Responding to a critic about the rationality of theism...
I wanted to go point by point again because it seems the objectors make many mistakes.
2 seconds: Hello!
5 seconds: Yes, that was obviously obvious.
17 seconds: Ok agreed, there can be a distinction.
41: claims there is a flaw in our logic that we aren't cherry picking DSM. First of all, I stated in the first video that I've seen the description as stated in Wiki in other sources, I did in fact cross check wiki, but not in the DSM. Here is one that shows up 6th in a google search for grandiose delusional disorder that does not have the wording that Supe quoted from the DSM and matches wiki: http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-ps02.html
"Grandiose Type: delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person"
Here is yet another source that doesn't contain the wording Supe used.
* Patients believe that they possess some great and unrecognized talent, have made some important discovery, have a special relationship with a prominent person, or have special religious insight (APA, 2000)."
Simply having "special religious insight" is similar to an overwhelming majority of the theist population. (at least it feels that way, maybe becausethey bark loud)
So while I agree that my research wasn't complete, that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making was that I was not specifically looking in a DSM IV and selectively cherry picking the wording that worked best for my argument in a deceitful manner. I explained this point to express that my intent to portray "grandiose delusional disorder" in a specific manner was honest. Does Wiki have it worded differently than DSM? Yes, it does. I admit I was indirectly cherry picking, but my point was to express my honest attempts are portraying factual definitions, and your point on this matter was weak. Furthermore, I stated wiki to be a poor source and it was only in the discussion to begin with because someone else had presented it. I posted HER working definition of it on the screen! (melsbasketcase)
For those curious, Supeexcellency referred to a wording in the DSM which states that an example of Grandiose Delusional Disorder is someone who believes they have a special message from God. This example differs from the two examples given above. Because I didn't give Supes example (which proves my point asd well) I was accused of "cherry picking" even though the DSM states the example as an EXAMPLE.
1:01 Captain Obvious to the scene to tell us that the DSM IV is the current DSM. Yeah we know. We unfortunately have to alert people that we actually know a little about this stuff by bragging about the fact that we are at least halfway informed on this issue. We were responding to criticism that we don't know about psychology. It's an ignorant insult to assert that we are ignorant of psychology when Kelly has read the entire DSM III-R (in which delusional disorder DID exist). Yeah, we know Sherlock, we're up to IV. The point is, we have at least half a clue in this field. Or would you not agree that reading the entire DSM III would put one in a more knowledgeable state about psychology than someone who hasn't read it?
2:00-3:20 Doesn't think we respect people by telling them what we think their problems are and what we would call those problems if we are being honest with ourselves. We respectfully disagree.
3:30-4:30 You say I said I didn't understand why cultural significance has anything to do with psychology yet you can hear Kelly state perfectly exactly the case that you make. You misunderstood what I was saying about bizarre. Again, you restated what we said, and worse, claimed we were ignorant of it, and worse yet... that we said we were ignorant of it!
4:32 "I undestand where you are coming from with this" And now I feel like I've just wasted my time responding.
5:10 He admits the definition varies depending on where you go to online. He is also not using the DSM, and seems to completely invalidate the weak argument he made at the 41 second mark. He attributes the variance to lack of updated pages. Funny that our entire argument is that theism is not listed in the DSM and it should be listed in future updates.
up to 6 minutes: Holding my breath as he gives the definition for new terms, that we have not yet entered in to the debate.
6:10 claims there are 3 indicators of disorder and that theism only fits one. Yet I have a list that I think theism tends to fit up to all of these indicators depending on the person inflicted.
Indicators of a delusion
1. The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
2. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
3. Despite his profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
4. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
5. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
6. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
7. The belief is, at the least, unlikely.
8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his psyche (psychology).
9. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
10. Individuals who know the patient will observe that his belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.
7 minutes... ignoring most of it as I pwn the strawman.
7:24 finally listening again.
7:45 agrees that some Christians hold a dysfunction, at the bare minimum. He just doesn't want it applied to all theism. While I agree that there are some theists that are less delusional (as already stated) to some degree all theists are deluding themselves into believing in a god. If I had to concede 10% of the theistic population to have the other 90% of theism listed in the DSM-V, I would be ok with that.
8:20 points out that he's telling us something we already know, he probably doesn't realize he did this throughout the entire video.
9:16 admits I've admitted this stuff myself
9:40 Seems to miss the point again, that we don't want the field of psychology to fall prey to an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and that theism most often carries with it many other indicators of what we would classify as grandiose delusional disorder. We propose that theism is so dangerous as a meme/virus that it has managed to infect the overwhelming majority and has gone unchecked by doctors as a result of it's popularity. The factors for delusional disorder are inherent in many many theists, we need not look far, yet due to the fact that these people are the norm (fucked up people are the norm) the field of psychology backs down on this issue. We are proposing that they shouldn't. We are proposing that it is precisely because theism has flown under the radar for being so prominent that it is even more dangerous to society than actual people diagnosed with grandiose delusional disorder for reasons other than religion.
"If the thesis of this article is correct, religion goes hand in hand with the basic irrational beliefs of human beings. These keep them dependent, anxious, and hostile, and thereby create and maintain their neuroses and psychoses. 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." - Albert Ellis, the most important psychologist of our time.
He called his video, part 1, so if I have time I'll address the next one when I see it, and I have time.