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?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 129 by Willum]

Please do not inflict on us your unwillingness to investigate what is perfectly public information.
In the discussion level, it is perfectly conceivable for the lay people to observe behavior and see they fit criteria.

Yes. I was trying to get at this fact in the OP. Common sense is quite adequate to conclude a person is mentally ill especially if that person exhibits the very obvious symptoms I clearly laid out at the very beginning of this thread.

But if those symptoms you describe are the very same symptoms a religious person may have, then you're in for a battle!

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 170 by bluethread]

Maybe a factor, but not a controlling factor. An otherwise socially adjusted individual does not engage in those extreme antisocial behaviors based only on reading a book.

It takes more than just reading a book I agree. One needs to take very seriously what one reads in the book and whole-heartedly agree with what that book states. The Bible's authors wanted their readers to believe in what they said and observe their marching orders. If you've ever read Revelation, then it should come as no surprise that Manson did what he did.

Also, the fact that one could get someone to believe or disbelieve in deities does not in and of itself make the person no longer homicidal. Homicidal is the controlling factor.

Then we agree that not believing in invisible people cannot cause a person to murder. Now please tell Christian apologists this important fact.

I never said that I was befuddled by ending up debating Christians.

That's not what I said! I said: "...you shouldn't be befuddled if you end up debating Christianity." OK? I didn't say don't be surprised if you debate Christians.

I said that I do not have much tie for evangelicalism, a philosophy that's primary focus is conversion, whether it be theistic or atheistic evangelicalism.

You honestly didn't expect to run into evangelicalism here? In a forum full of Christians?

In any case, I'm not sure why you would have such an aversion to a person's motive to sway you to their position. What if that person happens to be right? You don't want to be right?

And regarding people trying to convert others to their position, that's essentially what a debate is! When we debate we try to convince other's that we're right. So for a person who cannot tolerate others' attempts to sway him to their position, it is exceedingly strange that you would engage people in a forum entitled "Debating Christianity."

Is it just that you don't want to agree with me and know that that's exactly what a fair, open debate with me will result in?

I don't recall my holding a gun to anybody's head or torturing them on the rack. My arguments nevertheless do seem to carry a lot of force.

Those are not common practices of evangelicals. They are generally the practices of extreme authoritarians.

You appear to be willfully missing my point. You accused me of trying to force others to change their beliefs. I demonstrated that it's absurd to accuse me of something I will not and cannot do.

I have no problem with debating various issues.

Except for debates that might actually change your mind!

However, if it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of the other persons argument is simply to get me to convert to their view by any means possible, I quickly lose interest.

Well guess what--I'm trying to "convert you to my view" in this very exchange. Isn't it really distasteful to agree with me? You better quickly lose interest before it's too late and you see things my way!

Getting back to religion as a delusion, note that I define delusion as refusal to accept good evidence that one's false beliefs are false. Might a stated aversion to debating others who see your beliefs as false indicate delusion?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 170 by bluethread]

Maybe a factor, but not a controlling factor. An otherwise socially adjusted individual does not engage in those extreme antisocial behaviors based only on reading a book.

It takes more than just reading a book I agree. One needs to take very seriously what one reads in the book and whole-heartedly agree with what that book states. The Bible's authors wanted their readers to believe in what they said and observe their marching orders. If you've ever read Revelation, then it should come as no surprise that Manson did what he did.

Also, the fact that one could get someone to believe or disbelieve in deities does not in and of itself make the person no longer homicidal. Homicidal is the controlling factor.

Then we agree that not believing in invisible people cannot cause a person to murder. Now please tell Christian apologists this important fact.

I do not recall ever having been told that in and of itself would cause a person to murder. If I do I will no doubt make that point. However, that does not mean that there have not been murderers who have taken that position. Again, I don't think that whether one is a theist or atheist is generally the sole or determinant factor in a murder.

I never said that I was befuddled by ending up debating Christians.

That's not what I said! I said: "...you shouldn't be befuddled if you end up debating Christianity." OK? I didn't say don't be surprised if you debate Christians.

Quit being pedantic. I didn't say that I would be befuddled by either of those things.

I said that I do not have much tie for evangelicalism, a philosophy that's primary focus is conversion, whether it be theistic or atheistic evangelicalism.

You honestly didn't expect to run into evangelicalism here? In a forum full of Christians?

I have come to expect evangelicalism everywhere I go, whether I am talking to a theist or an atheist. I just don't generally waste much time on it.

In any case, I'm not sure why you would have such an aversion to a person's motive to sway you to their position. What if that person happens to be right? You don't want to be right?

And regarding people trying to convert others to their position, that's essentially what a debate is! When we debate we try to convince other's that we're right. So for a person who cannot tolerate others' attempts to sway him to their position, it is exceedingly strange that you would engage people in a forum entitled "Debating Christianity."

Is it just that you don't want to agree with me and know that that's exactly what a fair, open debate with me will result in?

In debate one proposes, defends and/or opposes an argument. One need not be obsessed with converting the other party. The reason intent is important is that, if the driving intent is conversion, there is a greater chance that one will be confronted with demagoguery and diatribes. I prefer rational discussion.

I don't recall my holding a gun to anybody's head or torturing them on the rack. My arguments nevertheless do seem to carry a lot of force.

Those are not common practices of evangelicals. They are generally the practices of extreme authoritarians.

You appear to be willfully missing my point. You accused me of trying to force others to change their beliefs. I demonstrated that it's absurd to accuse me of something I will not and cannot do.

I don't recall making such an accusation. I referred to "some atheists as well as some theists". That is why I addressed the nature of the actions you said you do not engage in, not whether or not you engage in them. My point is that evangelicals, whether they be theist or atheist, do not usually engage in those activities, those are the actions of authoritarians.

I have no problem with debating various issues.

Except for debates that might actually change your mind!

However, if it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of the other persons argument is simply to get me to convert to their view by any means possible, I quickly lose interest.

Well guess what--I'm trying to "convert you to my view" in this very exchange. Isn't it really distasteful to agree with me? You better quickly lose interest before it's too late and you see things my way!

I don't know why you needed to insert your presumption, when my explanation was literally the next sentence. To be honest I am growing weary of your hostile responses, but have continued in the hope that we can get past it, if I did my best to ignore them and focus on the issues at hand.

Getting back to religion as a delusion, note that I define delusion as refusal to accept good evidence that one's false beliefs are false. Might a stated aversion to debating others who see your beliefs as false indicate delusion?

It might, but that is not what I do. I do not avoid rational debate, but I do prefer not to waste my time with demagoguery, distribes and sophistry. I do not find that expectation delutional at all. It may be a bit optimistic, but not delusional. So, shall we stop discussing those who engage in such things and get back to rational discussion?

[alexxcJRO]

A1: At the risk of you pulling the definition of "mentally ill," out of the dictionary again, and saying they are obviously not mentally ill, yes.
A2: In insight, yes, those politicians who are going to war with God as the reason, are also mentally ill. Any body of people who believe that same are also.
A common definition of mental illness is willingness to harm oneself or others.

Acording to the definitions and psychiatric knowledge these people are not mentally ill:

"Mental illnesses are health conditions involving changes in thinking, emotion or behavior (or a combination of these). Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities."
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-fam ... al-illness

mental illness
noun
variants: or mental disorder or less commonly mental disease

: any of a broad range of medical conditions (such as major depression, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, or panic disorder) that are marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... %20illness




According to the definition of delusion and psychiatric knowledge these people are not delusional, nor do they suffer from psychotic disords cuz' if they did they would have presented these symptoms : hallucinations(visual hallucinations, auditory hallucinations, extracampine hallucinations, cenesthetic hallucination), disorganized speech or thinking(rapidly switching topics, called derailment or loose association; switching to topics that are unrelated, called tangental thinking; incomprehensible speech, called word salad or incoherence.), and grossly disorganized motor behavior(repetitive, odd, or sometimes purposeless movement). Symptoms may include loss of interest in personal hygiene, loss of interest in activities; problems at school or work and with relationships; cold, detached manner with the inability to express emotion; mood swings or other mood symptoms, such as depression or mania.

"A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception.
They have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both general physical and mental) and are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Although delusions might be a symptom of more common disorders, such as schizophrenia, delusional disorder itself is rather rare.
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/gui ... disorder#1


"According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

Clearly as you say in your tag-line, this definition changes when it is accompanied by the sound of trumpets.

In my signature i do not talk about mental illness.
I am talk about special pleading.
"Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception."

[Willum]

[Replying to post 174 by alexxcJRO]

So in other words, yes by the definitions you presented, you believe religious people are mentally ill.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 174 by alexxcJRO]

So in other words, yes by the definitions you presented, you believe religious people are mentally ill.

Nonsense dear sir.
I said according to definitions and psychiatric knowledge these people are not mentally ill.

Avoiding my points again. Pfff



Q: Do you have any evidence to support your claim that these people are mentally ill?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 174 by alexxcJRO]

OK, let this be an exercise in lateral thinking for you:

"Mental illnesses are health conditions involving changes in thinking, emotion or behavior (or a combination of these). Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities."

When the triggering event occurs, the invocation of God, religious people change there perspective from aberrant things being aberrant: War, genocide, slavery, etc., to these being a logical progression. In individuals, the analogous behaviors; murder, oppression, etc.,while invoking God is/are insane.

any of a broad range of medical conditions (such as major depression, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, or panic disorder) that are marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.

War, particularly, is a marked distress and associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.

They certainly suffer from the disorganized thinking, even delusion, albeit en-mass of believing an all-powerful creature wants them to perform irrational acts, which makes no sense on any level.

And again, delusion, albeit en-mass, that this God exists, despite overwhelming contrary evidence... and the illogical possibility of its motivations.

I think the problem you are having is that, these are en-mass.

But they would have to be to even have this discussion.

So, not nonsense at all, simply applying individual constraints on a large body of people, and engaging ones brain to account for the fact that individuals are not groups, and definitions of insanity MUST be adapted to speak coherently about the phenomenon - whether you agree with it or not... terminology must be adapted to speak about it.

An analogy might be speaking about the properties of the H2O molecule, vs. a glass of water. The molecule does not need a glass to retain its shape, but the group does require the unifying principle, the glass.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 173 by bluethread]

...I don't think that whether one is a theist or atheist is generally the sole or determinant factor in a murder.

Obviously, many murders might have little to do with religion, but as I've documented on this thread, some murders have been inspired by Christian beliefs.

Quit being pedantic.

Sorry, but I try to get things right. I don't think that it's proper to switch "Christians" for Christianity.

I have come to expect evangelicalism everywhere I go, whether I am talking to a theist or an atheist.

Everywhere you go? I suppose almost everybody tries to convince others that they're right. You may be the sole exception.

I just don't generally waste much time on it.

Oh yes--I can see that. In fact I've seen that in your last ten posts or so.

One need not be obsessed with converting the other party. The reason intent is important is that, if the driving intent is conversion, there is a greater chance that one will be confronted with demagoguery and diatribes. I prefer rational discussion.

If you are "confronted with demagoguery and diatribes," then why not just say so?

In any case, if you "prefer rational discussion," then you think I discuss rationally. That's why you've preferred to reply to my posts.

To be honest I am growing weary of your hostile responses, but have continued in the hope that we can get past it, if I did my best to ignore them and focus on the issues at hand.

What are "the issues at hand"? (Hint: Read the OP.) It seems to me that it has been your own dialogue that has raised the issues we are currently discussing. So why raise issues only to complain about discussing them?

I do not avoid rational debate, but I do prefer not to waste my time with demagoguery, distribes and sophistry.

Thank you for the tacit compliment! Since you avoid "demagoguery, distribes (sic) and sophistry," (it looks like you also avoid spell check) and you don't avoid my posts, then there is no demagoguery, distribes and sophistry on my part.

Is it not amazing what a little bit of logic can uncover?

[alexxcJRO]

When the triggering event occurs, the invocation of God, religious people change there perspective from aberrant things being aberrant: War, genocide, slavery, etc., to these being a logical progression. In individuals, the analogous behaviors; murder, oppression, etc.,while invoking God is/are insane.
They certainly suffer from the disorganized thinking, even delusion, albeit en-mass of believing an all-powerful creature wants them to perform irrational acts, which makes no sense on any level.

Firstly,

Q: Are you unable to read?!

it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception.
They have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both general physical and mental) and are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

So I am afraid they are not delusional and suffering from psychotic disorder but indoctrinated, mistaken, ignorant.
These people students were indoctrinated from young to believe this(our leaders are anointed and picked by God, what they say its God will) and this a common belief then they ware not be mentally ill, suffering from psychotic disorders.

For to be ill they would need to develop a sudden idiosyncratic belief that is not common.

Secondly,

In the majority of the cases delusions are a symptom of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, so one. Psychotic disorders include symptoms like hallucinations(visual hallucinations, auditory hallucinations, extracampine hallucinations, cenesthetic hallucination), disorganized speech or thinking(rapidly switching topics, called derailment or loose association; switching to topics that are unrelated, called tangental thinking; incomprehensible speech, called word salad or incoherence.), and grossly disorganized motor behavior(repetitive, odd, or sometimes purposeless movement). Symptoms may include loss of interest in personal hygiene, loss of interest in activities; problems at school or work and with relationships; cold, detached manner with the inability to express emotion; mood swings or other mood symptoms, such as depression or mania.

So big chunks of US&UK population are suffering from psychotic disorders en mass(like Andrea Yates) yet no one, no psychiatrist is noticing this.
Common dear sir. Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Q: Have you ever seen people suffering from schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder?


Thirdly,
Q: Why should anyone believe this nonsense de sir?

Q: Do you have any evidence outside your opinion that big chunks of US&UK population are experiencing changes in thinking, emotion or behavior; that they have problems functioning in social, work or family activities?
Q: Do you have any evidence outside your opinion that big chunks of US&UK population are delusional, suffering from psychotic disorder?

I hope you know that just saying it is so does not make it so.

Lets not forget about the rules:
Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

Please present the evidence sir.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 179 by alexxcJRO]

Listen, I know what I am saying, and I know I am expanding the definition of insanity to encompass groups.
I know and understand that insanity under current definitions does not cover groups.
Yet I am trying to have a conversation.
If you are going to be pedantic and unwilling to discuss how mental illness applies to groups we can't have a conversation.

Because if we remain chained to the concepts you propose, well, I agree with you.
YAWN.
Because we haven't spoken about what is going on when people use imaginary creatures (gods) to excuse mass murder.

I think/propose that is a mass mental disorder. One perhaps not identified nor defined.
But what do you want to call it, for example? and if you name the beast, do you further wish to discuss it?

If not, I am not interested in discussing it further, because, duh, it's obvious.

And whatever you want to call it, are you going to discuss it being a deficiency? A mental deficiency? I believe it is. Just not one respected conventionally.

But by all means, keep throwing what I already understand to confound an argument I am not really making...