Faith and madness, am I too harsh?

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
If it is indoctrination into believing in things that are not real it would have the same result.

I can agree with that statement.

As Artaraxia sort of said, it is the skepticism and critical thinking that is the basis of thus being an atheist.

I think that the religious mind set is based on a sort of schitzo thinking. Or at least that is the question of this thread.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Interesting.

Critical thinking studies that I've participated in require the ability to amass evidence for both sides of a question as a prerequisite for serious thought. Quite often a situation can emerge where there can be compelling evidence for both sides, in which case the original question has to be reexamined.

Has that ever happened w/ you or do your critical thinking skills just not get that far?

I have never had any reasonable evidence in support for any particular god or moderate evidence for any such thing as a god/creator shown to me.

I have seen lots of very compelling evidence of a committment to lying from the religious.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Well...probably not the oldest. But one of the most insidious, it certainly is. This is absolutely a fallacy. What Tim seems to want to say is:

1. (For all x)If x is religious, then x is mad

as one of his premises. But that's what he also seems to want to prove, so he clearly cannot do that. That'd just be circular reasoning. So instead, he goes:

2. (For all x) If x is mad, x is religious.

That's the reason for the bit about how people with schizophrenia are all (mostly) focused on religious figures. We are supposed to accept 2 as a reasonable premise, which maybe it is. I've only known a few individuals with psychotic delusions, but they all seemed to think they were talking to angels or yakshas or whatever. So let's say I buy 2. But then Tim still needs to prove 1. How can he do that? Well, he really cannot, but he tries to get close by affirming the consequent of 2:

3. x is religious

4. therefore, x is mad

Going the wrong direction on the conditional, and then I guess the idea is to treat inference like a conditional. Actually, I'm not so clear on this part of the strategy, but in any case, what he wants is 1, which is: (For all x) if x is religious, then x is mad. But obviously, three of these moves (1, 3 and 4) are fallacious, so it's unclear how he could reason toward the needed conclusion.

Anyway, that's the logical territory as I see it. It's basically the same deal as when opponents of pornography point out that all the rapists in prison in the Unites States looked at porn before they started raping, and try to conclude that therefore porn is bad because it causes men to rape.

I understand your point. That my view may well be considered extreme.

If all those who loked at porn did go on to rape then the anti-porn people would have a fair point.

I find that all religious people, sometimes intelligent in all other areas of debate, debate religion they lose their marbles. Obviously drivel statements come flooding out.

I am thus becoming convinced that the further the person is into religion the further they are into the schitzoid mind set. Or something close to that.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I understand your point. That my view may well be considered extreme.

If all those who loked at porn did go on to rape then the anti-porn people would have a fair point.

I find that all religious people, sometimes intelligent in all other areas of debate, debate religion they lose their marbles. Obviously drivel statements come flooding out.

I am thus becoming convinced that the further the person is into religion the further they are into the schitzoid mind set. Or something close to that.

Hmmmm...can you give an example of an intelligent person making a drivel statement when it comes to religion?

 

[devildavid]

As Artaraxia sort of said, it is the skepticism and critical thinking that is the basis of thus being an atheist.

I think that the religious mind set is based on a sort of schitzo thinking. Or at least that is the question of this thread.

There are many other types of thinking that exhibit this. There is a strong streak of superstition running through humanity. Most people are "crazy" in some of their thinking. But there truly is a substantial difference between this everyday craziness and true physically caused "madness". There are malfunctions of the brain and nervous system that are beyond the control of the individual. This is far different than indulging in superstition while still functioning in reality.

 

[gfm7175]

As Artaraxia sort of said, it is the skepticism and critical thinking that is the basis of thus being an atheist.

I think that the religious mind set is based on a sort of schitzo thinking. Or at least that is the question of this thread.

Although I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, I think that the same can also be said for theists. Obviously there are exceptions on the religious side (people with completely blind faith) and on the atheist side (people who reject God without truly considering theistic positions). I am skeptical of everything unless I look into it for myself and come to my own conclusion, and I do that by using critical thinking. Yet, that critical thinking and skepticism did not lead me to become an atheist; it led me to become a theist, specifically a theist who believes in the Judeo Christian God as presented in the Holy Bible.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Hmmmm...can you give an example of an intelligent person making a drivel statement when it comes to religion?

In a another forum long long ago...

A poster who was very well educated and I respected a lot claimed that I did not know a fraction of the information in the universe using a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

I know that this was due to his focus on language rather than maths and did not show his real capacity for thinking but using the idea that there could be an invisable, untouchable, person in the same room as me thus God is just plain drivel.

The religious on this forum are dominated by the clearly reality denial/delusional/exactly what I am talking about. I think the normal range of appologists for religion don't put in too many appearances due to the embarassment of being associated with them.

 

[Tim the plumber]

There are many other types of thinking that exhibit this. There is a strong streak of superstition running through humanity. Most people are "crazy" in some of their thinking. But there truly is a substantial difference between this everyday craziness and true physically caused "madness". There are malfunctions of the brain and nervous system that are beyond the control of the individual. This is far different than indulging in superstition while still functioning in reality.

I agree that nobody is 100% rational.

But the definition of mad is that the person is unable to cope due to their delusions or whatever.

That allows the able to cope despite the utterly wrong headed thinking that they do to be called not mad.

I think it is a form of or close to schitzo.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Although I don't necessarily disagree with what you said, I think that the same can also be said for theists. Obviously there are exceptions on the religious side (people with completely blind faith) and on the atheist side (people who reject God without truly considering theistic positions). I am skeptical of everything unless I look into it for myself and come to my own conclusion, and I do that by using critical thinking. Yet, that critical thinking and skepticism did not lead me to become an atheist; it led me to become a theist, specifically a theist who believes in the Judeo Christian God as presented in the Holy Bible.

OK,....

Well I have to ask, what credible evidence did not fail when your critical thinking considered it? And how is this evidence pointing to the particular Christian God as opposed to Odin?

 

[devildavid]

I agree that nobody is 100% rational.

But the definition of mad is that the person is unable to cope due to their delusions or whatever.

That allows the able to cope despite the utterly wrong headed thinking that they do to be called not mad.

I think it is a form of or close to schitzo.

I dsagree. Mental illness is due to physical causes, not what a person believes. You don't believe yourself into madness, but the beliefs could be a symptom of an underlying physical malady involving brain function. If you have beliefs and are otherwise rational, I would not diagnose that as madness.

 

[Logicman]

I watched some of a program examining the inmates of a US mental instution last night.

They were predominately schizopathic. The characteristics of this generally include an obsession with religion.

I don't know the degree to which the religion is the cause of the effect or if they simply reinforce each other.

The point i am coming to in this thread is that the denial of reality/evaision/lying I find coming from the religious is not perhaps as concious or deliberate as I presume.

The mindset that has little skepticism in dealing with the god question has the same lack of barrier to any random thought coming into their head. The man who had been speeding due to the primemister of Israel telling him to do so in his mind via telepathy has little processing ability to stop any idea from gaining a sense of being real in his head.

Similarly the guy who had problems with voices and seeing things that were not there would be hard pressed to hold out against the bombardment of ideas that the modern world throws at us all.

Perhaps the best way to reduce madness is to teach good methodology of thinking and link that with simple demanding physical tasks. I reccomend dry stone walling as the most sanity building task there is but whatever works.

Is the lack of ability for atheists like myself to communicate with the religious here because we are not addressing the basic methods of thinking or that we are in fact doing this and the religious are so deeply, either naturally or by indoctrination, in a different mental structure?

A lot of people are intelligent, but do not have Godly wisdom. Obama was one example of that, Slick Willie Clinton another.

 

[Logicman]

The religious on this forum are dominated by the clearly reality denial/delusional/exactly what I am talking about. I think the normal range of appologists for religion don't put in too many appearances due to the embarassment of being associated with them.

“For the scientist (and/or atheist) who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow, former NASA Scientist

 

[devildavid]

“For the scientist (and/or atheist) who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow, former NASA Scientist

Poor guy lost his mind.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I dsagree. Mental illness is due to physical causes, not what a person believes. You don't believe yourself into madness, but the beliefs could be a symptom of an underlying physical malady involving brain function. If you have beliefs and are otherwise rational, I would not diagnose that as madness.

1, How do you know this?

2, What would you call the actions of all those Branch Dividians who killed themselves?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
“For the scientist (and/or atheist) who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow, former NASA Scientist

Poor guy lost his mind.

Originally Posted by devildavid View Post
I dsagree. Mental illness is due to physical causes, not what a person believes. You don't believe yourself into madness, but the beliefs could be a symptom of an underlying physical malady involving brain function. If you have beliefs and are otherwise rational, I would not diagnose that as madness.

My point exactly. Does he have a physical malformity or is it just bad thinking?

Untill the enlightenment torture was routenely used in courts to establish truth through pain. Was that sane?

 

[devildavid]

1, How do you know this?

2, What would you call the actions of all those Branch Dividians who killed themselves?

There us no evidence that beliefs lead to physical brain problems.
What do you call any suicide?

 

[expat_panama]

...I have never had any reasonable evidence in support for any particular god or moderate evidence for any such thing as a god/creator shown to me...

My guess is that for whatever reason (lack of interest or your mind already being made up) you've never looked for such evidence either.

...I have seen lots of very compelling evidence of a committment to lying from the religious.

The fact that you've not mentioned ever have heard an atheist lie doesn't mean you haven't, and it doesn't mean being right is determined by religious affiliation. It does however give me the impression that your classification of certain religious groups as being "bad" supports your belief that your religious views are "good".

This thread is becoming toxic.

 

[gfm7175]

OK,....

Well I have to ask, what credible evidence did not fail when your critical thinking considered it? And how is this evidence pointing to the particular Christian God as opposed to Odin?

Well, for starters, I would never willingly share anything embarrassing about myself. I've read through the New Testament gospels numerous times, and I noticed that the writers were sharing embarrassing details about themselves. They very regularly made themselves look like dim-whitted, rebuked, doubting cowards who ran away during the events leading up to the crucifixion. Meanwhile, the women were the brave ones who stuck around, remained faithful, and who went right to the burial site on Sunday morning while the men disciples were still in hiding. Would those disciples make up a story that painted themselves in such a bad light and these women in such a good light?

The disciples recorded, for everyone to know, that Jesus referred to their leader Peter as "Satan". Why would they choose to share such an embarrassing detail about the "head" disciple? Also, the gospels record embarrassing things about Jesus himself. They record that Jesus' own family considered him "out of his mind"; they recorded that many of Jesus' disciples stopped following him after he told them that they had no life in them unless they would eat his flesh and drink his blood; they recorded that Jesus' own brothers didn't believe him; they recorded that Jesus had his feet wiped off by the hair of a prostitute, and many many more things. If one was inventing a story about a Messiah, one wouldn't include those sorts of things into the story.

There's many more things that I could get into, but that's just a brief start on one particular thing that led me to Jesus.

 

[Tim the plumber]

There us no evidence that beliefs lead to physical brain problems.
What do you call any suicide?

So the Branch Dividians were all of sound mind when they committed mass suicide then???

I think that example shows that beliefs can cause you to do mad things with a reasonable well functioning brain. Not necessarily good mind.

 

[Tim the plumber]

My guess is that for whatever reason (lack of interest or your mind already being made up) you've never looked for such evidence either. The fact that you've not mentioned ever have heard an atheist lie doesn't mean you haven't, and it doesn't mean being right is determined by religious affiliation. It does however give me the impression that your classification of certain religious groups as being "bad" supports your belief that your religious views are "good".

This thread is becoming toxic.

I have indeed been lied to by athiests.

I have, however, found that the religious seem to lie as a natural flow to their thinking rather than as an act of choice.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Well, for starters, I would never willingly share anything embarrassing about myself. I've read through the New Testament gospels numerous times, and I noticed that the writers were sharing embarrassing details about themselves. They very regularly made themselves look like dim-whitted, rebuked, doubting cowards who ran away during the events leading up to the crucifixion. Meanwhile, the women were the brave ones who stuck around, remained faithful, and who went right to the burial site on Sunday morning while the men disciples were still in hiding. Would those disciples make up a story that painted themselves in such a bad light and these women in such a good light?

They may well have done so to make the story tell better. They may well have done so because the people doing the telling of the story were not actully the deciples concearned. It may well all have been made up. Take your pick. Critical thinking not in evidence there.

The disciples recorded, for everyone to know, that Jesus referred to their leader Peter as "Satan". Why would they choose to share such an embarrassing detail about the "head" disciple? Also, the gospels record embarrassing things about Jesus himself. They record that Jesus' own family considered him "out of his mind"; they recorded that many of Jesus' disciples stopped following him after he told them that they had no life in them unless they would eat his flesh and drink his blood; they recorded that Jesus' own brothers didn't believe him; they recorded that Jesus had his feet wiped off by the hair of a prostitute, and many many more things. If one was inventing a story about a Messiah, one wouldn't include those sorts of things into the story.

Why? It works. As is demonstrated by the cult's growth. Maybe the versions that did not have the dark parst of the story did not sell as well and the evolution of the meam of christianity has resulted in the version with the dark side in there. The art of telling a good story.

There's many more things that I could get into, but that's just a brief start on one particular thing that led me to Jesus.

You have posted nothing that withstands any critical thinking at all.

 

[gfm7175]

They may well have done so to make the story tell better.

If I were to make a story "tell" better, sure, I might add embarrassing things about other people, but I would never do so about myself.

They may well have done so because the people doing the telling of the story were not actully the deciples concearned.

This would just be a refusal of known information. We have no reason to doubt who the specific writers of the gospels were.

It may well all have been made up. Take your pick. Critical thinking not in evidence there.

Why? It works. As is demonstrated by the cult's growth. Maybe the versions that did not have the dark parst of the story did not sell as well and the evolution of the meam of christianity has resulted in the version with the dark side in there. The art of telling a good story.

You have posted nothing that withstands any critical thinking at all.

That's fine. It's obvious that people can look at the same evidence and get a different perception from it, but for me, it led me to Jesus. And like I said, there are many things that I could get into. I could get into the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I could get into the Ontological Argument, I could get into the Moral Argument. I myself have made the argument that the mind and the brain are two separate things because they have three differing properties, and the three differing properties that the mind possesses do not have a physical nature, which leads me to believe that a spiritual realm actually co-exists with the physical realm. Even the existence of such things like "meaning" and "absolute truth" have led me to the Judeo Christian God. Angel can tell you all about the argument from "meaning".

Whether one agrees with me or not, I just don't think it's fair to say that theists are "all faith, no critical thinking". At least a few theists have critically thought out their position of faith, and through philosophy and science, have arrived to that conclusion.

One might say "One should only believe what can be scientifically proven!" However, is that statement provable scientifically?

 

[Tim the plumber]

If I were to make a story "tell" better, sure, I might add embarrassing things about other people, but I would never do so about myself.


This would just be a refusal of known information. We have no reason to doubt who the specific writers of the gospels were.


That's fine. It's obvious that people can look at the same evidence and get a different perception from it, but for me, it led me to Jesus. And like I said, there are many things that I could get into. I could get into the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I could get into the Ontological Argument, I could get into the Moral Argument. I myself have made the argument that the mind and the brain are two separate things because they have three differing properties, and the three differing properties that the mind possesses do not have a physical nature, which leads me to believe that a spiritual realm actually co-exists with the physical realm. Even the existence of such things like "meaning" and "absolute truth" have led me to the Judeo Christian God. Angel can tell you all about the argument from "meaning".

Whether one agrees with me or not, I just don't think it's fair to say that theists are "all faith, no critical thinking". At least a few theists have critically thought out their position of faith, and through philosophy and science, have arrived to that conclusion.

One might say "One should only believe what can be scientifically proven!" However, is that statement provable scientifically?

You can list various arguments but not make them because you know full well that they will be torn appart very quickly.

Angel has no capacity to tell what evidence is strong and what is weak. This is according to Angel who will also not actually post any arguments.

You can see why i think you are all schitzo can't you?

 

[Logicman]

Poor guy lost his mind.

What would you know about it?

 

[gfm7175]

You can list various arguments but not make them because you know full well that they will be torn appart very quickly.

Angel has no capacity to tell what evidence is strong and what is weak. This is according to Angel who will also not actually post any arguments.

You can see why i think you are all schitzo can't you?

It seems as if your mind is already made up, and nothing will change that, so there's no reason for me to expand upon the arguments I listed; it would simply be wasted effort.