Should religious people be detained n mental hospitals?

Post Reply New Topic

I am also so sick and tired of people talking about science and psychology as being without flaw because it is well known that results can be structured to prove a hypothesis. Bias exists because we are humans not computers

I'm not even a Christian but I've done enough history to know you can turn anything you want into a deity, including science.

Anytime I need to blow my own head open and remind myself just how primitive our 'proven and true' knowledge still is I listen to or watch something like this. It reminds me that we've been doing what apes with a little bit of philosophy and discovery generally would - ie. kicking the low-hanging fruit that's fallen all over the place and calling ourselves the ultimate conquerors of the universe.

I think they have a point as well that naive materialism is something like the new western imperial religion and as I've noticed for years it's mostly held for sociological and political reasons in that we can call ourselves indisputable arbiters of truth and any other comers would have to beat us at our own game on our own terms.

Straw man alert!
Who is saying science and psychology is flawless?
No one that I am aware of in this thread...

So what do you believe in if not reason and empirical methodology?
Do you deny the concept of evolution, for example?
If not, then what makes you believe in this science but not that?
How can you believe in anything?
Are you an eternal fence sitter?

I really don't know what you are saying...what you represent... in regards to your own philosophy...
Care to share?

Considering that Neuroscience says Our Brain
Hallucinates our Conscious Reality, according to
the Documentation below; it's worth noting that
Our Entire Living Reality of what we actually experience
of Life is Art that's literally impossible to replicate with Science.
(Rationality)

For it's true, if one doesn't understand the how vital actual Physical,
Emotional, Perceptual, Proprioceptive, and Overall Other Existential
Intelligences are in Navigating the World as is as a Practice of Art as Life;
one may be missing most of the Soup of Life in a Balance that works out.
(Art)

As in all stuff life;
Use it or lose it applies.

Overall, the way Humans are raised to sit still and download abstract
constructs for actual day to day usage that may never apply; is incredibly, 'really' 'insane' for
what we as humans are even evolved to be (do). In other words, we are much more than words.

But don't take my word for it; hehe. Most ironically,
Take the Words of Neuroscience, unless
one doesn't believe in Science.

It's true; ask most Fundamentalist Christian Or Muslim
Folks and they will tell you this is not true; or a conspiracy theory or whatever. But ask
A Buddhist or a Hindu Person and "they've" understood this 'completely' for many many Centuries.
And nah, if 'they' really get 'it', they don't even need words to explain it; they just do it and then the
Balance they experience is reflected in their Non-Verbal Language of Existence for 'those' who get 'it'..

Yeah, it's true as far as labels go; I'm much more like a Yogi than the Catholic Priest my Grandfather was
before he got ex-communicated, for making my existence possible. True, he escaped some of the Labyrinth
of the Catholic Church; but by God, far from all of it as he only Evolved and or Devolved to Protestant Evangelist
in just other words in a cover of a Book. Peace and Harmony and Total Bliss in Balance requires no words at all.
But at least he wrote a Book named "Out of the Labyrinth"; close to the Time Frame he was Dining with Einstein
in the Socialist Political Party Circles in New York, New York, in the last Century for those who sought
to understand more about reality; relatively speaking of course, from what 'lies' behind 'the guise'.

Yeah, I know; i'm Name Dropping again; but as Newton relates, too;
Apples don't fall too far from Trees;
Unless they are ReAlly smART Phones..

And it's true; very true, too, depending on Innate and Environmental Factors
per Nature and Nurture; some folks become very anxious and uncomfortable
and do their best to create Science out of Art. And that's understandable too, per order out of chaos.
We may do our best to 'make it'; and although use it or lose it applies; something is better than nothing, even
if it is a rather smaller box of reality that we seal ourselves in, partially asleep; And attempt to 'deliver' ourselves as is.
And to be 'clear' that's not so much of a choice but the reality that comes through a more limited experience of life.
To change it is a choice, if one seeks and actually finds a way to do it; the complicated part is it's Art and
making chaos what it is at core; just that (ART) Flowing Like a River that Feels and Senses 'right' like
time out of time and distance out of distance and space out of space just eternally now as Bliss.
(An inheritance lost, for most, through Modern Western And Other CulTures; Spoon Fed from Birth)

(Matrix and All tHat Jazz; sure, i'm 'Neo2; as 'that' goeS 'one' 'too'; at Core, Life is more rhYme than reaSon)
...at.. least.. for.. me...

My Philosophy doesn't live in a Box, alone.

A point is; if we exclude people outside
oF A Box, we rarely grow together more, allone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

No, it is a waste of tax payers money. When dealing with a religiously unstable person try to steer the conversation in another direction. Don't ever try to ''debate'' these people about the existence of God it will trigger them into an obsessive rant.

Generally speaking, never try to debate anything with anyone. They'll pwn you with personal attacks and escalate the conflict if you try to defend yourself, till they declare themselves offended and challenge you to a duel or any modern variant thereof. Unless, of course, they fear you; in this case, they'll accept what you say as gospel and probably suck up to you in general.

Actual debate is an extremely rare phenomenon. I wonder how the concept can exist at all.

The best antidote is read what they're saying carefully, if you can split it it doesn't hold up, if the idea holds up under attack then it survives. It's Nietzscheian hammer philosophizing in real-time. Ideally either your idea or their idea holds up out of its own merits and and at least one of you (best you if it has to be only one) walks away having learned something.

You'll have people who can't do that and if you find you've gotten into a conversation with someone where their worldview is held together by raw emotion and you've opened a portal into a world of white noise - you calmly walk away.

A better chance of having a rational discussion here than in neurotypical land...



And if you are losing the argument, baffle them with science, muddy the waters, and play the man, not the ball...
Works every time...

That's part of why you also have to debate people around the same level of intelligence and honesty. Otherwise no one knows the difference between sophistry and a legitimate point that they're just not getting, and people are more likely to decide that it's sophistry - regardless of whether it really is - when the dialog isn't going as well for them as they'd like.

I was angry when I posted this. I do think religion is the root of many evils - paedophole rings, subjugation of women, villification of individuals in favour of groupthink and justification for violence (parts of the Torah, Bible and Quran advocate physical harm). People who defend religion usually gloss over the fact that followers of a religion don't take on board the entire principles and literature. The literature of most religions is what George Orwell would term doublespeak too, in a sense. Parts of religions advocate peace and kindness while others financial and violent exploitation.

The majority of religious people quote whatever part of the Bible, Torah or Quran suits them. My point basically was religion is used as a tool for manipulation, corruption and harm. On that basis it does seem to me it isn't mentally healthy. But I no longer see the point in detaining religious people in mental hospitals because I actually do believe freedom is a very important thing. I do think something needs to be done to tackle the harm religion does. I think it should be separated from all educational and legal institutions and no mention of any gods should be in any legal texts in my opinion. People have the right to believe what is unprovable but imposing that belief on others is unfair. I also think if there is evidence some religious groups segregate their family members or people they know from interacting with whoever they want to - e.g. arranged marriages or forbidden people to have relations with - the individuals responsible should be criminally charged with harassment or domestic violence.

A couple places I'd recommend looking for a more flushed out understanding of what's happening with this stuff if you're wiling to listen to Youtube interviews, speeches, or pannels:

- Anything by Jonathan Haidt related either to his book The Righteous Mind and some of his follow up lectures and interviews on the topic of PC authoritarianism on campuses.
- Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein on Joe Rogan 1006
- Sam Harris and Bret Weinstein on Waking Up 109 (live show)

Religions seem to cobble themselves together for sociological purposes and give people structure that they didn't always have. It mostly relates to, Jordan mentions this either in lectures or his 12 Steps, that people outsource the problem of keeping sanity to their peers and culture. A lot of this seems to revolve around just how rigid our social rules need to be in order to be able to do what we do out in the wild without having society shaken to its foundations. That requires a lot of agreed upon games where everyone knows the rules and can abide by them with relatively successful results.

Between Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein I think it's Bret who tends to take the religion as a piece of evolutionary psychology or an evolved function more cleanly and it's perhaps because he avoids getting into the specifics of archetypes and things like that which Jordan tends to dive off into more.

I think the point that all three of them seem to make in varying degrees is that we're apes sitting on top of a 3.3 billion year stack of evolutionary software (our proclivities, needs, etc. don't just come from society), and we have to jump through a lot of very strange hoops to appease our own biology and hormonal systems if we're trying to keep something up and running as complex and demanding as a liberal democracy or anything like that. Historically orienting subjective life was perhaps outsourced to religion, the idea was quite likely to establish a certain kind of subjective conformity to ideals, to get large numbers of people to in-group each other, and I think Jonathan Haidt has mentioned recently that in a study of 19th and 20th century cults that came and went (whether socialist, spiritualist, religious, etc.) the ones that lasted the longest were the ones that demanded the highest number of arbitrary sacrifices from their members.

My biggest concern is it seems like through things like interesectionality and identity politics we're starting to shake down a lot of what religion was solving for, albeit badly, and we need some kind of 2.0 for that but we're in that strange gap between systems right now for whatever that is and I'm hoping the lack of social cohesion doesn't take us too far down a dark road before we figure that out.

A few relevant points:
1. I wasn't talking about evolution, but atheism. They are not the same thing. There are many theists who believe in evolution as well.
2. So do I.
3. So what? That doesn't mean you are right, or that your beliefs should therefore not be questioned.
4. Do you even know what faith is? Hint: it is NOT a blind acceptance of propositions for which there is no evidence, or a belief maintained in opposition to the evidence, as many seem to think.

I was once "one of your mob" (i.e. an atheist). That was a long, long time ago (but not in a galaxy far, far away), but I found the belief that our presence here is just the end result of a very long sequence of extremely improbable blind events to be just far too absurd to even consider anymore. I have moved on, 50 years and counting, and LOVING it

Exactly!

Would you agree, that in all probability, neither one of us is going to convince the other?
Would you consider:"Let us agree to disagree?

Yeah, okay.

It doesn't have to be and don't forget, Atheism is a faith. I don't speak for you, but when I was an atheist, I found myself meeting religious ideas with indignant revulsion. Sin? Final Judgement? A Lord to whom I must answer? *retch*. Atheism certainly limited me. The very least of it was the beautiful artwork, prose and poetry that encapsulated religious ideas and themes, things I rejected on general principle because atheizm is for smartzzz peoplezz like me. Ugh, I hate my younger self.