Religion question?
- Thread starter squarehead94
- Start date
That's fundamentally untrue, people can believe what they want, it has nothing to do with fact. You may not like it but it doesn't change someone's ability to believe falsehoods
Of course they can think it, doesn't mean should, or that it's right for them to do so. I don't understand why anybody would want to believe a falsehood, or why it would be acceptable to do so. They're not so much actually believing it, as just telling lies.
Not personally, not at all. I just don't get why anybody would deliberately choose to believe something that's not true. But it's a bit tangential to the topic, so I'll shhh.
People have a right to think whatever they want.....we are not at the "thought-crime" stage just yet.
It just seems deluded, and borderline worrying, that people would choose to believe in something completely untrue.
Everyone, including us believe something that is patently untrue at some time or another...knowledge is as subject to someone's perception of it as anything else.
Religion is socially acceptable insanity.
No, it's not. There is a big difference between the two. Whilst religious themes are prevalent in the delusions held by people with mental health issues there is a very big difference diagnostically.
Delusions are false beliefs about some external reality that are based upon incorrect inference. The beliefs are out of character for the persons culture, social circle and/or education background. The beliefs are strongly held despite what everyone else believes and despite obvious proof to show they are not true. The more severe ones are quite debilitating. At the lesser end of the spectrum and not even delusions you have what are termed as overvalued ideas. These are unreasonable beliefs that are not commonly found eg most GD threads ...
Religion fits neither of these definitions. We can not show it to be false so we can not say the inference is incorrect. It is generally not out character for a persons culture, social circle or educational background. The later would be true if there was obvious proof to show it not to be true. Whilst we can show components of the holy texts to be incorrect that has so significance on the whole. To apply the same standard to science would result in a nasty extrapolation. The very definition of delusions removes the suggestion you are making.
To a non religious person, religion is indeed generally regarded as socially accepted insanity. It might not fit the clinical definition if you want to phrase it as you did, but to a non-believer it's the same as talking to your invisible friend in the corner who tells you to give in to the voices.
No, to some non-believers it is that way. To say it is generally regarded as something that would be classed as insane I think is a stretch. Most people who don't believe tend to be rather apathetic to it all. They tend to be in the I just don't know so won't discard camp or the I believe there is something but just don't know, whereas the thinkers tend to be in the I can't discern the truth here so why bother, the ones who seems almost antagonistic towards religion tend to be the scientific types whose knowledge is derived from the 5 for £20 quid in Waterstones popular science. And when challenged actually seem to know diddly squat especially when it comes to the epistemology of the very disciple they are eulogising about. Then you have the real haters like hurfdurf ... which probably says more about his childhood experiences than religion.
You have just backed up my simple statement (It wasn't a 'suggestion' as you implied) And the kicker is... You don't even know you've done it!
You have just backed up my simple statement (It wasn't a 'suggestion' as you implied) And the kicker is... You don't even know you've done it!
No, you just fail to see the subtle differences ...
I am not religious, I don't believe that religion is socially accepted insanity.
You need to stop speaking for others, and proclaiming what people should be allowed to believe in.
Now I understand why you struggled so much with the concept that "proof" or "evidence" can be quite subjective, because you seemingly can't see beyond your own beliefs and views.
Oh shh you. It's blindingly obviously I wasn't referring to every single non religious person on the planet. If I was then I would have used a word like "every", or "all". But carry on reading into things that aren't there.
Yes, and it doesn't take much thought to realise that those are obviously my opinions on things. Do you really want to me end every post with a disclaimer stating that what I'm posting is my opinion, and not some kind of instruction to the world? As much as that would be a nice superpower to have, it's not one that I have.
You really do like twisting posts to your own personal agenda don't you.
I didn't say it wasn't your opinion, I'm saying it was clear that you were saying (in your opinion, herp derp)
It was very clear that you were attempting to speak for non-religious people in general because that's what you basically said, it being in your opinion doesn't change that.
It was very clear that you were attempting to speak for non-religious people in general because that's what you basically said, it being in your opinion doesn't change that.
Oh the irony
Care to elaborate?
Yes, some, not all. I've already said this... I'm speaking on behalf of those that do feel that way, not the ones who don't. Regardless of how you think I've said it, I've explained what I meant by it, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, you won't be able to convince me that I actually meant something else.