Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Schizophrenia And Religion
24 Answers
I have a friend that ive known for 40 yrs.
He is a (now, controlled) schizophrenic.
But his religiousosity perturbs me sometimes!
Ive read somewhwere that schitzophrenics are prone to religious
delusions.
Can anyone point me to this study?
Thank you.
He is a (now, controlled) schizophrenic.
But his religiousosity perturbs me sometimes!
Ive read somewhwere that schitzophrenics are prone to religious
delusions.
Can anyone point me to this study?
Thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.As is said, this is relevant:
https:/ /arstec hnica.c om/scie nce/201 6/12/fo r-the-l ove-of- god-eat -more-n uts-and -other- 2016-di et-derp s/
https:/
I don’t want to get into a religious argument, for the very simple reason I can’t get into a religious argument.
I know nothing about religion because I knew from a very early age the very premise that there was a higher being was so utterly absurd that it has never been a part of my life.
But I am intrigued…
The Scientologists are nutcases. Hubbard said (paraphrasing) creating a religion was a way to become rich, and I have no doubt the ‘established’ religions all agree Scientologists are nutcases.
But what makes their nutcasery unbelievable but the belief in the ‘established’ god is meant to be believable?
Is it simply because established religion is a couple of thousand years old but Hubbard’s religion is only 50 or so years old?
Frankly, I think they’re all barking mad.
I know nothing about religion because I knew from a very early age the very premise that there was a higher being was so utterly absurd that it has never been a part of my life.
But I am intrigued…
The Scientologists are nutcases. Hubbard said (paraphrasing) creating a religion was a way to become rich, and I have no doubt the ‘established’ religions all agree Scientologists are nutcases.
But what makes their nutcasery unbelievable but the belief in the ‘established’ god is meant to be believable?
Is it simply because established religion is a couple of thousand years old but Hubbard’s religion is only 50 or so years old?
Frankly, I think they’re all barking mad.
DD; I sort of agree with you, but I certainly wouldn't express it in your terms. You said "I know nothing about religion because I knew from a very early age the very premise that there was a higher being was so utterly absurd that it has never been a part of my life."
That's an assertion without an argument in support, and so not much different from religious assertions. I wouldn't be an atheist because DD said what he did.
That's an assertion without an argument in support, and so not much different from religious assertions. I wouldn't be an atheist because DD said what he did.