Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Flat Earthers are an extremely small and harmless group. There's no reason to worry about them. I doubt most religious people think the world is only 5,000 years old, but it doesn't really matter anyhow since being wrong about that has little consequence.
Ever heard the phrase "drink the kool aid"? There was a small cult that committed suicide by drinking poison... There's always been extreme ideas by a minority of people, and there always will be. Usually it's benign, and sometimes it's tragic.
I'm more concerned with the things the majority of people are wrong about, or the things which being wrong carries severe consequence. aerohead's belief that climate change poses severe consequences falls is an example of how if the majority of us are wrong about the severity and urgency of the problem, then it could be disastrous.
Classifying mental illness has some utility, but I question how much. The classification is useful so far as it gives people a general idea of someone's behavior, and might even specify certain chemical imbalances, which is even more useful, but every person is different, and we live on a spectrum. We've all got behavior which can be vastly improved even if we fall within "normal" range.
I too am skeptical about the effectiveness of counseling, but that might be due to my limited experiences as a "patient" where the psychiatrist talked almost entirely about himself, and things that didn't interest me. There is great utility though in having someone help an individual examine their life to see what works well for them, and what doesn't.
I don't really view psychiatric medicine much differently than biologic medicine. Knowledge of how the body and mind works is extremely poor. In medicine, the approach is to try the therapy with the highest chance to succeed, evaluate the results, and try other therapies if the problem persists.
To that end, how is that really any different than anything else in life? We try the things we believe to be most likely to produce the results we want. There may be better ways to achieve the results we want, but they aren't known to us. Our ideal results may not even be known by us.
Expecting people to "vote" for lower wealth is like expecting congress to vote to have their pay cut. Even with clear evidence that the government spends way more than it takes, they will still vote to raise their own pay, despite a clear problem.
I'm pessimistic that the majority of people can change their behavior to live less extravagantly. After all, the consumption of any 1 individual makes no difference at all. It's along the same line of reasoning that I don't vote; the options aren't good, and my single vote won't make any difference.
How to change the behavior of the masses when individually it doesn't matter? I think that's where the religious aspect becomes useful. Piety is motivating, but easily leads to arrogance.
|
Could be good idea.Especially Christianity.
Jesus said 'If you have possessions,sell them ,and give the money to the poor.'
Hardly the 'Gospel of Wealth' we see presently across the religious landscape.
No Christians there.
Jesus also said to ' Go into your closet and pray in secret.'
And according to John the Baptist,Jesus was a 'black',as you'll see if you visit his cave on Patmos Island.A curious affair in light of W.A.S.P. white-supremacists whom claim him as there's.
'Church' was something a person did,it wasn't a place you went to.
If people read their Bible for themselves,there probably wouldn't be 501-C3 Corporations masquerading as places of worship,as is the custom today.
Satan-1, God-zero.Funny world.