Hacker News Reader

Comment by boomboomsubban | Hacker News Reader

>What if someone made a bible that claimed Jesus was not the son of god, but just a man. I assume you would be ok with that?

Like the Qur'an? No problems bud.

>What if someone makes a bible that says Jesus was engaged in a homosexual relationship with his disciples?

If I actually thought their religion truly believed that, absolutely a-ok. If they were doing it to be assholes, I'd still have no problems with it but I understand why there would be some people very upset and wish they would voluntarily stop.

That's also how I view depictions of Muhammad, if apps involving that were what Pakistan banned I'd see every party involved as objectionable. Here there's a clear victim.

View on HN

Ahh so now what about banning child pedophilia in holy books? How do you feel about religions texts the promote that particular viewpoint?

Like cults? Claiming religious authority to abuse someone is a crime basically everywhere.

If you're trying to refer to Muhammad, calling a few lines about a political marriage not contained in the Qur'an "promoting that viewpoint" is assholish behavior.

If there's some other target or just a hypothetical, it would depend on how the religion viewed the section today.

You are really about to start splitting hairs here I feel, but let's do this.

If a religion today promoted that a 50 year old can marry a 9 year old, would you ban it or not?

If a religion today claimed that the rapist of a woman who was single was forced to marry said woman, would you ban it or not?

>You are really about to start splitting hairs here I feel, but let's do this.

Despite your attempts to provoke me, my answer to every question has been "it's fine" except for the clear cut case of abuse. Now you're continuing towards what I view as islamophobia even after my warning. I really don't understand what you're hoping for here.

Child abuse, rape, and forced marriage are all things that should be illegal. Claiming a law is wrong shouldn't be illegal, but if the church was actively pushing their members to commit crimes they would likely be accessories. At no point would I ban a religion.

It's not an attempt to provoke. I'm not sure why you think that.

But you bring up a great point again. Define religion? I take it Satanism is a religion to you yes?

>I'm not sure why you think that.

Because this started with your objection to me saying religious persecution is wrong, and within three posts you had called Jesus gay and Muhammad a pedophile just to see what kind of reaction I gave. If you disagree, explain what you're hoping to get out of this interaction.

What if a person sincerely believes Jesus was gay, and that Muhamad was a pedophile? Were do you draw the line at sincerely held religious beliefs and what you think is not a sincere religious belief?

Why do you care so much about what other people believe? It's like you are trying to justify religious persecution.

Why do I care if delusional people get help? For the same reason I'm in support of universal healthcare as a human right. Again, if you want to claim something like religious persecution, can you define what it means. I would love a clear and concise definition of what is and isn't a religion.

As a side note that many readers might find interesting, delusion as defined in the DSM-5, the book that defines what is and isn't a "mental illness", EXPLICTLY makes an exception for "religious beliefs" when it comes to delusions. I.E., if you believe in Zeus and Thor and claim you pray and worship them, you can can be admitted for delusion because those "religions" aren't considered socio-normal, I.E. no big groups of people actively practice them. It's kind of the idea why cults are considered delusions. Now, you take that same exact logic, but apply it to someone who claims they talk to Jesus or Allah, bam, exemption and it's perfectly normal delusions.

My simple definition is "harmful actions are bad, not beliefs." What is or isn't religion isn't very important.

I wish people didn't hold beliefs I find nonsensical, but they likely feel the same way and any action I try to force on them will not improve anything. It's unfortunate that many are fine forcing things on me, but that doesn't mean I should adopt the practice.

>DSM-5

DSM-IV, it was changed in DSM-V.

Beliefs can lead to harmful actions though, that is why people can be locked up for "delusions" or "beliefs that can lead to harmful actions" in the first place. Your definition doesn't really address the idea that ideas can be harmful and that we do actually disallow certain beliefs in society.

As for your definition of religion, I think it is entirely relevant, as you suggest my ideas on redefining Christianity to include a gay Jesus is offensive to religion. Well, if you are going to claim that, I would challenge why this religious belief is less sacred than the traditional view of Jesus according to Christianity. How do you define religion is definitely relevant.

As for the last comment of it being DSM-V, what does that matter when referring to it as DSM-5? As far as I can tell, it is not a meaningful distinction. Do you disagree with the idea that religion has a specific exception in the current DSM when concerning religion?

I don't think certain beliefs should be disallowed. I've never heard of a person being arrested just for having a delusion, it may be possible.

>gay Jesus is offensive to religion

No, its intentionally trying to be offensive to the person you are talking to. Any example of a theological difference works for your argument, yet you kept returning to ones I said we're offensive.

The definition you provided was in the DSM-4, the one in 5 is different. I have no opinion on diagnosing delusions.

Arrested or committed are a very thing line apart. More so when you realize that what is defined to be a delusion versus a religious belief is arbitrary in nature. I think you realize this since you dodge the issue of defining exactly what religion is in the first place as "not relevant".

As for the DSM 4 versus DSM 5, please, if the distinction of which document we are using to define delusion has changed, do you mind explain your rational for why the DSM 4 has an explicit exception for religion concerning delusion when compared to how the DSM redefines it?

I took the term "lock up" to mean arrest. People don't get committed just for having a delusion either, which is why I don't need an specific definition of religion. I don't need to label other people's beliefs.

I was just fixing your mistake on the DSM part, but if I'm honest the religion exception was probably to prevent assholes from using it to label anyone religious crazy, and the new one makes it more clear harm is necessary.

Yet you use a word to label people's belief like religion as somehow protected. I'm not the one giving it a label. You are. I'm simply asking you to explain what you mean by the label you use which is the label of religion.

And harm isn't necessary in the DSM 5. Where are you pulling that idea from? Which part of the wording specifically? I'm referring to delusion disorder.

Again, I think no beliefs should be persecuted. What I call a religion is based on casual observation and deserves no additional protection, but it's broadly someone's metaphysical beliefs.

All i said was banning an app based on intolerance of a belief is more objectionable than going after an app out of geopolitical rivalry.

Every classification describes harmful delusions, and the symptoms are about ways it negatively impacts your life.

The Nazis had metaphysical beliefs. Do you think they were persecuted? What about children who have no choice in what beliefs are hoisted upon them?

As for religion and beliefs, is it possible to have beliefs without religion, or religion without beliefs? Can you ban one and not the other?

And banning for intolerance of a belief is exactly what happened to parler and Trump in the US. Are you against that as well even though it directly lead to an assault at the capitol?

Do you think religion or beliefs can have negative impacts on a life?

Reaching Godwin's law is a pretty good sign this is over.

Everyone has unreligious beliefs, but my rough definition of religion requires beliefs. You could make a law banning religious beliefs, but enforcement would be a shitshow.

Beliefs can be a negative thing for your life, and they can lead you to things like insurrection. Banning them will not stop this, and will cause additional damage to society.

Why would it be a shit show? And I wouldn't necessarily ban it, just make sure it is acknowledged as a delusion. If you really believe I need to take seriously someone who claims a human being can walk on water, you might need to have your own head checked for malfunction. Beliefs don't live in a vacuum, and everyday experiences should absolutely guide you to beliefs that are not outright rejections of reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com