Religion = insanity?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I've recently met a couple of people recently turned 'insane'. These people appeared to have no fundamental religious doctrine about them before, but now they won't eat pork...

I've noticed that religion seems to turn people insane, via propaganda - often people with psychosis are very much in awe of religious motivation. Do people think that following religious dogma is akin to a psychotic listening to the voices in their head?

I've always thought that religion is very much similar to a vagina, with philosophy as the clitoris - stimulate one and the other will respond - we all know what the thought of a vagina could do to a man - entice them and send them crazy with passion. The concept of a religion encases people inside buildings or doctrines, like a womb; usually with an ideal being love/reproduction of the members inside (conversion/common dogmatic binding) - so we can see that being inside a religious theory is rather like being inside a vagina/womb.

In almost all of the world's religions there are central patriarchal figures, one could say that these men represent the penis inside the religion - so religion (theology + dogma) is in fact a figuration of the act of coital union.

Sexual passion could render a person completely insane - their conscious common sense is rendered unimportant in comparison to the proposition of sex with an incredibly attractive member of the opposite sex, so the idea that a figuration of sex could render people insane is not entirely crahazy.

Does anybody follow this idea? I'd like to hear responses...

This one screams red alert to me, so it bears warning pre-posting to remind you all to keep it clean and on topic. Clean as in...this is not a porn site.
~Ari

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,742 • Replies: 39

No top replies

@Doobah47,

To some people, killing five people in the name of God is a mental illness or psychosis.
To some others, killing five people in the name of God is serial murder.

To some...religion is a psychosis.
Perspective is a wonderful thing.

1 Reply

@Aristoddler,

Doobah,

I think the better question might be why do unbelievers fear the thought of believers in power, do they fear, the lack of intellectual integrity, the irrationality, do they ponder the horrific history of warring theologies. If you cannot reason with someone reguarding any one topic is it then reasonable to assume you cannot reason with them on any topic. I get the impression from some of the Christian folks I know that Christianity is our team, you know like the Mets, and when they win, I win? Bush, makes my blood run cold!!:eek:

1 Reply

@boagie,

I'd say that I do not particularly care if my 'leader' is religious, so long as their own beliefs do not interfere with their political functioning; surely logic and democratic agreement are the fundamental factors of what a politician in a democracy should say - if they do let their own views into the arena then we are left with some sort of fascism. If politician says "god" or "evil" then we all must understand that only the individual in question has any remote understanding of what is meant by saying such things - so subjective matters (such as religion) should be kept out of politics; they are after all merely the administrators of our nations, I don't think they should have the power to rabble-rouse using religion as a tool.

Although we might elect the particular politician in question, that is as much control as the democracy has when the politician starts waving around his power and claiming God is with him or some other such stoopidious remark (the 'Axis of Evil' is but a flare in a sea of secularism I'd say, Bush will leave us soon, and I hope that others learn that his gross incompetance renders the USA as a triple 20 on a dart-board, ie nail them is what a vast majority think).

So overall I'd say that politicians should be entirely secular, yet that does not stop a religious person influencing by democratic power the politicians.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah,

I could not agree more. However it is well known that the right wing conservative party placed their own in power in getting Bush elected. Bush in the mean time assured his right wing religious following that he was being directed in his war efforts by God. These people have some very strange ideas which could profoundly effect the world, example, the end times, the belief that Israel was given to the Jew by god himself, it kind of stacks the deck against the Arab world. In order to be a good Christian one must put to one side reason. These are dangerous people to us all, in a global way.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Israel was a part of English occupied territory, so perhaps if we were to take a look behind the facade we might find some aristocratic conservative religious propogators running the USA/UK (the Conservative party in UK was set up by Jews).

I think we face the most humungous of problems in trying to detach people from the faith aspect of religion (the faith in good/truth/god/messiah), because it is the faith aspect that people such as Bush depend upon, this kind of messianic leadership which turns religion into reason. Religion is so broad that it can come up with many reasons to be left intact, thus dismissing reasons to diminish such aspects as the faith in God's will.

The only tool we have that can really be used to any effect is the truth, and the proving of the truth to ordinary people; this will not diminish the faith aspect, but it will diminish the desire for people to want to remain under the umbrella of a specific 'true' interpretation, thus diminishing the following of somebody who claims to be God's messenger/messiah/chosen one.

So with that I'd like to say that the truth is ineffable, language is a lie, and any philosophy one commits is patently false, thus all religious propaganda is FALSE.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah,

Yes, truth is vital, but to the population of non-believers must alter somehow this unfounded respect which Christianity has enjoyed for so long. It is after all an unreasonable request that one should respect an opinion for which there is no evidence. Humor I would say is more effective in blocking their path of self-righteousness, show your amusement at absurd claims if they insist on sharing them with you.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Is this a thread to pick on the extremists, who are an easy target to begin with, or is this a thread investigating the relationship between religious belief and insanity?

If this is a thread about religious belief and insanity, I would advance the notion that religious belief is not equivalent to insanity. I would also suggest that religious belief does not necessarily promote the sort of behavior that makes people seem unreasonable, and that any instance of such is an example of either ignorance or someone abusing believers out of greed instead of being the result of simply religious belief.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Is this a thread to pick on the extremists, who are an easy target to begin with, or is this a thread investigating the relationship between religious belief and insanity?

If this is a thread about religious belief and insanity, I would advance the notion that religious belief is not equivalent to insanity. I would also suggest that religious belief does not necessarily promote the sort of behavior that makes people seem unreasonable, and that any instance of such is an example of either ignorance or someone abusing believers out of greed instead of being the result of simply religious belief.

Thomas,

Insanity was not my choice of terms. If indeed Christianity was not a political animal, there would not be that fear of them gaining more political power. An inoffensive, unaggressive Christianity is not the problem, but many Christians it seems while claiming to be Christians want to see themselves as not part of that agressive Christianity which is attacking science and reason. It seems where there is great tolerance of Christianity, this only encourages greater aggression on the part of that institution, to the point of tolerance becoming a withered weed which is in need of pulling. Seriously who would be worried about a simple religious belief if it is not extended into the political arena.

2 Replies

@boagie,

Reason itself is a religious belief - a form of human generated doctrine (although founded in fact, also like alot of delusion).

I was not intending to pick on any extremist or religion - in fact it might be best if you left your coat at the door for this thread, unless somebody has pinned it to your waist and wrists and you just can't get it off. The thread actually veered towards extremism due to digression, woops! not my fault.

Anyway, my point is that religion incites mad people to do things; perhaps all people are mad to begin with and religion just caps them as it were, like a labotomy, or perhaps people are maddened by religion - I think there's an argument for both sides.

Originally what interested me was that mad people turn to religion and manifest their framed opinions with actions such as the refusal of pork. The part about the coital union vis a vis religion/theology
was simply an analysis of how or why this could be.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Quote:

It seems where there is great tolerance of Christianity, this only encourages greater aggression on the part of that institution, to the point of tolerance becoming a withered weed which is in need of pulling.

So is the problem the institution or the faith tradition?

Quote:

Seriously who would be worried about a simple religious belief if it is not extended into the political arena.

Depends on the belief and who is teaching. What's this radical Mormon sect abusing children? They are not much of a political animal, but dangerous none the less.

Quote:

Anyway, my point is that religion incites mad people to do things; perhaps all people are mad to begin with and religion just caps them as it were, like a labotomy, or perhaps people are maddened by religion - I think there's an argument for both sides.

You say religion does this or that... Does religion have these influences, or do abusive leaders have sch influence, or do crazy people make religion whatever they like to justify and promote their insanity?

Quote:

Originally what interested me was that mad people turn to religion and manifest their framed opinions with actions such as the refusal of pork. The part about the coital union vis a vis religion/theology
was simply an analysis of how or why this could be.

So, obviously, religion does not equal insanity.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So is the problem the institution or the faith tradition?

Depends on the belief and who is teaching. What's this radical Mormon sect abusing children? They are not much of a political animal, but dangerous none the less.

You say religion does this or that... Does religion have these influences, or do abusive leaders have sch influence, or do crazy people make religion whatever they like to justify and promote their insanity?

So, obviously, religion does not equal insanity.

Thomas,

Again insanity was not my choice of terms. It would seem you wish to consider yourself non-inclusive in the term and/or institution of Christianity. That would be nice work if you can get it. People are not to generalize about the generalization of which Christianity is, so what are we then to do with ourselves, to speak of Christianities abuse of power and is intended abuse is to be considered taboo? No either you are or you are not, if you are, speakout against that is done in the name of Christianity.

1 Reply

@boagie,

If religion is not a form of insanity how do you explain the mass of delusions?

0 Replies

@Doobah47,

Religion = insanity?

More accurately (and with less bias) stated;

'Belief' = non-rational/non-logical

That is why one cannot have a 'rational'/'logical' discussion with a 'believer' on the subject of his 'beliefs'.

'Insanity' is a legal term, nothing more. Perhaps you are thinking of '(divine) madness'?

1 Reply

@nameless,

Quote:

Religion = insanity?

More accurately (and with less bias) stated;

'Belief' = non-rational/non-logical

Makes things easier, eh?

Quote:

That is why one cannot have a 'rational'/'logical' discussion with a 'believer' on the subject of his 'beliefs'.

If belief is necessarily non-rational/non-logical. I agree that there are many cases of belief being as you say, even cases of serious thinkers claiming this sort of belief is proper.

But I do not think you can show that all belief is necessarily non-rational/non-logical. No matter how many examples you give to show non-rational/non-logical belief, none of them will give any support to your claim.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Makes things easier, eh?

When wording is accurate, yes, the logic and meaning are 'easier' to understand. When words that are laden with people's mental and emotional baggage are removed, communication is enhanced.. no?

Quote:

If belief is necessarily non-rational/non-logical. I agree that there are many cases of belief being as you say, even cases of serious thinkers claiming this sort of belief is proper.

'Belief' doesn't have much to do with 'serious thought'.
What do you mean by 'proper'? That term has no scientific, logical meaning that I can discern (other than it is not usually 'proper' to wear a bikini to a formal funeral..).
Good scientific though doesn't 'believe'. It theorizes, tentatively (until new data requires alterations of concepts).
'Belief' is an egoic "knowing the Truth" leaving no (or little) room for the acceptance of any new (threatening) data that might inspire alteration of that 'belief'. People kill and die defending their 'beliefs' and are not ordinarily interested in changing or dumping them. Conflicting data is commonly ignored.. defensively..

Quote:

But I do not think you can show that all belief is necessarily non-rational/non-logical. No matter how many examples you give to show non-rational/non-logical belief, none of them will give any support to your claim

OK, you show that you are not open to 'evidence' as you have your 'beliefs'.
Your trick word (and descent into irrationality) is 'all'. One can never show 'all' of anything. Nice try, though.
Feel free to give me an example of a logical rational 'belief' that, in itself, isn't rooted in an assumption based on nothing more than an emotional/egoic acceptance. This is the 'root' of 'belief'. None of the following definitions say anything about 'belief' being derived from anywhere else.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source
Belief
Be*lief"\, n. [OE. bileafe, bileve; cf. AS. gele['a]fa. See Believe.]

1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

-noun
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
n.

The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This nbelief
noun
1. any cognitive content held as true [ant: disbelief]
2. a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying" [syn: impression]

1 Reply

@nameless,

Quote:

When wording is accurate, yes, the logic and meaning are 'easier' to understand. When words that are laden with people's mental and emotional baggage are removed, communication is enhanced.. no?

Yes, I'm glad you decided to remove that bias and clearly present your thoughts. Doing so makes philosophical discussion much easier, and especially easier for people outside of the conversation to read some time in the future.

Quote:

'Belief' doesn't have much to do with 'serious thought'.

Whatever other arguments we make, this is obviously false. There are many examples of 'serious thought' concerning 'belief'. Belief may have little to do with any serious thoughts you have, but this does not mean others are excluded from exploring the topic in a serious fashion.

Quote:

What do you mean by 'proper'?

That well respected thinkers have argued in favor of non-rational/non-logical belief.

Quote:

Good scientific though doesn't 'believe'. It theorizes, tentatively (until new data requires alterations of concepts).

Right. What's the point? Rational/logical includes, but is not limited to, science in that the scientific method is a celebrated tool in circles who think logically and rationally when addressing issues, like philosophers.

Quote:

'Belief' is an egoic "knowing the Truth" leaving no (or little) room for the acceptance of any new (threatening) data that might inspire alteration of that 'belief'. People kill and die defending their 'beliefs' and are not ordinarily interested in changing or dumping them. Conflicting data is commonly ignored.. defensively..

These things happen. Yes, commonly. The main point here ultimately rests in the other point, what is belief. However, if I am right then belief does not necessarily make someone opposed to information in conflict with already established beliefs. If I'm wrong, then the above is true.

Quote:

OK, you show that you are not open to 'evidence' as you have your 'beliefs'.
Your trick word (and descent into irrationality) is 'all'. One can never show 'all' of anything. Nice try, though.

No, I'm open to your evidence - my point was that a particular sort of evidence will not prove your claim that all belief is non-logical/non-rational. There was not a "trick" word; I'm sorry if you think I use such obvious rhetorical tactics - there is no winner or loser, just a discussion. There was a very important word, though. That word was "necessarily". You emphasized the sentence after the one I'm talking about:

Quote:

But I do not think you can show that all belief is necessarily non-rational/non-logical.

By giving examples of non-rational/non-logical belief you only establish the fact that belief can be, and sometimes is, non-rational/non-logical. This does not mean you cannot make your case, or that I will ignore it, only that you will have to use some other method.

Quote:

Feel free to give me an example of a logical rational 'belief' that, in itself, isn't rooted in an assumption based on nothing more than an emotional/egoic acceptance.

If I give an example, how could you prove that the belief is "in itself, isn't rooted in an assumption based on nothing more than an emotional/egoic acceptance."? Unless you can divine the deepest motivations of every human being, some example must exist.

Quote:

This is the 'root' of 'belief'. None of the following definitions say anything about 'belief' being derived from anywhere else.

But there are definitions, which you provide, that do not tie belief to being "rooted in an assumption based on nothing more than an emotional/egoic acceptance".

This one for example:

Quote:

1. any cognitive content held as true [ant: disbelief]

Therefore, belief is not necessarily non-rational/non-logical. Belief is any cognitive content held as true. Not any cognitive content that is held as true for no good reason.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yes, I'm glad you decided to remove that bias and clearly present your thoughts. Doing so makes philosophical discussion much easier, and especially easier for people outside of the conversation to read some time in the future.

No, I think you'll find that 'illogical' just doesn't cut the mustard.

In fact the bias you talk of re: mental instability is not what religion causes... of course we can say that religious people are insane, that's not to say they are mentally unstable, they are perfectly stable because religious doctrine is constructed with precision and great skill, so the believers are actually alot more stable with the religion than without - but they're still insane.

Seeing as the dictionary has already come out once in this thread, I'll bring it out again:

Quote:

Insane

1. in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behaviour or social interaction; seriously mentally ill
2. (of an action or quality) characterized or caused by madness
3. in a state of extreme annoyance or distraction
4. (of an action or policy) extremely foolish; irrational or illogical

origin: mid 16th cent from Latin insanus in (not) + sanus (healthy).

apple dictionary and thesaurus

No mention of legal terminology there then.
In fact your preferred definition "illogical" is one of the components of the definition of 'insane'. So it seems that I have been entirely articulate and eloquent in describing religion as insanity.

The definition I'd like to pick up on is 3. - extreme distraction - and 2. - characterized/caused by madness.

I think some believers have hijacked this thread to discuss the notion of conviction in belief and have completely disregarded the essential topic, which is passion; seems to happen to most of my threads actually, maybe there's some magik at work!

So anyhoo, "extreme distraction caused by madness" is what the dictionary gives us, and I rather like that as a definition of insanity. We could look up 'madness' to satisfy the hijackers but I think we'ed probably find something similar to 'insanity'.

What I've got for evidence is a mass of profound delusion - although I'm not saying there's anything wrong with delusions, I love delusions in fact - and more specifically delusions of grandeur. Aha!

I'd like the thread to come off it's tangent and see some responses to the actual concept of passion, not the fairly easy angle of conviction of delusions... everybody has conviction in delusions, whether religious, insane or neither, one's name is a delusion, one's address is a delusion, one's choice to wear clothes is founded in somewhat delusionary fodder... I could go on for ever stating all the little delusions people have, what I'd like to discuss is the mesmorizing and passionate escapade so much religion achieves. The notion of an analogy drawn between sex and religion is justification of such a theory of insane passion...

Any thoughts?

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Quote:

Delusion

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

apple dictionary and thesaurus

Delusions of grandeur (such as God/afterlife/truth) seem to form the bedrock of the fundamental distraction religion causes. Sure it is plain to see that these concepts are delusions, so I think we can all agree that such words

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Quote:

No, I think you'll find that 'illogical' just doesn't cut the mustard.

In fact the bias you talk of re: mental instability is not what religion causes... of course we can say that religious people are insane, that's not to say they are mentally unstable, they are perfectly stable because religious doctrine is constructed with precision and great skill, so the believers are actually alot more stable with the religion than without - but they're still insane.

Seeing as the dictionary has already come out once in this thread, I'll bring it out again:

Quote:

No mention of legal terminology there then.
In fact your preferred definition "illogical" is one of the components of the definition of 'insane'. So it seems that I have been entirely articulate and eloquent in describing religion as insanity.

The definition I'd like to pick up on is 3. - extreme distraction - and 2. - characterized/caused by madness.

What in the world are you talking about. You even said that the initial claim was bias, and because of this, you revised the claim into something reasonable.

I never, ever, mentioned anything about the law, that was you, home boy. As for articulate and eloquent, you must be dreaming. Again, the application of insane to those who have religious beliefs is you applying your bias towards religious belief to all religious believers. You are making a huge generalization that you cannot possibly prove.

Not to mention people who treat mental disease who also have religious belief.

Quote:

I think some believers have hijacked this thread to discuss the notion of conviction in belief and have completely disregarded the essential topic, which is passion; seems to happen to most of my threads actually, maybe there's some magik at work!

Nope, only me trying to make conversation about your claims, give my thoughts, and you trying your best to completely ignore them. You've done a wonderful job ignoring them, by the way. In the meantime, your comments have turned from extreme, to silly. Have fun playing with yourself. I think that sort of activity is defined as masturbation.

1 Reply

Religion = insanity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know