Road rules2 mins ago
A subject for tomorrow's discussion?
59 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. 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.
She did a similar programme last week about body image or some such. I imagine, like that one, the programme will be filled with your usual fairground fundamentalists who�s actions are so �out there� that the general eyebrow raising public will point fingers and say things like �nutter� �oddball� whilst hurling hypothetical rotten tomatoes at the social misfits and pleading with their entrenched rationale/insanity.
Of course I am not poo-pooing your suggestion, merely saying that if it is anything like the last programme, any individual they trot out for a bit of film footage is going to be the extreme version , and for all intents and purpose � of such documentaries � not all that normal when compared against your average yo-yo dieter/breast enlarging viewing public.
Maybe, just maybe, something meaningful can be debated tomorrow.
Of course I am not poo-pooing your suggestion, merely saying that if it is anything like the last programme, any individual they trot out for a bit of film footage is going to be the extreme version , and for all intents and purpose � of such documentaries � not all that normal when compared against your average yo-yo dieter/breast enlarging viewing public.
Maybe, just maybe, something meaningful can be debated tomorrow.
Isn't the ultimate confirmation of insanity the belief that one is normal?
Ironically enough the program can alternatively be viewed later @ 1:40am on BBC1 when the answer to the question in question should be obvious.
Ironically enough the program can alternatively be viewed later @ 1:40am on BBC1 when the answer to the question in question should be obvious.
-- answer removed --
There was writer called Oliver James on the tele the other week and he said that staistically people who went to church etc. were less likely to suffer mental ilnesses than those who don't. He went onto say that social workers are largely aware of this but seek to deny it because most of them are atheists.
It was on "The Big Questions" with Nicky Campbell on a Sunday, I did'nt like that show a bit too much of a Punch and Judy debate for a Sunday morning.
The truth is always were you find it.
How was your holiday?
It was on "The Big Questions" with Nicky Campbell on a Sunday, I did'nt like that show a bit too much of a Punch and Judy debate for a Sunday morning.
The truth is always were you find it.
How was your holiday?
There seems to be a lot of pre-conceived ideas here. If believers had watched the programme before passing judgement, they may have been pleasantly surprised. Not to worry - let's talk about something meaningful today. Any ideas?
Everton, thanks for asking. The holiday was good - but I still don't agree with your contention that 'the truth is always where you find it.'
Hi China, the cyber grass skirt is on its way to you .... and I just LOVE those designer tap shoes! Jimmy Choo?
Everton, thanks for asking. The holiday was good - but I still don't agree with your contention that 'the truth is always where you find it.'
Hi China, the cyber grass skirt is on its way to you .... and I just LOVE those designer tap shoes! Jimmy Choo?
I thought the programme pointless and rather cruel.
Pointless because it hardly needed 60 minutes of prime-time television to tell us that obsessive religious belief produces dementia (or that dementia is the cause of such belief). Or that 'faith-healers' are rogues.
Cruel because it dwelt at unnecessary length on some of these unfortunate people. It only needs a few seconds of people hearing voices all day or 'speaking in tongues' to
let us see that these people are disturbed, so why prolong the gawping? And why on earth we had to spend so long with that weird man at the end who claimed to be removing bad spirits from that poor woman is beyond me.
It reminded me of that idea in Victorian times that it was fun to go along to the nearest asylum to watch the antics of the mad people. It was unhealthy voyeurism and very unpleasant. Yuk!
Pointless because it hardly needed 60 minutes of prime-time television to tell us that obsessive religious belief produces dementia (or that dementia is the cause of such belief). Or that 'faith-healers' are rogues.
Cruel because it dwelt at unnecessary length on some of these unfortunate people. It only needs a few seconds of people hearing voices all day or 'speaking in tongues' to
let us see that these people are disturbed, so why prolong the gawping? And why on earth we had to spend so long with that weird man at the end who claimed to be removing bad spirits from that poor woman is beyond me.
It reminded me of that idea in Victorian times that it was fun to go along to the nearest asylum to watch the antics of the mad people. It was unhealthy voyeurism and very unpleasant. Yuk!
I ain't sayin' nothin' . . . not a word!
Hello Chakka, I see what you're saying, especially with the elderly gentleman at the end - although I certainly don't think the programme was pointless and neither was it cruel, since everyone involved was clearly happy to contribute (even though many of us would say they're deluded). I found it all quite fascinating and felt that it did attempt to take an unusually unbiased view of the subject. It's certainly rare to find a programme presented by a scientist portraying another scientist conducting brain scans on people who claim to speak in tongues - and concluding that there's no explanation for it.
Mibs You creating fireworks again? Oh deary me! Can't imagine what you're expecting!
Mibs You creating fireworks again? Oh deary me! Can't imagine what you're expecting!
Naomi, You're the one who lit the fuse!
But since you're apparently blinded by the light . . . I am delighted to inform you that your thread has prompted a miraculous resurrection. (I should have guessed you'd be the one to do it.) I can only attribute your own extended absence to your overlooking of the fact that you're not the only one here who hasn't darkened the R&S doorway for a spell . . . until this thread that is; hint, hint.
Shhhhh! Easy now, we don't want to create a scene and possibly scare away a friendly spirit from the past . . . that is . . . if I haven't already!
But since you're apparently blinded by the light . . . I am delighted to inform you that your thread has prompted a miraculous resurrection. (I should have guessed you'd be the one to do it.) I can only attribute your own extended absence to your overlooking of the fact that you're not the only one here who hasn't darkened the R&S doorway for a spell . . . until this thread that is; hint, hint.
Shhhhh! Easy now, we don't want to create a scene and possibly scare away a friendly spirit from the past . . . that is . . . if I haven't already!
Having watched the program properly this morning I have to say that making a program exploring paralells between religion and insanity was always going to risk being labelled as exploitative.
I think Dr Saunders(?) casting out spirits must have been a close call but I'd suggest that there's a strong public interest defense. Having people like that hypnotise and suggest to vulnerable people the things he does is very worrying and I'd guess that he's not regulated by anybody.
It opens the whole question of the unregulated alternative therapies.
Perhaps the General Medical Council needs an alternative therapy role to regulate anybody claiming to heal people, not to validate the therapy's effecictiness but to ensure that the patients wellfare is adequately protected.
It could then be an offence to treat somebody without certification.
I think Dr Saunders(?) casting out spirits must have been a close call but I'd suggest that there's a strong public interest defense. Having people like that hypnotise and suggest to vulnerable people the things he does is very worrying and I'd guess that he's not regulated by anybody.
It opens the whole question of the unregulated alternative therapies.
Perhaps the General Medical Council needs an alternative therapy role to regulate anybody claiming to heal people, not to validate the therapy's effecictiness but to ensure that the patients wellfare is adequately protected.
It could then be an offence to treat somebody without certification.
Mibs I had, of course (with great delight) observed this miraculous resurrection. In my response to you, I was merely hiding in the bushes and tiptoeing cautiously for fear of causing a welcome native to beat another hasty retreat. Shhhh ...... let's hope he hasn't noticed.
Jake I have to agree with you. The possible effects of the practices of people such as the elderly gentleman (can't remember his name) who supposedly cast out spirits from an already sick woman are extremely worrying. It should be regulated, but I wonder how it could be? If people believe they are possessed by spirits, it's unlikely they'd consult a doctor for a cure - and would the 'exorcists' be willing to register as 'alternative therapists'? Regulation may prove rather difficult.
Jake I have to agree with you. The possible effects of the practices of people such as the elderly gentleman (can't remember his name) who supposedly cast out spirits from an already sick woman are extremely worrying. It should be regulated, but I wonder how it could be? If people believe they are possessed by spirits, it's unlikely they'd consult a doctor for a cure - and would the 'exorcists' be willing to register as 'alternative therapists'? Regulation may prove rather difficult.
They'd have to register.
Advertising ones services as an unregisterred therapist would become an offence.
They wouldn't have to prove their therapy works, just have a CRB check, 3rd party insurance and show that their therapy is not obviously harmfull.
In Dr. Saunders case that would obviously be assessed by a psychologist with experience of hypnotism
Advertising ones services as an unregisterred therapist would become an offence.
They wouldn't have to prove their therapy works, just have a CRB check, 3rd party insurance and show that their therapy is not obviously harmfull.
In Dr. Saunders case that would obviously be assessed by a psychologist with experience of hypnotism
I only watched a small part of it in the end as I was up to something else.
I do think it was relatively objective and I agree with many comments above, especially jake on the faith healing.
To be clear, I don�t believe in talking in tongues or casting out demons as demonstrated. I do believe that voices in the head are most likely a psychological disorder.
I don�t agree with the Carmelite regime, although it is up to them to live that like that really. My aunt is a nun and has led an entirely full life, albeit no relationships or children and total devotion to the convent and church, including all of her worldly possessions. She does a lot of community work for local youths and worked with AIDS sufferers in Africa for several years and now assists as a theatre nurse during operations. I don�t think shutting yourself away in silence is that conducive to the use of your natural human abilities.
I do think it was relatively objective and I agree with many comments above, especially jake on the faith healing.
To be clear, I don�t believe in talking in tongues or casting out demons as demonstrated. I do believe that voices in the head are most likely a psychological disorder.
I don�t agree with the Carmelite regime, although it is up to them to live that like that really. My aunt is a nun and has led an entirely full life, albeit no relationships or children and total devotion to the convent and church, including all of her worldly possessions. She does a lot of community work for local youths and worked with AIDS sufferers in Africa for several years and now assists as a theatre nurse during operations. I don�t think shutting yourself away in silence is that conducive to the use of your natural human abilities.
I think the nuns have the somewhat medieval view that they actually influence the world by the power of their prayers and that their natural human abilities are being used in making those devotions.
they actually think that the fact that they all exist there and pray causes non-specific good things to happen which would not if they weren't there.
A kind of spiritual battery.
If you believe that the more prayers are said for something the more likely it is to happen then it makes perfect sense.
Personally if I were God and were being nagged morning noon and night by a bunch of penguins I'd be reaching for my smiting stick pretty damn fast!
they actually think that the fact that they all exist there and pray causes non-specific good things to happen which would not if they weren't there.
A kind of spiritual battery.
If you believe that the more prayers are said for something the more likely it is to happen then it makes perfect sense.
Personally if I were God and were being nagged morning noon and night by a bunch of penguins I'd be reaching for my smiting stick pretty damn fast!
I watched bits of it myself, I agree entirely with the casting out of spirits stuff (the whole past life regression thing seems a bit far out for me) but the thing that stuck me was at the Christian rock concert, not my cup of tea. She went into some in depth analasys of the event, they were just people at a concert with Christian style music, I wondered if this woman (or psychologists in general) are really just people who are unable to fit in with anything, they take a pride in being observers and formulating conclusions based on their perception of your behaviour (psychology is the science of opinion if you ask me) her quizical musings at the concert were probably as much to do with the rather poor music on offer (a matter of taste). You could rouse a similar reaction in oneself just by watching other people eat.
The "truth" to you Naomi is that aliens came to the Earth and performed experiments and enhanced evolution (or something like that) you base your belief on your interpretation of a variety of sources from across the globe.
Your truth is as absurd as mine, K9os or even Waldo's and so on.
In philosophy you only need to "prove" something to your own satisfaction.
The "truth" to you Naomi is that aliens came to the Earth and performed experiments and enhanced evolution (or something like that) you base your belief on your interpretation of a variety of sources from across the globe.
Your truth is as absurd as mine, K9os or even Waldo's and so on.
In philosophy you only need to "prove" something to your own satisfaction.
Everton No, you're wrong. That is not the 'truth' to me. I do believe people from other planets came to earth in the distant past, and that this is where stories of gods originated, but I don't claim it to be the truth because I don't know if it is. I simply believe it may be . Believing in something does not make it true. I have no irrefutable proof and 'truth' must be absolutely irrefutable. Unless something is proven without doubt, unless the evidence is incontravertible, it cannot - under any circumstances - be considered 'truth'. However, you appear to find that impossible to understand.
And what's philosophy got to do with truth? Not with you there.
And what's philosophy got to do with truth? Not with you there.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Body & Soul19 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.