What is the difference between religion and psychosis?

Post Reply New Topic

And it is also not a good idea to live a live based purely on logic since if we did run on logic we would all have pointy ears and do some weirdo hand motion to people.

Seriously though if I cannot develop beliefs and opinions based on my own personal experiences and nothing else then what should I do? Furthermore I know there are plenty of people who claim to experiece the paranormal so it is hard to sort out the people that may very well have the real Mcoy and those who are nutjobs. Anyhow I wouldn't have called those visons or callings since they just happened out of the blue. Granted my people have always had a deeply spiritual side and that might have rubbed off on me (couldn't be through nuture since I seldom practiced Woodland Cree rituals and prayers) but I am just doing what I think is logical, developing a set of beliefs based on what has happened to me. I see a ghost and I am going to say "Shoot a ghost, must mean there is life after death" not "Holy cow a ghost, wait lets not get too hasty here there still might not be an afterlife even though it was just thrown at my face"

Oh yes, absolutely. It can be very difficult to sort out the true visionaries from the false ones, at times.

And certainly we must not live by logic alone. You of course must consider what your senses are telling you, in context with the rest of the body of knowledge available to you. We should make good use of our reasoning faculties and this requires us to look beyond our subjective experiences.

Yea I should really consider what was going on during those times. Well with the voices I had just hit puberty and it wasn't until later that I was told it was supposed to be some kind of spiritual awakening for some Cree people. That and I did know a lot of legends particularly centered around Chakapew...yes my username is named after a Cree legend. So maybe after being told about my medical miracle story (ask if you wanna know about it and some thinks it might be part of the reason I am AS) and later learning about Chakapew himself might have had something to do with it. The thing that hasn't been explained though was that the voices were in Cree, I know because I have heared people speaking it before without knowing a word. Were it a mere delusion my mind would have put them in english. Also as for the footsteps...well my aunt's house is probably a very haunted place. My older brother is sometimes scared of waking up in the middle of the night because of the things he might see or have happen to him there. So that part I cannot really explain other than being told those stories but I know when my older brother is BSing me these days and whenever he talks about it he really does look scared out of his wits about it.

Well this has been a nice little chat but I should hit the hay. However if you want to continue this just reply and I will get back to you later. Night night

I'm just speaking in generalities, but it is a very nice quality that you are able to turn a critical eye on yourself. I was a little concerned I might be taken as argumentative, but you've been very gracious. Have a nice night!

Psychosis can be medicated against.

Psychosis is wholly detrimental.

Psychosis does not involve choice.

Good call.

You'll have to be more specific. That question has too many possible meanings. Any "delusion" would, by definition, be either equal or inferior to the as-yet questionable validity of a religious person's "great visions". Are you pre-defining the religious visions as true, false, or unknown? If unknown, then who can give an answer to the question? Some visions are from God, but they shouldn't be believed solely on a person's claims.

The thing about religions which involve an "all seeing, omnisicent, omnipotent God" is that the "God" is claimed to defy all.

Then such a response can be expected to accusations of not having any proof for a God-
"Just because you don't have any proof of a being which defies nature and cannot be seen by anyone, cannot be proven, does not mean that it does not exist" DESPITE ALL EVIDENCE against a Deity which never intervenes, and the LACK OF EVIDENCE for it. What's the sense in following a religion in the off chance that all science and logic was wrong, and there really is such a being?
Also, look at the distribution of religions... there are many religions all claiming to work and claiming that they are the best.

That's what all religions do, claim to work somehow. It's delusion. Praying was never anything but a placebo, and if people know that they are being prayed to it shifts the burden of guilt to them.

What if everyone suddenly turned atheist?

Why worship a God in the first place?

What has religion really done except given false hope and determination? Why have people slaughtered in the name of their religion?

It's fake. You could prove much more by thinking for yourself and using logic and self-determination.

If you want to be blind, by all means, remain religious. If the majority people of the world's population deviated from religion and succeeded in colonizing other planets, wouldn't that prove something?

Religion has its benefits of course, but at the cost to free and logical thinking. Not once has there been any evidence of a miracle.

When you're praying, you're really just trying to reassure yourself into thinking that a person will be ok. Religion is an escape mechanism.

It really is just blind faith to believe in a deity without having any proof. Has religion ever helped you in any other way than can be explained by a psychiatrist?

So according to your logic we can't go into space without getting rid of religon...odd. Anyhow if religon did make me blind then how come I am able to pray yet maintain a scientific logical viewpoint on the rest of the world? I believe that religon is meant to ask the 'why?' with things and science asks the 'how?' about our surroundings.

Why would someone feel guilty if they are being prayed for? That's ridiculous there have been studies that show patients who are prayed for do better that is probably placebo but who cares.

Society would collapse, no really. Our laws and ethics are based on religous thought.

If that makes people happy then what's your problem with it?

Nothing really unless you count being responsible for the high literacy rate in Europe in the 17th and 18th century and usually the only literate people before that were priests. It could be argued this contributed to the Renaissance that contributed to the industrial revolution and the greatest explosion of wealth and quality of life in the history of the world.
Maybe it's fake but I think the implication people achieve less because they are religous is just asinine.

People who are religous aren't ignorant to all natural sciences and are perfectly capable of developing technologies and space travel. James Clerk Maxwell the most important scientist and arguably the most influential person in history was a devout Christian in fact you would not be able to spout this vacuous nonsense without his discoveries. That is probably one of the more ignorant things I have heard in awhile.

Ridiculous. Religous people are perfectly able to use critical and logical thinking outside of the debate over the existence of god.

It's a source of hope not escape.

This has already been answered.

In my opinion you need to get over yourself you aren't better then someone who believes in god that is one of your "feel good" delusions.

In response to Anubis and Phssthpok.

The results of prayer are questionable at best. I ask for something and odds are something will happen to me at some point that can vaguely be interpreted as what I asked for. If not, then you get the old cop out 'God works in mysterious ways'. Ridiculous.

Laws and ethics are common sense and based off our inner empathy and altruism. Sure, religion bolsters and brings this out in people, but they are not the bases. However, without religion I do see alot more crime and selfishness because fear of punishment and hope of redemption/universal goodness would dissappear. We'd all be in it for ourselves, and to a lesser extent our family and friends (if such a thing would still exist).

The issue is that the source of that happiness is delusional and can cause alot of problems. Religion subverts science, fosters fanaticism and encourages bigotry towards homosexuals just to name a few things. Further, how many times can you think of that religion has been used to justify otherwise terrible actions. It impedes human growth and understanding.

What has religion done? Look at the multitude of charities and aid programs. Sure, they have a price, but they are still achieving good things. Another positive feature? See my religionless society assertion.

Good point but you have to remember there have also been many times when people have killed in the name of science or politics. To me that just shows that no matter what we do there will always be pricks in the world that are going to find an excuse to do evil to further their own ends. What religon really could use is a nice overhaul, a combination of faith and logic as well as modern thinking. That or maybe some Christians should follow the aspects of the bible that were more completly covered. Homosexuality is mentioned in a few passages and is vague as well. However if you read what Jesus did he was always out helping out the poor, helpless, and homeless. To me a real Christian would be doing that rather than picketing a same sex marridge. The problem is that religon has been severly twisted over time to the point of making people despise it.

I've had prayers answered in incredibly perfect ways. He took what I asked for, and made it oh-so-much better. Many people, even non-religious people crying out in a time of ultimate despair, report the same thing.

The kind of faith in Christianity is not blind. It's the filling-in of an obvious gap. That is to say, you're following a straight line of doctrine and wisdom/experience, when it suddenly runs out. Faith is the act of continuing forward when that line ends. Whereas, blind faith would be for me to call American Airlines about booking a flight to Never Never Land. No one's ever told me that Never Never Land is real, at least not while sober. I've never heard anyone reporting that Tinkerbell saved their life, although I'm sure one or two have said that before. Christian faith is continuing in a straight line when the line of knowledge runs out. Blind faith is proceeding in any random direction from your present position on a whim.

Indeed, it is the humans themselves that are the problems, not the things that they create. 'Religion' and 'science' are just labels that serve to bring out our inner nature (dominance, competition, aggression etc.). I am convinced that we are all beyond help.

I'm not at all implying that the benefit of prayer is supernatural but prayer has a psychological effect that can help people. Saying that it is totally useless and a waste of time is not a true statement. Have you heard the expression "whether you think you can or can't you're right", if I think god is helping me I may do better at something because of the confidence I get from prayer and this effect isn't always slight. I may lead a happier life if I believe that I have followed the bible and pleased god whether or not god is real or not has no bearing on the tangible benefit of prayer and faith.

I don't think society would work without religion but that's just my opinion. You can't really prove this either way since I don't think it has been tried. The soviet union was a society hostile to religion but I can't really say it failed for that reason.

And we would still have all those things without religion. That is not a critique on religion so much as human nature. You're also taking a moral philosophical stand yourself here by condemning those things. For example you think homosexuals should be allowed to live whatever lifestyle they want and the bible is wrong here. How can you quantitatively say your ideology is better then the other; you can't you simply believe it is. You can't condemn religion in general by using another non-rational ethos although a rational argument could be made against homosexual rights by pointing out gays do spread HIV.

I think you think people are computers. You can't give them logic and some task to do and expect them to do it over and over until they are obsolete. When good engineers design machines they take into account human factors and make compromises for them and if you're going to play the role of social engineer then you really have to take them into account.

So, what is it, if one DOES choose their delusions?
True power over the subjective nature of reality?