Is religion a mental disorder?

reply to post by undo


Refute the medical and psychological facts presented.
If you can't, you must concede the arguement.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


Nope don't even know how you have come to that presumption . I wouldn't even call myself religious, I don't even like that word. Although I do believe in a god but I don't see how that's relevant. Read up on your sociology and psychology and we will have the this conversation again at another date. OR are you going to allow this threads opening post to mold YOUR ideology into one that believes everyone who believes in something has a mental disorder *sigh*

I find it ironic how your comments; which are mostly presented in a negative way towards someone on this thread; always end in peace....

SisyphusRide
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

I think what they are referring to....

Wait a minute.
"Think"?
You don't even know?
Why am I even talking to you then?

-Peace-

Eryiedes
reply to post by undo

 

Refute the medical and psychological facts presented.
If you can't, you must concede the arguement.

-Peace-

do his opening statements have any bearing on the rest of his evidence? if no, then i will watch the whole thing and comment it. if yes, than any statement i would make, would naturally start with his opening statement being demonstrably false.

SHgNaTrinityinme1333
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

Nope don't even know how you have come to that presumption . I wouldn't even call myself religious, I don't even like that word. Although I do believe in a god...

Ya lost me right there.

-Peace-

Eryiedes

SisyphusRide
ask a Buddhist...

or someone who can't feel pain (congenital analgesia)

Ask a straight forward question?
You respond with nonsence.
Buddhists feel pain and do you know why?
Because they are human too.
As for "mister congenital analgesia", this is a birth defect and can't be considered normal. When gestation occurs without incident, this never occurs. Now if EVERYONE had it then your question might have some validity but as it stands, you are clutching at straws and their only good for building a strawman.
Try again.

-Peace-

what if they have no hands to be burned?

the word "burn" implies pain...

you should have used the scientific medical definition for the term burn, and posted your source and their credentials to define it.

a burn implies that someone recognizes it as one... someone who can not feel pain or is paralyzed since birth may not recognize it as such, they may interpret it as bleeding?

your example is "subjective" unless you make a poll and ascertain a majority for what a burn is... but you'll still have a hard time convincing the recipient of a burn who does not recognize it as a burn, that it is in fact such.

reply to post by undo


And is a statement defined as a fact?
Shall I post the definitions for you or can we just go past that part as "read".
Your responce indicates to me that you too have capitulated the arguement.
Your tendency to shy away from the OP material is very telling of the fragility of your position.
So, I take it we are done then?

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


And there we have it, The problem this guy has with religion and ideology , actually is happening to him with his own ideology.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Now you are discussing semantics?
I put to you one final time before I ignore you:

Refute the medical and psychological facts presented here or you must concede the arguement.
I can't make it any more simple for you than that.

-Peace-

SHgNaTrinityinme1333
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

And there we have it, The problem this guy has with religion and ideology , actually is happening to him with his own ideology.

So facts and evidence is an ideology is it?
Next you'll say science is only an opinion.
Sounds like we are done here.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


I say again without the use of the 3 letter word that seems to make your brains ability to read and process information shut down. Read up on your sociology and psychology.

reply to post by Eryiedes


i would never capitulate an argument i haven't started yet. other than the fact, i view his examples are not always accurate, i have yet to explain why and i get the feeling that you'd prefer i didn't. i find that odd. it is, afterall, part of his argument to give what he considers accurate negatives of the religious, which he then declares, insane, psychopathic, schizophrenic and so on.

All of you are dancing and doing backflips and cartwheels around the OP's premise:

We've seen thread derailment.
We've seen denial.
We've seen emotional appeals.
We've seen personal attacks.
We've seen staggering ignorance of facts.
We've seen misdirection.
We've seen lies.
We've seen fear.
We've seen yelling.
We've seen foot stomping tantrums.
We've even seen outright insanity leaking through the venier of religious hypocracy.
But you know what we haven't seen?

None of you can refute the facts presented here.
NOT-A-SINGLE-PERSON.

The basic premise of any arguement is that it's won by the presenting and refutation of facts.
Since no one will even try and the thread is nearly 20+ pages, there's really only one conclusion left here and I'm sorry, but you're all not gonna like it.

Refute the facts or you must concede the arguement.
Why?
Because that's how reality works.

-Peace-

reply to post by undo


You already have.

-Peace-

Eryiedes

(I'll watch the video later...meanwhile, please do not derail the thread with "comparativism"...this is about mental disorder)

No it isn't. It's about the science narrative using a weapon ("mental disorder") against the religion narrative.

Here is the narrative science wants to tell, in a nutshell. Once upon a time there were people with a mental disorder. They were "cured" and science marched on. The End.

Here is the narrative religion wants to tell, in a nutshell. Once upon a time there were people with a Soul disorder. They opposed God but couldn't stand against Divine Providence. Religion marched on. The End.

reply to post by Eryiedes


No believing that what you perceive as fact and evidence is all there is, is an ideology because it alters your view on reality. I never said that but okay add that in there to strengthen your argument or maybe make yourself look like you know what you talking about. Tell me again how ideology is poisonous to the human condition and how that's a medical fact. what? and how it effects the brain like a drug? I'm not sure if you've removed the post you said that in as I cant find it.. I think your at the point in your argument where you rely on quick jabs and discrediting the person to keep head above water.

reply to post by BlueMule


You're nice and all...but you've said absolutely nothing regarding the facts of this OP.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

Because that's how reality works.

Lets not pretend you know even the bases of how reality works, you thought ideology was like a drug that poisons the mind 5 minutes ago, even though its basically the foundation for how EVERYONE perceives reality .

Eryiedes

SHgNaTrinityinme1333
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

Nope don't even know how you have come to that presumption . I wouldn't even call myself religious, I don't even like that word. Although I do believe in a god...

Ya lost me right there.

-Peace-

actually 20% of American are atheists but a majority of that 20% believe in God... did you know that?

I was shocked by the facts in this video.



so it is easy to deduce that a majority of American atheist believe in God...

easy to ascertain... but confusing results nonetheless.

reply to post by Eryiedes


let me rephrase.

let's say that you have proven that apples fall to the ground as the result of time.
you establish this by pointing to the changing of the seasons and the maturing of the fruit, which eventually causes the apple to fall to the ground.
however, this is really not the primary reason the apple falls to the ground. the primary reason is gravity (as far as we know).

now if i tell you that gravity causes the apple to fall, and you haven't concluded that yet, but are more than capable of proving time does cause the apple to fall, are you wrong? well, no, you're not. am i wrong? nope.

so now let's revisit his argument.
he believes that holding two different viewpoints on the same topic, simultaneously is evidence of schizophrenia. in other words, if an individual can both love and hate something, the person must be crazy. if a person can both love and fear something, they must be crazy. etc.

however, the apple can both fall to the ground as a result of time and fall to the ground as a result of gravity. it isn't either or, held simultaneously, but both, with stipulations.

in order to maintain his view, he has to ignore the fine print, the explanation, the metaphor, and so forth.