The Mental-Illness Theory of Religion

[Jagella]

There are some viable theories of religious belief, and to posit that religious belief is a mental illness is one such theory.

It should be instructive to begin to discuss this theory with an analogy that should clarify that psychological disturbance underlies belief in gods and the supernatural. Let's say that I am sincerely claiming that I am in touch with powerful extraterrestrials. I say I communicate with them telepathically. I can and do ask them to use their highly-advanced technology to help me, and they grant my requests. I testify that their help to me has included their curing my illnesses and altering the weather for me. When skeptics ask about my ET friends, I explain that the skeptics need to please these ETs by accepting their existence. Otherwise, the skeptics will receive nothing from them!

It gets even better. I am certain that one day soon these ETs will arrive on earth from space with a spectacular display of their most advanced technologies. They will alter the light-refraction traits of the atmosphere to darken the sun and make the moon blood-red. They'll even make it appear that the stars are falling to the earth! And if that's not impressive enough, they will incinerate all people who have refused to believe in them with death-ray energy beams. Those of us who have faithfully followed these ETs will be teleported into their spacecraft to be taken away to live in paradise forever on their planet, Mumbo-Jumbo.

I'm crazy as anybody here, both believer and unbeliever, can clearly see. I'm very deluded. Yet, with just a few changes of the words I'm using, you can uncover basic Christian theology.

Why, then, is Christianity and other religions not mental illness?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 89 by bluethread]

If you have a law that I do not accept, when I do not abide by that law, I am transgressing it. I don't have to accept the law to have transgressed it.

But it is not a sin.
Nor is one breaking a law. A law in one county DOES NOT mean you are breaking it in another. Going above a 25 mph speed limit on the high way is not a transgression, and NONE of them are sins.
Oh, well.

Yes, but going 30 mph in a posted 25 mph zone is a violation of that law, even if the violator does not think that law is right. If that speed limit is in effect because the municipality believes that a deity wants it that way, then it is also a sin. Again, the driver does not have to recognize the law or the deity for it to be a violation(sin).

No, we have not established that. Irrational and insane are not the same thing.

True, but I am using them in the same context, if you need to substitute insane for irrational so that you understand the sentence, go ahead.

No, that is the point. They are not at all the same. Irrational is not insane.

That is true, but people do irrational things all of the time and continue to perceive, behave and interact socially in a normal manner.

But I am talking about the repeated behavior... so again.

People REPEATEDLY do irrational things all of the time and continue to perceive, behave and interact socially in a normal manner.

People who over indulge in smoking, drinking, eating and any number of other things that jeopardize their health are not considered mad, as long as they continue to generally continue to perceive, behave and interact socially in a normal manner.

Let's try this in the proper context, one you seem to vehemently avoid:
People who over indulge in murder, suicide, cutting themselves and any number of sins that jeopardize their immortal soul are [not] considered mad, as long as they continue to generally continue to perceive, behave and interact socially in a normal manner.

You see, madness.

If it were true.

Murder by definition is abnormal social interaction. Suicide and cutting oneself are by defintion, abnormal behaviors, even though modern society has made exceptions. You are still conflating irrational and insane. Some irrationality can rise to the level of insanity. However, simply being irrational, does not make one insane. In order for something to be insane it must rise to the level of abnormal perception, behavior or social interaction.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 91 by bluethread]

Just as you have repeatedly misconstrued both the intent and meaning of this conversation so that you could justify an irrational belief.

If it weren't an irrational belief you wouldn't need to misconstrue my examples to make your point.
I mean do you REALLY think I believe going 30 in a 25 zone is lawful? Of course you don't, you are simply being ingenuous to defend a hopeless position.
Do you really believe the divine has posted speed limits? Of course you don't, you are simply being ingenuous to defend a hopeless position.
Do you really believe I was using irrational and insane other than synonymously? Of course you don't, you are simply being ingenuous to defend a hopeless position.
Are you really simply slipping between definitions of abnormal and normal behaviors simply to define your way out of the argument? Of course you are, you are simply being ingenuous to defend a hopeless position.

Come back when you have something other than ingenuousness to defend the position, until then, sinning, is madness both from a religious point of view, and from a non-religious perspective.

[William]

[Replying to post 91 by bluethread]

Yes, but going 30 mph in a posted 25 mph zone is a violation of that law, even if the violator does not think that law is right. If that speed limit is in effect because the municipality believes that a deity wants it that way, then it is also a sin. Again, the driver does not have to recognize the law or the deity for it to be a violation(sin).

I think you take liberties with your conflating religious law with the above type. We can understand for example that the above law is representative of a way of trying to keep everyone safe from the negative affects of excessive speed in built up areas.

Stoning adulterers to death, burning witches, owning slaves etc isn't for the same purpose, and even if one might argue that once upon a time it might very well have done, those days are over and this means that somewhere along the line people questioned that law and decided it was inappropriate.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 88 by alexxcJRO]

Dear sir you are conflating a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception with a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary.

Yes. Your evidence is superior to mine.

Dear sir you are ignoring compelling evidence from reputable sources and accepts some bogus testimonial evidence from a random youtuber.

My evidence is bogus, of course.

I'm not sure why you're saying I'm ignoring your evidence. I've engaged that nice, little online article lauding the supposed benefits of religion throughout this thread. Do I have some obligation to believe it? Am I a heretic denying its sacred truth?

The majority of religious people believe their religion is true because of indoctrination, ignorance. Their belief is based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception. Most of them have read very little of their religious texts or not at all, have a very basic education or none, know very little about the universe they live in.

And those same people will normally reject any evidence that serves to falsify their beliefs even when they know that evidence demonstrates that their beliefs are false. Those who do not reject that evidence will become atheists like I did.

Of course there are religious people who are delusional and mentally ill, but they are in the minority.

What percentage of religious people are mentally ill, or are you just pulling that out of your hat?

So it sounds so closely like you have a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary.

Not really. I've stated throughout this thread that religion might be beneficial in some ways to some people. The clergy sure are happy making good money!

"Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words."

Sock it to me!

It does not follow that I believe in God or magic from the fact that I am going against an atheist.

Who said that?

For your knowledge I am an agnostic-atheist. I don’t believe in magic, gods, the supernatural.

Well what are you waiting for? Your article is absolutely and irrefutably true and only doubted by fools like me. Join some religion, and you'll gain tremendous psychological benefits! Those 700 studies cannot be wrong.

I just cannot stomach illogical, inaccurate nonsense like all/majority of believers are mentally ill.

It must be hard for you to endure my "illogical, inaccurate nonsense." May I recommend Alka-Seltzer?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 91 by bluethread]

Just as you have repeatedly misconstrued both the intent and meaning of this conversation so that you could justify an irrational belief.

If it weren't an irrational belief you wouldn't need to misconstrue my examples to make your point.
I mean do you REALLY think I believe going 30 in a 25 zone is lawful? Of course you don't, you are simply being ingenuous to defend a hopeless position.
Do you really believe the divine has posted speed limits? Of course you don't, you are simply being ingenuous to defend a hopeless position.

I am using that example because I presume that you do think that going 30 in a 25 mph zone is unlawful. There are people who do not think it is unlawful. Are they not violating the law, because they hold that view? So, if a speed limit were pu in place because the municipality thought a deity told them to, whould it not be a sin simply because you disagree.

Do you really believe I was using irrational and insane other than synonymously? Of course you don't, you are simply being ingenuous to defend a hopeless position. Are you really simply slipping between definitions of abnormal and normal behaviors simply to define your way out of the argument? Of course you are, you are simply being ingenuous to defend a hopeless position.

I do not believe that you were using irrational and insane other than synonymously. That is my point. They are very dissimilar and in significant ways. I am referring to normal and abnormal because they are integral to the definition of sanity. They are not integral to the definition of rationality.

Come back when you have something other than ingenuousness to defend the position, until then, sinning, is madness both from a religious point of view, and from a non-religious perspective.

Are you complaining because my arguments too simplistic? Sorry, if the defintions are not complicated enough for you. However, though you can have your opinions, your assertions have not been shown to be true, if they do not line up with the defintions of the terms under consideration, i.e. rationality and insanity.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 95 by bluethread]

And so even now that you know differently, that it has been spelled out to you, by two people now, you are still contending the inane?
I already said that wasn't what was intended, yet you persist.

Sorry, sin, is insane based on religious beliefs of those who keep doing it, and from a non-religious persons' perspective as well.

Anyone who repeats behavior that imperils their immortal soul on a regular basis, is just as insane as someone tries to (permanently, since it seems I must fight ingenuousness) harm themselves or others in this world on a repeat basis.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 91 by bluethread]

Yes, but going 30 mph in a posted 25 mph zone is a violation of that law, even if the violator does not think that law is right. If that speed limit is in effect because the municipality believes that a deity wants it that way, then it is also a sin. Again, the driver does not have to recognize the law or the deity for it to be a violation(sin).

I think you take liberties with your conflating religious law with the above type. We can understand for example that the above law is representative of a way of trying to keep everyone safe from the negative affects of excessive speed in built up areas.

Stoning adulterers to death, burning witches, owning slaves etc isn't for the same purpose, and even if one might argue that once upon a time it might very well have done, those days are over and this means that somewhere along the line people questioned that law and decided it was inappropriate.

The purpose is irrelevant to the point. Every law has been deemed appropriate by someone at one time and another person at another time. The point is that give a law, any law, if one does not abide by that law one is violating it and if it is associated by anyone to a deity, it is a sin in that regard. It has nothing to do with whether one likes it or not. It is about understanding the nature of the terms violation and sin, not how one feels about any specific law.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 95 by bluethread]

And so even now that you know differently, that it has been spelled out to you, by two people now, you are still contending the inane?
I already said that wasn't what was intended, yet you persist.

Sorry, sin, is insane based on religious beliefs of those who keep doing it, and from a non-religious persons' perspective as well.

Anyone who repeats behavior that imperils their immortal soul on a regular basis, is just as insane as someone tries to (permanently, since it seems I must fight ingenuousness) harm themselves or others in this world on a repeat basis.

Then Bing is inane, because they define sin as "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law" and insane as "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction." So, how does "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law" create "a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction" ?

[William]

[Replying to post 81 by bluethread]

Yes, but if one is not in that society, or accept the existence of that divine being, one may not consider there to be anything associated with that violation. One might ask why that distinction is important. It is important because one might find oneself in such a society one day and pleading that one does not believe in the law is not going to get one out of trouble.

It does not matter. Why don't you understand that?

Jesus was in that exact position. I myself have been in that position, and indeed it often is the case that even in situations where so-called 'divine' law and even laws of the so-called 'justice' systems are not the 'laws' one is having to deal with, and perhaps take a stand against, because they are dishonest.

This is the whole point of acting righteously by taking a stand against unrighteous rules and regulations no matter what assumed authority they are coming from and what evil things those authorities can do to you.

When Germany was Nazi, did it matter that the laws created which made being a Jew an offence were created and enforced by that society and Jews couldn't change that even that the suffered the consequences of being Jews?

being a Jew may have been regarded by those who created that law, as being a sin, but this in no way means that it was. Your argument is saying that it does. Mine is saying most definitely that laws created making 'this or that' a sin, do not mean that 'this or that' is in fact, a sin.

One can question the existence of authority, but one can not question a law, unless one acknowledges that it exists.

Who is arguing that? Certainly not I. You are obviously confused here. My argument has been - and will continue to be - that one can indeed question both the authorities creating the laws and the laws themselves. Indeed one should ALWAYS question them.

One is only bound to a set of laws that one chooses to be under and one does not require laws in order to behave as one knows one is best to behave.

That is nonsense.

No. It is truth.

When one establishes how one is to behave, one has established a law.

No. One has acknowledged a reality one decides to adopt for oneself. I do not rape, not because any law forbids me to, but because I acknowledge that rape is not an act of LOVE.

I do not require a law which forbids me from doing something I consider to act against LOVE. I question any law and authority (divine or human) which I consider requires me to act against LOVE. Such laws are those which I am arguing are questionable.

Also, if one wishes to interact with others, one must interact with their laws.

Why would I want to interact with others who's laws work against LOVE? The only reason I have in doing so would be to try and convince them to change their minds through the process of questioning their positions, such as what I am attempting to do here with you.

I am interacting with you am I not? Do I have to follow the laws you follow in order to do so?

This creates a social contract that is binding on the parties involved.

The only social contract all parties need is one which acknowledges LOVE as the foundation for any truthful interaction. Anything else in the contract is questionable.

Such a contract can be negotiated and changed,...

In other words, questioned.

...but if that a law is simply ignored the contract begins to break down.

One is best not to enter contracts without questioning the content. Is it based in LOVE? If not, then it is questionable.

I do not recall Him saying that. Can you please provide a reference so we can see what He actually said.

You are a Christian yes? How is it that you 'do not recall' the biblical record of those words attributed to Jesus?

Google: "these two laws fulfill the whole law" and you will access the reference

You do not agree with that law why? Because it is questionable, that is why. This does not mean that questionable laws to which you do abide, are any more substantial and violating them does not mean any actual SIN has been committed. The law does not actually mean that those breaking it are sinning. Violating questionable laws is not sin, no matter who decides that it is or how much power and authority they have to enforce it and punish those who violate it because they understand that it is ethical to do so..

[icon_hahano] Violating a law that is related to a deity does mean an actual SIN has been committed. It may not be a sin according to ones own value system, but it is an actual sin according to the law under consideration.

A law under consideration is by definition, questionable. A law proclaiming to be sourced in a deity does not exclude that law or the deity from being questionable. Indeed I expect no less than LOVE from any being proclaiming to be a deity, whether the claim is directly from the entity or - as in the case of the OT idea of GOD, through the adherents of claimed deity.

In the case of those transitioning from non-deity to deity, I will allow a period of grace for the purpose of adjusting, but fully expect the being to learn LOVE as a foundational principle of behavior.

Sin is sin, regardless of any laws which tell you otherwise, and not questioning such laws is no excuse or exemption.

NO, sin can not exist without a law. Sin is the violation of a law, by definition

.

Quibble if you will. My point is that there are those who know instinctively and those who have to be told, and on top of that, those who have to be told are far more easily lead astray by unethical laws - such as have already been mentioned - because they believe that 'without the law sin does not exist' and are confused as to what is sin and what is not because they rely on being told, and accept what they are told without question.

The purpose is irrelevant to the point. Every law has been deemed appropriate by someone at one time and another person at another time. The point is that give a law, any law, if one does not abide by that law one is violating it and if it is associated by anyone to a deity, it is a sin in that regard. It has nothing to do with whether one likes it or not. It is about understanding the nature of the terms violation and sin, not how one feels about any specific law.

See my answers above.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 98 by bluethread]

You have the cause and effect reversed.