Insanity, Globally Accepted

49 posts / 0 new
Last post
S4Squelch's picture
Insanity, Globally Accepted

Insanity, Globally Accepted

Psychosis - a belief with no basis in reality.
As a race, Humanity has accepted psychosis as normal and the insanity it shows not as fantasy, but “fact”.
The god/gods which we are raised to believe in are nothing but psychosis. A psychotic belief in zero! Told that this henpecked hearsay, dogma, fantasy and delusion are 100% real.
Pushed that those with piety, the really deluded and psychotic, are praised as closer to god/gods. They are, but this only shows their distance from sanity.
If you have a problem with my words, see me as crazy, then, please, define “psychosis” in a way that belief in god/gods are not an absolute indication of your insanity.

Good luck out there

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

xenoview's picture
@op word salad

@op

word salad

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
?WTFF? at least it is shorter

?WTFF? at least it is shorter than your previous garbage.

David Killens's picture
Psychosis

Psychosis

Psychosis is an abnormal condition of the mind that results in difficulties determining what is real and what is not.

S4Squelch's picture
Yes, exactly Mr. Killens,

Yes, exactly Mr. Killens, thanks, How does this in any way differ from being brought up on a story that has no factual or real evidence. Religion is psychosis, abnormal mental difficulty determining real from fantasy. 

Good luck out there 

David Killens's picture
@S4Squelch

@S4Squelch

Religion is a powerful argument, granted, with no evidence of a god. But the story is pervasive, and many people tell the same story. It is not that theists are going contrary to the evidence, because there is no evidence to the contrary. So what is reality to those people, where there is no evidence for or against? And when pressed hard, almost all theists fall back on the "you have to have faith" argument.

If powerful evidence was presented that proved that there is no god, then they could be classified as psychotic. It really falls back onto whether there is powerful proof for or against a belief.

I do not consider most theists psychotic, rather ignorant, gullible and desperate to cling onto some way to escape the scariest thing imaginable, their own death, and also not to go against the community. In some places, if you are known to be an theist you will be shunned and ostracized. Maybe even murdered.

I offered the classic definition of psychosis, "Psychosis is an abnormal condition of the mind that results in difficulties determining what is real and what is not."

Theists have just as convincing an argument claiming that atheist are psychotic by the same definition.

The early gods were born out of a desire to explain phenomena, such as lightning, eclipses, and many other things. At that time, since there was no true understanding of the true causes (which most have now been revealed by science), a god was a viable and rational argument. Science and understanding has disproven most of the god claims, yet the social inertia continues. And like it or not, the fear of hell and Pascal's wager carries weight for these people.

I also find it difficult to classify most theists as psychotic because in almost every aspect of their lives and how they make decisions, they are rational and follow the evidence. Only in the case of religion do they ignore the rational and skeptical thought process, and grasp at the feel-good explanation.

Finally, how do you know that there is no god? If a god revealed itself tomorrow, then is it fair to claim that all of us atheists are barking mad and the theists the sane and rational ones?

S4Squelch's picture
Hey again, thanks for your

Hey again, thanks for your time,

I find your answer leaning towards an agnostic view with the “what if tomorrow...” bit, nothing personal if a god or gods appeared tomorrow then zero of the so called followers would be following him, her or them. How would they?
No indication to hold any scrutiny against.
“I heard the voice of god or gods”, “I had a vision of god”, “god told me I need a 9-year-old wife”, “no it was an angel of god that knocked me up!”
At best these are hallucinations, something needing an ambulance and possible long term therapy.
However, these were told by Humans. The highest likelihood is they’re lies.
Either way, believing in something you cannot determine as real or not.
Delusional psychosis is the same even en masse.
Sure some walk amongst us and seen like they are “ok”, but that walk is psychotic.
Psychotics believing their personal version of their familial “path” and they’ve based reality on that delusion.
Early gods, you are correct, were built in the same way.
Something scary, something unexplainable or extraordinary and zap “a god”.
Each consecutive deity built on a better lie, each group believing in the dis-reality.
We put on a new hat and moved on to the next lunatic’s “vision” and call it god, call it good and normal.
It’s psychosis.
To believe all’s ok because Harry Potter of the 300s or from whatever time period your book or belief is based on, really became a fad isn’t ok nor normal.
Hail J K not j c, give it a few years. It’s a far more complete and righteous fiction than the book those seeming “normal” people devote their lives, children, love and hate to.
Thanks again,

Good luck out there

David Killens's picture
I gave you a chance, I

I gave you a chance, I attempted to engage in a positive discourse. But you quickly went off the rails in your response. I am not wasting my time in chasing weird thoughts through a maze of confusion.

You have decided to label all theists as psychotic, and are working to prove it. Science and rational though does not work that way. You follow the evidence and look for reasonable explanations.

And you are playing the "count the hits and ignore the misses" game. Almost all theists are very sane and reliable. How can you explain that the very people you label as psychotic are firefighters, judges, doctors, and in professions of trust they do not violate?

S4Squelch's picture
Hey, sorry I’ve taken a

Hey, sorry I’ve taken a couple of days, and not a defense, but I had just replied to something that was negative.
I in no way meant you were wasting anything.
To answer, and I retired as a flight paramedic who had gone 2 years in medical school, those who often have in your face religious walls rarely hold those types of positions.
I never had a doctor pray over a patient I’d called or they decided to call.
The thing is this.
Were you less sane when you believed in Santa?
No, you didn’t have available information, and everyone you trusted said he is “real”!
Now, if you today you still believe in Santa, authentically, with all of the evidence in his lack of existence, you would be psychotic.
You possess a psychosis that is based on zero and further is contrary to all evidence.
Does that mean that person can’t hold a job?
No, just not as stable as possible and definitely hold a false reality.
Would I let someone who knows the Earth is flat work on my car? If they are competent, maybe, but not put me under or prescribe meds.
At their core they hold a psychosis which at a minimum reduces their ability to use intelligence.
Now, if you were going to court, facing something big, and your haggard-looking lawyer said “don’t worry, I prayed all night. You’ll be fine!”
You’d ask for a mistrial.
So if the label of “believer” is at the core of your decisions, your psychosis, everything post is based on the same.
If your daughter wasn’t breathing, and I arrived and placed my hands on her and prayed out loud to have god give back her soul, you’d fucking kill me.
My reality was not based on the reality of your daughter’s fictional situation.
So, again sorry it took a bit, but I would far rather my professionals, docs, and leaders not ask “wwjd” or rely on whatever deity.
I want them to have the clarity of mind to use logic and not fantasy and psychosis anywhere near the important decisions.
Thank you David,

Good luck out there

Tin-Man's picture
@S4 Re: Post ending with, ".

@S4 Re: Post ending with, "...I would far rather my professionals, docs, and leaders not ask “wwjd” or rely on whatever deity.
I want them to have the clarity of mind to use logic and not fantasy and psychosis anywhere near the important decisions."

Dang, dude. In all fairness, I have to admit I agree with most all of that post.

Cognostic's picture
Believing in Santa is not the

Believing in Santa is not the same as believing in a God. You need to read the frigging articles or just write the AMA. False Analogy. You are making bad arguments. False Analogies and basically showing your ignorance of the word Psychosis, AS IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY DEFINED BY DSM-5

I have seen doctors pray with families after the death of someone and I have seen idiot paramedics pray over people in transport. I was also an EMT-2 and worked as one for about 5 years before perusing a degree in nursing which I hated and then sociology and then psychology. I loved the emergency room but absolutely hated the wards. I loved working on the ambulance and being first at disasters. I hated the after care.

I will change my statement about idiot paramedics. Those people who were religious found it comforting when a paramedic would hold their hand and pray with them. Those that were unconscious, bleeding to death, in the throws of CPR, certainly did not need God's good prayers. They were done to make the paramedic feel better, not the client. (Notice how REALITY, can be interjected into negative assertions about religion. Absolute assertion about religion just serve to make people look stupid. You know, assertions like Christians are psychotic, when you actually ignore the definitions of psychotic to make the claim.)

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ S4

@ S4

the poor love is sprinkling disagrees anonymously all over...aaaaawwwwwww. Diddy id ums.

David Killens's picture
Where's my disagree?

Where's my disagree?

I feel so abandoned and dirty.

Cognostic's picture
I will agree with the fact

I will agree with the fact that no one gave you a disagree.

Tin-Man's picture
Did I hear somebody is

Did I hear somebody is handing out disagrees? Sweet! What do I have to do to get one of those bad boys?... Any suggestions?... Anybody?...

Cognostic's picture
@ TIN: I agree with all

@ TIN: I agree with all your disagrees. That's the best I can do.

Cognostic's picture
@Tin - They are free...

@Tin - They are free... here you go. Have fun. "Nope... I couldn't do it." Pointed the little arrow but could not push the button. Perhaps in one of my delusional states I could do it.

S4Squelch's picture
If you have a problem with my

If you have a problem with my words, see me as crazy, then, please, define “psychosis” in a way that belief in god/gods are not an absolute indication of your insanity.

Cognostic's picture
@S4Squelch: " Psychosis"

@S4Squelch: "please, define “psychosis” in a way that belief in god/gods are not an absolute indication of your insanity." Psychosis" If you ever read a book, you would not need other people to do your research for you. You are engaged in an argument from ignorance fallacy." DONE!

(Ignorance: "An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. You want to believe the ignorant shit you believe until someone proves you wrong. This is not how anyone with an ounce of ability to be skeptical or evaluate anything critical responds. It is narrow minded and ignorant.)

ABSTRACT: RELIGION, SPIRITUALITY AND PSYCHOTIC DISORDERS.

BACKGROUND: Religion is often included in the beliefs and experiences of psychotic patients, and therefore becomes the target of psychiatric interventions.

OBJECTIVES: This article examines religious beliefs and activities among non-psychotic persons in the United States, Brazil and other areas of the world; discusses historical factors contributing to the wall of separation between religion and psychiatry today; reviews studies on the prevalence of religious delusions in patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other severe mental disorders; discusses how clinicians can distinguish ***pathological from non-pathological*** (CLEARLY INDICATES NOT ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BELONG TO THE SET OF PSYCHOSIS) religious involvement; explores how persons with severe mental illness use non-pathological (NON-PATHOLOGICAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS) religious beliefs to cope with their disorder; examines the effects of religious involvement on disease course, psychotic exacerbations, and hospitalization; and describes religious or spiritual interventions that may assist in treatment. (RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL INTERVENTION MAY ASSIST IN TREATMENT.)

METHODS: Literature review.

FINDINGS: While about (ONE-THIRD OF PSYCHOSES HAVE RELIGIOUS DELUSION --- ***NOT ALL***) one-third of psychoses have religious delusions, not all religious experiences are psychotic. (NOT ALL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES ARE PSYCHOTIC.) (IN FACT THEY MAY HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT IN THE COURSE OF SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS) In fact, they may even have positive effects on the course of severe mental illness, forcing clinicians to make a decision on whether to treat religious beliefs and discourage religious experiences, or to support them.

CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should understand the negative and positive roles that religion plays in those with psychotic disorders. ***CLINICIANS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ROLES THAT RELIGION PLAYS IN THOSE WITH PSYCHOTIC DISORDERS---- NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ----- NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ---- NOT ALL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES ARE PSYCHOTIC.****

Archives of Clinical Psychiatry (São Paulo)
Print version ISSN 0101-6083On-line version ISSN 1806-938X
Rev. psiquiatr. clín. vol.34 suppl.1 São Paulo 2007

S4Squelch's picture
Thanks, but my information

Thanks, but my information and education is more current and used by more current clinicians than a book from 2007.
Nice also that instead of answering if religion is psychosis you chose “blah, blah non-psychotic persons” yet the entire abstract is about the mentally ill and religion.
Strange how this proves you aren’t psychotic. Cause I’m blind to the evidence in your attempt.
All of that and the conclusion says
“...Not all religions experiences are psychotic.”
Not at all that religious beliefs or the belief in something with no evidence no proof is not psychotic.
Nice try thanks for implying my ignorance also by showing yours.

Good luck out there

Cognostic's picture
@S4Squelch: DO YOU EVEN

@S4Squelch: DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A PSYCHOTIC DISORDER IS?

What Are the Types of Psychotic Disorders?

1. Schizophrenia. The most common psychotic disorder is schizophrenia. ...
2. Schizoaffective Disorder. ...
3. Schizophreniform Disorder. ...
4. Brief Psychotic Disorder. ...
5. Delusional Disorder. ...
6. Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder. ...
7. Psychotic Disorder Due to a Medical Condition. ...
8. Paraphrenia.

YOU HAVE EVIDENCE - HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... HORSESHIT! You post the evidence that proves religious beliefs are psychotic. "To be classified as a religious delusion, the belief must be idiosyncratic, rather than accepted within a particular culture or subculture."

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

"Against the Stream: religion and mental health – the case for the inclusion of religion and spirituality into psychiatric care" ... "This paper argues for the inclusion of religion and spirituality in psychiatric care. " (2018)

CONCLUSIONS
There is now a voluminous literature examining the relationship between religion and mental health. On balance, it appears that being religious enhances mental health. Future work in this area needs to explore the clinical implications of these findings, and how working with patients’ theological constructs such as guilt, sin and forgiveness helps to promote recovery. Most importantly, both clinical work and research need to be more sensitive to cultural and theological issues.28 The Royal College of Psychiatrists29 and the WPA30 have published two Position Statements on spirituality, religion and clinical care.

IF YOU CAN'T FIGURE THIS OUT, THE THESIS WAS NOT SUPPORTED!!! INSTEAD.

Your position is fallacious, unproved, and bigoted. You are guilty of black and white logic while cherry picking through the evidence and avoiding anything you do not want to see. You are being dishonest and bigoted towards religion, religious people and those suffering from psychotic disorders. That just makes you act like an ass.

BJPsych Bull. 2018 Jun; 42(3): 127–129.
doi: 10.1192/bjb.2017.13

S4Squelch's picture
Hello,

Hello,
I did say “A psychotic belief...”, but not possessing a specific psychotic disorder.
Oh and neat, thanks for the list. Looks like it took time, but doesn’t pertain here.
Psychosis or a “psychotic belief” as stated, are one and the same. A belief held as real or fact without evidence keeping it in the realm of reality.
Please reread, you sent but didn’t read it.
CONCLUSIONS
There is now a voluminous literature examining the relationship between religion and mental health. On balance, it appears that being religious enhances mental health. Future work in this area needs to explore the clinical implications of these findings, and how working with patients’ theological constructs such as guilt, sin and forgiveness helps to promote recovery. Most importantly, both clinical work and research need to be more sensitive to cultural and theological issues.28 The Royal College of Psychiatrists29 and the WPA30 have published two Position Statements on spirituality, religion and clinical care.

Funny how nowhere did it say “religions belief is not psychosis”.
The line, “on balance, it appears that being religious enhances mental health”, which is the closest.
But that’s an option.
“It appears...” is not a scientific conclusion.
I would agree wholeheartedly that keeping the psychosis going is much easier on the mentally ill.
Easier to stand blissfully ignorant.
I said zero negative about suffers of psychotic disorders, only those around us all, you, that are undiagnosed and accepted for your psychosis.
Now brainiac, other than a non-scientific paper (BJPsych is not responsible statements by...) which is unsupportive of your inability to understand 3 syllable words, psychosis, how are you not fucking nuts?

Good luck out there

Cognostic's picture
@S4Squelch: RE: "Funny how

@S4Squelch: RE: "Funny how nowhere did it say “religions belief is not psychosis”

FUNNY HOW YOU CHERRY PICK YOUR OWN IGNORANT AGENDA!" Let's say it again..... just for you.

"To be classified as a religious delusion, the belief must be idiosyncratic, rather than accepted within a particular culture or subculture."

HERE IS ANOTHER FOR YOU SINCE YOU IGNORED THE ONE ABOVE
"Delusions are a cardinal feature of psychotic illness, present in around three quarters of people with a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis [1,2]. Religious themes are common across delusion categories and types, with between a fifth and two-thirds of all delusions reflecting religious content [3][4][5][6]. To be classified as a religious delusion, the belief must be idiosyncratic, rather than accepted within a particular culture or subculture [7]. ..."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50595233_Delusion_content_acros...

To qualify as a delusion the belief must impair functioning and the ability to provide one's self with food, shelter and clothing.

S4Squelch's picture
Hey again, thanks.

Hey again, thanks.

No, to qualify as a delusion it has to be based on a lack of evidence, something not seen by everyone, no proof.
It will impair their ability to function in a non-deluded way, not impair them from grub, or protection from the elements. Though for some it does.
For that they’d be highly deluded with an inability to function.
Not black and white.
Idiosyncratic or otherwise.
Like I don’t believe in your psychosis of you god you probably don’t think the sci-fi writer Hubbard was touched by divinity. But I know there are those who will kill you for that.
Your psychosis battling theirs in a big delusion sandwich.
Both knowing they are equally correct, both, in my experience and existence needing desperate psychological care.
To a level, functional, to my definition, holding beliefs with no basis in reality, other than the dogma following them through history.
I feel this is skirting nothing.
Thanks

Good luck out there

Cognostic's picture
S4Squelch: I've already

S4Squelch: I've already done that. You merely demonstrate your own ignorance by ignoring facts. Here is another article that clearly states the same thing. You don't get to call something psychotic for no other reason than you disagree with it,

Psychosis is defined as a loss of contact with reality, and can manifest in numerous ways. A religious person who has not lost contact with reality. Who goes to work, pays their rent, dresses and feeds themselves, is not psychotic.

Psychosis typically manifests by people experiencing hallucinations (perceiving something that isn’t actually there) and delusions (unquestionably believing something that is demonstrably not true). Hallucinations can be straightforward; if someone is repeatedly saying there’s a talking bear in the room demanding french fries, it’s relatively easy to determine whether this is the case or not, usually by looking around to check if there is indeed a talking bear in the room with you.

Delusions are trickier: it’s not about what someone perceives, but what they believe. Delusions have many forms, like grandiose delusions, where an individual believes they’re far more impressive than is is the case (e.g. believing they’re a world-leading business genius despite being a part-time shoe shop employee), or the more common persecutory delusions, where an individual believes they are being relentlessly persecuted (eg everyone they meet is part of some shadowy government plot to kidnap them).These delusions tend to be very resistant to argument, no matter how blatant the evidence to the contrary: “If you’re a world-leading business guru, why doyou flip burgers for a living?” “It’s all part of my brilliant plan, you wouldn’t understand”, or “That’s not a secret government spy, it’s an old man walking his dog” “Well you WOULD say that, you’re in on it!” And so on.

That’s actually one of the signs of delusional beliefs: they’re very resistant to being challenged, no matter how inconsistent they are with reality. Because the brain isn’t “working” like it should, logic and reason aren’t as potent they might otherwise be.

SO THIS IS WHAT YOU BASE YOU BIAS ON. WHY DO RELIGIONS GET A FREE PASS?

Well, delusions are believed to stem from anomalous activity in the brain’s system for interpreting what does happen and what should happen. The brain essentially maintains a mental model of how the world is meant to work, and what things are meant to happen and when. Beliefs, experiences, expectations, assumptions, calculations; all are combined into a constantly- updated general understanding of how things happen, so we know what to expect and how to react without having to figure everything out from scratch each time. Luckily, the brain is usually quite good at filtering out irrelevant information and occurrences that would otherwise challenge this model of how the world works.

Delusions are what happens when, due to illness or other disruption, this delicate system fails, and things we perceive that would usually be dismissed as innocuous or irrelevant end up being processed as far more significant, and our belief system alters to accommodate it, however wrongly.

But the thing is, our brains don’t come with an understanding of the complex science of how the world works already preinstalled, like Windows 10 on a new laptop. This mental model of the world is built up over time from life experiences and other learning. So, if you’ve been raised in an environment where you’re told by everyone and everything that there’s a kindly deity in the sky, or that the world is 6,000 years old, or that there are thousands of multi-armed gods controlling the world, or whatever, then why wouldn’t you believe it? There’s nothing that you experience on a day-to-day level that contradicts this, so your mental model of the world is fine with it.

That’s why DELUSIONS ARE ONLY DIAGNOSED if they’re not consistent with the person’s existing belief system and views. A devout creationist talks to God while in church, that’s fine. An avowedly atheist lawyer starts doing it in the middle of a meeting, they’re probably delusional. If both of them suddenly started saying the world is going to end in 30 minutes because of angry frogs living in the sun, they’d both be considered delusional.

This article was adapted from The Idiot Brain, Dean Burnett’s debut book, available now in the UK and US and elsewhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/sep/21/why-relig...

Sheldon's picture
@S4Squelch

@S4Squelch

A delusion need not necessarily be part of a pathology, ipso facto it need not represent a psychosis, which is defined as a mental health problem that causes people to perceive or interpret things differently from those around them. Which might involve hallucinations or delusions.

So whilst a psychosis might involve a delusion, a delusion does not necessarily represent a psychosis. You're making the assertion that all delusions are part of a psychosis, this is not supported by the evidence.

S4Squelch's picture
Hello Sheldon,

Hello Sheldon,
Thanks.
I did say “...the really deluded and psychotic...”, but the definition of psychosis and my point isn’t about delusions or the deluded, but those with beliefs with no proof nor evidence.
Psychosis is where I’m aiming.
Thanks again,

Good luck out there

Sheldon's picture
S4Squelch "my point isn’t

S4Squelch "my point isn’t about delusions or the deluded, but those with beliefs with no proof nor evidence."

Well delusion is defined as belief maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument. I would characterise any belief for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated as a delusion, but not necessarily a mental disorder and not therefore as you claimed a psychosis.

S4Squelch "Psychosis is where I’m aiming."

Then again you are wrong IMHO, and for the reasons already stated.

Cognostic's picture
@S4Squelch: Psychosis is

@S4Squelch: Psychosis is having a 'break' with reality. Major symptoms of psychosis are hallucinations and delusions.

You don't reach a diagnosis of "psychotic" without the major symptoms. Reference the decision tree in the back of the DSM-5.

Cognostic's picture
@Sheldon: Want to share

@Sheldon: Want to share face-palms? Perhaps we can knock one another out and end this torture. What a mess of crap-ola!

boomer47's picture
@S4Squelch

@S4Squelch

A fatuous, unsupported ad hominem attack.

Another perspective;

Religion in some form is almost universal in human society . Although I did once actually read of a remote tribe which was atheist.

MY observation is that all human behaviour has a purpose..That there are literally thousands of different religions suggest very strongly that religion has a purpose, and meets some human needs.

Those needs include: facing the fear of death, explaining the natural world, giving the illusion of control over life; Eg being able to influence the gods through rituals such as sacrifice. Religion gives a feeling of communitas. Belonging to a group or community I think has long had a survival value in contrast with the lone individual. . In some societies, such individuals have often been called witches and killed. Still happens in some Africa tribes. Alternatively, they often become witch doctors .

Religious belief has nothing to with reason, or intellect. Nor indeed does psychosis infer an inability to reason often at a sophisticated level .The basis of religious belief is faith. (belief in that not seen)

All religions have their own internal logic.That you or I may not agree does not in itself make the reasoning simply wrong, nor the believers mentally ill.

Religion are often founded on a simple logical fallacy; "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) EG it rained just after last did a certain dance around a fire, THEREFORE, the dance made it rain.

Of course, it seems naive to us looking at such beliefs, yet we are unable to disprove them

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.