Blu

Hello there DarkBronzePlant,

I don't know why I keep coming to this forum because I am sick and I should be sleeping and yet I feel compeled to answer you.

Yeats case: Well first of all we have a psychological/biological disorder which led to false delusions. I believe the woman thought she didn't raise them well enough which prompted her to kill them.

Depression isn't a tool. Depression is a state of mind it also has biological implications. I wouldn't say Depression or psychosis are inanimate objects such as religious doctrine, knives and computers, books, music, etc. So no, my analogy in fact does not include psychological disorders.

I believe there are reasons behind people's actions. But the individual is always the responsible party regardless of reasons. People sometimes like to blaim their abusive childhood for the crimes they commmit or the rapes they do which is another scapegoat. The individual is always responsible and should be held responsible.

In the case of Andrea Yeats, she is responsible but there is the psychological/biological factor to contend with. In the legal system it is a factor to whether or not someone is guilty. It would be a humane thing to keep the woman in a psychiatric ward for prisoners...

also it would be a positive thing if some psychologist/psychiatrist study her. Give her tests, EEG, MRI, CAT scans... So maybe they can come up with data involving her symptoms, her delusions, etc. So then publish this data so other health and mental health care professionals can work to prevent similar cases from ending in murder of innocent children.

I am not sure but it sound to me that you are comparing a psychological/biological disorder to religion and that if we just blaimed Yeats for killing her kids then we miss the so called motivation aspect to her murderous actions.

Murderers may vary well have a psychological/biological disorder which insights murder but most terrorists and cultures of people who would love to kill another group of different ethnicty or religion do not suffer from mass psychosis.

My specific argument was geared towards people who premedatate, plan (elaborately) murder and claim they do it all in the name of religion. These people are most likely not suffering from major delusions which bring about states of catatonia and psychosis(in the case of Yeats).

I really do not understand how you could make a comparison. One, I might not have explained my "analogy" well enough. Or two, you completely missed the ballpark!

Blu

Another thing: Psychological/biological disorders are inside the person. Religious doctrine, music, books, etc are all outside the person (inanimate objects.)

So I most definitely do not consider psychological/biological disorders as inanimate objects ... they don't have anything to do with my analogy involving tools and how people use them!

I hope you see this most important detail!

ju'iblex

Dont be, you took the time to make a post, i took the time to read it and respond. Nothing more sinister than that.

Nevertheless, your remarks about muslims can be considered offensive because you chose to single them out as killers. And do you know this first-hand?


Indeed i do, however, i disagreed with your arguments, and so i thought i might add my 2 cents.

To answer that we would have to know what it was intended for in the first place.

I dont deny, nor do i think any one denies that humans are responsible for their actions. But the problem i have is that you completely disassociate religion as a factor.

It can be used as a mind control device, we see it on the news everyday, terrorists or not. Yes the persons hatred is a culprit of their actions, but religion can be used to incite and inspire this hatred in the first place. Whether it comes from the original doctrine or not is irrelevant.

i would also disagree with whoever said that as well. and youre quite correct about human aggression.

actually, that idea doesnt lead on particularly well to that conclusion.

And its obviously not clear enough.

Answerer

Well BLU, I do not know that you have seen my last post to you anot. Nevertheless, lets carry on, you are pretty wrong if you say religion is not mind-controlling device, I say that time and over again, it is and it will be. Majority of the past people's past conflicts and anti-progess are caused by this mind-controlling thing, life will a whole lots better without them, for I seen that the disadvantages of religions has ovverwhelmed the advantages that it could bring.
Next, you talk about Muslims as thought their religion are so pure and kind-hearted one. Please if you actually look carefully into the Koran you will find out that it was actually condemning christians and Jews and infidel to the eternal horrors of Hell. So where in the world, did they show respect for other religions, if you insist that they do , you must show me otherwise with facts. Anyway, how do you know that the muslims aren't pretending, some of they may look friendly on the surface but deep down inside, they are actually condemning other non-muslims to hell after they died. Frankly speaking, I have seen such people before, they are quite of a hyprocite if you come to think of it.

ju'iblex

Answerer, i am appaled at your view on Muslims. All religions condemn the other somewhere in their teachings.



Unbelievable! How on Earth can you make such a sweeping generalisation??? What kind of evidence do you have to back bullshit like that up with?

Frankly i think you need to actually talk to a muslim. They are human you know, not some evil creature so consumed with hatred for those who are different.

Blu

Oh you Guys!


Answerer,

Please give human beings a little credit. Religion does not control people's minds. In cults, it is not even the ideas that "brain wash" people. It is the leader using techniques. It is group influence. A group of like minded people can use techniques. It is psychology and they have actually done research on this. Even then religion is a tool and the group of human minds are actually using the tool for negative things.

Take away the human factor and what do you have? An impotent inanimate object or tool that just sits there until it is picked up by people who have an agenda. If religion was the culprit then for example, you would only have to touch or read a sentence from the Bible and all of the sudden you are brainwashed. I can say with confidence that the Bible and any other religious doctrine do not possess spells that can prompt you to kill or give money to those TV preachers.

I don't seem to be either explaining myself correctly or you guys are just so intent on seeing religion as the culprit that you have already decided against seeing the other factors involved.

To tell you the truth guys, I am tired. You can continue to believe falsehoods and misconceptions for just as long as your minds want to.

I am ending this discussion because you obviously haven't done any study involving psychology. You have not read up on Cults. And when you add a bias against religion it all equals a dead discussion. Bias is a dangerous thing because once you start looking through the lenses of bias you suddenly have limited vision and a cloudy perspective on anything involving the aspect you are biased against.

I should have seen it before I started this.

So have fun!

DarkBronzePlant

Hello.
Yes, it's the curse on being on discussion boards like this. I am the same way. Lots of better things to do, yet... here I am.
I'll first put a caveat in here that states that my analogy--like almost any analogy--is not water tight. Now that that's out of the way...

Okay, depression made Yates feel she didn't raise her kids properly. Relogion--Christianity in general--teaches its followers that they are inherently unworthy and essentially need to succumb to this notion. I see similarities so far.
Depression is a state of mind, religion is a state of mind. As you point out, depression has some biological roots; religion, to my knowledge, does not. Score one for you.
Agree with all the above.
I actually wasn't intending to; I was really getting at the difference between religion and knives/computers, using mental illness as a more clear, more "neutral" example. But it's an interesting route to take. I certainly think there are similarities, however. Your point about many psycological disorders having biological roots is a good distiction. However, the end results... e.g. someone thinking that demons are telling them to kill their kids versus e.g. someone thinking that some all-powerful diety is telling them to hate & kill gays... are often quite similar. Where to draw the line between the two? Strictly at whether or not there is a biological component? I'm not a psychologist or anything similar; perhaps that is where to draw the line.
Well, no, they suffer from religion (at least the latter do). Again, the end result is quite similar.
I think we differ in our points of view on these types of events, so let me try to illustrate where our differences lie:

You would say that someone decides to commit a horrible crime, be it killing a gay person or flying a 767 into an office building, for whatever reason (maybe political, maybe they just don't like the other person, whatever.) Then, they come up with an excuse to explain their actions, and merely borrow religion as an excuse ("god told me to do it; the bible/koran says I should do it.") Essentially, you say that the crime would still have been committed with or without religion.

Is that correct?

Versus me; I think that religion motivates these people (well most; can't generalize to all) to commit these crimes. Why does the killer hate the gay person and kill him? Because the bible says to and god says to. Would these feelings and these actions have existed without the bible. No. Why does the terrorist fly an airliner into an office building? Obviously there are political motives as well, but what motivates him to go so far as to kill himself, thus allowing him to commit such a grand-scale attack? Because allah and the koran tell him that war must be waged against the infidels, and if he does a good job at it and dies, he'll get rewarded with 70-some-odd virgins in heaven. Would he have had animosity towards the U.S. without religion? Perhaps (although debating how international relations would be grealty improved without religion is another topic ). Would he have thought it best to kill himself in such a grand, horrible fashion without religion? No.
Again, there are differences between the two. And I wasn't really going for making a tie between religion and insantiy, so much as a difference between religion and knives/computers. I can see how my point may not have been clear enough. Perhaps I can better explain my original point in this manner:

Knives/computers do not tell us that war should be waged against non-believers. Religion does.

Knives/computers do not tell us that we should be concerned with what people do in their private lives, when it doesn't affect us. Religion does.

Knives/computers do not tell us that we should kill people if they act on certain impulses, even if such actions harm no one. Religion does.

Knives and computers just sit there. They are useles, until someone decides to pick one up, or turn one on, and use it. They person may use it for good or bad. How the person uses it is based on what s/he knows, and what his/her motivations are. And a person does not learn from, or gain motivation from, a knife or a computer. A knife or a computer does not teach a person anything. A knife or a computer does not instill any motivation in a person (outside of, say, "I want to learn how this thing works.")

Religion, on the other hand, exists only to teach, and to instill motivation inside people. Religion exists to tell people "You must think this way. You must act this way. You must not do these things. And you must do these other things." Religion is not a passive thing, sitting on a table until someone decides to use it. Religion is not a thing to be used. It is an ideology that is spread. That makes people think a certain way, and causes them act certain ways and perform certains acts... with tools like computers and knives.

Anyhow, I hope we can continue this conversations... I'm enjoying it and actually getting a lot out of it.

DBP

DarkBronzePlant

Darn, Blu, I just now read your last post before my response. Hopefully you'll continue. Like I said, I find this conversation interesting, and of all of the religious topics I've discussed, one that I am truly interested in learning other viewpoints on, rather than just bullheadedly presenting my own opinion.

JonAkbarSpielberg

Hi all,

First time here and all I read is NEGATIVE ENERGY! Shame on you all.

Humans are and will always be an animal that likes confrontations. No matter what. Take our current society system. Work, Sport, TV etc. is all filled negative energy. For example in sports two teams are playing to entertain you and all of the fans take it so seriously. It's just entertainment.

Why are we all so obessed into proving each other wrong. Instead take the good and pass it on to others. We are all so busy trying to prove that religions are bad but don't see what other good it brings. We forget that. Remember religion is a tool for us like TV. On TV you can either show porn/voilence which generates negative energy or show Sesame Street/Barney (lol)/Discoveries which only promotes positive engery. Don't we all want that.

Fine all the religions have their bugs what else doesn't (Eg. Windows is still not the best OS but I'm using it, eventhough I'm a Unix user. They both have thier pro's and con's but both are needed in this world.) Every religion has the SAME basic rules (respect each other, don't kill, be fair, etc) that if ALL humans follow this then we won't have problems. Which is IMPOSSIBLE because as humans we LOVE confrontations. We like to piss each other off and enjoy it.

Some believe Science is the answer but if you look @ it closely they are also a religion within themselves. They themselves don't know the asnwer but CLAIM that they do. Take science from 50yrs from now and it was TOTALLY different. To me science also good to an extent until we try to label it the saviour of mankind. It is nothing more is a guess made by someone who is "supposedly" smarter than you and his/her guess is better than you.

So my point is take all the positive points from everywhere, even if comes from religions, science, barney (lol - i love that show b/c it makes me feel like a kid again) and pass those on to others because you'll be only remembered what good you did in this world.

And those are my 2 1/2 cents.

Thanks for reading.

Synaesthesia

That “god-shaped” hole that people speak of has been gouged out by our socially transmitted conceptions of metaphysics. God, like many ideas, creates a need for itself. It’s one of those odd feedback loops that we find so often in stable systems, be they genetic organisms or meme pools.

God is an artifact of cultural proclivities, not an innate feature of man’s musings. Millions of people today and throughout history have no use for the god hypothesis. Even amongst the majority of humans in recent history (and especially in these modern times), many believe in God simply by default rather than from any special need or interest.