Did you really just correct me by saying exactly the same thing I said?  And you're about to say you're not delusional.  That's comedy gold.

Except that back in the day when you tried to debate me, I demonstrated clearly that your beliefs are irrational, and you still have them.  So... um... gee, that fits the description, doesn't it?

Quite possible.  If true, then most doctors would say that either you are no longer showing signs of delusional disorder or that the scope of your delusion is small enough that it doesn't have significant impact on your life.  You've been around here long enough to know that many mental disorders are matters of degree, not kind.  That is, we say someone is mentally disordered when their particular problem becomes pronounced enough to cause problems.  If it's not a big problem, we don't mess with it.  That doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Conditions like delusional disorder are syndromes, not diseases.  That is, they are a list of symptoms, and don't necessarily point to a particular cause.  They can be acute, chronic, genetic, or environmental.

Are you trying to convince me that you don't have delusional disorder?  Fine.  You don't have delusional disorder.  Happy?

Bless your heart.  Nobody warned you.  I'm so sorry.  Never fear, you can go back for another degree when you figure out what you want to do.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I said that this only applies to delusional disorder.

Just as when you discuss philosophy, you have an amazing talent for answering your own questions and not realizing it.  Bizarre and abnormal apply to behaviors that are far enough from the norm to be significantly disruptive or damaging, accounting for culture.  That is, if you put a Muslim in Montana, you wouldn't say that his habit of bowing three times daily was abnormal or bizarre, but if a Montana farm boy started leaving offerings of burnt corn to the grain silo, that would be bizarre and abnormal.

Actually, your mutterings would not be considered bizarre and abnormal.  That's culturally normal here.  If you read the indicator again, it says, "If acted out, etc, etc."  This applies specifically to parts of Christianity that you may not specifically believe, like "putting on the armor of faith."  There are Christians who take ten minutes every morning to put on imaginary armor while saying incantations and invoking magical powers.  That's bizarre and abnormal, even in a culture where prayer is acceptable. 

There are Christians who believe that witches should be killed.  (Have you seen the video of the pastor praying over Sarah Palin.  He mentioned witchcraft, and he wasn't kidding.)  That's bizarre and abnormal.  Acting out the belief that abortion is a sin against god often leads to bizarre and abnormal behavior.  There are still exorcisms performed in the U.S.  Some people handle poisonous snakes in church.  Some governors hold prayer meetings to ask god for rain instead of changing water use regulations. 

Um... yeah... you did it again.  In a war, suicide bombing is often normal behavior.  The muslims who commit them consider themselves to be at war, and for all intents and purposes, they are.  It's strategically a pretty good idea when you don't have much in the way of armaments.  If Johnny Joe Schmoe Christian suicide bombs his principle's office because the principle didn't kick gay people out of school, Johnny Joe Schmoe has acted bizarre and abnormal.

Motivation is a big part of behavior.  We can talk about why Muslims are at war, and if it turns out that the primary reason, or even a major reason, is religious beliefs, we can talk about possible delusional disorder.  If it's mainly political or economic, we might not have such a strong case.

The same can be said for anybody who gets better after having a mental disorder.  For delusional disorder, we look for behavior changes that don't seem to have a rational explanation outside of the delusion.  If a healthy, thin woman who has always had a healthy appetite suddenly begins to starve herself and skip meals, we look for a possible mental disorder.  If a fat woman who's always eaten very poorly suddenly goes on a diet and starts to exercise, we run with the assumption that she would like to lose weight and be healthier.  That's a behavior change that is usually associated with rational decision making.

Justin, do you know what a syndrome is?

From wiki:

A syndrome is a set of symptoms which, taken together, constitute a mental disorder.  When someone displays most, or all, of the symptoms of a syndrome, we say they have it.  If they only display one or two, or only mildly display several, we don't usually mess with them.  Remember that part where most mental conditions are matters of degree, not kind? The eccentric old lady who waters her flowers every day even if it's raining?  She's "eccentric" and "set in her ways."  The lady who goes to the supermarket and rearranges the cans of soup every morning?  She's crazy.  It's not an exact science precisely because there's no clear divide between normal and abnormal behavior.  That doesn't mean, however, that there isn't a difference between abnormal and normal.

To give yourself an idea of how this works, look at this image, and tell me exactly where red ends and orange begins:

Obviously, you can't, but that doesn't mean that red and orange don't exist.  It only means that we have some "disputed area" in between them.

My choice of words was very precise and literal.  Of course, if theism is an expression of delusional disorder, it can be.  Duh.  The added emphasis on an is unnecessary.  The word means precisely what I intended to say -- that theism is an expression of delusional disorder.  Anyone who knows anything at all about delusional disorder knows that there are other expressions besides theism.  The point of my sentence was to illustrate that theism is not a mental disorder, but an expression of one, so the emphasis was properly placed.  To say that theism is an expression of delusional disorder is NOT saying that the two are equivalent.  In other words, basic logic ought to inform you that the sentence doesn't mean that all theism is always an expression of delusional disorder.  Had I intended to say that, I would have.

It's very telling that you did not significantly alter the meaning of my sentence by rewording it, but were sufficiently uncomfortable with its content that you wanted to soften its implications.  A psychologist would be busy scribbling notes right about now....

So anyway, would you like to try to refute the following sentence, or can we take it as read?  "Theism is an expression of delusional disorder."  It's the same as saying, "Belief in alien abductions is an expression of delusional disorder."  You just got your panties in a bunch because you're a theist.  Notice how one of those sentences looks like it's loaded and the other doesn't?  Funny how our own preconceptions color literal meaning, isn't it?  That's why it's so important to stay emotionally detached from rational discourse.

Umm... so you get a cookie because you don't believe in as much delusion as you used to?  If you look back at the color chart I posted for you, you can get an idea of how this works.  Living totally without delusional disorder will be red.  Living in total fantasyland will be yellow.  You're somewhere in orange now.  Good work.  You're almost better, but you've still got some work to do.

Did we just ignore everything that was said earlier about the political implications of acknowledging theism as an expression of delusional disorder?  Remember how back in the 80s doctors lied quite deliberately about AIDS because of the political implications of the truth?  Does that mean AIDS was not a disease affecting the heterosexual population, or that doctors aren't totally trustworthy when politics are involved?

Here's what I said:  "If true, then most doctors would say..."  If it makes it easier to understand, I'll rewrite the sentence with the obvious inference.  "If true, then most doctors would say... IF they were treating any expression of delusional disorder other than theism."

By the way, it's only bad practice to comment on religious beliefs because... um... why is that again?  Oh yeah!  Because people get really offended when their religious beliefs are criticized or critiqued.  Wasn't that one of the indicators of delusional disorder?

Thanks for pwning yourself again.

[Bites tongue]

Of course, not.  You're just fine.  No need to worry.

Typical of someone with delusional disorder, your logic skills work just fine outside of the delusion.  Crazy how that works, isn't it?  (Pun intended.)

And the Oscar for Best Use of an Unrelated Tangent goes to...

So you're going to redefine culture such that any abnormal behavior can be construed as normal so long as you can find someone else who does it?  That's one of the best logical somersaults you've done in some time.  I've forgotten how much fun it is to argue with you.

Anyway, I'm sorry, but you don't get to just make up the criteria for abnormal or bizarre behavior, and you don't get to redefine culture such that a single church congregation is a culture.  It's certainly true that abnormality is a contentious issue, even in the discipline named after it (abnormal psych).  However, if you remember that mental disorders are like colors on a spectrum, it'll be easier to understand.

The fact is, we have a nomenclature for maladaptive mental states... we call them "mental disorders."  Because mental disorders are matters of degree in many cases, there's a lot of wiggle room around the edges.  However, the plain reality is that theists, when they hold strongly or literally to their beliefs, fit all or most of the criteria for delusional disorder as it is described in the DSM that you believe in so strongly.  We can dicker about the fringes if you like, and I'll be perfectly happy to say that very moderate theists don't display enough symptoms to warrant diagnosis.  However, by any objectively and consistently used standard, strong theism is an expression of delusional disorder.

From here, you can:

A) Admit that consistent application of the DSM makes theism an expression of delusional disorder

B) Refute the DSM, which destroys that whole support for your own argument

C) Rationally justify the exclusion of theism from consideration as DD despite the fact that it fits all the criteria

D) Continue to give me bogus arguments and red herrings.

{snickers}

Me GOD laughs ....