Have you ever heard anyone say that the bible has been misinterpreted? Doesn't this seem ironic considering that no one can really claim to have the correct interpretation? It's funny to me how I haven't seen a single person claiming that isis is mentally ill, when they go around doing the exact same thing that hundreds of shooters in America do practically ever day in our country. They even say that religion isn't the problem with isis, that they've interpreted it wrong. This is the focal point of my entire thread, they are interpreting their Koran just like any other religious person does for their religion. Yet people say that they don't have a mental illness, when it's funny to me that no one will point to religion being the mental illness in this case.
You know what else is sad to me? No one seems to see the bizarre sort of arbitrary nature of the diagnosis of mental illness. You'd think that there would be some complex biological formula and explanation for it. There could very well be a complex biological explanation, but on the most basic level, isn't the label itself sort of arbitrary? So I'd say, the general consensus is that a mental illness is something that hinders someone from living a normal life, but how can you say for certain that there's a flaw in a human being? Wouldn't that make us no better than machines, who only serve the purpose of operating in society? So, the concept that religion is a mental illness seems like fair one, but the bias and emotionally driven nature of humans will seem preposterous to them.
I'm using mental illness as an analogy for the behavior of religious people. A part of me believes that religion is in part, a mental illness, but the subjectivity of the word itself is much like nature of human beings itself; just arbitrary words, based off personal biases. It's sad to me that there's no way I could possibly call a religious person mentally ill. You have to use terms that will make sense to them. Religious people have this sort of armor of their own ignorance; ignorance is bliss, as they say. It's so frustrating to me, but I digress. If I haven't stayed on topic for this thread, I'm sorry but there's a lot on my mind that I want to discuss. I'm not trying to argue a point even though I feel like I am on to something here, so please don't necessarily try to start a debate. I would just like to expand on them.
You know what else is sad to me? No one seems to see the bizarre sort of arbitrary nature of the diagnosis of mental illness. You'd think that there would be some complex biological formula and explanation for it. There could very well be a complex biological explanation, but on the most basic level, isn't the label itself sort of arbitrary? So I'd say, the general consensus is that a mental illness is something that hinders someone from living a normal life, but how can you say for certain that there's a flaw in a human being? Wouldn't that make us no better than machines, who only serve the purpose of operating in society? So, the concept that religion is a mental illness seems like fair one, but the bias and emotionally driven nature of humans will seem preposterous to them.
I'm using mental illness as an analogy for the behavior of religious people. A part of me believes that religion is in part, a mental illness, but the subjectivity of the word itself is much like nature of human beings itself; just arbitrary words, based off personal biases. It's sad to me that there's no way I could possibly call a religious person mentally ill. You have to use terms that will make sense to them. Religious people have this sort of armor of their own ignorance; ignorance is bliss, as they say. It's so frustrating to me, but I digress. If I haven't stayed on topic for this thread, I'm sorry but there's a lot on my mind that I want to discuss. I'm not trying to argue a point even though I feel like I am on to something here, so please don't necessarily try to start a debate. I would just like to expand on them.
