Into That Darkness...The Mind Of The 'True Believer'

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1303153 wrote: For the moment I will only say this about her: She is an obscene, predatory pig of cosmic proportions within whose endless fatty folds and rancid recesses are contained the lost hearts and minds of countless child victims.


I have more faith in those children than to assume they'll be lost forever but I will agree that "jesus camp" is a complete brainwashing attempt to get back what was lost hundreds, or by the very concept alone thousands, of years ago yet people fail to understand that those days are long gone.

Stripping children of their identity from overprotective parents is far enough let alone a right puppet session only to then be raced to the nearest mcdonalds of the same sentiment rather the overtones being merely physical as opposed to verbal considering what I can only imagine appears to be a food eating competition to the untrained eye. What a horrible example being set. "Oh holy is thou greasus crust!" "The syrup cannot be eaten unless you open ya gobs 180 degrees!!!!!!!"

Bad taste

[fuzzywuzzy]

Glaswegian;1303116 wrote: My point is that I think it's more appropriate for true believers in Hibernian Football Club, broccoli and to discuss these things in the Wide World of Sports, Kitchen and Needlecrafts forums respectively, and not in this one.

For example, I'm a true believer in the Tango, fuzzywuzzy. But I wouldn't dream of discussing my craze for it here. This is the General Religious Discussions forum.


OI!!!! you don't know if that is my new religion.

OH HAIL THE CROTCHLESS BYCICLE SHORTS!!!!!! Praise the Broccoli.

Hey you're the one who put those options in ....I find them facinating as a religious options.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Bevdee;1302952 wrote: Ahso, I happen to agree that we should not use the word "disorder" when talking about mental states, but that's common usage. And there are some conditions that are harmful to the individual, if not others. That's what I picked up on in the first few posts. I ignore the rest. Believe me, it happens on other sites. It happens in real life (Art imitating life or life imitating art, I don't know which) You will not be able to have a topic such as this stay on topic, because they just can't help it. I have found if you let it distract you, you gain nothing. If you respond, what are you gaining? It's a pattern.

The conditions I have studied are the following, for personal reasons.

BPD - Borderline Personality Disorder is characterized by black and white thinking.

How much of Xtian, and other religions, has this *us right/them wrong* type of thinking?

The whole concept of heaven and hell seems Bipolar to me.

There's bullying, which you can see in regular conversations about ways of thinking other than Xtianity, or other monotheistic systems. There are actually all kinds of conversational terrorism that I have observed when discussions about religion come up.

Codependency - Now, i know that Codependency is not a medical diagnosis and that the common usage has probably bastardized the original concept. But, as I examined my upbringing to the alcoholism and mental conditions in my family, I began to think of how religion has influenced what society taught families and individuals.

Imagine if I came on a dating site and announced -

Hey all, I have started seeing this guy, man I really worship him!! He is everything to me. He's a little distant, and I hardly ever see him but he says he hears me talking to him even when he's not there.

There are all these things I have to do to be worthy of his love. At least that is what he tells me.

I have to obey him. If I disobey him, there will be punishment or penance. If he really gets mad, he will send me away- like to this place called Purgatory which is like no place in particular, or Hell. He might set me on fire.

So I am working on getting myself subservient to his will, so I will be worthy of his love. But he and his son tell me I will never be entirely worthy of his love, but to strive all my life. He says he will love me anyway.

He tells me that without him in my life, I am nothing.

He thinks women are secondary to men. Basically he thinks they are put here to be a helper to men, and have kids.

He's jealous. He says I am not to put anyone or anything else before him.

He gave me this book to read. Tiny print. I'm supposed to read it and know how to live my life the way he wants me to, but it's long and kind of unclear, and it is hard to get the gist of what the guy wants to say because it's contradictory. I've asked other people what they think of it, but no one can seem to agree on anything in that book.

I have to give him my money, but he says it will come back to me, eventually. People swear by it, they say it always comes back to them. Kinda like the lotto. It's a tenth of my earnings, do you think that is enough to give him? I'm supposed to donate my time to charities and stuff, but he wants all the credit. He wants the credit for my accomplishments, too.

He's got this son that never got married and hangs out with a bunch of guys all the time. I'm not sure what they do, but they get in trouble with the authorities sometimes. He wants me to follow his son's teachings. He thinks his kid is some sort of martyr.



I can never question him.



I only hope someday I can be worthy of his love - if I am, he says I will get to go with him to this great place called Heaven. I just hope there is a jacuzzi and a masseuse, cause he's wearing me out.





I wonder what people would tell me about my new guy?


hee he heehehehheeeeeeee you just described my marriage .:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Actually that's not funny at all :-3

I'm not sure though you can compare a human relationship with a religious one.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1303009 wrote: Indoctrinating children is much the same but there are double standards always applied, Pakistani madrassa bad catholic school good. Mind you even americans were shocked by jesus camp.
Shocking as it is, 'Jesus Camp' should be regarded as just par for the course for the Christian religion. This religion has inflicted severe psychological and emotional damage in children for centuries. What is especially heinous is that it has done this deliberately as part of the process of indoctrinating children into the faith. Although its evils are numberless, that alone is sufficient to render the Christian religion an abomination in the eyes of rational and civilized human beings.

The technique which the Christian religion employs to wreak havoc in young and vulnerable minds has been labelled 'moral terrorism' by psychiatrists. This technique involves systematically inducing guilt, conflict and acute fear in children until they are eventually broken down and made subservient to the will of 'God'. In order for this cruel method of brainwashing to be carried out with a 'good conscience', those administering it are enjoined to conceptualise children in the most negative terms possible. For example, children are to be seen as...

'...the children of wrath and the heirs of Hell; and that everyone who has not been born again, whether he be young or old, is exposed every moment to eternal destruction under the wrath of Almighty God. As innocent as children seem to us, they are not so in God's sight if they are out of Christ, but are young vipers and are infinitely more hateful than vipers and are in a most miserable condition.'

Christian moral terrorism can have a traumatic effect on individuals late into life. The following is an account written in 1977 by Nicolas Walters, an Englishman who was subjected to it as a young child:

'When I was a little boy, I suffered the misfortune of having to attend a Primitive Methodist Chapel and Sunday School. This dreadful place, like all Christian churches ever since, filled me with gloom, despondency and sheer terror. I heard the grisly, gory details of the Crucifixion for the first time at Sunday School at the age of five. I was so overcome by revulsion and fright that I fainted with the shock of those gruesome, violent images. When I heard of the fires of Hell and the torments of the damned, my horror expressed itself in outbursts of weeping, my knees shook and I wet the floor...Now I am convinced that young people with impressionable minds should never be exposed to such brutal, sadistic and violent obscenities.'

[fuzzywuzzy]

You seem to be taking the extreme in making your point. what about christian religions that don't say you're going to hell, that say you're not really going to heaven unless you've been chosen? that teach that heaven is not a holiday camp but a very serious place . what about religions that say you'll be ressurected? that god is not about punishing?

What do you say about those religions? I'm very aware of many children who are not afraid of god or hell or punishment.

[Glaswegian]

fuzzywuzzy;1303192 wrote: You seem to be taking the extreme in making your point. what about christian religions that don't say you're going to hell, that say you're not really going to heaven unless you've been chosen? that teach that heaven is not a holiday camp but a very serious place . what about religions that say you'll be ressurected? that god is not about punishing?

What do you say about those religions? I'm very aware of many children who are not afraid of god or hell or punishment.
Regarding Christians who teach that children who are 'out of Christ' will spend eternity in Hell - are they wrong, fuzzywuzzy?

[fuzzywuzzy]

yeah I completely agree with you. It's disgusting. But you are only concerntrating on religion . What about nationalistic organisations that deal with the here and now that children will be blamed and ostricized if they don't think .........like you?

but my children have never been taught that and are happy with their relationship with god ...they question it often.That's a good thing it's encouraged. I tell them it's up to them . but you think JW is horrid.......you're misinformed.

or I could bring them up like I was brought up as a strict roman catholic.

it's those in charge of these children who are to blame ...not the religion itself.

come on!!!! lets get real here ....you have a young mind you can manipulate.....it doesn't matter what your interest. politics, religion, nationalistic tendency, children will be abused no mattter what ..doing away with religion is not going to change that.

Glass....you have to make your position clear ...are you against christianity...or christrindom?

[gmc]

posted by fuzzywuzzy

yeah I completely agree with you. It's disgusting. But you are only concerntrating on religion . What about nationalistic organisations that deal with the here and now that children will be blamed and ostricized if they don't think .........like you?


It's the same kind of thing is it not? Hitler youth/ Jesus camp. The pressure on children to conform is almost irresistible in both cases. Course a comparison like that will have made some splutter their coffee all over the place.

Christianity is the one we are all most familiar with. Maybe the problem is monotheistic religions, the selfish god who must have everything and destroy all who oppose.

Why is it the old testament that so many fundamentalists harken to? It's almost as if Jesus christ needn't have bothered because nobody listened

posted by fuzzywuzzy

You seem to be taking the extreme in making your point. what about christian religions that don't say you're going to hell, that say you're not really going to heaven unless you've been chosen? that teach that heaven is not a holiday camp but a very serious place . what about religions that say you'll be ressurected? that god is not about punishing?

What do you say about those religions? I'm very aware of many children who are not afraid of god or hell or punishment.


But which christian religion, why are there so many and why do they want to destroy each other. Same with islam left alone sunni and sufi will fight each other with great enthusiasm. No one listens to the message of tolerance.

posted by glaswegian

For the moment I will only say this about her: She is an obscene, predatory pig of cosmic proportions within whose endless fatty folds and rancid recesses are contained the lost hearts and minds of countless child victims.


You dodged the question. Is she insane? If she is insane is it her fault or god's will? Or is she just very very human. She wants what she sees as the best for those children, does that make her a bad person?

Christianity teaches that god will forgive your sins and take you in to heaven so long as you believe. If you sin but with the best of intentions do you still go to heaven.

You just can't win these kind of arguments with someone who is deeply religious, all you can do is go round and round until the penny drops. It's even worse when you get a convert.

Christian moral terrorism can have a traumatic effect on individuals late into life. The following is an account written in 1977 by Nicolas Walters, an Englishman who was subjected to it as a young child:

'When I was a little boy, I suffered the misfortune of having to attend a Primitive Methodist Chapel and Sunday School. This dreadful place, like all Christian churches ever since, filled me with gloom, despondency and sheer terror. I heard the grisly, gory details of the Crucifixion for the first time at Sunday School at the age of five. I was so overcome by revulsion and fright that I fainted with the shock of those gruesome, violent images. When I heard of the fires of Hell and the torments of the damned, my horror expressed itself in outbursts of weeping, my knees shook and I wet the floor...Now I am convinced that young people with impressionable minds should never be exposed to such brutal, sadistic and violent obscenities.'


Pah softie methodists. I'll see your Methodist and raise you a free kirk of scotland. I remember being chucked out of sunday school for calling god a rotten so and so. It was a lesson about the book of job and the teacher asked what we thought.

[Glaswegian]

K.Snyder;1303133 wrote: You can't compare African "witches" with European "witches" because the people of Africa, among other regions of the world, have come to their own conclusions related to their own belief systems.
Witch-killings are witch-killings whether they happen in Africa, Europe, America or on the moon. They are killings carried out on the back of supernatural belief systems. What does it matter if the supernatural belief system is Christianity, Yoruba or Mcape? The crucial point is that the individual accused of witchcraft is innocent. The charge is wholly false and is born of a delusional belief system.

K.Snyder wrote: To suggest it's because of christianity that Africans kill is ludicrous.
Glaswegian wrote: Associated Press News Report


'The 9 year old boy lay on a bloodstained hospital sheet crawling with ants, staring blindly at the wall. His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and then his father had tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church which had denounced him - Mount Zion Lighthouse. A month later he died.' Eket, Nigeria (17th October 2009)
A Christian pastor of the Mount Zion Lighthouse Church accused that boy of being a witch. The boy's father, in consequence of sharing the Christian pastor's delusional belief system, acted on the accusation and killed the boy in the most horrific manner. Where does responsibility for the boy's murder lie? With the Copenhagen Bird Watchers Society? The Moscow Symphony Orchestra? IBM? How black and white does it have to get for you, K?

[Glaswegian]

gmc wrote: Joking aside, the lady in Jesus camp. If she is insane is it her fault or god's will?
Glaswegian;1303153 wrote: For the moment I will only say this about her: She is an obscene, predatory pig of cosmic proportions within whose endless fatty folds and rancid recesses are contained the lost hearts and minds of countless child victims.
gmc wrote: You dodged the question.
For the moment...

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1302971 wrote:

What I am inviting you to do here is this: Employ evolutionary psychology as a tool with which to make sense of the child-witch killings. Can this academic discipline throw any light on them? Has it anything to say about them at all? Or can it only stare at them with the same incomprehension as a dog at a Shakespeare play - say, Macbeth?

In the meantime I'm going to try to respond to some of the other comments you made earlier. Catch you later.You see, I don't have to attribute any of these behaviors to psychology at all as I reject the notion that these are diseases or disorders. Thats your gig, not mine. My reference to evolutionary psychology was offered as an alternative to psychology itself, though it does provide us with the knowledge of fact that the brain houses adaptations in the form of emotions that does drive us behaviorally.

What I see you doing, and I'm not sure whether or not this is intentional, is replace a moral argument with one of mental illness. And I think you're far afoul. That said, I do respect your intelligence and communicative abilities.

I'm with you completely on moral grounds and in that religion is a divisive and potentially destructive force with a proven track record of it.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1303075 wrote: Joking aside, the lady in Jesus camp. If she is insane is it her fault or god's will?
If you don't mind, gmc, let me ask you a question before I answer yours. Would you regard the Christian who spoke the following words as insane?

'My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, Gods truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress which daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.'

~o0o~


Those words were spoken by Adolph Hitler - 88 years ago today in fact (12th April 1922).

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1303241 wrote: If you don't mind, gmc, let me ask you a question before I answer yours. Would you regard the Christian who spoke the following words as insane?

'My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, Gods truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress which daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.'

~o0o~


Those words were spoken by Adolph Hitler - 88 years ago today in fact (12th April 1922).


Tsk tsk, haven't you heard? hitler was an atheist. Mind you the pope at the time seemed to approve as he took on the godless communists.

Interesting question though. Would the holocaust have taken place without two thousand years of anti-jewish propaganda by the christian church?

How about this christian?

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."[1
War office minute of 12 May 1919, written by Winston Churchill concerning Iraq. Was he insane? Or just a good christian bringing the benefits of civilisation to the fuzzy wuzzies.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1303227 wrote: You see, I don't have to attribute any of these behaviors to psychology at all as I reject the notion that these are diseases or disorders.
Very well.

Let me give you another example of what I take to be a clear cut case of psychotic behaviour inspired by delusional religious beliefs. It comes from the files of the Behavioural Science Instruction and Research Unit of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. As you know, Ahso!, this branch of the FBI draws heavily on the expertise of psychiatrists and psychologists from around the world to aid it in the analysis and detection of crimes.

'Myra Obasi, a Louisiana school-teacher, was - she and her sisters believed after consultation with a hoodoo practitioner - possessed by demons. Her nephew's nightmares were part of the evidence. So they left for Dallas, abandoned their five children, and the sisters then gouged out Ms. Obasi's eyes. At the trial she defended her sisters. They were trying to help her, she said.'

Surely you cannot possibly argue that this is normal religious behaviour - even for America?



N.B. Hoodoo is a cross between Catholicism and African-Haitian nativist religion.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1303256 wrote: Very well.

Let me give you another example of what I take to be a clear cut case of psychotic behaviour inspired by delusional religious beliefs. It comes from the files of the Behavioural Science Instruction and Research Unit of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. As you know, Ahso!, this branch of the FBI draws heavily on the expertise of psychiatrists and psychologists from around the world to aid it in the analysis and detection of crimes.

'Myra Obasi, a Louisiana school-teacher, was - she and her sisters believed after consultation with a hoodoo practitioner - possessed by demons. Her nephew's nightmares were part of the evidence. So they left for Dallas, abandoned their five children, and the sisters then gouged out Ms. Obasi's eyes. At the trial she defended her sisters. They were trying to help her, she said.'

Surely you cannot possibly argue that this is normal religious behaviour - even for America?



N.B. Hoodoo is a cross between Catholicism and African-Haitian nativist religion.
What can I say? If it happened - it happened!

Where you and I differ is associating behavior to labels invented and maintained by people who have not or do not recognize and apply evolution as a theory. I reject the idea of of mental illness and disorders and I've already explained why. Its that simple.

If you were to ask me whether or not these guilty individuals should be taken out of the general population of a group that has decided these actions are immoral and unacceptable, my answer would be yes for both their safety and the safety of others. But I think their diagnosis and treatment should be that of reconditioning therapy and reprogramming or re-indoctrination of the morals of the group - not to infringe on the rights of others, in other words.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1303260 wrote: If you were to ask me whether or not these guilty individuals should be taken out of the general population of a group that has decided these actions are immoral and unacceptable, my answer would be yes for both their safety and the safety of others.
You have been saying something very important in the course of this thread, Ahso!, and it was wrong of me not to have addressed it earlier. So let me do so now. The labelling of behaviour is extremely controversial. This is because the act of labelling any given behaviour can be a means of oppressing that behaviour. The same holds true for mental states. Psychiatry and the other mind sciences have a very dark history in this respect. It should also be noted that the diagnosis and labelling of mental states and behaviour carried out by the practitioners of the mind sciences are at bottom moral judgements. That is, they reflect the values and interests of those who make them. As such, they must always remain open to challenge.

[K.Snyder]

Glaswegian;1303213 wrote: Witch-killings are witch-killings whether they happen in Africa, Europe, America or on the moon. They are killings carried out on the back of supernatural belief systems. What does it matter if the supernatural belief system is Christianity, Yoruba or Mcape? The crucial point is that the individual accused of witchcraft is innocent. The charge is wholly false and is born of a delusional belief system.



A Christian pastor of the Mount Zion Lighthouse Church accused that boy of being a witch. The boy's father, in consequence of sharing the Christian pastor's delusional belief system, acted on the accusation and killed the boy in the most horrific manner. Where does responsibility for the boy's murder lie? With the Copenhagen Bird Watchers Society? The Moscow Symphony Orchestra? IBM? How black and white does it have to get for you, K?


I'd mentioned it in the "Is atheism a form of religion" thread that Hitler was the epitome of a true evolutionist. We're not talking about claims we're talking about fundamental logic. Hitlers logic specifically was Racial hygiene (often labeled a form of "scientific racism") is the selection, by a government, of what it considers the most physically, intellectually and morally superior people to raise the next generation (selective breeding) and a close alignment of public health with eugenics. Racial hygiene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "eugenics" completely being all that is necessary to prove my point rather I'd prefer to not have to repeat myself given my own personal past experiences. :yh_neutra

What in the world does religion have to do with an equally existent practice of "witch hunting"?

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1303075 wrote: Joking aside, the lady in Jesus camp. If she is insane is it her fault or god's will?
I think the word 'insane' is so overused nowadays that it has become meaningless. It's still used in the law courts but it's been abandoned as a term within Psychopathology for a long time now. Anyway, here's my take on the woman in 'Jesus Camp':

I would say that she is a sadistic psychopath with religious delusions which are fairly standard. She is sadistic because she clearly derives pleasure and satisfaction from exploiting, humiliating and inflicting mental and emotional pain on the children around her. She is psychopathic because she shows no signs of guilt or remorse for what she is doing to the children even though it is obvious that they are experiencing great distress. Anyone looking at that film can see that many of the children in it are severely traumatised.

As for 'god's will' - I think you would be better taking that one elsewhere.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1302580 wrote: Its true most if not all true believers seem to exhibit stronger schizophrenic behaviors, but then I think we're all schizophrenic to some degree.
Here you have described the behaviours of true believers as schizophrenic, Ahso! This is one of the most established terms in Psychopathology. You are right to use it in respect of true believers because the link between schizophrenia and delusional religious thinking has been widely reported within the mind sciences for over a century now. Open any textbook on psychiatry, for example, and you will find that schizophrenic symptoms are often characterised by excessive religiosity, the belief that one is receiving messages directly from God, Jesus or the Devil, the belief that one is God, Jesus or the Devil, auditory or visual hallucinations concerning angels and demons, demonic possession, obsessional thinking about biblical prophecy, obsessional thinking about apocalyptic imagery, signs and interpretations, etc., etc., etc.

Ahso! wrote: You see, I don't have to attribute any of these behaviors to psychology at all as I reject the notion that these are diseases or disorders.Then why did you apply a term from Psychopathology which denotes mental disorder to them earlier in the thread? - viz. 'schizophrenic'. You are being inconsistent, are you not?

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1303377 wrote: I'd mentioned it in the "Is atheism a form of religion" thread that Hitler was the epitome of a true evolutionist. We're not talking about claims we're talking about fundamental logic. Hitlers logic specifically was "eugenics" completely being all that is necessary to prove my point rather I'd prefer to not have to repeat myself given my own personal past experiences. :yh_neutra

What in the world does religion have to do with an equally existent practice of "witch hunting"?


No he wasn't. His racism owes it's origins to religion as does the idea of the "chosen" people - that there are some who are specially chosen to be superior and are the god ordained betters of all other peoples. If you look at who the eugenicists were you find most of them thought their actions morally justified as a god given right to decide who was fit to survive and who was not.

Hitler was a catholic and had the active support of the catholic church. That is a fact however much people like to comfort themselves he was a godless atheist. Although latterly he went off on some mystical kick of his own.

The theory of evolution did not inspire eugenics, nor did it inspire social darwinism. Rather it was the marraige of religion and evolution that brought about the horrors of eugenics. The racial justification of slavery precedes darwin by a good number of decades when the bible was used as a source to justify dehumanising people based on race. If all men are made in god's image you have to convince yourself another human is lesser than you before you can do it. Master race/chosen by god/manifest destiny. that is religion talking. It's the desire to make society one you think is "right" that religion feeds in to by giving a moral justification to the most appalling of horrors.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1303444 wrote: Here you have described the behaviours of true believers as schizophrenic, Ahso! This is one of the most established terms in Psychopathology. You are right to use it in respect of true believers because the link between schizophrenia and delusional religious thinking has been widely reported within the mind sciences for over a century now. Open any textbook on psychiatry, for example, and you will find that schizophrenic symptoms are often characterised by excessive religiosity, the belief that one is receiving messages directly from God, Jesus or the Devil, the belief that one is God, Jesus or the Devil, auditory or visual hallucinations concerning angels and demons, demonic possession, obsessional thinking about biblical prophecy, obsessional thinking about apocalyptic imagery, signs and interpretations, etc., etc., etc.

Then why did you apply a term from Psychopathology which denotes mental disorder to them earlier in the thread? - viz. 'schizophrenic'. You are being inconsistent, are you not?I was responding to the OP where you used the term 'schiziod'. I recognize what we've termed schizophrenia, but I don't recognize it as a disease or disorder. As I said, I think we all possess it to some degree. For me its an adaptation that helps with survival of the species. There are of course those that are more severely affected by these conditions. There isn't any measure of this from an evolutionary standpoint other than passing on genes to offspring (natural selection).

If you want to make the case that these conditions are in fact diseases or disorders, you will need to set before us a standard. Kind of like how the Christian puts forth Jesus.

Our current brand of psychology and psychiatry is built on the idea of such a standard, which is actually more tilted towards religion than not. But things are changing.

Evolution provides us with an understanding of what we are and we therefore have a starting point. In the past, psychology has been: huh? Which we have then built up on the basis of comparing people to an imaginary person and labeling their conditions as illnesses or disorders. There is no such thing, only degree of variation.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1303454 wrote: If you want to make the case that these conditions are in fact diseases or disorders, you will need to set before us a standard. Kind of like how the Christian puts forth Jesus.
Alright.

Here is a standard definition of the Psychopathological term 'delusion' - 'A persistent false belief held in the face of contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.'

Now let me provide you with evidence of Christians whose beliefs place them firmly within the remit of that definition.

Throughout the 1990's, around ten thousand cases of 'satanic ritual abuse' were reported annually in the United States. In a 1996 survey of 2700 members of the American Psychological Association, 12 per cent replied that they had treated cases of alleged 'satanic ritual abuse'.

What does 'satanic ritual abuse' involve? According to its 'victims' it involves, among other things, 'sexual torture, coprophagia, cannibalism and participation in grotesque orgiastic rites in which infants are murdered and sacrificed to Satan'. Who is it that claims to have suffered 'satanic ritual abuse'? The vast majority of individuals making these claims 'are Christian fundamentalists whose sects require belief in a literal devil who is active in the world'.

It seems that many Christians in your country are suffering abominably at the hands of Satanists, doesn't it Ahso? But what's the reality?

This. In a study carried out on behalf of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, psychologists examined over 12,000 cases of alleged 'satanic ritual abuse' and could not find a single one which held up to scrutiny. As for the claim that 'infants are murdered and sacrificed to Satan' at satanic rituals, no evidence has ever been uncovered by any law enforcement agency in the United States which supports it.

Given the fact that claims of 'satanic ritual abuse' are completely false and have no basis in reality, wouldn't you say that the individuals who make these claims are delusional?

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1303551 wrote: Alright.

Here is a standard definition of the Psychopathological term 'delusion' - 'A persistent false belief held in the face of contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.'

Now let me provide you with evidence of Christians whose beliefs place them firmly within the remit of that definition.

Throughout the 1990's, around ten thousand cases of 'satanic ritual abuse' were reported annually in the United States. In a 1996 survey of 2700 members of the American Psychological Association, 12 per cent replied that they had treated cases of alleged 'satanic ritual abuse'.

What does 'satanic ritual abuse' involve? According to its 'victims' it involves, among other things, 'sexual torture, coprophagia, cannibalism and participation in grotesque orgiastic rites in which infants are murdered and sacrificed to Satan'. Who is it that claims to have suffered 'satanic ritual abuse'? The vast majority of individuals making these claims 'are Christian fundamentalists whose sects require belief in a literal devil who is active in the world'.

It seems that many Christians in your country are suffering abominably at the hands of satanists, doesn't it Ahso? But what's the reality?

This. In a study carried out on behalf of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, psychologists examined over 12,000 cases of alleged 'satanic ritual abuse' and could not find a single one which held up to scrutiny. As for the claim that 'infants are murdered and sacrificed to Satan' at satanic rituals, no evidence has ever been uncovered by any law enforcement agency in the United States which supports it.

Given the fact that claims of 'satanic ritual abuse' are completely false and have no basis in reality, wouldn't you say that the individuals who make these claims are delusional?You do work hard. But no, I'm sorry, I still will not categorize these people as mentally ill. Morally ill, yes - mentally ill, no!

What I would say is, it sounds like "among group" competition to me. From what you've posted, I see a group of Christians attempting to sabotage whatever credibility the satanic group may have by making possibly false accusations. Group selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said, can what you describe actually happen? Yes, but I don't know where or when it happens, and if I did, I would probably do what I could to stop it.

America is a place of many groups competing for membership. And as we know, us Americans will do what it takes to accomplish what we set out to. The competition is fierce here. But I'd say its most likely not much different from where you live.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1303554 wrote: Morally ill, yes - mentally ill, no!
Morally ill? Could you please clarify what 'morally ill' means?

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1303556 wrote: Morally ill? Could you please clarify what 'morally ill' means?I know you noticed what I did. I replaced the word mental with the word moral.

Morality is a group concept, and its what members agree to adhere to in order to remain part of the group. The morality in your example of witch sacrifice is different than that of yours and mine, but we can certainly see the lengths people will go to in order to remain in good standing with the group.

Sacrifice is also a group concept. The purpose behind it is to prove members are willing to give whatever is necessary in the way of individual sacrificing for the group.

Individuality is a no-no!

Both of these conditions are extremely important for cohesion of groups.

In our countries we require the sacrifice of our young to go to war to prove themselves to the national group. Both the person serving and the family gain favorable group status, thus the bumper stickers and patches and scares of battle of those who return, and a flag given to the family of those who don't.

Grouping is inevitable with humans, so the idea is to redefine the morality and sacrifice of the group to something else.

But then what about overpopulations?

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1303554 wrote: America is a place of many groups competing for membership. And as we know, us Americans will do what it takes to accomplish what we set out to. The competition is fierce here. But I'd say its most likely not much different from where you live.
Christian delusional beliefs about 'satanic ritual abuse' spread from your country to mine in the early 1990's and wreaked havoc within a small island community here. An Evangelical Christian social worker whose mind was infected with these beliefs from America was determined to find 'satanic ritual abuse' where it never existed. She spread panic among the families on the island that their children were being sexually abused by Satanists. By the time she had worked her mischief the community was torn apart and many children removed from their families for years. Christian delusional beliefs are a pestilence - they recognise no boundaries.

[gmc]

Ahso!;1303561 wrote: I know you noticed what I did. I replaced the word mental with the word moral.

Morality is a group concept, and its what members agree to adhere to in order to remain part of the group. The morality in your example of witch sacrifice is different than that of yours and mine, but we can certainly see the lengths people will go to in order to remain in good standing with the group.

Sacrifice is also a group concept. The purpose behind it is to prove members are willing to give whatever is necessary in the way of individual sacrificing for the group.

Individuality is a no-no!

Both of these conditions are extremely important for cohesion of groups.

In our countries we require the sacrifice of our young to go to war to prove themselves to the national group. Both the person serving and the family gain favorable group status, thus the bumper stickers and patches and scares of battle of those who return, and a flag given to the family of those who don't.

Grouping is inevitable with humans, so the idea is to redefine the morality and sacrifice of the group to something else.

But then what about overpopulations?


mo·ral·i·ty

   /məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA

–noun,plural-ties for 4–6.

1.

conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

2.

moral quality or character.

3.

virtue in sexual matters; chastity.

4.

a doctrine or system of morals.

5.

moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

6.

morality play.




If the morality comes from a series of delusional beliefs is it not then the case that the actions resulting from that set of delusions are merely the manifestations of that insanity?

If you judge these people to be morally wrong by your own set of delusional beliefs - well you can see where I am going can't you.

Here is a standard definition of the Psychopathological term 'delusion' - 'A persistent false belief held in the face of contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.'


many religions express the opinion that of you do not adhere to a religion you cannot have a moral code of behaviour or even understand the concept of morals. Their faith guides their morality so if you do not have that moral compass then by their rationale you cannot be a moral person. Morality may be a group concept but the morality of the religious is not interested in the group as a whole, just those that conform, all too often it is a morality they want to impose..

Basically you are using your own set of delusional beliefs to judge the morality of another person following their own set of delusions. Following a set of absurd religious beliefs is hardly conducive to group cohesion especially when the group adhering to those believes starts acting out it's conviction that it has a moral right to impose it's morality on everyone else. It's a bit more than among group competition and is incredibly destructive and arguably not in the long term interests of the group. Societies evolve away from religious states to secular states.

Grouping is inevitable and all civil law is the result of humans sitting down to agree how to work out their differences. Where it gets screwed up is when you have a group that decides their particular set of beliefs is somehow morally superior - which is why in the states you have a separation of church and state it's so that religious law will never be in a position to claim precedence over the laws decided by the group. Your founding fathers recognised the destructive nature of religion. You have problems with religious terrorism in the states because some religious groups cannot accept that their will, their beliefs, or their morality, is not generally accepted. Be it in relation to abortion, the ready access to contraceptives, or that gays should be entitled to have a legally accepted partnership.

You may argue that those sort of people are morally ill. The counter argument is that society is morally ill because they want to allow gay people to have equal rights and women to have the right to choose when and by whom they have babies. I would out it to you that the morality of the deluded is not necessarily one we should take on board.

[Ahso!]

Glaswegian;1303577 wrote: Christian delusional beliefs about 'satanic ritual abuse' spread from your country to mine in the early 1990's and wreaked havoc within a small island community here. An Evangelical Christian social worker whose mind was infected with these beliefs from America was determined to find 'satanic ritual abuse' where it never existed. She spread panic among the families on the island that their children were being sexually abused by Satanists. By the time she had worked her mischief the community was torn apart and many children removed from their families for years. Christian delusional beliefs are a pestilence - they recognise no boundaries.I'm sorry!

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1303638 wrote: I'm sorry!
That's quite alright, Ahso! I know that you are above such malignant Christian nonsense and would never dream of promulgating it.

[Ahso!]

Unfortunately, this is what happens when as a species we view life as a hierarchy with us of course at the top. The word evolve does not, in its proper form suggest any such thing. Evolution is 'change' - period. Not positive or negative change - just change. The values must be removed.

What we see when we understand 'evolve' in its proper definition is that we're humbled to understand that we are only another species. We have variations just like any other species, and sometimes those variations of individuals or in groups as decisions are destructive and pain causing to ourselves and others. Evolution is hard and tough. The fact is we are capable of behavior that is ice cold, but thats evolution.

We are not a finished product, nor will we ever be.

We can, I believe, with our cognitive abilities begin to understand that in order for us as a species to continue to thrive, make different decisions which remove the ideal of good vs evil and replace it with a more caring and inclusive ideal.

Ideals are necessary for our species it seems.

[LarsMac]

Glaswegian;1303644 wrote: That's quite alright, Ahso! I know that you are above such malignant Christian nonsense and would never dream of promulgating it.


So, you keep saying "religion" but it seems obvious after reading your posts for some time, that you have a particularly bothersome burr under your saddle for "Christianity"

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1303636 wrote: many religions express the opinion that of you do not adhere to a religion you cannot have a moral code of behaviour or even understand the concept of morals. Their faith guides their morality so if you do not have that moral compass then by their rationale you cannot be a moral person.
One of the greatest lies perpetrated by Religion is that faith and morality are connected, and that without belief in 'God' moral chaos would ensue and we would all be slitting each others throats, raping and pillaging, and having sex with our neighbours' asses and goats. It is astonishing how many millions continue to fall for this lie when there is a veritable ocean of evidence against it. Here is just one tiny droplet - Catholic priests f*cking children.

Let me provide you with some statistical data from the United States which bears on this matter. The data was set out and analysed by Sam Harris in his book Letter To A Christian Nation (2006). He writes:

'While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the "red states" are primarily red because of the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't.

Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in "blue" states and thirty-eight percent are in "red" states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, 24 percent in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the United States are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red.'

~o0o~


N.B. The above data is purely correlational. But make of it what you will.

[Glaswegian]

LarsMac;1303654 wrote: So, you keep saying "religion" but it seems obvious after reading your posts for some time, that you have a particularly bothersome burr under your saddle for "Christianity"
I regard Christianity and all other supernatural belief systems as exemplifying varying degrees of psychopathology, LarsMac. I'll provide examples of psychopathology from other supernatural belief systems as the thread progresses.

In the meantime, see the thread Religion And The Need For Blasphemy (General Religious Discussions forum) in which I discuss the psychopathology of Muslims concerning the Mohammed cartoons fiasco.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1303662 wrote: One of the greatest lies perpetrated by Religion is that faith and morality are connected, and that without belief in 'God' moral chaos would ensue and we would all be slitting each others throats, raping and pillaging, and having sex with our neighbours' asses and goats. It is astonishing how many millions continue to fall for this lie when there is a veritable ocean of evidence against it. Here is just one tiny droplet - Catholic priests f*cking children.
Newspaper Report


'The Catholic Church continues to face worldwide criticism for high-level cover-ups of abuse by paedophile priests in countries including Chile, Ireland and Germany. Phone lines set up to help people claiming abuse by priests have been deluged with calls. Hotlines across Europe reported major increases in new abuse cases, with many struggling to cope with demand for counselling and legal advice. "We started more cases this month than in the past three years combined", said the Dutch Help and Law Centre. It reported a rise from ten cases a year to more than 1,000 cases in the last few weeks.' (Metro 14th April 2010)

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1303451 wrote: No he wasn't. His racism owes it's origins to religion as does the idea of the "chosen" people - that there are some who are specially chosen to be superior and are the god ordained betters of all other peoples. If you look at who the eugenicists were you find most of them thought their actions morally justified as a god given right to decide who was fit to survive and who was not.

Hitler was a catholic and had the active support of the catholic church. That is a fact however much people like to comfort themselves he was a godless atheist. Although latterly he went off on some mystical kick of his own.

The theory of evolution did not inspire eugenics, nor did it inspire social darwinism. Rather it was the marraige of religion and evolution that brought about the horrors of eugenics. The racial justification of slavery precedes darwin by a good number of decades when the bible was used as a source to justify dehumanising people based on race. If all men are made in god's image you have to convince yourself another human is lesser than you before you can do it. Master race/chosen by god/manifest destiny. that is religion talking. It's the desire to make society one you think is "right" that religion feeds in to by giving a moral justification to the most appalling of horrors.
I have to admit using hitler as an example to my point wasn't perfect but none the less his actions can better be described as evolutionary. Perhaps this will be argued against but the fact remains that religion doesn't hold trump over one's inspiration to murder. Plenty of murders have occurred due to no fear in a "god" which completely negates an argument concerning religion and it's comparisons to atheism. Despicable as both are I personally refuse to accept either and they should be argued in relation to their offsetting benefits when observed. Like the FDA here in America. Drugs are made available to the public by weighing their risks with their benefits. I see quite a hell of alot of good coming from religion. The past is just as irrelevant as the suggestion any two motives are the same religion or not

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1303253 wrote: Would the holocaust have taken place without two thousand years of anti-jewish propaganda by the christian church?
I would say that the Holocaust has something of an inevitability about it given the sheer extent and vehemence of the anti-Semitism waged by the Christian Church against the Jews across the centuries. If you take a look at the history of this anti-Semitism you will see a people being systematically primed for slaughter on a grand scale.

Christian anti-Semitism originates in the death of Christ. This death has been used over the last two millennia as the fundamental justification for anti-Semitism in the Christian world. Why? Because according to The New Testament the Jews did not just kill a man. No. They killed God in the form of Jesus. Because they were held to be collectively responsible for this most awful and heinous of acts, the Jewish people have been used by Christians throughout the ages as the scapegoat par excellence on which to project and discharge their accumulated feelings of guilt, inadequacy and self-loathing. As 'the murderers of Christ' no punishment has been deemed too terrible for Jews by Christians historically.

Let me provide you with an example of virulent anti-Semitism exhibited by one of the most influential Christians who ever lived - Martin Luther, prime mover of the Protestant Reformation. In 1543, Luther wrote one of the most infamous anti-Semitic books in history. It is called On The Jews And Their Lies. The following quote from it will give you an idea of its content:

'We [Christians] are at fault for not slaying them for the death of Jesus Christ.'

Professor David Chidester, author of the acclaimed book Christianity: A Global History, writes of Luther thus:

'Luther advocated banning all rabbinic teaching, confiscating Jewish prayer books, and burning Jewish homes, schools and synagogues. If they still refused to convert to Christianity, Luther proposed that the Jews should be expelled from Germany even though he thought that Christians were "at fault for not slaying them".'

Remind you of anyone? I'm sure it does.

The road to the Nazi death camps leads all the way back to The New Testament. Indeed, right back to the mouth of Jesus himself when he said to the Jews:

'If God were your father you would love me...You are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning...' (John 8: 42--44)

Christians who look at those words ought to be alarmed by them. Not only because they are repugnant. But for this reason too:

The omniscient God who was allegedly in Jesus must have known that such language was destined to be used by Christians as a basis for vilifying, oppressing, torturing and murdering millions of Jews across the centuries. And yet knowing this full well He still allowed those terrible words to pass from Jesus's lips.

Clearly, Jesus was no God. If He had been then He would have possessed the wisdom to keep His mouth shut.

[AussiePam]

Jesus was actually a Jew.

[Glaswegian]

AussiePam;1303739 wrote: Jesus was actually a Jew.
And the Pope's a Catholic.

What's your point, Pam?

[AussiePam]

Grin. I thought things were getting a bit frenzied and ... I'll go back into my darkness now. Carry on!!!

[gmc]

AussiePam;1303745 wrote: Grin. I thought things were getting a bit frenzied and ... I'll go back into my darkness now. Carry on!!!


Don't worry. Passionate debate and disagreement doesn't mean you dislike the other person or disrespect them.

[Glaswegian]

One of the most common psychopathological states which Religion seeks to induce in the minds of its adherents has been termed theomania by psychiatrists. Theomania is a delusional disorder in which the faithful believe that their thoughts and behaviour are directly inspired by 'God' or some other supernatural entity. The reason why it is necessary for Religion to induce theomania in its adherents is because their faith is inherently preposterous and must be constantly bolstered with fantasies and weird experiences in order to endow it with some semblance of credibility.

Since the rational and critical faculties are lethal to faith they must be overcome or at least kept at bay from it, and this is most effectively done by arousing irrational forces, feelings and impulses in the believer to counteract them. This is why theomania tends to be associated with great religious excitement, ecstasy, hysteria, delirium, trances, swooning, rolling and shaking, convulsions, possession, speaking in tongues, and so on. These types of phenomena feature strongly in a wide range of religious crowd-baths: for example, Pentecostal meetings, the Toronto Blessing, Evangelical revivals, Voodoo rituals, and poisonous snake-handling ceremonies in America's Bible Belt.

The Kentucky Revival of 1800 provides a good illustration of the bizarre behaviours which theomania can give rise to in religious believers. In the course of this revival evangelical preachers used the doctrine of hellfire and eternal damnation to work the crowds into a frenzy of terror and despair. The psychiatrist J. A. C. Brown writes:

'[After this was done] great excitement broke out. Many ran about shrieking in agony and some rolled on the ground for hours at a time crying "Lost! Lost!" at the full pitch of their voices...Numbers of people were persuaded by revivalists that behaving like certain kinds of animals was a sign of possession by God. Some of them leaped like frogs and exhibited every grotesque and hideous contortion of the face and limbs...some went down on all fours, growling, snapping the teeth, and barking like dogs. As might be expected many in the final phases of the meeting went into trance or had visual hallucinations and ended up taking part in sexual excesses.'

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1303009 wrote: EXCLUSIVE: BRITAIN'S LAST WITCH TRIAL - mirror.co.uk

More interesting would be how did she [Helen Duncan] know, was she really speaking to the dead?


I saw a docudrama about Helen Duncan a couple of years ago. The actress who played Duncan was Elaine C. Smith ('Mary Doll' in Rab C. Nesbitt). She was a fitting choice for the role because Helen Duncan was, by all accounts, 'an uneducated woman of gross appearance whose manners and language were anything but ladylike'. Incidentally, as I watched that drama I remember thinking once or twice of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the woman who dreamt up Theosophy. Blavatsky's personal hygiene was disgraceful. She literally stank throughout her life. If cleanliness is next to godliness then Blavatsky was surely a thing hatched in the nethermost region of Hell.

I think you will generally find that individuals who claim to communicate with the dead have a low mind - or at least part of it is in a state of arrested development. You will also find that they are fantasy-prone, narcissistic, bored and lacking in self-esteem. It is self-flattering to think that one has the power of communicating with the dead (along with other magical powers which one might be able to develop and put to use). Such a thought has always appealed to those who are fundamentally disappointed with themselves and whose opportunities for self-advancement in the real world are limited. It is interesting to note the social make-up of those who attend seances and go to psychic shows nowadays: they are overwhelmingly working-class, female and poorly educated.

The writer Ian McEwan has coined a term which covers all types of irrational nonsense like communicating with the dead, psychic healing, mysticism, parapsychology, the Occult, and the New Age: viz. metaphysical pornography. A major reason why so many people get immersed in metaphysical pornography is because they are looking for easy answers to the question of who they are, why they are here, and what it all means. Scientific literature and academic Philosophy are just too difficult for them, too time-consuming to learn. But 'Way of the Wizard: 20 Spiritual Lessons for Creating the Life You Want' and other bubble bath for the soul can be gulped down in seconds.

As to whether Helen Duncan was really speaking to the dead? Let me put it this way. I'll give you odds of 20 to 1 that there is some guy somewhere in Glasgow who has a spirit guide called 'Shuggy', and that he will be able to tell you with Shuggy's guidance what Jim Baxter is drinking in his Bacardi these days.

[gmc]

I saw a docudrama about Helen Duncan a couple of years ago. The actress who played Duncan was Elaine C. Smith ('Mary Doll' in Rab C. Nesbitt). She was a fitting choice for the role because Helen Duncan was, by all accounts, 'an uneducated woman of gross appearance whose manners and language were anything but ladylike'. Incidentally, as I watched that drama I remember thinking once or twice of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the woman who dreamt up Theosophy. Blavatsky's personal hygiene was disgraceful. She literally stank throughout her life. If cleanliness is next to godliness then Blavatsky was surely a thing hatched in the nethermost region of Hell.

I think you will generally find that individuals who claim to communicate with the dead have a low mind - or at least part of it is in a state of arrested development. You will also find that they are fantasy-prone, narcissistic, bored and lacking in self-esteem. It is self-flattering to think that one has the power of communicating with the dead (along with other magical powers which one might be able to develop and put to use). Such a thought has always appealed to those who are fundamentally disappointed with themselves and whose opportunities for self-advancement in the real world are limited. It is interesting to note the social make-up of those who attend seances and go to psychic shows nowadays: they are overwhelmingly working-class, female and poorly educated.


Actually I don't think you would find that necessarily to be the case. Spiritualism had and has many well educated middle and upper class followers especially post ww1 for failrly obvious reasons. I would doubt their veracity or that they were indeed speaking to the dead. Like religion there are many who seek to take advantage of someone's desire to find loved ones. It's a rather sweeping generalisation that suggests prejudice rather than reason on your part.

Helen Duncan is interesting, did she speak to the dead, picked up on something between the dead sailor and one of her audience or was she a spy which is what the authorities really thought. The fact is she spoke of an event that she could have had no way of knowing had happened.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1304014 wrote: Actually I don't think you would find that necessarily to be the case. Spiritualism had and has many well educated middle and upper class followers especially post ww1 for failrly obvious reasons. I would doubt their veracity or that they were indeed speaking to the dead. Like religion there are many who seek to take advantage of someone's desire to find loved ones. It's a rather sweeping generalisation that suggests prejudice rather than reason on your part.
You're right. A number of eminent people have been involved with spiritualism - for example, William James, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Alfred Russel Wallace. Regarding these three men, the first was a closet religionist; the second was driven to believe in 'spirits' as a result of bereavement; and the third was extremely gullible in spite of his scientific credentials.

Don't be surprised at the level to which men of the intellectual calibre of James, Doyle and Wallace will sink in order to satisfy their deep need to believe in the reality of the 'supernatural'. I think you will find that spiritualism is often used as a half-way house by those who are no longer able to take the claims of Religion seriously but who are still reluctant to abandon the latter completely.

If you look at the history of spiritualism you will see that it is nothing more than an insufferably long fiasco of fraud and flim-flam. Indeed, this movement was born of trickery of the most mundane sort. Spiritualism was initiated in America in the nineteenth century by two young girls - the Fox sisters (Very aptly named). Later in life one of them confessed to cheating, and demonstrated how 'spirit-rapping' was achieved. By cracking the joint in her big toe.

gmc wrote: Helen Duncan is interesting, did she speak to the dead, picked up on something between the dead sailor and one of her audience or was she a spy which is what the authorities really thought. The fact is she spoke of an event that she could have had no way of knowing had happened.
Don't be naive. Duncan was merely doing something which a million other charlatans have done since time immemorial. They have thrown out a thousand predictions and got lucky once. And that's all that is needed to impress the gullible. For the gullible only remember the single 'hit' and happily overlook the 999 misses. This phenomenon is well documented.

Science has steadily revealed a universe which is infinitely more wonderful and mysterious than anything offered by spiritualism and other types of metaphysical pornography, and I think any person nowadays who turns his back on the former for the sake of the latter is vulgar-minded. I would say that this kind of person is not averse to freak shows or rushing to scenes of human disaster to peer at dead bodies and the walking wounded.

I won't go so far as to accuse you of gross indecency over the matter of spiritualism, gmc. I reserve that accusation for those who are into more hard core forms of metaphysical pornography such as Christianity and Islam. However, I do urge you to have more faith in Science. At least it won't rot your mind or make you go blind.

[AussiePam]

Glaswegian;1304677 wrote:

Science has steadily revealed a universe which is infinitely more wonderful and mysterious than anything offered by spiritualism and other types of metaphysical pornography, and I think any person nowadays who turns his back on the former for the sake of the latter is vulgar-minded. I would say that this kind of person is not averse to freak shows or rushing to scenes of human disaster to peer at dead bodies and the walking wounded.

I won't go so far as to accuse you of gross indecency over the matter of spiritualism, gmc. I reserve that accusation for those who are into more hard core forms of metaphysical pornography such as Christianity and Islam. However, I do urge you to have more faith in Science. At least it won't rot your mind or make you go blind.


This is a most wonderful piece of purple-prose creative writing!!!

[Glaswegian]

AussiePam;1304680 wrote: This is a most wonderful piece of purple-prose creative writing!!!
Thank you, kitten.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1304677 wrote: You're right. A number of eminent people have been involved with spiritualism - for example, William James, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Alfred Russel Wallace. Regarding these three men, the first was a closet religionist; the second was driven to believe in 'spirits' as a result of bereavement; and the third was extremely gullible in spite of his scientific credentials.

Don't be surprised at the level to which men of the intellectual calibre of James, Doyle and Wallace will sink in order to satisfy their deep need to believe in the reality of the 'supernatural'. I think you will find that spiritualism is often used as a half-way house by those who are no longer able to take the claims of Religion seriously but who are still reluctant to abandon the latter completely.

If you look at the history of spiritualism you will see that it is nothing more than an insufferably long fiasco of fraud and flim-flam. Indeed, this movement was born of trickery of the most mundane sort. Spiritualism was initiated in America in the nineteenth century by two young girls - the Fox sisters (Very aptly named). Later in life one of them confessed to cheating, and demonstrated how 'spirit-rapping' was achieved. By cracking the joint in her big toe.



Don't be naive. Duncan was merely doing something which a million other charlatans have done since time immemorial. They have thrown out a thousand predictions and got lucky once. And that's all that is needed to impress the gullible. For the gullible only remember the single 'hit' and happily overlook the 999 misses. This phenomenon is well documented.

Science has steadily revealed a universe which is infinitely more wonderful and mysterious than anything offered by spiritualism and other types of metaphysical pornography, and I think any person nowadays who turns his back on the former for the sake of the latter is vulgar-minded. I would say that this kind of person is not averse to freak shows or rushing to scenes of human disaster to peer at dead bodies and the walking wounded.

I won't go so far as to accuse you of gross indecency over the matter of spiritualism, gmc. I reserve that accusation for those who are into more hard core forms of metaphysical pornography such as Christianity and Islam. However, I do urge you to have more faith in Science. At least it won't rot your mind or make you go blind.


Now you're havering glaswegian. I don't need to have faith in science because it is not a base religion that requires blind belief. While science has opened up the universe there are still many things it cannot explain not least of which is what actually happens to our consciousness after we are dead. If you did watch that documentary about duncan you would realise there was a bit more to it than mere trickery. I am actually familiar with the history of spiritualism and would agree with you in your assessment and certainly post ww1 there were a lot of charlatans wanting to take advantage of the bereaved.

But there may yet be things we don't understand except in the vaguest terms. Casinos, for instance will ban people who can count the run of the cards, it seems magical till you work out it is just an ability they have and have developed that others haven't. People who are good at poker and blackjack aren't just lucky.

Like you probably I grew up with tales of the second sight. Most of them are nonsense but every now and then something happens that can't be explained. Be it knowing something has happened to one of your family when there is no reason you should expect anything to wrong or just having an urge to call someone you haven't spoken to in years to find them thinking of you. Duncan was one such it seems. Leaving aside the gobbledegook what happened?

Personally I wouldn't attribute supernatural intervention any more than I believe in fairies or those ridiculous people who claim to be able to predict the future and are always right after the event, they never seem to grasp that a prediction that makes no sense is pretty useless.

But I wouldn't mock anyone who finds it interesting and wants to know more. On the other hand if they came up with explanations that they couldn't prove In wouldn't take them seriously either.

YouTube - Derren Brown Interview (2/6) - Richard Dawkins

I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of havering or even ranting but you damage your well reasoned case and do yourself little justice when you fall in to the trap of disparaging those you disagree with. The only response that will get you consists of two words at which point no one is listening.

[Ahso!]

gmc;1304823 wrote: While science has opened up the universe there are still many things it cannot explain not least of which is what actually happens top out consciousness after we are dead. No credible science I've ever heard of does seek to explain this. Consciousness takes place in the brain, doesn't it? Unless the brain itself lives on indefinitely, consciousness dies with the rest of the body.

I do agree though that insulting religious people such as has been done is not going to do anything except cost the poster credibility. Continued insistence that believers are psychopathic is so far off the mark its becoming laughable. But you obviously don't care, do you?

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1304823 wrote: Now you're havering glaswegian. I don't need to have faith in science because it is not a base religion that requires blind belief. While science has opened up the universe there are still many things it cannot explain not least of which is what actually happens top out consciousness after we are dead. If you did watch that documentary about duncan you would realise there was a bit more to it than mere trickery. I am actually familiar with the history of spiritualism and would agree with you in your assessment and certainly post ww1 there were a lot of charlatans wanting to take advantage of the bereaved.

But there may yet be things we don't understand except in the vaguest terms. Casinos, for instance will ban people who can count the run of the cards, it seems magical till you work out it is just an ability they have and have developed that others haven't. People who are good at poker and blackjack aren't just lucky.

Like you probably I grew up with tales of the second sight. Most of them are nonsense but every now and then something happens that can't be explained. Be it knowing something has happened to one of your family when there is no reason you should expect anything to wrong or just having an urge to call someone you haven't spoken to in years to find them thinking of you. Duncan was one such it seems. Leaving aside the gobbledegook what happened?

Personally I wouldn't attribute supernatural intervention any more than I believe in fairies or those ridiculous people who claim to be able to predict the future and are always right after the event, they never seem to grasp that a prediction that makes no sense is pretty useless.

But I wouldn't mock anyone who finds it interesting and wants to know more. On the other hand if they came up with explanations that they couldn't prove In wouldn't take them seriously either.

YouTube - Derren Brown Interview (2/6) - Richard Dawkins

I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of havering or even ranting but you damage your well reasoned case and do yourself little justice when you fall in to the trap of disparaging those you disagree with. The only response that will get you consists of two words at which point no one is listening.


There are a lot of interesting things in your post. But let me address just a couple of them for the moment.

gmc wrote: I don't need to have faith in science because it is not a base religion that requires blind belief.


You're right. Science requires empirical evidence. Nothing less.

gmc wrote: While science has opened up the universe there are still many things it cannot explain not least of which is what actually happens top out consciousness after we are dead.


Yes, consciousness is mysterious. But there is no logical reason why Science won't be able to account for it in, say, twenty years or fifty years or two hundred years.

Science has had only four centuries to show what it can do (leaving aside the marvellous contribution made by the Ancient Greeks). If it has taught us anything then it is this - we should not be overly awed by the mysterious. We should not behave in the manner of the monkeys in 2001: A Space Odyssey when they were confronted with the monolith. We do ourselves a disservice when we take that approach.

It wasn't so long ago that human illness was regarded as mysterious. We had no real idea of what caused it. Religion, of course, held that it was brought about by demons. But Religion is colossally ignorant. Then Science gave us the germ theory of disease. Why shouldn't human consciousness eventually prove just as amenable to rational explanation?

Imagine a century from now Neuroscience discovers that consciousness is necessarily tied to the brain. Then Religion will be dealt a crushing blow. And millions of people who are psychologically dependent on the belief in an afterlife in order to get through this life will be very put out as well. It is because Science has the potential to make discoveries of this kind that many religionists are extremely hostile towards it.

[Glaswegian]

Ahso!;1304829 wrote: Continued insistence that believers are psychopathic is so far off the mark its becoming laughable. But you obviously don't care, do you?Yes, I do care. And so would you if one of those psychopathic believers was seated next to you on a bus with a load of Semtex up his arse.