The Religious are Mentally Ill

[WorldInk]

Studies have been done that show religious people are more likely to be happy and fulfilled
Also, having a belief system, no matter the belief system is, does not qualify as being an mental illness. A mental illness would be something like voices telling you to believe in God which don't exist.
You're just being insulting and inflammatory because you disagree with religion.

[TransparentMe]

mcgooglian,

Though you obviously meant to be inflammatory and pick a fight, what is even more obvious is that you are hurt and angry at/about someone who professed to be religious. I'm sorry that you've been hurt. There are mentally ill people, liars and joy thieves among every group, including "religious" folks. You can't paint us all with one brush, however, and I suspect you know it.

[Female INFJ]

Originally Posted by WorldInk

Studies have been done that show religious people are more likely to be happy and fulfilled
Also, having a belief system, no matter the belief system is, does not qualify as being an mental illness. A mental illness would be something like voices telling you to believe in God which don't exist.
You're just being insulting and inflammatory because you disagree with religion.

I don't disagree with religion at all. It is designed for those who need it, who knows what would be going on in the world without it. But in the bigger picture, (lets say there is a god), my understanding is that he would not be defined as these religions define him, or for a certain set of people and not for another set of people. When a person expands themself to try to understand people of another religion, and care for them just as much as they would people of their own set of beliefs, that is someone at a greater level, than someone who pretends to respect other people, meanwhile, they believe fully, because their church told them, that for example all gays burn in hell. religion leads to all kinds of fanaticism, in a minimal way or a greater way. I like religion, I respect people who seek good, and try to gain wisdom from their own sacred texts. I went to catholic school myself, although that is not the religion I follow, I don't know if it is the vibe I give off, or because this is north america, i have lots of christian friends...well my point is, i was disgusted when i used to work at this store, amongst these young orthodox girls, and it was the time when dawson's creek was all cool, and they were discussing how that character was gay (i forget his name on the show)... and my co-worker got this crazy look in her eye, and was telling me in a passionate way, how he will burn in hell for acting in a gay role, and how gays will burn in hell. And i wondered...how many people think that way? obviously it's not just her...and they hide it behind their smirky smiles. anyhow...that disgusted me, and that incident (one of many) did get my mind thinking about various religions and how it affects peoples minds. otherwise no religion hating. people can only act and understand in ways that they have the capacity to do so. just as long as they stay out of my way, i'm cool.

[WorldInk]

Originally Posted by Female INFJ

I don't disagree with religion at all. It is designed for those who need it, who knows what would be going on in the world without it. But in the bigger picture, (lets say there is a god), my understanding is that he would not be defined as these religions define him, or for a certain set of people and not for another set of people. When a person expands themself to try to understand people of another religion, and care for them just as much as they would people of their own set of beliefs, that is someone at a greater level, than someone who pretends to respect other people, meanwhile, they believe fully, because their church told them, that for example all gays burn in hell. religion leads to all kinds of fanaticism, in a minimal way or a greater way. I like religion, I respect people who seek good, and try to gain wisdom from their own sacred texts. I went to catholic school myself, although that is not the religion I follow, I don't know if it is the vibe I give off, or because this is north america, i have lots of christian friends...well my point is, i was disgusted when i used to work at this store, amongst these young orthodox girls, and it was the time when dawson's creek was all cool, and they were discussing how that character was gay (i forget his name on the show)... and my co-worker got this crazy look in her eye, and was telling me in a passionate way, how he will burn in hell for acting in a gay role, and how gays will burn in hell. And i wondered...how many people think that way? obviously it's not just her...and they hide it behind their smirky smiles. anyhow...that disgusted me, and that incident (one of many) did get my mind thinking about various religions and how it affects peoples minds. otherwise no religion hating. people can only act and understand in ways that they have the capacity to do so. just as long as they stay out of my way, i'm cool.

But you all are acting like fanatical atheists which is just as bad as fanatical religious people. You attack religious people just as a few fanatics attack gays and atheist. You give a bad name to atheist.

Religion is not "designed" for those who need it. Quit having paranoid delusions that there is this great conspiracy of religious leaders trying to fool the world into believing their words.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by WorldInk

Studies have been done that show religious people are more likely to be happy and fulfilled
Also, having a belief system, no matter the belief system is, does not qualify as being an mental illness. A mental illness would be something like voices telling you to believe in God which don't exist.
You're just being insulting and inflammatory because you disagree with religion.

Originally Posted by TransparentMe

mcgooglian,

Though you obviously meant to be inflammatory and pick a fight, what is even more obvious is that you are hurt and angry at/about someone who professed to be religious. I'm sorry that you've been hurt. There are mentally ill people, liars and joy thieves among every group, including "religious" folks. You can't paint us all with one brush, however, and I suspect you know it.

I would like to point out to you two that this thread is almost a year old, and the member who started it - Mcgooglian - has since left the forum.

[Female INFJ]

Originally Posted by WorldInk

But you all are acting like fanatical atheists which is just as bad as fanatical religious people. You attack religious people just as a few fanatics attack gays and atheist. You give a bad name to atheist.

Religion is not "designed" for those who need it. Quit having paranoid delusions that there is this great conspiracy of religious leaders trying to fool the world into believing their words.

I don't think you understand (i mean heard) what I've said, but that's ok. I don't doubt religions leaders, I am a student of a religious leader. I am stating the opposite. Most people cannot even benefit from a true religious leader, because their desires are not pure. A cheat attracts cheats, that is why there are many false gurus and charletans on this earth. One true spiritual leader has the strength (spiritual energy of 100 men). There are also many leaders that fool people, and there are many that are true. But my concern is foolish people, because they endanger themselves, and people around them. They assume things about people, they don't listen to other's perspectives...well this is the same for all foolish people, not just "religious people". And there are many that are fooled by false spiritual leaders. and false spiritual leaders may be those that you may not suspect, but who knows...one just has to navigate the world as best as they can. All people should just help each other. A fanatic should be assisted...and it goes both ways, just because all scriptures are positive, and maybe spiritual leaders or religions have good intentions, it doesn't mean that they are all good, and the people that follow them are all good also.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Geodude

Meinong had 3 diffierent ways of talking of things (he was trying to deal with the problem of referring to fictional objects). I'm not an expert, but I understood him to say there are 3 categories an object can be discussed in. They can exist (the object is possible, and is actualised), not exist (the object is not possible), or subsist (the object is possible but we do not know if it is actualised). I would consider god to be a subsistent object. For me, I am not eager to make too much in the way of knowledge claims about subsistent objects. I can class them as more or less unlikely (I've never been to Paris, but I'm comfortable that it exists. I've never seen a manticore, but I'm comfortable that it probably doesn't exist. But I don' think I can say I know either of those propositions).

It's always so difficult for me to organize my thoughts. That's why it takes me so long to reply, in case you were wondering.

I'm thinking that we may be experiencing a slight communication barrier due to a little semantical ambiguity, so let me start out by defining a few things:
Certainty: Information for which no belief is required. It is absolute.
Belief: Any information thought to be "true" that is not a certainty.
Knowledge: Both certainties AND positive beliefs which are justified by one's epistemological suppositions.
Faith: Unjustified beliefs.

Now, my argument is that "under any rational epistemological structure, the assumption that god(s) do not exist is justified." Note that I am not claiming it to be "knowledge," because knowledge is a positive belief, whereas my argument is regarding a negative belief. After all, a negative belief cannot be "knowledge" due to the same fact of Russel's Teapot.

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens

Originally Posted by Geodude

In terms of what you said, I think it's possible to prove a negative about a non-existent object (i.e it's possible to prove the non existence of a round square), but it's much harder, perhaps impossible to prove the existence of a subsistent object.

Hehe, right. That's why I made sure to include "basically," since of course logically contradictory objects can indeed be disproven.

Originally Posted by Geodude

Then again, it can be just as hard to prove the existence of a subsistent object.

No, because we can discover it.

Originally Posted by Geodude

Hmmmm right. I guess I have to agree with that, given it's the belief I subscribe to. But it's a belief, not a knowledge claim. And I feel I need to be clear, it is only knowledge claims I am taking issues with, not beliefs.

Well, remember, I only disagreed with your claim that "Neither [theism nor atheism] is epistemologically justified. Agreeing with one or the other requires making a non-justified leap of faith."
Most atheists do not say "It is certain that no gods exist." Remember the atheist bus?

Originally Posted by Geodude

Right, so realistically, everything else is based on pragmatism, ie - well it appears as if X is the case. Either I can cling to skepticism, or I can just act as if X is the case. Nothing wrong with that. But I would say the person thinking this can never make a true knowledge claim about X

Right, but: "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." - Delos B. McKown
I would agree that one cannot logically make a knowledge claim for the nonexistence of a subsistent object, BUT one can make a logically justified assumption for the sake of pragmatism.

Originally Posted by Geodude

Hmmm well. You do have other choices than accepting your sense Skepticism could follow. Solipsism. Neo-Platonism. But that's just being pedantic really. I would strongly deny that empiricism follows from the acceptance that your sense data is real. Rationalism, for example, also accepts that sense data is real, but also accepts there are other methods of gaining knowledge. But I don't think this really bears on your position much. I'm just responding coz I like responding

Haha, fair enough. But, I don't agree that these other choices are logically nor practically valid.
Skepticism: One is doomed to venture into unmitigated metaphysical speculation with no proper grounding on which to form a worldview.
Solipsism: Complete distrust that events in the mind are impressions of an external reality lead to the same fate.
Neoplatonism: Involves positing external, unfalsifiable metaphysical entities; more of a general philosophy than an epistemological stance.

Now, as to the clash between rationalism and empiricism, I'm not sure that much of a battle exists at all. Empiricism does not reject knowledge gained via logic, nor does rationalism reject knowledge gained via sense experience. Both of them simply hold one on a higher tier of importance. I wouldn't say that I hold either as being superior, but simply useful for gathering different kinds of information.

Originally Posted by Geodude

I entirely agree with you on this. BUt I'm not sure it entitles you to knowledge claims, either. You can't say you know I exist. I can't say I know you exist. We both take logical leaps of faith in this regard, and there is nothing wrong with that at all; indeed, the world can't function normally if we don't. But what I don't like is people (some atheists) acting like their belief is somehow knowledge, when in fact it is as much a leap of faith as anything.

Though I agree in a sense with what you are saying, I don't see it in quite the same way. Let me explain.
A certain amount of faith is implicit in the acceptance of any epistemological stance.
However, it is under these very stances which virtually ALL knowledge claims are asserted.
Ex: Man 1: "Gravity exists! It can be demonstrated consistently."
Man 2: "No, gravity does not exist."
Man 3: "You're both taking a leap of faith by accepting your sense experience! Therefore, your claims are equally invalid."
Or with another medium:
Man 1: "Murder is immoral!"
Man 2: "No, murder is perfectly fine. I do it all the time!"
Man 3: "But, you both have faith in the concept of morality! Therefore, both of your claims are invalid!"

Do you see what I'm getting at? Man 3's statements are irrelevant and somewhat absurd, because the claims that are being made are already operating under mutually agreed suppositions.
The fact is that 99% of people are naturalists and empiricists 99% of the time. This is why most people can debate just fine without ever crossing the subject of epistemology.

Originally Posted by Geodude

I mean, if you study a bit of Philosophy of Science, built into the scientific method is the fact that science simply cannot provide knowledge, even within the proviso agreed above that we cannot know that the info we get from senses is true. The best it can do is as yet not disproven hypotheses. Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with that, I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater; science has given us a lot and will continue to. However (and this is true in many areas) many people act like science is somehow this objective and all knowing institution. It isn't. It is not objective (being part of a society informs the direction science takes), and it doesn't provide knowledge (and nor does it claim to). I object to people talking about scientific information as knowledge claims, and I object to people using this knowledge claim to incorrectly assume some sense of superiority over theists. There are so many good arguments to make against theists, but people persist with this easy but wrong headed one.

In this case, I think the use of "knowledge" is meant in a manner that I would call a "certainty." But, the fact is that science is built on empiricism, which asserts that "knowledge arises from sense experience." However, none of this knowledge could be "certain" as it is all built on induction!


Anyway, sorry for how long this post is. I hope that I was able to convey my points decently. I would like to remind you that I am merely arguing why I think that weak atheism is the most rational stance; I am not making a positive claim to knowledge. I'm just saying that in the same manner as believing in faeries is silly, believing in gods is as well.

[Geodude]

Great response, Azrael. I will try and formulate a proper response to your points when I have a little more time (i'm at work right now). I'm not even sure if I disagree with you, but arguing is fun, and I like the mental challenge!

However I want to ask a general question about the overall argument of your post. It seems to me that underpinning a lot of your argument (and you seem to point to this when you say The fact is that 99% of people are naturalists and empiricists 99% of the time. This is why most people can debate just fine without ever crossing the subject of epistemology.) is that for pragmatic reasons, epistemology can be pushed to one side. In other words, all utterances have a hidden premise of "Well, we could be completely fucking wrong about this because we're trusting our sense, but it's okay, because it applies to us all equally". Am I reading your meaning correctly?

Also, in this exchange you present:

A certain amount of faith is implicit in the acceptance of any epistemological stance.
However, it is under these very stances which virtually ALL knowledge claims are asserted.
Ex: Man 1: "Gravity exists! It can be demonstrated consistently."
Man 2: "No, gravity does not exist."
Man 3: "You're both taking a leap of faith by accepting your sense experience! Therefore, your claims are equally invalid."
Or with another medium:
Man 1: "Murder is immoral!"
Man 2: "No, murder is perfectly fine. I do it all the time!"
Man 3: "But, you both have faith in the concept of morality! Therefore, both of your claims are invalid!"

I am not so sure I agree with your conclusion. I don't think Man 3 sounds absurd at all. I think he's making a perfectly valid point about the nature of the debate. He's possibly being pedantic, and not arguing in the spirit of the debate, but I think his point is true. With putting epistemology to one side, it has the potential to become the elephant in the room.

I would say in terms of what I have been arguing imagine the following

Man 1: I believe murder is morally wrong because God says so
Man 2: Hahaha that is ridiculous. You think you know that your moral theory is correct, but your argument is completely unjustified because God does not exist. I, on the other hand, know that murder is morally acceptable, because morality is all grounded by religious belief, and if God does not exist, neither does morality.
Man 3: Given you're subject to the same epistemological restrictions, I don't see how your claim to knowledge is any more justified than Man 1's. You don't know God doesn't exist, so you don't know that morality isn't grounded.

I love those bus ad's. They just got banned here in NZ. It sucks, because there are religious ads on buses sometimes, so why not ads for atheism? But in terms of your point. You're correct, not all (or even most) atheists claim to know god doesn't exist. But my argument isn't with them. it's with the ones who do claim that they know that God exists.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Geodude

Great response, Azrael. I will try and formulate a proper response to your points when I have a little more time (i'm at work right now). I'm not even sure if I disagree with you, but arguing is fun, and I like the mental challenge!

Haha, sounds good!

Originally Posted by Geodude

However I want to ask a general question about the overall argument of your post. It seems to me that underpinning a lot of your argument (and you seem to point to this when you say The fact is that 99% of people are naturalists and empiricists 99% of the time. This is why most people can debate just fine without ever crossing the subject of epistemology.) is that for pragmatic reasons, epistemology can be pushed to one side. In other words, all utterances have a hidden premise of "Well, we could be completely fucking wrong about this because we're trusting our sense, but it's okay, because it applies to us all equally". Am I reading your meaning correctly?

Yeah, that sounds about right. To further demonstrate my point, I would challenge you to provide me with a knowledge claim that is absent any epistemological suppositions.

Originally Posted by Geodude

I am not so sure I agree with your conclusion. I don't think Man 3 sounds absurd at all. I think he's making a perfectly valid point about the nature of the debate. He's possibly being pedantic, and not arguing in the spirit of the debate, but I think his point is true. With putting epistemology to one side, it has the potential to become the elephant in the room.

To me, it seems little more than a red herring with little actual relevance to the debate, if the participants are already operating under the same epistemological beliefs.

Originally Posted by Geodude

I would say in terms of what I have been arguing imagine the following

Man 1: I believe murder is morally wrong because God says so
Man 2: Hahaha that is ridiculous. You think you know that your moral theory is correct, but your argument is completely unjustified because God does not exist. I, on the other hand, know that murder is morally acceptable, because morality is all grounded by religious belief, and if God does not exist, neither does morality.
Man 3: Given you're subject to the same epistemological restrictions, I don't see how your claim to knowledge is any more justified than Man 1's. You don't know God doesn't exist, so you don't know that morality isn't grounded.

From my perspective, all three of these participants have very flawed arguments.
Man 1 is attempting to support his argument with an ungrounded, unfalsifiable metaphysical claim.
Man 2 fallaciously assumes that because Man 1's argument is faulty, his conclusion must be incorrect. He also contradicts himself in saying that something is "morally acceptable" while claiming that "morality does not exist."
Man 3 then comes in with the irrelevant point that they are operating under certain epistemological beliefs, rather than correctly attacking the faults of their arguments.

Originally Posted by Geodude

I love those bus ad's. They just got banned here in NZ. It sucks, because there are religious ads on buses sometimes, so why not ads for atheism? But in terms of your point. You're correct, not all (or even most) atheists claim to know god doesn't exist. But my argument isn't with them. it's with the ones who do claim that they know that God exists.

Well, that's not exactly what you have been saying.
On the one hand, you have stated that you refer solely to "knowledge claims," BUT on the other, you have further asserted that atheism and theism are equally "leaps of faith" and are both epistemologically unjustified. I am arguing that the metaphysical stance of atheism is justified under rational epistemological stances (even if the stances themselves require a leap of faith.)

[TransparentMe]

Originally Posted by Azrael

I would like to point out to you two that this thread is almost a year old, and the member who started it - Mcgooglian - has since left the forum.

Thank you for pointing that out.