Are we going insane? (Re:Ranting and Raving)

[Cognisant]

This would also explain why someone believing in god is not insane, but believing in the wrong god can be.

A priest will tell you about their personal journey with god, and it might include some things that are subjective and false, but they'll give a clear picture even if it's wrong. They won't tell you things that go against societal norms. The nutter in the cell will likely contradict themselves, and the story they tell will fall into specific patterns like grandiosity or paranoia.

So it's not crazy if they can keep their story straight, if that story isn't at odds with itself... how many religious people have you spoken to?

Their ability to keep their story straight is based on their willful ignorance and unwillingness to examine it.

God loves you unconditionally, with some very notable conditions and if you don't meet those conditions YOU ARE GOING TO ETERNAL DAMNATION IN HELL!
But he loves you.

 

[Hadoblado]

I feel like you're stretching what I say so that it falls into something you can respond to with your anti-religion spiel.

Out of everything I said:

Your communication seems a little scattered but your post overall has a clear direction.

Insanity isn't really a term used much in psychology. I think it just means irrational by conventional standards. Thus, if you're a logician, people who are being irrational are not insane just because you're more rational than they are.

This would also explain why someone believing in god is not insane, but believing in the wrong god can be.

A priest will tell you about their personal journey with god, and it might include some things that are subjective and false, but they'll give a clear picture even if it's wrong. They won't tell you things that go against societal norms. The nutter in the cell will likely contradict themselves, and the story they tell will fall into specific patterns like grandiosity or paranoia.

I guess that's sort of the hidden question in what you've asked. If insanity is going against societal norms, then why can't we cure 'insanity' by loosening those restrictions? I think that ultimately comes down to game theory in ensuring that, if ever there is no hierarchy of accepted thought and no structured belief system for preventing their implementation, groups will be advantaged in initiating one. Insanity is therefore an inevitable social phenomenon.

The green is all that you responded to.

You then take nutters being inconsistent to mean priest will be consistent (tbf, that's not a huge stretch given context, though not really what I meant).

You then interpret inconsistency as a binary for me, when the main thrust of my post was that religion is wrong but there's a difference in the way it's wrong. An insane person goes against social norms, while the religious person does not. A religious person's inconsistency might be that the father is also the son is also the holy spirit because they're uncritical of dogma. An insane person might state in good faith that they are both their self, God, Kim Kardashian, and the person they're talking to, all in the same sentence. They would state this not because they've been raised to believe it, but because the structure of their cognition is irrational self-referential. The constructs they think in overlap in inconsistent ways.

 

[Cognisant]

Sorry I misunderstood you but from my perspective you're splitting some very fine hairs.

Like okay so if someone's grown up in some backwater shit hole where the only education they've had is what the local priest has told them it would be unfair to call them insane for believing what they've been brought up to believe and had very little reason to question. Incredible claims require incredible proof but in the absence of both supporting and contradicting evidence it wouldn't be irrational to take what you've been told by someone more experienced and more knowledgeable than oneself at face value.

However that is not the case for most people, certainly not the case for anyone who speaks English and has relatively unrestricted access to the internet.

If you live in a modern first world English speaking secular nation (i.e. USA, Australia, UK, etc) there's really no excuse for being so totally ignorant that you would find religion with its many contradictions a reasonable assumption. So really in this scenario the difference between someone who is inherently insane and someone who has insane beliefs isn't that the latter is merely a victim of misguiding circumstances, it's that they are willfully ignorant.

As you know I tend to err towards more a more deterministic outlook so from my perspective the difference between someone who is willfully ignorant and someone who is inherently ignorant is a matter of degree, specifically how predisposed to ignorance they happen to be. Now as I've established given the circumstances of most anyone you're likely to meet on this forum or elsewhere in first world English speaking secular nations if they are displaying such willful ignorance in spite of the circumstances it seems a safe assumption that they have a strong predisposition.

That is the fine hair you are splitting, the difference between inherent ignorance and a strong disposition to willful ignorance, and I don't think those are two mutually exclusive. As I see it there's a spectrum between the extremes of sanity and insanity and willful ignorance in spite of the circumstances is down that far end.

You then interpret inconsistency as a binary for me, when the main thrust of my post was that religion is wrong but there's a difference in the way it's wrong.

Perhaps I still don't understand, perhaps you are drawing a distinction between insanity as it is socially acceptable and as it is not. I'm still not entirely willing to concede that as I don't consider it acceptable and I don't think society at large should either, but obviously the majority of people don't see things my way so I must concede that despite my misgivings that distinction does indeed exist. For now.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'll note that you're doubling down on the derail, but I'm still going to respond so I guess we're both snagged. Maybe a mod can move us.

mfw two ex mods crapping up the forum for the newbies

Re: willful ignorance
My outlook is also deterministic, so maybe we'll be able to arrive at the same point. I think where our views differ is that you think access to information is the bottleneck to being informed.

Spoiler

But in my view that's not the case at all. The internet has increased people's access to information by a lot, but it also has increased their access to misinformation. People form internet bubbles to insulate them from opposing views. In the absence of the skills required to properly vet that information, most people will inevitably work backwards from ignorance. They will start not knowing anything and finish "knowing" bullshit. Even when all this other information is available.

There is a function to beliefs in upholding a person's individual status quo. One of the functions of the brain is to maintain that status quo because it is useful to do so. If you are born into an environment that rewards belief, it would be insane (in a "behavioural" sense) to stop believing. This is true for religious belief, but also for political beliefs and football teams. There is a reason these things tend to be related to geographic location.

What you're asking for is for people to not have bias, and I don't think that's possible.

 

[Cognisant]

Well yeah and there’s the Mandela effect but there’s a spectrum from the most innocuous misunderstandings to the most egregious and for those especially egregious mistakes there’s more at work than merely confirmation bias. It’s one thing to have seen the movie “U571” and mistakenly believe the Americans were the first to capture an Enigma machine, it’s quite another to have seen the 1956 film “The Ten Commandments” and believe it was a historical account. For someone not well versed in history the specifics of who captured what and when aren’t terribly important, for anyone with any semblance of sanity the miracles performed by Moses are blatantly supernatural.

If you so choose you could take the “Harry Potter” universe literally and believe that witches, wizards and a school for them called Hogwarts actually exists. It’s explained in the books and movies that the magical world has gone to great lengths to conceal itself from the world of Muggles so it should come as no surprise that there’s no credible evidence of its existence. Nethertheless to do so would require a willing suspension of disbelief, a wilful ignorance, and it is a desirable thing to believe (conducive to forming a confirmation bias) except for the fact that you’ll be called a loon and ostracised by your more right minded peers.

As I believe religion should be, I don’t think people should have a right to believe and preach whatever nonsense they choose to. If “The Ten Commandments” seems more plausible than “Harry Potter” it’s not because it is more plausible, it’s an indictment of our willingness to politely tolerate nonsense. It’s a cowardice that enables these charlatans to bully us into allowing them to dictate to us what is and is not sacrosanct and we ought to call them out on it, and if they are not willing to listen to reason than we shall not reason with them but rather label them insane.

Obviously this flies in the face of my whole speech about heresy and assigning people poorly defined/understood labels and I will admit there is the danger of going too far, of making sanity whatever supports the authorities or the status quo and insanity by contrast anything that opposes them. But I would rather err on the side of that than a world where one may be lynched for the crime of apostasy for what is that if not someone who is sane being persecuted for their sanity by those who are not?

 

[onesteptwostep]

God loves you unconditionally, with some very notable conditions and if you don't meet those conditions YOU ARE GOING TO ETERNAL DAMNATION IN HELL!
But he loves you.

That's not how it works. You're conflating a secular vision of what justice and punishment are like with what the natural order of how a Christian views the world, i.e. including the spiritual aspect.

What is hell? What is death? What is unconditional love? You'd have to go into a serious discussion or at least think about these things before you can really engage with the topic in a fruitful manner.

Pain, suffering and wandering, being lost in spiritual void, it's these things that really draw in people to religion. At least you can empathize with that?

 

[Minuend]

This reads like wanting to label religious people as insane because somehow that would make a better case against them. Even if we did, so what? Does it change things? No. Even if we successfully label some ideas as insane, irrational or whatever bad word you want to use, it changes nothing. It's not the problem. Religion is not a problem, it's a symptom. If you have a intelligent, mentally and physically healthy person believing in god, you have a rational person. You don't typically have a problem, unless that person is trying to use other people.

In the end religion or the lack of is not the problem. People are. Capable individuals will usually not have extreme or limited beliefs even when religious.

Ofc, if you're in an environemnt where religion is used as a tatic to keep people down that is a problem. But you can't extrapolate that problem to religion in general.

 

[PiedPiper]

It seems for all the thought/despondency/aspiration, the yielding results are always the same.
The human condition is inevitably a massive flaw. You could take any one subject and argue it until your brain falls to gravity. And what have you achieved? More questions perhaps. The loop we seem to find ourselves in is no closer to giving answers, yet deeply engrained within is an all encompassing desire to know. The thought that no matter the cost, the truth must be reveled, it must be unearthed. Hence the endless loop, we arrive at the same conclusions in our attempt to change them.

 

[Cognisant]

Religion is not a problem, it's a symptom. If you have a intelligent, mentally and physically healthy person believing in god, you have a rational person.

No I believe you have a true Scotsman.

If someone believed the Harry Potter movies were a historical account disguised as work of fiction to discredit the existence of a secret society of magic users that actually exists, would you be willing to vouch for their mental health? I wouldn't and as an atheist I consider all the major religions to be every bit as fictional as the minor ones, if you disagree with me then tell me which religion is the truth? And better yet how did you come to that conclusion?

You don't typically have a problem, unless that person is trying to use other people.

Or be used by someone as is more often the case.

Ofc, if you're in an environemnt where religion is used as a tatic to keep people down that is a problem. But you can't extrapolate that problem to religion in general.

Sure and only a minuscule percentage of the assault rifles sold in the USA are used to commit mass shootings, statistically speaking it's debatable whether or not they're even a significant factor. (dripping with sarcasm)

 

[Black Rose]

I have contemplated Hell since age 6 and I could not rule it out. there have been living Hells all in time and as an example, A.I. could create hell for everyone or in the recreation process in order to bring everyone back alive pain is necessary. No one wants to be subservient to an Evil A.I.

I have constantly been in fear over the possibilities of ending up in unpleasant places. Fever dreams. Chronic loneliness. Unexplainable events. They make me wonder what the point of life is.

What has prevented me from offing myself besides fear is encountering living beings in my dreams. The one who knows me is the one that saves me. All the things that were supposed to be in Christianity but a different form. I put my faith and all my sincerity in them her, it. That is the only path because they are the only ones able to be recognized as God by me.

Without full sincerity, they cannot appear. And that is why despite all discouragement my pure heart let me see "God". because of this there is hope even if I get certain interpretations wrong. Negative thoughts have always plagued me and it s only with God's help I can get over what I cannot do by myself.

God is a mystical force that we can communicate with. God can show us the true meaning of life which is to never be alone. God will always be there for you but you will need to be honest with them to be with them.

The mockery that God is just your imaginary friend fails to take into account that God has a soul. God is not just an image. God is a living being that cares for you. We just need to lift the veil of separation self-hate causes and that self-awareness can awaken.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So it's not crazy if they can keep their story straight, if that story isn't at odds with itself... how many religious people have you spoken to?

The problem with religious people is the same as with nonreligious people.
I know plenty people who are not religious and say the dumbest inconsistent shit ever.
It just does not pertain to God, but something else.
I know plenty people who will say it is irrational to believe in God you cannot see and then say something that has about as much credibility as me talking to Jesus at night.

So yeah religion makes your bullshit more visible, but that does not make it real. Nor does bullshit of nonreligious people make anymore sense.
People of all sorts believe bullshit of some sort.

 

[Cognisant]

Indeed stupidity is not exclusive to religion, but you can't then go on to say "therefore religion isn't stupid" without conflating coincidence and causation1, which would still be irrelevant anyway because I didn't say religion is the root cause of stupidity2.

1: Not that you did but it seemed to be the point you were driving at.
2: If I could make that work I totally would.

Edit: superscript isn't working

 

[ummidk]

Falling into belief systems of your social structure is very much the norm. I see no reason to label this as someones brain being atypical

 

[Cognisant]

Being willfully ignorant makes the religious a danger to themselves and others.

Calling them wrong opens up a two sided debate, a debate they've been stonewalling with bullshit for millennia. Calling them insane puts the onus on them to prove that they're not, sure it's not fair but it's not about being fair it's about curtailing dangerous behavior.

Putting people with violent behavior resulting from abusive childhoods in jail isn't fair but it's necessary, indeed it would be unfair on everyone else not to do it.

 

[washti]

I do agree that the mentally ill patient is insane. - unable to function in society. It represents a potential threat to self and others.

I do agree that priest is insane - using and spreading religious assumption as a literal explanation of the world.
He's always a threat - inhibiting cognitive development, preventing recognition and acknowledgment of a wide range of social problems, and adequate, practical response to them.

'Solutions' based on religious dogmas which the priest offers, initiate or permit continuation for individual insanity.

By being an enabler, the user and a breeder of individual insanity priest create group insanity.
This way priest is shaping a market for his own service.

Social acceptance is a historical result of systemic religious insanity done by priest not the argument for his insanity lesser weight.

He is like mentally ill plus well adapted to social norms he co-created by being an agent of religious dogma.

The priest is worse.

The problem with religious people is the same as with nonreligious people.
I know plenty of people who are not religious and say the dumbest inconsistent shit ever.
It just does not pertain to God, but something else.

I disagree that is the same.

Reasoning based on secular assumptions leads to irrational views.
Not always.

Reasoning based on religious assumptions leads to irrational views.
Always? If no:
What rational views result from religious assumptions?

 

[ZenRaiden]

What rational views result from religious assumptions?

Religious people can certainly be rational. There is no doubt about that.

Reasoning based on secular assumptions leads to irrational views.
Not always.

I have yet to meet someone who is purely rational, just because heshe is atheist.
Atheism does not prevent someone from bullshit, same way religion does not prevent people from being right about stuff.

 

[washti]

Reasoning based on secular assumptions leads to irrational views.
Not always.
Reasoning based on religious assumptions leads to irrational views.
Always? If no:
What rational views result from religious assumptions?

@ZenRaiden
This argument is not about the infallibility of atheists. This argument is not about religious inability to reason rationally.

This argument is about 2 categories of axioms on the basis which premises are created and the possibility of obtaining a rational judgment from them.

It doesn't matter who makes the judgment but what category of assumption is used to make it.

the secular axiom - hypothetic principle that is exclusively accepted in a specific use or temporarily. It cannot be used everywhere without limits. Cannot be transferred to arguments/theories outside the dedicated scope. (e.g. different axioms are the basis of different geometries)
It is also treated as a utility, as something that maybe could be proved or not, but for the time being, is adopted before better ideas/data/tools show up. Then it's replaced by another.

the religious axiom - dogma, faith, commandment, revelation, prophecy. It has real status. It is not subject to modifications or reinterpretations. it is never rejected. It lasts for millennia. Dies with its last believer. Reality is explained through its prism.
If someone believes otherwise, they cannot be considered a disciple of this religion. they are an infidel, heretic, or a believer of other religions/denominations.
Examples: the form of deity (trinity), sin, salvation, resurrection, miracle, the final judgment, temptation, prayer, sacraments, reincarnation, the immaculate conception.

If someone judges their behavior, seeing its cause in the concept of temptation by Satan (religious axiom), according to the above reasoning, the judgment is always irrational and not possible to prove or disprove. Satan existence and activities are always true.
Human cognitive limitations and the evolution of knowledge don't matter. This is True by God. (most fundamental religious axiom through which everything is confirmed.)

If someone judges their behavior based on a historical pattern, common sense (the Sun rises every day), or one of the scientific theories (secular axiom) it may be true or false but it is rational. They don't accept anything just on faith, but demand evidence to confirm at least a partial chance for the truth of a given statement. They are aware of human cognitive limitations and the evolution of human knowledge. There is no one fundamental axiom through which everything else is explained and confirmed.

If my argument is false, there are examples when conclusions made on the basis of religious axioms are rational. I'm not able to name any.

Btw. Many self claimed 'religious' people treat the dogmas of their religion in a metaphorical way, as poetic manifestations of ideally realized values, basing their explanations of the world on secular axioms. Compared to orthodox believers, religion is a hobby for them and its concepts are not taken seriously in the literal canonical sense. I have the impression that in your second post you mean just such people. So we can talk about completely different things. I'm talking about orthodox.

There is of course the problem if people tell you the truth about their reasoning bases. We live in society after all. Religion is often just a tool, and the secular world is often just a playground to spread religion.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Religion is more culture than a tool. Loosely speaking it's a way of life.

But then again some religions have a certain outlook on what life is, and the things that transcend it, if that realm exists/subsists.

 

[Cognisant]

What rational views result from religious assumptions?

Religious people can certainly be rational. There is no doubt about that.

Washti didn't say religious people cannot be rational at all and no one would because it would be a blatantly absurd claim. Given the context of our discussion your misinterpretation is amusingly ironic, indeed some religious people can be rational but you might not be one of them

I have yet to meet someone who is purely rational, just because heshe is atheist.
Atheism does not prevent someone from bullshit, same way religion does not prevent people from being right about stuff.

Indeed, except when it does.


To be fair the firearms business lady has a point, but only if she's doing ID checks.

 

[Cognisant]

Just going to reply to my own post before anyone jumps on the oversight I made.

Obviously "thou shalt not wear masks" isn't an inherent part of the Christian faith so it's disingenuous of me to blame religion for stupid people using their religion to justify their stupid bullshit. But still, even though religion isn't solely to blame for the "my beliefs are as good as your facts" attitude some people have it's the most significant contributor, there aren't many kinds of stupidity that people can demand others respect because it's literally sacred.

That's the problem, and I'm not writing this for the benefit of those of you who have religious beliefs, I know you won't listen to me no matter what I say. I'm writing this for the atheists and agnostics, my point is that we must categorically refuse to respect religion and openly mock anyone who has the audacity to suggest that anything is sacred.
Nothing is above ridicule.

Calling religious people insane is actually a step down from mockery because doing so is acknowledging that they have a problem, it's creating a delineation between the afflicted and the disease.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Then you clearly have a naive understanding of what the sacred is.

 

[ZenRaiden]

This argument is not about the infallibility of atheists. This argument is not about religious inability to reason rationally.

This argument is about 2 categories of axioms on the basis which premises are created and the possibility of obtaining a rational judgment from them.

It doesn't matter who makes the judgment but what category of assumption is used to make it.

the secular axiom - hypothetic principle that is exclusively accepted in a specific use or temporarily. It cannot be used everywhere without limits. Cannot be transferred to arguments/theories outside the dedicated scope. (e.g. different axioms are the basis of different geometries)
It is also treated as a utility, as something that maybe could be proved or not, but for the time being, is adopted before better ideas/data/tools show up. Then it's replaced by another.

the religious axiom - dogma, faith, commandment, revelation, prophecy. It has real status. It is not subject to modifications or reinterpretations. it is never rejected. It lasts for millennia. Dies with its last believer. Reality is explained through its prism.
If someone believes otherwise, they cannot be considered a disciple of this religion. they are an infidel, heretic, or a believer of other religions/denominations.
Examples: the form of deity (trinity), sin, salvation, resurrection, miracle, the final judgment, temptation, prayer, sacraments, reincarnation, the immaculate conception.

If someone judges their behavior, seeing its cause in the concept of temptation by Satan (religious axiom), according to the above reasoning, the judgment is always irrational and not possible to prove or disprove. Satan existence and activities are always true.
Human cognitive limitations and the evolution of knowledge don't matter. This is True by God. (most fundamental religious axiom through which everything is confirmed.)

If someone judges their behavior based on a historical pattern, common sense (the Sun rises every day), or one of the scientific theories (secular axiom) it may be true or false but it is rational. They don't accept anything just on faith, but demand evidence to confirm at least a partial chance for the truth of a given statement. They are aware of human cognitive limitations and the evolution of human knowledge. There is no one fundamental axiom through which everything else is explained and confirmed.

If my argument is false, there are examples when conclusions made on the basis of religious axioms are rational. I'm not able to name any.

Btw. Many self claimed 'religious' people treat the dogmas of their religion in a metaphorical way, as poetic manifestations of ideally realized values, basing their explanations of the world on secular axioms. Compared to orthodox believers, religion is a hobby for them and its concepts are not taken seriously in the literal canonical sense. I have the impression that in your second post you mean just such people. So we can talk about completely different things. I'm talking about orthodox.

There is of course the problem if people tell you the truth about their reasoning bases. We live in society after all. Religion is often just a tool, and the secular world is often just a playground to spread religion.

I know a guy who tells me that religion is bullshit, but you would not find a rational thought in most of his opinions.
Religion is a narrative driven by beliefs.
Atheist create narratives and have beliefs as well.
I can be atheist and believe in energy vampires.
I can be atheist and believe that there is a immortal yeti living in middle of nowhere who can resurrect living things and transform into other creatures.
A person can be clearly not religious and construct all kinds of false narratives.

I have no idea what you mean by axioms. There is no proper rule set for making proper axioms for atheist and thus there is no reason to believe that atheist will be any more rational than religious people.
Yes religion means you are in a sort of way predisposed to believing bullshit, but then again what makes you believe atheist have no such predisposition.
You seem to be that guy saying that if you believe in religion you are automatically irrational.
Then again I meet atheist and religious people everyday and they all seem just about the same kind of dumb.

 

[Black Rose]

If insanity is the lack of a functioning mind the most religious people are not insane but simply unable to think in a way conducent with reality. A mind unable to function would be unable to think in any way other than total delusion. It would be helpful to know the degree of impairment rather than make a binary judgment. If the thinking process is set right were they really insane? Insanity is supposed to be a permanent impairment with no chance of intervention.

 

[Minuend]

physically healthy person believing in god, you have a rational person.

If someone believed the Harry Potter movies were a historical account disguised as work of fiction to discredit the existence of a secret society of magic users that actually exists, would you be willing to vouch for their mental health? I wouldn't and as an atheist I consider all the major religions to be every bit as fictional as the minor ones, if you disagree with me then tell me which religion is the truth? And better yet how did you come to that conclusion?

You know there's a difference between HP and religion, or you're being dishonest. Yes, the history and logic behind them might share similarities, but religion have existed for a long time and it's natural people who are searching find meaning in it. Not understanding that is a lack of empathy. I'm not saying religion is a good way to turn for people who are thinking and wondering. I'm saying it's understandable and goes beyond your logic. It's about feels, because that's what people are and seek.

And in a lot of cases it's upbringing. The point still is, religion is not a logic issue at all. And people's shitty behavior is not because of religion, is because of feelings like fear, control etc. You're attacking a symptom, not an issue.

Sure and only a minuscule percentage of the assault rifles sold in the USA are used to commit mass shootings, statistically speaking it's debatable whether or not they're even a significant factor. (dripping with sarcasm)

Obviously mental health contributes to mass shootings. Do you think any person would always mass kill someone if allowed a shotgun? In a "perfect society" I honestly don't think anybody would shoot anybody. Unless sociopath who enjoy killing and suffering is inborn, then we'd shoot those guys because we realize we need to kill them to prevent suffering on mass scale.

 

[Cognisant]

You know there's a difference between HP and religion, or you're being dishonest.

You're making an appeal to sanctity, I'm refuting sanctity, it's not being dishonest it's the fucking point.

Yes, the history and logic behind them might share similarities, but religion have existed for a long time and it's natural people who are searching find meaning in it. Not understanding that is a lack of empathy.

Slavery has been common throughout much of human history, it has existed for a long time and still does, do you think people should be legally allowed to own slaves because it's their cultural heritage? Of course you don't that would be fucking stupid, suffice to say something's age is no reason to consider it sacred, especially when that thing is harmful.

Which segues neatly into my second point, I do not oppose religion because I lack empathy on the contrary religion is extremely harmful and I'm trying to protect people from it, do you need examples?

• People attending services during a quarantine, that's topical.
• People refusing medical care to their children because it conflicts with their beliefs.
• The Republicans, Jesus-Fucking-Christ where do I start?
• Religious fundamentalists of all kinds.

I can break it down with facts and figures, it's a lot of work and frankly I don't think the point that religion is harmful requires much defending, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that knows any history or has even just read the fucking bible.

I'm sorry I'm upset because your whole point just seems to be an attack on my character, saying I'm dishonest and I lack empathy and you're really not justified in saying those things and we're not even through the first paragraph yet.

I'm not saying religion is a good way to turn for people who are thinking and wondering. I'm saying it's understandable and goes beyond your logic. It's about feels, because that's what people are and seek.

It's good because it feels good?
Fuck a blowjob from an underage hooker feels good, snorting coke bought with blood money feels good, jacking off watching someone's daughter shove a dragon dildo up her ass feels good. You know what doesn't feel good? Being lynched by a jeering crowd because of the color of your skin. Being violated by a priest who assures you that you'll go to hell if you tell anyone about it. Being poor and hungry because your mentally ill mother gave what little social support your family got from the government to a televangelist because he told her you got to give before you can receive.

YOU THINK I LACK EMPATHY!

FUCK YOU!

Hey look I'm using my fucking emotions isn't this soo much better?

 

[nanook]

Religion is a delicate defense mechanism, because it has two opposed functions. It has the narcissistic function of delivering imaginary power and control, to those who preach it with authority over their family or community and it has the schizophrenic function of delivering an inner, imaginary harmony, to those, who are forced to subdue, outwardly, to the former narcissist authorities - very much like stockholm syndrome.

It must be treated like a psychological disease, with sensitivity and empathy towards affected individuals (not towards the ideology) and the firm confidence, to call the ideology out for what it is - a defense mechanism, however correctly, since it's one or both of these two things, for different people and no generalization must be made.

The narcissist must be told that he is delusional and, more importantly, in ways that violate boundaries, which is boo boo. The schizophrenic must be told, that his sense of self-acceptance is failing to take the true nature into account and only harmonizes a false self, which is a pity. The latter is also true for the narcissist. Narcissists are essentially super confident, stable, unconsciously acting out schizophrenics. So basically extroverts. Schizophrenics are basically introverts, who consciously (but without objective rationality) manage to reconcile the given power dynamics of family, forced upon them, with their emotional needs.

You cannot imagine a world with power dynamics, wherein individuals are not using idealist defense mechanisms, to feel good about themselves, while oppressing or being oppressed.

It must be pointed out, for the sake of fairness, that these psychological dynamics affect all people, not only followers of traditional religion. All kinds of other, idealist, fantastic worldviews (detached from actual possibilities, like a carrot on a stick) serve the same purpose, most of all politics. You can philosophically attack any idealist worldview and show that it is narcissistic or schizophrenic, such as capitalism. You can't real single out a group of fanatics (say protestants) and pretend they are significantly more insane than another group of fanatics (say capitalists, humanists, trans-humanists).

The pluralist idea of compassion is this: Relax, we are all insane here, it's not a competition.

Rational atheists are often still head deep into conscious idealism, such as trans-humanism, seeking to control reality with the same delusional fervor of religions. Only now we get half-baked medicines and pesticides and chem trails and every aspect of life is enacted by robots, which we control while sitting behind a desk. I will send my drone to the beach now, it will harvest some vitamin D for me.

To me, integral theory is just an index of all human perspectives, purely descriptive, not instructive, but to individuals with heavy idealist psychology, its also abused as carrot on a stick-scheme for themselves or their community.

It's rarely the whole ideology, mythology, material science, psycho-analytical science, that serves as defense, it's individuals re-shaping it in a manner, until it serves their desire for staged power or perceived autonomy.

Psychiatry is a religion of fake capitalist sanity, subduing everyone to it's demands for compliance with the work world, at the thread of pathologization, deletion of the right to make legal decisions.

We have always been insane and will most likely remain so, forever.

 

[Black Rose]

@nanook

Narcissism conflates with the Christian view of humility and spiritual healing. The point of growing close to God is to be made well. It seems that this mistake and confusion is the same Nitchie made. Mental sickness is everywhere so the cure "Christianity" is seen as another source of sickness. Cultural Christianity was never perfect, that does not mean there were never people perfected. Spiritual perfection can't be described as narcissistic nor schizophrenic. God is neither of those things. If Love is pure a person heals.

The reason narcissism happens if that correctly it is a defense mechanism and the person needs control because they are afraid of vulnerability. They are afraid of feeling humble. They could never be wrong. This is the opposite of confidence because confidence is in tandem with humility. A person incapable of change is in pride. This is a false harmony because it is self-centered. Pride is not Love centered. Love must be at the center for true harmony to be present.

God's Love is perfect. Meditating on that perfects the individual. Not on being right but on caring. People that believe God Loves them and feel that he cares for them have a spiritual treasure. It is not a result of oppression but that the greatest power in the universe loves them. They have been made well. Religion as a sickness is very real but that is not the whole story.

 

[Cognisant]

Rational atheists are often still head deep into conscious idealism, such as trans-humanism, seeking to control reality with the same delusional fervor of religions. Only now we get half-baked medicines and pesticides and chem trails and every aspect of life is enacted by robots, which we control while sitting behind a desk. I will send my drone to the beach now, it will harvest some vitamin D for me.

And you can go get fucked too.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, don't gaslight me you prick.

I am adamantly against anything that isn't actual fucking medicine, if that wasn't already fucking obvious.

Amazon Prime Air isn't currently in operation (it was expected to begin in July 2020 but then 2020 happened) but if it was and you lived near a US distribution center you could have vitamin D pills delivered by drone however I suggest consulting a GP before including any supplements in your diet and sourcing them from a more reputable source, i.e. a pharmacy.

Robots, yes.

 

[nanook]

lol, why on earth would you take a general description of "rational" (stage of development, spiral dynamics) atheists personally?


You seem so preoccupied with being defensive, you did apparently overlook my argument, which is that "empathy" ( i call it pluralism ) reveals, that all people, with all worldviews need and use the defense mechanisms of idealist distortion. Therefore, i argue, we can't single out the religious, authoritatively, and simply oppress any expression of their ideology, we are in no moral position to do so, while we, the modern, enlightened, secular, western culture, currently manifest ever more wildly idealist, self-righteous ideologies, of redistribution of wealth and total control over emigration and natural resources, down to investment/world-bank driven terraforming of good and bad climate zones, etc. So, given that there is no majority of sane people, we can only point out, informally, non-authoritatively, each other's psychological or philosophical failures, as we see it, whether we see it correctly or not, for your consideration. This is empathic, or i call it basic respect for boundaries: To discuss generalities, not to command individuals around. I went into some detail, to exemplify various typical idealist delusions of post-conformist stages (mainly rationality, but to be fair also integralism), in order to make this argument (about all stages), not to make any sort of statement about you personally, because this would be totally irrelevant to me. I just speak my mind and don't try to change yours, nor what other people think of you, nor do i even maintain much of an idea about where you are at, beyond what transpires in a single post.

 

[Black Rose]

If you are living at a deficit then obviously you would defend your coping mechanism. But that is not to say all coping mechanisms are unhealthy.

 

[Cognisant]

Therefore, i argue, we can't single out the religious, authoritatively, and simply oppress any expression of their ideology, we are in no moral position to do so, while we, the modern, enlightened, secular, western culture, currently manifest ever more wildly idealist, self-righteous ideologies, of redistribution of wealth and total control over emigration and natural resources, down to investment/world-bank driven terraforming of good and bad climate zones, etc.

Your point, put simply, is that secular people can't call out the religious people on their nonsense because we have our own nonsense. It's like a politician being called out for corruption and being unable to deny it so they instead try to divert attention by saying their opposition does corrupt stuff too and that may be true but it's not the fucking point, two wrongs do not make a right.

Now I can't honestly say that secular society has never done anything bad ever and frankly I don't have to because as I've just explained it's not the fucking point, it's not relevant, two wrongs do not make the first wrong right.

But even if we humor your premise it's still not fair, the problem of wealth inequality (I assume that's what you mean by "redistribution of wealth") isn't a problem because people are secular, national restrictions on emigration and monopolization of natural resources isn't a problem because people are secular, harmful terraforming caused by human industrial activity isn't a problem because people are secular.

I could be wrong and I invite you to explain how secularism itself is to blame for anything.

By contrast pedophile priests get away with their crimes for so long because they are priests. The racism that defined the KKK wasn't inherent to Christianity but they were none the less a religious congregation first and racists second, it's hard to gather people under banner of racism without calling it something else. Likewise the antivaxxers and non-mask wearers and people selling "alternative medicine" are all quick to hide behind religion whenever they meet opposition because there's no qualifier for sanctity. If I want to sell a drug as "medicine" it had better fucking work and I'd better have conclusive proof or secular society will be coming after me with torches and pitchforks (actually lawsuits and legal orders) because they demand the qualifiers of proof and truth.

lol, why on earth would you take a general description of "rational" (stage of development, spiral dynamics) atheists personally?

Because I am an atheist therefore you were calling me out, you can't have it both ways, you can't talk shit about atheists and tell atheists they can't confront you about it.

Hey @Minuend for your information this is what dishonesty looks like.

 

[Black Rose]

In the mindset of the person believing nonsense, it really is not willing ignorance. If you believe the flood happened you have an understanding of how it happened. This understanding is strongly believed in so supporting evidence against it needs to form a new understanding not just a series of nonsense facts to them. They are not rejecting new understanding "willful ignorance" they have resistance to forming new understandings.

Not to say some religious people are willfully ignorant but the others are just invested in keeping an understanding they call a world view. It takes time to break thing down ad show them how things really work. Cog is just upset with the jerks of the bunch, the majority really have no problem being open-minded but the momentum of the situation is the lots of non-science stuff went into that opening that needs clearing out.

 

[Black Rose]

We're still not clear on what constitutes insanity rather than poor thinking. Again I'd say insanity is permanent cannot be changed by education. Severely skewed reality. Thinking is permanently disabled/broken. Even schizophrenics can be rational in thinking and are not classified as insane because thinking is not necessarily broken. Forget religion, simply ask is it insane to believe in a God. Does this "God" obscure thinking? If so we have a problem. But not necessarily does belief in God do this. If God exists it is not irrational to believe.

If thinking is not permanently broken there is no insanity. Belief in God is not insane because belief in God does not necessarily lead to broken thinking.