Atheism a mental disorder?

Dave8324
Theist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-07-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheism a mental disorder?

Food for thought. Some atheists like to say that religious people have some sort of mental disorder or illness, well...

 

Mental disorder or Mental illness is a term used to refer psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.

 OR

any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom.

OR

Serious mental illness or disorder impairing a person's capacity to function normally and safely.

 OR

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma.

Seems to me that it is more likely that the loud minority, that is atheists, might be the ones suffering from an illness. Maybe they should get some help? It all depends on what you define as healthy, and what you define as the norm.


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I find that answering the

I find that answering the question "Is theism a mind disorder" an interesting pursuit. I'd like to add something myself.

The study of cognitive biases has great relevance to this discussion. A particularly stong cognitive bias is one where we tend to anthropomorphisize as a quick solution to life's problems. It is a certain class of bias, along with the tendency to see patterns where actually none exist or the tendency for expectations to affect perception.

I'd suggest that theism deserves classification as a cognitive bias.

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Dave8324 wrote: Food for

Dave8324 wrote:

Food for thought. Some atheists like to say that religious people have some sort of mental disorder or illness, well...

 

Mental disorder or Mental illness is a term used to refer psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.

OR

any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom.

OR

Serious mental illness or disorder impairing a person's capacity to function normally and safely.

OR

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma.

Seems to me that it is more likely that the loud minority, that is atheists, might be the ones suffering from an illness. Maybe they should get some help? It all depends on what you define as healthy, and what you define as the norm.

Indeed the idea of what the majority consider sane and rational is sane and rational, so in the ancient Aztec culture it was perfectly sane and rational to cut the beating heart out of a living person as a fitting sacrificed to God

In medieval Europe it was perfectly sane and rational to attempt  to drown an individual to determine whether or not they were a witch, if they drowned they were innocent, if they didn't they were guilty and subsequently burned to death, again perfectly sane and rational

 Dave8324 ? would you consider these practices sane and rational today, and if not why not ? and why do you think these practices no-longer continue today

 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Actually, in formal logic, "irrational" has a precise meaning. It means you are operating outside your empirical rights:

deludedgod Smiling logic is the correct principle of reasoning (logic), not the psychology of reasoning (psychology), when discussing psychology ie mental disorder's/ "irrational" logic itself is outside it's own limited field and it would be inappropriate to attempt to use it in such a way


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Dave8324 wrote: Food for

Dave8324 wrote:

Food for thought. Some atheists like to say that religious people have some sort of mental disorder or illness, well...

 

Mental disorder or Mental illness is a term used to refer psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.

Most atheists function quite well.

Dave8324 wrote:

OR

any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom.

The country with the largest percentage of atheists, Japan, has the longest average life span.

Dave8324 wrote:
OR

Serious mental illness or disorder impairing a person's capacity to function normally and safely.

Zuh?

Dave8324 wrote:
OR

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma.

Sounds more applicable to theists than atheists.

Dave8324 wrote:
Seems to me that it is more likely that the loud minority, that is atheists, might be the ones suffering from an illness. Maybe they should get some help? It all depends on what you define as healthy, and what you define as the norm.

Uh....yeah.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Dave8324 wrote: Firstly,

Dave8324 wrote:

Firstly, war.

War is not a religious thing, it is a human thing. You're going to find it hard to argue that, all you have to do is look at little children fighting over toys, getting violent over simple possessions to see some basic human nature at work. Most wars historically have been over a possession of some sort. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am fairly certian of that fact, but I'm no historian though.

Almost all wars have multiple causes. For example, you could easily claim fear, greed, revenge, nationalism and religion as causes of the current War in Iraq. Fear: "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction aimed at the U.S.A." and Saddam Hussein funds al Qaida". Greed: On the part of oil companies, obviously, though some people believed the U.S. taking control of Iraq would lower gas prices. Revenge: People blamed Hussein for 9/11, at the time. Some people still do. Plus, Dubya certainly had personal revenge on his mind, as is evidenced by his referring to Mr. Hussein as the guy who "tried to kill my daddy." Nationalism: Almost all wars have an element of nationalism in them, at least in the motivation for people to join the war effort. This is no different, and in fact, nationalism was a primary cause of the war on both sides. Hussein planned to nationalize his oil production, thus kicking out foreign companies (and profits). Meanwhile, flag wavers in congress and the senate voted for the war, because patriotism was especially high, and to go against the President would cost them their jobs in the next election, as it would be "un-American". Religion: The entire War on Terror, including Iraq, has been played up by both sides to be a war between Islam and christianity. On top of this, Bush did say that his decision to invade Iraq was dictated by god, and conservative christians were, and are, the strongest supporters of the war. Oh, and the insurgents are almost all muslim extremists.

If I looked further into it, I could probably find more reasons for the war in Iraq. However, to simply say most wars are about posession is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Dave8324 wrote:
Progress! Ever hear of something called the protestant work ethic??
No

Dave8324 wrote:
Interesting phenomenon, and by no way evidence, but still food for thought. It is interesting that since the protestant revolution, those countries became much more prosperous then others. This is believed to be due to the docturine that was introduced by Martin Luther, namely the priesthood of believes one, I think. It is more of an observation then anything really, but there are some very interesting observations one can take from christianity.

Never the less, it is true that the countries today that are the best off are ones that made most of that progress while (if they still aren't) they were majorly christian countries.

No, this has nothing to do with the Protestant Revolution. This has to do with the Industrial Revolution. There's a reason why this took off in some (primarily protestant) areas, but not others. The UK really kick started this, a few hundred years after Luther. They were protestant, yes, but their technological prowess can be chalked up to being on an island, and thus requiring technology (like steam engines and whatnont) to trade with other nations. Much of the rest of Europe (Catholic France, Spain and Italy, Protestant Scandanavia, Orthodox Russia and Greece) tried to go it on their own, but Protestant Prussia (now Germany) and the U.S.A. (which was majority Protestant, but shortly afterwards became majority Catholic) did the smart thing and hired British engineers to help speed up their own Industrial Revolutions. Religion was a coincidence here.

I'll also remind you that Japan, a country that has never been especially religious, is pretty high up in he list of "great countries to live in". In fact, other than Canada, Norway, Switzerland and Australia, Japan is the only country to be ranked "best to live in" by the UN. 

Dave8324 wrote:

So what about personal health? Does it hurt to go to church? No. Church is a place of community, and learning. How can it be anything but benificial to learn how to be a more holy person, and to do so in a community of others, developing strong relationships with other likeminded individuals? This is the aim anyways, doesn't always happen that way.

Atheism requires nothing, and as such it would tend to be easier for people to slip through the cracks, become antisocial, and use the internet far too much where real interactions would be far more benifical for personal well being. Generalizations, but they do seem true to me.

While I agree there aren't as many social crutches for atheists, I don't think that causes antisocialism.In fact, I would say quite the opposite. Christians I've met seem to not know how to socialize without the church, atheists can socialize anywhere because they had to learn how to. This is the one reason I wish I was born into an atheist household. I never learnedhow to socialize. Instead I'dgo to a church and *BAM* 10 new friends just upon entering the doors.

I don't think churches teach anything of value. 

Dave8324 wrote:
What about other beliefs? Most if not all other religious require community. Atheism does not. It is simply a matter of tools. Christians, muslims, and jews all meet once a week, atleast, to gather in community and partake in a common activity. What is required of atheists? Nothing. So you have to go out there and modivate yourselves. Like I said, a matter of tools, and the fact that it just doesn't happen for atheists.
There are secular clubs and such, but they're hard to come by. 

Dave8324 wrote:
All these points can be developed a lot more, but I am no pro debater, or even an arts major, but nevertheless, it is food for thought, and perhaps someone may enjoy this read and have some thought provoked within them Smiling

You're actually more formidable than most theists on the internet.

wavefreak wrote:

Seems to me that the key here is "distress or disability".

 

Atheism, in a overpoweringly religious society, could be a source of distress or disability in that particular society, but it not because of atheism but rather the culture in which the atheism is being expressed. It is just as valid to reverse the roles and put a theist in a completely atheist culture.

So the whole thing is a red herring for a mental disorder is defined by the consequences of the belief, not the belief in and of itself.

Spot on, freaky.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Dude, all people do is look at the facts and come to different conclusions. That's it.
Are you saying Creationists look at facts?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada

BenfromCanada wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Dude, all people do is look at the facts and come to different conclusions. That's it.
Are you saying Creationists look at facts?

 

No, the 'facts' were planted by Satan!!!!

 

I'm talking about the moderates. 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Religious beliefs are based

Religious beliefs are based on facts?


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BenfromCanada wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Dude, all people do is look at the facts and come to different conclusions. That's it.
Are you saying Creationists look at facts?

 

No, the 'facts' were planted by Satan!!!!

 

I'm talking about the moderates.

 

I just assumed that you meant all people.

magilum wrote:
Religious beliefs are based on facts?
It's a fact! God is real because, well, the banana and the coke can are so well designed, so, godidit.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada

BenfromCanada wrote:
magilum wrote:
Religious beliefs are based on facts?
It's a fact! God is real because, well, the banana and the coke can are so well designed, so, godidit.

 

That's where you're wrong. You see, the coke can formed through non-random process over billions of years of 'soda-selection'

We know this because of the ingredient similarites between Coke and Pepsi, so we can logically conclude that they both had a common ancestor and just branched off to their current states. 


The Kid From 13...
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-04-19
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe in Coke,

I don't believe in Coke, quite honestly I find anyone who believes in Coke delusional and they clearly have a mind disorder.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: The problem

kellym78 wrote:
The problem comes when people who formerly had the ability to smell lose it, and then everything tastes like cardboard.

 

Almost me, for example. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.