Hi. I'm part of the team, and I have two masters degrees in clinical psychology. As soon as I finish up my dissertation, I'll have a doctorate to boot.

So, does this give me the credentials to be the 'cure' for theism? Well, a good deal of my training has to do with helping people to learn how to recognize irrational thoughts and how to dispel them. In fact, you could say that the heart of cognitive therapy itself is helping people recognize and dispute irrational beliefs. The co-founders of cognitive therapy, Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck would both say so - that's what they created the therapy for...

So, if you want to equate theism with an irrational belief - and I do, then I'd have to answer your question with a 'yes'.

That said, I must question the false dichotomy in your claim. Either one is a doctor, or they must reconcile themselves to just unconsciously regurgitating the works of others? I think there's a middle ground here, don't you? Intelligent people without doctoral degrees, who can understand arguments and use them appropriately. Even intelligent non-doctors who create new arguments.

In fact, that describes every doctoral candidate: for in order to become a doctor in the first place, you have to demonstrate novel thinking.

Plenty of people without doctorates have come up with good ideas.... Einstein overturned physics before he received his doctorate.... I think someone can tackle the irrationalism of theism without earning a doctorate first.

But it helps.

People say this all the time, but Rush Limbaugh pulls in millions of listeners, many of them liberals. PBS tends to be more scholarly and civil. No one watches. Well, a few do.

So I really have to question your claim here - yes, we should strive to be civil, but at the same time, its disengenuous for all of us to pretend that we don't like conflict.

In other words, I bet plenty of theists will react to comments such as the one you are about to mention:

Freud had the same concerns and he expressed them in Future of an Illusion. What about those who held onto religion as a crutch?

Well, you can't take someone's crutch away without offering them something better.... either a better crutch, or a cure....

If you are interested, I can tell you more about how Freud answered this question. I think the main problem is that a comforting illusion stops people from maturing.....

One must hold a PhD in philosophy in order to qualify themselves for being able to cure someone's theism? I would think a PhD in Psychology would be much more appropriate anyway. I find many lay people who are great at debunking religion, and helping to rid someone of their irrational theistic beliefs, The Infidel Guy comes to mind. Jake from the atheist network comes to mind as well, and not to toot my own horn but I hear that the 35 deconversions I knowingly helped with, is a very large number. Neither Jake nor Reggie as far as I know, hold college degrees, and they are considered by many to be two of the best voices for atheism the internet has ever offered.

In terms of RRS qualifications, there are about 10 of us that I think are worth mentioning in this case. We clearly have a core (the top 5 listed), however there are quite a few people we are extremely close with and refer to on a day to day basis for a plethora of reasons. You don't always hear some of our most credentialed voices on every show. Many of the members that you don't always hear, get called on for back up work, moderation duties, online debates, suggestions, and for other specific issues. Some qualifications:

Brian Sapient: self taught past HS
Rook Hawkins: self taught past HS

Yellow 5: Bachelors in Chemical Engineering and Microbiology

Kelly: Currently in school Psychology Major, Philosophy Minor

Razorcade: Has a degree, I forget what field

Left of Larry: doesn't play as integral of a role as some of the other members listed, however his role expands daily. I forget his degree, but he might even have a doctorate already. (Larry, feel free to correct me)

Richard Carrier: B.A. History and Classic Civilizations, M.A. and M.Phil in Ancient History, has an ABD doctorate in Ancient History as well.

Chaoslord2004: Currently in school, Philosophy major

Todangst: LPC, Psy M. (both are Masters degrees in Psychology).

RickyRoma: 9 months into a 2 year PhD program (I forget the field), he's also a board moderator here, and ready for online debate as needed.

Proclaim: Degrees in Psychology and Philosophy

Of all the fields there are in social behavior, psychology is the most important in ridding someone of their theism. Theism is irrational. Albert Ellis one of the worlds most famous psychologists specializing in CBT and REBT calls it the most irrational of thoughts.

As for academic qualifications, again, degrees are really unimportant here. My credentials and credibility lie in my arguments. You are tinkering on asserting that without a degree we're not credible, which would be an inverted appeal to authority fallacy of sorts.

That's a false dichotomy. (and I didn't even need a college degree to figure that out. ) As if not having a PhD would mean that the only other option is to be regurgitating arguments. In reality, the irony is that just as many PhD's are likely "just regurgitating" arguments as non PhD's.

A great many of the arguments that RRS members make have been made before us, however some new ones have come out of our team as well. I myself have an argument/hypothesis that we will seek an answer to later with a scientific study. The argument is that "like a snowflake, no two gods are alike." To demonstrate this we will go to a series of Churches and survey as many people as possible from the same sect of Church and seek to find out if they all believe in the exact same version of god, upon answering a string of questions. I presume the answer will be that "no two gods are alike." I also know of quite a few situations in which myself, Rook or IG for example will contrive an argument only to find out someone has made the argument beforehand. This type of argument isn't a regurgitation, it's evidence of a critical thinker that has used logic similar to a past thinker.

The point is, one doesn't have to have a PhD to contrive their own arguments, we aren't "just regurgitating arguments."

Some of the most famous thinkers the world has ever known made their biggest discoveries or wrote their most important works before they ever got a degree. Considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century Wittgenstein wrote his most famous work around 1920, the Tractatus. It wasn't until he went to Cambridge in 1929 to work there that he found he couldn't work there without a degree. Bertrand Russel helped in the process and Tractatus was submitted for Wittgensteins' doctoral thesis. The most important philosopher of the 20th century wrote original thoughts, and lectured on them for 10 years before he had a doctorate.

Oh, also...
Einstein wrote E=MC2 BEFORE he got his PhD.

No. As for flies with honey... I prefer to metaphorically bomb the shit out of the files, and I assure you, I'll catch more.

note: I have to insert "metaphorically" there, or some dumbass will think that I'm either planning or condoning violence, something you're likely never to see me do.

One last note... any theist that takes the time to talk to me who isn't a jerk to me, will find me to be a very gentle, kind, and loving person.

Are you presuming that no theists ever see our banner?

Let's assume for a moment that religious belief does no harm, and actually is a postive, I don't believe such a person exists by the way, but let's assume it. By believing in a god, that person is in effect condoning a system that does more harm then good to others. Theism is the worst irrational belief the world has ever known, it has caused more harm than any other single belief in the history of this planet. To be a theist, even if we assume it does nothing but positive things for one specific theist, is to show other theists that it's ok, one validates the beliefs of another.

I do, many board members here do, other "Squad members" do, countless citizens of the world do... and you should too. Oh, you meant if theism actually does more positive than good for someone. Like I said, I don't think that person exists.

I didn't mean to present the credential vs. regurgitating as a dichotomy. Just meant to present these two extremes and wonder where you fell.

I myself have a BS in Psychology.

I'll add myself to the list, currently in school for Astrophysics.

We are all educated people here, but it is our reason that is most important.

Cool, glad you are not above telling someone else they're right. An admirable trait.

Yes, and my bad for assuming too much. (this goes to the "tone" comment you make below)

On this note we are engaging in memetic warfare. We need people like you! We plant the vile bitter to swallow seed that not many will stomach, and you come in and clean the the crime scene. (how's that for a shitload of metaphors)

Seriously though, people ponder our outrageous wording, they might not accept it, but the "good cop" (you) who has a civil discussion with them, after we are done with them is likely to see more positive affect than had we not said a thing. Out of all of the people who have admitted to being deconverted to me in person, I can't recall many that I used wording like "mind disorder."

So, what am I saying? I guess I agree with you in many regards. However I think we play a necessary role. I've formulated this view over 7 years of online debate. I was the "nothing but pleasant" person for quite a long time. Over the years I've realized that this outlook on how to treat theism is just as important as the more flies with honey outlook. People need a jolt, a shake, a scary wake up call. They're playing with fire.

Recently I found Sam Harris say something that validated my viewpoint, it has become my favorite quote. I've posted it in quite a few places, so my apologies if you've seen it....

From an interview.

This is a relatively new way to look at how we should treat theism, and I think that as time passes, this type of mentality will grow and thrive. Someone feel free to correct me if there has been a time in history where we have gone from the "you should respect every ones beliefs mentality" in society, to "ridiculing those with ridiculous yet commonly held beliefs." I think we are at the forefront of an entirely new mode of thought.

That's good to know, thanks. All is good between us now. I too am much like you. Very kind hearted, I can be a dick, but only if someone deserves it. And I agree that the internet is a breeding ground for misinterpretation.

Nope not a bad one at all I've juggled this around a bunch, and the only issue I have with it is that it doesn't make sense or may seem uninteresting to certain listeners who aren't interested in the board. I use to go on "The Beware of God" show and inform their audience about board happenings in a small segment, at the bare minimum, something like that could go on our show.

Anywho, good idea. I think we should go forward with this depsite my thoughts against it. The positive is maybe it'll entice people to get involved on the boards.