Is Jesus a knock off?
What if I told you something?
Would you believe me if I said that Jesus has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, in common with god's such as Horus, let alone, Adonis.
Firstly, let's look at the details surrounding Horus first.
Horus
Horus is a significant deity within the Egyptian pantheon, who was worshipped from around the time of pre-historic Egypt and lost slight favour around the time of the Ptolemaic kingdom/Roman rule.
Over the years there have been many variations of Horus, which corresponds roughly with how the Egyptians viewed reality in a multi-faceted way.
If you look up pictures of Horus, you are most likely to come across pictures of a half-man half-bird mash.
Unlike Jesus, who was always painted as a full man with a man's head, human neck, etc, etc.
Most critics of Christianity will often assert, often incorrectly that Horus was born of a virgin. (Enter classical studies, let's get that back into schools).
Virgin birth
Sorry to burst your misguided bubble here, but, Horus DID NOT HAVE a virgin birth. The mother of Horus, Isis, retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her husband Osiris, but she could not retrieve the phallus of her husband, so had to have a gold phallus made, she then placed it onto her husband and then she conceived Horus, from the golden phallus. Isis then went to hiding the very moment she found out she was pregnant, in which to hide from set, who originally killed Osiris in the first place, in which to protect Horus.
The difference between Jesus and Horus
1) Horus did not have 12 followers.
2) Horus did not have 12 disciples that were fisher men, tax collectors, etc.
3) Horus was not tempted in the forty days of fasting by satan with the wealth of the world.
4) Horus did not walk on water.
5) Horus never taught his followers the beatitudes in a sermon on the mount.
6) Osiris and Isis did not have to travel to Bethlehem to register.
7) there was no slaughter of infant males by a king Herod style figure in the Egyptian mythology.
8) Egyptian did not fast in any time of thier religious calendar.
1) Jesus had twelve followers.
2) the disciples of Jesus were fisher men, tax collectors, etc.
3) Jesus was tempted in his forty days of fasting by satan with the wealth of the world.
4) Jesus walked on water, Jesus also had one of his disciples walk on water.
5) Jesus gave a sermon on the mount, where he delivered the beatitudes to his massive throng of followers.
6) Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to register with the local Roman rulers, Mary gave birth in a stable, visited by wise men.
7) Joseph warned to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus to escape the tyrannical mass killing of infants under two years of age, in a dream.
8) Jews, Muslims, Catholics fast during certain calendar dates in their religious calendar.
The same logic also applies to god's such as Adonis, and Mithras, although the claims are that those gods had virgin mother is purely fictitious in its nature.
The mother of adonis, myrrha, was by no means a virgin, she had intercourse with her own father, committing incest. She was transformed into a myrrh tree, possibly as punishment for having an incestous relationship with her father, she gave birth to Adonis as a tree.
Mithras has no actual mother, he was "born" in what can be deemed the longest night of the year, which in the northern hemisphere is December 21st/22nd. He was born after he beat the darkness. Mithraism is a Persian religion that is one of many that centers on a unique god but are not polytheistic in anyway.
A word on the zeitgeist movie
The Zeitgeist movie is where you will find the incorrect information concerning all of the above Gods/Godheads.
People are beginning now to question the validity of the zeitgeist movie, in which the creator (Peter Joseph) claimed that a critic of his production was mentally ill, simply just for disagreeing with the movie.
What is the zeitgeist about? Well the movie comes complete in three different sections. The first one being "the greatest story ever told" which covers religion.
The second part is "all the world is a stage" in which it is claimed that the government had known in advance what was going to happen on that fateful day on September the 11. It even goes onto say that it was all an inside job, if you had realised by now, the zeitgeist caters to the tin hat people. Part three of the movie is titled "don't mind the men behind the curtain" which looks at the world (through tin hat goggles) at how bankers and world leaders are trying to take over the world.
It is ironic when people would gladly place tin hats over thier noggings, and watch a movie called the zeitgeist, aptly, and treat it as absolute truth, but, then go onto preach to others that they shouldn't believe everything they read on the internet. The irony is astounding, even though the zeitgeist movie, is solely based on the realms of the internet, go on, look it up on youtube, it's there alright.
Tuesday, 30 May 2017
Wednesday, 3 May 2017
Catholicism - a brief overview.
For the first 1,500 years of Christianity there was no "Catholicism" as it is known it today, simply because there were no other forms of Christianity to distinguish it. There was only the "one, holy, catholic church" ("catholic" means "universal"), which was the body of Christian believers all over the western world, united by common traditions, beliefs, church structure and worship. Before the Reformation (in the 1500s), if you were a Christian, you belonged to the Catholic Church. Any other form of Christianity was considered a heresy, not a Christian denomination.
Today, there are many popular forms of Christianity besides Roman Catholicism. Although the Catholic Church continues to teach that it alone has carried on the true tradition of the apostolic church, the Second Vatican Council declared all baptized Christians to be "in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." [1] So to be a Catholic today means to be a certain kind of Christian: one with beliefs, practices and traditions that differ from those of Protestantism, Anglicanism, Greek Orthodox, and other branches of modern Christianity.
Roman Catholicism is by far the largest Christian group. With more than one billion adherents, Catholics constitute about half of the world's Christians. [2] Catholicism is the majority religion of Italy, Spain, and nearly all Latin American countries. In 2001, about 24 percent of Americans identified themselves as Catholic, making Catholicism the largest Christian denomination in America (if the Protestant denominations are counted individually). The next largest denomination, Baptists, was claimed by 16 percent of Americans. Yet if Protestants are considered as one group, Catholics remain a minority among America's Christians.
Distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs include the special authority of the pope, the ability of saints to intercede on behalf of believers, the concept of purgatory as a place of afterlife purification before entering heaven, and the doctrine of transubstantiation - that is, that the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true body of Christ when blessed by a priest.
Generally, Catholic worship tends to be more formal and ritualized than its Protestant counterparts. Services follow a prescribed liturgy and priests wear more elaborate vestments than most Protestant ministers. Catholics usually celebrate the Eucharist (which they call Mass) more often than do Protestants, usually weekly.
Catholics observe seven sacraments: religious rituals believed to be commanded by God and effective in conferring grace on the believer. Other distinctive Catholic practices include veneration of saints, use of the crucifix, and the use of rosary beads in prayer.
Unlike their counterparts in both Protestant and Orthodox churches, Catholic priests take vows of celibacy. This practice is rooted in the papacy's early connections with monasticism. There are several Catholic monastic orders, the most well known being the Jesuits, Dominicans, Fransciscans, and Augustinians. Catholic monks and nuns take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and devote themselves to a simple life focused on worshipping God.
Roman Catholicism traces its history to the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. St. Peter is considered the first pope, and every pope since him is regarded as his spiritual successor. This gives the leader of the church spiritual authority and provides a means for resolving disputes that could divide the church. Through trials like persecution, heresy, and the Reformation, the notion that the church leadership represents the continuation of an unbroken line from the apostles and their teachings ("apostolic succession") has contributed to the survival of Christianity.
However, it was not until several centuries after Christ that the church began to develop into the "Roman Catholic Church" as we think of it today, with its particular doctrines, practices, and hierarchical system of authority. From the Catholic perspective, the early church is faithfully continued in the developments of later centuries, while non-Catholics tend to regard the church as having corrupted the original message of Christianity.
The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom. In his writings one can find all the traditional arguments for papal authority, most notably that which asserts Christ had designated Peter and his successors the "rock" on which the church would be built.
Roman Catholic beliefs do not differ drastically from those of the other major branches of Christianity, Greek Orthodoxy and Protestantism. All three main branches hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, and so on.
But on other doctrinal points, there are clear Catholic distinctives in belief. Distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs include the special authority of the pope, the ability of saints to intercede on behalf of believers, the concept of purgatory, and the doctrine of transubstantiation - that is, that the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true body of Christ when blessed by a priest.
Apocrypha in Catholicism
The early Christians, most of whom spoke Greek, used the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha continued in common use among Christians until the Reformation, when the Hebrew canon was chosen as the Protestant Old Testament. This means Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha.
Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to use the Septuagint. The Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha canonical at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70).
The main theological significance of the Apocrypha is the Books of the Maccabees' support for prayer for the dead, a practice which Protestants reject.
Evolution in Catholicism
Although the theory of evolution was first articulated in the 1850's, the Roman Catholic Church didn't address the issue formally until the 1950's.
When the Catholic Church eventually spoke on the issue, specifically Pope Pius XII in 1950, he stated that there was no conflict between evolution and Christian faith.
The official catechisms of the Catholic Church (revised 1997) state:
159 Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1)
160 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and
161 wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....
The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....
Pope John Paul II said in a 1996 address:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) said in 2008:
“The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.”
Reaction
The Catholic Church's position on creation and evolution pleased some and upset others. Some of the devout, who desired that the Church align itself with current scientific consensus, welcomed the position, seeing it as progressive and modern. Other believers expressed disappointment because they thought the Church was falling away from a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially in regards to the book of Genesis.
Today, there are many popular forms of Christianity besides Roman Catholicism. Although the Catholic Church continues to teach that it alone has carried on the true tradition of the apostolic church, the Second Vatican Council declared all baptized Christians to be "in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." [1] So to be a Catholic today means to be a certain kind of Christian: one with beliefs, practices and traditions that differ from those of Protestantism, Anglicanism, Greek Orthodox, and other branches of modern Christianity.
Roman Catholicism is by far the largest Christian group. With more than one billion adherents, Catholics constitute about half of the world's Christians. [2] Catholicism is the majority religion of Italy, Spain, and nearly all Latin American countries. In 2001, about 24 percent of Americans identified themselves as Catholic, making Catholicism the largest Christian denomination in America (if the Protestant denominations are counted individually). The next largest denomination, Baptists, was claimed by 16 percent of Americans. Yet if Protestants are considered as one group, Catholics remain a minority among America's Christians.
Distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs include the special authority of the pope, the ability of saints to intercede on behalf of believers, the concept of purgatory as a place of afterlife purification before entering heaven, and the doctrine of transubstantiation - that is, that the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true body of Christ when blessed by a priest.
Generally, Catholic worship tends to be more formal and ritualized than its Protestant counterparts. Services follow a prescribed liturgy and priests wear more elaborate vestments than most Protestant ministers. Catholics usually celebrate the Eucharist (which they call Mass) more often than do Protestants, usually weekly.
Catholics observe seven sacraments: religious rituals believed to be commanded by God and effective in conferring grace on the believer. Other distinctive Catholic practices include veneration of saints, use of the crucifix, and the use of rosary beads in prayer.
Unlike their counterparts in both Protestant and Orthodox churches, Catholic priests take vows of celibacy. This practice is rooted in the papacy's early connections with monasticism. There are several Catholic monastic orders, the most well known being the Jesuits, Dominicans, Fransciscans, and Augustinians. Catholic monks and nuns take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and devote themselves to a simple life focused on worshipping God.
Roman Catholicism traces its history to the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. St. Peter is considered the first pope, and every pope since him is regarded as his spiritual successor. This gives the leader of the church spiritual authority and provides a means for resolving disputes that could divide the church. Through trials like persecution, heresy, and the Reformation, the notion that the church leadership represents the continuation of an unbroken line from the apostles and their teachings ("apostolic succession") has contributed to the survival of Christianity.
However, it was not until several centuries after Christ that the church began to develop into the "Roman Catholic Church" as we think of it today, with its particular doctrines, practices, and hierarchical system of authority. From the Catholic perspective, the early church is faithfully continued in the developments of later centuries, while non-Catholics tend to regard the church as having corrupted the original message of Christianity.
The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom. In his writings one can find all the traditional arguments for papal authority, most notably that which asserts Christ had designated Peter and his successors the "rock" on which the church would be built.
Roman Catholic beliefs do not differ drastically from those of the other major branches of Christianity, Greek Orthodoxy and Protestantism. All three main branches hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, and so on.
But on other doctrinal points, there are clear Catholic distinctives in belief. Distinctive Roman Catholic beliefs include the special authority of the pope, the ability of saints to intercede on behalf of believers, the concept of purgatory, and the doctrine of transubstantiation - that is, that the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true body of Christ when blessed by a priest.
Apocrypha in Catholicism
The early Christians, most of whom spoke Greek, used the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha continued in common use among Christians until the Reformation, when the Hebrew canon was chosen as the Protestant Old Testament. This means Protestants do not accept the Apocrypha.
Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to use the Septuagint. The Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha canonical at both the Council of Trent (1546) and the First Vatican Council (1869-70).
The main theological significance of the Apocrypha is the Books of the Maccabees' support for prayer for the dead, a practice which Protestants reject.
Evolution in Catholicism
Although the theory of evolution was first articulated in the 1850's, the Roman Catholic Church didn't address the issue formally until the 1950's.
When the Catholic Church eventually spoke on the issue, specifically Pope Pius XII in 1950, he stated that there was no conflict between evolution and Christian faith.
The official catechisms of the Catholic Church (revised 1997) state:
159 Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1)
160 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and
161 wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....
The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....
Pope John Paul II said in a 1996 address:
"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) said in 2008:
“The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.”
Reaction
The Catholic Church's position on creation and evolution pleased some and upset others. Some of the devout, who desired that the Church align itself with current scientific consensus, welcomed the position, seeing it as progressive and modern. Other believers expressed disappointment because they thought the Church was falling away from a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially in regards to the book of Genesis.
Wednesday, 19 April 2017
Is there really such a thing as this?
Is there really such a thing, such as Atheistic persecution?
well according to the website wikipedia, it is written as:
"Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as the discrimination against them. Discrimination against atheists may also refer to and comprise the negative attitudes towards, prejudice, hostility, hatred, fear, and/or intolerance towards atheists and/or atheism. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against or persecuted on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place. As of 2015, 19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 13 of those countries it is punishable by death. In some Islamic countries, atheists face persecution and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment."
hardly?does this seem like places like the greater parts of Europe or even Britain, do they suffer such in America?
Taking another look, under the article 18 we see how everyone is allowed to have freedom to follow whatever path is deemed appropriate to each individual, as long it is not deemed to be harmful to others within the community.
Article 18 is as follows:
"Human rights
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views. Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are persecuted in many parts of the world."
Stigma does not equal persecution.
There are 13/23 countries today where being an atheist is illegal. They are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Pakistan. The punishment for atheism in most of these countries is death.
A you will notice, most notably all of those countries are Muslim. this means that the state religion of those 13 countries is Islamic.
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/boycotting-sam-harriss-ads-atheist-freedom-of-speech-vs-religious-censorship,8377
Is mocking atheism hate speech or free speech?
Phil Robertson Hypothesizes About Atheist Family Getting Raped And Killed
So probably there is a line, somewhere out there, between mockery and "hate speech".
There's no need to discuss, of course, what it is that the law says about expressing atheist beliefs in a certain number of countries, even today.
well according to the website wikipedia, it is written as:
"Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as the discrimination against them. Discrimination against atheists may also refer to and comprise the negative attitudes towards, prejudice, hostility, hatred, fear, and/or intolerance towards atheists and/or atheism. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against or persecuted on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place. As of 2015, 19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 13 of those countries it is punishable by death. In some Islamic countries, atheists face persecution and severe penalties such as the withdrawal of legal status or, in the case of apostasy, capital punishment."
hardly?does this seem like places like the greater parts of Europe or even Britain, do they suffer such in America?
Taking another look, under the article 18 we see how everyone is allowed to have freedom to follow whatever path is deemed appropriate to each individual, as long it is not deemed to be harmful to others within the community.
Article 18 is as follows:
"Human rights
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views. Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are persecuted in many parts of the world."
Stigma does not equal persecution.
There are 13/23 countries today where being an atheist is illegal. They are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Pakistan. The punishment for atheism in most of these countries is death.
A you will notice, most notably all of those countries are Muslim. this means that the state religion of those 13 countries is Islamic.
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/boycotting-sam-harriss-ads-atheist-freedom-of-speech-vs-religious-censorship,8377
Is mocking atheism hate speech or free speech?
Hate speech targets people, not ideas.
If you intimidate, or call for discrimination or violence against atheists, then that's hate speech. Same is true if you target that speech against Christians, or recent immigrants, or any other group of people.
But you can certainly criticize, or even mock, atheism, Christian doctrine, immigration policy, or any other set of ideas, and be on safe free speech ground.
If you intimidate, or call for discrimination or violence against atheists, then that's hate speech. Same is true if you target that speech against Christians, or recent immigrants, or any other group of people.
But you can certainly criticize, or even mock, atheism, Christian doctrine, immigration policy, or any other set of ideas, and be on safe free speech ground.
Mocking atheism is protected speech. Atheism is just an idea.
Now, here's an example which maybe goes a little bit over the line, I would say. I suppose it could be called satire. But it is definitely not satire in the sense of Juvenal. If the speaker were not just a publicity whore, I might even be tempted to call what he said "hate speech".
But he still has the right to say it in the US. It's protected speech.
As it is, I'ld call it a transparent attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, in order to make a quick buck. I don't even take what the man says as seriously as I take anything that Anne Coulter has said.
Now, here's an example which maybe goes a little bit over the line, I would say. I suppose it could be called satire. But it is definitely not satire in the sense of Juvenal. If the speaker were not just a publicity whore, I might even be tempted to call what he said "hate speech".
But he still has the right to say it in the US. It's protected speech.
As it is, I'ld call it a transparent attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, in order to make a quick buck. I don't even take what the man says as seriously as I take anything that Anne Coulter has said.
Phil Robertson Hypothesizes About Atheist Family Getting Raped And Killed
“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said. “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’”
Robertson kept going: “Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.’”
“If it happened to them,” Robertson continued, “they probably would say, ‘something about this just ain’t right.”
So probably there is a line, somewhere out there, between mockery and "hate speech".
There's no need to discuss, of course, what it is that the law says about expressing atheist beliefs in a certain number of countries, even today.
Mocking atheism is usually just ignorant speech. In my experience, it usually takes the form of unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding evolution to make atheists look stupid. Here's an actual example of a theist mocking evolution in a comment to me: "And periodically the software spontaneously upgraded, over and over until we have a man".
I called him out on this, that he knew better than that, and he copped to misrepresenting the theory intentionally.
This is called a straw man argument, and seems to me to fall under bearing false witnessone's neighbor, which is supposed to be a no-no.
I called him out on this, that he knew better than that, and he copped to misrepresenting the theory intentionally.
This is called a straw man argument, and seems to me to fall under bearing false witnessone's neighbor, which is supposed to be a no-no.
It's free speech. It doesn't matter if it applies to atheism, or Islam or Christianity either. Actually so is "hate speech". It's also free speech. I don't really care for that as a term (hate speech) because it implies that some things should be protected from some types of speech. Nothing should be. They're just words; just ideas. If it's directly inciting immediate violence then I get it, but aside from that, it's just people's thoughts.
People should be allowed to think hateful things. I wouldn't want to control anything people think or say. Once you begin doing that you set yourself on a slippery slope. Then we get to the point where people are afraid to be creative and push boundaries because they're afraid of the backlash. Protected ideas will continue to creep, pushed by their constituents, and free speech will diminish, if you force it back even an inch.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to keep your job, for example. In the media anything approaching so called hate speech towards pretty much any demographic will get you canned. Which is unfortunate, as it means that people won't speak their minds as often, but it comes with the territory. As long as they're not being locked up for doing so, I'm happy. People can decide how much their speech is worth to them, and I'm fine with that, as long as it can't get them in legal trouble.
People should be allowed to think hateful things. I wouldn't want to control anything people think or say. Once you begin doing that you set yourself on a slippery slope. Then we get to the point where people are afraid to be creative and push boundaries because they're afraid of the backlash. Protected ideas will continue to creep, pushed by their constituents, and free speech will diminish, if you force it back even an inch.
That doesn't mean you should be allowed to keep your job, for example. In the media anything approaching so called hate speech towards pretty much any demographic will get you canned. Which is unfortunate, as it means that people won't speak their minds as often, but it comes with the territory. As long as they're not being locked up for doing so, I'm happy. People can decide how much their speech is worth to them, and I'm fine with that, as long as it can't get them in legal trouble.
There's no dichotomy between so-called "hate speech" and free speech. It's all free speech.
Mocking ideas isn't hate in any case.
Expect more speech in reply if your speech is taken as offensive by someone else.
Mocking ideas isn't hate in any case.
Expect more speech in reply if your speech is taken as offensive by someone else.
It's protected speech.
Actually, as an atheist, I'd love to hear some of the jokes theists tell about us. I'm imagining something like:
"Did you hear about the atheist who walked into church and got turned into a pillar of salt? Cause, you know, that could happen."
"One time this atheist was like, 'I don't believe in God because there is no objective evidence to suggest his existence.' What an idiot!"
"A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar together. The Christian is like, 'did you know it says in the Bible that atheists are fools?' The atheist didn't care. Cause... you know, they think the Bible is just a book."
Actually, as an atheist, I'd love to hear some of the jokes theists tell about us. I'm imagining something like:
"Did you hear about the atheist who walked into church and got turned into a pillar of salt? Cause, you know, that could happen."
"One time this atheist was like, 'I don't believe in God because there is no objective evidence to suggest his existence.' What an idiot!"
"A Christian and an Atheist walk into a bar together. The Christian is like, 'did you know it says in the Bible that atheists are fools?' The atheist didn't care. Cause... you know, they think the Bible is just a book."
Yes it is. I don't see why my feelings should be hurt just because the majority of people on this planet (who disagree with each other sometimes violently) disagree with me. I think it should be a hate crime to call someone a fool for not believing in God. I think it should be a hate crime to call someone who rejects his former religion "a dog returning to its vomit." I want to be able to go around all day not thinking about God without constantly encountering questions about how I can't believe in right and wrong unless I believe in God (who endorses slavery and sentences people to death for gathering firewood on the wrong day of the week).
Offending me should be a hate crime!
Wait... if I'm right, then I don't get to critique religion fair and square?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Of course it's not a hate crime. Am I the only one who read the original question as a joke?
Offending me should be a hate crime!
Wait... if I'm right, then I don't get to critique religion fair and square?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Of course it's not a hate crime. Am I the only one who read the original question as a joke?
No, mocking is not hate speech.
Fortunately, we are rarely object of humorous mocking, since one of the main characteristics (conditio sine qua non) of Fundamentalists and belligerent religious zealots is absolute absence of humor sense, sarcasm and irony wit.
However, they can (unintentionally) make us cry easily.
Fortunately, we are rarely object of humorous mocking, since one of the main characteristics (conditio sine qua non) of Fundamentalists and belligerent religious zealots is absolute absence of humor sense, sarcasm and irony wit.
However, they can (unintentionally) make us cry easily.
I don't see it as a binary distinction, but as a continuum. Making fun of a (non)religious position is everyone's right. Advocating that someone who holds that position be treated with violence or abuse is hate speech.
But I do think there are "grey areas," where the level of nastiness and insults against a (non)religious viewpoint is so intense and pointed that it clearly spills over to demonizing its practitioners. It's difficult, of course, to define where this line can be drawn in practice.
But I do think there are "grey areas," where the level of nastiness and insults against a (non)religious viewpoint is so intense and pointed that it clearly spills over to demonizing its practitioners. It's difficult, of course, to define where this line can be drawn in practice.
The majority of atheists around the world are statists/socialists(including China,
Russia etc). So one smart atheist joke especially from the religious
right:
Russia etc). So one smart atheist joke especially from the religious
right:
“Ok, you say I trust in one God (the one I was brought up to believe in) and
distrust in all the others in the world. But you trust in one
government (the one you were brought up to believe in) and distrust
all the others in the world. So where's your logical consistency
now!”
distrust in all the others in the world. But you trust in one
government (the one you were brought up to believe in) and distrust
all the others in the world. So where's your logical consistency
now!”
That bit of mockery would be free speech. Might get you killed by some governments
though.
though.
Free speach. How could it be hate speech when people are making fool of themselves ? Truth can withold any amount of mockings or criticisms. That's why most religions won't accept them as it is well known.
Of course religious people have that tendency after giving atheists a good laugh with ridiculous arguments to use violence. But then the trouble is not with hate speech but with hate acts.
Of course religious people have that tendency after giving atheists a good laugh with ridiculous arguments to use violence. But then the trouble is not with hate speech but with hate acts.
If you mean the standard meaning of the term mock and don't mean more than to verbally ridicule in a facetious to humorous way, then free in public and in private, yet not in the employment area of business.
The reason mocking is not permitted in employment business on the criteria of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, or military status is that the civil rights act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace.
The reason for the law is that it has been determined that there is a power disparity in the employment relationship and that it requires law to attempt to mitigate overt discrimination.
Mocking in a business environment confers a legal liability to those responsible for following the law. To do so exposes responsible parties to legal liabilities they strongly do not want. Cases go to civil court, criminal court, or both.
You chose atheism in your example as something that could possibly be mocked. Mocking atheists would be free speech in public and private and not in an employment environment.
Could mocking be hate speech? Hate speech has the same criteria as the civil rights act does for protected statuses. The difference is that hate does not look like sarcasm and humorous disrespect.
Hate does harm, and is a poor example to set for others. Inciting acts against and suggesting violence are examples that meet hate criteria. It is also harm to consistently promote an abusive description to stigmatize a person or group. Another difference between mocking and hate speech is that it is illegal to practice hate speech against all people of every status criteria, protected or not, and in every environment.
At this point the elephant in the room is the ridiculous that does deserve ridicule.
The reason mocking is not permitted in employment business on the criteria of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, or military status is that the civil rights act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in the workplace.
The reason for the law is that it has been determined that there is a power disparity in the employment relationship and that it requires law to attempt to mitigate overt discrimination.
Mocking in a business environment confers a legal liability to those responsible for following the law. To do so exposes responsible parties to legal liabilities they strongly do not want. Cases go to civil court, criminal court, or both.
You chose atheism in your example as something that could possibly be mocked. Mocking atheists would be free speech in public and private and not in an employment environment.
Could mocking be hate speech? Hate speech has the same criteria as the civil rights act does for protected statuses. The difference is that hate does not look like sarcasm and humorous disrespect.
Hate does harm, and is a poor example to set for others. Inciting acts against and suggesting violence are examples that meet hate criteria. It is also harm to consistently promote an abusive description to stigmatize a person or group. Another difference between mocking and hate speech is that it is illegal to practice hate speech against all people of every status criteria, protected or not, and in every environment.
At this point the elephant in the room is the ridiculous that does deserve ridicule.
Criticism or mockery of any religious position is free speech. Speech does not become "hate speech" until it incites/advocates violence against a protected group (like any religious position, gays, etc) or in some cases incites systemic discrimination against said group.
Friday, 7 April 2017
Anti-this, Anti-that attitudes.
Anti-this, Anti-that attitudes
Being a person who is theistic, or more bluntly, Catholic, I have had a good chance to see the disdain people have towards people of different faiths or non faith backgrounds. Often the disdain comes from those who are of non-belief backgrounds, but, that does not in any way excuse the disdain that some, but not all, theists may show towards those who do not believe. Likewise, Antireligion, or anti-religion, is a form of irreligion that is characterized by opposition, at times leading to hostility, to all religions, generally those founded on sacred texts. This includes, but is not limited to, monotheism, nontheism, and polytheism, whether organized or not. As much as antireligionism rejects significance of all forms of religion, it also opposes them. In this way, antireligionism goes beyond the spectrum of atheism and even anti-theism, both of which contend with the existence of a deity. Antireligionism also rejects and opposes nontheistic religions, such as nontheistic Buddhism and Confucianism. Its opposition to religion also goes beyond the misotheistic spectrum.
Antireligionism may find its beginning in the Enlightenment through outspoken atheist Baron d'Holbach. In his book Christianity Unveiled published in 1761, d'Holbach attacked not only Christianity but religion in general as an impediment to the moral advancement of humanity. Antitheist Christopher Hitchens may be one of the leading antireligionists of the 20th century for maintaining opposition not just to the Abrahamic religions, but to some other religions such as Buddhism.
Antireligionism became increasingly violent with the rise of Communism, where hostility to all religions as political enemies of the state was realized at the national level.
But why has Antireligionism become increasingly violent with the rise of communism? well, communism as you have read, sees all religion as "enemies of the state". Albeit, While antireligionism may be attributed to Baron d'Holbach, his tirade against religion in general is miniscule compared to his argument against theism.
If we look to the Soviet Union as well as Albania, being a communistic state, for any form of learning about communism and being Anti religion, we learn that:
The Soviet Union directed antireligious campaigns at all faiths,[1] including Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, and Shamanist religions. In the 1930s, during the Stalinist period, the government destroyed church buildings or put them into secular use (as museums of religion and atheism, clubs or storage facilities), executed clergy, prohibited the publication of most religious material and persecuted some members of religious groups. Less violent attempts to reduce or eliminate the influence of religion in society were also carried out at other times in Soviet history. For instance, it was usually necessary to be an atheist in order to acquire any important political position or any prestigious scientific job; thus many people became atheists in order to advance their careers.
The People's Republic of Albania had an objective for the eventual elimination of all religion in Albania with the goal of creating an atheist nation, which it declared it had achieved in 1967. In 1976, Albania implemented a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda. The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and used it for non-religious purposes, such as cultural centers for young people. Religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946. Albania was the only country that ever officially banned religion.
The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate Cambodia's cultural heritage, including its religions, particularly Theravada Buddhism. In the process, its acolytes killed about 1.7 million people. A mere three thousand Buddhist monks survived the Khmer Rouge horror. There had been sixty thousand monks previously.
To learn more click on those links below:
See also[edit]
- Anti-Catholicism
- Anti-Christian sentiment
- Anti-clericalism
- Anti-Islamism, as distinct from Islamophobia
- Anti-Judaism
- Anti-Mormonism
- Anti-Protestantism
- Anti-Buddhism
- Antitheism
- Conflict thesis
- Criticism of Islam
- Discrimination against atheists
- Evidentialism
- Faith and rationality
- Freethought
- New Atheism
- Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
- Persecution of Christians
- Relationship between religion and science
- Religious discrimination against Neopagans
- Religious intolerance
- Religious persecution
- Religious segregation
- State atheism
Tuesday, 14 March 2017
stress - how to handle it effectively.
Stress
Seriously stressed out
We all get it.
We are a nation of stressed out people, whether we live in the uptown or downtown, we're all going to get it, no matter what happens in our day to day life.
1)Take a time-out. ...
2)Eat well-balanced meals. ...
3)Limit alcohol and caffeine, which can aggravate anxiety and trigger panic attacks.
4)Get enough sleep. ...
5)Exercise daily to help you feel good and maintain your health. ...
6)Take deep breaths.
Severe Storms: How to Reduce Your Anxiety
Anticipating the arrival of a hurricane, tornado, blizzard, or any severe storm strikes fear and anxiety in the people in its path for good reason. Natural disasters disrupt lives in significant ways, including creating physical and mental health problems and major economic challenges. And the never-ending news about a storm’s arrival may increase your anxiety, stress, and fear.
Here are some tips to help you take care of your own mental health, as well as your family’s before and after a storm.
Prepare
It’s only natural to feel scared, anxious, and nervous. Recognize your emotions and try these tips to alleviate your anxiety.
Create a plan — A well-prepared plan for your family can help reduce anxiety and chaos before, during, and afterward. Make an evacuation plan and compile preparedness kits. Get tips from the Red Cross.
Be informed — Stay up-to-date on weather information and warnings. If you’re aware of the latest information, you may gain a sense of control over the situation.
Talk it out — Share your fears with family members, friends, a counselor, or others who can offer emotional support.
Find out more on how to strengthen your emotional well-being before the storm.
Accept what you can’t control — Nobody can control the path of a storm or its damage. And excessive worrying that one may hit you will not change anything except your emotional well-being.
Take tips from the Mayo Clinic for talking to kids about weather-related anxiety:
Be calm and supportive. Tell children that thunder won't hurt them. Explain that storms are a normal part of nature.
Talk about storms matter-of-factly. Some kids may seem afraid of storms, but they're really interested in learning more about them.
Allow children to face their fears by gradually helping them learn they can handle a fear and other uncertainties of life on their own.
Help children face their fear of storms by reading about them or watching videos of tornadoes, hurricanes, and other big storms.
If the anxiety doesn't diminish, or if it begins to create greater stress for the child or the parent, get the assistance of a mental health professional.
After the Storm
Many survivors of severe storms will experience emotional and physical symptoms such as headaches, muscle tension, insomnia, and nausea for days or even weeks afterward.
If you are having difficulty coping, consider the following:
Do something positive: Donate blood, prepare care packages, or volunteer to help others, all of which can provide a sense of purpose in a situation that feels out of your control.
Follow your usual daily routine as much as possible.
Limit your exposure to repeated news stories, which usually increases stress.
Rest, get exercise, and eat properly. Seek out leisure and recreational activities that involve both mind and body.
Spend time with trusted loved ones for support.
Talk with others and seek support from those who have been exposed to the same or similar trauma.
Recognize that you cannot control everything.
Talk with a relative, friend, doctor, or spiritual advisor about getting help. Asking for help is a sign of strength, not of weakness.
Contact a mental health professional if symptoms persist for more than a few weeks and interfere in your carrying out your daily activities.
Prolonged Anxiety and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
If after several weeks your anxiety symptoms persist, it may be an indication of posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.
Symptoms of PTSD:
1)Re-experiencing the trauma through intrusive distressing recollections of the event, flashbacks, and nightmares.
2)Emotional numbness and avoidance of places, people, and activities that are reminders of the trauma.
3)Increased arousal such as difficulty sleeping and concentrating, feeling jumpy, and being easily irritated and angered.
4)PTSD is diagnosed after a person experiences symptoms for at least one month following a traumatic event. However symptoms may not appear until several months or even years later.
Helping Children
A key element in a child’s or a teen’s recovery from a traumatic event is the support from parents, teachers, and other adults. Listen to this podcast about treating children with PTSD.
Here are some tips to help your child recover:
1)Anticipate needs. Take the initiative and approach children to talk about their feelings and concerns about a traumatic event before they bring it up. It is easier for children if the adults anticipate their needs and open up the lines of communication. This also sends the message that a topic is okay to talk about with adults.
2)Use candor — with discretion. This should be the theme of all adult-to-child communication on traumatic incidents. Be honest, but give details and explanations at a level commensurate with the child’s cognitive and emotional capacity. It is healthy and appropriate to begin with more limited sharing that provides a foundation for future elaboration.
3)Let kids know how you feel. While adults dealing with children in distress should maintain a moderate level of composure, it is often helpful to let children know that adults, too, experience upsetting feelings. Children need to know that adults are sometimes scared and seek support from those around them and that it is okay to hurt — but that the pain does get better with time.
4)Tornadoes, Hurricanes, and Children: How to help alleviate help alleviate emotional consequences
5)Most children and teenagers are resilient and will return to normal functioning following a natural disaster. If, however, a child’s distress continues to interfere with their lives after a few weeks, it may be time to seek professional help.
Signs of distress include not sleeping or eating; excessive clinging; re-experiencing the event through nightmares, recollections or play; emotional numbing; or persistent fears about disaster. If your child is experiencing these symptoms, seek the assistance of a school counselor or other mental health professional. Find out more about treatment for PTSD and anxiety disorders.
The effects of stress
The effects of stress on your body. Stress is the body's reaction to any change that requires an adjustment or response. The body reacts to these changes with physical, mental and emotional responses. Stress is a normal part of life.
What can stress lead to?
Chronic stress disrupts nearly every system in your body. It can shut down your immune system, upset your digestive and reproductive systems, raise blood pressure, increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, speed up the aging process and leave you vulnerable to many mental and physical health problems.
Raising low self-esteem
We all have times when we lack confidence and don’t feel good about ourselves.
But when low self-esteem becomes a long-term problem, it can have a harmful effect on our mental health and our lives. Self-esteem is the opinion we have of ourselves. When we have healthy self-esteem, we tend to feel positive about ourselves and about life in general. It makes us able to deal with life’s ups and downs better. When our self-esteem is low, we tend to see ourselves and our life in a more negative and critical light. We also feel less able to take on the challenges life throws at us.
What causes low self-esteem?
Low self-esteem often begins in childhood. Teachers, friends, siblings, parents, and even the media give us lots of messages – both positive and negative. But for some reason, the message that you are not good enough sticks. You may have found it difficult to live up to other people’s expectations of you, or to your own expectations. Stress and difficult life events, such as serious illness or a bereavement, can have a negative effect on self-esteem. Personality can also play a part. Some of us are simply more prone to negative thinking, while others set impossibly high standards for themselves.
How does low self-esteem affect us?
The problem with thinking we’re no good is that we start to behave as if it’s true. “Low self-esteem often changes people’s behaviour in ways that act to confirm the person isn’t able to do things or isn’t very good,” says Chris Williams, Professor of Psychosocial Psychiatry at the University of Glasgow. If you have low self-esteem or confidence, you may hide yourself away from social situations, stop trying new things and avoid things you find challenging.
“In the short term, avoiding challenging and difficult situations makes you feel a lot safer,” says Professor Williams. “In the longer term, this avoidance can actually backfire because it reinforces your underlying doubts and fears. It teaches you the unhelpful rule that the only way to cope is by avoiding things.” Living with low self-esteem can harm your mental health, leading to problems such as depression and anxiety. You may also develop unhelpful habits, such as smoking and drinking too much, as a way of coping.
How to have healthy self-esteem
In order to boost self-esteem, you need to identify and challenge the negative beliefs you have about yourself. “You need to look at your beliefs, how you learned them and why you believe them,” says Professor Williams. “Then actively begin to gather and write down evidence that disconfirms them.”
Learn to spot the negative thoughts you have about yourself. You may tell yourself you are "too stupid" to apply for a new job, for example, or that "nobody cares" about you. Start to note these negative thoughts and write them down on a piece of paper or in a diary, suggests Professor Williams. Ask yourself when you first started to think these thoughts.
Next, start to write down evidence that challenges these negative beliefs: "I am really good at cryptic crosswords" or "My sister calls for a chat every week". Write down other positive things you know to be true about yourself, such as "I am thoughtful" or "I am a great cook" or "I am someone that others trust". Also write down good things that other people say about you.
Aim to have at least five things on your list and add to it regularly. Then put your list somewhere you can see it. That way, you can keep reminding yourself that you are OK.
“It’s about helping people recognise they have strengths as well as weaknesses, like everyone else, and begin to recognise those strengths in themselves,” says Professor Williams.
“You might have low confidence now because of what happened when you were growing up,” he says. “But we can grow and develop new ways of seeing ourselves at any age.”
Other ways to improve low self-esteem
Here are some other simple techniques that may help you feel better about yourself.
Recognise what you are good at. We are all good at something, whether it’s cooking, singing, doing puzzles or being a friend. We also tend to enjoy doing the things we are good at, which can help to boost your mood.
Build positive relationships
If you find certain people tend to bring you down, try to spend less time with them, or tell them how you feel about their words or actions. Seek out relationships with people who are positive and who appreciate you.
Be kind to yourself
Professor Williams advises: “Be compassionate to yourself. That means being gentle to yourself at times when you feel like being self-critical. Think what you’d say to encourage a friend in a similar situation. We often give far better advice to others than we do to ourselves.”
Learn to be assertive
Being assertive is about respecting other people’s opinions and needs, and expecting the same from them.
One trick is to look at other people who act assertively and copy what they do. “It’s not about pretending you’re someone you’re not,” says Professor Williams. “It’s picking up hints and tips from people you admire and letting the real you come out. There’s no point suddenly saying, ‘I’m going to be Chris Hoy’, but you might be able to get your bike out and do a bit of cycling for the first time in ages.”
Start saying 'no'
People with low self-esteem often feel they have to say yes to other people, even when they don’t really want to. The risk is that you become overburdened, resentful, angry and depressed. “For the most part, saying no doesn’t upset relationships,” says Professor Williams. “It can be helpful to take a scratched-record approach. Keep saying no in different ways until they get the message.”
Give yourself a challenge
We all feel nervous or afraid to do things at times. People with healthy self-esteem don’t let these feelings stop them from trying new things or taking on challenges.
Set yourself a goal, such as joining an exercise class or going to a social occasion. Achieving your goals will help to increase your self-esteem.
Where to find help for low self-esteem
You may feel you need some help to start seeing yourself in a more positive light. Talking therapies, such as counselling or cognitive behavioural therapy, can help. Your GP can explain the different types and tell you what’s available in your area.
Read more about the different types of therapy.
You can also refer yourself for counselling or therapy. Use the NHS Choices Services Directory or visit the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy website to find a registered counsellor and therapist near you.
Anxiety is a feeling of unease, worry or fear. Everyone feels anxious at some point in their life, but for some people it can be an ongoing problem.
A little bit of anxiety can be helpful; for example, feeling anxious before an exam might make you more alert and improve your performance. But too much anxiety could make you tired and unable to concentrate.
Symptoms of anxiety
Anxiety can have both psychological and physical symptoms. Psychological symptoms can include:
feeling worried or uneasy a lot of the time
having difficulty sleeping, which makes you feel tired
not being able to concentrate
being irritable
being extra alert
feeling on edge or not being able to relax
needing frequent reassurance from other people
feeling tearful
When you’re feeling anxious or stressed, your body releases stress hormones, such as adrenaline and cortisol. These cause the physical symptoms of anxiety, such as an increased heart rate and increased sweating.
Physical symptoms can include:
a pounding heartbeat
breathing faster
palpitations (an irregular heartbeat)
feeling sick
chest pains
headaches
sweating
loss of appetite
feeling faint
needing the toilet more frequently
"butterflies" in your tummy
Anxiety can also be a symptom of another condition, such as panic disorder (when you have panic attacks) or post-traumatic stress disorder, which is caused by frightening or distressing events.
Is anxiety bad for you?
A little anxiety is fine, but long-term anxiety may cause more serious health problems, such as high blood pressure (hypertension). You may also be more likely to develop infections. If you’re feeling anxious all the time, or it’s affecting your day-to-day life, you may have an anxiety disorder or a panic disorder.
Help for anxiety and panic
There are effective treatments available for anxiety and panic disorders, so do talk to your GP if you think you may benefit from them.
You could also consider using an online mental health service, such as FearFighter. You may be able to get this free on the NHS – ask your GP or mental health professional, or contact the service directly to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)