Nitpick:  the theory of evolution is a THEORY, not a fact.  It is a theory that happens to fit the FACTS (that is, measurable observations) extremely well, and it can be used reliably to predict future observations, and it has withstood deliberate, careful examination, which is why we still use it.

However, bear in mind that if we come across a better theory tomorrow, that does all of this BETTER than the theory of evolution, we’re duty-bound to replace it.

Oh, and religion isn’t any more divisive than other forms of tribalism.  Ask the Tutsis and the Hutus, or the Hema and the Lendu people who are currently killing, cooking and eating each other (if eyewitness reports are to be believed).

Further proof is the observable fact that some atheists just can’t resist indulging their own brand of tribalism, accusing dissidents of being insane.

Evolution is as close to absolute fact as any scientific theory will ever get.
I think this site here explains what I mean when I say “Evolution is Fact”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Oh, and religion isn�t any more divisive than other forms of tribalism. Ask the Tutsis and the Hutus

Yes lets do that shall we, here is an article from an African news source that I think is quite clear.
http://www.afrol.com/features/10600

Creating a Hutu identity
In 1957, the Hutu catechist Gregoire Kayibanda, under the ideological patronage of J.P. Harroy, the Belgian Governor of Rwanda and Mgr. Perraudin, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Rwanda, publishes the ‘Hutu Manifesto’ demanding the political authority be granted to the Hutu majority. According to the present Rwandan government, in that year “the Catholic Church encourages Gregoire Kayibanda and his associates to form political parties ... to champion ‘Bahutu interests’
In 1959 “PARMEHUTU (Le Parti du Mouvement de l’emancipation Hutu) is established under the guidance of the Catholic church by the proponents of delayed independence. PARMEHUTU was also openly sectarian and anti-Batutsi,” again according to the Rwandan government. The same year, the first massacres of thousands of Tutsi is organized by radicalized Hutus, “under Belgian supervision”.

This is NOT “Tribalism” the Tutsi/Hutu had existed together for centuries under their own rule with the usual tribal skirmishes and such but not genocide, that distinction is almost entirely religiously motivated.
Nothing comes close to the divisiveness of religion.

Here is more background on what REALLY caused this genocide to take place, why Christian missionaries of course.
http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/CAQ52Rw2t.html

The “Hema & Lendu” conflict is largely just a direct continuation of the earlier Hutu/Tutsi genocide.

Yes i continue to believe that any adult in the year 2004 that fully 100% believes the Bible and everything in it cover to cover as absolute truth is in my view clearly suffering from delusions & mental disorders.
There is really no other viable option that i can come up with.
Show me another option that makes more sense & I will be glad to acknowledge it.

Nunyabiz, I think what GeekMom was trying to get at was the fact that since evolution has not quite been fully proven (but has a lot of evidence supporting it), it is considered, scientifically AND literally, a theory.  Creation
“theory”, however named, is not a theory, though, because it has no scientific basis and cannot be scientifically disproven.  It is a completely out of touch “hypothesis” and therefore should NOT be taught in schools as fact.

As far as your opinion on religous people goes - I share it, but not to that level of severity.  Sure, I think religious people are under a delusion, but that’s more of a form of mass theistic hysteria.  They’ve been taught that life from birth, and when you get right down to it, the religion itself forbids one to question it.  So I don’t think less of these people, as one might interpret your… uh… interpretation, but rather I think of them as less fortunate.

Nobody is born independent; in fact, all of us are born quite the opposite.  We grow up in tune to what we are exposed to, to the people we know and by the values we are instilled with from a young age.  Not everyone’s values are based on the same principles, and to assume everybody who believes in the Bible is insane is to say that they are.

It occurs to me that whether or not Christians that believe the Bible to be “literally true” are clinically insane or not is a question that can be settled once and for all.

Conduct treatment as suggested in a double-blind study.

And we may not even have to do that. Is there any statistical evidence that persons treated for psychosis are losing religion, so to speak?

Nunyabiz, I think what GeekMom was trying to get at was the fact that since evolution has not quite been fully proven (but has a lot of evidence supporting it), it is considered, scientifically AND literally, a theory. Creation
�theory�, however named, is not a theory, though, because it has no scientific basis and cannot be scientifically disproven. It is a completely out of touch �hypothesis� and therefore should NOT be taught in schools as fact.

Well see above website again for why I consider Evolution as much if not more so a Fact as I do a theory, because most of what’s known about Evolution is indeed fact.

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
This quote is IN Biology textbooks, was in one of my first textbooks:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves… it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings,

Evolution is just as much fact as the Theory of Gravity, last I checked if I drop this Keyboard its hitting the ground & doing so because of that pesky “Theory” of Gravity.
The Fact that this keyboard WILL hit the ground shows the fact of Gravity, the theory is just the various mechanism’s that explain why & how.

As far as your opinion on religious people goes - I share it, but not to that level of severity. Sure, I think religious people are under a delusion, but that�s more of a form of mass theistic hysteria. They�ve been taught that life from birth, and when you get right down to it, the religion itself forbids one to question it. So I don�t think less of these people, as one might interpret your� uh� interpretation, but rather I think of them as less fortunate.

As far as your “Mass Theistic Hysteria” model yes I agree to a point, just like most things there are varying degree’s of “Hysteria” (Hys*te"ri*a, n.A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.)

I think the majority of Christians fall into this most basic category approx. 65-75%.
These people exhibit just a mild “mental disorder” & gullibility and as you say is largely due to childhood indoctrination of which once embroiled “the religion itself forbids one to question it” therefore only a very small percentage (approx. 1% yearly)manage to question it enough to face reality.

Then we enter the realm of the Christian Fundamentalist of which there is approx. 70 Million walking the streets of the USA, this count is of their own accord through answering census/poll questions not a questimation on my part.

Now it is this roughly 25-35% of the self proclaimed Christian population that is by far most disturbing as they are in my view at least exhibiting far more than a mild hysteria or minor disorder & gullibility/lack of common sense.

Its these fine upstanding “God Fearing” Christians that show strong signs of mental disorders ranging from “Shared Psychotic Disorder”
http://www.angelfire.com/home/bphoenix1/shared.html
Cognitive Dissonance.

various degrees of Paranoid & Residual Schizophrenia

“Delusional Disorders
Behavioral Pattern Characteristics
firm fixed system of delusion in otherwise well-balanced personality
delusional system centers around feelings of persecution and grandiosity
major areas of delusional activity most frequently involved:
religion
politics
another person
delusional system slowly develops after false interpretation of an actual occurrence (Miracles)
no hallucinations involved-individual simply becomes convinced that a certain thing or situation is true - individual will accept no proof, regardless of how convincing it is that his/her concept is wrong”. (Classic Cognitive Dissonance).

Religious hatred hard at work.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file012.html

Here is some good old delusions for you, I saw today on the news about this Texas Woman that stoned her children, now without any doubt in my mind at least she is obviously mentally ill.
Funny how it seems as though the vast majority of the insanity we see on a daily basis like this has a Religious Origin isn’t it?

Of course all we ever see are the ones that have already gone completely off the deep end with their religious lunacy while Millions of others equally insane are just waiting for the trigger keeping their insanity “Compartmentalized”.

http://www.biblenews1.com/history3/20030512.htm

Now this website I listed here quite ironically is a Website authored by what *to me* is without ANY doubt whatsoever just another of the MILLIONS of Americans suffering from religious delusional mental illness, read that website carefully if you will then I dare you to say otherwise.
BTW after coming across this website I felt it my civic duty to report this nutcase (Larry Wood)
http://www.biblenews1.com/aboutus.htm#About Us
to the Florida FBI Miami div.
This idiot clearly needs to be hunted down and institutionalized before he injures himself or others around him.

There are Millions just like him, either Religion breeds insanity, or Insanity breeds religion that’s a chicken/Egg question I have yet to figure out, but it is definitely one or the other.

Nobody is born independent; in fact, all of us are born quite the opposite. We grow up in tune to what we are exposed to, to the people we know and by the values we are instilled with from a young age.

Agreed, although it is this early indoctrination that literally destroys a child’s ability to think rationally in later years.

We have discovered that the human brain is very malleable in its first decade and that evil visited upon children can have lifelong and inescapable consequences.

Actual physical/chemical pathways are laid down in childhood while unused ones wither and die. A child’s brain eventually becomes less malleable and as adults the learning process is much less efficient. Pathways set down in childhood tend to remain. Destroying a child’s right to think clearly is no small damage. A religious upbringing that includes irrational beliefs in invisible magic beings tends to destroy the child’s ability to think rationally and thus tends to destroy the child’s sanity.

A parent who lobotomized her healthily noisy five year old child to make him quiet and compliant would be condemned as evil beyond description. A parent who physically damages a child’s brain with irrational beliefs has committed an act that is equally evil and should be condemned equally.

The habit of irrational thought carries through to other realms… making the victim less able to learn to think logically and rationally about non-religious subjects. This is where we see compartmentalization… folks block off the “religious/irrational beliefs section” from the rest of their thought processes.

This compartmentalization is akin to that of serial killers, like Ted Bundy, who compartmentalize “the beast” and function otherwise as upstanding “young republicans”. A compartmentalized belief system may temporarily allow its believer to function in the real world while privately holding insane thoughts in check. Despite outward “normalcy”, however, the tension between the two beliefs is always there and stressing the believer. *Edit by me: (Cognitive Dissonance)*

We can see this here in this echo. Regularly, the religiously deluded offer up religious beliefs that are neither internally consistent nor consistent with observed reality. In virtually every case you will discover that the deluded were exposed to religious indoctrination either formally or informally in their early childhood.
Caroline Evans.

http://www.skeptictank.org/psycho.htm

forgot to add “Temporal Lobe Epilepsy” to that list of disorders.
This disorder is largely believed to be responsible for many of the Bibles “Miracles”.

http://healingwellepilepsy.subportal.com/health/Diseases_and_Conditions/Neural/Epilepsy/504965.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm

Good article on the insanity of religion, I agree with every word.
http://ffrf.org/articles/?t=others/dawkins.txt

Nunyabiz,

I find your persistent labelling of fundamental Christians as mentally ill as offensive as the sanctimonious Bible-thumping of the other party.

We can agree that fundamental Christians are in denial about certain scientific facts and theories that threaten core tenets of their faith and their religious authority, but you still have to make a clinical case for your diagnosis. You are qualified to make that diagnosis, aren’t you? It would improve your case if you could publish or point out a study that confirms that patients treated for psychosis incidentally tend to lose religious faith. Or perhaps you can convince David to go on meds?

Apropos fact and theory - if you willfully equate fact and theory, you’re crossing over into the fundamentalist camp.

We also agree that fundamentalists of any ilk dictating national and foreign policy is a bad thing. No need to preach to the deconverted.

Believe as you wish Elwed, as will I.

To me I think they are Mentally ill since I have no other explanation that fits the facts better and so far neither do you.

I see no alternative answer when in this day & age an adult that *is not* mentally ill, delusional, would ever for a second believe the Earth to be approx. 6000 years old, to believe 100% in the Genesis Flood, to believe 100% that humans “pre-flood” lived to be over 900 years old and so on the absurdities are many.

There are some things Elwed that just flat out don’t require a professional diagnosis.

Such as you get shot in the leg you don’t have to ask the doctor what’s wrong with you.

Such as to believe as a Christian Fundamentalist believes I don’t particularly need a Psychiatrist to tell me they are suffering from some mental illness, its as obvious as being shot in the leg.
There isn’t any other logical explanation.

You find my labeling Fundamentalist is offensive, that’s your opinion.
I find Fundamentalist offensive, that’s my opinion.

you just need to live with it, as i accept your opinion.

Obviously you don’t comprehend what I’m talking about at all as far as Fact Vs Theory and apparently there isn’t much need to define it further. Maybe try rereading it is all I can suggest because you certainly don’t get it.

Which is fine since I’m in very good company in thinking Evolution to be fact & that Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.
Hmmm Elwed, or Stephen J Gould, Richard Dawkins, Douglas Adams, Dan Barker, Robert Igersoll, and many many more, yeah I’ll stick to thinking Evolution is fact till someone shows ANY evidence to the contrary, so far 1000s upon 1000s have failed to do so in 150 years so I’m thinking I’m kinda safe in my “Evolutionary Fundamentalist” viewpoint. LOL

Nunya, you are not a mental health professional, yet I’m supposed to take your word for a sweeping clinical diagnosis. I’m afraid hand waving as an argument doesn’t suffice. In fact, it’s on a par with the arguments in favor of the Genesis.

One thing that you neglect to mention is that persons suffering from psychosis are barely socially functional - across the board and not limited to one particular glitch. I trust the ramifications don’t escape you.

I know exactly what the scientific method is all about and am well aware of the distinction between fact and theory. However, I cannot in good conscience assume the same about you. If you had said that there are neither known nor conceivable facts that contradict the current theory of evolution, I would agree. To state a belief that a theory (no matter how well-founded) is fact means that at best you take liberties with scientific language.

You seem to take the stance that the lack of complete buy-in to your point of view implies total opposition. That sounds familiar, too.

I realize English is not your first language so try reading what I say very slowly maybe you might understand it.

If you had said that there are neither known nor conceivable facts that contradict the current theory of evolution, I would agree

And iv been saying ALL ALONG.

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science �fact� can only mean �confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent”

Evolution is as close to fact as Science is able to get it, in YOUR OWN WORDS “or conceivable facts that contradict the current theory of evolution” No facts today and for over 150 years are even conceivable that possibly disagree!.
So Evolution is about 99.999% scientific fact.
I’m just going to assume that you must think the act of you sitting at your PC and responding & reading this website is just a “Theory” you have of something you might be doing. OK that’s fine, myself I take the liberty to pretty much overlook that 0.000001% chance that I’m actually not sitting at my keyboard.

So far as Evolution goes I and virtually ALL of the most eminent Scientist in the entire world all agree.....That’s good enough for me.
What you believe is of concern only to you and your certainly entitled to whatever it is that you believe.

So the end on that, I see no reason to discuss it further as any other explanation could not possibly make my point any clearer and its doubtful you would understand it anyway. I’m perfectly comfortable with my view on Evolution which is all that matters to any of us, your view may be slightly different, your comfortable with it, I accept your view as different than mine.

One thing that you neglect to mention is that persons suffering from psychosis are barely socially functional - across the board and not limited to one particular glitch. I trust the ramifications don�t escape you

Actually I’m fairly well versed in psychoanalytical methods but that’s besides the point, as I said when I’m shot in the leg no need to ask the professional (Doc) what’s wrong.

One thing you neglect to understand is that
Iv not said that every last single Christian on the planet suffers from full blown clinical psychosis, that is your misinterpretation.

What iv said and will say one last time is that Christian “Fundamentalist” which represent approx. 30+% of all Christians must be suffering from delusions and various other forms of mental/delusional disorders, �Shared Psychotic Disorder” fits the criteria well.
Argue with any Christian fundamentalist about Creationism and you are witnessing the clearest case study of “Cognitive Dissonance” you will ever see.
�Temporal Lobe Epilepsy� is yet another mental disorder that fits precisely to explain some religious delusions.
These are not ideas I’m just making up they are case studies.
Many of which iv already listed which all mean nothing to you so no point in listing any more.

BTW all you do is say I have no idea what I’m talking about then present ZERO evidence to back up your accusation, I on the other hand have listed tons of evidence from many different sources to back my view up.
I believe its clear whom has the “hand waving” argument down pat. That’s all you got.

Just what the hell do you believe? or do you even know?

Do you believe in Creationism?
Do you believe in Intelligent Design?
Do you believe in Evolution?
Do you believe in Christian fundamentalism?

Apparently I must assume from your responses that you think the Christian Fundamentalist that believe in the Bible as 100% absolute truth word for word must in your estimation have a legitimate, founded, provable, viewpoint that is based on logical reasoning of known facts.

Please explain.

Myself as iv said I can only reach the conclusion that they are suffering some mental disorder that precludes them from facing reality since nothing else I can think of explains such utter lunacy.

For instance do you think the ancient Aztecs were suffering religious delusions when they brutally carved up 10s of 1000s of human sacrifices to appease their Gods? Or as you say were they merely “in denial”?
If not then please explain just what it was that caused such barbaric savagery.

Do you not think maybe Christians in mass have never suffered from any religious delusions?

If not please explain The Crusades, The inquisition, killing witches worldwide, etc.

Do you think Christian Fundamentalist today believe any differently than Christians 1000 years ago?
If so explain how that is possible since they today believe 100% in the same Bible as Christians 1000 or more years ago.

So the very same ideas, the same thought processes, the same dogma, doesn’t effect Christians today at all like it did 1000 years ago?

So in your view just for the record, what would you call someone that believes absolutely 100% that all humans lived to be 900 years old prior to some global flood, that the earth is only about 6000 years old, that ALL humans and animals alive today are all descendants from 8 people and 2 of every animal that a 600+ year old man gathered in some Ark he built?

This is what you would deem to be “rational” thinking?

If not then how exactly or what process can you conceive would cause Millions of people to believe something completely “Irrational” that’s based entirely on hearsay & dogma with no more basis in reality than what the Ancient Aztecs believed, as a matter of fact it has LESS basis in reality because these Fundamentalist have the FACTS right in front of them, scientifically sound facts, they simply flatly refuse to acknowledge them, the Aztecs had nothing of the sort.

I realize English is not your first language so try reading what I say very slowly maybe you might understand it.

Not to be smug about it, but I have reason to believe that my command of the English language is at least as good as yours.

So Evolution is about 99.999% scientific fact.

I’m sorry, but it is not. It is and remains a theory that is currently uncontested in the scientific community. If you insist on calling it a fact you first have to prove Heisenberg wrong.

Since you seem confused by my stance, I’m unwaveringly convinced that the theory of evolution is right and that creationism is wrong. What I object to is your sloppy and counter-productive turn of phrase. By calling the theory of evolution a fact, you give religious believers an opening to chose with fact to accept and which to discard.

Apparently I must assume from your responses that you think the Christian Fundamentalist that believe in the Bible as 100% absolute truth word for word must in your estimation have a legitimate, founded, provable, viewpoint that is based on logical reasoning of known facts.

You assume wrongly, for I have neither said nor insinuated such a thing. Literal belief in the Bible in general and the Genesis in particular is an entirely irrational belief that I don’t share. However, your claim that Christian fundamentalists are mentally ill (in the clinical sense) is so far supported by nothing but a few ill-fitting definitions and the line “It’s so obvious that I don’t have to explain any further.” That is the classic hand waving argument. Remember, your claims are yours to prove.

Since you evade an answer, let me repeat: If what you claim is true, then you should be able to find statistical evidence that persons treated for psychosis will abandon long-held religious beliefs.

That “sloppy and counter productive turn of phrase” as you call it is straight from Stephen J Gould quoted verbatim.
You don’t like it complain to him.

He is only one of the most respected scientist in the field of Biology & professor of Biology at Harvard.

Your just going around in circles like a dog after his tail, you make no sense at all, you show no evidence whatsoever to back up anything you say, your just rambling and nit-picking to an extreme over semantics.
I see no reason to continue a one sided discussion with a dog chasing his tail its pointless.

/ignore

I’ve been tempted to speak up once or twice in this exchange, but Elwedriddsche is doing such a good job of covering the same points I would have raised that I haven’t bothered to chime in.

However, I would like to point out, in regards to whether Evolution is a fact or a theory, the following bit of input on the matter from the Talk.Origins Archive FAQ:

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes… how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
...
There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of “microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the “facthood” of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is “only” a theory which can’t be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word “fact.”

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a “fact” since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be “proven” and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won’t do in the real world. A “fact,” as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

In essence, both Nunya and Elwedriddsche are technically correct depending on which aspect of Evolution you’re talking about.

The confusion with Gould is that he (along with others) uses the word “evolution” both to describe the observable effects AND the current theory that explains them.  While I don’t argue with either one, I do object to them being used interchangeably—and, I might add, by an atheist troll who is only interested in using them as an all-purpose bludgeon for his rabid, irrational views.

(Yes, that’s you, Nunya.  Gould himself is a lot more rational about it than you are.  Embarrass yourself if you must, but leave him out of it.)

You have no proof for your stupid claim of clinical mental illness, because YOU clearly don’t understand anything about it.  A real mental illness isn’t compartmentalized to one set of beliefs; it affects the person’s whole life and dealings with himself and others, to the point where they CANNOT function in society.  Most religious people are perfectly rational and functional in most, if not all, other areas of their lives.  They CHOOSE to believe; they can choose to stop at any time.  Let’s take Les.  He was a believer, he read the Bible several times, figured out it didn’t make sense, and modified his worldview accordingly.  Did he recover from clinical psychosis all by his lonesome?  My, my.  Imagine if that worked for everybody ... we could hand out annotated bibles instead of thorazine.

You’re just a second-rate basher who obviously isn’t comfortable having a semantic discussion, which is why you’re turning tail and running (oops, I mean /ignoring).  Buh-bye.

Les, fair enough - but I had so much fun nitpicking.
And what Geekmom said.

Cant say as iv seen so many have absolutely no idea what a “mental illness” is or can be.
Though mostly what iv been saying has mainly been categorized as a “Mental Disorder” which can be anything from Cognitive Dissonance, Delusions, even Addiction, such as “Religious Addiction”

because YOU clearly don�t understand anything about it. A real mental illness isn�t compartmentalized to one set of beliefs; it affects the person�s whole life and dealings with himself and others, to the point where they CANNOT function in society

Really?, then explain serial killers that “function” in society for years and years undetected some even by their own families & close friends many of these have never been caught.
How many times have you heard on the news “Oh he was such a nice man cant believe he would do this I’m in shock” “That’s not the man I knew”
Actually more often than not compartmentalizing a set of beliefs is EXACTLY what occurs with various forms of mental illness.
Or is it your contention that oh say Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer or the lovely Eddie Gein were in your view not mentally ill in any way? That brutally hacking up & in the case of Dahmer eating the victim and keeps parts as trophies & defiling the dead body ( necrophilia)Eddie Gein was Hitchcocks rolemodel for Norman Bates in “Psycho” http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/gein/begin_2.html?sect=19

well that’s just normal brain function with no signs of any mental illness or disorder. Mmmkay
Not a one of you here apparently would pass basic psychology 101.

For some reason seems as though all of you have this mistaken idea that to be clinically identified as mentally ill means & ONLY means you must be spinning in circles, beating your head against walls, rocking back N forth as you sit in the middle of a rubber room with your eyes wide open never blinking watching the pretty pink giraffes walk by.
Mental illness can sometimes be hard to detect (Bi Polar, schizophrenia,etc.) you don’t always have a raving nut with knife in hand coming at you as your first clue, mental disorders are quite often never detected.

Most religious people are perfectly rational and functional in most, if not all, other areas of their lives.

BINGO! its called Compartmentalizing, just like most serial killers are perfectly rational and functional in most other areas of their lives.
Also and once again iv never said “most” religious people are mentally disturbed, iv clearly stated many times my concern is with that 30% of so of “Fundamentalist”, so less than a 1/3 in no way connotes “most”.
That fundamentalism or extremist part of religion obviously is not just Christians but ALL religions, Christianity & Islam being the worst since between the 2 comprise of approx. 3 1/2 Billion people.

I hardly believe what I’m hearing here actually.

If I’m not mistaken all of the non-Christian in here are fully aware that Christian Fundamentalist believe totally irrational ideas based solely on religious dogma of which science has proven 99.9999% to have originated from older Pagan religions/rituals.
They fully admit to believing 100% absolutely in what most of you here know perfectly well is absurd.
That most of you here would say or think if asked “Do you believe the Earth to be 6000 years old & that Dinosaurs walked with humans just a few 1000 years ago”? something like “To believe something that far out in left field id have to have lost my mind”

http://www.eunacom.net/Watters_Doctrine.htm

The Christian religion presents itself as the way to contentment, spiritual health, and salvation.  But is this really true?  In Deadly Doctrine: Health, Illness, and Christian God-Talk, Dr. Wendell Watters offers a powerful argument, based on his many years of clinical experience with individuals, couples, and families, that Christianity’s influence actually militates against human development in such vital areas as self-esteem, sexuality, and social interactions.  The tragic end result of Christian conditioning is too often antisocial behavior, sexual dysfunction, poor psychological development, anxiety, and even major psychiatric illness.
Recent research data in the fields of psychology and religion are adduced to show that patients with rigid belief systems manifest greater racism and less open-mindedness and flexibility than those with a more questioning scientific attitude toward life.  Biological predisposition’s toward severe depression and schizophrenia may also be aggravated by Christianity’s promotion of an extreme body-soul dualism, self-denial, and narrowly defined social roles.

This can be clearly seen manifesting in many ways right in front of your face assume you open your eyes.
Look at all the “Hate” groups, there are many 1000s
show me ONE that’s Atheist based, to my knowledge the grand total of those groups are ZERO.
Now lets have a look at the rest, 999 out of 1000 are ALL religious based Hate groups.
http://www.bcpl.net/%7Erfrankli/hatedir.pdf

The list is long not going to list 1000s you should get the idea just from this one list here, also keep in mind this is ONLY a partial list just tip of the iceberg this is only the few groups that take the time to make a website, there are many many 1000s more just operating out of Churches or where ever, some have just a few members, others have many 1000s of members. Altogether the represent many millions of members and virtually all are have religious roots & or ideals.
Then we have Christians bombing abortion clinics ala Randall Terry.

Of course none of this behavior seems the slightest bit abnormal, no mental problems here Nah~~
If you read a few hundred of those websites i can’t see how you could possibly think that way. They are crazy as a loon.

They CHOOSE to believe; they can choose to stop at any time. Let�s take Les. He was a believer, he read the Bible several times, figured out it didn�t make sense, and modified his worldview accordingly. Did he recover from clinical psychosis all by his lonesome? My, my. Imagine if that worked for everybody � we could hand out annotated bibles instead of thorazine.

Pretty smug comment coming from someone that has not a clue what they are talking about, many don’t actually “Choose” to believe, they are proselytized from childhood usually by parents or guardians someone they place strong confidence in, indoctrinated, brainwashed, and once in the cult and brainwashed most Christians especially the ones I have concerns over the fanatical ones, what do they do?
They surround themselves only with those that believe exactly as they do to reinforce their insane beliefs, go to church every week sometimes several times a week, when not in church they are watching such garbage as “The 700 Club” on TV, many actively try and proselytize others around them to further bolster these totally ludicrous beliefs that most of you in here don’t/cant/wont believe because you feel you would have to lose your mind to believe something so ridiculous. My-My.

You�re just a second-rate basher who obviously isn�t comfortable having a semantic discussion, which is why you�re turning tail and running (oops, I mean /ignoring). Buh-bye.

I’m a first rate basher.
No I don’t like to have a one sided discussion with someone that debates in a “PeeWee Herman’esk” fashion of “I know you are but what am I” “Are not” “Am To” that does nothing but berates and discredits yet never gives any evidence to back up anything they say.

You will note on just about every occasion I at least back up my argument with evidence that coincides with my view. Only other person that does is Les. so yes at a certain point I /ignore when I see whomever has nothing at all to say other than call names and make childish remarks.

The only confusion with Gould is you fail to understand what he is saying. No need for me to explain that any further since you will fail to understand what IM saying, that’s your problem not mine iv explained myself very clearly and effectively so any further discussion of it is nothing but repeating myself to a brick wall.

Even the Christians that haven’t gone off the deep end yet realize those that have, yet all you in here bury your head in the sand.

Religious addicts manipulate with guilt. Who dares to argue with the Bible? Who dares not side with God? How can anyone object to a godly lifestyle? When there is no balance, when religious addicts give their families no choice, when there is no room for differing opinions and beliefs, it becomes abusive. When they restrict their family’s lives, continually trying to force them into a belief system under threat of rejection, punishment, or abandonment, it becomes abusive. When God is used as a weapon, people often see God as the abuser, rather than the addict. Children who are raised in this kind of religious environment seldom have the opportunity to question those beliefs, especially if they are raised in a home in which doubting and questioning were punishable sins. They become judgmental, dogmatic, rigid, intolerant, and perfectionists just as their parents are. They become increasingly out of touch with their own emotions, they have been conditioned no to think for themselves. The dissenting spouse is portrayed as sinful and ungodly. Worse, when children are involved, they are often caught in a good parent/evil parent situation, creating great guilt and confusion.

This was written by Leo Booth a Preacher.
His book “When God becomes a drug”

(nunyabiz) I�m a first rate basher.

While I don’t doubt that you are sincere in that belief, rest assured that it is vastly exaggerated. I think even calling you a second-rate basher was a giving you too much credit. And since you admit openly to bashing, it puts you formally on a par with bible thumpers.

I think we understand what your opinions are, it’s just that you play into the hands of the Christian fundamentalists by giving all atheists and agnostics a bad name. The non-Christian crowd doesn’t appear to generally share your opinions, and the folks sitting on the fence will not be impressed by a self-confessed basher. In short, you are preaching to the wrong crowd.

Look at all the �Hate� groups, there are many 1000s
show me ONE that�s Atheist based, to my knowledge the grand total of those groups are ZERO.

I’d say you are an aspiring hate group with a single member, are you not?

usual response, useless drivel
Let me try your method since it is the preferred one here.

While I don�t doubt that you are sincere in that belief, rest assured that it is vastly exaggerated. I think even calling you a second-rate basher was a giving you too much credit. And since you admit openly to bashing, it puts you formally on a par with bible thumpers.

I know you are but what am I.

think we understand what your opinions are, it�s just that you play into the hands of the Christian fundamentalists by giving all atheists and agnostics a bad name. The non-Christian crowd doesn�t appear to generally share your opinions, and the folks sitting on the fence will not be impressed by a self-confessed basher. In short, you are preaching to the wrong crowd.

Am to.

I�d say you are an aspiring hate group with a single member, are you not?

Are not.

Brilliant!

http://users.hubwest.com/prophet/

http://www.adlusa.com/adl/

http://members.odinsrage.com/masterware/

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

and my personal favorite.

http://www.biblenews1.com/history4/20040331.htm#Fallujah

Yeah after looking at all this love on these websites I guess I was just mistaken.
How stupid of me to equate any mental disorders to all these fine Christians, my bad.

(nunyabiz)I see no reason to continue a one sided discussion with a dog chasing his tail its pointless.

/ignore

Promises, promises.

hi nunyabiz
oops I missed that opportunity to nit pick.

“The Fact that this keyboard WILL hit the ground shows the fact of Gravity, the theory is just the various mechanism�s that explain why & how.”
It’s the law of gravity and so far no one has explained the why or the how.
Apologies that this is my only contribution to this debate,but you guys debate far more elequontly than I ever could.
Plus I am in a different time zone.(sometimes feels like a different planet)