To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

To NAMI Stigmabusters on Rational Response Squad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFVsKTD40i0

 

Fight Stigma: Become A StigmaBuster!

http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=fight_stigma

http://www.nami.org/stigma/

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

  I am on a website called YouTube and make videos there. Recently a
group called Rational Response Squad posted a video to theists
implying that theism is a mind disorder. I am not contacting you on a
religious issue but a stigma issue. The Rational Response Squad
website is located here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/
Their slogan is Fighting to Free Humanity from the Mind Disorder Known
as Theism.

RRS made a video called Togetherforpeace, GoldenGun85 and other RRS
Christian haters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ_VQdPa5sc

I made a response called:
Theism is not inherently a mind disorder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMhP5EzXZQE

I will not link to you a video I had titled with cusswords. I am sorry
I did that and it does not show well on someone trying to combat
stigma.

Today I made a video comparing RRS calling theists delusional and
mentally ill to the Barry Goldwater/FACT magazine case that spurred on
the Goldwater rule by the APA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_D0N4d2mk

I realize you deal with subjects in conventional media such as radio,
television, and newspapers. I have been a subscriber to your
newsletter on stigmabusting for a few years now. I have previously
contacted regarding my local Halloween store selling a costume called
"Mental Patient" that featured a striaght jacket. At that time you
told me to contact my local NAMI chapter.

I appreciate your time and thank you for reading this letter.

--
Melinda Smith =^..^=


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: An individual

Nero wrote:

An individual has every right to make assertions about a group in the US. People are only protected from speech in the following instances: the speech is directed at ONE individual and is intended to harm that person; the speech will cause immediate harm to a group (crying "fire" in a theater); or if the speech is likely to cause immediate, widespread persecution of a group due to the government tie of the speaker.

The exception I take is the general idea that it's ok to harass mental patients.  For example, telling someone who is psychotic that they are delusional, or their delusions preven them from seeing your right, is a form of harassment.  That would seem to meet with the harm requirements.

 

Quote:
.

In conclusion, I think you're going to have to man up to the fact that conversations in the real world aren't governed the way a preschool nursery is. People get to express their opinion. This is particularly true when the individual is the member of a minority group.

People do get to express their opinion.  This wasn't a conversation in the real world but rather published work, and not opinions.  I feel some journalist integrity is indicated.  As you said this isn't preschool.

 It was my opinion that using someone with a mental illness as part of the campain to equate theology with a mind disorder.  It was further in my opinion wrong to accuse someone who was a mental patient 

It does seem that Brian somewhat agrees what he did was wrong

 

Sapient wrote:

I sort of agree with mels and feel bad that I equated people with diagnosable mental disorders to theists.  I apologize to the mentally ill people I offended who want nothing to do with being equated with theists who are more often than not simply dishonest and ignorant.  Some schizophrenics aren't as dishonest and delusional as theists, and to any mentally ill person, please understand I am very sorry for insulting you by comparing you to them.

All mentally ill people: Please understand, I'm just trying to help the theists, who are also mentally ill and should be properly diagnosed so they can get their meds.

 It would be nice if Kelly would agree that it was wrong to claim someone's "delusionals" were preventing them from understanding, when the issue actually was "insulting THE MENTALY ILL".

 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: Nero

CSEmisery wrote:
Nero wrote:

An individual has every right to make assertions about a group in the US. People are only protected from speech in the following instances: the speech is directed at ONE individual and is intended to harm that person; the speech will cause immediate harm to a group (crying "fire" in a theater); or if the speech is likely to cause immediate, widespread persecution of a group due to the government tie of the speaker.

The exception I take is the general idea that it's ok to harass mental patients.  For example, telling someone who is psychotic that they are delusional, or their delusions preven them from seeing your right, is a form of harassment.  That would seem to meet with the harm requirements.

 

None of the three exceptions use the word harm alone.  It must be intended harm, immediate harm or widespread, government-sanctioned harm.

For the first, you must prove to me the mens rea of Brian to meet that test.

For the second, the harm must be immediate.  In other words, people trample one another when a false claimof fire occurs.

For the third, the harm must be government sanctioned.

None of these fit.  He has the right to the speech regardless.  Written speech is equally protected by the First Amendment with verbal speech.  The fact is that Brian had the right to say what he did.

Whether he feels any remorse is of his concern.  I am speaking in terms of Brian's right to say what he did.  With that, I have spoken enough on the matter.  I understand that you may not fully understand the law, and I am willing to live with that.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Ok heres my two cents.

Ok heres my two cents. Correct me if I missed something.

It seems to me that there has been some serious misrepresentation on what Brian said in regards to theists having a disorder regarding their theism, especially in regards to melsbasketcase.

To me it seems that people are equating two things and thinking that they are the same. Brian (and those that agree with him such as my self), who think that those who think that a sky daddy exists and watches what they do have a disorder related to their theism are not declaring that those people are batshit complete crazy. They have a disorder that needs to be overcome. The second part (the more assocated with this thread and melsbasketcase) seem to equate melsbasketcase's theistic disorder with whatever shes also been diagnosed with. Many (at least Brian and I) had no idea that she had any other disorder when this whole thing started. She declared it one of her videos (as well as her theistic beliefs tho she also said that it was not in what many would consider organized religion (my interpretation)). Its everyone else that seems to be taking this leap that when Brian used her as part of a video to use her definition, that somehow he was showing some issue with her. Most atheists (Brian and many others in the RRS, though perhaps not all) don't look to see if someone has an issue unrelating to the discussion and exploit that. It serves no purpose to do so (most call it the red herring) and it seems many have been doing that to derail the discussion away from those uncomfortable with decaring that theism is a mind disorder (atheist and theist alike)

My issue is people seem to be making a large leap between us critizing others theistic beliefs and her unhappiness in regards to Brian using her clip and the disorder issue. It seems to me it would be the same leap that if someone was showing me in a video talking about atheism in regards to eating habits (as far as I know they're just as random as any other group) and someone used a clip of me in that video and everyone then jumping on them for making fun of the fact that im a big guy (Even though that wasn't even brought up. And in my opinion this analogy, the gap between the eating habits and the fat aspect are smaller).

As Brian has stated in recent posts and videos, to us it seems like those who are defending/pointing out something that isn't there (Brian critizing her for a disorder that he didn't know she had till it came up in this recent discussion) are projecting their feelings onto Brian and the RRS.

Brian, (assuming he reads this as hes going to be busy this week preparing for things) correct me or elaborate on anything you would like as I could be wrong.

CSEmisery, the only apology (if any) I think should be due is everyone hopping on Brian and the RRS for making fun of something we didn't know about till after we supposedly made fun of.  Honestly it doesn't matter to me what other disorders people have, its the one related to theism that we are usually talking about here.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Is it just me or does

Is it just me or does CSEmisery sound a little too much like melsbasketcase to be coincidental?


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
I doubt it as theres a

I doubt it as theres a CSEmisery on YouTube as well, so I think its someone else. 


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Nero wrote: None of the

Nero wrote:

None of the three exceptions use the word harm alone. It must be intended harm, immediate harm or widespread, government-sanctioned harm.

For the first, you must prove to me the mens rea of Brian to meet that test.

For the second, the harm must be immediate. In other words, people trample one another when a false claimof fire occurs.

For the third, the harm must be government sanctioned.

None of these fit. He has the right to the speech regardless. Written speech is equally protected by the First Amendment with verbal speech. The fact is that Brian had the right to say what he did.

Whether he feels any remorse is of his concern. I am speaking in terms of Brian's right to say what he did. With that, I have spoken enough on the matter. I understand that you may not fully understand the law, and I am willing to live with that.

 

Firstly I don't see my self as trying to censor Sapient , censure perhaps.  I may not meet the requirements as you outlined.

1)  mens rea - I think it can be agreed that Brian core motovation is to cure theism.  To address it as a mental disorder, assuming state involvement, would also be in violation of the first ammendment.  That is a stretch i'll admit.

 2) harm - in this case, I can not claim immediate harm.  In other cases I believe confronting someone who's a mental patient, and accusing them of being delusional could be potentially immediately harmful. 

3)  government sanctioned - I'm unclear if what he proposes when he suggests giving the right meds to theists would be government sanctioned

 

But near as I’m aware, you could correct me if I’m wrong... freedom of speech doesn't grant freedom to harass.  I believe that resorting to "your delusions prevent you from seeing it" is a form of harassment.  I don't think I’m stomping on Brian and Kelly's first amendment rights.  I never supported a DMCA take down notice, nor removal of the video in question. 

 

 I saw this campaign as being counterproductive to the general goals of the RRS and the world in general.  I'm very much for pointing out the flaws many organized religions, as well as the harm they inflict.  That’s a lofty ideal.  I hoped that addressing this issue internally would serve to help in promoting some critical self reflection. 

 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy wrote: Is it

shelleymtjoy wrote:
Is it just me or does CSEmisery sound a little too much like melsbasketcase to be coincidental?

I checked, they are not the same. 


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: I doubt it as

Gizmo wrote:
I doubt it as theres a CSEmisery on YouTube as well, so I think its someone else.

 

Yeah, I noticed that... It just looks like that account popped up just in time too.  For all I know it could be a coincidence.  I just thought I would mention it though.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase

melsbasketcase wrote:

 

Quote:

All mentally ill people: Please understand, I'm just trying to help the theists, who are also mentally ill and should be properly diagnosed so they can get their meds.

 

 

The meds for delusions are antipsychotics. They are serious meds that can cause movement disorders. The new atypicals can cause severe weight gain and diabetes. I was on a med called Risperdal and it elevates prolactin. That caused interruptions in my menstrual cycle and lactation. There have been links between elevated prolactin and cancer.

 

I take my meds to avoid a relapse of auditory hallucinations. The first year of my diagnosis I went off meds thinking it was a one time deal. I relapsed. Then I went off them again and relapsed again.

 

People can change their religious beliefs with frequency. I think most religious do not hallucinate or have command hallucinations.

 

The Mennonites have built psychiatric facilities for their Amish kin. The facilities allow the Amish to feel at ease with their religious beliefs yet they can be treated for conditions such as bipolar or schizophrenia.

 

Mennonite MH System: Practicing What They Preach

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/10/18

{FIXED QUOTES}

 

Mels, just for perspective, so you don't feel alone in this, and also recognize even more than before that we meant no ill will if we insulted your particular diagnosed diseases (and you along with it).  You should know that one of Kelly's sons who we obviously love very much, suffers from bipolar disorder.  He takes risperdal as well.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase

melsbasketcase wrote:

 Sapient suggested medications, I suppose for his theistic delusional disorder. Perhaps Sapient needs to get himself well-versed on such things as involuntary commitment laws and assisted outpatient treatment orders. Both of those things can force a person to take medication when they are judged by a court to be incompetent.

Nobody is suggesting forcing anything. We;re suggesting that psychologists expand on their definition of delusional disorder.

An example of drugs we propose  that could be prescribed are antipsychotics.  Also certain anti depressants could help religious people overcome their guilt, fear, depression, and repressed negative emotions.

 

Quote:
What we are talking of here is labeling someone with a diagnosis that can sometimes do things like prohibit them from voting.

 Democracy is a school board with 2 creationists and 1 scientist voting on whether evolution should be taught in school.

Personally I think theists that vote are a danger to society, but I would never try to prohibit them from voting, I personally blame them for the state of affairs in our country right now.  With that said, I would never try to prohibit their right to vote.

I should also clarify that some theists are more qualified to vote than others, and there are probably some atheists that are so ignorant that a vote from them is likely to be squandered on bad information on the wrong candidates (due to ignorance).

It's not a great system, and it's not a true democracy, nevertheless this whole voting thing is a big tangent from what we were discussing. 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: The

CSEmisery wrote:

The exception I take is the general idea that it's ok to harass mental patients. For example, telling someone who is psychotic that they are delusional, or their delusions preven them from seeing your right, is a form of harassment. That would seem to meet with the harm requirements.

You my friend are completely fucked in the head if you think someone seeking to get medical attention for a huge portion of society that needs it is akin to harrassment.  Such a notion is patently moronic... moron.  Or are you simply being deceitful and dishonest?

 

 

Quote:
It would be nice if Kelly would agree that it was wrong to claim someone's "delusionals" were preventing them from understanding, when the issue actually was "insulting THE MENTALY ILL".

It would also be nice if the DSM expanded on Grandiose Delusional Disorder to incorporate more theists than it already does.  But this world isn't about "nice" or what is "fair."

Once again, sorry to the mentally ill for insulting you by equating you with theists.  I know some must be insulted at the notion that they are as delusional as theists, and to those patients who have been diagnosed as mentally ill I apologize for equating you with a group of people that are abundantly more fucked up than you.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote:

 

CSEmisery wrote:
I saw this campaign as being counterproductive to the general goals of the RRS and the world in general.

It's been a while since we've given a dumbest comment of the day award, this one is it.

You find our exposing theism as a mental disorder counterproductive to the general goals of RRS?

Look at the header banner of our site that has been there since inception.  OUR BIGGEST GOAL IS TO FREE HUMANITY FROM THE MIND DISORDER KNOWN AS THEISM. 

Since you might not be smart enough to think your way out of the last three sentences, here is a clarifier:  You just told us that fighting for our goals was counterproductive to our goals, dimwit. 

How fucking dishonest (or is it just extreme stupidity) will you be to argue your position?

 

 

CSEmisery wrote:

I hoped that addressing this issue internally would serve to help in promoting some critical self reflection.

Again this isn't youtube. The community here is very wise. If you hope to get anywhere you should start by not lying about our positions. Stop misrepesenting us and stop posting videos of those who haven't got a clue and are also being deceitful and misrepresenting us.

If your arguments manage to stand up after those actions, you are likely to see a group of people who are open minded enough to agree with you. As for now, people are seeing that you have an agenda, and that it's based on your ignorance and misrepresentation of RRS.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
You do not needs meds for

You do not needs meds for your average person's god belief. Their belief does not hinder them socially or self-care wise. These people get along with diverse groups and are even accepting of atheists. This does not require medication.

 

A person that would require medication would be self-harming or harming others. And to diagnose them, there are currently definitions in the DSM that cover that kind of behavior and thought.

 

What you are asking is to label a school of thought as an illness. There are deleterious systems that humans do, not involving theism, that are not labeled as illnesses.

 

Also, by saying theism is an illness. You take away the notion of faith and free will. I view belief in God very much a choice in your average healthy person. A healthy person conciously makes the choice.

 

A person with psychosis does not make the choice of delusional content. The preacher on television very much so makes a choice as to what he preaches.

 

 


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote: You

melsbasketcase wrote:

You do not needs meds for your average person's god belief. Their belief does not hinder them socially or self-care wise. 

 I really don't like spreading my personal issues on forums but this quote calls for it. 

Last December I became pregnant with triplets and no fertility drugs (yes, I'm serious) and made the mistake of going to a Catholic hospital.  The OB/GYN there objected to an IV antibiotic I had been taking and needed to keep my infection at bay because it has a very small chance of a reversable birth defect.  Obviously, being rational, I thought my life was more important than the small chance of a reversable birth defect.  However, she went behind my back to make sure my prescription could not be refilled.

As a result, without the IV medication, I became septic.  I almost died and consequently miscarried all three fetuses.  This all happened because this Catholic hospital decided to force their views of a fetus' life above that of the mother.  Had I gone to a secular hospital my pregnancy would have been limited to one fetus, I would have stayed on my medication, and I would probably be changing diapers instead of posting here.  How can you think religion does not hinder someone socially and with regards to their care? 


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: It's been a

Sapient wrote:

It's been a while since we've given a dumbest comment of the day award, this one is it.

You find our exposing theism as a mental disorder counterproductive to the general goals of RRS?

Look at the header banner of our site that has been there since inception. OUR BIGGEST GOAL IS TO FREE HUMANITY FROM THE MIND DISORDER KNOWN AS THEISM.

Since you might not be smart enough to think your way out of the last three sentences, here is a clarifier: You just told us that fighting for our goals was counterproductive to our goals, dimwit.

How fucking dishonest (or is it just extreme stupidity) will you be to argue your position?

The general goal I see, or saw, was debunking belief systems which promote a dogma which is easily debunked based on new information. You can correct me if this was an incorrect assumption.

 

Sapient wrote:


Again this isn't youtube. The community here is very wise. If you hope to get anywhere you should start by not lying about our positions. Stop misrepesenting us and stop posting videos of those who haven't got a clue and are also being deceitful and misrepresenting us.

If your arguments manage to stand up after those actions, you are likely to see a group of people who are open minded enough to agree with you. As for now, people are seeing that you have an agenda, and that it's based on your ignorance and misrepresentation of RRS.


Ignorance does not equal stupidity. I saw acitons which I objected to, and objected to them. And I hope others can see I don't resort to name calling.


melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
I am familiar with

I am familiar with pharmacist's denying women "the morning after" pill. I am under the understanding that the pharmacist is obligated to call upon a fellow pharmacist who will fill the script.

We had health insurance with a Catholic company once and they would not cover brith control. We still had options with other health insurance providers.`

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote: You

melsbasketcase wrote:

You do not needs meds for your average person's god belief. Their belief does not hinder them socially or self-care wise.

I believe there are thousands of posts on our website that prove quite the contrary.

 

Quote:
These people get along with diverse groups and are even accepting of atheists. This does not require medication.

Being able to get along with diverse groups and accept atheists doesn't exclude one from being delusional. You yourself admit to a diagnosed mental disorder yet you are perfectly capable of getting along with diverse groups.

 

Quote:
A person that would require medication would be self-harming or harming others. And to diagnose them, there are currently definitions in the DSM that cover that kind of behavior and thought.

I agree and my point is that SEVERAL BILLION people on this planet hold grandiose delusional disorder, andthey go undiagnosed, or untreated.

 

Quote:
What you are asking is to label a school of thought as an illness.

Not exactly, but I can see why you'd say this, and understand where you're coming from.

 

Quote:
There are deleterious systems that humans do, not involving theism, that are not labeled as illnesses.

Agreed, yet I think none are as important as the effect that theism has on our world. I'm fighting the big dog right now, maybe we'll fight the smaller pieces of the puzzle later.

 

Quote:
Also, by saying theism is an illness. You take away the notion of faith and free will.

No hun, I'm not. In fact im indulging those notions as insane. The utilization of faith to determine reality is the most detestable form of thought our world has to offer. It is beliefs predicated on no evidence, which is exactly the type of thing that many mental patients get admitted for,

 

Quote:
I view belief in God very much a choice in your average healthy person. A healthy person conciously makes the choice.

I believe your last statement is more accurate if you state: A healthy person conciously makes the choice to become unhealthy. And then in many many circumstances is unable to break free of this choice as it is consistently brainwashed/pounded/deluded into their heads.

 

Quote:
A person with psychosis does not make the choice of delusional content. The preacher on television very much so makes a choice as to what he preaches.

Mels, do you realize that the preacher on TV was most likely forced to go to church as a child, and has been taught to blindly accept that which he can't prove? In other words, theism teaches people how to have a delusional disorder, and then it sits back and says, "well he chose to have a disorder, so it's ok."

You're arguments actually bring up a more damaging case than I had originally set forth. Our arguments combined could be summed up as this:

While some people have mental disorders based on their chemical physiology, others actually have mental disorders taught to them. Thus the people who teach others how to have these mental disorders should be tried in a courtroom for a crime I have yet to come up with a name for... maybe reckless endangerment.

This is why some atheists, namely Richard Dawkins have pushed for legislation that would view indoctrination as child abuse. Religion should not be presented to someone until they reach the age of reason, doing so before hand is detrimental to the human mind, and can actually cause mental disorders that the person wouldn't have had otherwise.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Unconditional faith, a

Unconditional faith, a prerequisite of many religions, is irrational by definition. In examples (sticking with the west just now) like opposition to emrbyonic stem cell research, opposition to practical sex education, and things like shelleymtjoy describes, one could easily argue that religious belief does specifically contribute harm to society. I'd say there's also something to the argument that religion needlessly contributes to anxiety, a distorted self-perception (alternately superior and worthless), mystical delusions as justification for actions: it removes people who are the most earnest about it from reality's stage.
That being said, if this is at its core a technical issue, can the case be made to label a majority abnormal in a reference manual defined by the zeitgeist itself? I don't know much about this, so I'm just trying to articulate the problem over all the shouting.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: Sapient

CSEmisery wrote:
Sapient wrote:

It's been a while since we've given a dumbest comment of the day award, this one is it.

You find our exposing theism as a mental disorder counterproductive to the general goals of RRS?

Look at the header banner of our site that has been there since inception. OUR BIGGEST GOAL IS TO FREE HUMANITY FROM THE MIND DISORDER KNOWN AS THEISM.

Since you might not be smart enough to think your way out of the last three sentences, here is a clarifier: You just told us that fighting for our goals was counterproductive to our goals, dimwit.

How fucking dishonest (or is it just extreme stupidity) will you be to argue your position?

The general goal I see, or saw, was debunking belief systems which promote a dogma which is easily debunked based on new information. You can correct me if this was an incorrect assumption.

Read header banner, and this page, and then tell me our goals again.

 

Sapient wrote:

Ignorance does not equal stupidity.

Agreed. I'm not sure if you are one of those or both of those, I have no real way of knowing. But I assure you, you are at least one of those, as well as chaotheist and ashetheraven.

 

Quote:
I saw acitons which I objected to, and objected to them. And I hope others can see I don't resort to name calling.

I am all for dialogue to further awareness, but before I assert a position I try to makesure I'm real firm on the assertion. You've run into a problem by collecting faulty information from ignorant individuals and then asserting it as if it is reality. You probably should come bearing questions rather than libelous assertions for the benefit of productive conversation.

Lastly, if I see someone acting ignorant, I am very likely to say so. I don't believe calling an ignorant person ignorant is any more "name calling" than calling a woman a woman. We call em as we see em, don't be offended, instead reflect on the potential mistakes you have made, and read our responses so you can get those innacurate memes out of your head and move on.

 

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
After reading this topic, I

After reading this topic, I think Sapient has OCD

 

Obsessions are defined by:

  1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
Yep.

 

Compulsions are defined by:

  1. Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.

Yep, that fits to a T.

  1. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER! Need proof? Look at his posts, look at the front page and his videos in the youtube account.

 

see? I can cherry pick too. 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:
Unconditional faith, a prerequisite of many religions, is irrational by definition. In examples (sticking with the west just now) like opposition to emrbyonic stem cell research, opposition to practical sex education, and things like shelleymtjoy describes, one could easily argue that religious belief does specifically contribute harm to society.

Faith is life threatening.  Yes, we will all die, the faithful have a higher chance at a quicker death, and they also restrict our right to life with their insane unfounded beliefs.  

Faith and theism are worlds more dangerous than any schizophrenic will ever be.

 

I think those who oppose stem cell research now should have to sign a form stating that they cant useit to extend their life later if they need it.  (and they will)

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:   It would

Sapient wrote:

  It would also be nice if the DSM expanded on Grandiose Delusional Disorder to incorporate more theists than it already does. But this world isn't about "nice" or what is "fair."

Once again, sorry to the mentally ill for insulting you by equating you with theists. I know some must be insulted at the notion that they are as delusional as theists, and to those patients who have been diagnosed as mentally ill I apologize for equating you with a group of people that are abundantly more fucked up than you.

 

I think the DSM currently has an adquate defination of Delusional Disorder grandiose type.

"delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person"

Presently theism it self does not meet that criteria.  However, someone who claims to be on a mission froma deity, or speaks to one on a regular basis, is.  I can understand how you can Kelly misunderstood this.  

Addressing the harm theism causes is something that likely should be addressed first.  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: After

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

After reading this topic, I think Sapient has OCD

 

Obsessions are defined by:

  1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
Yep.

 

Compulsions are defined by:

  1. Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.

Yep, that fits to a T.

  1. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER! Need proof? Look at his posts, look at the front page and his videos in the youtube account.

 

see? I can cherry pick too.

 

Sounds fine to me.  The good news is that my OCD could help save the planet versus the delusional disorders that I'm fighting which could in fact end humanity as we know it.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: Sapient

CSEmisery wrote:
Sapient wrote:

It would also be nice if the DSM expanded on Grandiose Delusional Disorder to incorporate more theists than it already does. But this world isn't about "nice" or what is "fair."

Once again, sorry to the mentally ill for insulting you by equating you with theists. I know some must be insulted at the notion that they are as delusional as theists, and to those patients who have been diagnosed as mentally ill I apologize for equating you with a group of people that are abundantly more fucked up than you.

I think the DSM currently has an adquate defination of Delusional Disorder grandiose type.

"delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person"

Presently theism it self does not meet that criteria. However, someone who claims to be on a mission froma deity, or speaks to one on a regular basis, is. I can understand how you can Kelly misunderstood this.

Addressing the harm theism causes is something that likely should be addressed first.

 I seem to remember many people quoting that they have been saved by Jesus Christ and not only that he is their personal savior.  Also, he loves them and they love him.  There are some that even say the words "my relationship with Jesus Christ."  Again, perhaps not all claim that Jesus (or whatever deity) is their personal savior and what not, but a lot do.  

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
@Mels (Quote function's

@Mels
(Quote function's not working out for me today, sorry.)
It could be argued that religious indoctrination can be harmful in itself. Obvious reasons being the psychological torture of viewing one's own thoughts as wrong and fearing the wrathful disapproval of an ultimate authority figure. The idea of original sin seems invented wholly to impose guilt on the blameless.
Personally, I think the biggest harm religion does to the individual is instilling a trust in magical thinking, denying people the full use of their cognitive faculties. And no, most people don't have a choice when they're kids, and it takes a lot of effort on the part of many to get over the threats that were impressed on them. It's hard to argue choice when much of religion depends on vilifying personal reasoning from childhood.
Whether any of this justifies the DSM argument, I'm not qualified to comment on. I don't follow many YouTube feuds, so I won't comment on that either.


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: After

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

After reading this topic, I think Sapient has OCD

 

Obsessions are defined by:

  1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
Yep.

 

Compulsions are defined by:

  1. Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.

Yep, that fits to a T.

  1. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER! Need proof? Look at his posts, look at the front page and his videos in the youtube account.

 see? I can cherry pick too.

 

I also think this is a stretch to associate with the RRS (or Brian, whichever you are refering to).  And if this fits at all with people like Brian or I, then we are on the calm side of things vs many theists.  "Don't sin or you will burn in hell" seems to match your second (though your label it 1. again?) point about preventing or reducing distress.  Assuming that there is somewhere that you will be sent to if you "sin" to burn for all eternity, with demons and Satan, doesn't seem very realistic, yet there are a large chunk of people who want to appeal to their sky daddy not to send them there so they do things to reduce their sin level.

See if you paint us with an OCD mark, you paint at least yourself with the same mark, perhaps even more so.  Ending theism for the benefit of humanity seems more of a realistic goal than not going to burn with sinners.   


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase

melsbasketcase wrote:

 

What you are asking is to label a school of thought as an illness.

What I was thinking is  what medication is available that would address a belief, which is just information society feeds you.  

 

melsbasketcase wrote:
Also, by saying theism is an illness. You take away the notion of faith and free will. I view belief in God very much a choice in your average healthy person. A healthy person conciously makes the choice.

Not to speak of the First Amendment which not only covers not only speech, press, but religion.  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (1791)

That's a pesky one to get around.   

 


 

 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
I would not really be in

I would not really be in favor of a law that says "All religion and theism banned under penalty of x."  This one, like many restrictive laws that ban something would more than like solve nothing and have people practicing in private (which would solve some issues for sure).  However, and I think more importantly, you can't legislate thought.  You can however, promote free thinking and rational through over irrational thought. 

And going on the reverse of this, I think we already have laws that promote religion (or as the first amendment says, "respecting an establishment of religion.&quotEye-wink  Two bigs ones that I know of, and have commented on before and don't really feel like going further into, is stem cell research and gay marriage.  Both of those ideas that are restricted have jack shit to do with rational or scientific ideas and the only reason they are banned in the laws eyes is for religious convictions that are based on nothing but religion. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: I also think

Gizmo wrote:

I also think this is a stretch to associate with the RRS (or Brian, whichever you are refering to). And if this fits at all with people like Brian or I, then we are on the calm side of things vs many theists. "Don't sin or you will burn in hell" seems to match your second (though your label it 1. again?) point about preventing or reducing distress. Assuming that there is somewhere that you will be sent to if you "sin" to burn for all eternity, with demons and Satan, doesn't seem very realistic, yet there are a large chunk of people who want to appeal to their sky daddy not to send them there so they do things to reduce their sin level.

See if you paint us with an OCD mark, you paint at least yourself with the same mark, perhaps even more so. Ending theism for the benefit of humanity seems more of a realistic goal than not going to burn with sinners.

 

I wasn't serious. My point was some definitions are so vague that they could apply to anyone.

EVERYBODY has irrational thoughts once in a while. Does not mean they have a mental disorder. 


Gizmo
High Level Donor
Gizmo's picture
Posts: 397
Joined: 2007-03-06
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Gizmo wrote:

I also think this is a stretch to associate with the RRS (or Brian, whichever you are refering to). And if this fits at all with people like Brian or I, then we are on the calm side of things vs many theists. "Don't sin or you will burn in hell" seems to match your second (though your label it 1. again?) point about preventing or reducing distress. Assuming that there is somewhere that you will be sent to if you "sin" to burn for all eternity, with demons and Satan, doesn't seem very realistic, yet there are a large chunk of people who want to appeal to their sky daddy not to send them there so they do things to reduce their sin level.

See if you paint us with an OCD mark, you paint at least yourself with the same mark, perhaps even more so. Ending theism for the benefit of humanity seems more of a realistic goal than not going to burn with sinners.

 

I wasn't serious. My point was some definitions are so vague that they could apply to anyone.

EVERYBODY has irrational thoughts once in a while. Does not mean they have a mental disorder.

Of course everyone has irrational thoughts once in a while. We are concerned with those that aren't once in a while and let those irrational thoughts dictate their lives (and others lives that aren't part of their delusions, such as getting laws passed that I refered to in my post a few minutes ago). Those are the ones with the disorder.


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: I seem to

Gizmo wrote:

I seem to remember many people quoting that they have been saved by Jesus Christ and not only that he is their personal savior. Also, he loves them and they love him. There are some that even say the words "my relationship with Jesus Christ." Again, perhaps not all claim that Jesus (or whatever deity) is their personal savior and what not, but a lot do.

 

I have to admit, I never fully undersood the "personal savior" angle.   Not like I haven't been asked "IJ.C.YOPS", but when I asked what that meant, I was simply told "oh you don't".  I imagine that if someone asked me "Is G.W. Bush your personal president" I could answer "No, he's not MY president".  I can't claim to grasp that concept. 

The love aspect is easier to understand.  I see someone needing approval, and external feeling of self worth, and finding that in religion. A father or mother figure who loves you unconditionally, that has to at least feel good.  Assuming this there may be an underlying psychological issue there such as dependency.  
But this is rather tricky as I think this can be treated by group therapy or a peer group, such as a church.  


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient: I have spent

Sapient:

I have spent enough time schooling CSEmisery in US Constitutional law.  As you can see, you and RRS have the right to make the assertions that you have made. 

This fellow has admitted that no real line has been crossed, and I doubt his capacity to understand what censure is in any formal sense.  Further, his view has oscillated significantly since the thread began.

I am going to walk away from the thread now as it has attracted the usual theist-gadflies.  In the end, they may not seat their complaints in legal terms; so, deal with them as a rhetorical exercise should you like.  Happy flaying. Smiling

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote: I am

melsbasketcase wrote:

I am familiar with pharmacist's denying women "the morning after" pill. I am under the understanding that the pharmacist is obligated to call upon a fellow pharmacist who will fill the script.

We had health insurance with a Catholic company once and they would not cover brith control. We still had options with other health insurance providers.`

I don't recall saying I wanted the morning after pill or even birth control in general.  I said a Catholic hospital took me off antibiotics I needed for a pre-existing condition because of their religious belief.

Yes, I could have gone to another hospital but for some reasons I won't clutter this board up with, that was not an option.

 However, the point was not that I could have gone to another hospital.  The point was that this was an example of a religious belief hindering care... as you said it was not possible for religion to have that effect.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I wasn't serious. My point was some definitions are so vague that they could apply to anyone.

    I think I'm getting some sort of repetitive disorder reading Sapient making the same argument again and again just to have the question asked again. 


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote:

Gizmo wrote:

And going on the reverse of this, I think we already have laws that promote religion (or as the first amendment says, "respecting an establishment of religion.&quotEye-wink Two bigs ones that I know of, and have commented on before and don't really feel like going further into, is stem cell research and gay marriage. Both of those ideas that are restricted have jack shit to do with rational or scientific ideas and the only reason they are banned in the laws eyes is for religious convictions that are based on nothing but religion.

Humans are not rational in nature; this is something to strive for. Many are not scientific in nature; in fact I admire abstract thinkers. I sometimes get annoyed with people who don't have spatial relation skills.

Gay marriage - makes sense to me. Given the world's population I expect a gay couple would have less issue with pre-mature procreation. I agree there is a stigma with it, both religious and not, though the more outspoken seem to be religious leaders. Totally an issue to be addressed.

Stem cell research - that's a tad touchy as exception to that would take an understand of what life is, when it begins. I can easily see one can be irrational on this subject.


melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy

shelleymtjoy wrote:
melsbasketcase wrote:

I am familiar with pharmacist's denying women "the morning after" pill. I am under the understanding that the pharmacist is obligated to call upon a fellow pharmacist who will fill the script.

We had health insurance with a Catholic company once and they would not cover brith control. We still had options with other health insurance providers.`

I don't recall saying I wanted the morning after pill or even birth control in general.  I said a Catholic hospital took me off antibiotics I needed for a pre-existing condition because of their religious belief.

Yes, I could have gone to another hospital but for some reasons I won't clutter this board up with, that was not an option.

 However, the point was not that I could have gone to another hospital.  The point was that this was an example of a religious belief hindering care... as you said it was not possible for religion to have that effect.

 

I think I was talking about how people with certain mental illnesses will not attend to self-care. not physicians or others caring for you. Some of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia are poor hygiene and poor dietary habits. Many patients with schizophrenia smoke tobacco as well.

 

i was talking about self-care, not how they care for you.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: Not to

CSEmisery wrote:

Not to speak of the First Amendment which not only covers not only speech, press, but religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (1791)

That's a pesky one to get around.

It's not pesky for Christians to get around.

Explain god on our money and in our pledge.  Not to mention that Congress has nothing to do with the formation of the DSM.  

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Gizmo wrote: I would not

Gizmo wrote:

I would not really be in favor of a law that says "All religion and theism banned under penalty of x."

I would never be a proponent of Congress making a law that made religion illegal.  However I would be for calling those who indoctrinate children before the age of reason as child abusers.  (but don't get me started there) 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:D-cubed

Sapient wrote:

D-cubed wrote:
I checked on the latest filing for the Catholic League. For being a bunch of a-holes who don't do anything other than whine they pull in $2.5 million a year. Donahue makes a salary of a little over $300,000. It just proves that because you are rich or earn a large paycheck it's not because you are intelligent.

Smiling

When people say, "If you're so smart, how come you aren't rich?" I reply, "If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?"

There are a lot of factors that determine income.

{Mod Edit: Fixed quote}

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


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote: Nero

melsbasketcase wrote:
Nero wrote:

Quote:
People can change their religious beliefs with frequency.

Are you suggesting that stable individuals can frequently change their core beliefs??

how closely held are those beliefs?

In my case, they were very strongly held.

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


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: That's a

Sapient wrote:

That's a pesky one to get around.

It's not pesky for Christians to get around.

Explain god on our money and in our pledge. Not to mention that Congress has nothing to do with the formation of the DSM.

I'm sure you likely already know how god got on our money and in our pledge.

 

Congress has nothing to do with the DSM however

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

US CODE: Title 42,2000bb1. Free exercise of religion protected

(This would in all likelihood require review by your resident legal expert... which I am to law as you are to psychology, no offence)

The way I see it, even if you can get religion added as a mind disorder, there is still the welfare system. For example if you committed your mother for becoming a Christian, you make sub $10,000/year. State and Federal would have to get involved; both consider religion as a right. Either way, people are processed though the state and federal welfare systems, both of those I can't see addressing religion.


But I get the feeling you really haven't thought this through. IIRC you seemed to gawk at the idea of "pissed off mental patients". A loving god model is much like a security blanket, and opiate to the masses. Some describe it as the rock, their foundation, without which may result in a Psychosis.

This is presuming religion it self is a mind disorder, which I've not seen any evidence from you in this regard. It's a belief. The harm caused by Religious Institutions shoving their dogma on others can be addressed without labeling theism it self a disorder, as with those who are attracted to religion to provide comfort over existing unaddressed issues.  

You claim to want to help others, yet I don't see evidence of a long term plan.  I could be wrong about this.  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
CSEmisery wrote: I'm sure

CSEmisery wrote:

I'm sure you likely already know how god got on our money and in our pledge.

 

Yeah but I wanted to hear you say it, since you're the one who said that Congress has a pesky time working around the first ammendment.  I think they do it rather well.  In fact I think our current government specializes in pissing on the Constitution, it's what they do best.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2020.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


CSEmisery
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: CSEmisery

Sapient wrote:
CSEmisery wrote:
Sapient wrote:

You find our exposing theism as a mental disorder counterproductive to the general goals of RRS?

Look at the header banner of our site that has been there since inception. OUR BIGGEST GOAL IS TO FREE HUMANITY FROM THE MIND DISORDER KNOWN AS THEISM.

The general goal I see, or saw, was debunking belief systems which promote a dogma which is easily debunked based on new information. You can correct me if this was an incorrect assumption.

Read header banner, and this page, and then tell me our goals again.

 

Sapient wrote:

Ignorance does not equal stupidity.

 

Just for the sake of understanding, I read "the mind disorder known as theism" as being different than "fighting to free humanity from theism is a mind disorder". Thinking abstractly, as soon a given church group or larger organization experiences the phenomenon of group think, you could call it a mind. Just like the sum of the brain's parts make up the mind, the sum of a given organization. I was going to give kudos to who ever thought it up. Fight the for the fight for free thought for those sucked into group think. Free the minds of others.

But it's pretty clear you are talking mental disorder. It's not rational, no more than calling a book a mental disorder.

Sapient wrote:

While some people have mental disorders based on their chemical physiology, others actually have mental disorders taught to them. Thus the people who teach others how to have these mental disorders should be tried in a courtroom for a crime I have yet to come up with a name for... maybe reckless endangerment.

Wow. That's so Wow. I don't think one can actually teach a mental disorder to others. Don't get me wrong, an unhealthy environment and conditioning certainly lead to some form of personality disorder.

But courtroom or a crime? That pesky first ammendment comes into play. I don't see the state wanting to get involved. I'm not sure how you would define theism. There are respective native american belief systems which may be hard to regulate.

 

Sapient wrote:

All mentally ill people: Please understand, I'm just trying to help the theists, who are also mentally ill and should be properly diagnosed so they can get their meds.

I don't see a pill curing theism. It's a belief, in it self not an illness. The only reason I can think of consider theism a mental disorder is to generate the same level of stigma some mental illnesses. Education why aspects of some theistic beliefs hinder the continued progress of a society, I can agree. Addressing the harm causes by theistic teachings, 100%. But I see thinking of theism as a mental disorder setting a very dangerious precident.

http://www.xenutv.com/cults/wave.htm

Respectfully people are not machines. There are matters of hard fact, and matters of the whole. What you call this whole is a point of debate.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase wrote:   I

melsbasketcase wrote:
 

I think I was talking about how people with certain mental illnesses will not attend to self-care. not physicians or others caring for you. Some of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia are poor hygiene and poor dietary habits. Many patients with schizophrenia smoke tobacco as well.

i was talking about self-care, not how they care for you.

Okay.  I can see your point, but if a doctor is willing to make calls for a patient based on their religion I would assume the doctor would make the same calls for themselves - thus the religion causing a denial of self-care.  

When I was in high school there was a girl that could not alter her body due to religion.  Her parents just about disowned her when she washed and cut her very long and unhealthy hair.  Many people deny themselves hygene on the basis of religion.

As far as tobacco, well I live in Richmond, and if tobacco use only occured with schizophrenia Phillip Morris wouldn't own half as much land as they do.


Linuxkid27
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: CSEmisery

Sapient wrote:
CSEmisery wrote:

The issue was melsbasketcase's objection to "insulting THE MENTALY ILL".

All mentally ill people: Please understand, I'm just trying to help the theists, who are also mentally ill and should be properly diagnosed so they can get their meds.


Sapient,

Labeling people mentally ill simply because they believe in something that you don't is simply arrogance and ignorance. Do you know that many people such as my self have been misdiagnosed by psychiatrist and psychologist and was given dangerous psychotropic drugs to fix something that we don't have? Do you know how dangerous that can be? Yet you want everybody who believes in god to be on medication (anti psychotics) to fix their so called delusional beliefs. It doesn't happen that way. If you have a common cold, You have a virus/bacteria in you that needs to be dealt with either by antibiotics or a high dose of vitamin C, including eating lots of blue berries to build up your defenses. If you were to be diagnose of having a mental disorder...you would not receive any medical examination to determine if theirs something truly wrong with you, yet you are given medications to “treat” what you have that doesn't exists.


Psychiatry does more harm then good.


melsbasketcase wrote:

A person that would require medication would be self-harming or harming others. And to diagnose them, there are currently definitions in the DSM that cover that kind of behavior and thought.

Melsbasketcase,


I must disagree with you. I use to be a self injurer and I don't need medications to run my life. I had psychiatrists and social workers baker act (Florida involuntarily admission law) me and throw me in psychiatric prison because I use to self harm myself (the cuts weren't even that deep! Only scratches types) What I needed the most was to have someone to talk to and to treat me like a human being with human feelings. I didn't need these doctors treating me like some lab rat that shouldn't be feeling the way I was having at the time. (Note: this was at the period of time when my mother died unexpectedly and I observed her death) I don't need drugs and I don't need psychiatric care if the only thing that they've learned in medical school was to diagnose and to write prescriptions. It doesn't impress me 1 damn bit.


Psychiatry and Psychology is nothing more than a fake medical business.


melsbasketcase
melsbasketcase's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
Linuxkid, I cut as a teen

Linuxkid, I cut as a teen but that stopped when I entered high school. Back then my problems had to do with someone I was dating among other moody teen stuff. My parents did not have me see a psychiatrist then. I did see a court appointed counselor for awhile because a non-relative abused me.

 

Upon adulthood, my mother passed away. that year i began to hallucinate and become delusional. I think it built over time, before her death. There was alot of stress in my family with various negative revelations and substance abuse.

 

Those are stressors. And I understand how stressors can bring on an episode. Yet, when my husband and I moved house that little thing served as a stressor.

 

My last hospitilization was a few years back. i cannot pinpoint the stressor for that excluding the fact I was not taking my medication properly.

 

The problem is some self-harm, yet harm others as well. a relative of mine beat his girlfriend at one point and went to jail. Ultimately he commited suicide. My family was not the type to direct people to mental health services at the time.

 

I see this in people I know. they self-harm, yet harm others as well.

 

I am not saying you are like that linuxkid.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm not qualified to comment

I'm not qualified to comment on the DSM thing, or the YouTube thing (cos I can't stand watching people grandstand ten minutes at a time), but I'm still curious about where it does leave theistic belief. It is inherently irrational. In secularized societies, it can manifest in very functional people, or as anti-social behavior. But, even in the former case, religious faith is irrational by definition. However, since it's the norm, and introduced through indoctrination, but still totally logically unjustifiable, where does this leave it? If we had never heard of religion, and encountered believers in the wild, who clearly had no reason for their beliefs, what would we call them?


Linuxkid27
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-09-23
User is offlineOffline
melsbasketcase

melsbasketcase wrote:

Linuxkid, I cut as a teen but that stopped when I entered high school. Back then my problems had to do with someone I was dating among other moody teen stuff. My parents did not have me see a psychiatrist then. I did see a court appointed counselor for awhile because a non-relative abused me.

 

Upon adulthood, my mother passed away. that year i began to hallucinate and become delusional. I think it built over time, before her death. There was alot of stress in my family with various negative revelations and substance abuse.

 

Those are stressors. And I understand how stressors can bring on an episode. Yet, when my husband and I moved house that little thing served as a stressor.

 

My last hospitilization was a few years back. i cannot pinpoint the stressor for that excluding the fact I was not taking my medication properly.

 

The problem is some self-harm, yet harm others as well. a relative of mine beat his girlfriend at one point and went to jail. Ultimately he commited suicide. My family was not the type to direct people to mental health services at the time.

 

I see this in people I know. they self-harm, yet harm others as well.

 

I am not saying you are like that linuxkid.

 

Hey there Melsbasketcase Smiling

Thank you for responding to my post Smiling

I would like to say that I'm terribly sorry for what happen to your mother Sad It's extremely sad and emotional for everyone to lose a parent.

If you don't mind me asking you this... why did you self harm? What was the reasoning behind it? I would like to get some sentiment from other self harmer like myself.

What brought me to the world of psychiatry and psychology is in fact that a school psychologist, back in the days where I was just a little girl, told my parents that I was showing significant symptoms of having an ADD. I had a hard time focusing in school. The school psychologist recommended my parents to take me to a child psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Brown. He gave me my first Psychiatric label as having an ADD - Attention Deficit Disorder. Dr. Brown gave me other labels too like depression and anxiety disorder. He gave my parents some prescription medications, which by the way he never ordered any blood work or test to determine if I had a biochemical imbalance in the brain, to take. I only remember 2 medications, Seinquen and Cylert.

I did some research on these two medications off of http://www.rxlist.com

CYLERT (pemoline) is indicated in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Because of its association with life threatening hepatic failure, CYLERT should not ordinarily be considered as first line therapy for ADHD (see WARNINGS).

Dr. Brown who diagnosed me as being demented was endangering my overall physical health to prescribe me this medication that has catastrophic consequence of hepatic failure aka Liver failure.

Dr. Brown also broke the law by prescribing me Seinquen, a medication that is not recommended to give to children under 12.

My father is much more educated about what truly goes on inside the world of psychiatry/psychology then he was back when I was a little girl. He openly admits that what he and my mother did was wrong and that they made a hefty mistake. Y

you were lucky to have parents who did not send you to a psychiatrist when you were small.. If only my parents had the education that they have no, I would of never had to deal with this fraudulent practice that we call psychiatry.

Stress can cause a lot of things to happen, not a chemical imbalance. Unfortunately we live in a world where stress is a part of our lives. We have to make ends meat in order to survive, that is the biggest stress that we have as a human. We all deal with stress in a different way.. some get nervous, others start losing touch with reality. Were different. I find it ridiculous to make up diagnostic terms and to start labeling people crazy for having a human reaction.

My last involuntarily admission was on the beginning of November on 2006. I will never forget how depressed and how manic I was in the hospital than I was out of the hospital. I was so depressed that I was starting to build up a plan to commit suicide in the hospital because I couldn't take being confined any longer. The so called treatment that they were giving me was going nowhere. I had a bad reaction to the poison that they were giving me and It was a BIG waste of money that the health insurance, or should i say the tax payers had to pay.

I'm sorry for your relative that beated his girlfriend. I do not think it was caused by his desire to self harm. Generally when people self harm.. they do it because they feel responsible for something that they think caused. Cutting yourself is a way of punishing yourself.

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm aware of corruption in

I'm aware of corruption in social services in certain counties in the midwest, so I'm wondering where you are that they're so ready to involuntarily commit you. I don't know your particular situation, but it's not inconceivable to me that mental health is a racket in some places. I don't agree that it's a basis to condemn the whole practice and the science behind it. We may look back on the pharmaceuticals we use now with the same disdain by which we regard electroshock and lobotomies. The danger, as I see it, is media hysteria over certain disorders, and the predatory lobbying of the private sector. I've been in therapy, without drugs, and while I didn't find it particularly helpful, the only harm it did was to the wallet. Some people swear the drugs help them. I just don't think it's safe to generalize about this. 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
shelleymtjoy

shelleymtjoy wrote:
melsbasketcase wrote:

You do not needs meds for your average person's god belief. Their belief does not hinder them socially or self-care wise. 

 I really don't like spreading my personal issues on forums but this quote calls for it. 

Last December I became pregnant with triplets and no fertility drugs (yes, I'm serious) and made the mistake of going to a Catholic hospital.  The OB/GYN there objected to an IV antibiotic I had been taking and needed to keep my infection at bay because it has a very small chance of a reversable birth defect.  Obviously, being rational, I thought my life was more important than the small chance of a reversable birth defect.  However, she went behind my back to make sure my prescription could not be refilled.

As a result, without the IV medication, I became septic.  I almost died and consequently miscarried all three fetuses.  This all happened because this Catholic hospital decided to force their views of a fetus' life above that of the mother.  Had I gone to a secular hospital my pregnancy would have been limited to one fetus, I would have stayed on my medication, and I would probably be changing diapers instead of posting here.  How can you think religion does not hinder someone socially and with regards to their care? 

Thanks for sharing that, even though it must have been painful.  Yeah, I know what you mean about airing personal stuff on forums...sometimes it can come back to bite you in the ass.

But you are entirely right.  Theists have messed up my medical care, too.  They've also ostracized me for being an atheist.  So yeah, it does hinder them socially.  I was taught that Christians weren't supposed to associate with non-Christians.  If that isn't being hindered socially, what is?

Christianity in particular is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt, especially (but not limited to) the fundamentalist variety.  Religion is divisive.  It splits up families; it drives friends apart; it motivates the deranged to fly planes into buildings. It is a pox on humanity and I really do hope human beings recover without becoming too scarred in the process.

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