Formless wrote:Broomstick wrote:EVERY religion, or mainly the monotheistic Abrahamic ones? Does Buddhism "condemn" the less than perfect believers? Do the various Hindu cult gods advocate persecuting someone who worships Shiva as opposed to Krishna?
In case you didn't know, there is a centuries long history of violent conflict in the Punjab between Hindu and Muslim factions, motivated by religious differences. Islam is intolerant of Hinduism because of its polytheism, and Hinduism is rigid to the point of violence about its caste system; whereas Islam does not prejudice against converts based on their birth. And while Bhuddism has a deserved reputation for being relatively peaceful, it isn't squeaky clean either. Look no further than Imperial Japan.
Actually, I'd have given Tibet as an example of Buddism gone nasty, but whatever. And I explicitly made the comparison between two Hindu sects rather than Hindu vs. some other group. I can't help but think a large part of the Hindu/Muslim conflict is due the mandate in Islam to convert or to kill which understandably generates hostility in those targeted.
But we're getting off on a tangent.
Nowhere am I advocating anyone being FORCED to believe anything! Where the hell do you get that from?
Its called "context".
Formless wrote:For all we know, the effect is a result of negative stigma against non-theists. What then?
Broomstick wrote:If participating in activities that reduces the stigma/bias felt by someone with mental illness relieves that mental illness what is wrong with that?
Either your response is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, or it sounds like you are saying "do like AA and advocate explicitly faith based therapy". In context, the latter is borderline offensive. It doesn't matter how "liberal" the group is, if its religious then that's non-starter for irreligious (or religiously diverse) patients and would have obvious downsides if there is a stigma at play.
Are you saying, then, that assimilation is always bad? We should never, ever let someone go along with the mainstream, even if they feel better by doing so?
Again, nowhere here am I speaking of coercion. Forcing someone to act straight when they're gay would be bad because it's coercive. Allowing someone to join a club when they want to join is NOT coercive. Nowhere do I advocate
forced conversion, unlike those here advocating "deprogramming" everyone without exception from their religion whether that person wants to be "set free" or not.
If the main social interactions of a group are via the religion then cutting yourself off from religion also cuts yourself off from society. It's nothing new that some people attend church functions solely for the social aspects and aren't firm believers. They go through the motions, as it were.
Let me explain something to you: I have been there, done that, and I
cannot stand to do it anymore.
YOU can not stand to do that any more
but you do not speak for everyone. I worked for over a decade with a Jewish atheist who nonetheless continued to engage in various rituals when with his family because it was
his choice to do that. I've known a couple of former Christians who didn't believe but who nonetheless found solace in the familiar ceremonies when there was a death of a loved one. None of that bothers me, why should you get so upset at someone else's choice? They have their reasons for following certain customs even if they don't believe the myths.
The church sickens me on a routine basis.
Then I fully support your choice to avoid any and all forms of church.
Most atheists who have since gone to church for whatever reason can probably concur that its an unpleasant experience to be preached at and be surrounded by drooling idiots.
Again, you are operating from a background that assumes all religions are intent upon proselytizing and quashing everything but a very strict party line. I, too, am repelled by that but the difference is that I know that not all religion is of that form.
The point is, you aren't cutting yourself off from society, that's just your indoctrination talking.
My indoctrination? I was raised by atheists. Maybe that's why I don't get so outraged, I never had a church to reject. I never had to worry about my family rejecting me for non-belief.
Being raised wholly outside a religion (aside from highly secularized forms of certain holidays and what exposure I got from the extended family, which was maybe once or twice a year) I actually
have felt isolated from the larger society for much of my life. You may reject religion, but you were a part of that fabric once. I was never in it growing up. Probably a very different experience than most "converts" to atheism, more in line with a 2nd or 3rd generation atheist.
Shut the fuck up about things you clearly don't understand.
Stop trying to speak for everyone. Even as an atheist your personal experience is not universal.
You are dodging the question. You made a claim about the futility of logic in the context of psychotherapy. I want to know what qualifications or data you have to dismiss therapy styles that contradict those assumptions.
Ah, the argument that if one does not have a degree or advanced training in a subject one is not qualified to participate even in an idle discussion of the same. Isn't that a variant of arguing from authority?
I will also point out that neither RET or CBT are effective in all cases of depression. They will not, for example, help very much for a biochemically based depression.
Biochemical imbalance appears to be part of
all clinical depression. Yet you will find many professionals who lament the overuse of SSRIs precisely because they don't deal with the psychological aspects of the problem, thus devaluing them. The fear is that drugs are a short term fix applied to a long term if not life long problem.
The problem is that some people are naturally in various brain chemicals and some reach that state through environmental influence. If it's an environmental problem then a long term cure requires changing the environment. If it's intrinsic then the person will be depressed in even the best of environments. The problem, of course, is that these days all depression is treated as intrinsic, and the people making those decisions are also disregarding the utility of everything outside of SSRI's because pills are easy.
The ideal is that the treatment should be tailored to the individual. Again, IF a subset of people could benefit from religious participation then they certainly shouldn't be discouraged from such participation, and it should be on the table. Again,
tailored to the individual which would NOT mean forced indoctrination in any form. For an atheist secular alternatives would be a better alternative. Not everyone is an atheist, though, and people should not be forced into non-belief any more than they should be forced in belief, with the caveat that the beliefs/non-beliefs not be something that actually impairs functioning. In other words not every delusion needs to be ripped out by the roots, particularly if doing so would cause harm in itself.
They won't be terribly helpful for someone whose life is truly full of suck that can't be fixed. [...] How the hell would being rational about their situation help? Objectively their situation sucks donkey balls. IF such a person found that participating in a religion alleviated some of their despair what the hell is the problem there?
Being rational helps because its good to know that it really
isn't your fault that the economy is bad and your kid has leukemia.
Where does religion mandate that there has to be
fault?, at least fault in humans? If someone takes comfort in thinking that there is some master plan where it makes sense that you don't have a job and your kid is dying I think it's nuts but I'm not going to deny them that crumb of comfort provided it doesn't interfere with their ability to function as a human being. I have strong issues with the attitude of doing nothing because Jesus will come down and fix it all you just have to wait because it paralyzes people. I don't have a problem with an attitude god sends trials to believers so they can prove how strong they are by bearing all these crosses. I don't
agree with it but some people will find such a "test" a challenge to step up to the task.
Likewise, if someone is dying and finds comfort in their religion I'm not going to take that away. Why would I? What purpose would that serve? How would that alleviate suffering?
People in our capitalist, individualistic society are conditioned to take responsibility for those thing on themselves even when its NOT appropriate to do so. All depression is triggered by stress, but a healthy response and a pathological response are distinguishable nonetheless.
US society is also strongly influenced by Calvinism and its taint of predestination which doesn't help matters.
Cults are another great example.
All religions are cults.
I for one do not like the idea of offering false hopes of divine salvation on the premise of a short term correlation with better mental health.
Not all religions offer salvation - Buddism has the ideal of oblivion, not heaven, as an example. Again, you are using the Abrahamic (and I'm guessing Christian) template as a universal when it is not.
No one is advocating any of this... except you towards atheists.
I'm not mandating any atheist converting to any religion whatsoever. I just find it offensive when atheists are as rabidly intent on forced conversations as anyone else.
