Explaining Religious Psychosis
- Thread starter syadasti
- Start date
Drones must be drones - USMC ignores Constitution, tries to mandate religious psychosis
Last edited:
One word I didn't see in this whole thread: (admittedly I didn't read ALL of it...)
Indoctrination
It's hard to call something crazy if you have been accustomed to it all your life, if you were brought up in it. It is not only a part of your belief system, it is an integral part of how you perceive reality all together. If religion was laid on thick from the time of your birth, it would take a serious dose of reason and free thinking to shake it off.
This is why so many people can let go of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny early on. These are playful characters designed to bribe children into good behavior.
God and Jesus? Well, they LOVE you. Oh also, you will BURN IN HELL for all eternity for not obeying them. So will your friends and family.
Threat of eternal pain and fire. This is what is hammered into a child's brain from birth in so many cultures. It's not psychosis, it's hard-wiring. It's bad firmware.
Indoctrination
It's hard to call something crazy if you have been accustomed to it all your life, if you were brought up in it. It is not only a part of your belief system, it is an integral part of how you perceive reality all together. If religion was laid on thick from the time of your birth, it would take a serious dose of reason and free thinking to shake it off.
This is why so many people can let go of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny early on. These are playful characters designed to bribe children into good behavior.
God and Jesus? Well, they LOVE you. Oh also, you will BURN IN HELL for all eternity for not obeying them. So will your friends and family.
Threat of eternal pain and fire. This is what is hammered into a child's brain from birth in so many cultures. It's not psychosis, it's hard-wiring. It's bad firmware.
Eastern culture isn't as negative in that respect.
Has to start somewhere. If its a evolutionary defect hardwired into our brain chemistry, it's a psychosis. See various post in the thread:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243519&p=3656062&viewfull=1#post3656062
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243519&p=3662809&viewfull=1#post3662809
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243519&p=3735853&viewfull=1#post3735853
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243519&p=3890609&viewfull=1#post3890609
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243519&p=3891280&viewfull=1#post3891280
Last edited:
I'm not saying it's an evolutionary thing. It's not nature, it's nurture. Ok nurture is not the right word. Poisoning might be better.
The hard-wiring of a child's brain is in large part the result of the first formative years. A parent (or teacher, or priest) shapes not only the perceptions of a child, but the manner in which a child perceives.
So you haven't read the thread then. Its not all nurture. Also since we are social animals it also means a few delusional people could sell us on their ideas and the rest snowballed as a social phenomena combined with additional delusional people throughout the development of the religion.
Medicinal relief:
Last edited:
Yeah, to the "well there can't be nothing when I die, SOMETHING has to happen" people, I throw out the "well, before you were alive you didn't exist, so it's not illogical to think that your existence will just go back to nothing after you die...It more boils down to the fact that people do not want to believe this because it's just not emotionally satisfying.
It's child abuse.
I grew up terrified of going to hell, because I actually paid attention to what the Bible said, instead of focusing on the cool stories about Jesus being loving and how gay people (and Jews, possibly) have horns and how shooting abortion doctors is...probably wrong...but if someone's got to be shot...y'know.
If I told a little child that if they misbehaved, they would be kidnapped by the CIA, never to see family or friends again, taken to Guantanamo Bay, and imprisoned in a cage for the rest of their natural life, and had all their dignity stripped away, that would be a terrible thing, right? You'd judge me harshly for that, no?
But if Reverend Silver says the same thing, it's all good. More than good, actually. Righteous. Fvck that. It's child abuse, and it's wrong. Just because 90% of the population does it doesn't make it right.
Last edited:
I had a similar experience growing up Protestant but when I went to Catholic High School and had to go to confession we were handed a pamphlet with a list of sins. One of them was masturbation. This struck me as very odd that a normal bodily function was sinful and I was to feel guilty for it. So no more church for me and guilt free spanking any time I damn well please.
Our current understanding of time (or spacetime) is that it was created with the big bang.
If there was time outside our universe in say, the multiverse, it would be irrelevant to things in our universe.
Last edited:
so was the big bang 'created'? or those 'ingredients'? what was the catalyst? was it responding to its environment? if so, how was this environment created? IOW, can there be a parent that is itself not a child?
can these multiverses be inferred or otherwise asserted to exist on the other side of this current space/time mobius strip? and why would this be an acceptable possibility, but the instant one suggests a personification of a creator, this is then quickly dismissed by some, to the point of call such a notion 'psychosis'?kevin said:
IOW, is one of sound mind & "soul" if they acknowledge all of creation, but this is called into question upon introduction of a query into a creator (which of course, implies some level of consciousness). shall this be the sole instance to the exclusion to all else of 'cause & effect'?
i'm not sh|tting on this thread, just wondering if anyone else can explain the [perceived] logical inconsistencies, and if not, if they are ok w/ just taking things on faith.
ok, maybe i'm sh|tting a little
Well the simple anwser would be this.
In order for a consious creator to create something as complex as a universe, the creator must therefore be more complex then the universe itself. Which brings the question, "where did the creator come from?" will end in infinite regress.
If the "big bang" came from a combined set of less complex phenomena, like colliding membranes, (as M Theory predicts) the scenario is still complex but more plausable, because the colliding membranes would be waaay less complex then a consious creator.
We also dont have a single shred of supported evidence that points in the direction of a consious creator, so theres no more reason to believe in one then there is to believe in the FSM.
Mass indoctrination based on false or at least unsupported "evidence", does not hold any ground in a discussion like this, but I guess thats another discussion.
In order for a consious creator to create something as complex as a universe, the creator must therefore be more complex then the universe itself. Which brings the question, "where did the creator come from?" will end in infinite regress.
If the "big bang" came from a combined set of less complex phenomena, like colliding membranes, (as M Theory predicts) the scenario is still complex but more plausable, because the colliding membranes would be waaay less complex then a consious creator.
We also dont have a single shred of supported evidence that points in the direction of a consious creator, so theres no more reason to believe in one then there is to believe in the FSM.
Mass indoctrination based on false or at least unsupported "evidence", does not hold any ground in a discussion like this, but I guess thats another discussion.
Also why not a polytheistic delusion - it worked for other various cultures. Why is one god more plausible than many? How do we pick the right delusion, we can't merely pick for being the current flavor of the weak?
Last edited:
This is an excellent question, and begs other questions, such as what the fvck does this creator sh!t have to do with not eating pork or not jacking off or women covering their faces or circumcision or killing abortion doctors or blowing buildings up?
Religion is the #1 problem in the world. Actually it's #1-100.
I started doing that until I figured out it was a fairy tale. Faked it good for a loooooong time though. I can still LARP if I have to. Path of least resistance, and all that. Later on, I would go along, "sit at the back" and sneak out to the library and read something worth reading for an hour, then appear at the end. I did that for almost 3 years before someone figured it out
Thank god it wasn't one of those small churches. It's easy to lose yourself in a crowd of 600 people, not so easy in a group of 50.
Last edited:
my mom read me tolkien when i was little then expected me to believe the bible...I started doing that until I figured out it was a fairy tale. Faked it good for a loooooong time though. I can still LARP if I have to. Path of least resistance, and all that. Later on, I would go along, "sit at the back" and sneak out to the library and read something worth reading for an hour, then appear at the end. I did that for almost 3 years before someone figured it out
Thank god it wasn't one of those small churches. It's easy to lose yourself in a crowd of 600 people, not so easy in a group of 50.
so is your position instead this is our first & only time around? funny how some forms of infinity are swallowed w/o questioning with all the fervor & rote obedience of a communion wafer
in what would they be colliding? are my questions a variant of infinite regress, b/c i'm not getting a lot of solid answers here
i'd like to point out your camp holds fast to this (also with a religiously unbending yield), but in a court of law testimony is lofted high as 'evidence'. why do you suppose this is so?
then maybe you should also be campaigning against the religious atheists, who in their great blind zeal have murdered, raped, & falsely imprisoned millions of innocents in no god's name
it didn't lead to dancing, now _did_ it? q.e.d.stevew said:
just facial hair...
Consider for a few years 'first cause' and take up the study of ontology.
Ditch preconceived notions and just spend the next few years thinking about those things.
Open mind.
Men have developed religion and men use such things for many reasons...that doesn't in any way negate a creator. It does however tend to make excuses and valid ones.
Emotional response of throwing baby out with bath water is not rational or logical.
Ontology= the study of 'being'. Potentially, a very profitable way to spend some time.
Ditch preconceived notions and just spend the next few years thinking about those things.
Open mind.
Men have developed religion and men use such things for many reasons...that doesn't in any way negate a creator. It does however tend to make excuses and valid ones.
Emotional response of throwing baby out with bath water is not rational or logical.
Ontology= the study of 'being'. Potentially, a very profitable way to spend some time.
There is no rational or logical reason for placing more value one version compared to others. Similarly also doesn't rule out multiple parties or none either. None wins greater and greater support over others as our understanding of the universe expands - evidence can be verified, improve, and accumulate - faith cannot by definition.
Last edited:
Hmmmm...yes there is.
Consider 'being' and first cause. This will lead to a certain conclusion.
Our (humans) ability to observe cosmology (heck even particle physics) is extremely limited and fraught with a whole lot of 'oops--we got that wrong'.
http://woodlandclearing.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/bonnie-bassler/
Check out this video and after all of that wondrous stuff she displays--wonder at her conclusion.
This is a perfect example of much of the scientific communities bias. No--not bias, but rather a pathological inability to admit to other possibilities.
Consider 'being' and first cause. This will lead to a certain conclusion.
Our (humans) ability to observe cosmology (heck even particle physics) is extremely limited and fraught with a whole lot of 'oops--we got that wrong'.
http://woodlandclearing.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/bonnie-bassler/
Check out this video and after all of that wondrous stuff she displays--wonder at her conclusion.
This is a perfect example of much of the scientific communities bias. No--not bias, but rather a pathological inability to admit to other possibilities.
Scientific knowledge improves rapidly and in especially big steps and breakthoughs compared to faith, that's the difference. How often does faith admit their principles were wrong, a faith's vision of god(s) was wrong, or does faith include and build upon previous faith or help confirm other versions of faith? How often can you verify the faith again and again in various ways? Faith is not even close the scientific method - it gets stuff wrong and stays wrong for centuries at the expense of others/society. One faith doesn't help lead into new associated fields of faith.
Praying doesn't make our modern world possible and improve with time our knowledge does.
See these links mentioned earlier in the thread:
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
Praying doesn't make our modern world possible and improve with time our knowledge does.
See these links mentioned earlier in the thread:
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
Last edited:
Barking up the wrong tree.
Observation of what is, confirms faith in an intelligent creator more and more as observations increase in breadth and depth.
I wouldn't argue against science as a tool, but there is lots of room for being skeptical about many published conclusions.
Science is the friend of faith in a creator.
A belief in a creator does not require further development. What one believes about that can change, however.
Observation of what is, confirms faith in an intelligent creator more and more as observations increase in breadth and depth.
I wouldn't argue against science as a tool, but there is lots of room for being skeptical about many published conclusions.
Science is the friend of faith in a creator.
A belief in a creator does not require further development. What one believes about that can change, however.
The scientific method intentionally allows for confirmation, adjustment, or dismissal of ideas. That's its strength, not its weakness. That's how we leave behind ignorance based on faith.
Fortunately science is observation (less valuable in modern science) and more importantly, experimentation and confirmation via the scientific method. It helps us dismiss the divine - we can shape and understand our world on our own without superstition and gods.
Fortunately science is observation (less valuable in modern science) and more importantly, experimentation and confirmation via the scientific method. It helps us dismiss the divine - we can shape and understand our world on our own without superstition and gods.
Last edited:
Are you aware of the contradiction in what you are saying?
Please examine your own words and see if you can find 'Waldo'.
Please examine your own words and see if you can find 'Waldo'.
LOLZ!!Are you aware of the contradiction in what you are saying?
Please examine your own words and see if you can find 'Waldo'.
Science is self-aware. Science knows when it's wrong, and isn't afraid to admit it. Faith is, at the core, denial. The faithful never admit they got it wrong. That would show a lack of faith, wouldn't it?
What kind of F-ing idiot designs us to breath, eat and talk all through the same hole? Um, choking hazard anyone?
Last edited:
The same one who made some of us violent, knuckle-draggers that kill out of fear. Got to control the population somehow. And what better way to do so than to design humans with a self destruct feature. Death and destruction can't come from disease alone.
As far as the earth is concerned, we're a self-correcting problem.
Dudes you just gotta talk it out if you can't there is animal reason because you naturally want to bust. If you can't figure it out you are like me, couldn't figure my way into the world so they cut me out, couldn't handle my hands so they locked me out, couldn't use sentence structure so they laugh at me, out in the bible is a story and any book worshiped by many is a cult following well their book has a story to. My post now has a following with a story. Informative as the bible, i am the jesus in this bible per say in christianity religion comparison if compared on any other i am the mesiah yeshua or leader. In the belief of breathing air don't tax me. Oh yeah and I am the one and most powerful of my desipals or pupils because i am mightier then them and in no reason shall i be proposed to prove this if so you are in guilty of reasonable belief.