Personally, I don't care if Brian or anyone else thinks Theism is a 'mind disorder'.  Their opinion in no way affects my life, and him constantly calling it that does not make it so.

I don't know why you're getting so worked up about this. 

Melsbasketcase is trying to censor us for our fair use of her material:

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

 This is what we wrote to her on youtube, feel free to make a video explaining any of this to her...

RationalResponse (1 hour ago) Show Hide Marked as spam

The only thing I can think of thats good about this is more traffic to the site from people at NAMI checking it out, so more people is good.

Melsbasketcase, and its obvious you read the replies to this (at least up to the ones Sapient wrote), I have to question your issues with us and this Stigma thing. Personally, I think theres not much difference between us calling theism a mind disorder (which it is), and your username of melsbasketcase (as from my understanding, basket case is a term to refer to people who are crazy.)

Now, something that I think more people need to understand about the RRS and its members (especially the vocal ones). We don't generally wish ill will against people. We try to be rational and wish people well, in whatever they want to do. However, which is something Sapient has been trying to push home recently, we aren't going to sit down and shut up. We are sick and tired of being pushed around and backing down. Its bullshit. People talk to theists and others with strong convictions (minus atheism) and most people go "Good for them. I may not agree with it but they really are passionate about what they are talking about." However it seems that when we stand up, people call us extremists (even within the atheist community) and that we should stop being passionate about our ideas and let things slide. Being passionate about something does not equal irrationality (though it can in concept, but not inherently).  

Personally I hope anytime someone likes or does not like us, they send links to the site everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh-MeacekeE is the video she did responding to this thread im guessing.

Gee, Mel, what do you really expect NAMI is going to do about this? In the unlikely event they do decide to do anything at all about this, what would it be? If I remember right, all they really do is engage in a letter writing campaign. Big deal. 

More on this issue here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/10265

Sapient, the problem with all of this theism is a mind disorder stuff is that you are appealing to a *religion* to invalidate religion. That's really what makes it seem so ridiculous, not that you're right under their *invented* definition of delusion. 

With regard to the censorship issue, this has been a tactic of organized religion for many centuries.  In fact, before the third estate finnaly asserted its right to self-governance, the censorship occurred with extreme prejudice. 

Case in point, Galileo Galilei proved the heliocentric universe.  Unfortunately, the Pope hated geometry and called in the Office of the Inquisition to look at the matter.  Poor Galileo ended up an old man, face down in front of a bank of cardinals shouting "I recant."

Well, we are protected by our written constitution now.  So, instead of threatening you and your family with the flame, organized religion must now write strongly worded letters.

An Englishman has to shut up when an Irishman talks?  wtf?

Take it outside?  This guy is crazy.  In so many ways.  Again, if I was in that situation I would have been mightily pissed (though I do have Irish in my family so I wonder what two Irish have to do with talking, which one shuts up.  Personally I think the one with the nuttiness should shut up).  

Anyways, there have been several things Donahue has done thats like Wha?  Comparing Kathy Griffin to Don Imus and Michael Richards to be one aspect. 

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.

You can use me as a reverse example of that.

158 IQ, $8,000 net income last year.

 Sidenote: My earning potential in the corporate sales world was 60,000-$100,000 when I abandoned it all for a life of activism.

I would agree use of the DMCA is pretty low, but IIRC you too threatened to DMCA MELSbasketcase. But what is despicable is your and Kelly's use of a person who has been diagnosed as schizophrenic in the past as an example of something with of what you two diagnosed as a delusional disorder (GT). More over, you were overly critical of MELS use of wikipedia to define Delusion, yet Brian quotes later on wiki’s entry for “Delusional disorder”, and truncates some important “Features”. Even worse, you presume “Christian” when there is NO reference I can see to the specific theology yet Brian is willing to call her delusional. Using someone who is mentally ill as a social experiment is deplorable.

I’m also critical of Kelly I this case as well. “Belief in God is a false belief based on incorrect information that has been fed to you through your society, because you don't know enough about science or whatever" – Kelly Some evidence to show theism is a mental disorder.

I do take exception to the aspect of not knowing enough about science.

Gregor Mendel - father of modern genetics and Catholic Abbot

Georges Lemaitre - hypothesis of the primeval atom, precursor to Big Bang theory and Jesuit priest

Nicolaus Copernicus - heliocentric model of the universe – Catholic Priest

I’m also critical of the statement in the disputed video “it represents someone who is angry at us for presenting the truth”. I don’t see that, I see it as being someone being angry at someone creating or promoting a stigma of the mentally ill. Given your social experiment was targeted at someone who is mentally ill… being critical is rational™.

And most critical of all is how Grandiose Type of (Delusional) disorder “delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person. To which Kelly made the statement “Hello, religion? Anybody, anybody”. I can see where someone can easily be confused special relationship. I read it like for example if someone claims to know Stephen Spielberg, advises him on films, but without any evidence to back it up. I could be wrong but I think this means if a deity talks to you, gives you a special mission, then it’s GT.

But the part that Brian Sapient doesn’t seem to understand is misrepresenting MEL’s quote, and used that to call someone else delusional. It has nothing to do with Christianity, but rather with a choice to assert someone was delusional based on a faulty interpretation of the DSM-IV. I’ll take the time to add some quotes later when RRS falls to argumentum ad hominem and ad hominem tu quoque.

Enclosed are quotes by the new RRSresponds account.

it's to support my belief that Brian resorted condescending argumentum ad hominem because actions taken by the RRS were in poor taste without any rational justification. A video segment from someone who's diagnosed with schizophrenia to prove your point that she, according to you, is also delusional (GT) like other "christians" without any evidence the person in question was a Christian.

---

How much you want to bet? And can we will the bet to our descendants if it doesn't happen in our lifetime?

I guarantee an expansion of delusional disorders to include more religious people by DSM-7, I think there's a shot for 6 as well.

The above statement is another chance for anyone who lied and stated that JSresponds "pwned" us to now admit you were wrong. Go ahead... dishonest shitbags.

What I had seen of her before I had always enjoyed her views, I see her spiraling into a bad hole here and feel bad.

You think she made it private so that nobody would see her husbands repetitve hypocrisy? Or do you think it's because her husband made 30 comments on it criticizing her fair use and whining that she never asked permission?

Wow. Just wow. You should put it back up.

They are doing more harm to her than good. Mels friends aren't very good friends, they try, they're just not good at it. C for effort guys.

This reminds me, I need to go ask the post office if it is ok to put a stamp on a letter. I know it's legal, but I should double check just in case.

We didn't mean to insult her in any way more than we would insult any theist.  In fact I had a lot of respect for her research attempts (even though it was wiki). A real prick could've have been a total ass about how she acts on cam. I took the high road, and because the delusions run so deep in the deid-mels household they tricked themselves into a false reality.

Had mels told me before a few comments and no vid responses were posted I would have in fact gladly taken it down. Mels delusions prevented her from seeing that she would be stifling conversation, and was more concerned with herself and how she appeared. Yet her appearance was no different, in fact it made her look better than all of her other material.

It's enough already.

Learn logic. Mean spirits and self righteousness do absolutely nothing to the validity of the argument. If you think so, then you've been exposed as a poor thinker (atheist or theist).

Don't substitute words: I said "converse." Our president claims to shoot the shit with a magical being. Not calling it a disorder isn't for any distinction from things recognized as such. If you're saying it's not likely to be recognized because it's too popular or too mainstream, then that's arguable, but it's not for a lack of delusion and irrationality. There are, of course, other factors to consider -- the culture itself, indoctrination -- which push otherwise sound minds into adopting incoherent beliefs. I don't get what he means in saying that all society would have to be lumped in with religion, had it been classified a mental illness.

They should try to clear the air with Mels if they want to continue exploring the topic, cos this is just turning into personalities and politics. Regardless of who lobbed the first volley, the issue of insensitivity has to be addressed now, IMO.

I'm curious how religion ought to be classified under the current definition. That is: a confidence that there's an invisible being concerned with your every thought and action. It's not rational, but why isn't it considered a disorder? Because of the way it comes about through cultural conditioning?

It's not rational. I won't pretend it is.

This gent explains it better than my self, but basically belief in a sky daddy is a societal norm. Evidence is a subjective thing, one could consider life it self as evidence of a sky daddy. It’s presented as fact at a young age, and is affixed to our minds. It may be the belief that a sky daddy is concerned with our daily lives, or just some mythical figure who jumpstarted the universe and sparked abiogenesis. For others a theology could represent spirituality where one develops a heart and mind connection, or Dualism as is the case of René Descartes believing the sum of the parts is greater (…the soul, though which, I am what I am).
Abstract thought, or belief in things of a metaphysical nature, in them selves is not considered to be delusional.   

Fundamentalism on the other hand, is far closer to what one might consider a disorder like Narcissistic Personality Disorder, where belief is so firm that all other opinions are ignored.  This can be seen in Theism as well as atheism. 

Truth is subjective. Fact is absolute.

The implications of defining theism as a mental disorder are stagering, I didn't get it at first

"Violent true believers are characterized by stereotype thinking, belief in the superiority of their belief system, indifferent attitude to people with other belief systems, arrogance and disdain, fanatism, hostility, justification of their violent behavior and lack of critical self-reflection and rigidity." Hoffner 1951

The DSM had the role in Brian and Kelly's campain. Chaotheist as nice enough to point out that after being debunked Brian also flat out lied, or googled to pull a fact out of his arse, about Albert Ellis [rational emotive behavior theripy (REBT)]to support the theist is a mental disorder. "{Brian}You deflect this how people were criticizing you because it was insulting to theists to say theism is a mental disorder when you {Brian} completely ignore all the people who said you were insulting THE MENTALY ILL" "And you {Brian} have to trivialize what they are going though by tying it to your fucking petty crusade" --Chaotheist

The issue wasn't theology. The issue was melsbasketcase's objection to "insulting THE MENTALY ILL". I'll have to dig up her citations. I'll have to dig up my own as well but in the field of mental health, theological belief is often used as a foundation to resolve larger mental issues. But needless to say the issue wasn't theology, but rather Brian and Kelly's choice to use someone who is a mental patient as a guinea pig for their social experiment on how people react to the idea of theism as a mental disorder, and the accusation that someone who disagreed with the idea, regardless of specific theology being known, was accuced of being delusional.

"A real prick could've have been a total ass about how she acts on cam." "Jesus Christ, there is no way to show mel in a flattering light. Any twitch or odd expression she gives shows up every few seconds. It is you who is making fun of her by saying she was painted in a negative light. We simply used the part of importance, there are odd twitches every few seconds. Damn you assholes for making me debunk you as you force me to speak the truth which is: Mel looks bad all by herself, she doesn't need my help." -- RRSresponds

But if that wasn't bad enough, Brian trivialized her early complaints about footage used from her vid which did totally misrepresent her position, and attempted to show how she defined delusional disorder grandiose type applied to a guy trying to use Pascal’s wager to defend his faith. Which again, a mental patient was objecting to use of her material to liable someone else, and threating to sue her for this objection.

This is not an issue about religion, or censorship. It's the direct violation of a person's rights who just so happens to be in a protected class.

It presents a very dangerious a precedent. The moment the minority classes the majority as sub-human, we have a form of apartheid. This is not rational(tm).

Hope this helps... stay rational

I'll reiterate.  Keep lying about me here, and we wont pay for you to post your bullshit on our site.

 For the record, the Chaotheist lied about me lying.  You in turn as a very poor thinker, took a poor thinkers word on it. 

 I made a video responding to Chaotheist yesterday, hopefully I'll be able to edit and upload this week before he continues to make people ignorant, as he did in your case.  

Was it his smile that got you?  It didn't fool me, I recognized it for what it was: a security blankie.

I am always drawn to conversations where laymen discuss legal matters.  You have stated that the issue is the rights of an individual.  You have also stated that this is not a First Amendment issue.  Can you define what "individual rights" this is about then?

As for the First Amendment issue, Brian is correct.  These interactions via the internet are strongly tied to that issue.  The members of the RRS have every right to attempt to figure out rantings when they are directed at the site.  You dislike the conclusions drawn based on the information provided.  I would advise you counter the conclusions and avoid attempting to impinge on the First Amendment rights of others.

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

{FIXED QUOTE} 

Yes, but many people believe there is a man in the sky who changes reality and does not follow the law of physics. These people believe that he is always there watching them and that he will hurt them if they do not do as he says.

That sounds like what you have just described as a schizophrenic, but when you call the man, "God," it is suddenly socially acceptable.

{FIXED} 

A psychiatrist has the ability to involuntarily commit someone for 72 hours without a probate magistrate's intervention.  The magistrate has ten days without further review to commit the person.  After that ten days, an appointed or elected probate judge must revisit the issue on a biweekly basis.  I am well versed in the realm of probate courts.

As for people behaving in society, if all schizophrenics were placed on the same island without their medications, I suspect that they would find a societal norm in which they could function.  If everyone hears scary voices, then they will agree that those voices are real.  Now, drop a sane person amongst them.  That person says the voices are not real.  Are the schizophrenics still in the right?

HA HA! The first time I was on a psych ward a lady thought I was Elian Gonzalez. The lady who muttered prayers under her breath in group thought the Elian Gonzales lady was crazy. All of us were hearing voices and we did not agree on their origins.

It is like Jim Jones and Scientology. Both movements started by ill people. I find that once the ill have followers in their delusion they are somewhat at fault.

I find the people who are solitary in their delusion to be more honest. Not a single soul from my family or friends would agree with me that the voices were real. I am glad for that. It can be harrowing to hear voices and be paranoid all the time.

I am not impinging on the First Ammendment rights of others. I respect the fact that Brian Sapient is a journalist. He pays for a website, has a radio show. I am for the right to make a total ass out of one's self. Harrassing anyone with a mental disability is something I take exception to. Unless you believe intimidation or abusive behavior toward someone with a disability is approperate and a first amendment right. Thinking someone is delusional is different than saying someone "IS" delusional. Asserting that someone who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia is also delusional, backing up this up by claiming the RRS has the resources to make this judgement, because their views on mental illness are different is the objection.

I hope that in helping others to understand this issue will go far to promoting understanding, rather than reinforcing an existing stigma.

{Mod edit: fixed quotes}

I am not impressed with the film.  If Ashetheraven wishes, he may come and argue his point.  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.

I have not seen Brian speak with any ONE person in mind.  He is referring to a group of individuals and has every right to do so.

Brian has not cried fire in a crowded theater.  There is no risk of immediate harm to the group due to the speech.  It will not cause immediate public harm.

Finally, Brian is not a governmental actor.  Therefore, his speech does not fall under current US common law with regard to speech against any group.

So, he has broken no First Amendment exception, but you want an apology.  The answer should be "No."  If your instistance on an apology were agreed to, you would be constraining his First Amendement rights.  You may not like his speech, but that gives you zero right to constrain it.

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.