Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness

[Blastcat]

I just can't see it as a mental illness. I see no justification for the label. Although what she goes on about can and often is detrimental to society, it is often societal influence and/or extreme circumstances that lead to such things. I'm not even sure if we would find a higher rate of mental illness among fundamentalists and extremists due to the factors that play out in making people a fundamentalists or an extremists.

It's a form of delusion. You know.. believing in stuff REALLY LOTS that aren't real.. hearing voices, blowing yourself up, killing your kids, that kind of thing.

 

[Shad]

That is correct, and what I've been saying all along. They are based upon positive statements. "There is no God", is a positive statement. It's that simple.


By saying "There is no God", you are saying what it is. You are saying it is "God free" in other words. That's a positive statement describing what it actually is, "A universe without God in it". That's a model. If you simply did not mention God, then there is no positive statement. It's just simply absent. But once again, the second you say "There is no God" you've included God in the model. Again, that's pretty simple.

Again that is describing what it isn't not what it is. I could follow metaphysical fairism for all you know.

Have I identified myself as a Buddhist? How do you presume to think you know what my religion is? And as far as regarding Buddhism as an "authority" on metaphysics, I'm not exactly sure what that would mean. Does it have a tremendous amount of insights to offer in regards to the examination of Ultimate? Most certainly it does, as does any within mystical traditions. These folks across multiple lineages, both secular and religious who have spent untold hours sitting on the mat doing the hard work of interior investigations have a tremendous amount of insights and validity to offer into such questions. To assume otherwise on your part is just pure ignorance.

Usually using specific religion to make your point which include ideas that are from Buddhism not general philosophy.

You attempted to use Buddhism to support your point as if it's rambling has any merit in metaphysics.

Mystic traditions only have merit if one already accepts some of the basic axioms of whatever particular form of mysticism you follow. I do not accept mysticism. What you think is hard work I call waste effort and sophistry.

I think you are mistaking the Christian version of "divine revelation" speaking with "authority" with what the rest of the religious world considers this. The best description I can come up with of folks who investigate these things are philosophers and mystics of the highest order. They are explorers, investigators, thinkers, and the like. But I have a feeling you presume to have greater insights than these who have done the actual work themselves. Again, there is a whopping big difference between being considered a specialist, an actual expert, and making divine proclamations of absolute truth. Buddhist do not make such proclamations of absolute truth, and you are in error to equate them with what your experience is with the likes of a Pat-Robertson type buffon, and such.

No I am treating the source as you presented it. Authority is this case means expertise and such an expertise has merit. You turned authority into something else thus your point is moot.

I do not miss the point at all. You miss the point that you are making a positive statement which makes it part of the model. "There is no God" is a positive statement. If you say "This corn chip is preservative free", you have defined it as "preservative free". It is bought and consumed as "not including preservatives".

That is what it is not rather than what it is.

You are defining reality as "God free", and thus you have included it in your brand. You included "God" on the label. You have specifically defined reality, modeled reality as an atheistic one. You didn't just package corn chips and say "Corn Chips" on the bag with no mention of preservatives. You actually are putting "Preservative-Free Cornchips" in the model, making them part of their definition. Do you not see this yet? Do you not want to see it for some reason?

That is what it is not rather than what it is. You analogy is flawed as the bag would be labelled "Not corn chips" See the difference?

First of all, why doesn't it matter? Because it's "religion"? This is too funny, actually. You think people who are part of religions and look into these matters are completely irrelevant because you imagine they all believe a bunch of non-scientific supernatural woo? If so, this is profoundly ignorant on your part. Some of the world's greatest insights come directly out of these bodies because they support those within it who do these investigations. I honestly think your notions of religion are just a bit colorized by your particular biases and not based much in actual reality.

It's the typical projection of religion as if it has should have merit for those that do not follow it.

Secondly, I'm not projecting an idea from Buddhism into metaphysical models. I am looking at the insights of those who have done some extremely sophisticated work in these areas and have some profound philosophical insights that matter when considering these things. Why wouldn't you? Does that seem very philosophical to simply say "Woo!" and take thousands of years of research and insights and push them onto the floor because you see it all as just "religion"? You get the picture here?

Actual negation, as what I was pointing to that Nagarjuna explained, which I linked to as a high-level explanation for you to read which you dismissed without consideration as "rhetoric", in fact does not attempt to make a model at all. Actual negation is there to deconstruct all models, as the use of them can actually interfere with seeing what actually, simply "is". The models, as useful as they are can stand in the way of actually knowing reality, where we mistake our maps of the terrain with the terrain itself. Negation is to get you to see "past" the models. And to the core point again here, you saying "There is no God", is actually modeling it into the equation. You have "No-God" defined as a positive statement, and as such you have modeled it.

Which is again what it is not rather than what it is.

Because it's a religion? Too funny.

Nope, because of projection of authority as it had authority.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Religious Fundamentalism Could Soon be Treated as a Mental Illness
Would this be a good thing, a bad thing, or a mixed bag? Why?

Religious fundamentalists are definitely mad and need locking up to protect the rest of us. A secure ward might be better than a prison because then they might get some treatment.