Leaving the efficacy of being controversial for the time, here are two quotes from your blog entry (which I hope I'm not taking out of context):

So, are you're saying that "theism is not a mental disorder" then? If this is so, then please refrain from suggesting otherwise. Whether or not you're deliberately trying to cause controversy, I can't see why stating things you don't believe are true will help your cause. If you're not a pedant, I think theists will pick it up.

What I believe you are saying is that "theism is often coupled with mental disorders." That is an assessment that I can agree with, after having read yours and others' arguments.

I do in fact agree with a great deal of your commentary here. There's just one other thing I'd like to pick up on:

Apologies for the condescending "please think things through" - ironically, I didn't think that statement through :S.

It's not that I want to avoid the stigma of being an atheist. That's not the point. I have argued with theists in the past without issue. My disagreement was purely that theists can get stuck on such statements, which can make a meaningful discussion harder.

Finally, as for the effect of provoking responses from theists, I can only say that I have had a singular bad experience from this. Someone I know who has lost faith in the church refuses to read any Dawkins, on the premise that he's "arrogant and unlikable". So that's where my bias comes from. Then again, maybe he was just giving an excuse not to think about it.

[Edit:] Oh. Finally, finally:

Love it!

You are taking it out of context.  Theists often say that "theism isn't the problem, religion is."  Specifically, religion is the outward manifestation of theism, in the same way that repetetive suicide attempts are an outward manifestation of bipolar disorder.

Suicide attempts are not a mental disorder.  However, the underlying condition, bipolar disorder, is.

If you go back and reread the thread that Kelly was responding to, you'll see the distinction.

Give the man a cigar!

Seriously, if you don't have any background in psychology, just think about your observations for a bit, and I think you'll see that this happens a LOT, and not just to theists.

Why do you think power words are used so much in political ads?  People vote based on the slogans they've heard -- much more often than on actual knowledge of the candidates.  There was a poll taken in my home state during the last presidential race, where 100 voters were asked what they thought of Kerry's voting record as a congressman.  Ninety-eight of them, after giving their opinion, confessed to never having independently looked at any part of Kerry's voting record.

It's the same with Dawkins, et al.  (And maybe RRS, to some degree??)  Once they have been sufficiently tarred with the epithet, "arrogant and condescending," people who have never even heard them speak or read their books will join in, parroting what those around them have said.

Furthermore, and this is probably even more detrimental, there's something called confirmation bias that gets into the mix.  Have you noticed that sometimes you will be thinking of a song, and you turn on the radio, and there it is?

Have you noticed that when that happens, many people jump to the conclusion that it's karma, or fate, or god, telling them something?  They never stop to think about the tens of thousands of times they've been thinking of a song and it hasn't immediately played on the radio?  That's confirmation bias.  We count the hits but ignore the misses.

If one person at RRS is arrogant in one post, the effect multiplies because people don't think about the ninety-nine posts in which the same person was polite.  We are judged primarily by the hits, not the misses.

Furthermore, there's another effect, and the name eludes me because I haven't had an ounce of caffeine today.  When we have a preformed conception of someone, and then we meet them, or read their writing, for the first time, we are much more likely to believe our preconception than if we went in with no prior knowledge.  In other words, our capability to judge the person objectively changes based on the strength of our existing belief.

(Hint: this is also one reason why theism is SOOOO difficult to leave.  From childhood, people are taught that they are 100% sure that god exists.  This makes any other statement extremely difficult to judge objectively.)

Delusion: Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

(dictionary.com) 

Having spent a great deal of time around theists (I consider myself a Recovering Catholic) and not quite as much time (but likely a lot more time than the average person) in the company of people with "genuine" mental illnesses I can tell you one thing for certain: At least the mentally ill people try to use their mental faculties to the best of their ability. And on a personal note, given the choice, I would prefer their company to that of some proselytizing sanctimonious prick. I also find it easier to trust the mentally ill, they are far more earnest, and are far more honest with themselves, so can therefore be more honest with you.

The theists, including the dreaded JoHoes (jehovah's witnesses), mormons and pentacostals, couldn't care less about critical thinking because that would mean they would have to take personal responsibility for their thoughts, actions and lives, and their tightly controlled faerie world would unravel pretty quickly. I feel it's intellectual laziness on their part to put their lives in the hands of (insert name of imaginary being/force/idea/whatever here).

Fortunately for most mentally ill people there are drugs and therapy available to help them. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for theists (My apologies to the Rev. Jim Jones). Until religion is recognized as detrimental to individuals in particular and society in general the adverse affect on life will continue.

Sorry, but I took a cue from Kelly and use "religion" and "theism" as interchangeable terms.

Many of your answers are quite good. I would like to see what the DSM IV has to say about religion as a menta illness. I trust that source more that i do your speculations.

Yes, there is no proof yet that the guy who cut his hand off was crazy, I mean really crazy (yet). But, c'mon, no one cuts their hand off to get into the kingdom of heaven unless their nuts, most likely.

But that whole idea of cutting your hand off or ripping your eye out (if it offends God) has got to be metaphoric.

It's an extreme metaphor, but it simply means STOP doing those things that offend God. If it were literal, we'd have reports of very devote early Christians cutting their hands off and plucking their eyes out.

I'd like some good psychological evidence that religious belief is a form of mental illness (not just David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.). Real evidence. I haven't seen it yet.  

It could be that there's an evolutionary basis behind beliefs in gods, ghosts, and spirits, etc. And if it's part of our evolutionary inheritance (although the last 400 years of the European Enlightenmment has helped us be more rational), it would be a bit bold to claiom that religious beliefs are now a form of mental illness (especially when harldly anyone doubted these beliefs except in the last 400 years). Were all of our ancestors mentally ill, from 400 years ago and beyond? Or were they just irrational? Beiring in mind that being irrational does not constitute mental illness.

Religion is better described as a crutch used by people with everything from run of the mill laziness and need to belong to those with serious psychiatric disorders.

Certainly there are occasions when the deluded and the delusional coincide, but the man in the original hand chopping story might have read lord of the rings if he hadn't had the bible to guide him in his insanity. 

I think it is more then fair to call religion outside the bounds of reason, but the bounds of sanity are actually a bit wider then reason.  As much as we may want to medicate and treat the religious, it is counter to the ideals of living in a free and open society.

 I appreciate what you guys are doing, and think there ought to be more give and take between the religious and the non-believers.  That said, I think slander for the sake of pissing people off is a bit less then productive.  I am not a closeted atheist and take on the religious for their  bigotry and arrogance.  

 We need two kinds of messages, those that rally the troops and those that convert the agnostics and the non-practicing.  I don't see how this is either.

PS: In the Kirk Cameron debate, you should have pointed out that their "painting" that must have a "painter", was indeed a print that must have had a printer.

Charles, I think you're overlooking a couple of really important facts. First, there have been several court ordered hand severings in Iran this year. Iran (Persia) has been around for a damn long time, and in its history, there have been millions and millions of people who didn't think that line was metaphoric.

You think it's got to be metaphoric because your perception of reality is so rooted in essentially European ideals of justice that anything else seems inconceivable. Consider for a moment that in Iran, it is absolutely inconceivable that a woman would ever be able to represent herself in a divorce suit against her husband in court, yet that has happened thousands of times in just one year in America.

Morality and reality are not nearly so objective as any one person would like to believe, and it's naive at best to think that because you can't find a way to take the bible literally, that nobody else could without being crazy in a way the DSM IV recognizes.

If you are going to suggest that anyone who does physical harm to themselves in the name of religion is DSM crazy, you're going to have to include a LOT of people. If you include mental harm, you're going to have to include exponentially more.

The question begins to become clearer when you think of it this way -- if a very large percentage of the religious do physical or mental harm to themselves or others, and they wouldn't have done it but for their theism, does theism attract crazy people, or is theism itself a kind of disorder?

Forgive me, but I think this is a crutch.  Religion is indoctrinated into people when they are too young to know any better.  The beliefs shape their entire lives, and they were never "crutch-less."  A crutch is a temporary brace used to give time for otherwise healthy bones to heal.  If the bones are so brittle that they will always break without help, we say someone has a disease.

(I recognize that people with bone diseases use crutches.  I'm trying to address the meaning of the metaphor, not to make it a perfect analog.)

It's very painful, and even more controversial, to consider the idea that two thirds of the planet's population have something wrong with their brains that keeps them from being able to think and function properly, but we can't rule it out simply because it's a painful idea.  To say that religion is a crutch is missing the point.  Most of the religious people in the world never had an option to be anything other than religious.  The crutch analogy fails.

This is speculative.  People have been getting their hands chopped off in Iran for centuries as part of the law.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that since you would never chop your own hand off for religion, that nobody else would.   Also, think about the mass insanity that has been wrought in the name of religion.  The suicide bombers that have been attacking various targets all over the world are well trained, intelligent men.  You've read the profiles of the 9/11 bombers, right?  These were not dumb shits.  They were respected, educated men.

If you are American, your only first hand observation of religious indoctrination is American Christianity.  While it is pretty crazy in some ways -- creationism, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay, etc, current history doesn't record much in the way of doling out death.  However, you should remember the witch hunts, only a few centuries ago, in which the government, made up of the most learned men in the community, sanctioned and led the persecution of so many innocents.  Think for a moment about the number of gay christians who could be living happily with someone they actually desire if only Christians would read a little science and realize that homosexuality is rampant all through the animal kingdom, and we know that it is not a choice.

Labelling every Christian who does something stupid as insane is just as disengenuous as labeling all atheists as angry malcontent goths.

 [I think it is more then fair to call religion outside the bounds of reason, but the bounds of sanity are actually a bit wider then reason.  As much as we may want to medicate and treat the religious, it is counter to the ideals of living in a free and open society.]

Redrover, religion IS a description of reality.  If it is believed by someone, than that person's perception of reality is irrational.

If sanity is the state of perceiving religion accurately, then people who believe religion are not sane.

I don't.  I believe religion is harmful and detrimental to society, and I want everyone to abandon it.  There's no middle ground there. 

You obviously haven't seen the google traffic reports.  The troops are rallying.

The beliefs shape their entire lives, and they were never "crutch-less."

 Does that somehow make of it less of a crutch?  It's a crutch forced on people, it limits thier growth in many ways, and encourages their dependence.  But a bad idea and a mental illeness are two very different things.

 If sanity is the state of perceiving religion accurately, then people who believe religion are not sane.

 Accurate perception is not the definition of sanity.  Everyone that has a wrong idea is not mentally ill.  You would have some real trouble finding a sane person if that were the case.  Are republicans all insane?  Was every Nazi insane?  Nope, human minds in perfect working order take lots of shortcuts and need to feel part of a group more then they need to answer every question before them.

 And your point is?

People have been doing lots of terrible things for centuries.  Since most people in the history of time have been religous, there is almost a 100% correlation between bad things and being religious.  But that doesn't mean that one always causes the other or that gettign rid of religion will somehow cure all those problems.

 "Rampant" is a bit of an overstatement.  Not that many animals mate for life and very rarely do animals pair with the same sex for life.  Animals lick and touch each other without regard for gender, but that is hardly the same thing.  And so what if it were a choice, people oughta be able to love whom they please.

That off topic bit aside, homosexuality has been embraced by some religions and I think even with no christian influences alot of people would still have hang ups about sex. 

I don't.  I believe religion is harmful and detrimental to society, and I want everyone to abandon it.  There's no middle ground there.

 Yeah, I guess I don't disagree. But if it is a mental illness, then abandoning it might be a little tricky.  We should get everyone to abandon Schizophrenia too while we are at it.

You obviously haven't seen the google traffic reports.  The troops are rallying.

 Yeah, missed that one.  No possibility that a shocking name for a post got lots of folks to check it?

Well, once everyone gets to this rally, what's the plan?  Call religious people names until they give up and admit how right we are?

Labeling every Christian who does something stupid as insane is just as disengenuous as labeling all atheists as angry malcontent goths.

 First of al, I did not do the first thing, this blog did.

Second, as a life long atheist, son of an atheist, grandson of an atheist, and the sibling and friend of Atheists, I have never once heard any atheist referred to as an "angry malcontent Goth".

 Projecting much?

 You seem to hate religion because it has victimized you.  You are right to do that.  But the fact that religion does bad things is not evidence that is is not true. 

Redrover, are you trying to be a turd?

Did I not address this in the next paragraph? I was addressing the meaning of the common usage of the crutch analogy. Are you trying to misrepresent me, or did you just skip a paragraph? Did I not mention this exact objection?

Again, I have addressed this. I separated theism from innacurate perceptions by noting that theism is a model of reality. We say someone is insane when their entire framework of reality is skewed. This is synonymous with theism, as I demonstrated.

I thought it was quite clear. Theism was the external impetus for their actions. Their skewed model of reality, not chemical imbalance, caused their actions.

There is also an extremely high correlation between atheists and people who do not do heinous things. Have you looked at jail statistics? Significantly less atheists -- proportionally -- in jail than theists.

No, it's not. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of higher animal species that have a consistent, statistically significant homosexual/bisexual population.

Would you like to make another strawman? Homosexuality was an example of a particular break from reality. There was no implication that all theism subscribes to the same breaks from reality.

As I've said before, theism is not like schizophrenia. There are mental disorders, like PTSD that are caused by external forces. Theism is one such disorder. If we never sent men into combat, there would never be combat-induced PTSD. If there was no religion, there would never be religious induced insanity.

Why don't you do some reading. Check out the RRS Authors section. You'll see that we have extensive resources available, everything from science to philosophy to logic to editorials. Our site is extensive. If you learned everything in just our RRS Authors section, you'd be quite a bit smarter than when you arrived. I don't claim to know half of it, myself. I write within my specialties, as do the others. There's more here than any one person could absorb effectively.

Seriously, redrover, why don't you stop whining about our marketing and check out our content. Instead of wasting our time and yours, you could be learning about stuff you didn't even know you didn't know, and I could be doing my research and writing instead of defending the site against someone who could be helping if he wasn't bitching about semantics.

Did I say you said it?  Project much?

Awesome for you.  Seriously.  I'm glad you live in a place that's better than most.   You're very lucky to have a family of atheists.  Most of us have not been so lucky.

You seem to think you know a lot about me.  

If you'd stop bitching for long enough to consider all the evidence, I think you'd understand our position better.  Do you really think we're just saying this without any reason?

Instead of attacking us, why don't you ask us for clarification?  Why don't you ask specific questions about the definitions of "mental disorder," or "insane" or anything else?  You're not being constructive or trying to learn.  You're just preaching at us.  We have a strong case.  Why don't you try to understand it fully before you argue against it?  Wouldn't that be a bit more rational than reacting angrily to what you think, but don't know for sure, to be wrong?

On that note, what is your definition of 'insane' and 'mental disorder'? 

I don't use the word "insane" scientifically.

A mental disorder is a condition in which an individual experiences inordinant distress or disability as a result of reduced, impaired, or altered mental ability.  Mental disorders can be caused by genetic, chemical, or environmental factors, including physical and mental abuse or mistreatment.

There are tons of categories, including psychotic disorders, developmental disorders, personality disorders, eating disorders, anxiety disorders.  The list could go on for a long time.

Psychology does not have a universally agreed upon definition, but for my purposes, I regard anyone who experiences a chronic state of inability to perform otherwise normal cognitive tasks to have a mental disorder.

For the purposes of this definition, "normal" refers to the abilities of a person of average mental faculties, given the knowledge he possesses, assuming no outside coercion or ulterior motives.

Not my intention to be a turd or to attack.

It's my intention to be a little bit of a devil's advocate and add my voice and my point of view to those who advocate for athiesm.  Although I don't think athiests should restrain thier response to religion, we should keep the upper hand by keeping our arguements based on the same thing as our beliefs, reason.  THere are plenty of emotional reasons to hate religion and plenty of scornful insults we can lob in its direction, but in a battle of emotions atheists are still outnumbered 100million to one in this world.

Not saying this arguement is solely an emotional one, but it seems the way it is defended even amoungst atheists is very emotionally charged.

Perhaps in our quest to label religion mental illness, we should not forget the emotions that accompany being an oppressed minority.  We are not well served by them.

 I stand by my crutch metaphor.

You're being much more reasonable now. Thank you.

Please don't forget that appeal to emotion works both ways. Just because there is an emotional appeal to an argument, it doesn't make it either true or false. If our classification has merit, it has merit, even if it is being voiced by an emotional minority.

I respect your decision not to call theism a mental disorder. I hope you will continue to keep an open mind, and not base your decision on the emotional repulsiveness of calling such a large part of the population mentally disordered.

No. Atheists are the fourth most populous category, behind only Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

We account for anywhere between 13 and 18 percent of the American population. We are outnumbered approximately 8 to 1 in America.  Worldwide, it's about 3.5 to 1.

You know, some used to label homosexuality as a mental disorder.

It was in the DSM and everything.  Some continue the belief and try to treat it.

 I's pretty facsist stuff.  

At the core of my concern with this whole line of reasoning is that this is getting remarkably similar to that.

 Part of what I like about atheism is that we are supposed to know that we can't know, while religious folks claim to know the nature of the universe and enforce it on people through plenty of brutal and abusive methods.

Does love fit this definition? It most certaintly causes people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.

We account for anywhere between 13 and 18 percent of the American population. We are outnumbered approximately 8 to 1 in America.  Worldwide, it's about 3.5 to 1.

 What is your source for these numbers?

The US numbers seem about right, and I bet we have a good showing in places like europe and japan, but the middle east, and the third world have a whole lotta people whom are pour hungary and uneducated.  Hard to believe a third of those folks are atheists. 

I found this:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0074.pdf

but then again it's from 2001 So '01 had a population of 14% with no religious affiliation.

So I see the point that atheists aren't that much of a minority. 

A perceptive question, and a good example of just how nebulous our definition of mental disorder is.  If we wanted to (I certainly don't), we could go a long way with this.  Infatuation has been proven to diminish our capacity for rational thought.  Normal brain function is damn hard to describe, which makes abnormal even harder.  I'm not going to address this much more because as perceptive as this question is, it doesn't really pertain to the topic.  Whether love is or not has no bearing on whether theism is.  (Love and PTSD are not very similar, for instance.)  If anything, it highlights the need for a more precise definition, but it does nothing to rule out theism as a dangerous disorder.  If they change the definition, we might be forced to change our position.  As it stands, theism fits.

Other things to consider:  Van Gogh was certainly insane, as were Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Berlioz, Schumann, and hundreds of other famous artists.  Certainly, abnormal brain conditions can have potentially positive side effects.  This gets into an interesting, but not really relevant, normative discussion of the relative value of the contributions of individuals versus their own happiness, etc.

I do not propose to revolutionize psychology, nor do I pretend that our current definition is either complete or completely accurate in what it does address.   Frankly, I don't care too much about the definition.  Truthfully, I don't even give a damn whether theism ever gets listed in the DSM.  What I care about is getting people to realize how theism affects the brain.

The only country with a legitimate beef against the US economic policy in the Middle East was Iraq, but this is a subject I won't delve into here.

I just cought this tidbit from kelly.  WTF?  study mideast foreign policy much?  We are most hated by Saudis becase our financial system props up their dictatorship.  How about the millions and millions of people all over the region that live in poverty while our economic system pays their non democratic leaders billions for oil? You don't think they have reason to hate us? 

This comment stemmed that someone supposed that it would be possible for 9/11 to occur without radical islam.  I think they are right to suppose that it is possible.  Perhaps sucide bombings are harder to pull off without promises of virgins, but I think an attack of somekind could still have been attempted by someone. Religion is not the route of all evil.  Some evil is made without need of a holy book.

Redrover.. Dude.  I said worldwide.  I did not say uniformly.

 I take a lot of time making sure I use the words that convey precisely the meaning I intend.  Please try to do me the courtesy of giving me the benefit of the doubt and reading my words precisely.

Thanks.  Off the top of my head, I said fourth.  This source says third.  I've seen some disagreement.  Just look for any official census compilations on google.  It's not hard.

From http://www.adherents.com/ 

Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.5 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9. Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million

but then again it's from 2001 So '01 had a population of 14% with no religious affiliation.

No religious affiliation does not always equate to atheism.

And the term "minority group" is not a calculation of numbers.

 For instance, women are considered a minority group although their longevity ussually means they are more then half the population.

Redrover, I'm honestly not trying to bust your balls today.  This is a good topic for discussion, and I'd love to see it get as much attention as it deserves, but it's not relevant to this thread.  Please don't get into this discussion on this thread, but feel free to start a new post about it.  I think it's a great topic.

I agree completely on all counts.  Suicide bombing, war, and atrocity are not possible only through religion.  However, it's wrong to say that since it's not the only possible cause, it should be left alone.  It's the cause we've chosen to fight, and we simply don't have enough hours in the day to fight all the causes of nastiness in the world.

Ok.  Now I'm busting your balls.  Are you just trying to find some way to be right?  Dude, you said a million to one.  That's clearly wrong.  It's incredibly wrong.  It's so wrong that it needed to be pointed out.  Does it matter if it's 8:1 or 9:1 or 7:1?

The point is that there are a lot of atheists in the world.  You seem insistent on getting off topic.  You aren't a sock puppet for Cpt_Pineapple, are you?

(That's a joke aimed at Pineapple.  Pay it no mind.)

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious

In that article it combines non religios with atheists.  It says that 50% of the no religious are half thiestic.

 Meaning 8% of the world is non-thiestic and only some subset of those are truely atheistic.

meaning 92% of the world believes in supernatural powers of some kind. 

Did you read my last post?

After I had posted.

I was using hyperbole when I said a million to one.

We are infact outnumbered.  There are about 5.5 billion more religios people in the world.

 Not a small army of emotional believers.

Considering the DSM used to list homosexuality as a mental disorder and that theism isn't currently listed as a disorder, I trust Kelly's "speculations" more than the DSM.  Adding to that, the group of the APA (Division 36) that deals with the psychology of religion is the former American Catholic Psychological association I don't see why you'd be trusting the professional conmen over Kelly.  Yes, I refer to priests and doctorates of theology as conmen.

The reason we don't see those things is because Christians don't actually believe the things they claim to.  As Daniel Dennett wrote, they merely believe in belief.  This problem of course relates to compartmentalization which is derived from the inabilty to think clearly or if you will, a disordered brain. 

What would suffice as evidence?  Listing in the DSM?  If it's listed in the DSM would you discount it on the grounds that the DSM has made hundreds of mistakes over the course of it's history?  

Have you ever heard of a person who martyred themselves to meet up with 72 virgins in an imaginary nonexistent paradise that anyone thinking critically can easily ascertain is, well imaginary?   If you don't think that such action is derived from a brain in disorder than we happily disagree with you, and see this all as a difference of opinion.

As I alluded to in a previous post, the trouble I have is that love could very well fit into this description.

Hell, a lot of things could fit into your definition of 'mental disorder'.

[edit]

Translation: I think your purposly altering your definition to include Theism in it. 

[/edit] 

How about we leave the science to the scientists.

What would suffice as evidence?  Listing in the DSM?

 Yes, Exactly. A group of proffessionals studying religion and seeing if it fits the definition they give to mental illness.  Peer review, the whole bit.

Some sort of irrational belief syndrome would just be silly in its implication. What do you think about those that believe in UFO's, Ghosts, luck, fate, people that think their dog understands them, conspiracy theorists?  Do we medicate and treat all them too?  I

 Brave New World much?

Why in the hell is it so difficult to make any kind of statement without everybody going off the fucking deep end and saying that we're advocating the exact kind of thing we fight against?

Let me put this in really, really big letters.  Maybe that will help.

RRS does not think, nor are we trying to prove, that all, or most, or even a significant portion of theists need to be on medication.  We are completely against forcing anyone (outside of convicted criminals deemed to need medical incarceration) to take any medication.

Does that help?  Let's see how many posts before someone else accuses us of the same thing.

You know that they treat people with a diagnosis of a DSM disorder right.  So, you think just counciling then?

 My point wasn't about drugs, it is about the arrogance of having a state (or medical community) sponsored version of reality and therapy of any kind trying to enforce that reality.  

The DSM is not part of the government.  It's part of the medical community.

Yes, I know people with disorders CAN be treated, and the AMA and FDA get a little feisty when people start asking to treat things that aren't in the DSM.  We want people to have the OPPORTUNITY to be treated.

That's the point!

Ok.  In really huge letters this time:

THE RRS DOES NOT ADVOCATE FORCING ANYONE INTO TREATMENT FOR ANYTHING.  AT ALL.  ZIP.  ZERO.  ZILCH.  NADA.  

Now, in a different font:

THE RRS DOES NOT ADVOCATE FORCING ANY KIND OF TREATMENT ON ANYONE.

THE RRS DOES NOT ADVOCATE FORCING ANYONE TO GET TREATMENT FOR ANYTHING.

Is that relatively clear?

Not trying to be a dick here, but can we keep the discussion to normal sized letters.

 I used the word "enforce", but that was within the context of therapy.  If someone asked their counselor, "Does god exist?"  THey would be compelled to say, "No, that's a belief of those with a disorder."  

I'm not trying to be a dick either, Red. I'm trying to figure out a way to communicate a very simple idea, and no matter what I say, it's not sinking in.

In the context of going out of your house, you're likely to run into someone who will tell you that god doesn't exist. It's not exactly priviledged information.

There are many doctors and pharmacists who have personal beliefs that differ from the official opinion of the AMA. In cases of prescriptions, therapy, etc, they have to go with what the AMA says because that's reality, such as it is. If you don't want to deal with the reality of abortion, you don't become an OB/GYN.

Does that mean people with invisible friends couldn't be therapists and still get AMA approval? Well, yes. I think having a psychologist that doesn't believe in invisible friends is kind of important.

Having said that, there are lots of "councellors" without degrees or AMA certification. The only thing you need to legally practice telling people how to fix their life is a degree in sociology with a certification in councelling. Furthermore, churches are perfectly free to have "church councellors" who can be "certified" in any manner the church sees fit. All they have to do is not try to prescribe drugs... which you don't want to do for theists anyway.

In other words, it's not the 1984 big brother scenario you imagine. It wouldn't force anyone into treatment, and it most certainly wouldn't end up filling the insane asylums with everyday good folk. It's simply the acknowledgment that Delusional Disorder and Theism are indistinguishable in many cases.

I am getting your point.  At least, the "very simple" ones and I am not suggesting that you ever have advocated forcing treatment.  Get that.

Brave New World and 1984 are indeed, different books.  I was not suggesting a 1984 senario.

 Counselors do not tell people, "How to fix their lives."  They are also not big on defining sanity or reality.  They treat people that have disorders that negatively effect their ability to function and enjoy their life.  The vast majority of religious people would make no such complaint about their beliefs.

Psychologists and Psychiatrists diagnose and treat people with disorders.

Councelors are simply people with or without degrees or qualifications who tell people how to fix their lives.  To be employed by the state, you must have certification, which you can get through the  sociology or psychology department at most accredited universities.

To be employed by yourself or by a church, you need a good marketing department.

Check out the self help section of your local bookstore, and you'll see lots of people who are trying to help people fix their lives, without regard for disorders.

Again, red, you're having a lot of trouble keeping your categories separate. 

To provide counselling services you need to have a minimum psychology or social work degree, most "counselling jobs require a masters degree. It is a liscensed medical profession and it is against the law to practice without a liscence. Their aren't marketing requirements as far as I know. 

Sociology is the study of human societies.  Without a masters in
social work, psychology, psychiatry, or counselling, they could not practice.

Religous institutions can provide some informal counselling.

Folks like Dr. Phil can write all the books they want and give people all the advice they want, but what they do is not considered formal counselling.

If you are talking about the DSM or diagnosing people or getting treatment, you are talking about the medical professionals.

They would all cringe if you asked them if they "fix peoples lives". 

 Yes, I was a Psych major.

Again, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I'm surprised that you were a psych major and have so much trouble figuring out what I'm saying. Again, I said something along the lines of, "If you want to work for a church, etc... you need a good marketing department." That is to say, you can offer your advice and get people to pay for it, but you can't claim to be licensed to do so. In order to sell yourself in this way, you need a good ad campaign. "Marketing" is a subtle way of saying this without having to spell it all out.

Pastors "councel" people all the time, and many of them only have theology degrees, if that.

For licensed jobs, you must have a degree, as I said.

I'm intimately familiar with sociology. I did mean to say social work above, not sociology. Apologies.

Again, they cannot practice as a licensed therapist. They can sell it as something else, so long as they don't misrepresent their status or credentials. This is a very simple distinction.

I've mentioned this, no?

And this.

I've mentioned this.

I'm pretty sure I've made the distinction and acknowledged the difference. Just to be 100% clear, let me spell it out again:

Psychiatrists and sociologists (both scientists, in at least one sense) are concerned with the way things are. Delusional Disorder and Theism are virtually identical, yet one is identified as a disorder, and the other is rewarded with the presidency. This is bad science. Theism needs to be recognized as delusional disorder if, indeed, it does fit all the diagnostic criteria.

Non-licensed therapists, authors, councelors, and pastors are free to tell people anything they wish about what they should believe or how they should live. Getting the psych community on board with the delusional disorder thing has absolutely no bearing on people's abilities to advise people in any way they see fit.

No one is talking about forcing anyone to change anything about the way they live or believe.

Just as doctors are not free to tell patients that there is an imbalance in their humors, psychologists should not be free to tell patients that they need to pray for healing, or that god is real. If someone asks a licensed psychologist (scientist!) if god is real, the most correct answer would be, "There is no evidence that I'm aware of."

I am going to try to simplify this arguement. First let me state that I think when we start to talk about mental disorders we need to be very cautious. The current system we have is flawed. It is a categorical system that works from the top down as opposed to bottom up.

Anyway, people have beliefs about themselves, the world and the future. Bascially the Beck Cognitive Triad. People feel emotions, both positive and negative, and engage in behaviors based upon these beliefs. How I think about myself as a person or how people treat each other in relationships is just as much a belief as someones belief in a higher power, Jesus, YEC, and so forth. In our brains they are all beliefs that drive our thoughts, emotions, and actions. Some beliefs lead do actions and emotions that become maladaptive, distressing and cause significant impairment in the individuals functioning. In other words, the belief has a negative impact in their lives that leads to negative consequences.

According to Cogntive Theory this happens when beliefs are irrational and information processing is distorted because of these beliefs. For example "Nobody will like me," "People are not to be trusted," "The world is a scary place," and "I will always be a failure" are types of irrational thoughts and beliefs that are held by individuals in distress. So, you could surmise that the irrational beliefs of religion cause significant impairment or distress and therefore could be considered mental disorders. For example, the guilt that an individual who is catholic may feel for getting a divorce. "I am unworthy and a horrible person because I defied God." However, there are two huge catches.

1. As said before, the belief has to cause significant impairment and distress.

2. According to Cognitive Theory the beliefs are only activated given certain environmental stimuli or events. In plain terms, social context matters. When we live in a country or a society where these beliefs are accepted, are norms, and are generally reinforced positively by society they cause no distress or impairment.

Conclusion: Irrational beliefs can lead to distressing and maladaptive actions and emotions, but in cases where they are accepted by the larger culture they do not cause impairment.

There is a very significant difference between Delusional disorder and Theism.  People with a DD come up with their delusions on their own! Paranoia is not taught.  No one told John Hinkley Jr. that Jodi Foster was in love with him and that he was the guy from taxi driver.  There are no Sunday morning classes for that shit.

 On the other hand, religion is taught.  Someone telling you something is true is actually evidence that it is true.  Not the best evidence, but evidence none the less.  It's not the result of a psychotic episode.  Thats a huge fucking difference.

Note: Social workers are licensed professionals as well.

You said people without degrees were counselors (one C not two), saying "I mentioned that" does not change that you were wrong. 

 There is no such thing as a "Non-licensed therapist".  A therapist is profession like being a lawyer.  So it is like calling someone a non-licensed lawyer.  Not a bloody lawyer, are they? Just some guy  giving you some legal advice.

Perhaps you should learn something about psychology before you start trying to apply the science to religion.  The only thing you have said that makes real sense is that religious people are crazy.   Everything after that you have been pulling out of your ass.

Ok, I am trying to be a dick now.

Well Said, Rational Schema

That previous comment is for ham the rambo kitty.

My primary arguement is that folks shouldn't throw around medical terms without understanding the basic defition of a Mental disorder.  Certainly belief without evidence or reason is a troubling, and destructive at times, but that does not raise religion to the threshhold of a disorder.

Secondly as someone that likes his personal liberty, I object to any attempt to make ideas into mental disorders.  

 Somehow those ideas have lead to the rambo kitty feeling mighty mis-understood. 

No

Yes, You telling me you have first hand knowledge of everything that you know? 

Ok, look.  We're just playing the word dance here.  I'm really happy for you that you caught me in a typo.  Sociology does not equal social work.  I'll admit it again if it makes you feel better.

How many different ways do you need me to say that I understand the difference between licensed and non-licensed, and therapists, counselors (with one c and one l) and pastors?  If it makes you feel better, I acknowledge your keen understanding of the definitions of the words.  It's a truly staggering display of regurgitation.

I think if you do some digging you'll find that not only are you just being a dick, you're definitely not correct about my education or knowledge.  You've been splitting hairs over whether I've used exactly the correct word, and frankly, you've been wasting my time.  By now, I can't remember, and I'm not going to look, but in one of these threads, I posted the DSM's description of Delusional Disorder, and with the exception of some disagreement over the nature and duration of mood episodes (whether theists experience the same kind of mood episode, primarily), nobody's had anything to say about the fact that all the other symptoms are identical.  The damn DSM even says that mood episodes are not always present.

Yet again, I will say this, as plainly as possible:

1) PTSD and Delusional Disorder were used as examples from the DSM of disorders that have either some or many very similar or identical characteristics as those demonstrated by at least a significant number of theists.

2) I have not, and do not claim, to have the research necessary to defend theism as identical to DD.  I apologize if I was ever hyperbolic in my comparison.   Kelly is the one compiling data and doing research.  I'm in the middle of something completely different, and am over a decade out of college.   I believe that Kelly is pursuing theism as a similar disorder to DD. 

3) I don't remember ever bringing cognitive therapy into the discussion. 

4)  This discussion has gotten absurd.  Red, for the sake of not wasting any more of my time, I am happy to give you the trophy for winning.  You've managed to pull this thing so far off the original topic, and either intentionally or ignorantly stick on points that were either never made or clearly not intended, that I honestly don't even remember what the first damn point was.

Your entire bloody post is not a refutation of anything in psychology.  It's a rant against terminology.  You win.  You are the master of using words in their exact textbook way.  You're really good at it.  You are the man.

Good lord.  Read my first comment.  I basicly say the same thing in my last one as the first.  I object to this use of medical terminology in a non scientific manner and thought a less loaded term like crutch was more appropriate.  You then divided it up line by line to tell me I was wrong.  I responded and four days later and here we are.

 There are some stiking similarities between the DD and Theism(I went and read the DSM description), with one major difference.  The cause.  The PTSD Theist thing is a bit further of a stretch.  last I checked Waking up in the middle of the night screaming is not all that common amongst church goers.

I apologize for the spelling bit, as I am a terrible speller myself I ussually avoid that sort of thing, but as a general rule, one should check the spelling of anything you intend to put in quotations repeatedly.  I was about to ask if that is how it is spelled in England or something. 

This has been noted, and you never responded to my differentiation between crutch in the common usage and your more obscure, and not particularly appropriate usage.

Yes.  So we agree.  They're very damn similar except for the cause.  One disorder is caused by one thing and the other is caused by another.  That's why they will have different names.

PTSD was used as an example of a disorder that is triggered by external stimuli.... like theism.

Which is why I only used PTSD as far as I meant it to be used.. external triggering.

So noted, and accepted.  I trust that you understood my meaning.   For the record, I have written tens of thousands of words worth of original material for RRS.  I think if you go through it, you'll find my spelling to be damn near impeccable.  Perhaps you can forgive me for getting one letter wrong.