So now your saying the IPU “usually” has certain prerequisites before it is used as a productive “thought exercise.” This sounds like special pleading since it has been implied that you can say it to any Christian anytime and not expect negative feedback/unproductivity in a discussion.
What?! This is totally besides the point, and no that’s not what I’m saying.
You can’t fathom that, but you can fathom an IPU in the donkey headed Jesus’ place?
It doesn’t matter where their origins are. People don’t hold identical beliefs to what they did in antiquity, that’s a ridiculous assertion. There is a modern form of faith for every religion that is simply based on some antiquated material. That antiquated material is often adapted to fit modern needs for religion.
This right here is supporting my point. Any mental unhealthiness is mostly the individuals fault, not their faith’s fault.
Now your just getting away from the point.
No I think it could cause immense harm on that level, but were talking about psychological health on an individual level, not people’s actions towards society. I have already said that religion can be like a poison, I’m trying to figure out why people think believing in God leads to an unhealthy psyche.
I never said that it is healthy, I’m actually agnostic to the topic. I have simply suggested positive things that happen to show that it would be false to claim that religion is outright “unhealthy” for the psyche.
Is a phobia a “delusion?” I’m not sure either way, but at first glance, it feels wrong. Phobias are more of a “structural” mental illness, like panic attacks or bipolar disorder. I tend to use “delusion” for things like believing that the Chargers are the best NFL team ever. (sigh…)
Very much a side issue, but just wanted to note it.
(I have very intense arachnophobia. Imagine how much fun I had watching The Hobbit, part 2.)
Lol, haven’t seen part 2 yet, but sounds intense. And yes, having an irrational fear of something is a delusion lol bc your level of fear might be the same as say, a tiger attacking you, which is not rational when most spiders can’t do much to harm you. A lot of people don’t even realize that Black Widow bites aren’t even life threatening, just very painful and can cause complications. The word delusion is actually most commonly used in reference to mental disorders fyi.
Agreed. It is, however, a rather deadly tool when used against one specific rhetorical fallacy, i.e., “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but I can’t help but note that Christianity itself is grossly condescending. “You’re sinful in nature, and only my God can save you.” Hmph.
And Christianity does it, day in and day out, 24 hours, nonstop. The IPU only pops up now and then. When Christianity removes the baulk of timber from its own eye, I might think a little more sincerely about removing the dust-speck from mine.
But… That, itself, is a fallacy. FWIW, I don’t tend to use the IPU. Nor the FSM. Nor even Russell’s teapot.
When the heart stops, consciousness disappears pretty darn quickly. After that, the brain may be doing something active, but it isn’t really processing information in any meaningful way. It may be some kind of dreaming, or simply random buzzing of neurons. It has nothing to do with seeing events, and most certainly nothing to do with seeing future events.
I agree that near death experiences are explained by science. I’m not at all sure what you were getting at, then, by alluding to an afterlife, or events past, present, and future.
Well, ultimately, no fault at all pertains to “the faith itself.” It’s an impersonal social artifact, and cannot receive blame or credit. However, in a loose sort of speech, we refer to social institutions as moral entities. It’s a metaphor, really. “Islam saved many books of antiquity from being lost. Christianity emphasized the teaching of reading and writing through the Dark Ages. Judaism is a scholarly and contemplative faith.” None of these is literally true, but they are valid ways of speaking.
In formal, technical language, I blame the leadership of organized religion – the priests and ministers and imams and rabbis – for both the good and the evil that the institution does. The ordinary rank-and-file churchgoer bears some of the blame (and gets some of the credit) because of their contribution to the work. Simply by putting a dime in the collection plate, they empower the church.
I largely agree. Faith is good for some people, bad as hell for others. For me, personally, faith would be the worst possible way to interpret the world. And, to be sure, I do engage in non-rational pursuits, such as reading fiction, playing board-games, and even debating abstract theological points with strangers on the internet.
I’ve seen faith (Christian Science, for example, for which I have a very special detestation) destroy lives. But I’ve also seen it give comfort to the sorrowful and the grieving. I’m not the kind of atheist who wants to destroy all religion. (I used to be…but I got past it.)
And…doesn’t everyone have a bias? You said that everyone has delusions; biases would also seem logically to be included here. That’s the greatest strength of the Scientific Method, specifically: it is designed to eliminate biases. Hell, “double blind testing” alone is something nearly all forms of human thinking could well benefit from. It’s the second best thing human thought has ever devised! (Self-government by democracy being the first best.)
Wiki is not really a source of authority. In poking around it appears a few philosophers have pointed out that atheists and theists can recognize they can’t know in ay real sense and used those terms. If you find them useful that’s fine. For me, not so much.
Clearly there are a lot of variations and degrees of belief and disbelief in the real world. For example an agnostic theist might be someone who goes to church twice a week, sings in the choir and, teaches Sunday school, recommends god belief and church to friends but still acknowledges they cannot know or prove God exists. It could also be someone who believes but never goes to church or advocates for belief. Quite a difference , but same label.
For me, atheist, agnostic, theist are enough. Beyond that you have to explore the individual to know more details.
Also , without knowledge doesn’t have to mean, without opinion.
Why would he not?? Does god love people or does he not? Does he love some more than others? Does he outright hate some?
Why can’t god just give people a sense of appreciation? Why play games?
Sure they would. They could go about accomplishing great works of science and art without wars, famine, disease, disasters, bigotry and religious persecutions getting in the way.
Pray tell, what is it that you learned from the mentally handicapped? More importantly, what is it that the mentally handicapped can learn from the example god has made of them?
.
I assumed not, but that’s kinda my point. You say this as if believing in anything supernatural is a worse offense than other aspects of a belief system. I haven’t seen anything to demonstrate it is.
If we are to evaluate religious , spiritual, and non religious ideas and beliefs on an equal level we have to take a closer look how people establish and maintain belief systems Is it delusional for kids to believe what their parents teach them? Is it delusional for people to have a profound and/or emotional experience and because of their enviornment , attach it to a God that millions believe in?
Do noon believers ever accept things as factual based on what others have told them or what is common belief? Do non believers draw eroneous conclusions because their emotions or personal bias is affecting them?
Nope I don’t. I just don’t believe it’s scientifically accurate to blame human failings are associated with religion specificially on religion or God belief.
You see the contradiction here right?
No it isn’t because my statement was about you and the IPU.
If you were speaking more generally that’s another matter.
Think they have been so sheltered, and are so sensitive and insecure about their beliefs, that the least bit of light humor is going to scar them for life? If I was a believer and had walked into this discussion, having a non-believer defend us believers, I wouldn’t be thinking how noble and gallant a soul of you are for coming to our rescue, ready to give you Knighthood, I’d be thinking, damn, how delicate of a flower does he think we are. And I admit some are, and if so, I doubt they would be at this place.
You’ve basically spent your whole time on this thread, realizing it is pure bullshit, but let’s keep it hush hush, for fear of some losing a placebo effect out of it, so please, don’t use the IPU on them, anything but that! Besides so much of religious beliefs being grossly untrue, encouraging wishful thinking while discouraging critical thinking skills, in your opinion, do you think the placebo effect far outweighs any nocebo effect believers may gain in their beliefs and that it does far more good than harm? I’ve failed to notice.
More productive than you think. Substitute the FSM (flying spaghetti monster) in place of the IPU or celestial teapot. This has been used effectively in Kansas, Florida, and has won praise from the scientific community for helping play a role in defeating creationists and the ID crowd. Oh, and don’t forget about Bob and the church of the SubGenius. Light hearted humor is good, and I’m not sorry if others are so easily offended, even if you feel like you’re protecting loved ones against such travesties of being exposed to the IPU.
Recognize the irony, you specifically stated you can see how believers can relate to a donkey headed Jesus, (I didn’t) but yet you take umbrage if someone uses the IPU analogy comparing it to the Christian God.
Sure they grow out of some of it, but also retain a good portion of it. Let’s see how ridiculous an assertion it is. How many believers in America still believe in Creationism? How many still believe Jesus had a virgin birth, was resurrected, and came here to save the world? Hell, for that matter, how many think the snake actually talked? How many still believe in a Heaven and Hell? Is that sufficient or do I need more examples? There is nothing modern about believing in the supernatural.
Qualify mostly, and not their faith’s fault starting with this: When youth are indoctrinated into a faith that believes in suicide bombings, how much of a mental unhealthy role would you place on it being the individual’s fault, say age 13, compared to the faith the adults indoctrinated him with and the role it played on him becoming a suicide bomber?
Using the IPU is not aggressive. Burning people alive, cutting out their tongues, gouging out their eyes, flaying them alive, now that might be a tidbit over the top, you reckon?
I think you’ve fallen victim to a believer’s, “I’ve been offended!” card, which is just simply a red-herring for them to use as an exit strategy when they realize their beliefs are fixing to be exposed to the ridiculous beliefs that they are. I try not to offend either, especially if I find some believers interesting enough. But too often the “I’ve been offended card!” is played, when truly they haven’t been, but will feign injury, and start looking for the exit. It’s a common ploy, not just for religionists, but for other pseudoscientific beliefs as well, an old one, and it’s been played out a thousand times on SD when the believer realizes he was only shooting blanks, and didn’t bring any real ammo to begin with.
When many see the many negative effects of what any false belief system has caused, be it paranormal, other pseudoscientific claptrap, or religion, and the amount of ignorance it spreads in the classrooms, the whole world for that matter, there comes a time, when many kind of stop giving a damn about their placebo effect.
Yes, the book out of time is like the draft, but eventually the events happen within time, and that is like publication. He can say that he is going to change a page either before or after that page, but let’s say the book gets serialized, so it is published (time happens) in chunks. If in part 1 he says he’s going to change part 2, no problem. But if in part 3 he says he is going to edit part 2, and part 2 has already been published without the change, then he is incorrect.
Unless that is you thing God is J. J. Abrams, and retcons the entire universe after stuff has happened. The implications of that could be interesting.
Is God covered by the laws of logic? Can he make something black and white both, at the same time? If not, then my argument, which is based purely on logic holds. if so, then you have to answer the creating a rock too big to lift question, which can be countered by omnipotence not covering paradoxes.
What post number? I thought I had responded to everything, but I could have easily missed something in all this traffic.
So, others weren’t confused by it, but because you were, religion is de facto harmful for everyone? That sounds like the equivalent of a believer saying that because God has been good for him, everyone should believe in God.
I’m sorry if you were insulted, and I see how you could be, but it was unintended because I never took “Jesus loves you” very seriously, and I don’t think I knew anyone who did. For one thing, I think the idea of an invisible magical being who was everywhere at once, and watching me at all times, was too abstract for me at that age (a lot more abstract than a stranger on the street, for sure). But the real kicker was that if Jesus did love me, it didn’t affect my life one way or the other. I could still con my little sister out of a dime for a chocolate bar and not get punished, and good deeds weren’t always rewarded, like when I tried to help a friend who was being bullied and lost a couple of teeth for it. When I did get punished or rewarded, it was by people, not Jesus, so if he was there, it was irrelevant to me.
I know that there are believers, little old ladies included, who hold some hateful views. You don’t have to go to church to find them. There’s one living right across the street from me. But I don’t conclude then that there aren’t genuinely good believers, too, who don’t bother with the archaic, mean-spirited parts of the bible.
I heard an interview on the radio yesterday with James McBride, a writer and jazz musician, and son of a white mother and black father. He said church and God have always been a big part of his life, especially when he was growing up because in a time when his parents couldn’t go to a movie or restaurant together, their church accepted them without question. And he doesn’t believe in hell and all that nonsense. Has religion been bad for him?
My hunch is that, deep down, he either had doubts about some parts of the bible or didn’t pay them any mind, like I suspect most believers do, and let nature take its course. We’re just speculating about that, of course, but since you brought him up, it’s hard to deny that the church didn’t play a significant positive role in King’s life and the civil rights movement. It was practically born and nurtured in the black churches of the South.
Of course my experience has shaped my attitude toward religion, as has your experience obviously shaped yours. But mine doesn’t seem to have compromised an objective view of it.
Sorry, but that’s the silliest part of your argument, and I’ve found it hard to know how to respond to it. First, you’re assuming that all religious activity is non-productive which is nonsense. And second, if productivity is the standard by which we measure the value of what we do, there’d be no value in reading books, watching movies, playing or watching sports, sex, pondering the meaning of life, posting on message boards…
I became an atheist because the concept of God is false, not because I found something more “productive” to do. As per the last example above, we both have ways of spending time “non-productively” without religion.
But who’s at fault for that, religion or the believers for letting religion run their lives? If someone leans too heavily on religion as a crutch, I’d say the problem is needing a crutch in the first place. (Whether assigning blame for it is justified or not is another matter.) Take religion out of their lives, and I suspect they’d still have the same problems.
Lol, well if a religious person starts out a debate with that one-liner, then by all means, drop the IPU on them.
I agree.
Understandably so.
It may have been obnoxious on my part, but during these long posts, I have many semi-related ideas and some of them inevitably get peppered in mostly on impulse.
The after-life is commonly associated with NDEs and seeing the past, present, and future is commonly associated with NDEs.
Here’s a website that has compiled many NDE experiencers’ descriptions of what happens to time during an NDE.
Yes, that may very well be. I blame certain political figures for their wrong-doings that effected the people, but to stay close to the point, I still think if you are normal person of faith who is unhealthy psychologically, in this day and age, you probably own the majority of the blame for that.
I’m glad we can see eye to eye on this matter. You are absolutely right, everyone has biases, but there are some who ‘preach’ their bias as fact. lol
Well, assuming were all still human, we learn well from trial and error, not just being divinely privileged.
What would be the point of this life if we just given something like that? If you want to say that you think God could have done it differently, I won’t disagree, but the answer to these philosophical questions can be found just by looking at human nature.
Maybe they would, or maybe they would just sit on their ass and eat cheetos all day because there is no impending reason to do anything at all.
I learned to appreciate what I have. As for the mentally handicapped, a believer would tell you that God always gives people the tools they need to achieve their goals in this world, therefore if God gave these people less “tools” they must not need them in order to achieve the purpose they were put here for.
Hey, YoungKusher-could you possibly do a few posts without all the "lol"s? It’s not like we’re here telling jokes.
BTW, did I miss the part where you told us in what way the concept of “God” was more logical and/or had more evidence than the concept of the “IPU”? I’ve seen a lot of dancing, handwaving and "lol"ing…but I don’t think I’ve seen a straightforward answer to that particular question.
What are you talking about, I’ve acknowledged all along that there is a time and a place for the IPU, especially when a creationist is trying to make political moves asserting creationism OVER evolution. Did you even read how the FSM was created?
I can play this same game. I take it you advocate bullying then? You say if a person hasn’t been sheltered, is not sensitive or insecure then it is okay to make fun of them? So just because they have been bullied before it’s okay? Geeze what’s the matter with you… See, your dramatizations of what has been going on are exaggerated and misconstrued. Please take a moment to fully understand what I’ve been arguing, or at least acknowledge that you are making points that are irrelevant to this thread.
I’m agnostic as to whether it is better or worse. I’ve been pointing out to those who think to make some claim that it is definitively worse when there is no scientific proof. And I have simply used positive examples to make my point.
Who said I’m protecting anyone? I have specifically been arguing about individuals claims and/or uses of the IPU, not the way it was used on a National level. Such as, using it sarcastically then claiming it is THE MOST productive way to get a person of faith to see that their religion is ridiculous. Or people claiming it is an excellent way to start a debate and enlighten a person of faith… Yeah let me start the next debate by saying, your position is absolute ridiculous bullshit, and see how much the opposition is enlightened. CLEARLY, even according to your source, it is used as a rebuttal argument to stop believers from over-stepping their boundaries and/or to stop special pleading. Which, BY THE WAY, I totally agree with. So why don’t you stop sensationalizing my POV about the whole thing with your wild exaggerations of what I’m doing.
I was arguing a mini-point when I said that. Now you’re just taking my meaning out of context. I can see how believers could relate to a donkey-headed Jesus IF this donkey-headed Jesus had the exact same back story of the traditional Jesus. Which is the same argument that was made by others for the IPU. That is what I was saying.
And what makes you think that a lot of those believers don’t believe that it goes hand in hand with science? What does any of this have to do with the main point of the topic? You’re dragging the discussion farther and farther away from what were really talking about. Do you want me to say that religion is ridiculous, it can be like a poison, it can cause some people to act irrationally? Because I have already said all of that. What is your point?
Disqualified completely, we have already stated were not talking about extremists. Why do you think this is relevant at all??? Put a percentage on how much of the world population actually believes what you just said, then try and tell me it’s significant to the general psychological health of the world population…
What percentage of modern people of faith participate in such vile acts?
What does this have to do with a modern individual’s psychological health?
Well the IPU is a red herring itself for the reasons I’ve stated before. There is no God, that I know of, in any major religion that is just an animal. I haven’t fallen victim to anything bud, you just don’t have a firm understanding of what I’ve been arguing about. I bet if you calmed down and really looked at what I’ve been saying, you would probably agree.
Again, were talking about the individual psychological effects of believing in a deity, not the effects of religion. Go start another topic if you want to debate about that.
The straightforward answer, is I’m pretty much neutral on the topic. I have merely been disputing peoples claims that it is most certainly “unhealthy” for the psyche to believe in God whatsoever. That’s an unfounded biased claim, and have simply been trying to show that it cannot be assumed to be that way.
I have also introduced some examples of it being positive for mental health to promote discussion.
