please defend, or reconsider, the RRS claim that theism is a mind disorder

FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
please defend, or reconsider, the RRS claim that theism is a mind disorder

Beyond posting here from time to time and hanging out in chat, I don't consider myself to be a member of the RRS; so take this as my opinion only.

 I think that skepticism should always win the day, and that beliefs not backed by skeptical processes aren't worth holding.

 I think the RRS feels the same way.

 With this in mind, I think the claim that theism is a mind disorder is irrational at worst and ignorant at best. As skeptics, in my opinion, you need to justify your claim with logic or you should abandon it (else you become sorta like those you attack).

 

My points on why I think your claim has created a rational emergency that someone should respond to:

 

1) Mental disorder has specific meaning in psychology and medicine.  Just calling it a disorder doesn't make it so.

 

2) An irrational belief (i.e., delusion), by itself is not a mental disorder. Holding them might be diagnostic in deciding whether you have some real mental disorder. But, having the belief itself is not sufficient to diagnose someone with mental illness.

This is especially true of religious belief, wherein tradition, culture, parents, peers, etc, share in the same belief. Believing that jesus is god may be irrational (meaning not backed by any valid evidence), but it is not delusional in the same way that believing your toaster is possessed would be.

If culture one day spread the meme of toaster possession to the point of widespread acceptance, then the comparison would be valid. In this case, though, the toaster belief would no longer be delusional (certainly not itself a mental disorder); just irrational.

So, it's apples an oranges claiming that mainstream religious belief is just as delusional as toaster posession belief. 

 

3) If theism is a mind disorder, then so too is astrology; so is buying a stock without having studied all available financial or technical data on the company. What about people who buy cars because of their color versus performance? What about the decades of literature on every-day reasoning ability, and how people just aren't born being rational (ergo, we're born being deluded, as we don't know the laws of logic or scientific discovery unless we discover or are taught them later?).

 

Also a mind disorder given your definition would be any type of belief or behavior based on satisficing a solution versus using an heuristic to guarantee the best outcome. For example,  you leave an "ok" song on the radio, rather than scan all stations to guarantee you'll find the song you like best. Doing this is not perfectly rational; yet people satisfice far more often than they whip out a slide rule to reach some belief, conclusion or engage in some behavior. Falling prey to any of the many common fallacies (correlation and cause; framing; primacy / recency effects; insensitivity to sample size; regression to the mean; insensitivity to base rates; the gambler's fallacy, etc, etc) would make people mentally ill if your definition is correct.

 

4) Mental illness is abnormal by definition. If the vast majority of people do x; it can't be abnormal by definition; nor can it be a mental illness. You could say as a counter: if everyone raped, rape would still be a mental disorder!  I agree, but that's precisely why most people don't rape / it's an abnormal behavior by definition.

 

   5) Redcuto ad absurdum?

I'm joe, a college professor; published scientist; well trained in the scientific method. That said, I think faith is also a valid means of knowing something. I have faith that jesus is my god. I feel it in my heart. I just know it's so. I have no physical proof, but I still think my belief is correct.

 

How would you characterize joe? Does he have a mental disorder? Is it fair to label joe irrational? What if joe spends 90% of his intellectual life engaged in science and only 10% engaged in religious discourse. Is joe ill?

 

6) Many people convert to theism or atheism just by changing their mind after having read or experienced something. Are these relapses?  If it's so easy to cure theism, can it really be a mental disorder? Is the mind disorder of theism as easy to cure as taking aspirin for headaches?

 

You do claim to speak only for yourself and not all heathens, but your acts and speech do contribute-- good or bad-- to how others view us. As such, my opinion is that you need to either prove that theism is a mind disease or stop saying it is. Do you have to do this? No. Is it something a rational person or organization would do? Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
FGL, this has been hashed

FGL, this has been hashed and rehashed time and again.

Here is an example and here and here  and here and here.

There are more.  I just stopped at five.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I clicked through those and

I clicked through those and saw various god topics like how can you be moral, but couldn't find much specifically addressing why theism is a mental disorder.

 

I didn't read every post so it's likely I missed where it.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

I clicked through those and saw various god topics like how can you be moral, but couldn't find much specifically addressing why theism is a mental disorder.

 

I didn't read every post so it's likely I missed where it.

Freethinking isn't exactly like church. You don't get to just "feel like" something is true. You do your homework.

If you're not interested enough in the real answer to your question to do your homework, we're not going to spoon feed you.

 {edit:  Shame on me.  I read my homework, and see you're not much for churchin'.  Even more shame on you.  Do your homework!}

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


dumpydooby
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Freethinking isn't exactly like church. You don't get to just "feel like" something is true. You do your homework.

If you're not interested enough in the real answer to your question to do your homework, we're not going to spoon feed you.

This speaks volumes of your intellectual slovenliness. It's fucking pathetic, and downright typical of any person that suffers from a dogmatic mentality. This type of knee-jerk reaction to anyone that questions your "infallable" world view is what makes you no better than the people you're attacking.

Quote:
{edit: Shame on me. I read my homework, and see you're not much for churchin'. Even more shame on you. Do your homework!

If you don't care to refute his argument, then this debate is effectively over. Refusing to respond to your opposition is not only intellectually slothful, but it only goes to show that you really didn't have the intention of learning anything, or actually arguing the merits of an idea, but rather just spouting your self orthodoxed view points.

-dumpydooby


dumpydooby
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
edit: double post.

edit: double post.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
FGL wrote:

FGL wrote:

1) Mental disorder has specific meaning in psychology and medicine. Just calling it a disorder doesn't make it so.

I'm sure, if we wanted to, we could have semantic argument back and forth until the pink unicorns come home... but :

www.dictionary.com Disorder:

  1. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body: eating disorders and substance abuse.

I don't think the title has drifted too far off of the mark.

Quote:
This is especially true of religious belief, wherein tradition, culture, parents, peers, etc, share in the same belief. Believing that jesus is god may be irrational (meaning not backed by any valid evidence), but it is not delusional in the same way that believing your toaster is possessed would be.

So dilusion is entirely depentant upon how many people share the same belief? Neat. Isn't there a logical falicy devoted to this statement? Someone help me out here.

Quote:
3) If theism is a mind disorder, then so too is astrology; so is buying a stock without having studied all available financial or technical data on the company. What about people who buy cars because of their color versus performance?

Wait, what? The mystical assertion that the stars alignments affect the daily lives of humans would be in line with religious beliefs but it is the same as impulse buying and prefernece for car color? Man, you HAVE to explain that connection to me. There is a logical falacy for this one too? Isn't there? Help me out here.

Quote:
What about the decades of literature on every-day reasoning ability, and how people just aren't born being rational (ergo, we're born being deluded, as we don't know the laws of logic or scientific discovery unless we discover or are taught them later?).

Not sure what you're talking about here dude. There are countles books on reason and rational thought. You need to be a tad more specific whith this one if you expect anyone to give it any thought.

Quote:
You could say as a counter: if everyone raped, rape would still be a mental disorder! I agree, but that's precisely why most people don't rape / it's an abnormal behavior by definition.

Is rape a mental disorder? I'm sure there are mental disorders that could lead a person to rape, but rape, in itself, is intercourse with another person without their consent. You're making comparisons that are not relevant for the discussion at hand.

Quote:
5) Redcuto ad absurdum?

I'm joe, a college professor; published scientist; well trained in the scientific method. That said, I think faith is also a valid means of knowing something. I have faith that jesus is my god. I feel it in my heart. I just know it's so. I have no physical proof, but I still think my belief is correct.

 

How would you characterize joe? Does he have a mental disorder? Is it fair to label joe irrational? What if joe spends 90% of his intellectual life engaged in science and only 10% engaged in religious discourse. Is joe ill?

Sure, Joe is mentally ill. He trully believes in things that do not exist... he can function without his mental handicap? Great for him. Does that make the belief in uber-wizard-zombies any less insane? Hardly.

Quote:
6) Many people convert to theism or atheism just by changing their mind after having read or experienced something. Are these relapses? If it's so easy to cure theism, can it really be a mental disorder? Is the mind disorder of theism as easy to cure as taking aspirin for headaches?

You need to collect you thoughts boyo. Relapses? What is the point you are trying to make here. I think you may need to trim down the scope of this conversation otherwise you are covering too much ground to defend.

So for something to qualify as a mental disorder it must be difficult to cure? What are you even talking about?

Quote:
You do claim to speak only for yourself and not all heathens, but your acts and speech do contribute-- good or bad-- to how others view us.

So do the acts of every person capable of speach who has a similar viewpoint. The fact that these folks have access to such an efficient vehicle does not force them into the position of being responsible for how nimrods (ie everyone) perceives them.

Quote:
As such, my opinion is that you need to either prove that theism is a mind disease or stop saying it is.

And, of course, you are welcome to your opinion. However, for me to say that a person is 'completely daft' for believing in Gandalf as their lord and personal savior I should need to have papers to prove this is true? I hate to bring the point to bare, but there is no such thing as Gandalf ... or God. It's 'daft' dude, you can do semantic/rhetorical dances all day and it doesn't change the truth.


FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
C'mon. I'm asking a sincere

C'mon. I'm asking a sincere question on a board that doesn't really have all that much action. If you don't wanna contribute that's fine, but calling me lazy / not doing my homework because I couldn't find the topic despite ten minutes of control f'ing those threads for mental and disorder and delusion-- that's unfair.

 

I'm not looking to be spoon fed. If the topic's indeed been done to death, my apologies.

 

Do you have an opinion as to whether theism is mental illness or should I search for everything you've ever posted before daring to ask?

 

 

 

 


FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
  M, thanks for your

 

M, thanks for your comments. Bear with me, I've never done the multi quote thingy here on this forum.

 

 

marcusfish wrote:
FGL wrote:

1) Mental disorder has specific meaning in psychology and medicine. Just calling it a disorder doesn't make it so.

I'm sure, if we wanted to, we could have semantic argument back and forth until the pink unicorns come home... but :

www.dictionary.com Disorder:

  1. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body: eating disorders and substance abuse.

I don't think the title has drifted too far off of the mark.

Quote:
This is especially true of religious belief, wherein tradition, culture, parents, peers, etc, share in the same belief. Believing that jesus is god may be irrational (meaning not backed by any valid evidence), but it is not delusional in the same way that believing your toaster is possessed would be.

So dilusion is entirely depentant upon how many people share the same belief? Neat. Isn't there a logical falicy devoted to this statement? Someone help me out here.

 

***I think appealing to popularity in this context is not a fallacy. A mental disorder is abnormal (the field itself being called "abnormal" psychology). Something can't be abnormal if the vast majority of people do it, just given the definition of abnormal.

 

 

Quote:
3) If theism is a mind disorder, then so too is astrology; so is buying a stock without having studied all available financial or technical data on the company. What about people who buy cars because of their color versus performance?

Wait, what? The mystical assertion that the stars alignments affect the daily lives of humans would be in line with religious beliefs but it is the same as impulse buying and prefernece for car color? Man, you HAVE to explain that connection to me. There is a logical falacy for this one too? Isn't there? Help me out here.

 

**********What my examples all share is irrationality. People believing or making decisions without using logic and reason. I'm not sure it's a faulty analogy; my point only is that if holding an irrational belief makes one mentally ill, then everyone is mentally ill which seem absurd to me. 

 

 

 

Quote:
What about the decades of literature on every-day reasoning ability, and how people just aren't born being rational (ergo, we're born being deluded, as we don't know the laws of logic or scientific discovery unless we discover or are taught them later?).

Not sure what you're talking about here dude. There are countles books on reason and rational thought. You need to be a tad more specific whith this one if you expect anyone to give it any thought.

 

******Countless books on reason, yes, plus on immense literature in psychology showing that few people have read those books or use reason when they decide what to believe in or how to act.

 

Reason exists; most people just dont use it. That's irrational; just like believing in jesus is irrational. Neither however are mental disorders. 

 

 

Quote:
You could say as a counter: if everyone raped, rape would still be a mental disorder! I agree, but that's precisely why most people don't rape / it's an abnormal behavior by definition.

Is rape a mental disorder? I'm sure there are mental disorders that could lead a person to rape, but rape, in itself, is intercourse with another person without their consent. You're making comparisons that are not relevant for the discussion at hand.

 

*** point taken / bad example.   I  crossed from mental disorder to abnormal behavior here. I think my point's valid for the latter but not the former.

 

Quote:
5) Redcuto ad absurdum?

I'm joe, a college professor; published scientist; well trained in the scientific method. That said, I think faith is also a valid means of knowing something. I have faith that jesus is my god. I feel it in my heart. I just know it's so. I have no physical proof, but I still think my belief is correct.

 

How would you characterize joe? Does he have a mental disorder? Is it fair to label joe irrational? What if joe spends 90% of his intellectual life engaged in science and only 10% engaged in religious discourse. Is joe ill?

Sure, Joe is mentally ill. He trully believes in things that do not exist... he can function without his mental handicap? Great for him. Does that make the belief in uber-wizard-zombies any less insane? Hardly.

 

**** I think this demeans people with true mental illness. I just dont see how you can label Joe in this example as mentally ill. That's I think where I and the RRS disagree.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
6) Many people convert to theism or atheism just by changing their mind after having read or experienced something. Are these relapses? If it's so easy to cure theism, can it really be a mental disorder? Is the mind disorder of theism as easy to cure as taking aspirin for headaches?

You need to collect you thoughts boyo. Relapses? What is the point you are trying to make here. I think you may need to trim down the scope of this conversation otherwise you are covering too much ground to defend.

So for something to qualify as a mental disorder it must be difficult to cure? What are you even talking about?

 

***I'll concede this point as it was poorly written.

 

 

 

Quote:
You do claim to speak only for yourself and not all heathens, but your acts and speech do contribute-- good or bad-- to how others view us.

So do the acts of every person capable of speach who has a similar viewpoint. The fact that these folks have access to such an efficient vehicle does not force them into the position of being responsible for how nimrods (ie everyone) perceives them.

 

**** Agreed, but it does obligate them to try -- to the best of their ability-- to make rational statements and claims supported by evidence. My contention is that calling theism a mental illness is neither. 

 

 

Quote:
As such, my opinion is that you need to either prove that theism is a mind disease or stop saying it is.

And, of course, you are welcome to your opinion. However, for me to say that a person is 'completely daft' for believing in Gandalf as their lord and personal savior I should need to have papers to prove this is true? I hate to bring the point to bare, but there is no such thing as Gandalf ... or God. It's 'daft' dude, you can do semantic/rhetorical dances all day and it doesn't change the truth.

 

Agreed, but I see a difference between irrational and mentally ill.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I don't really much about

I don't really know that much about psychology but abnormal psychology includes the study of incompletely understood normal phenomena like dreams and everyone has dreams so I'm not sure if abnormal means not the majority in this context. And my search of webster’s medical defined mental disorder as:

 

a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual -- called also mental illness

 

It doesn't say anything about what the majority of people do.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


dumpydooby
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I don't

Gauche wrote:
I don't really know that much about psychology but abnormal psychology includes the study of incompletely understood normal phenomena like dreams and everyone has dreams so I'm not sure if abnormal means not the majority in this context. And my search of webster’s medical defined mental disorder as:

 

a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual -- called also mental illness

 

It doesn't say anything about what the majority of people do.

Do you honestly not see how absolutely ridiculous your post is?

It says right there in the definition, "... emotions to seriously impair the NORMAL  psychological functioning of the individual."


If that escapes you, essentially it's saying that if it's something that's normal in your culture, then it's not a mental disorder. Are you honestly going to say that well over 99% of humanity from 14,000 years ago, until very recently, had a mental disorder? Moreover, are you actually going to suggest that your position is hinged on anything even remotely rational? Jesus Christ man. YOU'RE the one that's fucking insane!

Also, for what it's worth, case studies have been done in America and sent to blind psychologists in the UK, and vice versa. The American and the British psychologists have a tendancy to diagnose the study patient with a mental disorder, despite the psychologist of the patient's local country concluding there was absolutely nothing wrong. So what does that say about how important of a role culture and environment plays in diagnosing a mental disorder? Well, I for one think that says quite a bit.

-dumpydooby


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: C'mon. I'm asking a

Quote:
C'mon. I'm asking a sincere question on a board that doesn't really have all that much action. If you don't wanna contribute that's fine, but calling me lazy / not doing my homework because I couldn't find the topic despite ten minutes of control f'ing those threads for mental and disorder and delusion-- that's unfair.

No offense, but the thing is, when someone gives you five links, and you come back and say, "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read your links. So, what do you think about my question?" that is basically saying, "hey, I don't want to spend time looking for the answer. Will you spend your time explaining something you've already dealt with over and over?"

It's kind of disrespectful, really. You're saying your time is more valuable than ours, in effect.

Ten minutes?

I think it's fair to say that individually, most of the mods here have spent hours writing about this.

Sorry, but I'm still not feeling much sympathy for you on this one.

Quote:
I'm not looking to be spoon fed. If the topic's indeed been done to death, my apologies.

it has, and we gave you links to several places you could read about it. Apology accepted.

Quote:

Do you have an opinion as to whether theism is mental illness or should I search for everything you've ever posted before daring to ask?

Yes. I think the definition of mental illness is so hazy that either side can present valid arguments for their position.

To be more precise, I think theism is the systematized spread of delusion, and delusion is, by definition, removed from reality. Whether it's a medical "disease" or not, it prevents people from being able to function rationally, and for my money, that fits the loose definition of disease just fine.

I don't think it's particularly important whether a doctor says it's a disease or not. It sure gets people to the site, though, and I think even figuratively, it gets the point across very well.

And that, sir, is all I'm going to say about this, as it's been covered many times, and it's all available to someone willing to search it out.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
You stupid fuck. In medical

{Mod Edit: Very colorful epithet removed: No personal attacks, please!}

In medical terminology normal can mean occuring naturally not the result of a disease. Read a fucking book before you comment on anything I say. And then have somebody that doesn't have shit for brains read it to you again.

You must think that in japan belief in god is a mental disorder then because the majority of people there don't believe in god.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


dumpydooby
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: {Mod Edit:

Gauche wrote:
{Mod Edit: Very colorful epithet removed: No personal attacks, please!}

In medical terminology normal can mean occuring naturally not the result of a disease. Read a fucking book before you comment on anything I say. And then have somebody that doesn't have shit for brains read it to you again.

Okay Mr. Armchair Psychologist. ROTF

Quote:
You must think that in japan belief in god is a mental disorder then because the majority of people there don't believe in god.
Then by your logic, atheists in America would have mental disorders.

My point was that your interpretation is way off, and that FGL is completely reasonable for addressing the issue of normality. I never said that anyone who marches to the beat of a different drum necessarily has a mental disorder, but I did say that in order to have a mental disorder, one aspect of a person's mentality or psyche needs to be considered "abnormal." If you're going to pretend to have the "rational" high ground, then it would do you well to at least keep up with the categorical syllogisms in here.

-dumpydooby


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
That's your logic fool not

That's your logic fool not mine. You said it has to do with the majority. Get your argument straight. How would you know if my interpretation is off when you didn't even know what normal means? Talk about things you know about. Jesus, talking to yourself and acting like it's god, and trying to convince people that your beliefs aren't just your pathetic ass still believing some spook story you heard when you were 5 years old.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My point was that

Quote:
My point was that your interpretation is way off, and that FGL is completely reasonable for addressing the issue of normality. I never said that anyone who marches to the beat of a different drum necessarily has a mental disorder, but I did say that in order to have a mental disorder, one aspect of a person's mentality or psyche needs to be considered "abnormal." If you're going to pretend to have the "rational" high ground, then it would do you well to at least keep up with the categorical syllogisms in here.

You don't realize this, but everyone here who's studied psychology knows that you haven't.

I second gauche's suggestion that you read a book before you continue this discussion.  I suggest one written by a scientist, not a preacher.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Hamby WTF? Doesn't somebody

Hamby WTF? Doesn't somebody have to have at least 5 posts before they can just drop f bombs on people? I mean this guy called me insane and used bold type on me, all caps too. How rude is that shit?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


dumpydooby
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:
My point was that your interpretation is way off, and that FGL is completely reasonable for addressing the issue of normality. I never said that anyone who marches to the beat of a different drum necessarily has a mental disorder, but I did say that in order to have a mental disorder, one aspect of a person's mentality or psyche needs to be considered "abnormal." If you're going to pretend to have the "rational" high ground, then it would do you well to at least keep up with the categorical syllogisms in here.
You don't realize this, but everyone here who's studied psychology knows that you haven't.
You don't realize this, but I'm probably the only person in this discussion that has studied psychology.

Quote:
I second gauche's suggestion that you read a book before you continue this discussion.
You don't realize this, but I've probably read more on psychology than anyone else in this discussion.

Quote:
I suggest one written by a scientist,
You don't realize this, but psychology is not a field of science. It's entirely subjective and its theories are not falsifiable.

Quote:
not a preacher.
You don't realize this, but I'm not a Christian, nor am I even religious. Hell, I'm not even theistic. I've been an atheist as far back as I can remember. finger

 

-dumpydooby


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
to comment on the original

to comment on the original post, i think fGL has some points to be considered. i am shocked by some of the responses on such a interesting post.

i mean we are here to embrace thought and we should be careful to distinguish the difference between opinion and refutals from anger and disregard.

i can understand how frustrating it is to answer the same question over and over and i'm sure fGL was not wanting to be a nuisance to the people that have seen this question before. although i did see a lot of similarities between the other posts and some of his ideas, i think his presentation summed up a lot of the various ideas and deserves some respect. everyone's thoughts are beneficial and it seems he put some time and effort into drawing some good clear statements.

me and tadangst talked about something similar in which we both could agree that everybody is delusional and irrational in some aspects of their lives.

so claiming that a person has a mind disorder because of one aspect of their life, would also subject you to the same standards? ...but like tadangst said, that is much easier said than done. (i myself am tremendously guilty of this.)

it is something to ponder... atheist and theist are more similar than you think and it is easy to get caught up in an idea. that is where God and religion separates for me. all theists needs to make sure they are following God and not a person.

i do understand that because something has been around for a long time that doesn't make it true, but i don't think that was his only point. i look forward to some more serious replies to fGL's opinion. just because an idea needs a little revising does not take away your freedom to question God and work towards proving/disproving his existence.

lets get a little more positive and constructive.

 

EDIT: grammar errors... my "f" key doesn't work on my keyboard anymore so i am having to paste (ctrl-v) it in.. hehehe

EDIT 2: it's really late and i reworded the last paragraph to accuratly repersent what i was trying to say. 

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


dumpydooby
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: That's your

Gauche wrote:
That's your logic fool not mine. You said it has to do with the majority. Get your argument straight. How would you know if my interpretation is off when you didn't even know what normal means? Talk about things you know about. Jesus, talking to yourself and acting like it's god, and trying to convince people that your beliefs aren't just your pathetic ass still believing some spook story you heard when you were 5 years old.
I know you like to pretend that attacking my character gives you some sort of logical high ground, but it doesn't. Even if I did believe in a god of sorts, your argument just fell flat on its ass. Dare I say you're not even being rational?

I'll go ahead and take that as a concession. 

-dumpydooby


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

FGL wrote:

Beyond posting here from time to time and hanging out in chat, I don't consider myself to be a member of the RRS; so take this as my opinion only.

Everything on these boards is people's opinions. There is no one set answer for any question, position, or assertion. If I ever read or hear so much as an allusion to this again from you then I will summarily place you in the same place as your buddy, gravity, has in my mind. I feel as if I have been more than patient and open-minded in our dealings here or in stickam.

Quote:
I think that skepticism should always win the day, and that beliefs not backed by skeptical processes aren't worth holding.

'Skeptical processes'? And pray tell who is it that defines a skeptical process for you? The same methods by which you examine a claim are not the same methods that other skeptics use.

How about 'skepticism' as a general term that way we aren't bogged down with worrying whether we are doubting things in the same way.

Quote:
I think the RRS feels the same way.

Was there ever a doubt? (pun intended)

Quote:
With this in mind, I think the claim that theism is a mind disorder is irrational at worst and ignorant at best. As skeptics, in my opinion, you need to justify your claim with logic or you should abandon it (else you become sorta like those you attack).

As a 'skeptic' you should doubt even your own logic, in my opinion. I do. Every time some 'johnny come lately' rolls in here with the same assertion, I ask myself if the entire idea of the RRS is worthwhile. Y'KNOW WHAT? Every time the answer has been "YEP! The RRS is where I need to be if I'm ever going to make a real difference in ridding the world of the mind virus known as theism.

 

Quote:
My points on why I think your claim has created a rational emergency that someone should respond to:

I will go point by point with you.

 

Quote:
1) Mental disorder has specific meaning in psychology and medicine. Just calling it a disorder doesn't make it so.

Actually. No. Specific disorders have specific meanings, but as a general term 'mental disorder' means 'some' problem with the mind.

Depression, delusion, sociopathy, psychopathy, neuropathy are all mental disorders with multiple causes.

Theism has many causes and diagnoses with multiple types of treatment ranging from aversion therapy to replacement therapy. No one treatment works to cure every person of this disease.

 

Quote:
2) An irrational belief (i.e., delusion), by itself is not a mental disorder. Holding them might be diagnostic in deciding whether you have some real mental disorder. But, having the belief itself is not sufficient to diagnose someone with mental illness.

This is especially true of religious belief, wherein tradition, culture, parents, peers, etc, share in the same belief. Believing that jesus is god may be irrational (meaning not backed by any valid evidence), but it is not delusional in the same way that believing your toaster is possessed would be.

Actually, this reads like an assertion with no supporting argument. It also speaks to excusing the methods of indoctrination used by theism to spread itself.

According to:

Answers.com wrote:
delusion (n)

  1. Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

I think it is very important to point out. Theism in all of its forms asserts itself to be true despite invalidating evidence. When an undeniable piece of information comes along, the deluded alter the theism to fit the new evidence.

Symptoms are the means to diagnose an illness, but the particular form of the illness in each instance regarding theism is mental by virtue of its very definition of 'BELIEF'

Quote:
If culture one day spread the meme of toaster possession to the point of widespread acceptance, then the comparison would be valid. In this case, though, the toaster belief would no longer be delusional (certainly not itself a mental disorder); just irrational.

So, it's apples an oranges claiming that mainstream religious belief is just as delusional as toaster posession belief.

For SHAME, FGL.

This logical fallacy is known as 'converting a conditional'.

Before I make an argumentum ad logicam, a toaster is a real item and possession of a toaster is a real event. Let's hope the rest of this argument is better later.

 

Quote:
3) If theism is a mind disorder, then so too is astrology; so is buying a stock without having studied all available financial or technical data on the company. What about people who buy cars because of their color versus performance? What about the decades of literature on every-day reasoning ability, and how people just aren't born being rational (ergo, we're born being deluded, as we don't know the laws of logic or scientific discovery unless we discover or are taught them later?).

Theism does not equal astrology by virtue of definitions alone. Your point dies before the semicolon.

 

Quote:
Also a mind disorder given your definition would be any type of belief or behavior based on satisficing a solution versus using an heuristic to guarantee the best outcome. For example, you leave an "ok" song on the radio, rather than scan all stations to guarantee you'll find the song you like best. Doing this is not perfectly rational; yet people satisfice far more often than they whip out a slide rule to reach some belief, conclusion or engage in some behavior. Falling prey to any of the many common fallacies (correlation and cause; framing; primacy / recency effects; insensitivity to sample size; regression to the mean; insensitivity to base rates; the gambler's fallacy, etc, etc) would make people mentally ill if your definition is correct.

Strawman. Aren't we here to discuss the intersubjective definition of mental disorder with regard to theism?

 

Quote:
4) Mental illness is abnormal by definition. If the vast majority of people do x; it can't be abnormal by definition; nor can it be a mental illness. You could say as a counter: if everyone raped, rape would still be a mental disorder! I agree, but that's precisely why most people don't rape / it's an abnormal behavior by definition.

Ummmm. What fucking dictionary are you using? Did you purposely leave out the word "individual's"

Answers.com wrote:
mental illness (n.)

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease; Also called mental disorder.

 

Quote:
5) Redcuto ad absurdum?

Exactly what I feel like when responding to this bit of irrationality.

Quote:
I'm joe, a college professor; published scientist; well trained in the scientific method. That said, I think faith is also a valid means of knowing something. I have faith that jesus is my god. I feel it in my heart. I just know it's so. I have no physical proof, but I still think my belief is correct.

 

How would you characterize joe?

Joe is delusional by his own admission. Please see the definition of delusion again.

Quote:
Does he have a mental disorder?

Yes. A delusion affects the mind as equally as the mind affects the delusion. A delusion cannot be a delusion without the mind. Ergo, mental disorder.

Quote:
Is it fair to label joe irrational?

By his own words. Yes.

Quote:
What if joe spends 90% of his intellectual life engaged in science and only 10% engaged in religious discourse.

In my personal opinion, that makes Joe a hypocrite.

Quote:
Is joe ill?

For the third time, Yes.

 

Quote:
6) Many people convert to theism or atheism just by changing their mind after having read or experienced something. Are these relapses? If it's so easy to cure theism, can it really be a mental disorder? Is the mind disorder of theism as easy to cure as taking aspirin for headaches?

Vaccination by promoting freethought and skepticism. Whoever told you that it was EASY to cure theism was lying or delusional themselves, in my opinion. It takes a lot for some and just a little for others. Again, delusions are similar but not the same for all theists.

 

Quote:
You do claim to speak only for yourself and not all heathens, but your acts and speech do contribute-- good or bad-- to how others view us. As such, my opinion is that you need to either prove that theism is a mind disease or stop saying it is. Do you have to do this? No. Is it something a rational person or organization would do? Yes.

And in my opinion you need to read more of the argument that you are confronting because the evidence regarding this topic is contained within your own skepticism.

By the way, your actions and speeches contribute to the way that the atheists in your myspace group see us as well.

I wonder if your skepticism has been tainted by one of your members there that maintains his own set of delusions even after all of this time and attempted treatments.

I wonder indeed.

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


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

dumpydooby wrote:

You don't realize this, but I'm not a Christian, nor am I even religious. Hell, I'm not even theistic. I've been an atheist as far back as I can remember. finger

You don't realize that I don't give a shit one way or the other. If you can't get back onto the subject with argumentation for or against the thread topic then we're going to have a problem, you and I.

Get busy reading the threads that Susan posted at least.

Consider this a warning to attempt to maintain a modicum of respect for sitemembers that have been here longer. If one of them tells you that the argument has been 'done to death' then chances are you need to check their assertion rather than ASSume you know what has already been discussed.

Straighten up and represent.

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


dumpydooby
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
omfg. That's like the third

omfg. That's like the third time someone decided to post a definition. Oh, but this is the Internet. I'm sure everyone here has a degree in psychology. I know when I was studying it, I would always look to answers.com for my definitions. I figure those are the most concise and definitely more accurate than any sort of "credible" medical dictionary or APA publication. And I always made sure to check dictionary.com for definitions of medical conditions, rather than checking any sort of "credible" source like the DSM. Hell, what kind of crazy asshole would ever think to check the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? I'll tell you what kind! The kind that needs to stop talking to his preachers! ROTF

So my trusty ol' DSM-IV TR has the criteria for Adult Delusional Disorder (DSM-IV 297.1) listed as follows:

A. ____ Nonbizarre delusions (of things that can actually occur) lasting 1 month.
B. ____ Criteria A for Sz never been met (tactile & smell hallucinations may be present if they are related to the delusional theme)
C. ____ Apart from delusions or their ramifications, behaviour is not odd
D. ____ Total duration of mood disturbances, if accompanying, has been brief relative to the duration of the delusion


Here's a relevant URL:
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/delusionaldis.htm

 

 

I just figured while everyone was posting definitions and pretending to know anything about psychology, I might as well actually post something a little more worthwhile than a dictionary.com or answers.com layman interpretation.

-dumpydooby


dumpydooby
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-07-07
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:
dumpydooby wrote:

You don't realize this, but I'm not a Christian, nor am I even religious. Hell, I'm not even theistic. I've been an atheist as far back as I can remember. finger

You don't realize that I don't give a shit one way or the other. If you can't get back onto the subject with argumentation for or against the thread topic then we're going to have a problem, you and I.

Get busy reading the threads that Susan posted at least.

Consider this a warning to attempt to maintain a modicum of respect for sitemembers that have been here longer. If one of them tells you that the argument has been 'done to death' then chances are you need to check their assertion rather than ASSume you know what has already been discussed.

Straighten up and represent.

Shut up. 

-dumpydooby


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I see someone's going to be

I see someone's going to be here long. Raised Brow


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Free download: Theism is

Free download:

Theism is irrational show, with Richard Carrier

 

Thoughts from one of the most important psychologists of our time.

Best quote from article linked above: "What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not—as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should—go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness." - Dr. Albert Ellis

Theist that admits faith is irrational.

 

A whole thread of dozens of posters who believe theism is irrational or a mind disorder.

 

 

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
dumpydooby wrote: You

dumpydooby wrote:

You don't realize this, but I'm probably the only person in this discussion that has studied psychology.

Quote:
You don't realize this, but I've probably read more on psychology than anyone else in this discussion.

OMG, Tom Cruise is posting in the RRS forums!

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Free

Sapient wrote:

Free download:

Theism is irrational show, with Richard Carrier

 

Thoughts from one of the most important psychologists of our time.

Best quote from article linked above: "What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not—as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should—go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness." - Dr. Albert Ellis

Theist that admits faith is irrational.

 

A whole thread of dozens of posters who believe theism is irrational or a mind disorder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I read through the link but it focused on irrationality versus mental illness. My whole point is they're not the same.

 

I submit that theistic beliefs are irrational, but by themselves are not a mental disorder. I'm just looking for counter arguments to that.

 

As boards grow, it's obvious that newbies will bring up topics that oldbies have hashed to death. I dunno how many times we get newbies on myspace asking about pascal's wager or the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

 

Invariably, an oldbie will post saying something like "idiot do your homework / not this again; why don't you search before posting". That's fine, but I know in my group it's stopped many potential good posters from further participating in the board. I guess if your mission is educational perhaps that's not that the best strategy (and I say this as just my opinion; not speaking for the RRS, really just to fuck with JoshSmiling.

 

I don't find oldbie hostility to the newbie who hasn't read every thread yet dares to post very helpful. I did spend some good faith effort scanning all links provided (and I appreciate people taking the time to link for me) but could not find posts that specifically support the notion that theism is a disorder (versus just irrational).

 

How much time should I scan before I've met the burden of intellectual-doing-thy-homework?

 

On an internet board whose purpose is discussing topics like these, is rehashing an old argument (with new participants) really that big a sin?

 

 So, where are we: whether because I am intellectually lazy or because I am right, I still concede that theism-- though irrational-- is not mental illness.

 

 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
dumpydooby wrote: I know

dumpydooby wrote:

I know you like to pretend that attacking my character gives you some sort of logical high ground, but it doesn't.

. . .

Ah, speaking of ad hominem attacks:

dumpydooby wrote:

This speaks volumes of your intellectual slovenliness. It's fucking pathetic, and downright typical of any person that suffers from a dogmatic mentality.

. . .

 

I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with man-rammer. . .

 

Bring the mod power!


dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Free download:

Theism is irrational show, with Richard Carrier

 

Thoughts from one of the most important psychologists of our time.

Best quote from article linked above: "What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not—as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should—go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness." - Dr. Albert Ellis

Ellis does not assert, in any of his work, that religiosity itself is a mental disorder. He does insist that psychoanalysts not consider religious views exempt from psychological scrutiny. For example, some psychoanalysts would consider the acts of Paul Hill (the fundie that murdered the abortion clinic doctor) to be exempt from psychoanalysis because what he did was part of his religious conviction. Modern psychologists, just as Ellis says, do not consider symptoms of mental disorders to be exempt from diagnosis if they are rooted in religiosity.

The issue with your assertion has nothing to do with whether or not religious views are exempt in the field of psychology. It does, however, have everything to do with the fact the sheer act of believing in a god is not a symptom of any sort of psychological disease. I posted the APA's list of symptoms that are used for diagnosing Delusional Disorder, and I can gladly post every other recognized mental disorder and their symptoms and ask you to show me under which condition a religious person necessarily meets every condition.

-dumpydooby


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
dumpydooby2 wrote: Sapient

dumpydooby2 wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Free download:

Theism is irrational show, with Richard Carrier

 

Thoughts from one of the most important psychologists of our time.

Best quote from article linked above: "What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not—as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should—go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness." - Dr. Albert Ellis

OMGLOLZ I'm back and rehashing the same e-psychologist argument in a more polite manner complete with references to the DSM-IV!111!!! As you might have noticed when I said "You don't realize this, but psychology is not a field of science. It's entirely subjective and its theories are not falsifiable," I am completely bat-shit crazy.

I can cite psychological writings as factual even while believing that it is not a science! Look at me! 

The issue with your assertion has nothing to do with whether or not religious views are exempt in the field of psychology. It does, however, have everything to do with the fact (that) the sheer act of believing in a god is not a symptom of any sort of (diagnosable) psychological disease. However, please feel free to ignore whatever I say because I think that psychology is at once factual and non-factual. Obviously a tool of THE MAN.

Whoa, that's kinda scary. 

 


dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:
dumpydooby2 wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Free download:

Theism is irrational show, with Richard Carrier

 

Thoughts from one of the most important psychologists of our time.

Best quote from article linked above: "What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not—as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should—go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness." - Dr. Albert Ellis

OMGLOLZ I'm back and rehashing the same e-psychologist argument in a more polite manner complete with references to the DSM-IV!111!!! As you might have noticed when I said "You don't realize this, but psychology is not a field of science. It's entirely subjective and its theories are not falsifiable," I am completely bat-shit crazy.

I can cite psychological writings as factual even while believing that it is not a science! Look at me!

The issue with your assertion has nothing to do with whether or not religious views are exempt in the field of psychology. It does, however, have everything to do with the fact (that) the sheer act of believing in a god is not a symptom of any sort of (diagnosable) psychological disease. However, please feel free to ignore whatever I say because I think that psychology is at once factual and non-factual. Obviously a tool of THE MAN.

Whoa, that's kinda scary.
Psychology is not a field of science. I still stand firm behind that statement. Very few, even within the community itself, consider it a field of science. Psychological theories are not falsifiable, and none of them are based on anything outside of statistical analysis. That's not to say that psychology is a sham, unworthy of intellectual consideration, but that is certainly to say that psychology is not a field of science.

-dumpydooby


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
gauche, just to be clear, I

gauche, just to be clear, I censored the f-bomb simply because it was an f'bomb name directed at someone without any other clear purpose but to curse at him.

I didn't see where gooberdumb, or whatever, had done that to you, or I would have censored that, too.

This isn't Kill-em-with-Kindness, so cursing is allowed, but we try to keep the cursing directed at ideas, not people.  There was no warning implied in my edit.  Just housekeeping.

As to the rest of this conversation, it's gotten so ludicrous that I'm not bothering with it anymore.  I knew better, but still stuck my nose into it.  Now I have shit on my nose.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: gauche,

Hambydammit wrote:

gauche, just to be clear, I censored the f-bomb simply because it was an f'bomb name directed at someone without any other clear purpose but to curse at him.

I didn't see where gooberdumb, or whatever, had done that to you, or I would have censored that, too.

This isn't Kill-em-with-Kindness, so cursing is allowed, but we try to keep the cursing directed at ideas, not people. There was no warning implied in my edit. Just housekeeping.

As to the rest of this conversation, it's gotten so ludicrous that I'm not bothering with it anymore. I knew better, but still stuck my nose into it. Now I have shit on my nose.

 

 

Shit on your nose?  Cry me a river. For a mod your coming across as arrogant and not very helpful.

 

Perhaps I should scour every post you ever made in case an alternate view of you is present.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Shit on your

Quote:

Shit on your nose?  Cry me a river. For a mod your coming across as arrogant and not very helpful.

 

Perhaps I should scour every post you ever made in case an alternate view of you is present.

I'm not talking about you.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: gauche,

Hambydammit wrote:

gauche, just to be clear, I censored the f-bomb simply because it was an f'bomb name directed at someone without any other clear purpose but to curse at him.

I didn't see where gooberdumb, or whatever, had done that to you, or I would have censored that, too.

This isn't Kill-em-with-Kindness, so cursing is allowed, but we try to keep the cursing directed at ideas, not people. There was no warning implied in my edit. Just housekeeping.

As to the rest of this conversation, it's gotten so ludicrous that I'm not bothering with it anymore. I knew better, but still stuck my nose into it. Now I have shit on my nose. 

Agreed. Continuing to sling mud at eachother over trifles such as slogans and opinions doesn't help anyone. Maybe "mind disorder" is a bad term, but it does call attention. The idea is to get people talking about religion, not terminology.


FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Cool; perhaps cooler heads

Cool; perhaps cooler heads are needed.

 

But, I did just search and read all of the 4 pages of posts on the first thread Susan linked me (and thanks to Susan for taking the time to link them). That said, I saw nothing that remotely addressed the issue of why the RRS thinks theism is a mind disorder.

 

It's possible I missed it; but my intentions are sincere and I am not trying to get others to do my homework.

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't really trying to

I wasn't really trying to criticize your moderation. I was more just trying to justify my own statements but in retrospect I realize that i shouldn't have responded to that guy at all. I don't believe that guy knows anything about psychology anybody who did would apply that knowledge to their own behavior and not act like a retarded child on the internet for kicks.

But to the op you already think that theism is irrational. Well, what about fear? Don't people who believe in gods usually fear them? Does that come any closer to your definition of a mental disorder? 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Gauche, NP.  For what it's

Gauche,

NP.  For what it's worth, that dude's already been blocked for a couple of rules violations, and has returned with another account.  He's being watched very closely.  I'd recommend not bothering with him, as you've already figured out.

FGL,

No harm, no foul.  Text sometimes comes off harsher than the voice in the brain behind the computer.  I didn't follow the links Susan provided, so I can't really address what you found in them.  In any case, I was trying to poke you with a stick, at least just a little, but I was trying to show you that your post sounded a bit demanding and impatient.  I understand that you're sincere.

I'll save you some trouble in research by telling you that this whole thread has been a microcosm of the same conversation at least a dozen times previous.

The term pisses some people off.  Others think it's exactly accurate.  The bottom line is that the mods and owners are in basic agreement that the term is a great marketing device, even if it's not 100% scientifically accurate.

There are organizations who think the best approach to ending theism is polite and quiet.  This organization prefers a much more up front and confrontational style.  The use of the term "mind disease known as theism" conveys our approach well.

I don't want you to think I'm dismissing your points.  It's just that we've heard them before, and we respectfully disagree.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


FGL
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Gauche,

NP. For what it's worth, that dude's already been blocked for a couple of rules violations, and has returned with another account. He's being watched very closely. I'd recommend not bothering with him, as you've already figured out.

FGL,

No harm, no foul. Text sometimes comes off harsher than the voice in the brain behind the computer. I didn't follow the links Susan provided, so I can't really address what you found in them. In any case, I was trying to poke you with a stick, at least just a little, but I was trying to show you that your post sounded a bit demanding and impatient. I understand that you're sincere.

I'll save you some trouble in research by telling you that this whole thread has been a microcosm of the same conversation at least a dozen times previous.

The term pisses some people off. Others think it's exactly accurate. The bottom line is that the mods and owners are in basic agreement that the term is a great marketing device, even if it's not 100% scientifically accurate.

There are organizations who think the best approach to ending theism is polite and quiet. This organization prefers a much more up front and confrontational style. The use of the term "mind disease known as theism" conveys our approach well.

I don't want you to think I'm dismissing your points. It's just that we've heard them before, and we respectfully disagree.

 

 

Fair enough; I appreciate that. 

 

My OP was perhaps a bit arrogant anyways.

 

Perhaps I will up my meds dosage! 


dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
Not one of you were able

ROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTF

Not one of you were able to refute a single bit of any of my posts at all. Now you're going to pretend that you sure showed me! This is just fucking classic. Oh, and to top it all off, you're willing to concede that your usage of the term has absolutely no merit outside of your own orthodoxy, but yet, you have the temerity to claim that OTHERS are delusional.

 

Unbelievably pathetic.

-dumpydooby


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
dumpydooby2 wrote: Not

dumpydooby2 wrote:

ROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTF

Not one of you were able to refute a single bit of any of my posts at all. Now you're going to pretend that you sure showed me! This is just fucking classic. Oh, and to top it all off, you're willing to concede that your usage of the term has absolutely no merit outside of your own orthodoxy, but yet, you have the temerity to claim that OTHERS are delusional.

 

Unbelievably pathetic.

Ok fine, you win Tom Cruise. We're all delusional here.  Now, go away.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh

Roisin Dubh wrote:
dumpydooby2 wrote:

ROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTF

Not one of you were able to refute a single bit of any of my posts at all. Now you're going to pretend that you sure showed me! This is just fucking classic. Oh, and to top it all off, you're willing to concede that your usage of the term has absolutely no merit outside of your own orthodoxy, but yet, you have the temerity to claim that OTHERS are delusional.

 

Unbelievably pathetic.

Ok fine, you win Tom Cruise. We're all delusional here. Now, go away.

Okay Fred Phelps. Smiling

-dumpydooby


croath
Theist
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-05-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: The

Hambydammit wrote:

The term pisses some people off. Others think it's exactly accurate. The bottom line is that the mods and owners are in basic agreement that the term is a great marketing device, even if it's not 100% scientifically accurate.

What a load of crap, but I shouldn't expect more from a website like RRS. For a website that attempts to give a great image of truth and rationality, you certainly aren't all that fussed about accuracy. You like the term 'mind disorder' because, even if not true, it draws a crowd. You loved the blasphemy challenge, because even if it wasn't really the unforgivable sin, at least it drew in a crowd as if it was.

Do you care if theists use marketing tools that, while inaccurate, draw in a crowd? Would you bring on your great rod of rebuking and strike us for telling people something that, while we know it's not true, is effective? Some people in this world are interested in truth and good reasoning, as opposed to marketing tools. RRS has a long way to go before it will stop being a joke and start being a serious place of reasoned understanding. You atheists have been treating each other like hateful gremlins in this thread - is the utopia you offer really going to be that much better than a world with theism? We all know the answer is no - the atheists view of history is one filled with death, disease, murder, rape, theft, and generally getting what you want by whatever means you have evolved to prefer.

I shouldn't be surprised that atheists don't care about how they persuade or influence people. When your morality is subjective, it's quite easy to justify any means in pursuit of your ends. I almost believed your hype that atheists don't need God to be good. You're right - you don't. But conveniently you get to decide what "good" means.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Well, I genuinely feel bad

Well, I genuinely feel bad because I cannot find the other place where the 'DSM' page was posted before by someone else.

I know that I had already read it. In my opinion, it supports the claim that theism is indeed a mental disorder.

 

Before I jump headlong into the page itself, I think it is important to defend psychology from its detractors.

The ONLY thing that prevents psychology from being an accepted science is the absence of 'controls'. In other words, 'normal' has not been defined or studied. Typically, in every other aspect of psychoanalysis the scientific method is followed. I see no reason to denigrate its usage.

 

BehaveNet wrote:
A. Nonbizarre delusions (i.e., involving situations that occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, infected, loved at a distance, or deceived by spouse or lover, or having a disease) of at least 1 month's duration.

It occurs to me that the examples listed are essentially negative conditions in nature. However, it seems that positive events can also fit this criteria with regard to theism. Such as: answered prayers, deniability of unanswered prayers, avoided danger, serendipitous events for the individual, denial of individual effort in favor of ascribing it to divine intervention, the love of 'god' or 'jesus' or 'allah', the promise of an afterlife.

Criteria A has been met.

BehaveNet wrote:
B. Criterion A for Schizophrenia has never been met. Note: Tactile and olfactory hallucinations may be present in Delusional Disorder if they are related to the delusional theme.

Themes such as sympathetic emotions eliciting crying and emotional distress among theists. jesus on the cross, muhammed fearing for his life.

Also I should include that quite often theism declares that they feel such things as 'the holy spirit' or they 'smell angels' or something 'smells like heaven'. The 'chill of death' or the 'warmth of god/krishna/whichever'

Criteria B met.

BehaveNet wrote:
C. Apart from the impact of the delusion(s) or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired and behavior is not obviously odd or bizarre.

Well, would you look at that??? Many theists function normally in society except when they are together under the delusion(e.g. at church, the mosque, the synagogue et al)

Criteria C met easily.

BehaveNet wrote:
D. If mood episodes have occurred concurrently with delusions, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the delusional periods.

OH YES!!!!! Theism is rife with anecdotes about believers 'backsliding' or 'sinning' and then finding their 'way back to their god or saviour'.

Criteria D met so fast it gave me a little delusional tingle. lol.

BehaveNet wrote:
E. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.

EXACTLY! It is 100% mental. Although I'm sure that someone could make a compelling argument against sacramental wine. lol.

Criteria E met.

BehaveNet wrote:
Specify type (the following types are assigned based on the predominant delusional theme):

Ahhhh. Here's where it gets too tricky to address without regarding the individual theist because each one has separate excuses as to why they still believe.

 

 

 

 

FGL,

Instead of trying to 'fuck with me' then why not make a better argument? You require us to defend our stance yet refuse to state your own in an effective manner.

I am curious if you feel like I failed in my refutation of your initial point and if so, where?

 

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


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
dumpydooby2 wrote: Not

dumpydooby2 wrote:

ROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTF

Not one of you were able to refute a single bit of any of my posts at all. Now you're going to pretend that you sure showed me! This is just fucking classic. Oh, and to top it all off, you're willing to concede that your usage of the term has absolutely no merit outside of your own orthodoxy, but yet, you have the temerity to claim that OTHERS are delusional.

 

Unbelievably pathetic.

We should refute ad homs???

BTW, sock-puppets is another board rules violation. You did not return my e-mail.

Your posts in other threads are much different than the ones in this one. Have you considered seeking therapy? 

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


dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: We should

darth_josh wrote:
We should refute ad homs???
No.

Quote:
BTW, sock-puppets is another board rules violation.
I don't know what that is, nor do I particularly care.

Quote:
You did not return my e-mail.
That's a very astute observation.

Quote:
Your posts in other threads are much different than the ones in this one.
Not really. I have little tolerance for those that don't know what they're talking about. I have a high tolerance for opposing opinions, but little tolerance for ignorance.

Quote:
Have you considered seeking therapy?
Have you considered removing that big black dick from your ass?

 

Look, if your deal is to flex your mod muscles at me or engage in some juvenile bandwagoning, then you guys can go fuck yourselves. If you want to have a rational conversation, then I'm your huckleberry. My posts differ from thread to thread because I'm a reasonable person. I might be a shithead to you in this discussion, but that's only because I think you're being intellectually dishonest, and I find such dishonesty to be an embarrassment to the atheist community at large. I respect you guys a lot more when you at least admit that your usage of the term holds no merit, and it's really just a buzz word to garner attention.

-dumpydooby


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
dumpydooby2 wrote: Have

dumpydooby2 wrote:

Have you considered removing that big black dick from your ass?

Real classy, Tom Cruise.  I'm guessing this post will be the last we'll see of your highly-intelligent cutting and pasting skills. 

 

Quote:
Look, if your deal is to flex your mod muscles at me or engage in some juvenile bandwagoning, then you guys can go fuck yourselves.

Juvenile?  You attempt to insult someone by suggesting that homosexuality or interracial relationships are something to be ashamed of, and then have the balls to call someone else juvenile?  Piss off, Tom Cruise, you unoriginal hypocrite.

Quote:
My posts differ from thread to thread because I'm a reasonable person.

Your posts differ from thread to thread because you're copying and pasting other people's arguments without citing them.  You're not only a jerk, but a dishonest jerk. 

Quote:
I think you're being intellectually dishonest, and I find such dishonesty to be an embarrassment to the atheist community at large.

You've got to be joking, Tom Cruise.  The only embarassment here is you.  Go join a church, will you? 

Quote:
I respect you guys a lot more when you at least admit that your usage of the term holds no merit, and it's really just a buzz word to garner attention.

Your thetans are out of alignment, Tom.  Get to the nearest celebrity center immediately.  And stay there.  Good riddance, drillrod. 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


ZeeZer0
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
religion is a mind disease

You can corrolate epilepsy and schizophrenia with god belief. You hear the term, if you believe, you will believe. Well, what if it's true?

There's been recent scientific evidence of a god spot or god module in the brain. The concept is that we are actually internally wired for god belief. There has also been a
reasonable amount of corrolation between the brain activity of epileptics and schizophrenics, who tend to have religious spiritual encounters on a much higher frequency than the general population and a 'normal' person having a religious experience. There has also been more recent semi-refutation of the god spot, but I think the corrolation between schizophrenia in brain activity and behavior is still pretty interesting. The refutations didn't dismiss the claims entirely, basically said that there seemed to be more than one part of the brain involved in religious experiences. It's not surprising that more than one part of your brain is active and it's not a spot.

Here's my theory.

One way that our neural pathways are reinforced or lost is due to life experiences and activities. If you are exposed to many languages as a child, then you will have a greater ability to understand and learn new languages in adulthood. The neural pathways that are responsible for languages are reinforced. If you don't get the same exposure, than those pathways would be weakened or never develop at all.

If you speak to god all of the time. And believe he will answer back. Would it not make sense that you are reinforcing those neural pathways responsible for voices in your head? If you believe, eventually, you'll have created a second personality who you 'actually' hear. Similar to a schizophrenic.

The tendancy toward this illness would be passed on through the generations especially since the christians who tended to have this gene would band together and kill the heretics who didn't. Or look at the middle east for an example of this.

I also tend to think of the evangelicals speaking in tongues as a form of self induced epilepsy. They look and sound like they are going into an epileptic seisure. Epilepsy used to be considered divine intervention

I've heard Kelly describe religion as a mind disease on several occasions. I think she mentioned the god spot.


some info on god spot

'God spot' is found in brain
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm

God and the Brain
http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html

How Praying to God Causes Schizophrenia
http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Praying-to-God-Causes-Schizophrenia&id=260151

God on the Brain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml


Anyway, I think epilepsy and schizophrenia are mind diseases. I also think that religion is a mind disease.

 

- ZeeZer0


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
great reply zee, i feel as

great reply zee,

i feel as being supported by scientific fact the idea is really thin.  in my opinion it sounds a lot like propaganda and trying to curve facts to fit a certain agenda. it is a good discovery but it has not been developed and tested by other professionals.  it still doesn't claim religion is a mind disorder. from my understanding it says that your brain functions in certain areas if you think God or religion.  seriously, what where you expecting them to find?  religion and God invokes a lot of feelings for people and it is not surprising that there is something in common.

like sited in your first link from cas.bellarmine.edu, "this may have evolved to impose order and stability on society."  i don't feel like it would be a correct assumption to say everything from that area was related to God.  it would be saying that there is a certain place in the brain we shouldn't go.  i was under the impression that mental illness was problems with the way the brain functions, not with what areas you have developed.  is it a brain disorder if you learn languages faster than other people?

"Mental illnesses are biologically based brain disorders.  They cannot be overcome through "will power" and are not related to a person's "character" or intelligence." source  with that statement said, how are atheists converted?  like other people said in here that we are "born atheist" but it seems like we have the option to go either way.  does that mean that other people here that was once theists are still suffering from this terrible brain disorder?  would it also be safe to say that some people who are atheist may have this disorder?  you are claiming someone has a disorder because of the title they carry and i don't buy that.

the second link from atheistempire.com is interesting and seems maybe a little bias. i find it incredibly interesting the fact that there is "no word yet on whether the brains of atheists and agnostics might flatline..."  but still, if someone was brought up believing in God and then convert would they still use that area of the brain?  this area is also being compared to maybe a "self-policing mechanism as cooperation with others" written later in the article.  i am curious to find if atheist also use this area of the brain.

do you personally know anyone with schizophrenia?  you might want to read a little bit more about the topic; http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizoph.cfm

it seems that schizo is involuntary and has other scientific guild lines than where you pull your information from.  God talks to me in a lot of different ways other than a voice in my head.

prayer is talking or meditaion for me, it is not a conversation.  i don't ask a question and wait for a response, i express concerns and as time goes by look for the answers myself.  sometimes it is naturally answered the next day; example, if i pray for God to give me motivation, the next day my wife calls me and tells me that she thinks i did a wonderful job cleaning the house. as far as asking God for things, i request but am subject to His will... He always answers prayers for me, sometimes it is "no" or "not now".  meditaion of yourself is a good thing whether you are religious or not and does not require a second party.  how many of us ask ourselves questions?  how many of us answer them?  i would suspect that everyone has conversations within their heads.

the last article from bbc was a good read.  i've looked into some topics around temporal lobe epilepsy and epilspsy in general.  i would have to say there is a lot to learn in those subjects. i don't think i have had bouts of epilepsy but if i did, i am thankful for them.  i really don't see how this article points to religion being a brain disorder. i suggest everyone would benift from reading it but i don't think you can make a claim and post a intelligent article and try to say that it varifies with what you say.  we use different areas of our brains to walk, talk and think but because we use an area to feel doesn't mean that it is a disorder? you might have to explain in more detail because that just doesn't make sense to me.

i looked up serveral diagrams of what certain areas of the brain do. below is a part of an article about the temporal lobes from -
http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/btemporl.shtml 


------- -- ------- --- ------- -- ------- --- -------

Selective attention to visual or auditory input is common with damage to the temporal lobes (Milner, 1968). Left side lesions result in decreased recall of verbal and visual content, including speech perception. Right side lesions result in decreased recognition of tonal sequences and many musical abilities. Right side lesions can also effect recognition of visual content (e.g. recall of faces).

The temporal lobes are involved in the primary organization of sensory input (Read, 1981). Individuals with temporal lobes lesions have difficulty placing words or pictures into categories.

Language can be effected by temporal lobe damage. Left temporal lesions disturb recognition of words. Right temporal damage can cause a loss of inhibition of talking.

The temporal lobes are highly associated with memory skills. Left temporal lesions result in impaired memory for verbal material. Right side lesions result in recall of non-verbal material, such as music and drawings.

Seizures of the temporal lobe can have dramatic effects on an individual's personality. Temporal lobe epilepsy can cause perseverative speech, paranoia and aggressive rages (Blumer and Benson, 1975). Severe damage to the temporal lobes can also alter sexual behavior (e.g. increase in activity) (Blumer and Walker, 1975).

------- -- ------- --- ------- -- ------- --- -------

livescience has an intersting article on the other side of the arguement.  it seems you can almost say anything if you put "a new study finds" infront of it.  i think this kind of goes with your idea that there are many spots that are also used in religion.  i agree with some stuff stated there but also feel it maybe a little bias towards religion.  (the links at the bottom where kind of cool also if you get bored).

as your opinion i think it is very intersting and i respect you process.  it does seem like you are being over particular in saying that religion is a mind disorder.  i would agree that there are people with a mind disorder in religion but i do not agree with saying that everyone that believes has a mind disorder.  if you are perfect cast the first stone or be judged by the same standards as you judge... do you have mental disorder that we don't know about?

i kind of agree with what others have said on the matter, it is a shock method of getting attention.  that may be a good thing or bad thing.  i think atheists need to be heard because they have some good things to say and if that is the way they feel they get attention then so be it.  we as theists are wrong to simply dismiss your opinions.  you are entitled to believe how you want but i just do see enough evidence that religion is a disorder.  it maybe a lot of things but how would you like someone to tell you that you are retarded because you made a few mistakes?

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


brights
Silver Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Please defend, or re consider, the RRS claim that theism is a mi

I'm no expert here but this is the way I see it, as far as theism being a delusion or paranoid delusion and illusion.

Christians have a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion, the belief they will go to a hell of burning fire and or live soulless without being with their believed imaginary god.

This delusion leads them to being deceived by a false perception or belief: illusion. The illusion of thiniking there is an invisible devil lurking around them
trying to hurt them. The false illusion that people are and can be demon posessed. A human sins such as murder so the delusion is that the devil made them do it.

Delusion leads to being deceived by a false perception or belief: illusion, by being deceived.

Their delusion: They think they can be healed with prayer to something they have never seen, heard, had a two way conversation with and has never been proven. Being deceived in thinking a prayer was answered never considering the placebo effect, change in diet, medical treatment or considered they went to their church and told people their problem.

Other members with the same delusion then try to help that person never considering it isn't the god helping that person - no - it's people helping people.

Theists (christians) have a delusion of dissappearing into thin air and going up into the clouds, also fits in with dream, wish, which leads them into the illusion that everything marks the end of the times, end of days, end of world. In thier minds they are delusional in thinking and believing a god (is, will) does cause wars, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, famine. This creates an illusion in their minds that every catastrophy comes from a god not not global warming, not politics, not religion, not land stealing.

No expert just IMHO.