If you mean in general, then I would say pretty much the same thing, except not quite as strongly. If you mean in regards to mental illness, most diagnostic models require that beliefs/behaviors/symptoms be responsible for some clinically significant impairment of functioning. This is why someone can be a narcissist without having Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Religious beliefs can be categorized as 'bizarre' or 'magical' beliefs from a diagnostic perspective, but only the Westborough Baptist's, suicide bombers, and the like would be considered to have a Mental Illness based on their *religious beliefs. But you must admit there is a distinction between what religion means to these people, and what religion means to non-psychotic/secularized believer.
That last bit is an oxymoron.
A lot of people like to argue that the extremists should not be taken as the standard for religious people. This is another mistake that political correctness causes; we seek the friendliest people to be the archetype for their religion because we want to say that "
x is the religion or peace" or that the extremists (i.e. the people who go against secular Western morals) are perverting the faith. This is very bad. The moderates are people who do not take their religion seriously. They believe in some vague, watered-down version of the religion they were brought up in, and their morals are nearly always humanist ones mixed with the meekest and least repulsive of the old religious commandments. Moderates are half-believers. They might not be classifiable as insane, but that does not mean that religion is not a mental illness, since they're not really very religious. They have a mild religion that comes with a comparatively mild amount of irrationality.
The most sincere believers are the most extreme ones. The extreme ones are the people who honestly believe in heaven and hell and everlasting life*, the extreme ones are the ones who faithfully believe every word of their holy books and who follow all their religion's commandments as long as they don't contradict each other. These people are also mentally ill.
*Have you ever noticed that it's only the crazies who are willing to become martyrs? If good, faithful people go to heaven, why are so many believers so scared of death? Could it be because they're secretly sceptical about heaven? And that only the crazies are sure that it exists? Surely not! They say that there are no atheists in foxholes, but I say that there are no believers when the Nazis are at the door of the church and demanding that Bishop Kollaborateur tell his congregation to render all unto the worst Caesar in history. (yes, I read Hitchens' book recently
)
Given that I agree with a lot of your projection of human development in the coming decades/centuries, I imagine that there will be a time in the future where religious beliefs will be considered mental illness, but realize that the label of "mentally ill" is, and has been constantly transforming for thousands of years
Pfft, if it's considered a mental illness one day, I'll consider myself vindicated. Of course, I'll probably be a head in a jar by then :-(
I have no doubt that Mother Theresa was stronger in her religious belief than Osama Bin Laden, but few would say her mind was sick, and no reasonable person would say she was sicker than Osama.
It's a general trend, not an absolute correlation.
And mother Theresa wasn't as saintly as she was portrayed to be
I strongly suspect that the most adamantly anti-religion crusaders are in fact not atheistic at all like they claim, but rather DO believe in a God and are angry at Him.
And I strongly suspect that the "hurr all atheists are angry teenagers" argument is one of the worst in history.
No logically-behaving person could be that passionately hateful towards a being that they don't even believe exists.
Learn the difference between "God" and "the concept of God". The former hasn't killed anyone. The latter has killed millions.
(please note I am only referring to militant atheists here, the ones for whom it is not enough merely not to believe in a higher power, but feel the need to be assholes about it, such as Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais)
Can someone explain to me why atheists are considered militant if they tell people that they're stupid, whereas religious people are considered militant when they murder hundreds of civilians or command others to do so? Could it be that you're trying to equate these two things? To imply that they have anything in common at all? Or could it be that you consider questioning religion to be as bad as killing someone?
When I see Richard Dawkins hijack a plane and fly it into a building, I'll take seriously your argument that he's a "militant atheist". Until then, I'll accuse you of using hyperbole to the point of dishonesty.
Also have you seen a muslims prayer regime? Frekin' thing takes up most of the day.