.
From the study abstract:

..the most common voice is heard by schizophrenics and no surprise in Western cultures forever and ever the number one voice on the hit parade is that of Jesus. The number two voice Satan.

.

What's the exact source of this quote? I'm Googling it and getting zilch.

It's all good my friend. I pity people like this person. It saddens my heart to know there are people out here that reject and make a mockery of his grace. My sentiments are, "In the end we'll see. Ultimately if I can say anything that would bring him/her to salvation then praise The Lord.

It is not normally considered a sign of robust mental health to hear voices coming out and burning bushes. This is considered a worrisome sign. This is considered diagnostic. It is not a good thing to be reporting that you just spent the night wrestling an angel. it is usually a very disturbing sign if you were reporting you had a conversation with someone who is dead and has risen from the grave. These are diagnosable problems in our secular Western realm. These are the backbones of our belief systems. We in the west as well as we humans in non-westernized settings Schizotypalism runs through all of human history.

Who invented this stuff? Who came up with the notion that the world was invented in seven days or snakes with apples are up to something no good or it's possible to give birth and you're still a virgin? These were not designed by committees. These were designed by extremely formative, extremely influential schizotypals throughout history.

What you wind up seeing with this is this is on a continuum and who invented this stuff.? And you look throughout the history of religious leaders and those who have invented some other theology…...As you see those who invented the theology that there is very often a thread of meta-magical thinking that goes through this and this is meta-magical thinking of a type that falls readily into the spectrum of schizotypalism.

Remarkably the parallels between schizophrenia and religion run deeper than the high prevalence of religious delusions in schizophrenia. In fact, the basic cognitive structure of a religious idea seems to be identical to the basic cognitive structure of a psychotic thought.

You don't because you are apathetic for those who suffer such maladies.

People believing the typical sets of religious beliefs that obtain in their native cultures are not thought by psychiatrists or psychologists of religion to be suffering from any "malady".

As you see those who invented the theology that there is very often a thread of meta-magical thinking that goes through this and this is meta-magical thinking of a type that falls readily into the spectrum of schizotypalism.

This notion is an invention of your own, based on prejudice, which you attempt to support by posting snippets from videos and websites that appear to support your position, but really don't when the whole thing is read in context.

It is not normally considered a sign of robust mental health to hear voices coming out and burning bushes. This is considered a worrisome sign. This is considered diagnostic. It is not a good thing to be reporting that you just spent the night wrestling an angel. it is usually a very disturbing sign if you were reporting you had a conversation with someone who is dead and has risen from the grave. These are diagnosable problems in our secular Western realm. These are the backbones of our belief systems. We in the west as well as we humans in non-westernized settings Schizotypalism runs through all of human history.

Remarkably the parallels between schizophrenia and religion run deeper than the high prevalence of religious delusions in schizophrenia.

In fact, the basic cognitive structure of a religious idea seems to be identical to the basic cognitive structure of a psychotic thought.

From Polimeni
Remarkably the parallels between schizophrenia and religion run deeper than the high prevalence of religious delusions in schizophrenia.
Runs deeper? Its is meaningless to you.

In fact, the basic cognitive structure of a religious idea seems to be identical to the basic cognitive structure of a psychotic thought.
You don't even know what a cognitive structure is. If you can't deal with facts it's because you share traits with numb skull religious fanatics.

These people suffer from a tradition that has mental disorder woven into it's fabric. That's what these guys are telling us. People hearing voices in their heads is not a "sign of robust mental health". Deal with it.

More stuff..


Yes, it's fairly meaningless without the provision of further context.

But that's a general fault with your posts.

Word salad supported by selected out-of-context sound bites. Such an approach wouldn't earn you a university degree, which makes me sceptical that you are well educated.

I know what the basic cognitive structure of a religious idea is because I've read the relevant literature discussed in Polimeni's video, which is contained in Pascal Boyer's book Religion Explained. In the extract from the Polimeni video that you've fallen in love with, screenshotted, and delight in reposting at every opportunity, he's discussing Boyer's theories. Except that Boyer never equates "the basic cognitive structure of a religious idea to the basic cognitive structure of a psychotic thought". He never says religious people are nuts. And Boyer is respected in his field, whereas Polimeni appears to be just a workaday psychiatrist who has written a book, much like another undistinguished psychiatrist called Lyle Rossiter, who wrote this book

What people? No people I've encountered on forum, who are the people to whom you routinely direct your word salad attacks.

It's quite stupid to die for irrational absurd beliefs based on fairy tale myths.

Christians are no less delusional than Muslims who also die for their sick faith.

You don't know what a cognitive structure is. The sad it's a very simple concept.

He (Boyer) argues that these concepts are attractive and memorable to normal human minds, tend to survive and be passed on, and follow an identifiable cognitive structure, whereby a particular object is represented in the thoughts of the religious believer, but lacking a significant characteristic of its ontological category — for example, the concept that exists in many religious belief systems and may be applied to gods, ghosts, demons, angels etc of a person with a mind, but lacking a body.

What you wind up seeing with this is this is on a continuum and who invented this stuff? And you look throughout the history of religious leaders and those who have invented some other theology…...As you see those who invented the theology that there is very often a thread of meta-magical thinking that goes through this and this is meta-magical thinking of a type that falls readily into the spectrum of schizotypalism.

I don't disagree with anthropologist Boyer or psychiatrist Polimeni's analysis. Just yours because you're unable to grasp what a cognitive structure actually is. Just posting a sentence where its used doesn't display you have knowledge of it.

Consequently, you're completely intellectually unable to grasp how Polimeni's well backed observation can be made:

Remarkably the parallels between schizophrenia and religion run deeper than the high prevalence of religious delusions in schizophrenia. In fact, the basic cognitive structure of a religious idea seems to be identical to the basic cognitive structure of a psychotic thought.

Just in case your forgot. Schizotypal personality disorder is a mental illness.

What would be the mild, advantageous version of schizophrenia? As was mentioned in the first piece in this volume, this form is now called “schizotypal” personality disorder. Schizotypals are not the dysfunctional isolates that schizophrenics are. They just tend toward solitary hobbies and professions, are uncomfortable in social situations involving unfamiliar people, are aloof, with few close friends. They are the fire tower rangers, the lighthouse keepers, the film projectionists alone each night in their booths. Moreover, schizotypals are not floridly delusional, hallucinating like schizophrenics. Their disordered thoughts and behaviors are far subtler, in that they have a tendency toward what is termed the “metamagical.” They may have an extremely strong interest in science fiction and fantasy, or in some New Age paranormal belief such as ESP or levitation. They often report odd perceptual experiences—sensing spirits in a room, seeing illusions. Or, as a foreshadowing of the tumult to come, they may have a profound faith in very literal, very concrete interpretations of religious dogma—it really is possible for Jesus to have walked on water, the Patriarchs truly lived for nine hundred years, the creation of the world in seven days is reporting of precise fact rather than a parable. Schizotypal personality disorder was first recognized in precisely the population where you would expect it—among close relatives of schizophrenics, among those individuals who share a certain percentage of genes with schizophrenics.

It is important to recognize that none of these traits count as all-out mentally ill in the conventional sense used by most in society, in which “crazy” is most usually akin to the shattering psychosis of schizophrenia. Perfectly respectable businessmen may sneak off to their Star Trek conventions, an erstwhile actress may publish a best-selling account of her previous lives, a First Lady may consult astrologers and still be taken seriously in the fashion pages.

Who are the schizotypals? Not the lone schizotypal operating the film projector in a movie theater, sensing the presence of Elvis in the room. I mean who were the schizotypals in preindustrial societies, throughout 99 percent of our human history? Here is the key. In 1936, Radin was the first to advance the idea that many shamans, witch doctors, and medicine men (and women) are “half-crazy.”

clarence sezs

clarence sezs

Didn't read but thinks he knows what's in it yet cannot explain how Polemini observes as others have the parallels between schizophrenia and religion. Boyer is an anthropologist. Polemini is a psychiatrist. I think we see what the problem is.

If that's what you think Christianity is you go on and believe that dumb s**t.

All's I have to say, in the end we'll see.

.
Your post this time is veering into word salad territory with no interesting points made. And you're starting again to carp about my usage of the word "normal". I use it in the straightforward sense of meaning not suffering from any diagnosable mental disorder. Usage of the word "statistical" in the title of the DSM is an artefact of the 19th century and referred merely to the collection of health statistics by which diagnostic criteria could be formulated:

It is estimated that the Inquisition executed approximately 6000 people over several centuries. The Communists killed that many people before lunch every day. The Nazis killed a lot of Christians too, in fact they killed more Christians than Jews.

The question needs to be turned around. Why are atheists and agnostics afraid of Christianity?

The Communists killed millions of Christians.

See even your so called christians can't agree on who's christian.

You remind me of those parents who say: ""My daughter is a good child...she was influenced by her friends."" You are so easy to influence that the adjective "pathetic" is not big enough to describe you.