Forums > Social Discussion > Religion: A mental illness?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: ...
MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,923 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
Written by: Simian

ah, israel. Just another justification for my thesis that religious belief should be treated the same as any other mental illness. But that's another discussion entirely...




Well, this is another discussion entirely. smile

Thoughts?

I'm inclined to agree.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


KaelGotRiceGOLD Member
Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
1,584 posts
Location: Angel's Landing, USA


Posted:
okay I just have to say...

Written by:

Ham explains in this chapter that the majority in power in many of our Western societies once believed the institution of marriage should be one man for one woman. But this has changed. Many are now allowing gay marriage. So how long before polygamous or pedophiliac relationships are allowed, which some people are starting to advocate? Who is to say they are wrong if the majority agrees with them?




If I remember correctly, back in the time of the New Testament's creation and in the times of the Old, quite a few kings had many wives and God was perfectly okay with it, and people got married at age 13.

ubblol Some people :rolleyes:

To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ubbrollsmile.gif" alt="" />


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
Yeah, the "slippery slope" is a really dumb argument. Biblically, Christians should be willing to tolerate polygamy. The problem with gay marriage is not that it will lead to polygamy (which is allowed by the Bible), but that it will lead to homosexuality (which is not).

FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Listen: Which version of the Bible do you refer to? Which translation are you reading? There is even a case of clear case incest described in the Bible, that occured in the family of Mose - giving evidence that Mose was a Pharao himself...

And what's wrong with Polygamy anyways? wink

(but Kael... in those days people were dying with age 30... naturally)

But forced marriages is what I definately perceive WRONG!

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Surely the restrictions against homosexuality are in the Old Testament, which basically doesn't apply to Christians? I mean Christians don't circumsise their sons or only eat kosher food for instance. Didn't Jesus (or more accurately Paul) throw out those rules?

"Moo," said the happy cow.


Frederick the RecklessBRONZE Member
Troupe Leader and founder, Fire and Steel
241 posts
Location: Oregon, USA


Posted:
religion is not a bad thing, but the perverted misuse of religion is, and SHOULD be treated as a mental illness. think on this: every time there's a war, both sides state that god/allah/yahweh/buddha/insert relevant deity here is on their side. does the higher power know this? did he/she/it get the memo? given that there is no religion in the world that when faithfully followed advocates the killing of one human being by another, i find that odd. then they say that war is okay... like it's okay to kill if the government says it's ok. that's like a mobster saying "the bible says 'Thou shalt not kill...' it does NOT, however, say, 'Thou shalt not have anyone whacked.'" i mean, tell me there's not some flaw in that logic? who is the nutjob that thought that concept up, anyway?

Frederick the Reckless,
Troupe Leader,
Fire and Steel


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
According to the Bible, Polygamy is not a sin. The New Testament does condemn homosexuality, several times. Some Christians do eat Kosher and circumcise their sons (since the Bible says to do it).

jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
However there is no reason to forbid homosexuality other than because the bible say so. This is one of the major reasons why many people have rejected biblical 'truth'. Why would the all-mighty care who we had sex with if it was a loving relationship?



Go, gay people, go! biggrin

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Written by: Patriarch917


According to the Bible, Polygamy is not a sin. The New Testament does condemn homosexuality, several times. Some Christians do eat Kosher and circumcise their sons (since the Bible says to do it).



Where does the NT condemn homosexuality out of interest? Not disagreeing, just curious as I'd not heard that before...

"Moo," said the happy cow.


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
New Testament on Homosexuality:

Rom 1:26-27
1 Tim 1:10
1Cor 6:9

As far as condemning homosexuality on other grounds there are a few ways to construct a moral framework, such as:

Gods law
Mans law
Natural law

According to the Bible, God clearly condemns homosexuality. Since God defines what is good and evil, it is evil.

From a humanist perspective, homosexuality is wrong if it contradicts the morals that society has invented for itself. Thus, homosexuality can be condemned if enough people (a democracy) or the right people (other forms of government) decide that it is wrong.

From a naturalist perspective, actions can be judged good or evil based on whether they contribute to the fitness and survivability of our species. Thus, murder is wrong because if a disposition toward murder was allowed to spread through our species, our species would die. Therefore, we should execute or isolate murderers to eliminate their genes and their influence over others.

In the same way, homosexuality if allowed to spread would mean the death of our species. Homosexuality has no competitive advantage from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore, we should not allow them to spread their lifestyle through genes, or influencing others.

Of course, from a natural law there is also no reason not to condemn something unless it is positively contributing to the species. Therefore, we are allowed to condemn whatever we want unless there is some reason not to. Unless we can find some reason why homosexuality gives us a competitive advantage against other species, we should feel free not to encourage it, or even to discourage it for an arbitrary reason.

jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
Naturalism makes no moral claims. You can be a bigot if you want but don't drag the rational into this.



You also disgracefully misrepresent the Humanist position.

Humanist Manifesto



That was truely a repugnant post from you.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: Patriarch917



In the same way, homosexuality if allowed to spread would mean the death of our species. Homosexuality has no competitive advantage from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore, we should not allow them to spread their lifestyle through genes, or influencing others.





For it to mean the death of our species it would have to spread to the extent that everyone goes homosexual; that is not going to happen.

(even if it did, current technology can easily lead to propagation without sex).

And, given that overpopulation is currently quite a threat to our continued survival, decreasing birth numbers via increasing homosexuality, arguably, would be of considerable advantage to humanities survival prospects.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
Written by: jeff(fake)


Naturalism makes no moral claims. You can be a bigot if you want but don't drag the rational into this.

You also disgracefully misrepresent the Humanist position.
Humanist Manifesto

That was truely a repugnant post from you.




I agree that Naturalism makes no moral claims. Naturalism imposes no moral burden on any of us. The reason why genocide is not condemned by naturalism is because nothing is condemned by naturalism. To say that Hitler was evil for killing the Jews is like saying that oxygen is evil for combining with hydrogen.

Thus, I used good and evil euphemistically to represent fitness or unfitness to survive the environment. Social Darwinism provides a method for evaluating actions from a naturalist perspective. It is a philosophy based on the belief that there is no higher moral authority, and that a good basis for morality is biological imperatives.

I correctly represented a valid Humanist position. The humanist manifesto proclaims that humans are the result of unguided chance evolution, thus there is no higher moral authority, thus ethics should be based on what humans want. The main question that remains is whether we should give the power to humans collectively (some sort of democracy), or to particular well qualified humans (a dictatorship, aristocracy, etc.). Actions are right or wrong based on what humans decide.

There are forms of humanism that suggest that humans have intrinsic worth, or right that shouldnt be violated. But even these ideas are ultimately based on nothing higher than human preference (unless you hop over to some sort of supernatural humanism).

As you can see, the line between humanism and naturalism is very, very blury.

spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Why are you so obsessed with Social Darwinism? Everybody who isn't a racist bigot trying to justify morally reprehensible beliefs doesn't believe in it. You're raising a bit fat strawman.

And besides, evolution has provided us with a moral basis. One of the most valid evolutionary strategies is reciprocal altruism - being nice to people in the expectation of similar behaviour in the future. From this we have evolved a morality of right and wrong - wrong being that people who take and never give are considered "bad".

All societies, no matter what their level of technology, environment or religious beliefs have a certain set of common moral rules - murder is wrong, incest is wrong etc etc. If you accept that evolution occurs then you have to accept that morality is something we have because of evolution, not in spite of it. After all we see similar moral behaviour in other high animals like chimps.

Positions like humanism are also based on a flawed understanding of human nature i.e. that there isn't any such thing. If that were true then you would be right, morality would be nothing more than what we decide. But there is such a thing as human nature and part and parcel of that is morality. Positions which deny this have lead to some of the most horrible "socialist" atrocities in the 20th century - the idea that people can be infinitely shaped into an ideal.

"Moo," said the happy cow.


RicheeBRONZE Member
HOP librarian
1,841 posts
Location: Prague, Czech. Republic


Posted:
Neal Stephanson in Snowcrash (cyberpunk literature)
is describing religion as virus.

As I rememeber this virus residue in memory stack. Can get there via special vocal sequence of words or as specia character typed text.


:R

POI THEO(R)IST


spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
I think you're talking about the idea of a "meme".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

smile

"Moo," said the happy cow.


Gremlin_Loumember
131 posts
Location: Manchester


Posted:
Are you saying Hitler wasn't evil for killing the Jews? Personally, i'd say that genocide labels you as a pretty evil person, but hey, each to their own I guess.....

'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)


spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Who are you talking to? Me?

"Moo," said the happy cow.


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
In case anyone was confused, I agree with the critics of Naturalism and humanism. I do not believe in Naturalism or Humanism, and think that their claims about morality should be rejected.

SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: Patriarch917


Thus, homosexuality can be condemned if enough people (a democracy) or the right people (other forms of government) decide that it is wrong.




But then, by extension, if the majority agree that something is ok, then it is, in fact, ok? So Gay marraige is ok because the majority of people believe it is? You want to go historical with that and look at how people supported slavery and Imperialism? (not you specifically, just that point of view. It's silly)

Written by: Patriarch917


Therefore, we should execute or isolate murderers to eliminate their genes and their influence over others.




Because murder is "genetic", boys and girls. If your daddy was a murderer, you will be too. Let's just kill you now to save someone elses life... rolleyes

Oh wait, homosexuality is genetic as well! Hey, look at that! If your parents are gay/bisexual then you're gonna be gay! Woot! Spread the homosexual tendencies through your genetics!

Or something... Sorry Patriarch, I'm not attacking you, but every point of view you put in that post was utter rubbish. smile

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
That was the whole point of my post. While the logical consequences of Naturalism and Humanism may seem like utter rubbish to you and me, there are still plenty of smart people who believe in them.

FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
eek so what's YOUR point of view, Patriarch?...

Gremlin, Hit1er himself didn't kill any of those people - just as Bush didn't torture any of those detainees... Hit1er was a hypochondric, abstinent, faithful vegetarian - and very sick in his head... It's good that he's no longer around and it's good that (thanks to democracy and an educated public) none like him get into powerful positions anymore... rolleyes

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: FireTom


Gremlin, Hit1er himself didn't kill any of those people - just as Bush didn't torture any of those detainees... Hit1er was a hypochondric, abstinent, faithful vegetarian - and very sick in his head... It's good that he's no longer around and it's good that (thanks to democracy and an educated public) none like him get into powerful positions anymore... rolleyes




ubblol rolleyes

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
Written by: Patriarch917


In case anyone was confused, I agree with the critics of Naturalism and humanism. I do not believe in Naturalism or Humanism, and think that their claims about morality should be rejected.



Just you keep on hittin' that straw man there, billy.

Just don't expect those of us who base our morality on reason and shared humanity rather than a goat farmer's fairy tale to respect you.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
Written by: FireTom


eek so what's YOUR point of view, Patriarch?...






It's the one that deserves no respect. wink

jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
I believe it's called bigotry. wink

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
ubblol

I can see! ubbloco I can see the light! ubbidea

ubblol

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


Gremlin_Loumember
131 posts
Location: Manchester


Posted:
Ahah Yes, Firetom, I see your point.

However, if I get pissed off and hire a hitman to kill someone, i'd still be as responsible for that death as the man who pulls the trigger.

Hitler knew what was going on, and is therefore as responsible as the guards for all those deaths. Bleck.

'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Written by: Patriarch917


New Testament on Homosexuality:
Rom 1:26-27
1 Tim 1:10
1Cor 6:9
As far as condemning homosexuality on other grounds there are a few ways to construct a moral framework, such as:
Gods law
Mans law
Natural law
According to the Bible, God clearly condemns homosexuality. Since God defines what is good and evil, it is evil.
From a humanist perspective, homosexuality is wrong if it contradicts the morals that society has invented for itself. Thus, homosexuality can be condemned if enough people (a democracy) or the right people (other forms of government) decide that it is wrong.

From a naturalist perspective, actions can be judged good or evil based on whether they contribute to the fitness and survivability of our species. Thus, murder is wrong because if a disposition toward murder was allowed to spread through our species, our species would die. Therefore, we should execute or isolate murderers to eliminate their genes and their influence over others.

In the same way, homosexuality if allowed to spread would mean the death of our species. Homosexuality has no competitive advantage from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore, we should not allow them to spread their lifestyle through genes, or influencing others.

Of course, from a natural law there is also no reason not to condemn something unless it is positively contributing to the species. Therefore, we are allowed to condemn whatever we want unless there is some reason not to. Unless we can find some reason why homosexuality gives us a competitive advantage against other species, we should feel free not to encourage it, or even to discourage it for an arbitrary reason.




Sorry Patriarch, this post (along with those of a few others here in the forum) lead me to my "Tolerance"-thread...

Please clarify if this is a joke, or you mean it.

If this is what you mean I have to state: I find it plain offensive to assume that becoming a criminal and/ or becoming a homosexual is a genetic predesposition.

This leads directly to the propaganda done in the 3.Reich in Germany and to the "ethnic and racial cleansing".

If society would consider only those who contribute to be worthy of living, after your crimin/homosexuals would come handicapped and old people...

However, I was lacking words to express what I felt therefore I initiated my (fortunately deleted) thread... I know sometimes I just too emotional... But please, Patriarch, tell me: is this really what you believe?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


Patriarch917SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA


Posted:
I'm sorry that you find the suggestion that genetics affect human behavior offensive. A close reading of my post will reveal that I did not state it as having anything to do with my personal opinions. You would be proper to direct your offense at those who advocate the ideas, such as:

Genetic Homosexuality
https://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Genetic Criminality
https://www.udel.edu/chem/C465/senior/fall00/GeneticTesting/genetics.htm

I did not actually read the entire articles on these sites. They simply looked like the best candidates that came up early in a search engine. I don't know about where you live, but in the American media the impression I get is that these beliefs are widely held and not particularly controversial.

My descriptions were merely descriptions, not statements of what I personally believed. For an application of some of these ethical systems to a particular situation, check out my latest post in the South Dakota abortion thread.

FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
Sorry Patriarch, your post really sounded (to me) as if these were your opinions... But I also have to remind myself to include the sources and intentions with wich I quote them in my respective posts...

I certainly do believe in genes affecting human behaviour - but you're trying to set up a booby trap here. I merely say that judging a person upon their genetic predespositions (if there are any) is WRONG.

So you're also believing that "genetic superiority" and deriving some attitude thereof is bulls.? I personally was born and raised in Germany - therefore I do have a ("natural") issue with such ideology. If this is "standard american" - I am really starting to worry...

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


Page: ...