i just came across this youtube scholar claiming even naming people like Freud, Jung, Piaget as quacks. I did not ask if he/she's a scientologist but i askd her why and she said

"Wow, so it's proven fact that children around two years old go through an anal retention stage? This is documented? This has been tested thoroughly, many times by "a million others"? The electra complex and eodipus complex? The id, ego, and superego? These are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?

They don't sound like they're based on reality to me! They sound like the insane ramblings of a mad man! "

To me he/she is uninformed and annoying i dont want to wave my degree or feed a troll so i stopped but still i should not stop here saying "im right because i know its right" i might be missing something or worse uninformed and annoying. Anyone please tell me if i did/i am

Views: 226

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's not uncommon in religious circles to attempt to discredit Psychology given that there are certain obvious and natural conclusion that any responsible and objective Psychiatrist/Psychologist is going to come to where religion is concerned.

In addition, religion can be quite damaging to and prop up the delusional beliefs of those who are seriously mentally ill.

Where does one objectively draw the line between god beliefs and other delusions like imaginary friends other than to argue that it's a cultural belief that a lot of people believe in?

One member of my debating group is a Catholic who was diagnosed with drug induced Schizophrenia amongst other things, claims to have been in contact with the devil during an LSD trip which resulted in him being committed. He also believes that he's a "prophet".

Naturally he claims that Psychology is a fraud and that he wasn't mentally ill but "possessed by demons".

He was in such a rage when I objected to the Catholic Church coverup of pedophiles that started a histrionic posting spree accusing me of being a liar in all the subject lines which lasted 10 threads as well as posts in other threads and went on for months.

It's surprising to me the number of religious who believe in demons and associate mental illness with possession.

And it makes me wonder how many really mentally ill people are out there wandering around simply because we give religion a special privilege card and their bizarre delusions are categorized as religious beliefs and therefore okay.

Another person (who we ended up banning and has been banned from Catholic groups as well) thinks that she is "marked by God" and been given a mission as a "Spiritual Warrior". I don't know what this mission is but a substantial portion of it seems to consist of a rather bizarre obsession and hatred of me personally.

According to her I'm a demon and she has "prophecied" that I'm going to die in the same way Madalyn O'Hare died (kidnapped, tortured, murdered by being buried alive). Coincidentally I received a death threat on the site right after her "prophecy" by someone else.

She does nothing but abuse anyone she can't browbeat into agreeing with her. What amazes me about her is that she plays the victim so well and does actually get people to go along with her on that basis.

In fact both of these people have those who will support them thus enabling their delusions and whatever real psychiatric disorders these two have.

Personally I think they should both be locked up before they inevitably hurt someone but I'm not a Psychiatrist/Psychologist.
Why surprising?

Naivete mostly I guess and not really giving the matter much thought until recent years.

Aside from the examples I gave, the religious people I know appear to be relatively sane in all other aspects of their lives, hold down responsible jobs, and don't appear to hate those who disagree (on the surface anyway).

And while they don't talk about beliefs in demons and the such, if my debating group is any indication, there are a lot out there that hold these beliefs.

That realization is new to me since I've never encountered a person in real life who admitted to such things.

Now that I've become aware of it, and have been testing the waters a bit with people in RL, I'm realizing just how widespread it is.

I discovered last year that the reason my Aunt is afraid of cats and avoids mine is because she believes that cats carry the souls of the dead, are evil, and bad luck.

I was completely unaware that she was that superstitious.

Given the fact that my kitty cat is black (and therefore, apparently, more evil) I don't leave kitty cat and her alone in the same room anymore (for kitty cat's sake). Lol.
Mental illness has probably been around since we've been on the savannah (maybe longer). Why wouldn't schizophrenics and other delusionals be writing religious scripts? Most of the bible sounds like a hallucination. The wheel of Ezekiel, Moses' trek to the mountain and the 40 years in the desert. All of it sounds like a mentally ill person could have told me most of it recently and it would have been very similar.

Very good point and I agree. The Bible does sound like the result of someone high on something or mentally ill.

Particularly Revelations. I swear whoever wrote it was either on a very strong hallucinogenic or stark raving mad.

I wasn't aware of L Ron Hubbards background but it makes sense given the position of Scientology on various issues including Psychology/Psychiatry.
I've been told by christians for years that I "just don't know how to interpret the bible". HAH!! That's moving the goalpost isn't it?!?

Haha! The old stand by for justifying whatever their interpretation happens to be.

Anyway, you may be right about the 666 thing but the imagery and writing is so bizarre and graphic in Revelations I still seriously question the sanity of the author(s). Lol.

Madalyn O'Hair is the correct spelling of her name. Apologies.
Psychology, like other fields, builds upon itself. There is junk science and there is junk psychology. Some of the old stuff from Freud and Jung has not held up to scientific evaluation. MUCH of modern psychology is research based and about as solid as we can get at this stage of the game. "Best Practices" provides the most up to date, research based psychology available.

The folks you are referencing are throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is equivalent to discrediting medical science based on the medicine of the 1800s.
It's true that Freud and Jung have been mostly discredited but I think Freud's PsychoAnalysis techniques continue to be used because they work (or at least that was the case about 15 years ago - things may have changed since then).
You could be correct on this.

It's only been the last 20 years that Psychology has adopted a more rigid form of the Scientific method and now has a component of Research Psychology which is focused on actual Scientific research as opposed to the type of Sociological research that used to be it's focus.
The last 20 years? Have you studied Psychology? Scientific Psychology has been around far longer than 20 years! Strictly empirical psychologists have been busy with research for more than 100 years. People seem to confuse the practice of psychiatry with the science of psychology. Very different things, unfortunately.
I took some courses in the 80s. Should I have said 30 years?

Yes there was lots of research but I believe most of it wasn't on a pure science footing.

I'm not a psychologist as I said and this is based on what I remember at the time.

And I'm talking about pure science like neuropsychology not empirical studies which have been around for a lot longer.
Okay, I don't mean to beat you up over this, it is clear that you are not a psychologist, and don't know of what you speak. There has been scientific psychology for more than 100 years. Yes "pure" science.

One example:
Okay, thank you. I stand corrected.

Out of curiousity what percentage of psychology consisted of pure science in the early days?


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service