Author Topic: Treating Religiosity (Read 2052 times)

Suave · « **Reply #120 on:** November 14, 2004, 02:47:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
Suave,

Your statements have called your motives into question. You have no one to blame but yourself...

"Religion is of course the abandonment of rationality. The reason to fear fanaticism, which is what religion is, is that most of the world's suffering can be traced back to it."

These statements can be interpreted as either inflammatory or subjective.

I don't think it's subjective, religion, like love, requires a leap of faith, a type of blind devotion. And any attempt to explain religion using reason will fail, religion is beyond reason. You've seen people go 'round and 'round about this and ultimately allways comes back down to one thing. Faith. Usually faith in majic. Fanaticism is a devotion without regard to rational reasoning.

Inflammatory? Well that depends on the objectivity of the reader, and I have no control over that.

Lazerus · « **Reply #121 on:** November 14, 2004, 02:47:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
No I don't think bringing attention to an article about research of the part of the brain attributed with religion is belittling.

That's the problem. It's about a part of the brain that is theorized to have a link to a physiological disorder that the obviously biased author links to religion as an institution, not as the cause for the subjects fanatical attachment to an ideal. The study is fundamentaly flawed. Your dissemination of this study, with no critique, leads to the logical conclusion that you believe that the information is correct and that you hold true that those that believe various religious ideals are inherently suffering from a physiological disorder. Therefore, you are pre-disposed to judge those that claim any religion as mentally flawed.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #122 on:** November 14, 2004, 02:51:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
Inflammatory? Well that depends on the objectivity of the reader, and I have no control over that.

Thats rather arrogant - isnt it - beliveing that people who disagree with your views or are offended by them are automatically unobjective or perhaps unresonable?

Thats not a particularly open minded or respecttful approach to dissenting views...

Suave · « **Reply #123 on:** November 14, 2004, 02:55:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Origins of religion? Are you denying then any validity to the claimed historical basis for some of the world's religions? Are you saying that it was epilepsy that caused Moses to imagine he talked with the burning bush? Or that Jesus raising the dead is a lie? Maybe you're just comfortable dealing with the abstract?

Yes I think it is a lie, a myth, not dissimilar from greek mythology, in fact in some ways it is very similar. I don't believe in magic. No I'm not saying it was epilepsy that caused Moses to talk to the bush, lol.

If I had to label myself, I'd say I was the same as our founding fathers, a diest, a naturalist and a humanist. Life is a gift, I can't believe that there is no reason for the existance of existance.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #124 on:** November 14, 2004, 03:02:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
I can't believe that there is no reason for the existance of existance.

Why not?

Suave · « **Reply #125 on:** November 14, 2004, 03:14:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
That's the problem. It's about a part of the brain that is theorized to have a link to a physiological disorder that the obviously biased author links to religion as an institution, not as the cause for the subjects fanatical attachment to an ideal. The study is fundamentaly flawed. Your dissemination of this study, with no critique, leads to the logical conclusion that you believe that the information is correct and that you hold true that those that believe various religious ideals are inherently suffering from a physiological disorder. Therefore, you are pre-disposed to judge those that claim any religion as mentally flawed.

I'm not sure you noticed but that article is from an editorial and is not written by an MD.

I wouldn't call it mentally flawed, I would call it a personality flaw. Like Jessie Ventura said. If I had to chose a foxhole buddy a religious guy wouldn't be my first choice. It's not that I question his integrity or honor, I would just feel uneasy about relying on a guy who uses shamanism and belief in majic as a coping mechanism. Ever notice some people describe any opinion voiced that they don't agree with as offensive.

Lazerus · « **Reply #126 on:** November 14, 2004, 03:30:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
I wouldn't call it mentally flawed

I didn't. I called it fundamentally flawed.

The rest of your post is just someone elses feelings on the subject and does nothing to answer anything in my last post.

Quote

I would just feel uneasy about relying on a guy who uses shamanism and belief in majic as a coping mechanism.
Quote

I think I'm done after that one. Keep an eye out for the warning track out there in left field.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #127 on:** November 14, 2004, 03:41:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
I wouldn't call it mentally flawed, I would call it a personality flaw.

Phew, thanks for clearing that up Suave. All this time I thought you belived that religious people (90% of the worlds pouplation) were suffering from a mental disorder. How wrong I was, now I know you only think they only suffer from mere a personality disorder...

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
I would just feel uneasy about relying on a guy who uses shamanism and belief in majic as a coping mechanism.

And that one pretty much clears up any confusion regarding your broad overwhelming prejudicial attitudes towards individuals of faith...

You know, if you hadnt cleared all that up I might have left this thread thinking you were an arrogant, elitist, bigoted, prejudiced and all around smug superior type of person...

In the end it seems the individual with the big personality flaw is you, you and your cold arrogance in broadly consigning whole swathes of the human race into some sort of inferior flawed status..

Rolex · « **Reply #128 on:** November 14, 2004, 04:53:01 AM »

You may want to check the facts about your statement that 90% of the world is religious, GRUNHERZ. There are more secular/agnostics/atheists than those who believe in Islam (with over a billion followers), for example.

Buddhism, confucianism and many others are philosophies without the encumbrances of a 'religion.'

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #129 on:** November 14, 2004, 07:14:16 AM »

Yea I'm not sure about that number, 90% is just one figure I heard a few years ago. But whatver it is, it's an overwhelming majority of all humans and I think its arrogant of Suva to dismiss them all as having personality defects just because they have faith.

As for buddhism I have heard it from buddhists that even some of them worship buddha as god. Still even "god" is not neccesrary for a religion so i'll more easily consider buddhism a religion. From what I know about confuconism I guess thsat one is more debatable as to whether its a philosophy or a religion.

mora · « **Reply #130 on:** November 14, 2004, 07:42:14 AM »

The fact that 90% of world population are members of a religious groups doesn't make them religious. I used to be a member too, and the rest of my family still is. I would never characterize myself or any of them religious.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #131 on:** November 14, 2004, 08:56:26 AM »

there is no religion that tells to place bombs or kill eachother for it.

Its just the stupid people who make it like that.

I work every day with muslims and christians. They are just people like u and me.

I´m not a believer but everybody should have his freedom to do so.

I think as long as i follow my heart nothin is wrong.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #132 on:** November 14, 2004, 10:40:36 AM »

Suave, perhaps you're misinterpreting the data from the experiments.

The experiments with TLE suggest there is neurological reason why religion has been a huge influence throughout human history. It proves there is a "God center" of the brain. No one would attempt to explain why that part of the brain exists.

It would be just as abnormal to be a true atheist as to have have overactive religious delusions, as being a true atheist shows that portion of the brain (responsible for some of the most primitive brain functions) is not functioning as it does in most humans.

Pointing only to the overactive "God center" and ignoring the inactive "God center" suggests preconceptions of the value of religion.

As I've stated in an earlier post, the way the data was used in the text you quoted, is junk science. The data only proves there is such a center in the brain, and in no way suggests its value or that some pill should be created to fix it. There is an assumption in the text that less is better, but that is not suggested by the data. Hence it deviates from science and is basicaly, crap.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #133 on:** November 14, 2004, 01:50:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mora
The fact that 90% of world population are members of a religious groups doesn't make them religious. I used to be a member too, and the rest of my family still is. I would never characterize myself or any of them religious.

I don't mean to derail the main argument here but I gotta ask-

why would you be a member of a group if you don't believe in the core values of that group? especially when it's a group who's whole existence is based on those values.

I've known a lot of others who didn't really seem to believe but still attended or were members of a church. but I've never met anyone who actually admitted they were that person.

mora · « **Reply #134 on:** November 14, 2004, 03:36:43 PM »

In here people are mostly members beause of tradition. Also the fact that church and state are not separated plays a part. Most people I know are members of the church, but I don't know anyone who goes there(or admits it). It appears to be easy for people to admit they are members but don't believe(I find this strange). OTOH I know people who believe but don't attend, possibly because they are afraid of the stigma.