and the majority of children in the Western World grow up to be adults; so leaving
children out of the equation is generous on the presenter's part.


Tikki

You threw out a couple of quotes from linked-to articles that you never read beyond the summary. You then drew spurious conclusions from them to suit your own agenda.

You are factually incorrect. You pretend to present yourself as some sort of 'authoritative' voice on this topic. You lack the education and the training in both the academic and the clinical/professional field of psychology.

There is no consensus for the bullshit you continue to espouse here.

Then feel free to access the actual article.

That is a LENGTHY quote from the author himself. Including an abstract by the author, himself.

If the opinion is bullshit and contradicts the actual professional organizations and its working membership, it is not due equal time or consideration.

The author is a person with 3) extensive psychiatric experience. Who 4) is respected enough in the profession, to teach psychiatry in UCLA Medical School.

His article is well-informed expert opinion.

5) Among other experts he quotes, is Freud himself; who was often called the founder of Psychology.

This is the same singular article presented in a previous discussion.

I already explained then that you have taken it out of context. Appealing to Freud himself as an authority won't change the fact. Hell, I have training in neo-Freudian traditions, and trust me much has changed in the last 120 years even in psychoanalysis.

One article on a one aspect of psychosis does not prove your pet theory as being even remotely accurate or accepted as consensus by the profession.

And he is not alone. Earlier I have shown earlier that the broader literature linking religion to mental illness, occupies about 45% of the field - and is growing rapidly. I then provided a dozen articles as individual examples.

Your view therefore is hardly the "overwhelming majority" or "consensus" that some like you have asserted. Instead, I'd call the religion=delusion the hot new hypothesis on the block. One with very, very considerable professional support.

You just don't appear to want to face the facts; even when we provide evidence over and over again. But Denial is common in believers.

On the other hand? Belief in the absolute authority of consensus is the bourgeois virtue par excellence.

If early Freudianism has changed? Then the early "consensus" changed, after all. Though as far as that goes? The article cited is by Pierre. Who apparently is a psychologist, but a psychiatrist more specifically; and therefore basically Freudian.

1) Consensus in this context is not 'herd rule'. To suggest otherwise disavows what scientific consensus actually is.

2) Only in your dreams is your theory '45%' of the field and 'growing' rapidly. Get off the Google Scholar and out of cyberspace. Ask 100 practicing psychologists and psychiatrists. Get back to me with your statistics then.

3) It is not my personal view. It is the professional position of the organization to which I belong.

4) Project much? I have given you the facts. I have taken the time to dispute your erroneous conclusions. You do not want to accept that you are wrong.

5) Seriously? Bourgeois virtue par excellence? You are a good Marxist I see. So then you accept bigfoot, UFO's, the lack of climate change, and the Flat Earth theory. Those are all rebellious enough to fit your need to reject the consensus of scientific authority.

1) Do you have a scientific consensus? Psychology is at best, known as a "soft science." One of its major definitions of sanity in fact, is merely socially relative, not absolute or scientific: it is whatever passes in a given society. Though whole societies can be wrong.

2) The 45% figure was derived from Koenig's book; currently a major text.

3) Yours is therefore not a strong consensus. What organization do you belong to? Others disagree. The standard diagnostic manual issues different opinions often.

4) Over and over again I have answered your "conclusions."

5) Mere innovation in itself goes not guarantee rightness. But? Perhaps all progress necessarily involves disproving parts of the previous consensus.

Thank you for no longer replying.

But I am curious what you mean by "social illness".

basically she explains how it is stupid for atheists to use the "mental illness" swipe at the religious among us and instead if anything it is a social illness (how religion negatively affects society)

While I support examining how religion negatively affects society, I also support examining how it positively affects society.

I would object to calling it any kind of illness or disease, though.

People being told what to do by space aliens is considered mental illness. Being guided by and communicating with an invisible middle eastern guy who died 2000 years ago is considered healthy. Seems inconsistent. I wish there were more emphasis on critical thinking in education.

Hmm.

Mentally ill people are generally stable and sane overall.

Many religious beliefs fit the definition of mental illness. This isn't an insult, it's an observation.

Yes, most believers could be mentally ill, no, your observation that the believers you know are sane and stable says absolutely nothing.

Try some intellectual honesty for a try.

You either insult me or take my words out of context. Either was I am done talking to you so have a good night.

Said religion should be considered a mental illness by saying the believers you know are sane and stable.

What was your point?

That's why you're running away now. Good night.

After implying mentally ill people are insane and unstable, I think it's a good idea to be done.

That's the problem with giving one sentence responses, it's hard to hide what you're implying.

It's why you won't "explain" what you meant by the post. It was very clear and needed no explanation.

You want to read something into that because you either want an aha moment or whatever go ahead.

said nothing about believers being insane or unstable, which means your post is nonsensical or completely off topic. He does say religion should be classified as a mental illness. So in context, it makes perfect sense for what you were implying.

So "the believers I know are sane" is a reasonable response.

you're making my point...

"Mentally ill" and "insane" are synonyms. Indeed, for most people, they are interchangeable.

And it's part of the reason having a mental illness is so misunderstood and so looked down on.

Since clearly you have set yourself up as an expert on the two.

You don't even have to be an expert, just able to look up definitions. Mental illness is an umbrella term for all sorts of conditions.

You do have to have some level of expertise to know that, I guess.

You said they were the same thing after all.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity

The truth is, it's not extreme to think many people suffer from mild forms of mental illness, and it's not extreme to understand that one of these socially accepted types are certain religious beliefs, like thinking that having sex before a certain ritual is performed will displease an invisible being. Course, sometimes they're less mild then that. In fact, we have whole policies and laws based on delusions.

The problem is that you are not really fluent with the technical terms, so this is becoming very confusing.

Insanity is technically a legal term. It is not used in medicine.

However, in the vernacular it is often used to describe psychosis, which is a medical term.

Psychosis is generally a symptom of a disorder and can be seen in many disorders. However, there is a psychotic disorder where it is the primary or only symptom.

The problem with lay people using medical terms to describe things they do not really understand can be seen clearly in this debate.

And it is why lay people should stop diagnosing people at all.

Religious beliefs are not a mental illness. Period.

You may want them to be, but they are not.

Some psychiatric illnesses present with religious delusions, but all religious people do not have a psychiatric disorder.
Full stop.

To continue to say so may be a symptom of something, and I would pretty much guarantee that it is, but no one should ever diagnose another without an exam.

That would be completely unethical.

Do you see that?

Psychiatric disorders are not subjective ideas. That is an insult to patients and to the professionals that treat them.

This is how people with psychiatric disorders get marginalized and stigmatized. When people like yourself begin defining them in a way that is different than the way you would define other illnesses, you harm them.

Even the term "mental illness" is demeaning and stigmatizing.

These are primarily brain disorders and should be treated as such.

You are perpetuating a harm that needs to stop.

That's the point you continue to miss.

and psychology?

Are you not aware of the data that is used to define the criteria for diagnosing those with psychiatric illnesses?

It appears that you are not.

Your posts often indicate that you function within a realm that is very much like a religion. You have developed a dogmatic set of beliefs that are rigid and not amenable to change, even when presented with data.

It makes it close to impossible to even talk to you.

Feel free to cite all of the brain disorders for which there are objective diagnostic criteria, and to document what those criteria are. Before you accuse people of not changing their thinking in the face of evidence, you first to have to present...evidence. Not just say that the evidence is "out there".

Whether something is a "disorder" or not will always be subjective. Science doesn't answer what's normal or abnormal. We do, and then we may use science or research to categorize what beliefs fit into which subjective category.

I still haven't been shown any reason yet why the belief, for example, that a demon is behind the movement to grant equal rights to homosexuals shouldn't be considered a mental illness. I'm all ears for any reason. I'm sure the research may have something to say on it, though I'm not sure I'd find it convincing.

Nor do I think you really understand medical science and how normal functioning is defined.

Which is going to make it impossible to discuss this with you, as you appear, again, to have developed a hard and fast doctrine that is not amenable to any input or change.

But I wil reiterate that by calling psychiatric disorders subjective, you contribute to the marginalization and ostracizing of those with such disorders. That's really unfortunate.

And by calling religious beliefs a mental illness is a twofer! You can successfully attack religious people as being disordered and minimize the seriousness of psychiatric disorders by saying that the vast majority of people in the world suffer from one!

Congratulations. You win.

And you have done nothing to show otherwise.

There's nothing demeaning about recognizing we use subjective criteria.

I think minimizing certain incredibly harmful religious beliefs because they're "normal" is what's very harmful.

There is normal (which may be a range) and there is pathology.

That's medicine.

It's based on data.

Do you think cancer is subjective? How about diabetes?

When you put psychiatric disorders in a separate category, you damage those with psychiatric disorders.

What incredibly harmful religious beliefs are "normal"?

What is the objective source of morality? The objective source of what beliefs are and aren't mental illnesses?

Of course, once we have subjective criteria, we can use data to fit things into our subjective criteria, but subjective it still remains.

Asking whether cancer or diabetes is subjective is a non-nonsensical question. It's also not on point. If we label cancer abnormal, then that's subjective. If we say cancer is bad, then that's subjective. Obviously, there are many subjective points the vast majority of people will agree on. But, they're still subjective.

What beliefs are and aren't "normal" are subjective.

we really having nothing more to discuss.

You are working from a belief system that is entirely inconsistent with the science available.

So you can take your highly subjective beliefs, particularly those about religion and psychiatric disorders, and keep them. I have nothing else to say to you.

I feel like I am talking to freaking creationists around here sometimes.

Surely you can name what it is? Or medicine?

It's the "freaking creationists" that often enough think there is an objective source of morality. Just as wrong of a claim as there being an objective source of what is or isn't a mental illness. And you still don't answer or address that point. You're being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest by not doing so.

I never said cancer is a subjective diagnosis, I have no idea what you're talking about. That comment makes no sense. Strawmen seem to come out when you refuse to answer a question.

So why were you saying that they were not the same?

It's like saying that "crime" and "felony" are not synonyms, and then saying that a felony is a crime.

Incidentally, you actually had a halfway decent argument, if you had said that "insanity" is a legal definition, but "mental illness" is a psychological term.

And not all mental illness constitutes insanity. Therefore the terms are not synonymous, any more than the terms American and Californian are synonymous. That's the very elementary concept that you and cbayer aren't grasping here.

In post #247, I had said "For almost all speakers of the English language 'Mentally ill' and 'insane' are synonyms. Indeed, for most people, they are interchangeable."

MelloDem replied "they're wrong".

Anyway, that's a quibble. MellowDem was saying that religion is a mental illness. To which hrmjustin replied, quite reasonably, that most of the religious people he knew are "sane and stable", in which he was using "sane" as a shorthand for "not mentally ill".

How in the world do you come to the conclusion that mental illness and insanity are two different things?

Insanity is just a type of mental illness, a very severe type, not mental illness itself. Mental illness covers a wide variety of illnesses, some relatively mild.

By labeling all mentally ill as insane, not only are you misusing the words, you're contributing to the stigma of being "mentally ill"

I'm guessing most everybody suffers from mental illness at some time or other. It shouldn't be considered a stigma, it should be talked about openly.

The hypocritical act of shielding harmful religious beliefs that fit the definition of a type of mental illness only harms more people by keeping them from getting the help they need and sanctioning the indoctrination of children into harmful delusions of all sorts.

in the fields of psychology or psychiatry?

You don't get to define mental illness or the words used to describe it.

Not all mentally ill people are "insane" (generally meant to mean psychotic). However all psychotic people, if delirium has been ruled out, are mentally ill.

I could not agree more that the stigmatization of psychiatric illness is a shameful and destructive thing that should be eliminated.

Your take on religious beliefs in this regard I find ludicrous and I will not discuss them with you.

so I'm guessing you've changed your mind. It doesn't take credentials to look up the definitions of words. You certainly don't seem to require credentials, so why should I?

Again, not all mentally ill people are insane. But insane people are mentally ill. Both terms are used to describe people with psychiatric disorders.

I tend to stay away from the term "mentally ill", btw. I think it implies that the illnesses are all "mental", when many of them are biological. I prefer psychiatric disorders.

They don't seem to have a problem with the label "mental". Why do you prefer something different?

He's speaking in tongues.

that's exactly how it starts sounding to me.

It's so much more than annoying.

should designate all religious believers as mentally ill?

What would you propose we then do? Lock them up? Give them medications against their will? Prohibit them from enjoying some of the rights that others have?

Or perhaps we could just discriminate against them, mock them and marginalize them like we do other people with mental illness.

Yeah, we could categorize them exactly like we do people who receive instructions from space aliens!

Whatever we do, let's make sure it drives them away from the democratic party.

That's the ticket.

How utterly offensive your post is.

At least for believers of religious beliefs that fit the definition of a type of mental illness.

Why should the belief of someone who receives instructions from space aliens be treated different from the belief that they receive instructions from an invisible deity?

That's utter hypocrisy, and shows the power and privilege of religion. Who would demand they be treated differently other than a supporter of that religious privilege?

There are some like minded people here that I am sure you will feel a great deal of camaraderie with.

However, I'm not going to let you harsh my democratic mellow.

See ya.

It is pretty much a badge of honor.

Rev. 13.9 etc.

9 Let anyone who has an ear listen: 10 If you are to be taken captive, into captivity you go; if you kill with the sword, with the sword you must be killed. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

Do you really think that you can just post something like this and people here are such idiots that they wouldn't even bother to look it up?

"All who dwell on the earth will worship him." Here the Bible warned that even the whole earth can be deceived by a false religion, or "worship."

Other parts of the Bible then warned specifically about "delusions" in religion.

but just as clearly does not regard the beliefs it is espousing delusions.

If you were trying to argue that all religious is delusional from the Bible, seems like you've argued against your own point.

So what?

Therefore? To note "delusions" in much of religion may be paradoxically following God, after all.

God himself definitely allows that delusions are indeed, often found in religion.

It is only Ms. cbayer who does not allow it.