Is Religion A Mental Illness?

[Hallistar]

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 ...

I mean, on the one hand yes it was done without their consent, based on something the parent doesn't even know to exist .. but on the other i guess its one of those compromise things..I mean I think the church should be required to retroactively change records if the baptized person later doesn't want it..as for the baptism being a tainting ritual..well im sure something in their new religion is supposed to get their god to forgive them, and as for the ones who don't like the priests enjoying doing it...well i guess it might just be one of those get over it things, im not entirely sure, i know they have a personal frustration with their former religion but i dont think that the priests enjoying it but nothing else, would warrant enough damage to stop baptism altogether in that sense

[The darkness esscence]

I think that to un-baptise someone you should dab some un-holy water on their head... Vodka

[The Alma Mater]

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 ...

I mean, on the one hand yes it was done without their consent, based on something the parent doesn't even know to exist .. but on the other i guess its one of those compromise things..I mean I think the church should be required to retroactively change records if the baptized person later doesn't want it..as for the baptism being a tainting ritual..well im sure something in their new religion is supposed to get their god to forgive them, and as for the ones who don't like the priests enjoying doing it...well i guess it might just be one of those get over it things, im not entirely sure, i know they have a personal frustration with their former religion but i dont think that the priests enjoying it but nothing else, would warrant enough damage to stop baptism altogether in that sense

Well - you could also approach it from the other side.

A while ago a group of.. I believe it was mormons .. went around gravesites to "convert" people, especially Jews, posthumously to their religion. They were not asked to do so by the deceased or relatives- they just did it. And then declared the deceased was indeed mormon (assuming I got the religion right).

There was much outrage. Yet there is no moral difference between that and baptism of infants.

EDIT: it was indeed mormons. They also declared to have "converted" people like Anne Frank.

[Hallistar]

I mean, on the one hand yes it was done without their consent, based on something the parent doesn't even know to exist .. but on the other i guess its one of those compromise things..I mean I think the church should be required to retroactively change records if the baptized person later doesn't want it..as for the baptism being a tainting ritual..well im sure something in their new religion is supposed to get their god to forgive them, and as for the ones who don't like the priests enjoying doing it...well i guess it might just be one of those get over it things, im not entirely sure, i know they have a personal frustration with their former religion but i dont think that the priests enjoying it but nothing else, would warrant enough damage to stop baptism altogether in that sense

Well - you could also approach it from the other side.

A while ago a group of.. I believe it was mormons .. went around gravesites to "convert" people, especially Jews, posthumously to their religion. They were not asked to do so by the deceased or relatives- they just did it. And then declared the deceased was indeed mormon (assuming I got the religion right).

There was much outrage. Yet there is no moral difference between that and baptism of infants.

EDIT: it was indeed mormons. They also declared to have "converted" people like Anne Frank.

I think that shouldn't be allowed. The people who have died already made up their minds about their beliefs while they lived, and even though the mormons aren't exactly physically damaging their grave-sites, it still is a violation of their relatives/the deceased's will, and would be an insult to them.

[Greater Tezdrian]

Yet there is no moral difference between that and baptism of infants.

Yes, yes there is. 'Converting' deceased non-mormons against the wills of their family and then putting them down as Mormons is different from baptising a baby with the express consent of the family with the baby have no prior established religious affiliation. Personally, my new faith does not require baptism, although I am baptised Catholic. Julian Pius did go to great pains to erase his baptism however, finally blotting it out through the Mithraic taurbolinium.

[Evraim]

Right ok a Bonobo is a primate that lives in the Congo basin.

(Image)

See that it has dimensions, is made of matter and evolved from the same common ancestor as us. Yes do you agree with me? Now if the universe is infinite then Bonobos must exist beyond the bounds of the observable universe. This is correct and the infinite universe theory maintains that it is true because to infinity everything that can happen must happen. However if the Bonobo exists as you say in such a manner as to be beyond science, beyond reason, beyond logic and beyond the bounds of this universe.

Then the Bonobo is God. See it doesnt make any sense which means we should stop trying to convert people to atheism and let people do what they want. Don't you see?

I'm sorry, but that is just...an insane misinterpretation of an idea that fellow and I share. Note that the bolded text is not what I was saying.

Instead, I would say that therefore, somewhere, the bonobo exists.

Just like somewhere, the divinity exists. That doesn't change the properties of either. It just means there is a bonobo and a god out there beyond or even within the observable universe.

Would it be a bonobo though if it possessed the characteristics mentioned above?

[Furious Grandmothers]

Is this your version of Pascal's Wager, which, by the way, has been utterly refuted?

No, because I'm acknowledging that the probability that my particular belief set is correct is near zero. Pascal's wager was refuted because of the infinite possibilities of belief sets to be correct. However, that doesn't change the fact that "near zero" (infintessimal) is greater than "actually zero", which is what you get when you don't even hazard a guess, pretty much by default.

That's not the only refutation again Pascal's Wager. Also, your argument: No one has much of any idea about this and any guesses have infinitesimal probability of being correct, THEREFORE (note your attempt at a logical link here) you believe your own version. Seems legit . So you actually think it is intellectually better to hazard a guess at anything you and everyone else have no idea about, than to refrain from making any blind unsupported guesses??

Ooh, this will be interesting. Kindly list some examples of scientists who have an opinion on this matter? Having an opinion, much less having one to change later on "under the proper circumstances"?

Richard Dawkins, At least a large portion of people taking this survey.

So the sources you list show that there are many scientists who are atheist (I mean, who doesn't know that?). In what universe does this have any bit relevance to your claim that there are scientists who, quote "actually claim to believe or know how matter came to be"?

What flaws, pray tell?

The fact that in order to account for a large portion of cosmic expansion, it's dependent on an undetectable force.

Undetectable?

And I would have thought flaws would actually work AGAINST suspecting that there is a god somewhere. A perfect being who likes making imperfect stuff, eh?

Believe it or not, I think the idea that an orderly universe supports the existence of a god is ridiculous. A disorderly universe supports such an idea far more, because it increases the likelihood of something beyond the natural in the mix.

What?? What is the logic in this? An argument totally antithetical to the argument from design, apparently.
1) Why is it that a disorderly universe increases the likelihood of something beyond the natural in the mix?
2) And what is your benchmark for calling the universe disorderly?

[Kummen]

Those questions being...?

Where's the evidence?

Oh well I have an answer for that: The answer is we don't know, not yet, at least. As such, the best thing to do is just keep using the scientific method to investigate the inner workings of the universe, we'll find the answers we seek soon enough.

[Kirantil]

I will say that Religion is not a mental illness, not by itself no, but it is not necessarily exclusive in all cases.

I believe there are those with mental illnesses and religion, both exclusive.
I've known many an obsessive compulsive who followed Christianity.

I believe there are those with mental illness due to their religion.
Just imagining what the kids of Westboro Baptists must be like psychologically is frightening.

I believe there are those with religion due to a mental illness.
Co-dependence and certain Schizophrenia types sound like valid gateways.

But, on the whole, I believe religion to be merely a belief one has a possibility of holding, like an ideology that comes with some extra baggage. Religion is just an explanation, something that ancient peoples created in order to make sense of an utterly chaotic world, and give meaning to a life which they once lived without actually thinking about why they were doing what they were doing. It is the best explanation that they could have formed at the time.

Later, it was used to promote morals amongst the people and to enforce and justify laws which were not obvious in need to the people, but were deemed necessary by their leaders. Some of these were taken too far, and others outgrew their usefulness, but that does not change their initial purpose.

Religion is not an illness, it is a tool. A tool which we likely no longer need, but, just as the carpenter will sentimentally hold on to that lucky hammer his father gave to him when he was a boy, the human race will likely not abandon it for a long, long while. And I think that's okay, as long as we can get rid of the real problem.

Religion is most definitely not a mental illness.
Zealotry most definitely is.

I care not to what cause you are dedicated to, if you would mercilessly kill others without a second thought for it, there is something wrong with you. If you would persecute others based on whether or not their ideals and customs link up with yours because your religion's or lack thereof's leaders encourage or require you to, there is something wrong with you. If you would blindly dedicate yourself to a cause, not because you agree with it, not because you need to, not because you weighed it as the best option, but because everyone in your religion or lack thereof is dedicated to it, there is something wrong with you.

You have confused an excuse for a cause, Zealotry is the mental illness (likely a mix of several and a bit of stupid thrown in), religion is just the psychopath's excuse to continue their actions. A person who believes in their god(s) merely holds an ideal, like a humanist, socialist, conservative, or Social Darwinist. A person who believes in no god is the same, a person with an ideal they hold as true. It matters not whether it is empirically proven or not, for humans often make irrational emotion-based decisions, it is our nature.

But a person who would persecute, alienate, demean, and even kill others, not to defend their ideal from the same treatment, but to merely uphold some ancient and better left forgotten part of their philosophy, without thinking of its terrible hypocrisy with shockingly blind obedience clearly has something wrong with them. A person who would ignore all evidence against their ideal and see it as perfect and unassailable, despite its many flaws, and would defend to the death its legitimacy, whilst condemning all who would say otherwise, clearly has something wrong with them.

The Humanists believed that the world benefited from the selfish behavior of others. I will concede to their proving examples, and present prominent counter examples, and, though no one's beliefs have changed, both sides will have something to think about and reshape their beliefs upon.
Adherents to religions are capable of the same, so long as they do not dip into zealotry.
I have had many a conversation with my christian friends, two of whom are creationists, that has ended in an expansion in understanding between us.
I've had several debates with a great many crazies that have only ended in both sides exploding in anger at the other.

Religion is not the problem.
Crazies are the problem.

[The Cummunist State]

-snip-

I wholeheartedly agree with most everything you're saying, except the part where you said belief in no god is a ideal and it has no proof (I agree it has no proof, but it isn't asserting anything other than that person has just not been convinced). Not believing in something isn't a ideal. Otherwise, yes, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

[Natapoc]

No. However if you often find yourself demeaning others and calling people who disagree with you "mentally ill" then you are exhibiting a sign of mental illness. Note I'm not saying you have one. But the type of person who would leap the the conclusion that religion is a mental illness could be said to be exhibiting the signs of various personality disorders.

Also, why are people even still posting in this thread. Is this not obvious flame bait (or trolling depending on how you interpret it) against religious people?

[The Cummunist State]

No. However if you often find yourself demeaning others and calling people who disagree with you "mentally ill" then you are exhibiting a sign of mental illness. Note I'm not saying you have one. But the type of person who would leap the the conclusion that religion is a mental illness could be said to be exhibiting the signs of various personality disorders.

Also, why are people even still posting in this thread. Is this not obvious flame bait (or trolling depending on how you interpret it) against religious people?

Because we're being adults and haven't turned it into a flamefight between people enough to get the mods to lock it down.

[Kirantil]

-snip-

I wholeheartedly agree with most everything you're saying, except the part where you said belief in no god is a ideal and it has no proof (I agree it has no proof, but it isn't asserting anything other than that person has just not been convinced). Not believing in something isn't a ideal. Otherwise, yes, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

I never said there was no proof for a belief in no god, though I did say it was an ideal. My current understanding of an ideal is an idea one holds as truth that can be contested or argued. A religion is an idea which is built on faith, precedence, and a purpose. Atheism is a mixture of the ideas of skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism. Both of these ideas can be argued for, and against, so I classify them ideals.

And I never said there was no proof, I said that it didn't matter whether or not one's ideals were backed by empirical proof, one will believe their side regardless of it more often than not, at least at first.

On the note of disbelief not being an ideal, might I ask your reasoning behind that? I'd say that a belief in aliens and a belief which states that there cannot be aliens would both be ideals, would they not? (This is of course assuming my understanding of an ideal, correct me in that if you feel I've gotten it wrong)

[The Cummunist State]

I wholeheartedly agree with most everything you're saying, except the part where you said belief in no god is a ideal and it has no proof (I agree it has no proof, but it isn't asserting anything other than that person has just not been convinced). Not believing in something isn't a ideal. Otherwise, yes, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

I never said there was no proof for a belief in no god, though I did say it was an ideal. My current understanding of an ideal is an idea one holds as truth that can be contested or argued. A religion is an idea which is built on faith, precedence, and a purpose. Atheism is a mixture of the ideas of skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism. Both of these ideas can be argued for, and against, so I classify them ideals.

And I never said there was no proof, I said that it didn't matter whether or not one's ideals were backed by empirical proof, one will believe their side regardless of it more often than not, at least at first.

On the note of disbelief not being an ideal, might I ask your reasoning behind that? I'd say that a belief in aliens and a belief which states that there cannot be aliens would both be ideals, would they not?

Because disbelief is not the same as believing something doesn't exist. Disbelief is the lack of belief towards something. Like, with the aliens analogy, I say there are aliens. A disbeliever would say "I don't believe there are any, but I'm not saying I believe they don't exist."

And Atheism isn't anything. Atheism shouldn't really even be a word. It doesn't hold anything any beliefs any ideals, it's just the lack of belief in a god. A Atheist disbelieves in a god or gods. The word Atheism says nothing else.

[Shofercia]

No. However if you often find yourself demeaning others and calling people who disagree with you "mentally ill" then you are exhibiting a sign of mental illness. Note I'm not saying you have one. But the type of person who would leap the the conclusion that religion is a mental illness could be said to be exhibiting the signs of various personality disorders.

I agree wholeheartedly

We need the Raven again, "Delusion This!"

Cause that was just epic - best WA Moment ever!

[Kirantil]

I never said there was no proof for a belief in no god, though I did say it was an ideal. My current understanding of an ideal is an idea one holds as truth that can be contested or argued. A religion is an idea which is built on faith, precedence, and a purpose. Atheism is a mixture of the ideas of skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism. Both of these ideas can be argued for, and against, so I classify them ideals.

And I never said there was no proof, I said that it didn't matter whether or not one's ideals were backed by empirical proof, one will believe their side regardless of it more often than not, at least at first.

On the note of disbelief not being an ideal, might I ask your reasoning behind that? I'd say that a belief in aliens and a belief which states that there cannot be aliens would both be ideals, would they not?

Because disbelief is not the same as believing something doesn't exist. Disbelief is the lack of belief towards something. Like, with the aliens analogy, I say there are aliens. A disbeliever would say "I don't believe there are any, but I'm not saying I believe they don't exist."

And Atheism isn't anything. Atheism shouldn't really even be a word. It doesn't hold anything any beliefs any ideals, it's just the lack of belief in a god. A Atheist disbelieves in a god or gods. The word Atheism says nothing else.

Ah, I see. I believe I see where you're coming from on that point then, but I disagree that Atheism shouldn't be a word.
I think it is a rather accurate description, as it does literally mean: "without a belief in a god or gods," and isn't that exactly what an atheist is? One without a belief in a god or gods? Though, I suppose those who would classify themselves as more militant atheists have now been thrown out of the umbrella of atheism. Would they now be antitheists? Should that be our new word for it?

[The Cummunist State]

Because disbelief is not the same as believing something doesn't exist. Disbelief is the lack of belief towards something. Like, with the aliens analogy, I say there are aliens. A disbeliever would say "I don't believe there are any, but I'm not saying I believe they don't exist."

And Atheism isn't anything. Atheism shouldn't really even be a word. It doesn't hold anything any beliefs any ideals, it's just the lack of belief in a god. A Atheist disbelieves in a god or gods. The word Atheism says nothing else.

Ah, I see. I believe I see where you're coming from on that point then, but I disagree that Atheism shouldn't be a word.
I think it is a rather accurate description, as it does literally mean: "without a belief in a god or gods," and isn't that exactly what an atheist is? One without a belief in a god or gods? Though, I suppose those who would classify themselves as more militant atheists have now been thrown out of the umbrella of atheism. Would they now be antitheists? Should that be our new word for it?

Well, my belief that Atheism shouldn't be a word comes from the fact that I find it silly we need such a word. It is a very accurate word, but we could make up that word for people who didn't believe in magic sandwiches that cured cancer. It's a little silly to label someone who doesn't believe something.
And yes, without belief in a god or gods is the same as disbelief. It is when you say they believe there is no god that they become so called "strong" or "Positive" Atheists. Militant Atheists are people who seek out religious people to try and prove them wrong. Anti-Theist fits MOST, *MOST* strong Atheists and militant Atheists, but it means someone who believes religion shouldn't exist. I think Strong Atheists should come up with a word, yes. It causes too much confusion.

[Kirantil]

Ah, I see. I believe I see where you're coming from on that point then, but I disagree that Atheism shouldn't be a word.
I think it is a rather accurate description, as it does literally mean: "without a belief in a god or gods," and isn't that exactly what an atheist is? One without a belief in a god or gods? Though, I suppose those who would classify themselves as more militant atheists have now been thrown out of the umbrella of atheism. Would they now be antitheists? Should that be our new word for it?

Well, my belief that Atheism shouldn't be a word comes from the fact that I find it silly we need such a word. It is a very accurate word, but we could make up that word for people who didn't believe in magic sandwiches that cured cancer. It's a little silly to label someone who doesn't believe something.
And yes, without belief in a god or gods is the same as disbelief. It is when you say they believe there is no god that they become so called "strong" or "Positive" Atheists. Militant Atheists are people who seek out religious people to try and prove them wrong. Anti-Theist fits MOST, *MOST* strong Atheists and militant Atheists, but it means someone who believes religion shouldn't exist. I think Strong Atheists should come up with a word, yes. It causes too much confusion.

Yes, but I do believe there should be a name for a people who are significant and unique such as atheists. They are a portion of the population of the world which goes against a norm (theism) and would have no real representation in the international psyche were they to remain nameless.

As an analogy: we have many words for sexual preferences (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.), though I will admit on this that such preferences are are often not as black and grey and white as those who invented those labels would have most people believe, and then there are those who have no such preference, asexuals, those who lack a sexual want for any groups covered by the previous labels. We could leave them label-less, as there technically shouldn't be a word for someone who simply doesn't want something (you wouldn't create a name for someone who doesn't want to wear belts ), but that disacknowledges them as a group and unintentionally implies that they are amongst those to which we need not pay attention. It would cause some unnecessary self-persecution from those who found themselves experiencing this lack of feelings and put them into a sort of mythical status, where people will have heard of such beings, but never given credit to the possibility of their actual existence.

Giving atheists a name is important because it gives them standing and recognition amongst the rest of the world's ideologies who would never normally even think of the possibility of such a group of people were it not to be named.

[The Cummunist State]

Well, my belief that Atheism shouldn't be a word comes from the fact that I find it silly we need such a word. It is a very accurate word, but we could make up that word for people who didn't believe in magic sandwiches that cured cancer. It's a little silly to label someone who doesn't believe something.
And yes, without belief in a god or gods is the same as disbelief. It is when you say they believe there is no god that they become so called "strong" or "Positive" Atheists. Militant Atheists are people who seek out religious people to try and prove them wrong. Anti-Theist fits MOST, *MOST* strong Atheists and militant Atheists, but it means someone who believes religion shouldn't exist. I think Strong Atheists should come up with a word, yes. It causes too much confusion.

Yes, but I do believe there should be a name for a people who are significant and unique such as atheists. They are a portion of the population of the world which goes against a norm (theism) and would have no real representation in the international psyche were they to remain nameless.

As an analogy: we have many words for sexual preferences (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.), though I will admit on this that such preferences are are often not as black and grey and white as those who invented those labels would have most people believe, and then there are those who have no such preference, asexuals, those who lack a sexual want for any groups covered by the previous labels. We could leave them label-less, as there technically shouldn't be a word for someone who simply doesn't want something (you wouldn't create a name for someone who doesn't want to wear belts ), but that disacknowledges them as a group and unintentionally implies that they are amongst those to which we need not pay attention. It would cause some unnecessary self-persecution from those who found themselves experiencing this lack of feelings and put them into a sort of mythical status, where people will have heard of such beings, but never given credit to the possibility of their actual existence.

Giving atheists a name is important because it gives them standing and recognition amongst the rest of the world's ideologies who would never normally even think of the possibility of such a group of people were it not to be named.

I agree with you there. I just don't like the idea that I live in a world where people who don't believe in gods are the minority. No offense, of course! Not calling you crazy or anything, I just don't hold faith in high (or any) esteem. Part of my own personal values and whatnot.

[Kirantil]

Yes, but I do believe there should be a name for a people who are significant and unique such as atheists. They are a portion of the population of the world which goes against a norm (theism) and would have no real representation in the international psyche were they to remain nameless.

As an analogy: we have many words for sexual preferences (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.), though I will admit on this that such preferences are are often not as black and grey and white as those who invented those labels would have most people believe, and then there are those who have no such preference, asexuals, those who lack a sexual want for any groups covered by the previous labels. We could leave them label-less, as there technically shouldn't be a word for someone who simply doesn't want something (you wouldn't create a name for someone who doesn't want to wear belts ), but that disacknowledges them as a group and unintentionally implies that they are amongst those to which we need not pay attention. It would cause some unnecessary self-persecution from those who found themselves experiencing this lack of feelings and put them into a sort of mythical status, where people will have heard of such beings, but never given credit to the possibility of their actual existence.

Giving atheists a name is important because it gives them standing and recognition amongst the rest of the world's ideologies who would never normally even think of the possibility of such a group of people were it not to be named.

I agree with you there. I just don't like the idea that I live in a world where people who don't believe in gods are the minority. No offense, of course! Not calling you crazy or anything, I just don't hold faith in high (or any) esteem. Part of my own personal values and whatnot.

Nah I understand, I'm actually totally unaffiliated, non-religious, or, for the sake of confusing the resident crazies, an Ignostically agnostic Deist. I see how one who cannot understand a certain viewpoint can feel rather out of place and confused with the world's tilt away from their own belief, I've felt the tinge of such things once or twice on several matters.

And even if I were to hold a religious faith, to each his own, as they say, 'tis not for me to judge what you hold as true and good in your mind, anymore than it is yours to judge others'.

And allow me to thank you for a pleasant conversation on a seemingly heated topic that didn't end in anger like one comes to expect from the internet's various and numerous crazies.

[Sorenian]

Well Done this topic has made it to 53 pages while staying on topic and not degenerating into a flame war.

[The Cummunist State]

I agree with you there. I just don't like the idea that I live in a world where people who don't believe in gods are the minority. No offense, of course! Not calling you crazy or anything, I just don't hold faith in high (or any) esteem. Part of my own personal values and whatnot.

Nah I understand, I'm actually totally unaffiliated, non-religious, or, for the sake of confusing the resident crazies, an Ignostically agnostic Deist. I see how one who cannot understand a certain viewpoint can feel rather out of place and confused with the world's tilt away from their own belief, I've felt the tinge of such things once or twice on several matters.

And even if I were to hold a religious faith, to each his own, as they say, 'tis not for me to judge what you hold as true and good in your mind, anymore than it is yours to judge others'.

And allow me to thank you for a pleasant conversation on a seemingly heated topic that didn't end in anger like one comes to expect from the internet's various and numerous crazies.

And thank you too!

[Farnhamia]

Well Done this topic has made it to 53 pages while staying on topic and not degenerating into a flame war.

[Zottistan]

I wouldn't go as far as to call it an illness... Let me put it this way. Schizoid ruins lives. So does OCD. Niether are mental illnesses. Religion is the same. Not a mental illness, but a personality disorder.

[Lauruccia]

Okay, I'm Buddhist, Atheist and Agnostic, and it doesn't make any sense. Mental illness. See it this way: Is believing in Santa Claus mental illness? No. So... is believing in god mental illness? Yeah? Nooo. Yeah. Nooooooo!