Why Isn't The Belief In God Considered Mental Illness?

Artimas · May 28, 2016, 6:36pm

Bob:

Artimas:

I don’t view buddhism as religion, it isn’t coercive or a system, the Buddha never asked or wanted worship, not like the religions that are poisonous. Take away the churches, the dogma, the heaven (false promise/hope) and hell (coercion) and would it still be considered religion? I personally don’t think so, it would be an actual philosophy/possibility without working off of control or manipulating the gullible.

Buddhism in the Far East is a little different from our Western version. There is a whole realm of Gods and Demons behind it, but I too wouldn’t take the teaching of Buddha to be a religion in the way of theism or polytheism.

It may be that we are too disappointed to accept a positive goal that is no more than a hope, but it is hope that helps people progress, and also gives a direction for that progress. Heaven is a place that we would love to go to – timeless, deathless, no tears. It reveals a lot about us and tells us what we’re clinging to, aspiring to or hoping for. The experience of flow gives us a timeless experience; the inevitable fact that we die some time makes the furthering of life in abundance all the more important; the fact that we are often saddened to tears should make us more sympathetic for others in that situation.

There are plenty of people who experience hell every day, through no fault of their own, and it is only human to hope for justice, even if it looks like hell on earth multiplied a million times. The idea that the hell some people make for others will some day fall back on them as punishment is as popular amongst atheists as it is theists. You can’t tell me that it is merely a religious idea.

The problem is really, as James has said, the “manipulation of the gullible” as you put it. This happens in all fields of life and to the detriment of the “gullible”. The examples that James gave are not exhaustive. Think about how people all across the world have suffered toxic poisoning – not through religion! Think of how many people died in Sumatra, when the world banks found people to start a war there, blaming it on the communists. There are uncountable examples of injustice and horror which have nothing to do with religion.

Artimas:

If I may ask, when was religion first introduced to you? At all, any part of it, childhood? It was for me and it is for near all others, now let me ask another question, as a child who is naturally gullible, less logical, more imaginative and creative… Did you get a choice? Did anyone else get a choice?

The problem is not people getting together to express themselves and their ideas, it is the FORCE that comes with religion that is the problem, the hypocritical contradictory method.

You see, most religious are against abortion because they say “the baby gets no choice” yet turn around and whisper in their own gullible childs ear “praise the lord and go to heaven, worship Jesus if you don’t want to be burned in hell”

Does THAT child get a choice? No, they don’t. That my friend, is poison and I do not stand for it. That is mental disease and sickening, to willingly shape a child who could be a potential genius in whatever they wanted.

Children are not pieces of clay to be shaped by others, they need to be allowed to shape themselves and if religious can’t agree to that then they ARE diseased.

I was brought up Christian, which was something I rebelled at as a teenager. I returned to Christianity in my twenties and left the church again in my fifties. But it was a system that sickened me, not the people – who were just like I was, stuck in a rut. I was in very deep, as a parish elder and also working for the church as a geriatric nurse, and I fell a victim of my own idealism. There is no way that I can blame anyone for that, but it showed me how important it is to get out of the rut and get a different perspective. Now, in my sixties, I am comfortable with the church, but not part of it. I have found too much in other traditions that shows me how religion works for people, including Christianity, and I support people in their traditions. I have for myself, however, a religion of the soul, which spans the traditions.

I am also critical of those aspects of religion, which I see being detrimental to their health, or detrimental to social cohesion. So there are things you have mentioned, which I wholeheartedly agree with, but the more emotion we pump into a subject, the more likely it is to make things worse.

I agree, it is not just religion. It is just people in general then I guess.

Artimas · May 28, 2016, 6:37pm

Kriswest:

Artimas:

Kriswest:

Scientists do not all follow the same beliefs, theories or methods anymore than the religious or Athiest’s do. And any teacher that signed a contract prohibiting them from saying certain things should have common sense enough to keep their mouth shut. They broke their word and they broke their contract. They can not complain legitimately afterwards. But, apparently now your word and a contract means nothing.

Science is NOT about secrets. There should be no contract in the first place.

They reject valuable idea’s because they want to hide the truth. They won’t even look into DMT or ANY of what Graham Hancock is doing.

Go look at Graham Hancocks Ted talk. They banned it.

Science isn’t censorship it’s open evaluation and steady experimentation to prove the consistency of ideas so that they may be labeled fact/non fact.

That would be the ideal way but, scientists must earn money to take care of themselves and family. They sign contracts with companies and schools. Can you afford to take care of scientists and their families in a manner that makes them happy and healthy? Do you want to draft all so that they only work for governments? Just how do you really expect science to not have borders or secrets when people must earn a living and want luxuries? Drafting for governments sounds even more dangerous, waaaay too much power there already. Do you want scientists to take priestly vows of poverty? ?

They can not earn money without keeping secrets?

Kriswest · May 28, 2016, 7:43pm

Apparently not since the scientists agreed to the conditions set forth by their employers.
If you knew someone gave their word not to say something then they broke their word, would you trust them? Yea you can put a condition like, they told about the cure for polio or something dramatic like that but, the person lied, broke trust, broke their word and least of all broke a written contract, how trustworthy could they be? Did they do it to help or get famous??

Artimas · May 28, 2016, 9:19pm

Secrets cause ignorance, ignorance is the bane of advancing.

Money is more important than species apparently.

Kriswest · May 28, 2016, 10:44pm

Really? You think scientists should live in poverty , their families live in poverty? Should they be servants to the state? Who the hell would ever want to be a scientist then?

Arminius · May 28, 2016, 11:49pm

Don’t forget to mention the money. When science becomes independent of religion, then it is not or at least hardly because of money; but when science becomes dependend of religion again (it is a cycle) or itself a religion depending on a political state or corporation, super-organization, then it is solely or at least mainly because of money, because it needs much money, it has become corrupt, susceptible to blackmail.

Would you prefer a system in which the value of the money would be different from the current one? A society with an economy that is based upon information (including knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information (but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary units: „I“ („Information“) and „E“ („Energy“), so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent.

In that system science would be - by far - not as much dependent as it is currently.

surreptitious57 · May 29, 2016, 4:39am

Intelligent Design is not something science teachers should be teaching for like Creationism it assumes God made the universe
Since this is clearly beyond the remit of science to determine it should therefore be confined to religion or philosophy instead

Bob · May 29, 2016, 7:18am

Did you read what James wrote?

I am no believer in creationism, but it the story of creation in the Bible does point to the fact that this planet is a work of Art, despite its dangers it is incredible, and obviously inherently part of some “blueprint” which forsees such an outburst of life as soon as the conditions are given.

That too could be regarded as a kind of intelligent design - perhaps different to what the creationists are talking about, but where did yours and my awareness come from? There are too many open questions to be so sure about things so mysterious. “The beginners mind” would do us good here.

surreptitious57 · May 29, 2016, 9:13am

It is known how the universe came into existence and also when life began upon Earth and so those particular questions can already be answered
However there are ones that currently cannot be answered and they are the ones more suitable for the beginners mind that you referred to here

James_S_Saint · May 29, 2016, 12:29pm

Arminius:

James S Saint:

Artimas:

Science is becoming religion, because they teach things as 100% without consistency and experimental data.

…and because they are mandating coherence, firing and socially cursing anyone who implies that anything else might be significant or even worth mentioning. Some teachers have been fired merely for mentioning the concept of “Intelligent Design” even though mentioned disparagingly.

Science is a religion of selfish hatred and abuse of people as mere objects of elitist manipulation. In the “Cain and Able” scenario, Science plays Cain.

Don’t forget to mention the money. When science becomes independent of religion, then it is not or at least hardly because of money; but when science becomes dependend of religion again (it is a cycle) or itself a religion depending on a political state or corporation, super-organization, then it is solely or at least mainly because of money, because it needs much money, it has become corrupt, susceptible to blackmail.

Would you prefer a system in which the value of the money would be different from the current one? A society with an economy that is based upon information (including knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information (but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary units: „I“ („Information“) and „E“ („Energy“), so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent.

In that system science would be - by far - not as much dependent as it is currently.

Interesting.

I had envisioned a system using 3 “colors” of money:
• A - Blue - Awareness (“situational information”) - What is happening (media).
• U - Red - Understanding (“causal information”) - Why/How things happen (science).
• I - Green - Influence (“causal/military inspiration”) - Doing something about it (business).

Those are the 3 necessary constructs for life (not counting the bonding of them together - the person). Machines, money, and anything else should be used ONLY to enhance those abilities for individuals and in proper proportion.

Ierrellus · May 29, 2016, 1:03pm

In 1965 I was asked to sign a document stating that I was not a communist in order to be able to teach. No problem. I was not affiliated with any political agenda. I was able to teach Darwinism with impunity. Years later, I was refused a teaching position because of the length of my hair. Maybe now in 2016 such petty issues are no longer considered.
In view of the OP, I wonder whether or not we are capable of discussing a belief in God without having to psychoanalyze each other. I believe in a prime mover. I believe God is the sum total of the Universe. I believe God is Love. My beliefs are based on personal experience, not on hearsay.

Artimas · May 29, 2016, 1:10pm

Is this god an entity? Or a force… This is the main question I have, I view a ‘god’ as nature, a force that strives through all life. It creates heaven or hell, through us, but through a perspective and will that is not free. Collective consciousness, etc.

Artimas · May 29, 2016, 1:15pm

surreptitious57:

Bob:

I am no believer in creationism but it the story of creation in the Bible does point to the fact that this planet is a work of Art despite its dangers
it is incredible and obviously inherently part of some blueprint which forsees such an outburst of life as soon as the conditions are given

That too could be regarded as a kind of intelligent design - perhaps different to what the creationists are talking about but where did yours and my
awareness come from ? There are too many open questions to be so sure about things so mysterious. The beginners mind would do us good here

It is known how the universe came into existence and also when life began upon Earth and so those particular questions can already be answered
However there are ones that currently cannot be answered and they are the ones more suitable for the beginners mind that you referred to here

What’s the answer? Because I am science literate and am wondering what answer for the universes existence you are talking of.

Ierrellus · May 29, 2016, 1:16pm

Artimas:

Ierrellus:

In 1965 I was asked to sign a document stating that I was not a communist in order to be able to teach. No problem. I was not affiliated with any political agenda. I was able to teach Darwinism with impunity. Years later, I was refused a teaching position because of the length of my hair. Maybe now in 2016 such petty issues are no longer considered.
In view of the OP, I wonder whether or not we are capable of discussing a belief in God without having to psychoanalyze each other. I believe in a prime mover. I believe God is the sum total of the Universe. I believe God is Love. My beliefs are based on personal experience, not on hearsay.

Is this god an entity? Or a force… This is the main question I have, I view a ‘god’ as nature, a force that strives through all life. It creates heaven or hell, through us, but through a perspective and will that is not free. Collective consciousness, etc.

A force! I totally agree. IMHO God is and does what God is. Freedom is a human invention.

Arminius · May 29, 2016, 1:17pm

James S Saint:

Arminius:

Don’t forget to mention the money. When science becomes independent of religion, then it is not or at least hardly because of money; but when science becomes dependend of religion again (it is a cycle) or itself a religion depending on a political state or corporation, super-organization, then it is solely or at least mainly because of money, because it needs much money, it has become corrupt, susceptible to blackmail.

Would you prefer a system in which the value of the money would be different from the current one? A society with an economy that is based upon information (including knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information (but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary units: „I“ („Information“) and „E“ („Energy“), so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent.

In that system science would be - by far - not as much dependent as it is currently.

Interesting.

I had envisioned a system using 3 “colors” of money:
• A - Blue - Awareness (“situational information”) - What is happening (media).
• U - Red - Understanding (“causal information”) - Why/How things happen (science).
• I - Green - Influence (“causal/military inspiration”) - Doing something about it (business).

Those are the 3 necessary constructs for life (not counting the bonding of them together - the person). Machines, money, and anything else should be used ONLY to enhance those abilities for individuals and in proper proportion.

Two of the three “colors” refer to information, and one of the three “colors” refers to influence / inspiration. So I guess that the energetic resources are a hidden part of the latter,the “green color” (“I”). Or are they not included?

James_S_Saint · May 29, 2016, 1:32pm

Arminius:

James S Saint:

Interesting.

I had envisioned a system using 3 “colors” of money:
• A - Blue - Awareness (“situational information”) - What is happening (media).
• U - Red - Understanding (“causal information”) - Why/How things happen (science).
• I - Green - Influence (“causal/military inspiration”) - Doing something about it (business).

Those are the 3 necessary constructs for life (not counting the bonding of them together - the person). Machines, money, and anything else should be used ONLY to enhance those abilities for individuals and in proper proportion.

Two of the three “colors” refer to information, and one of the three “colors” refers to influence / inspiration. So I guess that the energetic resources are a hidden part of the latter,the “green color” (“I”). Or are they not included?

The green is to be used for everything other than information or analysis. So you would not pay green money to the internet service, cable, telephone, teachers, engineers, scientists, or the like. Those are all information services. Green money would be for purchasing food, shelter, transportation, weapons, electricity, fuel, whatever else.

Bob · May 29, 2016, 1:48pm

Artimas:

surreptitious57:

Bob:

I am no believer in creationism but it the story of creation in the Bible does point to the fact that this planet is a work of Art despite its dangers
it is incredible and obviously inherently part of some blueprint which forsees such an outburst of life as soon as the conditions are given

That too could be regarded as a kind of intelligent design - perhaps different to what the creationists are talking about but where did yours and my
awareness come from ? There are too many open questions to be so sure about things so mysterious. The beginners mind would do us good here

It is known how the universe came into existence and also when life began upon Earth and so those particular questions can already be answered
However there are ones that currently cannot be answered and they are the ones more suitable for the beginners mind that you referred to here

What’s the answer? Because I am science literate and am wondering what answer for the universes existence you are talking of.

Yes, that would interest me too! :-"

Ierrellus · May 29, 2016, 2:07pm

C, H, O, N,S–carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur are ingredients of living organisms that may be found on billions of planets that are the right distance from their star. God is life. So why would we limit the God of the universe, who is the universe, to our paltry planet?
Your God is too small if–

God is only involved with inhabitants of Earth–
God is totally described by human religions
God does not exist except in the minds of men

Ierrellus · May 29, 2016, 2:16pm

Why isn’t belief in God considered mental illness? Because it can be based on physical reality.

surreptitious57 · May 29, 2016, 2:21pm

If you are alluding to what happened before the Big Bang that is unknown but it was the beginning of local cosmic expansion

So it can therefore be said to be the point at which the observable universe came into existence regardless of anything else