If theism is a mental illness, should insurance companies have to pay for theists who seek rehab?

ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
If theism is a mental illness, should insurance companies have to pay for theists who seek rehab?

 

Another point of question: I was thinking about all the healthcare reform going on in the United States as it ponders nationalized health care, and if this were so, would the US government be paying for theists to go through rehab? And would that be constitutional?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
UbuntuAnyone ask;should insurance pay theist for rehah

Well,in my opinion,if insurance  companies were mandated to pay for rehab,you would see religion come to a halt, real fast. 

Signature ? How ?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote: would

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 would the US government be paying for theists to go through rehab? And would that be constitutional?

This is another reason why healthcare must be a personal choice. Government run health care would be like government forcing a religion on you or forcing women to have or not have an abortion.

One thing that bothers me about healthcare and religion is that religion can make whatever wild claims they want about health and healing benefits of religious activities. The can make claims about faith and prayer curing people. We don't let cereal maker make claims about health benefits of their products. Why is religion the only group that gets a free pass when it comes to false medical claims?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3278
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote: I was

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

I was thinking about all the healthcare reform going on in the United States

if only that were true.  i predict jack-shit will happen, just like clinton's first term.

the maximum the USA can hope for under the current system is a new deal-style package of reforms, i.e., a few bones thrown to the masses, which will be rolled back by subsequent administrations.  but even that much is a near-impossibility.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:ubuntuAnyone

iwbiek wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

 

I was thinking about all the healthcare reform going on in the United States

if only that were true.  i predict jack-shit will happen, just like clinton's first term.

the maximum the USA can hope for under the current system is a new deal-style package of reforms, i.e., a few bones thrown to the masses, which will be rolled back by subsequent administrations.  but even that much is a near-impossibility.

oh the joys of Capitalism

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Another

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Another point of question: I was thinking about all the healthcare reform going on in the United States as it ponders nationalized health care, and if this were so, would the US government be paying for theists to go through rehab? And would that be constitutional?

Nah. It would be ruled a pre-existing condition. Lots of things insurance companies don't want to pay for after taking your money are ruled as such.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Another

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Another point of question: I was thinking about all the healthcare reform going on in the United States as it ponders nationalized health care, and if this were so, would the US government be paying for theists to go through rehab? And would that be constitutional?

A mental illness? Rehab? Uuuhh, I don't think so. How would we treat it? Force them to study biology and read Nietzsche? 

I'd still prefer my tax dollars weren't wasted on something that stupid. A little more funding for public education is fine, but paying for individual theist's deconversions.......no.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:A little

butterbattle wrote:
A little more funding for public education is fine, but paying for individual theist's deconversions.......no.

would public education be considered rehab????

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
A little more funding for public education is fine, but paying for individual theist's deconversions.......no.

would public education be considered rehab????

I don't consider it rehab..........well, what is rehab?

People like Young Earth Creationists need to be educated, not cured. There's nothing to 'cure' except ignorance, fundamentalism, and/or an emotional attachment to their beliefs. Just because we think they're wrong doesn't mean they have a 'mental illness.' 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Another issue that is N/A in

Another issue that is N/A in the rest of the world but one that is a hotly debated topic in America. All I have to say is lol.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: Just

butterbattle wrote:
Just because we think they're wrong doesn't mean they have a 'mental illness.' 


Actually, when the site started, they tried to argue that Theism is a mental illness, however they then became the laughing stock of the atheist community so they stopped.

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But theists live longer and healthier lives

 

 

I read that in New Scientist Magazine so it must be true. The research pointed to the lower level of stress hormones registered among believers no doubt because they

were going to live forever at the right hand of the father. And also the group nuturing with scones and jam was implicated despite the apparent cholesterol issues.

There was also some shit about not drinking and smoking but I was too stoned to finish the article so what the fuck.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
Just because we think they're wrong doesn't mean they have a 'mental illness.' 


Actually, when the site started, they tried to argue that Theism is a mental illness, however they then became the laughing stock of the atheist community so they stopped. 

Not all of us stopped this argument.

And you never answered my question in the other thread where this topic reared its ugly head yet again under the guise of another anecdote.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Not all of

darth_josh wrote:

Not all of us stopped this argument.

 

 

And you're still a laughing stock. Funny that.

 

darth_josh wrote:

And you never answered my question in the other thread where this topic reared its ugly head yet again under the guise of another anecdote.

 

To be honest, I stopped giving you consideration when you said that mental disorders aren't biological.

 

 

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I don't

butterbattle wrote:

I don't consider it rehab..........well, what is rehab?

People like Young Earth Creationists need to be educated, not cured. There's nothing to 'cure' except ignorance, fundamentalism, and/or an emotional attachment to their beliefs. Just because we think they're wrong doesn't mean they have a 'mental illness.' 

Rehab would be someplace were some one gets help. Maybe I should call it a psychiatric hospital.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:Rehab

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Rehab would be someplace were some one gets help.

Gets help? That's a terrible definition. 

Edit: So, the question is, should theists should be sent to psychiatric hospitals? 

AtheistExtremist wrote:
I read that in New Scientist Magazine so it must be true.

Hmmm, link?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
And you're still a laughing stock. Funny that.

Oooooohhhh! Ouch! Eeek! Burn!

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
To be honest, I stopped giving you consideration when you said that mental disorders aren't biological.

He really said that? Do you have the thread?

Maybe he defined biological differently...... 

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:He really

butterbattle wrote:

He really said that? Do you have the thread?

Maybe he defined biological differently...... 

 

 

 

ugh I think it was about 2 years ago, it's late and I'm about to go to bed, but I'll try to find it later, but I do remember that part.

 

[edit]

 

Tell you what, I'll retract that comment for now, and wait for Josh to respond as to whether he does or not.

 

[/edit]

 

I do also remember asking for peer reviewed studies about religion being a mental disorder, and got nothing but ad homs.

 

Little did I know that this would become a trend.

 

 

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:
Rehab would be someplace were some one gets help.

Gets help? That's a terrible definition. 

Edit: So, the question is, should theists should be sent to psychiatric hospitals? 

A place were one gets help for (curable) mental illness then.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

Not all of us stopped this argument.

 

 

And you're still a laughing stock. Funny that.

 

How quaintly dismissive.

 

Pineapple wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

And you never answered my question in the other thread where this topic reared its ugly head yet again under the guise of another anecdote.

 

To be honest, I stopped giving you consideration when you said that mental disorders aren't biological.

Ahhh. Yet again.

I never said that.

Not all disorders are biological. That was said.

You have apparently forgotten anything said in favor of your own dogma that you parroted under your old ideology.

Conditioned responses. One could make an interesting study of your responses to remarks directing blame for actions at religious nutcases.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in your playbook religion is never to blame for immoral or unethical actions.

 

My question from two other threads (that will probably kill your interest in this one too) seems fairly easy:

"Does someone follow an ideology because they are crazy or are they crazy because of the ideology, or are you content with the answer that they are just crazy sans ideology?"

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: How

darth_josh wrote:

 

How quaintly dismissive.

 

 

Speaking of dismissive, that's two years without academic papers Josh.

 

 

 

darth_josh wrote:

My question from two other threads (that will probably kill your interest in this one too) seems fairly easy:

"Does someone follow an ideology because they are crazy or are they crazy because of the ideology, or are you content with the answer that they are just crazy sans ideology?"

 

 

 

I think people follow an ideology because it goes with what they feel.

 

I don't think ideologies can over-ride human nature or somebody's personality. So I don't think that an ideaology can make a good person bad, or a bad person good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

 

How quaintly dismissive.

 

 

Speaking of dismissive, that's two years without academic papers Josh.

 

You disregarded Albert Ellis out of hand.

Apparently, my assessment was correct.

 

 

Pineapple wrote:

 

darth_josh wrote:

My question from two other threads (that will probably kill your interest in this one too) seems fairly easy:

"Does someone follow an ideology because they are crazy or are they crazy because of the ideology, or are you content with the answer that they are just crazy sans ideology?"

 

I think people follow an ideology because it goes with what they feel.

 

I don't think ideologies can over-ride human nature or somebody's personality. So I don't think that an ideaology can make a good person bad, or a bad person good.

 

So, they are crazy regardless of ideology.

With countless examples (real data) in the historical record to the contrary?

Avoiding Godwin's law, I call your attention to more contemporary examples such as: Waco, neo-conservatism, Guantanamo, Darfur Sudan, Gaza, US KKK resurgence, Canada's National Socialist party's gains in membership.

Each of these is an example of ideological influence upon the mental states of the respective peoples.

EVEN, I say, EVEN the assertion that atheists on this site and a few others are too harsh on religion.

I am more than willing to examine that last one to prove this point.

Am I crazy BECAUSE of my anti-theism or has my anti-theism made me crazy? Or was I crazy all along and would be just as batshit nuts if I were a theist?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:You

darth_josh wrote:

You disregarded Albert Ellis out of hand.

Apparently, my assessment was correct.

 

 

Apparently Ellis also disregarded you.

 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Journal+file-a0146997774

 

Quote:

Ellis' contention is, therefore, that anyone who holds a loving God religious outlook can also be "rational" by REBT's definition: having self-helping beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. In this sense, REBT and devout religiosity are not the same, but they can at least at times be compatible.

 

 

 

 

 

darth_josh wrote:

 

So, they are crazy regardless of ideology.

With countless examples (real data) in the historical record to the contrary?

Avoiding Godwin's law, I call your attention to more contemporary examples such as: Waco, neo-conservatism, Guantanamo, Darfur Sudan, Gaza, US KKK resurgence, Canada's National Socialist party's gains in membership.

Each of these is an example of ideological influence upon the mental states of the respective peoples.

EVEN, I say, EVEN the assertion that atheists on this site and a few others are too harsh on religion.

 

 

Try reading

http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Specter-Robert-Altemeyer/dp/0674053052

 

It's about how personality traits can determine how strongly we hold on to ideoligies.

 

 

darth_josh wrote:

I am more than willing to examine that last one to prove this point.

Am I crazy BECAUSE of my anti-theism or has my anti-theism made me crazy? Or was I crazy all along and would be just as batshit nuts if I were a theist?

 

I'm willing to bet you're were also aggressive about your Theism when [that is if] you were Theist.

 

That you fought just as passonitly in favour of religion when you were religious, then you are against it now.

 

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

You disregarded Albert Ellis out of hand.

Apparently, my assessment was correct.

 

 

Apparently Ellis also disregarded you.

 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Journal+file-a0146997774

Quote:

Ellis' contention is, therefore, that anyone who holds a loving God religious outlook can also be "rational" by REBT's definition: having self-helping beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. In this sense, REBT and devout religiosity are not the same, but they can at least at times be compatible.

No. That speaks directly to the point of ideology affecting mental state. That was poorly paraphrased. Especially if you only take his worded example.

Ellis studied the variation of absolutism with regard to faith determining that measure of ideological adherence was directly correlated to pathological behavior. Using religion as REBT speaks directly to the amount of influence ideology has upon the subject/individual.

Same source.

 

 

 

 

 

Pineapple wrote:

 

darth_josh wrote:

 

So, they are crazy regardless of ideology.

With countless examples (real data) in the historical record to the contrary?

Avoiding Godwin's law, I call your attention to more contemporary examples such as: Waco, neo-conservatism, Guantanamo, Darfur Sudan, Gaza, US KKK resurgence, Canada's National Socialist party's gains in membership.

Each of these is an example of ideological influence upon the mental states of the respective peoples.

EVEN, I say, EVEN the assertion that atheists on this site and a few others are too harsh on religion.

 

 

Try reading

http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Specter-Robert-Altemeyer/dp/0674053052

 

It's about how personality traits can determine how strongly we hold on to ideoligies.

Great! $52.16

Honestly, I can't afford that right now. I could always put together a wish list for amazon if you want.

I'll have to take that as my trust in your opinion concerning the matter.

I will say that the statement makes sense. I agree that personality traits do that. However, taking it a step further is the 'cementing' that the ideology can cause with the personality.

The affirmations of the ideology aka promises in certain religious instances (heaven/hell, enlightenment, Level 8 clear etc.)

 

 

Pineapple wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

I am more than willing to examine that last one to prove this point.

Am I crazy BECAUSE of my anti-theism or has my anti-theism made me crazy? Or was I crazy all along and would be just as batshit nuts if I were a theist?

 

I'm willing to bet you're were also aggressive about your Theism when [that is if] you were Theist.

 

That you fought just as passonitly in favour of religion when you were religious, then you are against it now.

Ahhh. Here is your greatest argument for your side of this debate.

If religion were so powerful of a mental stimulus as I assert then wouldn't I still be religious.

The answer is easy. No.

Because coupled with my religious indoctrination was also the inculcation of critical thinking by my grandparents(primary guardians) thus preventing the veritable stranglehold upon my psyche that catholicism/christianity would have had without it.

Including you, many atheists on this site have similar experiences. Until they were taught to question, they were in the same clutches of theism's 'mind altering powers'.

Even today, some ex-mormons will openly tell you how much they miss the 'faith' for just such irrational comforts as the religion offered. Not a single one will tell you that they can look back on themselves and say they were 'sane'.

I am anti-theism because it made me that way. Call it a co-occurrence if you wish, but discounting it as an effect is just compartmentalization.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Ahhh. Here

darth_josh wrote:

Ahhh. Here is your greatest argument for your side of this debate.

If religion were so powerful of a mental stimulus as I assert then wouldn't I still be religious.

The answer is easy. No.

Because coupled with my religious indoctrination was also the inculcation of critical thinking by my grandparents(primary guardians) thus preventing the veritable stranglehold upon my psyche that catholicism/christianity would have had without it.

Including you, many atheists on this site have similar experiences. Until they were taught to question, they were in the same clutches of theism's 'mind altering powers'.

Even today, some ex-mormons will openly tell you how much they miss the 'faith' for just such irrational comforts as the religion offered. Not a single one will tell you that they can look back on themselves and say they were 'sane'.

I am anti-theism because it made me that way. Call it a co-occurrence if you wish, but discounting it as an effect is just compartmentalization.

 

While deconvertions kind of puts a kink in the mental illness theory [have you every heard of somebody overcoming a mental illness by reading a book? The APA may want to talk to you], along with a kink in the mind encasing claim of religion, that wasn't my point.

 

 

The point is that I don't think your personality has changed much. '

 

 

Another thing Josh, you are pissing on the scientific method much like a creationist.

 

Peer-review is a pinicale of the scientific method, and yet you seem to refuse to put your views of religion through  it.

 

Your argument from authority just doesn't cut it. Even if Elies was the greatest psychologist of all time and thought that Theism was a mental disorder, it still has to go through peer review and the scientific process.

 

Max Plank, perhaps one of the greatest physicists of our time, was a devout Lutheran

 

That proves nothing.

 

We atheists are suppose to be the rational ones. I rarely see other atheists calling out others when they say stupid things. I bet if somebody here claimed that religion can cause psychosis that the claim will go unchallenged and no proof will be asked for.

 

I've seen a few atheists call you out on the mental illness thing, but those seem to be few and far between.

 

It does us all a dis-service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10546
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I would say there is

I would say there is something wrong with theists, but no single word or phrase really covers it properly. It does very closely mimic a psychological disorder, but doesn't qualify on a couple different prerequisites. Medication cannot 'cure' or even retard religious belief, while social groupings and education can.
To put this in perspective to the topic, since it isn't a medical problem, medical insurance companies wouldn't have to do anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:We

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

We atheists are suppose to be the rational ones. I rarely see other atheists calling out others when they say stupid things. I bet if somebody here claimed that religion can cause psychosis that the claim will go unchallenged and no proof will be asked for.

 

I've seen a few atheists call you out on the mental illness thing, but those seem to be few and far between.

 

It does us all a dis-service.

 

When the majority of one's peers are religious, such as in the field of psychoanalysis (basing it on the population no hard numbers) then one would expect the entire premise to be disregarded cursorily by said peers.

I know. Borderline conspiracy 'theory'.

I'm not ignoring the scientific method. It is a testable hypothesis. I feel that the overwhelming majority of the behavioral scientists capable of putting forward such an hypothesis for review are either too scared or theists themselves.

Dawkins has called it(theism) child abuse and he has not been censured by the 'atheist community' or reviled for the assertion. Does he face the same demands from you for peer review of that premise?

Hitchens has called islam 'the most dangerous thing facing the world' yet no one has asked for peer reviewed research eliminating global warming, nuclear proliferation, or big macs as equally menacing.

 

 

On to the other accusation alluded to in this response of yours.

There have been/will be more people discussing this topic elsewhere. It is a divisive discussion, but needs to be discussed.

I don't think it does 'us' a disservice to debate any premise such as this.

To my knowledge, it has never been so narrowly defined as 'psychosis', simply 'disorder'. So quit trying to put words in my mouth. That's twice in this thread you've done that.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:When the

darth_josh wrote:

When the majority of one's peers are religious, such as in the field of psychoanalysis (basing it on the population no hard numbers) then one would expect the entire premise to be disregarded cursorily by said peers.

I know. Borderline conspiracy 'theory'.

I'm not ignoring the scientific method. It is a testable hypothesis. I feel that the overwhelming majority of the behavioral scientists capable of putting forward such an hypothesis for review are either too scared or theists themselves.

Dawkins has called it(theism) child abuse and he has not been censured by the 'atheist community' or reviled for the assertion. Does he face the same demands from you for peer review of that premise?

Hitchens has called islam 'the most dangerous thing facing the world' yet no one has asked for peer reviewed research eliminating global warming, nuclear proliferation, or big macs as equally menacing.

 

 

Just because it paints religion in a bad light doesn't mean that it shouldn't go through the Scientific process.

 

So if Hitchens or Dawkins or Harris or Stegnar make an empirical claim about religion, then yes, it should go through the process.

 

 

 

darth_josh wrote:

I don't think it does 'us' a disservice to debate any premise such as this.

 

 

No, but when the loudest atheists are making dumb arguments, it does us a disservice.

 

 

darth_josh wrote:

To my knowledge, it has never been so narrowly defined as 'psychosis', simply 'disorder'. So quit trying to put words in my mouth. That's twice in this thread you've done that.

 

 

Poor choice of wording on my part. I have seen the claim the religion causes psychosis and used that as an example. I wasn't trying to imply that you said that.

 

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

 

darth_josh wrote:

I don't think it does 'us' a disservice to debate any premise such as this.

 

 

No, but when the loudest atheists are making dumb arguments, it does us a disservice.

 

This is true of all ideological positions.

On this subject of theism as a mind disorder, the very premise has been disregarded because no one HAS studied it using the scientific process.

And my assertion concerning the reason for that lack of scientific research is that even if one were to find peers in their individual field of psychoanalysis to review the material then it would be met with such opposition as to warrant the same cries of unfairness that I utter now.

We're talking about something affected by the permutations of both nature and nurture, biological and acquired developmental traits, and individual personality traits not ascribed to any other reason.

An example of what I consider open-mindedness to both sides of the argument:

Do I think that every woman who listened to traveling evangelist Michel Woroniecki will go home and drown their children? No. I do not.

In the above example, Andrea Yates, do I think that theism was the sole cause for her actions? No. I do not.

However, my additional question is: Do I think theism(specifically her brand) was a co-occurrence and more than likely the sole precipitating factor for her actions then the answer is a resounding YES.

The data from that page of history has still not been disseminated as thoroughly as I would like. Nor as well as the Houston Law Review would like.

Houston Law Review wrote:
Normal 0 0 1 61 353 2 1 433 11.517


0


0
0


In addition to the ever-changing nature of the insanity defense, several special topics muddle the defense to an even greater degree. Some of these special topics, including infanticide and filicide, postpartum depression, and religious delusions, have particular applicability to the Yates and Laney cases. These topics pose special considerations that add intricate layers to the already complex landscape of insanity issues.

 

In fact, this excerpt comes from an article from January 2006. In the case of Dena Schlosser, circa 2004 prosecuted in 2006, the Houston Law Review almost begged for assistance in a concrete basis for the causes.

This year, the state legislature introduced a bill allowing the defense to use postpartum depression as an insanity position.

More review is underway[sarcasm] as if 9 years and 7 other copycat cases isn't enough. lol.

 

Sorry the text changed when I copy/pasted.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: This is

darth_josh wrote:

 

This is true of all ideological positions.

On this subject of theism as a mind disorder, the very premise has been disregarded because no one HAS studied it using the scientific process.

And my assertion concerning the reason for that lack of scientific research is that even if one were to find peers in their individual field of psychoanalysis to review the material then it would be met with such opposition as to warrant the same cries of unfairness that I utter now.

We're talking about something affected by the permutations of both nature and nurture, biological and acquired developmental traits, and individual personality traits not ascribed to any other reason.

 

 

You just don't get it. When you use excuses like that as to why you don't have any empirical evidence, then you give the thumbs up to Alex Jones, who has no evidence that Obama is part of the NWO to sit back and say "Well of course not, they just censor it! They 'll get killed if they say that Obama is part of the NWO!"

 

 

When Hamby refuses to provide empirical evidence that religion causes violence, he gives the thumbs up to Jack Thompson to claim that video games causes violence and not have to provide evidence for it.

 

 

The fact of the matter is much of science is counter-intuative.

 

In fact, this whole evolution vs Intelligent Design debate is a perfect example of the process here. It's "obvious" that the blood clotting system was designed, however, further investigation determines that the design theory is false.

 

Do some Theists have a mental disorder? Yes. Can Theism be an expression of GDD? Sure, but to use that as a premise to say that Theism is GDD, is falacious.

 

 

 

 

 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Do some

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Do some Theists have a mental disorder? Yes. Can Theism be an expression of GDD? Sure, but to use that as a premise to say that Theism is GDD, is falacious. 

Yes. It is fallacious. It's called affirmation of the consequent. I thank you for not turning it into a denial of the antecedent this time as in the past.

So are false analogies, which both of us have used in this thread to express ourselves. (e.g. My Dawkins/Hitchens vs. Your Jones/Thompson).

We (you and I) know this yet we still do not extract the emotional motivations from the argument.

Thus, giving the slightest bit of credence to my argument that anytime when mentioned as a topic for research/examination it is treated as anathema.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Thus,

darth_josh wrote:

Thus, giving the slightest bit of credence to my argument that anytime when mentioned as a topic for research/examination it is treated as anathema.

 

 

 

I never said don't research/examine the topic. In fact, quite the contrary.

 

But you're putting the cart before the horse.