Marks of a cult [Trollville]
Offline What is a cult? What does one look like and how does it act?
Are all cults religious or is it possible for a cult to be non-religious? Marketing cults, such as Amway, are non-religious and pseudo-religious - they are not necessarily theistic.
It therefore follows that it is possible to be cultic - that is under the influence of mind control, and therefore irrational - without being theistic.
What is a cult? What does one look like and how does it act?
A cult needs formation, it needs a person with an overblown sense of themself and an ability to blag that onto other people, to start it. These people are good enough at rhetoric and self promotion to get enough people to believe that they are what they make themselves out to be: a person of insight, a leader, a thinker. They see themselves as natural leaders and people of insight, and they are successful at conning some people into seeing them as such.
Next there needs to be some ideal: something which sets the group apart, something unassailable and profound. This can be God, or money, or unGod. For a cult this hook must be stressed and packaged as something of value. Most cultic information is only available to insiders: Scientologists charge you a fee, the Moonies practically kidnap and brainwash you, the JWs come and sit in your lounge and some mustachioed ponce for unGod comes over your internetz.
Cults will generally be unaccountable in their finances, keeping an accounting system which involves certain hidden factors and non-disclosures. The Watchtower Society sells its literature to the public by pressuring JWs to pay up front for the literature they distribute, and then to contribute any payment they might receive from the public in "voluntary donations". This way they keep free of sales tax. All cults have questionable accounts and none are fully transparent.
To be in a cult will cost money and time.
A cult will have a defined identity that its followers will be encouraged to adopt.
A cult will not tolerate criticism.
People who criticise a cult from within will be removed: a term Orwell coined is "unperson". They will no longer be considered to be a voice worth listening to.
All cults get involved in quack-science and poor scholarship. The quack science will be advanced by those in the echelons who have sufficient grasp of science to sound knowledgable while getting away with the most egregious non-sequitors undetected; and the fake scholarship will be advanced by those zealous enough to provide vaguely credible scholarly support. Fred Franz was typical of this crowd: they fail miserably at academia but gain enough to think that they are better: the result is that they put themselves up as credible scholars on dubious grounds, but of course the rubes are encouraged not to question this.
Scientific quackery is only what is in line with the cult, this may range from the pseudo-geology of YEC flood apologetics through to the fake-psychology of L.Ron Hubbard inc. In between are a myriad of pseudo-science dogmas masquerading as fact advanced by a wide range of self-proclaimed experts and commentators.
Membership is important to cults, and they pass by no opportunity to remind people - especially their followers - just how successful they are. They will spin whatever numerical markers they can in order to make themselves appear "mainstream", "popular" or "in touch". Stats matter to cults, but only the right stats.
Am I missing anything? Yeah: RRS bears the hallmarks of a wannabe cult.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
. 
I laugh, but it ain't funny , is it ! 
What to do .....
, 
AHHH , Religion is fucking stinking sick stupid delusion shit ..... Save a Christian ! 
[Entomophila deleted this comment and photo.
Matt, this reply and photo should be posted at the RDN forum, not here. I believe that you have a degree.
NOTE to the rest of you, both sides: ENTOMOPHILA is getting out her vacuum cleaner and is going to clean up this thread. Stop the Ad hominem attacks and get on with the debate. If you can ask or answer a valid question in a civil, reasonable manner, or have something constructive to say, then do so. Otherwise, please refrain from adding to this thread.
P.S. Matt, please google "circum vitae" (you should know what a CV is) and resize your photos so they are smaller and appropriate for forums]
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
He says: "I personally wouldn't consider theism itself a mental disorder for a few reasons..." That runs entirely counter to the claim made by the core RRS members.
It is also a personal opinion. Matt makes no claim to speak for anyone but himself.
So his personal position runs contrary to the RRS's stated position? Holy mother of fuck! Atheists think for themselves!
Head for the hills!
Kinda blows the OP's idea of RRS being a cult in the making out of the water too...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think the Topic creator is using 'cult' to get your attention by getting in your face. Not unlike tactics from the RRS.
Anyway, I started to read the topic, but got drowned out by the amount of wahmbulances in the backround.
Below is about five pages of responses from me, mostly gleaned from the threads to which I previously linked you, that show that you have misrepresented my position and that of the RRS in general. Feel free to C&P this to your friends over at RD.net so that they can continue to have fun in their RRS hate thread. I would surely hate to demonstrate my humanity and cause anybody to feel guilty for continually vilifying and/or ridiculing me, so let's just suffice to say that none of your ignorant conclusions even approach truth and do not warrant responses.
Disordered in one regard does not imply the inability to be logical, rational, or ethical in all other areas. That would be like saying that somebody who has depression or ADHD is unable to function in any way, even those unrelated to their disorder, and nobody has made such a statement. (It just now occurred to me that all of these people who are having fits about this "disorder" thing have apparently all carried over their own stigma associated with that word. Nobody here has ever stated that anybody with any type of disorder is inherently and absolutely irrational, illogical, and stupid. Rather, it is precisely because one is capable of behaving rationally and logically in most other areas of their lives that it is even apparent that this ONE issue is not in line, and therefore "disordered", with the rest of their beliefs and behaviors.)
Not that you cannot control your body--obviously you can in most circumstances. But can a person with Parkinson's Disease "will" themselves to stop shaking? No. This is a purely physical reaction to the lack of dopamine in the neural synapses. Is it possible, in some cases, particulary cocaine-induced Parkinsonism, to repair the damaged parts of the brain, notably the GABA receptors and dopamine transporters/receptors, to diminish or eliminate the symptoms? Yes. But it all comes down to physical processes inside the brain. Just like all of your behaviors, thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc. Right down to and including one's proclivity to believe in god and the way in which that proclivity manifests itself.
The more that this issue gets brought up, the more I think that not only is everybody misinterpreting our position, but that they have all carried their own stigmas associated with "disorder" into the fray.
More importantly, people need to understand that this is a multi-faceted attack on religion. As evil_religion said, we are merely pointing out the similarities between a delusional disorder, particularly grandiose delusional disorder, and the mindset of a typical theist. Obviously, Brian and I both understand that psychology is based on societal norms and therefore, religion couldn't technically be classified as a disorder because it is prevalent in our society. It is our goal, though, to make religion less prevalent; to make belief in bronze-age mythology so absolutely ridiculous that admitting that you have conversations with a deity would be embarrassing. That is the impetus behind our usage of that argument--to plant the seed in the heads of believers that they are deluding themselves (funny how nobody objects when you say that, but call it a disorder and all of a sudden people are throwing stones).
We purposely make controversial statements and do things like the blasphemy challenge to get people talking!! Sitting around being quiet and respectful has gotten us where in 2000 years? Sam Harris used the argument that the best way to take the power away from any social group is to ridicule it. "Theism is a mind disorder" IS ridicule. Now, don't try to twist my words and think that I don't stand behind the analysis--I do. I think that there is enough evidence out there that theism is mentally damaging to support it as well, but I am saying that this is also a strategic maneuver. Think of it as a counter-meme. We want this idea to spread to enough people that consulting your sky-daddy before bed IS recognized as a disorder. The only criterium that isn't met is in fact not a criterium, but a disclaimer that religion doesn't count. Is it possible that the APA and the editors of the DSM are being just a little politically correct here? Just the fact that this disclaimer was necessary is proof that the similarities are already there! Please take note that since we've started this meme it appears Dan Barker has taken it and run with it as well. Now he calls religion a mental illness. The meme is spreading, and atheists who want to see religious belief dissipate would be wise to not hinder our advancement in this area.
I had an epiphany when I was posting on this topic in another thread, but I'll recap here. Every person who finds the "disorder" thing offensive obviously has their own baggage related to mental disorders in mind and then want to project that onto us. I bear no such prejudice. I'm sure that I have multiple disorders, but the difference between me and them is that if somebody tells me that I have a disorder and wants to help me, I don't just say "UNH UH!! NOT ME!! I'm perfectly normal!!!" I seek to improve those errors in my thought processes. I strive to live without cognitive dissonance. Sorry that I don't want everybody else to continue living in denial while they destroy the world that I live in. At any rate, I stated in the other thread that the very reason that we can say that "theism is a mind disorder" is because all theists ARE NOT completely stupid, irrational in every way, or absolutely insane. (Although some may be) It is precisely because they operate rationally and logically in most other areas of their lives that their god-belief stands out so glaringly as an aberration.
So, I really want to convey here the level of frustration I have at being forced to constantly reiterate what our position is here. It is pretty clear in the three videos we made on the topic, so please just watch the damn things and actually listen before you attack us on this one. Especially from people who I would think understand us better than that. And who also understand that having a degree means you should be smart, but doesn't make you so, nor does it do the opposite.
I'm sick of typing. I think I'm developing a carpal tunnel disorder. (Disparaging wrists everywhere!!!)
I know the next argument that you're going to make, too. "Well, she was insane, so she would have done something horrible anyway." How do you know that? How do you know that she would have had any concept of a "demon" if it wasn't placed there? The bible clearly states that this is a war not of flesh and bones, but of spirits and the forces of good and evil. One is to arm themselves for battle and prepare to deflect the attacks of satan and his minions. People still believe in this stuff! Does anybody get this? The Pope is calling for mass exorcisms, and some evangelical christians believe that sicknesses are caused by satan and that you can "cast them out in Jesus' name." It is a travesty that the more obsequious among us have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Anybody who cannot see the correlation here is either blind or indifferent and will allow these things to continue to happen. All because we can't talk about religion like that-it's just not nice.
Obviously, the vast majority of religious people do not commit these kinds of crimes, but there is an overwhelming amount of violence perpetrated upon people that is religiously motivated. I've already pointed out the child abuse that occurs in the name of religion, and some christian parenting sites teach you how to "switch" your children with PVC tubing from the age of 9 months. Incidentally, a devotee of theirs was charged with first-degree murder when she wrapped her 4 year old son tightly in blankets because he kept getting out of bed and he suffocated to death.All because god is a god of order, not chaos, and you must maintain order in your home. Talk about fragile egos on these people who won't be manipulated by the cries of a hungry newborn baby.
I said this in my first post on this topic, and obviously I need to repeat myself for the either dense or dishonest critics, but even if religion only exploits existing mental illnesses, should we not give people one less reason to kill or harm others? Imagine a scenario in which small groups of racist people are still terrorizing anybody with darker skin than them, but since the vast majority of white people don't act that way, we just shouldn't address it.
In all honesty, the reason that most religious people do not act like the Phelps family is because they are nominal (insert religion here) only. A study done by the Barna Group, a christian research firm, showed that many young Americans see christians as hypocritical, and that they really are hypocrites. They surveyed 1003 adults on 20 "lifestyle elements," including things such as altruism, sexual behavior, and substance abuse. The results: on 15 of the 20 behaviors, evangelical christians were indistinguishable from us heathens, and the areas in which they do differ (porn consumption, cursing in public, playing the lottery, and music piracy), the difference is minor (One-third of heathens vs. one-quarter of christians) except for the music piracy, in which there is a 7% difference. That is not likely because of the commandment to not steal, but rather that resisting the urge to download music is much easier than resisting the urge to have sex. If that's not causing cognitive dissonance, I don't know what will.
Any study, particularly psychological or sociological, is going to establish correlations between things, hopefully with as few confounding factors as possible. So nobody should make the assumption that atheism causes these things, just that they are related for some reason. You could take the converse and say that theism is correlated to poor societal health. The real strength of these studies, though, is taking away the "without religion everybody would turn into wild animals" argument.
Now, I know what you guys are going to say--"It's not BECAUSE of religion." Actually, I don't think that a case could be made either way. Was he likely vulnerable to delusional behavior? Yeah, I'll concede that one. The fact that religion is unique in its ability to seep into the crevices of your mind so pervasively that this theme plays out in our society over and over again isn't addressed by that statement, though. How do the appeasers and framers answer that? Maybe it only manifests itself in those already prone to mental illness, but isn't that akin to excusing and perpetuating a belief system that preys on the weak? What exactly is it that causes atheists to feel this compulsion to cover for a malevolent, archaic belief that has caused mothers to kill their children, countless cases of child abuse, seemingly endless wars and violence, and self-mutilation and flagellation that can be traced back to the very foundation of the religion?
Furthermore, I did qualify my statement in the original post by saying that these delusions seemed to manifest themselves in vulnerable people, but again, if the bible didn't have a specific command to cut off your right hand if it offends you on the premise of it being better to enter heaven maimed than go to hell (an implicit threat of eternal punishment), this man likely would not have felt compelled to cut his right hand off with a circular saw.
Finally, when dealing with statistics, particularly in the field of psychology, there is practically never a case of clear causation. It's always a matter of correlation, and a positive correlation does not have to be excessively high to be considered statistically significant. I feel that the case for religion having detrimental effects on people's mental health can be made with certainty that there is a positive correlation between excessive religiosity and delusions resulting in violence to oneself or others.
"Religion" is not a mental disorder-it's the effects of religion on people's minds that may lead to or otherwise push the susceptible "over the edge", so to speak.
The fact that a certain part of the brain is stimulated during so-called "religious experiences" does not demonstrate anything other than the fact that a certain experience is associated with increased or decreased activity in areas of the brain, just like any other experience that we have. Using the term "hard-wired" muddies the waters by giving this predisposition an aura of seemingly scientific respectability. It would be a non sequitor to assume that this implies that it is supposed to operate in that fashion universally or that it was a necessary facet of the evolutionary process. The fact that the majority of people throughout history have believed in god would predispose their descendants to also have the same susceptibility to the type of temporal lobe stimulation that causes these experiences, and therefore cannot prove anything other than how the brain operates in certain circumstances.
I do believe that religion was necessary in our evolutionary history to facilitate social cohesion and provide answers to the unanswerable questions and solace regarding the frightening reality of life and impending death. I feel that we should do as Daniel Dennett suggests in Breaking the Spell and question whether or not it is still beneficial to society.
Again, you're making the naturalistic fallacy be presupposing that is equals ought. From a sociological perspective, the norm would be theistic belief because norms are always culturally defined. Just because it is the current norm doesn't mean that it should remain that way. I also never implied that any deviation from "pure rationality" is a mental illness. Anybody see a strawman?
I have thought things through, thanks. Sorry if you feel like I'm giving you a bad reputation. Maybe you should call yourself something other than atheist to differentiate yourself from the rest of us and avoid the stigma. Like anti-inflammatory-statementist. Or, never-tell-people-they're-full-of-shitist.
That would be the definition of a strawman, but let me clarify our position here. The title of that post, along with our former haeder banner slogan, are designed to be controversial and slightly offensive. We feel that ridiculing religion is one of the best tactics when trying to reduce the impact of religion on society. Every person who has seen that or even the "Believe in God? We can fix that" slogans has had a small seed of doubt planted in their minds. They may react with indignation, but that stems from the deep-seated fear that we are right.
Sam Harris talks about using ridicule to end the KKK's influence and power on Truthdig.com in response to how to end irrational faith. We are kind of following that model. Do I honestly think that every single person who believes in god has a mental illness? No. But I believe that certain people's pre-existing mental illnesses can be made worse, people may develop certain guilt complexes or suffer from perpetual fear because of their existence as depraved, disgusting, sinful creatures, many people develop pathological sexuality issues, and the compartmentalization necessary to maintain your faith essentially boils down to denial and self-deception. I think that anybody can look around them and see how religion incites and justifies violence against others. The more fundamentalist groups are much more prone to these types of issues, but as I said before, that doesn't excuse religion. There is still a positive correlation between religiosity and certain neuroses. I will attempt to gather some of the studies that have been done and post them later for reference.
It is relevant because any belief that is in constant conflict with actual evidence is psychologically harmful when it must be maintained despite conflicting evidence. Imagine that you suspect your partner is having an affair. When you start digging, you find odd charges from hotels, possibly other incriminating evidence, along with his/her sudden lack of interest in sex. For you to ignore all of what is staring you in the face will be extraordinarily difficult. It may cause anxiety, depression, intrusive thoughts about the issue, or anger and bitterness. Now, imagine that you try to repress all of that and pretend it's not happening. You will need to devote a lot of mental energy to doing so, and ultimately, you are then harming yourself. Religion does the same thing.
I would say that that particular action would not have happened if he was an atheist. Something else possibly, but not that exact action. If you believe in no mark of the beast, or better yet, had never heard of it, where would that idea come from? If there wasn't a biblical injunction to do so, why would that particular thing have been so prominent in that man's mind? So, his mental illness may or may not have been influenced by religion, but his actions certainly were.
If religion causes one to act in ways that are harmful to themselves or others, I feel that it should be held accountable for that. What is the difference between acting psychopathic and being psychopathic? Psychopathologies are defined by one's actions. It doesn't necessarily have to pervade every area of a person's life to still be considered problematic. An excellent read dealing with how theism, particularly evangelical christianity, affects the mental health of adherents is The Mind of the Bible Believer by Edmund Cohen. I also explained above the tactical reasons behind using controversial taglines.
I also fail to see the bigotry of which you speak. I have no prejudice against those who have been afflicted with mental illnesses. If I did, I would be bigoted against most of my family and probably myself. Is labeling depression a mental illness a sign of bigotry against them or a statement of fact?
I am glad that you like us, and that you're able to voice your objections in a reasonable manner. However, I do believe that the "scary evangelical religious faithful" are the victims of a mental disorder. Whether it was caused by religion or just worsened by it, it really doesn't matter. It is obvious that they are more likely to act on their religious convictions in an entirely different way than others. When's the last time you saw an atheist suicide bomber?
Atheist Books
Well RRS founders have their opinions. I've even used trollville to start a silly rant. The story on Rathpig seems to be he kept breaking the forum rules. If he sent an "appropriate" PM to the RRS founders I'm sure he'd be reinstated.
Seems I remember him going berserk ! ??? But it was fun .... Say hi to him for me ....
RRS seems very fair to me ...... Hey, after all, I AM the only one that's perfect ! L O L to all you lower gods .....
Atheism Books.
Thanks for the replies, Kelly.
It's clear from them that the theism/mental disorder meme is not much more than a provocative eye-catcher. An advertising slogan, if you like.
Even so, I fear that it will inevitably cause more harm than good.
As a claim associated with public and voluble atheists it may well come to be associated with atheism in general. Untested and unproven claims are the very thing that we accuse theists of. Indeed, these very forums contain such accusations in many places. We must avoid committing the same behaviours of the people we criticise.
I really do feel that the claim as it stands should be stood down. It makes the atheist community look bad (and even confirms some of the darker precepts about atheists); it allows for claims that we don't get involved in science either; it also causes outright and unnecessary offence to theists.
Mental health is not like a physical injury. Like it or not, it is quite a taboo subject for many people, and questions about a person's mental state are generally deemed to be far more intrusive than a question about a physical injury. To make a blanket claim like that is certain to antagonise and to close minds to your point.
Nothing quite like reading without following links...or did you?
If you did, it looks like a pretty strong circumstantial case. People have been executed on less evidence.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Expecting all atheists to conform to some unwritten code of atheist conduct smells kind of... what's the word... cultish?
As long as we all lack belief in god, we're good. Allowing ourselves to disagree and debate about secondary issues is one of our strong points.
I think it's just peachy that you guys disagree with Kelly about this and want to debate about it. But I find it kind of offensive that you think any one atheist's actions can hurt all of atheism. You might as well be invoking the "well Stalin was an atheist" argument. It doesn't matter what opinions Stalin had. He was an individual, and atheism is something other than that.
Kelly can say whatever she wants as an individual who has opinions. You may disagree with her, or you may not. I don't think anyone here considers any of the RRS core to be demagogues for atheism, so I find it strange that the danger you fear treats them as if they are.
The only way one atheist's personal opinions on matters unrelated to the existence of God can affect atheism as a whole is if a bunch of other atheists start going around saying that they do and, as a result, suggesting that atheism has some kind of dogma or creed that can be broken.
It is simply not the case. You can think Kelly is mildly retarded if you like, but whether or not she is, it has no affect on the atheist community unless some portion of the atheist community start to believe that it does.
Thankfully, the atheist community is like herding cats. I celebrate the fact.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
"Delusion" in a psychiatric context.
There have been a number of question and statements itt which appear as genuine attempts to understand the distinction between delusion as used colloquially, or within some realms of psychological definition, and that intended within the narrow realm of psychiatric diagnosis.
The following examples should help to clarify this.
1) Tom is a stalker. He has followed Miss A for several months, and has been arrested by the police for harassment. Under examination Tom insists that Miss A has "feelings" for him, and that she enjoys his attentions. There are no bases for Tom's inference: Miss A has repeatedly told him, forcefully, to leave her alone, but to no avail. Miss A has expressed to Tom that he is causing her to fear him. Tom does not seem to have given cognition to these facts.
Tom is shown an interview with Miss A in which she states quite clearly that: it is she who called the police, that being because she was afraid of Tom; she finds Tom physically unattractive; she does not like Tom following her; and she dislikes Tom strongly. After viewing this Tom is in denial and insists instead that Miss A is lying about these things. Tom "knows" that Miss A is lying, because Tom "knows" that Miss A does like him and does enjoy him following her. When asked what would have motivated Miss A to contact police in that case Tom rationalises and says that she did it for attention, or some other reason: Tom implies that Miss A is in denial about her feelings for him.
2) Dave is a Young Earth Creationist. His father is a pastor and missionary, and Dave was brought up in a missionary home in South America, living among a particular tribe of natives now converted to Christianity. Dave receives a reasonable education in engineering, serves in the USAF, marries and has children. Dave does not accept the scientific view of Evolution or of the age of the cosmos, despite repeatedly losing debates on the subjects.
Dave has, from a very early age, had his critical faculties trained to evaluate data against a "higher truth", that which has been passed to him from trusted sources. In his childhood Dave was "wired" to accept uncritically that which trusted adult sources taught him, we all are.
3) Mike is a Soccer fan. For his seventh birthday his dad took him to see his local team play. It was a magical day for Mike: the atmosphere and the noise; the smells; the songs and the chants; and the sheer awe-inspiring noise of a crowd celebrating a goal. Mike's team won, and he has a wonderful afternoon with his Dad.
As he grows up Mike supports his team more and more, always going to the game and recapturing/savouring that first, wonderful, time with his dad. Now Mike is grown up, and he and his mates are all season-ticket holders who attend every home and away game, travelling up and down the country to do so. There is something "special" to Mike and his mates about their team, something ephemeral: they are the best; no other team has that special something which their team has. They fight for their team against the fools from the other teams whenever they can. Mike was never really a violent person but his mates soon showed him the physical excitement and adrenaline rush which can be experienced in a gang-fight. Mike has found a new way to discover even greater highs, and as a result is more psychologically attached to his team than ever before. They kick ass, and Mike and his mates kick ass alongside, part of the same identity: Mike's team, Mike's mates; Mike's team's "fight" on the field, Mike's and his mates' "fight" on the street.
---------------
Now take the time to think about each example.
Tom: there is no external cultural influence which has given rise to Tom's delusion (false belief) about Miss A. Falsification of Tom's delusion does not result in him realising that he is wrong, instead he insists - in all seriousness - that everyone else is wrong/lying.
Tom is delusional in the sense intended by the psychiatric (medical) definition, that included by the term "Delusional Disorder". The roots of Tom's "delusion" do not appear discoverable in the external world.
For Tom there is no validating context: his delusion is entirely in his head.
Dave: Dave has been given a framework for understanding reality which is above or at least equal to that framework provided by "science". Dave thinks it's just a question of which interpretive framework one selects: an old-world set of assumptions or a new world set. Whenever Dave is presented with de-facto falsifying evidence for a young earth he evaluates it against that cultural information which he already holds in authority, and as a result he rejects any information which is contrary to that higher information.
Dave is certainly "delusional" in a colloquial sense, and in a wider psychological sense: his critical faculties have been inoculated against contrary evidence, he is - to all intents and purposes - under the influence of mind-control. However, Dave is not covered by the definition of "delusional" in the medical sense: he has not "invented" his delusion in a vacuum off the back of bald and irrational inferences: it is not irrational for a child to to trust its parents. The roots of Dave's "delusion" can be discovered in the external world.
For Dave there is a validating context: his delusion is shared by many, it is not entirely in his head.
Mike is "delusional" in a colloquial sense: there is nothing "special" about one team over another - objectively speaking - nothing which would require violent "defence" in the form of physical aggression against supporters of other teams. The roots of Mike's delusion are both in his head and discoverable in the external world. His experience that first day with his Dad was evidently formative, and the emotional "high" it produced was over-interpreted by his young brain as somehow demonstrating something "super-natural" about his team: something ephemeral and awe-inspiring. His current view is validated by his friends, people who would "die for him, and he them": Mike is involved in male coalitionary violence, a recognised group-dynamic driven behaviour not limited to humans: i.e. it is likely a part of our evolutionary heritage (chimps have been observed to carry out male coalitionary raids on other troops).
Hopefully the above gives a reasonable picture of what makes, and what does not make, a psychiatric delusional condition. Within clinical diagnostic definition of delusion intended by the DSM, only Tom is covered. It may be (it is possible) that both Dave and Mike also have underlying psychoses which are exascerbated or reinforced and channelled by the cultural links they have either inherited or forged: but that doesn't make their false beliefs "delusions" in the narrow sense intended by the word as used in clinical psychiatry.
Failure to recognise this distinction is easy, as some of the posts on this thread demonstrate, and that is why lay people are simply not equipped to offer diagnoses in line with such definition.: The DSM definition of "delusion" (reflecting the use within the psychiatric field) is a tight delineation, which is understood through rigorous training and understanding of various case histories and studies from which the defining characteristics are derived.
Does any of this mean that science, and psychological science in particular, has nothing to say on Dave and Mike? Absolutely not: the story and behaviours of each is certainly within the realm of investigation for any psychologist, or any anthropologist, and possible many other social sciences. Issues of religion and belonging to groups, how we develop and maintain self-identity, the idea of "parent worship", cognitive dissonance and denial/rationalisation strategies, male coalitionary raiding and violence and so on, are all phenomena which can be studied scientifically. They are being studied right now.
When we turn the spotlight of science onto the question of religion and the beliefs of theism - which is a valid thing to do - we need to recognise first how science must proceed: by asking questions which can be given meaningful answers.
So if you haven't yet done so please read Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. In it Dennett goes into the different directions various sciences are going in the study, what questions are being and can be asked, and how one can go about obtaining scientific answers. But there are no shortcuts in this endeavour, and it certainly doesn't proceed on the basis of misapplication of existing science and neither can unqualified people arrive at scientific conclusions without actually conducting science.
Picking a word from its scientific context and misusing it in order to present a position - for whatever reason - which one would like to believe is factual is not simply not science, it is quack-science, and it is no different in process to that engaged in by Answers in Genesis et al.
Now, can anyone on this board still manage not to understand this? I reckon so. Please falsify my reckoning and actually comprehend this fundamentally simple matter. Don't be like Dave and Mike: think about it objectively, please. Failure to do so doen not by necessity define you as delusional in the sense of Tom, unless you continue to insist on the equivocation of the meaning of "delusion" and if your equivocation is correct of course (perhaps I should leave the ironic references at the door for now).
I did say that I was out of this thread, and barring anything meaningful on this there's no reason to return. But I'm happy to. Perhaps Kelly and Brian will finally get around to answering my questions from earlier, which have been stated three times now and are still unanswered.
Kelly, I can read your responses to others' questions in the context in which they were provided. In the context of this thread I have set out several specific questions for you, Brian and anyone else advancing this "counter-meme" which you stand by to answer. Your post above does not do so. Are you unwilling to answer them.
As one of those questions you asked concerns the disbursement of funds, would you like to see their entire financial records or are they allowed to black out the personal stuff?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
SpaghettiSawUs
Unfortunately the cross posting fun will have to continued, as I have yet to receive a confirmation e-mail for your forum
Also unfortunately it being a cold wet cycle home on a Monday, I'm just about awake enough to read, but I'm just to tied to respond to your post tonight, until tomorrow
jcgadfly,
I would have thought that the context of my post, and your own comprehensive reading of the thread, would have made it apparent which questions I was referring to. My questions regarding the RRS finances have been answered fully, as I have stated. There are no further questions regarding the RRS finances as how those finances are intended to be used has been clearly expressed. Any additional questions are in the realm of those asked by the IRS, and as I am not an employee or representative of that organisation, my own questions are irrelevant.
On the other hand, my questions regarding the claim - made by Kelly and Brian among others - that theism is a mental disorder, have been stated three times and remain un-answered.
FYI, and the benefit of others who see fit only to scan this thread, here I will restate them:
Where is the peer reviewed Data?
What criteria differentiates in a non-circular way?
For the list of criteria you have supplied for an existing recognised set of symptoms (Delusional Disorder as per this post): what case studies have you examined in order to understand the intent behind each diagnostic marker?
Why do you suppose that a mental health professional must receive training and oversight when it comes to diagnostics?
Do you believe it is possible to offer a diagnosis of mental illness without that training but simply through referring to a list of criteria?
Do you understand how such lists of diagnostic criteria are arrived at?
Do you understand how anyone making a diagnosis by referring to a list without understanding the background and the intent behind individual observational predictions is making a mistake?
What professional training in mental health diagnostics have Kelly, Brian, or Hambydammit received?
Cheers
Some points:
1. Anywhere I have seen/heard the statement "Number one atheist site on the internet", I've always seen it qualified by something along the lines of "as shown by Alexa". Perhaps I've missed something. Have the RDF folks(I'm assuming you're one) got their pants in a twist about their standing or something? I may be looking for subtext where there is none.
2. Would you be happier if it said "Theism shares qualities with some mental disorders"? Dawkins calls it a "mind virus" and a parasite. Giving him any of what your bringing here?
3. Rook has done more research on the mythicist position than I - his research to this point has been compelling. I'm still more of a Jesus-lite person (Jesuses - probably several. Jesus the Son of God - not a one).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin