Believers VS Non-belivers

[edwardcullensotherwoman]

Why is it that if someone believes in something, they will talk about it as exactly that - something they believe in - and not portray it as absolute fact; yet if someone doesn't believe in something, they will say this as an absolute fact and ridicule those who believe?

It's almost as if those who don't believe (in whatever the subject: angels, God, reincarnation) consider themselves superior to those who do, and view those who do as stupid for doing so.

Surely everyone's beliefs are their own belief and opinion - nothing "woo" can be either proven or disproven, so therefore nobody is right or wrong.

It just seems that every thread that starts "Do you believe" on this board ends up in a bun fight with believes defending themselves against non-believers who tell them they're being ridiculous. The clue is in the title of the board - if you don't believe in anything that's likely to be discussed under that heading, just avoid the board!

Back

capsium you seem to be arguing again that there is no mental illness, but just a difference of opinion on what is real. That can be shown to be false and I seriously doubt you really believe it anyway.

I am not arguing this, at all. Where have I argued this? I have posted what I have posted, no more and no less. Do not put words into my mouth.

My own term for what I've experienced is 'brain fart' but I can't see that one being much more acceptable than the others! I guess we all like to think of ourselves as rational, and want to be able to trust our senses so anything that challenges this is liable to make us defensive. But regardless of what we believe, we're products of our evolution and as such we're not computers with faultless sensory input and processing. We wouldn't be the inventive, adaptable species that we are if we were like that, I suspect.

Cue one of my favourite quotes: "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in a delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan.

Capsium you keep quoting Foucault as though it was terribly significant. Perhaps you'd care to explain what relevance it has if not to undermine the concept of mental illness. what point are you trying to make?

oh and you said "What is viewed as 'delusional' is cultural, it is not an absolute,"

Oh, I love that Sagan quote, Errol :)

Back

Capsium you keep quoting Foucault as though it was terribly significant. Perhaps you'd care to explain what relevance it has if not to undermine the concept of mental illness. what point are you trying to make?

That people misuse the concept of mental illness to undermine the credibility of others. Ethics is vital within the medical profession.

"What is viewed as 'delusional' is cultural, it is not an absolute"

ONLY if the culture accepts supernatural forces as real. In my pragmatic world it's easy to identify & name a delusion.

Garlic I am thinking mainly of historical phenomenon such as women being labeled as suffering from 'hysteria'. Unmarried mothers ending up in asylums just for being an unmarried mother.

Heh, capsium, I was thinking of those too! Most (all?) abuses like that have been created & justified under religious cultures. Thus, the culture's adherence to supernatural beliefs enables it to mislabel real events as delusional. In a pragmatic world, it makes no sense to call a woman clinically insane for getting pregnant or having an orgasm, etc.

real events was the wrong term, but it'll do

"To globally assume dysfunction / illness for a group of people, without even examining them, is IMO offensive, as it is tantamount to prejudice."

You are coming across as a bit odd. Nobody said everyone who ever thought God spoke to them is psychotic.

To anyone with the attention span of a fruit fly, it should be easy to see that in that post I was talking about hearing voices being a common symptom of psychosis and that I would see a neurologist if I started hearing voices.

"you need to know that psychosis doesn't just involve hearing voices; it can also include seeing meaning in the occurrence of "serendipitous" events"

Like seeing bird feathers and believing they are left there by angels?

Garlic I would say not all under religious cultures. Abuses have been part of non religious societies, for 'scientific' purposes. The victims are de-humanised for various reasons.

Cote

Nobody said everyone who ever thought God spoke to them is psychotic.

I am pleased you have made this clear. What you did was immediately correlate personal revelation with psychosis, including hearing voices, here:

"CoteDAzur Tue 10-Jun-14 16:53:30
"Not provable in the scientific/empirical sense"

Is there another sense? "Prove" surely means in a way that everyone will have to see that it is real, not just you.

"but I believe someone can have a personal revelation"

You say 'personal revelation', others may say 'psychosis'.

If one day I hear a voice in my head, I will immediately get an appointment with a neurologist to see what is wrong with my brain. You would probably think it is God talking to you. Or possibly the Devil, if the voice tells you to take a knife from the kitchen and stick it into somebody, I presume."

Which, if this is the only connection you make, concerning personal revelation, is a limited prejudiced view.

Cote I don't go around seeking signs that Angels have being leaving feathers as signs for me.

The only thing I actually do, which is similar, is notice Biblical symbolism and imagery within life, which acts for me as a signpost, a mnemonic, reminding me of Biblical events and promoting additional thought about certain issues. Much the same way symbolism in literature works.

Cote

You said here,

"You are coming across as a bit odd." (When referring to a quotation of mine).

I find this comment to be a bit personal.

Abuses have been part of non religious societies, for 'scientific' purposes. The victims are de-humanised for various reasons.

Regrettably true, Capsium - but the statement under examination is that "what is viewed as 'delusional' is cultural." Mengele did not think his experimental subjects were deluded, he just didn't care about their pain.

I'm still maintaining that your statement is only true when the culture adheres to supernatural beliefs.

"if this is the only connection you make, concerning personal revelation, is a limited prejudiced view"

It is a realistic view.

You must be a very different person than everyone I have ever known if you are seriously saying it is "prejudiced" to assume that I might have a neurological problem if I start hearing voices

Most people would probably worry if they start hearing voices that nobody else can hear. I certainly hope they would, anyway.

I have am sure I have read of some Garlic, but I would have to go through all my books to find some specific cases which I won't do at this time.

Supernatural belief is not exactly the same as religious belief though...

"You said here, "You are coming across as a bit odd." (When referring to a quotation of mine). I find this comment to be a bit personal"

Well, you were.

What do you want me to do about it?

You have just dedicated pages of this thread to get all offended and argue against something nobody said. It's an odd thing to do. That's what I said.

"Supernatural belief is not exactly the same as religious belief though.."

What seems to be the difference?

Cote It is prejudiced to assume, but not to consider as a possibility. I hope I would do the latter, that is merely consider as a possibility, rather than assume.

Supernatural belief can be one which does not conform to any religious belief system.

On personal revelations - I have a few of these myself. One, since you're interested () is "it's all about circles" - this refers to mathematics (I know!) - another is "it's all about love" in reference to ethics & societies. I don't actually expect anyone else to understand what I'm on about here and have never even shared them before; they're shorthand for big thoughts: personal shorthand to save my brain from having to follow a tortuous reasoning path whenever I consider these issues.

If somebody else uses "It's all God's work" as their own personal shorthand, it's none of my business. And I mean none. I don't want them to explain it to me, particularly as this type of revelation has no concise explanation, and I definitely don't want them to try & convince me their shorthand's the only right one.