No it isn’t. If someone drugged the water with something that caused schizophrenia, would schizophrenia suddenly become healthy just because it was universal? No, it wouldn’t.
Well, let’s see… Between this thread and all the others touching on the god/no god issue, we’ve seen:
-
Atheists bemoaning all the death and destruction that religion has caused–
-
Theists countering that religion has brought about great works and acts of beauty, tolerance and altruism–
-
Atheists conceding that religion has indeed resulted in many positives and has often benefited humankind–
-
Theists conceding that a lot of horrific suffering and horror have been committed for the sake of religion–
Fine. There’s no doubt some good and some bad that has come about because of religion. So suppose we say, hypothetically, that the existence of religion has resulted in an exactly even, 50/50, half-and-half, distribution of both good and evil acts.
Even if that were so, it wouldn’t have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that there is no objective, empirical, logical reason to have any belief–however uncertain or qualified–that there are any sort of gods (as widely considered by most theists and/or children’s picture-books) in existence.
K?
Even though, IMHO, the existence of religion is a net loss for the progress of civilization (in the present era), that has nothing to do with the inherent gobblety-gooky nonsense of god-belief. That wackiness stands on its own “merits”.
Where did I say it was healthy? He asked how we distinguish between religion and mental illness. As a society, that’s how we do it. If we all drank schizophrenia water and shared the same delusion, that would indeed be considered sane. I never said it was a good system.
Nonsense. Plenty of common or universal mental qualities are considered defects; just because the majority have the same defect doesn’t make it any less of a defect. If we all drink schizophrenia water, then we are all insane.
Bahhhh… Trixo-gnosis is for kids.
Kids with contemplative spiritual knowledge.
gay people used to be insane, now they’re not. Sanity is whatever people decide is “normal enough”. The gay people didnt change, society just wised up.
No, they were always sane. The people who claimed otherwise were just pseudoscientists, frauds.
Says who, you? If you’ve also drunk the schizophrenia water, then I don’t see how you’d know you were crazy, and even if you could, why would I listen to you - you’re crazy!
Here’s the old thread: How do you distinguish religion from insanity? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Your suggestion was offered up. I don’t find it satisfactory, myself.
No it isn’t. It’s a scientific position, your scare quotes notwithstanding. Likewise I’ll accept the existence of fairies, Higgs Boson particles and libertarianism as a workable societal structure given sufficient credible evidence. The caveat that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof continues to apply, but a blanket refusal to consider any evidence presented in at least a cursory fashion is just dogmatic stubbornness.
On another subject:
That’s overly simplistic. The people responsible for the push to classify homosexuality as a mental illness (in 1948? can’t remember) were actually trying to move the public perception of homosexuality from being criminal deviancy (complete with prison time) to being something innate and involuntary. The argument was that homosexual desires were not something controllable; they were part of the person. Which is, AFAIK, true.
While this reclassification did nothing to remove the idea that homosexual urges were bad, it did move the accepted view away from the idea that they were deliberate and evil. It took another two and a half decades for the Overton window to shift far enough for the next step to be taken.
If you want the full story, listen here.
Wow you’re dense. They were always perfectly healthy, of course, because the people making the rules were wrong. Sanity is a man-made concept. Hopefully, we will eventually progress to a post-religion world one day where superstition is indeed considered insane, but with people like you on ourside, no wonder its taking so long.
And now you understand Der Trihs.
My point was simply that standards of sanity in both directions have changed over time.
Billions of people have used religion to promote peace and welfare for humanity. Some have used religion to justify killing and evil. Ergo, religion is evil.
Billions of people have used rocks to build shelter, form tools, construct paths. Some have used rocks to bash in heads of others. Ergo, rocks are evil.
Billions of people have used [Insert object, dogma, system here] to do good. Some have used [Insert object, dogma, system here] to do evil. Ergo, [Insert object, dogma, system here] is evil.
Maybe it’s the people who have misused religion and not the religion itself.
No, it’s an objective fact; it’s no more just a “human definition” than a wound or sickness is.
Far fewer people have used religion to promote anything good than have used it (or been used by it) to promote evil, and generally they have done badly since they are crippled by it. And religion uses people more than the other way around.
An argument which just underlines how evil, how anti-human religion is. Rather than blame religion, you prefer to demonize humanity instead. It doesn’t matter that religion often clearly calls for people to commit evil; it isn’t the fault of religion, only of those vile humans. That’s about as logical as saying “you can’t blame Nazism for the Holocaust! It was the inborn evil of the humans practicing it that made everything turn out so badly!” People don’t normally hesitate to blame evil ideologies for the evil they cause - except for religion. Then suddenly it’s all because humans are monsters.
Religion is an entirely human creation. If you demonize religion, you ARE demonizing humanity.
It began as such, but has its own existence now, its own agenda at the expense of its host like any virus. And demonizing it would only be demonizing humanity if all people were religious.
So it’s an independent but parasitic creature living within us? That’s a… religious belief.
Really. So believing in influenza is a religious belief?
When you can provide a generally accepted definition of “mental illness” and demonstrate that belief in religion fits that definition, then you can claim that religion is a mental illness. Until then, you’re just some anonymous crack pot posting on the internet.
You won’t be able to do that because “mental illness” involves an impairment to function in everyday life. Now, there are certainly people whose beliefs in religion fall in that category, but that is a tiny minority of those who do believe in religion.