Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by syadasti, Jun 30, 2011.
Far worse than regular drug problems in society...
Please register to disable this ad.
Does this guy expect to be taken seriously while he films a history channel show and yells "PSYCHOSIS!"
This idea is well established in psychology, religion is form of psychosis. It isn't treated because it's mass delusion which can be consider normal by society.
His idea is that the genesis of religion is linked to altered brain states from drugs and other phenomenon which cause delusions.
zero fvcks given.
So atheists think that religious people are delusional and suffering from psychosis? Surprise!
I am not religious but I find this theory dismissive of many of the underlying factors which influence people to participate in religion.
Are climate change deniers also suffering from psychosis? What about chiropractors? Apple haters?
i wonder if our founding psychos had any thoughts on that
and we all know about abe lincoln's wife being batcrap crazy, which may be why he dug her so hard.
Psychologists are not necessarily atheists, and this has been on-going concern in psychology. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8545262
That paper says nothing about religion and psychosis.
Here's my problem, if we say religious people have a psychosis then where do we draw the line? Are conspiracy believers suffering from psychosis?
The basis for our democracy came from the Romans - filled with psychos and behaviors not tolerated in modern societies. What makes current delusions the right delusions and not the ones from past great civilizations? There are clinical and non-clinical disorders which would not bar you and may even aid in being a productive member of society, religious psychosis is among them.
whatever gets you through the night.
You can easily demonstrate that trances/mediation/religious experiences produce changes in how the brain functions just like drugs and other phenomenon do with MRI. A few google results:
Here is one for rock:
Sometimes to used your head you have to go out of your mind.
that video -- FRICKING GLENN BECK APPROVED INTERNET GOLD, BTW -- says i can see God by taking LSD.
i want my money back. i saw lots of stuff (trees growing, walls breathing, pavement disecting itself, clouds turning to giant snowflakes, a frisbee going through someone), but no God. unless of course, that was Him in plain sight.
now i don't know what to believe. i guess i need the faith of a[n obviously] crazy child
why are there psychotic atheists? were they raised catholic?
and if all christians should "pay taxes and be put into mental institutions", then what will they do for a living that will be used to collect taxes?
and all abrahamic religions are based upon ancient rome? and judaism resulted from the cult of caesar?
that video thomas pained me.
Basically you see what ever you want to see on acid so they probably weren't lying. Haha.
Lincoln does look like he'd stick his dick in crazy.
Good thing for us the light socket hadn't been invented yet.
I can't view the videos here at work but interesting discussion none the less..........
I realized the sciam link won't let you read it anymore, you can see an excerpt here:
Thats a negative Ghostrider.......blocked as well..........
Not a huge deal, I have a pretty good grasp of the intent of the topic....as you can't "prove" God is "real" then these people who believe in him must be crazy.
Would be interesting to compare the definitions of pschycosis and faith.
Also behaviors we consider normal or abnormal, are considered the opposite in other cultures, so in some sense what is "normal" psychologically is relative to the surrounding culture is it not?
MRIs give us direct insight into what is actually going on in the brain.
How broad a brush are we using here? Let me play Devils advocate (see what I did there?) for a moment. If the argument is that religion is some kind of mass psychosis because its people believing in things they cant prove, aren't atheists just as psychotic in that they also can not prove that "God" does not exist?
Belief in imaginary beings isn't the same thing as non-belief. There are countless iterations of this type of delusion from many cultures throughout history - hundreds of gods and creation myths - all kinds of crazy if you think its true because you can't absolutely prove or disproved delusion from the individual or the masses religious or otherwise. Anyhow, the lack of a delusion is not a delusion.
MRI can show brain states which clearly show abnormal states of function in mediation/trances/religious experiences just like you can prove whether you have a fever with a thermometer. Ain't technology great.
Another great study on the topic of religious psychosis just reprinted:
Its a severe case like Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, etc.
syadasti, can you clarify for me?
The ramblings in your vid seemed to imply that religion is a form of mass psychosis. Do you agree with Mr. Crazy's views?
Do you believe that all religious people suffer from psychosis?
So the hypothesis is that the same areas of the brain "light up" during a religious experience as they do a psychotic episode? If that is the case are there regions of the brain that "light up" during say aerobic activity and eating (just trying to find two activies)?
Because that area of the brain "lights up" does that automatically = psychosis?
Obviously I'm not super educated on this.
The ones that actually believe, yes.
I'm with Dennett on this one. Most believers don't actually believe, they believe in belief or have social reasons for believing.
The ones that do actually believe, we all call crazy. Remember Harold Camping? He and his followers don't believe things any crazier than the average evangelical Christian, they just put a date on it, so the average evangelical thinks they are nuts.
If two people believe a unicorn is going to appear at their front door, and one gives me a specific date, I don't think to myself, "That other fellow with no date has a great grip on reality."
Silver nailed it. Not many people truly believe just as plenty of rational/good/sane people have gotten involved with extremist religions/cults and other harmful causes throughout history.
The idea is that the same part of the brain is in used whether you are having a conversation with god (or some other spiritual revelation) as when crazy's see/hear something that is not there.
The coloration is a weak one IMHO, although I agree that to hear God you have to be special (take G.W. Bush for example).
Andyman, do you know religious people who believe they communicate directly with God? I assume you have not spoken with Him based on your logical and reasonable interactions on this board.
Yes...............they are creepy and I've found have what I find a jacked up understanding of the Scriptures and faith.
Nope, not like directly or have heard an audible voice. Now, I do believe that the Holy Spirit prompts me in certain situations, but its not like Obi Wan and Luke kind of thing
..turn off your targeting computer
Some would chalk the prompting up to ones conscience, and Paul speaks that everyone was created hard wired to sense those things.
Now do I believe that God spoke directly to say Moses? Yep
lol is that a fvckunicorn?
so i can't help but conclude that infatuation, gambler's high, your favorite rebecca black song, 300 ms immediately following when the last bead leaves your hoop, or white hot bigotry (for, say, religion) may also yield similar results, no?
or does that normal physiological response creating an "abnormal" state not comport well with your world view?
loves me some pat condel or dawkins, but that midnight rambler from borneo was a bit scattered. love to get your thoughts on why you picked that guy, and that video. his editing skills are a team coco production
The MRI patterns would have a lot more variation in your list - different behaviors/thought patterns trigger different areas of the brain. Its a useful, complex diagnostic tool, not a binary test.
A family member sent me it the other day because my future brother in-law is interested in the topic (found it randomly from an unrelated topic) and I thought it would make for some entertainment and chum the waters for this multidisciplinary topic. Starting off with something from a science magazine or medical journal would not be effective.
right, that's why i suggested they may be similar.
i would expect also that infatuation for one's mate, or one's creator may also yield similar results, yet if i'm correct in my assertion we would not conclude that butterflies in the tummy is a symptom of psychosis.
so what are we to conclude? that an emotional response to perceived stimulus is a psychotic symptom? if so -- and maybe i just didn't catch what you were throwing -- then are phobias a symptom of psychosis? that may be a stretch, but not by far i bet.
anecdotally, it seems that cognitive ability/agility also is not a significant factor, especially given how someone can change/delete/add a belief system based upon a sound logical argument, or peer manipulation and pressure. intellectual giants can eventually be persuaded against their better judgment.
i can appreciate your outside-looking-in p.o.v. when discussing JWs, 7th day aventists, mormons, etc., and am left to conclude that for a wide variety of beliefs (including non-beliefs) matched to its own wide variation of intensity, coupled with just as wide a variety of intellect, our brains are much too complex to reliably give a uniquely standard response that can repeatedly be identified by a very precise MRI session.
which in turn tells me that while an MRI result for a particular brain tells me how an individual may respond within a tight range to stimulus, it does not convince me this range of measure is consistent through their life, much like eyesight. but like eyesight (and hearing, & other senses), there are standard responses to stimulus that can very accurately give a state of health, and can be acted upon to "correct" & heighten its usefulness.
maybe science can "cure" religion? that would be a silly thing to believe.
gotta know your audience, true.
Let us conclude that the way we all model and view the world differs and that our beliefs (the "reality" models and how we use them) are more or less useful in interacting with a universe that we can't comprehend in toto.
Let us label the more useful models "rational" and the least useful "psychotic" and allow that there is room for an unbounded number of models.
I would hold that religious belief tends to the psychotic end of the spectrum.
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name...
i would have difficulty putting religion-based benevolence as "least useful", or lauding communism for its indiscriminate pursuit eradicating the religious as "more useful"
there is certainly no short list of human fckups to back that up, true.
and how would this crowd categorize astrology? or scientology? i would hope/expect not so favorably, but do not believe these are "religions", but pure superstitions [yeah, i know: "same thing"]
maybe at the next monekyfest, we should seek baptasia to sponsor the entertainment
Astrology is older, so not as crazy as the Abrahamic religions.