The worst thing about religion

Post Reply New Topic

I assume I exist. Can you read correctly?

And sanity is not necessarily a measure of medical health so don't go around insisting that your "interpretation" of sanity is correct.

How does one measure sanity if it is a "measure" of mental health?

I can read correctly. You did not say "I assume I exist" you said "Is the assumption I exist". And yes, you do need to justify that, and unless you can make some special argument, you need an infinite number of justifications. I mean, perhaps you do have a special argument, but I certainly am not going to assume you do.

It is pretty much a measure of psychological health/well-being. My definition of sanity is pretty correct.


There are a number of means. You can measure how people react to psychological stimulus, saner people will react differently than those considered not sane. You can also check for other issues of functioning as well. I mean, psychologists have a number of tests for determining how well a person is psychologically.

get out of my thread if you're going to be this worthless.

Reminds me on Star Trek Voyager with that Q that wanted to die. Qsaid that the fact that wanting to commit suicide ment that Q was insane

Tuvac said that desire of suiide was not a indication of insanity as many cultures allow it.

Hmmm, inmortality drives anyone insane.

It would be interesting if OPs were given moderator privileges over their own threads.
But that is not the case, so shut the heck up.

what are you 7?

I disagree with your definition of sanity. As I have already stated the meaning of such terms is largely relative because of their abstract nature.

Is not the schizophrenic who "sees" god identical to the theist who believes in god? In fact the schizophrenic has more "reason" to believe that what he is seeing is correct. I don't know many theists who claim to have seen god.

My existence is assumed based upon my cognitive activity and physical body. Nothing else. I cannot prove that I think or that I exist. But my physical body and thoughts are evidence to myself that I exist. It may not be sufficient evidence for you to conclude that I exist.

Which reduces your insanity claim to a subjective expression of disapproval given the appearance of greater significance by using a charged word.

pretty much.

Sanity and insanity has nothing to do with my approval. I disapprove of religion but that is irrelevant.

I'll state my perception of religion again.

Insanity is believing something without good reason. The Bible or your "feelings" are not good reasons to me.

Sanity is believing something with good reason. I believe I exist because I have a mind and a body. I believe the earth is a globe because I have seen pictures from space and the curvature of the horizon is clearly visible at sea.

In some ways the mentally ill (psychotics) are more sane than many religious people because they see the strange things they believe in. I doubt many Christians have seen god.

I consider faith to be a euphemism for insanity. I have no faith.

Either your charging the debate with the word "insanity", or your definitions are completely trivial. I want to guess you wouldn't pick the word "sanity" if you were simply proposing a language to debate in, so your charging the debate by applying a word with a negative connotation to belief systems you disapprove of.

Illnesses are constructs. Pushing the religious debate into one of other constructs doesn't get us anywhere.

I would argue that religion is an illness. It cause hatred of others, intolerance of other people and general disregard for standards of truth and logic. In certain circumstances it can be beneficial but there are no concrete, non-abstract benefits for worshiping god, never mind even believing in him/her.

Have you ever seen any evidence that your god exists? Or any evidence that many gods don't exist?

It stand to reason that if there is one god, there could be many, many others. Doesn't the Bible back this view. Do not put false gods before me. What are false gods?

If you want to think of religion as sanity then you are welcome to this view but I disagree and I will not change my views because they are offensive to your sensibilities.

I did not say that the religious are insane, I said their beliefs are insane.

Last edited by corroonb on 19 Aug 2008, 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hear, hear! Parakeet is indeed a voice of reason on the PPR forums.

I don't think you've explicitly stated that, however, the issue is that terms have definitions and have them for a reason and honest use of terms attempts to both seek a neutral connotation, and seek terms that have the clearest denotation, something I do not think you do.


No. Schizophrenics have a disease that often shows physical characteristics and that has a strong genetic component, and schizophrenics also have a lot of other symptoms than hallucinations. They are not the same, and frankly only an atheist ignorant of the psychology behind the occurrence would think they are. I have a close friend who claims he has experienced God.

Well, basically you are asserting a foundation and a valid epistemology instead of facing up to the regress argument. Theists do the same, and assert that God, like your physical body and thoughts, is another properly basic thing to assume. This is known as reformed epistemology and it was developed by well-noted philosopher Alvin Plantinga.

I know quite a bit about schizophrenia and I'm well aware of the symptoms of the illness. One of those symptoms is delusions. Why is belief in god not classified as a delusion?

Last edited by corroonb on 19 Aug 2008, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.