to force them on others, especially over something unfalsifiable and unproven to even exist somehow in the firstplace. While it does have the same small probability of perhaps somehow ultimately existing as do other faiths, the probability isn't signifigant as, say, 50% chance the christian god correct and 50% chance no god is correct

So the problem isn't with religion, but the politicalization of it?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by politicalization of it, but yes, I think people can believe what they want and share the ideas with others, they just shouldn't try to force others to believe in it or somehow punish them for not believing in it

[Czechanada]

People can discuss their ideas and share them all they want. They just can't try to force them on others, especially over something unfalsifiable and unproven to even exist somehow in the firstplace. While it does have the same small probability of perhaps somehow ultimately existing as do other faiths, the probability isn't signifigant as, say, 50% chance the christian god correct and 50% chance no god is correct

So the problem isn't with religion, but the politicalization of it?

Indeed. You never have to respect someone else's opinion. You only have to respect their right to hold one.

[Hallistar]

Whenever they're able to start questioning different beliefs, and know that they have the right to not be forced by their parents or anyone else into a belief, and without fear of being alienated by their parents

But this poses a problem. Technically, all that stuff requires them to be adults and living on their own.
Most religions however have certain requirements that may be relevant well before then. Like commandments surrounding sex.
And of course, things like circumcision or baptism of infants would be forbidden in your system (assuming you agree that toddlers do not meet the requirements you described) - so there already would be a problem there.

So.. how to solve this ? Tricky one :s

It is tricky, yes

From Point A, the parent believes that with full certainty their religion is correct, but that their certainty must be applied to their child
From Point B, the parent from Point A is using a belief that they no proof even exists in the first place to already make a decision for a child

I'm honestly not sure really, but the way I see it, if the god or supreme entity in most religions made themselves hard to prove even exist/is at a statistical probability for existing, then its their fault that people would question doing such actions to children

I don't think a baptism would cause any kind of physical imprint on a child, so I don't think that'd be controversial..i think circumcision though would fall under that list

[Disrtict 13]

I'm glad to see that you two seemed to have resolved your differences, but I still have to enforce site rules.

if religion was a mental illnes over 90% of the worlds population would be mentaly ill
you dumb tard

im bylinguel ass hole german was my first language and i gained my american citizin ship when i was 4 still having a little trouble spelling in english

i dont have time to deal with baligerant ass tards like you
if you want to go to hell so be it
and i am not trying to insult anybody

*** Warned for flaming. ***
oky dokey captan

To me, your posts just consist of feces and faces.

I can't even understand your vapid babbling. Learn to speak English before you try to insult someone and reply to someone else in it.

Knock it off.

i wasnt insulting him untill he started throwing insults at me
and holy crap this is like high school

That's not an excuse. Hold yourself to a higher authority.

[Orcoa]

You know, I never meet a atheist who was a jerk really...even on here most of them are quite nice, yet I have always had a distaste for that whining nose hole that is Richard Dawkins...

[Hallistar]

-snip-

?

[Tlaceceyaya]

You know, I never meet a atheist who was a jerk really...even on here most of them are quite nice, yet I have always had a distaste for that whining nose hole that is Richard Dawkins...

Actually, he has two nostrils.
And he has reasons to be against religion. Valid reasons.
(I'd recommend watching his documentaries 'The God Delusion' and 'Faith School Menace?' as they contain valid, thought-out reasons to be against religion)

[The Alma Mater]

I don't think a baptism would cause any kind of physical imprint on a child, so I don't think that'd be controversial.

There actually are people who demand that the church devises some way to undo baptisms. Some because they do not wish to be mentioned in Church records (if only because the church likes to pretend that everyone who was baptised is a member of the church - which directly influences the amount of leverage they have), some because they have a faith that considers baptism a "tainting" ritual which has made them unclean - and some because they dislike how things were done to them without their permission. Most of that last group do not actually believe that baptism did anything whatsoever to them - but they do know that the priests responsible DO believe something magical was done - and they dislike giving them that satisfaction.

But whether or not that small group of complainers warrants forbidding it ...

[Orcoa]

You know, I never meet a atheist who was a jerk really...even on here most of them are quite nice, yet I have always had a distaste for that whining nose hole that is Richard Dawkins...

Actually, he has two nostrils.
And he has reasons to be against religion. Valid reasons.
(I'd recommend watching his documentaries 'The God Delusion' and 'Faith School Menace?' as they contain valid, thought-out reasons to be against religion)

I have seen seen those films and I still think he is a bit whiny, he has good points but he still a smug bitch

[Greater Tezdrian]

Most of that last group do not actually believe that baptism did anything whatsoever to them - but they do know that the priests responsible DO believe something magical was done - and they dislike giving them that satisfaction.

That sounds like staggering asshole-ry.

[The Realm of God]

I dont mind Atheists everyone can believe what they want. When they try and convert me however.