I attended a seminar on mental illness last week, and there was a guest speaker with psychosis.

She said that when she first started hearing the voices that are constantly in her head, she was very religious at the time and thus thought that it was god/jesus speaking to her.

Anyways, to keep this brief, I figured that begged the question - are religious people naturally more prone to a mental illness like psychosis, and if they aren't, are they at least at more of a risk to have it in a more severe fashion?

I'm going to assume it's a no to the first part of the question, because something like mental illness doesn't have anything to do with your personal beliefs, but I would think that religious people would have more severe cases that go undetected. This is because they are already used to somewhat speaking to something that they can't see (I would go so far as to say they're speaking to something that isn't there as well, but that's an argument that nobody will win).

I would also like to point out that there are quite a bit of similarities between religion and psychosis/schizophrenia. A "deep religious experience" in some could really simply be them having a delusion because of an undetected mental illness. Not only that, but this entire subject also begs the question - would an atheist have a better ability to understand their mental illness because they would recognize that talking to something that isn't there isn't a logical thing to do?

It's also important to note that I'm not trying to demean any faith in any way, shape, or form. I'm just curious about the whole thing. I'd love it if there was some psychology majors or something on "My God" that would be able to answer some of these questions.

Thoughts on this?

Delusions of Influence is a form of schizophreniac behavior that nearly all major religious people suffer from.

So yes, they are insane. In-fucking-sane. No doubt about it.

Just because a large group of people share the same Delusions of Influence does not make it any less crazy than me telling people I talk to Santa last night inside my head, and he told me how to behave sexually.

No less crazy.

Is there something about the nature of faith that makes one more susceptible to mental illness?

No.

I think in the example you gave, the woman suffering from her unique illness attempted to rationalize it within the context of her faith claims by saying Jesus or angels or whatever were speaking to her. The example you gave shows nothing to me that indicates religion somehow causes mental illness.

I think a better question to ask from your example would be, "Can religious belief complicate or exaggerate mental illness?" There, a stronger case can be made. This can be supported by what you said about an atheist possibly having an easier time understanding their illness than a religiously motivated person. It's possible that, as an atheist, one might be more open to alternative explanations of the root cause of one's disturbance.

This sounds like a chicken and egg thing, but IMHO, religious nuts--the genuinely one sandwich short of a picnic types--were nuts to start with, and would be non-religious nuts had they not become religious nuts.

Please note, most of us are throwing around terms like crazy and insane rather loosely. The medical profession does not use the word insane any more--that is generally used as a legal term.

According to the SDSM (Standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) of the APA (American Psychiatric Association)--this is sort of the Bible on who's nuts or not-- anyone who consults a psychic or practices magick or does any of lot of stuff than shamans and so on consider to be just another days' work are mentally disturbed by definition.

My mom is a psychiatrist and I was having a conversation about this with her last week actually.
She said being obsessed with religion is in fact one of the signs they look for and is a common thread with a good amount of crazy people.
But, like armsmerchant said, it's not that they go crazy because they're religious, it's more than they become so religious because they're crazy.

Healthy individuals possess an intact ability to distinguish between events that occur as a result of their own actions and events that occur as the result of someone else's. This ability to attribute "self-agency" appears to be disrupted in individuals experiencing many kinds of delusions, including those associated with schizophrenia: Auditory hallucinations, thought insertions, and other so-called delusions of influence are all hallmarks of the psychopathology associated with the disease. In the presence of these delusions, self-produced sensory information is misperceived as being caused by an outside influence. In a new study that investigates how healthy individuals and schizophrenia patients interpret their visual worlds, scientists have shed light on the question of whether a broad disruption in the ability to ascribe self-agency might be related to symptoms of schizophrenia.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/001968.html

If you hear the voice of God (Auditory hallucination), believe the devil tempts your thoughts (thought insertion) etc. then you suffer a from a mental illness.

It is that simple.

If you believe in God and/or a devil and believe they influence things hear on Earth, you are by all rights bat shit crazy.

Just b/c a large group of people share and spread this mental illness, does not make it any less of a mental illness.

No, it's not that simple.

I'm assuming that as a child you believed Santa Claus was real. Did believing in the existence of Santa Claus, his omniscient observations of all children, and his real influence in the material world make you certifiably insane? Did that make you a schizophrenic as you seem to be suggesting with your quote?

Of course it didn't.

You're right about one thing. Just because some people worldwide might ascribe to your narrow definition of religion doesn't make the content of their belief any more true. Fifty million Frenchmen CAN be wrong, so to speak.

But I think you're too eager to find commonalities between certain kinds of religious behavior and mental illness. Think about how you're defining these things and what the majority of people of faith are actually claiming rather than stereotyping Western Christianity and trying to cram it into the ill fitting mold of mental illness. Just a friendly suggestion.

I'm assuming that as a child you believed Santa Claus was real. Did believing in the existence of Santa Claus, his omniscient observations of all children, and his real influence in the material world make you certifiably insane? Did that make you a schizophrenic as you seem to be suggesting with your quote?

No, I was a child, who like nearly all children, did not possess the same capacity for intelligent rational thought as an adult does, not to mention invaluable life experience, that teaches a person there is no magic.

Your comparison completely and utterly fails.

Here is a comparison that works:

NOW, if as a grown man, I were to tell you I still believe in Santa Claus and that he exerts invisible influence over the universe, and I talk to him and hear his voice............THAT would be schizophrenic behavior.

Replace Santa with Jesus/God/Muhammad/Aliens/The Ghost of Elvis/Satan etc. in the above and you will see, as I said, how simple it truly is.

But not all religious people claim to hear/speak with God. I'm willing to bet it's an incredibly small percentage that do make such a claim. How is a normal churchgoer or practitioner's convictions the same as the schizophrenic?

I'm a member of an institutionalized faith. I don't claim to speak with God. I don't claim to hear his voice in my head or receive messages from him. I don't believe some diabolical force is inserting thoughts in my head to tempt me. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing the products of my own actions and thoughts vs. outside influences. I carry no delusions of grandeur in relation to my life or my place in the world. How then does my acceptance of things which I believe transcend reality put me on the same level of the mentally ill? It seems to me you're confusing beliefs with symptoms.

Like MessiahComplex said, being religious doesn't mean you're crazy. But being overly zealous might be a good indication that something is wrong. It's not about the content of the faith claims, but the behavior that has the potential to accompany them.

This means perfectly intelligent people are capable of holding such basic convictions without inflating them beyond the limits of sanity.

Perhaps I should get more detailed in what I meant.

I did not mean in any way that normal churchgoers are "insane" so to speak. Many are certainly perfectly sane and would be able to see right away that if a voice is in their head, then there may be something wrong. I was simply asking 3 main questions:

1) I'm going to rewrite the first question so that it's more easily interpreted. Is there a statistical increase in the amount of mentally ill religious people?

2) Because religious people are already open to the concept of at least SOME contact (prayer, for example) with an invisible force, would that not put them at more risk of not noticing mental illness?

3) Would an Athiest have the opposite effect regarding mental illness (automatically be able to detect that there's something wrong) because they aren't open to the concept of invisible forces?

However, there is a normal activity that many take place in at church (or at home, depending on the faith), and that is prayer. Is there any difference between a schizophrenic talking to an invisible force, possibly asking something from them, and a person with faith praying to another invisible force, possibly asking something from them?

Also, one final question, karma_sleeper made the distinction that a child believing in Santa Claus wouldn't make you certifiably psychotic.

However, would you not see a problem in that same child continuing his belief throughout adulthood? If yes, then how is a religion any different?

OK then.

1.) I don't see how religious behavior in itself leaves one at risk to psychosis. Carried too far, it just might.

2.) This is possible, but I would guess the risk isn't elevated by that much to make a difference. Can't it be said that some symptoms of psychoses inhibit mental operations? Wouldn't the illness itself, not just faith inspired notions of the transcendent, blind people to their condition?

3.) So again, couldn't the illness itself prevent an individual from recognize or admitting their problems? In that case, it would seem it wouldn't matter whether someone was an atheist or not.

4.) As for prayer, I don't think the similarities can be denied. But I think one key difference lies in the nature of the relationship between the person and the force in question. I would imagine the schizophrenic has a more literal and in some cases physical connection to whatever is being invoked than the common Christian praying at home, for example. Now, obviously there are people of good health who feel a profound spiritual connection in their actions with something or someone. The language they use to describe their experience often seeks to separate the event from our common existence, whereas the schizophrenic, I think it's safe to say, feels a very real and tangible and less subtle connection or influence than the sane person. There is something different in the perception of the schizophrenic that sets the two experiences apart.

5.) In response to your last question, I think it's necessary to more carefully define what we mean by faith.

It's common to think of religious faith in two ways: evidence sensitive and evidence insensitive. The former relies on testimony and works from other believers, while the latter as an act of will on the part of the believer. I would categorize an adult's persistence in believing in Santa Claus as a form of evidence insensitive faith while an adult's belief in whatever faith tradition as evidence sensitive. One is more explicitly rooted in faith while the other recognizes some sort of interaction between faith and reason.

For faith traditions there exist vast tracts of accumulated knowledge, both written and oral, divine pronouncements, testimony etc. No one claims Santa delivered some moral code. We can go to the north pole and see he is not there. How does the adult rationalize Santa now that he has a family of his own and no longer lives with his parents who obviously brought him presents in Santa's name? Will he argue retail stores simply sell the goods Santa manufactures? When people give him gifts with their names on them, does he see them as taking credit for Santa's good work? All of these things can be shown false. His persistence is purely rooted in his will to believe otherwise.

With religion, while sacred writings, revelations, and pronouncements of divine authority are often not vulnerable to the same methods of testing or criticism as claims in Santa are, the fact remains a religion's history, culture, institution, testimony, and shared ritual represent a set of rational justifications for the believer. It is evidence of the rational aspect to their faith and provide a certain measure of verification to their claims.

In other words, the faith of the man who ascribes to a religious tradition can be demonstrated by way of reason. The faith of the man who refuses to deny Santa Claus cannot.

Though if you think faith and reason are in conflict with one another rather than having some level of interaction, then I guess that's not explanation at all.

OK then.

1.) I don't see how religious behavior in itself leaves one at risk to psychosis. Carried too far, it just might.

2.) This is possible, but I would guess the risk isn't elevated by that much to make a difference. Can't it be said that some symptoms of psychoses inhibit mental operations? Wouldn't the illness itself, not just faith inspired notions of the transcendent, blind people to their condition?

3.) So again, couldn't the illness itself prevent an individual from recognize or admitting their problems? In that case, it would seem it wouldn't matter whether someone was an atheist or not.



I agree with you here, but I was hoping that someone with some sort of credentials in psychology (even a first year psych student would help). Interesting and suprising statistics always seem to pop up somewhere.




5.) In response to your last question, I think it's necessary to more carefully define what we mean by faith.

It's common to think of religious faith in two ways: evidence sensitive and evidence insensitive. The former relies on testimony and works from other believers, while the latter as an act of will on the part of the believer. I would categorize an adult's persistence in believing in Santa Claus as a form of evidence insensitive faith while an adult's belief in whatever faith tradition as evidence sensitive. One is more explicitly rooted in faith while the other recognizes some sort of interaction between faith and reason.

For faith traditions there exist vast tracts of accumulated knowledge, both written and oral, divine pronouncements, testimony etc. No one claims Santa delivered some moral code. We can go to the north pole and see he is not there. How does the adult rationalize Santa now that he has a family of his own and no longer lives with his parents who obviously brought him presents in Santa's name? Will he argue retail stores simply sell the goods Santa manufactures? When people give him gifts with their names on them, does he see them as taking credit for Santa's good work? All of these things can be shown false. His persistence is purely rooted in his will to believe otherwise.

With religion, while sacred writings, revelations, and pronouncements of divine authority are often not vulnerable to the same methods of testing or criticism as claims in Santa are, the fact remains a religion's history, culture, institution, testimony, and shared ritual represent a set of rational justifications for the believer. It is evidence of the rational aspect to their faith and provide a certain measure of verification to their claims.

In other words, the faith of the man who ascribes to a religious tradition can be demonstrated by way of reason. The faith of the man who refuses to deny Santa Claus cannot.

Though if you think faith and reason are in conflict with one another rather than having some level of interaction, then I guess that's not explanation at all.

Ahhh, but there is a key thing you are missing here.

There IS texts saying that Santa exists. Granted, they're children's books, but still - there ARE texts. And yes, we CAN go to the North Pole and see that he isn't there for ourselves.

HOWEVER, say we had a time machine. IF this was possible, then we could potentially disprove any key events of any religion, correct? Say Jesus was never a real man, nor was Siddharta Gautama or Muhammed, and we could show solid proof that they were never alive - it really wouldn't matter.

One would think that people seeing these things for their own eyes would naturally shatter their idea of religion and/or change their beliefs, but (for many) it really would have NO effect whatsoever. This is because religion is founded on one thing, and one thing only, and that is belief. As long as they believe, the religion is still alive, and full, and always will be.

YOU might change your mind, and I'm sure there would be others as well, but most of the people who truly believe in their religion would stick with it anyways. It doesn't matter if you have proof that something doesn't exist.

Although all of this is pretty speculative, I would say it seems possible that at the very least there is a greater risk of the mentall illness not being found out by friends and love ones.

There are many religions in the world that consider hearing voices from god, angels or spirits, or "Seeing visions", a good and desirable thing. If one were having hallucinations these could easily be mistaken by people who believe this as a miracle or some religious experience.

For example, look at this fucked up situation (http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/breaking_news/285609). They believed that god told them that an elderly woman that had died would come back to life if they prayed. The body stayed in their houses for two fucking months. Decaying... while little children lived in the house with them.

I'm perfectly capable of recognizing the products of my own actions and thoughts vs. outside influences.

You are an average churchgoer who believes prayers go unanswered?

Then you sir, are most certainly not average.

How is a normal churchgoer or practitioner's convictions the same as the schizophrenic?

Because, believe it or not, the average normal churchgoer, believes an invisible man in the sky (unprovable external force) answers their prayers (exerting influence over their lives).

No different than a person who believes rituals and spoken prayer in groups to the spirit of Elvis Presly will bring about change here in this realm.

Type in testimonials to find out how average churchgoers are (according to psychology) bat shit crazy.

Hey Broke, how does a person conclude they are sane?

YOU might change your mind, and I'm sure there would be others as well, but most of the people who truly believe in their religion would stick with it anyways. It doesn't matter if you have proof that something doesn't exist.

I'm not trying to say one needs proof. I was just trying to explain why an adult who still believes in Santa Claus is different from a person who ascribes to whatever religion or system of belief.

You are an average churchgoer who believes prayers go unanswered?

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm not trying to say I don't believe my prayers go unanswered. I was responding to the quote from that article you made. Specifically, "In the presence of these delusions, self-produced sensory information is misperceived as being caused by an outside influence." I meant to say is that I'm not confusing sensory information resulting from my own actions with those of some mysterious outside force or influence. I'm not confusing my own thoughts with those somehow being inserted into my mind by some perceived power. I was attempting to give you an example of a sane person of faith.

Because, believe it or not, the average normal churchgoer, believes an invisible man in the sky (unprovable external force) answers their prayers (exerting influence over their lives).

Again, you're confusing content of belief with behavior. There are millions if not billions of people around the world or are capable of accepting religious beliefs without suffering from the symptoms of schizophrenia or any other psychosis. I don't care if someone thinks aliens are giving them messages through telepathy or that they've seen and spoken with the ghost of Elvis. That belief ALONE does not make someone mentally ill.

Again, you're confusing content of belief with behavior.

That has been a fundamental distinction in psychiatry ever since Karl Jaspers published his "General Psychopathology". That BrokeProphet failed to take it into account is just further testimony that he has no idea what he is talking about.

I'm one of those crazy fucks occasionally hears God.

I would discount myself as certifiably insane had listening to this voice ever produced a negative effect.

I've heard him call my name once. I've heard him ask me a question once. I've seen four visions.

He called my name when I was on the verge of suicide. Complete serenity and peace of mind overcame me.

I was listening to a song one time while going through a trying time with a friendship. One of the lines said, "I'll be there for you." And I heard the Voice say, "For who?" It set in motion a chain of thoughts that brought about a clear solution that has since strengthened the friendship and solved the problem it faced (essentially, selfishness on my part).

And the Vision. The first time the Vision visited me, I was shown the Earth as it was created, as it was originally, before we abandoned ourselves and hid from reality in our delusional societies. From this vision, I've understood the detriments of abandoning the inner light.

The second visit, I was shown my place of belonging...my home. This happened when I felt complete loneliness and ostracism from life. From this vision, I've come to understand the meaning of true kinship and love.

The third was given as a request to the Spirit to show me what my heart truly is: I was sitting under a tree singing a song. From this vision, I've pursued song to a wonderful success.

The fourth, I was shown a collection of white stones with symbols on them. I wrote down the symbols and learned what they were. They were Hebrew: Yod Heh Waw Heh. From this vision, my concept of the Spirit changed.

Am I insane? Probably a little...but my life is far from what you'd expect an insane individual's to be. :)

I don't care if someone thinks aliens are giving them messages through telepathy or that they've seen and spoken with the ghost of Elvis. That belief ALONE does not make someone mentally ill.

Yes, it does.

First site I clicked on after a google of Schizophrenia...

Schizophrenia Symptoms

Usually with schizophrenia, the person's inner world and behavior change notably. Behavior changes might include the following:

Social withdrawal

Depersonalization (intense anxiety and a feeling of being unreal)

Loss of appetite

Loss of hygiene

Delusions

Hallucinations (eg, hearing things not actually present)

The sense of being controlled by outside forces

A person with schizophrenia may not have any outward appearance of being ill. In other cases, the illness may be more apparent, causing bizarre behaviors. For example, a person with schizophrenia may wear aluminum foil in the belief that it will stop one's thoughts from being broadcasted and protect against malicious waves entering the brain.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/schizophrenia/page3_em.htm

That has been a fundamental distinction in psychiatry ever since Karl Jaspers published his "General Psychopathology". That BrokeProphet failed to take it into account is just further testimony that he has no idea what he is talking about.

And what you fail to take into account is your own bias against labeling anything as insane, b/c of your personal relationship to it.

Clearly, hearing things not actually present, and believing invisible external forces like god influence your life, are signs of mental illness.

"Yes, it does."

No. It doesn't.

Having one symptom of a condition does not mean you have the condition.

My throat's sore right now. I don't have a cold though, or any infection, or any disease. I smoked too many cigarettes during poker night and didn't drink enough water.

Do what you tell theists to do: USE YOUR HEAD.

As for the list of common criteria for schizophrenia:

Social withdrawal, depersonalization, and the sense of being controlled by outside forces are much more determinate of the condition than hallucination. (which every individual experiences to some extent, depending upon the degree to which they are consciously able to experience what is typically subconscious...essentially, awakened dreaming)

Sorry Broke, they are (mostly) right.

If you follow the DSM-IV (the book that contains the Diagnostic criteria for mental disorders), hearing the voice of god alone would not qualify.

"Diagnostic Criteria for Schizophrenia

A. Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated):

* delusions
* hallucinations
* disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence)
* grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
* negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition

Note: Only one Criterion A symptom is required if delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the person's behavior or thoughts, or two or more voices conversing with each other.

B. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset (or when the onset is in childhood or adolescence, failure to achieve expected level of interpersonal, academic, or occupational achievement).

C. Duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least 6 months. This 6-month period must include at least 1 month of symptoms (or less if successfully treated) that meet Criterion A (i.e., active-phase symptoms) and may include periods of prodromal or residual symptoms. During these prodromal or residual periods, the signs of the disturbance may be manifested by only negative symptoms or two or more symptoms listed in Criterion A present in an attenuated form (e.g., odd beliefs, unusual perceptual experiences).

D. Schizoaffective and Mood Disorder exclusion: Schizoaffective Disorder and Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features have been ruled out because either (1) no Major Depressive Episode, Manic Episode, or Mixed Episode have occurred concurrently with the active-phase symptoms; or (2) if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods.

E. Substance/general medical condition exclusion: The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.

F. Relationship to a Pervasive Developmental Disorder: If there is a history of Autistic Disorder or another Pervasive Developmental Disorder, the additional diagnosis of Schizophrenia is made only if prominent delusions or hallucinations are also present for at least a month (or less if successfully treated)."

-- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-TR.


Psychology puts a lot of importance when making a diagnosis, on the social context and the negative effects of the behavior on the persons' life or that of his friends/loved ones.

In a country dominated by belief in a god, hearing the voice of god is sadly not remarkably out of context and it alone poses no real detriment to the individual (of course we can say it does in a more philosophical manner as its something that is just plain wrong but that's not what psychologists base themselves on).


And No, Hex, they are equally as "determinate of the condition". Psychologists follow the DSM as a checklist of sorts (i.e. it must have A, B, and x or more of C). Hallucinations is in the checklist and it counts just as much as anything else in the checklist.

Probaly not using the guide as well as a psychologist would (of course) but it seems to me....

A. Delusions of influence as well as Auditory hallucinations. I believe these are two seperate symptoms, but it doesn't matter, as only one of these criteria is needed to be present in the form it is. That would be the running commentary of God/Jesus that expresses concern over a person's behavior.

B. I believe that those who suffer from the delusion of God, have failed remarkably when it comes to societal issues or any issue which conflicts with their delusion. I believe interpersonal relationships with those outside the delusion, are very difficult to maintain to any real degree, and those relationships will never be what they could if both parties shared the insanity.

C. Most cases of the religious disease begin at a person's earliest memory and proceed up until death. The duration is nearly cradle to the grave.

D. I would say most Christians that I know of experience mood altering episodes such as mania or depression during or immediately following their hour long weekly ritual of mass hysterics, with those in society they deem acceptable to them.

Some instances of depression occur right after perfectly natural and healthy physical acts such as masterbation. Many suffering from this disease get depressed or angry every time they see nudity, or hear harsh colorful fucking language.

Some even believe and get very angry at those who experience these things without shame or guilt, or if you will, normal people who enjoy natural and normal things.

E. The Jesus Illness is not caused by imbibing any mind altering or other substance. Indeed one part of some insane ritual is to not only pretend the grape juice you are drinking is wine, but that it is the blood of a zombie.

----------------------

Delusions of Influence comes to mind when considering whether or not a religious person is suffering from a symptom of schizophrenia.

I think religion is accepted insanity to varying degrees on a case by case basis. (Some religious sects can be ruled insane out of hand, such as Jehovahs's Witnesses who die from not getting surgery, or the superstitious and bizarre behaviors and beliefs exhibited by Catholics, and certianly Penecostal snake handler's and tongue talkers and evangelical faith healers slaying the blessed in the spirit.)

When someone says "I am a Christian/Spiritualist and I beleive in God/Higher Power" I don't immediately believe that alone makes them crazy. So few truly do this alone, however.

When they say "I talk to God, and God talks to me, and God effects everyone and everything in this world" They are a bit crazy.

When they say "I talk to God in tongues, and God talks to me, and the face of a 2,000 year old zombie manifested itself on my bathroom tissue leavings, and I cry when I masterbate." They are bat shit crazy.

On the highest levels....Pat Robertson is every bit as insane as Charles Manson.

You're twisting that so much it's not even funny.

A needs only one symptom when the the person constantly hears the voice's commentary. This is nothing close to a normal religious person that claims he had a religious experience one day, where he supposedly heard a god speak.

B. Psychology doesn't care what you believe. It cares whether the person can keep a job, and can keep relationships with friends and love ones. A person who heard the voice of a god can keep a job and relationships with friends just fine.

C. The Duration explicitly states that it refers to the disturbance (i.e. the symptoms and the problems they have caused).

D. This refers to excluding other disorders like depression and mania, not that the patient must exhibit them.

So why you mention that most Christians you know experience that when it hurts, not help,s your point is beyond me. Perhaps you didn't even bother reading it carefully?


Again, the fact is that according to modern Psychology, hearing the voice of a god does not mean you have a mental disorder. Your opinions on this are quite irrelevant to this fact.

So why you mention that most Christians you know experience that when it hurts, not help,s your point is beyond me. Perhaps you didn't even bother reading it carefully?

How many Christians do you know who only believe there is a higher power and attribute nothing else to this higher power, such as exerting influence, desiring specific behavior, demanding certain rituals be observed, and keeping an open line of discussion between himself and the faithful?

My point is, someone can believe there is or could be a great powerful OZ out there somewhere but if they believe they can talk to him, do his bidding, and try to force others to do the same, they are insane.

Imagine this if you will:

We live in a completely secular world. The idea of God was never introduced into this alternate universe.

The police respond to strange noised coming from an house. Upon entering they find a man on his knees, tears in his eyes, crying to the ceiling about being sorry for jerkin his gerkin. He prattles on in the patrol car about drinking the blood of and eating the flesh of a 2,000 year old zombie. He also speaks of an invible man in the sky who tells him not to touch himself, otherwise his ghost will not only be unable to party with this invisble man forever, but will be cast into a lake of fire. Talking snakes, evil fruit, the end of times.

A search of his house reveals a book of ancient folklore he believes to be 100% real.

Is he insane? Would this same psychological test be used to prove that he is?

I think so.

Just b/c a large group of people prone to this insanity, should somehow make it less insane?

Psychologists find that cult members are brainwashed and suffer from, at least, temporary insanity all the time. What seperates these cults from mega churches?

My point is, someone can believe there is or could be a great powerful OZ out there somewhere but if they believe they can talk to him, do his bidding, and try to force others to do the same, they are insane.


My point is, Psychology doesn't agree that they have a mental disorder just because they claim to have heard the voice of their god, and think their god can answer their prayers.

So again, do they haveSchizophrenia as defined by the Psychological profession in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? No.

My point is, Psychology doesn't agree that they have a mental disorder just because they claim to have heard the voice of their god, and think their god can answer their prayers.

So again, do they haveSchizophrenia as defined by the Psychological profession in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? No.

Psychologists find that cult members are brainwashed and suffer from, at least, temporary insanity all the time. What seperates these cults from mega churches?

Neither of us are trained psychologist and I believe the way I interpret the manual and have applied it to Christians is ever bit as valid as your own ametuer interpretation.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

Psychologists find that cult members are brainwashed and suffer from, at least, temporary insanity all the time.

Care to substantiate that?


Neither of us are trained psychologist and I believe the way I interpret the manual and have applied it to Christians is ever bit as valid as your own ametuer interpretation.By "interpreted the manual" you mean "didn't actually read it correctly and twisted what the Manual said". For example, giving erroneous details for point D. Point D made it explicitly clear that depression and mania had to be excluded yet you were there arguing that the Christians you knew where depressed and manic!

Another example would be point B which makes it clear that they must possess dysfunction in their jobs and friendships and you could cite absolutely nothing of the sort, save for your own irrelevant commentary that "they have failed on societal issues" which has nothing to do with what the criteria demands; not to mention that it also makes clear that the dysfunction must be "markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset" something which you ignored as well.

Please, don't compare your desperate bullshit to the facts I have provided.

It's a never ending circle with BrokeProphet.

Care to substantiate that?

Not really. It is pretty straightfoward and basic.

Fuck it. Here goes...Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Branch Dividians, Westboro, Manson Family, The Family, the current group of Mormon's in the news.

I should not have had to post those, as it is pretty straightfoward and basic that these people are mentally ill.

Had most of them not killed themselves, they would have a defense that they are not insane, no matter what beliefs they held, PROVIDED they held jobs and had friends..........get the fuck out of here.

By "interpreted the manual" you mean "didn't actually read it correctly and twisted what the Manual said". For example, giving erroneous details for point D. Point D made it explicitly clear that depression and mania had to be excluded yet you were there arguing that the Christians you knew where depressed and manic!

Point D.....if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods.

You were saying something about not actually reading correctly and twisting what it said.......go on.

Another example would be point B which makes it clear that they must possess dysfunction in their jobs and friendships and you could cite absolutely nothing of the sort, save for your own irrelevant commentary that "they have failed on societal issues" which has nothing to do with what the criteria demands; not to mention that it also makes clear that the dysfunction must be "markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset" something which you ignored as well.

This is what I said when I "ignored" it.....I believe interpersonal relationships with those outside the delusion, are very difficult to maintain to any real degree, and those relationships will never be what they could if both parties shared the insanity.

Again, stop doing what you constantly whine about.

I would elaborate on that by saying, it then stands to reason that if this delusion were not so widepsread, these people would have almost no truly meaningful interaction with other humans.

I did not know someone had to have major dysfunction in their jobs and friendships in order to be schizophrenic.

By this criteria Ted Bundy was not insane. He had a good job, nice things, plenty of friends who thought well of him, even a girlfriend. But if in order for a person to be schizo they have to not bathe, be unable to work or otherwise function, then no, religious people are not schizophrenic.

Please, don't compare your desperate bullshit to the facts I have provided.

Please leave your ego at the fucking door. If you do not like someone suggesting to you, that you are not a psychologist, go get a fucking degree. Until then, accept the fact that neither of us are truly qualified to utilize this manual.

Respect my opinion, and I will grant your opinion some measure of it.

It's a never ending circle with BrokeProphet.

I am sorry, who the fuck are you?

I mean your name sounds familiar, but you must not have posted anything worth remembering it.

Not really. It is pretty straightfoward and basic.

Fuck it. Here goes...Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Branch Dividians, Westboro, Manson Family, The Family, the current group of Mormon's in the news.

I should not have had to post those, as it is pretty straightfoward and basic that these people are mentally ill.

So then you aren't going to substantiate that? Because you reiterating your claim doesn't magically make that burden of proof go away. A list of people you claim where diagnosed as insane doesn't magically show that they are, much less that people who go to mega-churches are the same as they are.


You were saying something about not actually reading correctly and twisting what it said.......go on.Yes, I was saying you were either twisting the criteria or not reading them correctly, just as you did now! Nowhere in that statement you just quoted does it say that mania and depression are part of the diagnostic criteria.

Again, the whole point says:

D. Schizoaffective and Mood Disorder exclusion: Schizoaffective Disorder and Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features have been ruled out because either (1) no Major Depressive Episode, Manic Episode, or Mixed Episode have occurred concurrently with the active-phase symptoms; or (2) if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods.

The key parts being "exclusion", as in "the Psychologist must exclude Mood Disorders as the cause".

The part you just quoted is one of the criteria for excluding them i.e. that the mood disorder existed only for a brief period in time and not in the total duration of the episodes in question. In yet other words, this means that Psychologist must be sure that the Mood Disorder cannot explain the symptoms because the (for example) depressive episode had a much smaller duration than (for example) the hallucinations.

You didn't provide anything related to what you just quoted (i.e. you didn't show how "total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods"). You just started rambling on how the Christians you know are depressed and/or manic without considering that they being depressed and/or manic isn't good for your argument! It means their depression and/or mania (if we take this bullshit you took straight out of your ass as true) could explain the symptoms and thus show how they are not schizophrenic!

Mentioning depression or mania only makes sense if you're suggesting that these explain the symptoms, which doesn't help your cause. If you are suggesting they don't then there is absolutely no reason to mention them! Just admit that you didn't bother reading the criteria correctly; it's quite easy to do, and much less embarrassing than trying to clean this mess you've made.


This is what I said when I "ignored" it.....I believe interpersonal relationships with those outside the delusion, are very difficult to maintain to any real degree, and those relationships will never be what they could if both parties shared the insanity.I know what you said, which is what I know that what you said ignores the main points in criteria B.

Criteria B explicitly states it must affect their work and/or their social relationships and that this should be at levels worse than when the episode occurred.

You personally believing that it affects the "interpersonal relationships" is meaningless. Psychology isn't interested in what you think. It is interested on what happens on a case by case basis; it would study individuals and what has happened with their lives, something that doesn't include outrageous generalizations from some guy on the Internet.

The ironic thing is that this is precisely what some theists do when they start talking as if they know why atheists lack a belief in god. They'll maintain that the atheist must have suffered something bad in their lives and is only lashing out at god, or that they don't want to believe in god because they want a guilt-free conscious when they sin... as if they had any fucking clue what the life of the atheist was like. You're doing exactly the same thing. It's stupid when they do it, and it's both embarrassing and stupid when you do it.


I did not know someone had to have major dysfunction in their jobs and friendships in order to be schizophrenic.Now you know! Knowing is half the battle. The other half is you accepting just how wrong you are.


By this criteria Ted Bundy was not insane. He had a good job, nice things, plenty of friends who thought well of him, even a girlfriend. But if in order for a person to be schizo they have to not bathe, be unable to work or otherwise function, then no, religious people are not schizophrenic.Thank you for making it plainly obvious that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

These criteria specifically relate to schizophrenia. Ted Bundy wasn't schizophrenic. He could be said to be a "sociopath". The two are not the same.

"schizophrenia" is a specific mental disorder with specific diagnostic criteria, very different from Antisocial personality disorder or other types of anti-social disorders that are lumped into the name "sociopath".



Please leave your ego at the fucking door. If you do not like someone suggesting to you, that you are not a psychologist, go get a fucking degree. Until then, accept the fact that neither of us are truly qualified to utilize this manual.

Respect my opinion, and I will grant your opinion some measure of it.This has nothing to do with ego, at least not mine. This has everything to do with you conveniently trying to lump in what I have said with your stupid comments.

I stated facts. That's it. I provided the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia as it exists in the DSM-IR and said that just because someone claims they heard the voice of god does not mean they qualify as schizophrenic. That's entirely true. An elementary reading of the DSM-IR passage I citied showed that they need a whole lot more.

After this you then twisted what it said and tried diagnosing thousands of people from around the world from the comfort of your PC. [ :rolleyes: ] Did I do that? No. I just said a fact: hearing the voice of god does not automatically mean that one is schizophrenic. Like it or not, that is true.

So again, please don't lump me and the facts I have provided with your inane bullshit.

A list of people you claim where diagnosed as insane doesn't magically show that they are, much less that people who go to mega-churches are the same as they are.

If you are not going to contend that the cult members of Heaven's Gate or the Manson Family are insanel...I see no point in discussing it further.

I have not even made the slightest effort, to search for this information as I believe the popular cases I have presented to be self evident.

Yes, I was saying you were either twisting the criteria or not reading them correctly, just as you did now! Nowhere in that statement you just quoted does it say that mania and depression are part of the diagnostic criteria.

....if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods..

I said earlier that Christians are prone to periods of mania and depression for the brief period of one hour a week, or the moment after they do things the voices told them not to.....jerk off, swear etc.

You personally believing that it affects the "interpersonal relationships" is meaningless.

You personally believing it does not is meanigless as well.

I stated facts. That's it. I provided the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia as it exists in the DSM-IR and said that just because someone claims they heard the voice of god does not mean they qualify as schizophrenic. That's entirely true. An elementary reading of the DSM-IR passage I citied showed that they need a whole lot more.

Hey fuckstick, here is a fact for you: I said that auditory hallcination and delusions of influence are two symptoms of schizophrenia that a vast majority of religious people suffer from.

I don't think I have really said that hearing the voice of God, alone, makes them schizophrenic, but it is not what the fuck I would consider mentally healthy.

After this you then twisted what it said and tried diagnosing thousands of people from around the world from the comfort of your PC. [ :rolleyes: ] Did I do that? No. I just said a fact: hearing the voice of god does not automatically mean that one is schizophrenic. Like it or not, that is true.

I never said that hearing the voice of God makes one schizophrenic. I said it is a symptom of schizophrenia and expressed a belief that having auditiory hallucinations and delusions of unfluence is a clear sign one is not mentally well, or insane if you prefer.

Going back through my posts, I have not seen where I call all religious people schizophrenic. I have stated and will state again that all religious people who claim to hear or interact with God are suffering from a KNOWN factual symptom of schizophrenia.

The farther you go down the religious rabbit hole the closer you will come to schizophrenia.

So again, please don't lump me and the facts I have provided with your inane bullshit.

UNDERSTAND THIS>>>>>it is not the facts you provided, that I lumped you in with, it is a personal and ultimately unprofessional interpretation of those facts. Deal with it.

And please don't lump my ideas as suggesting all religious people are schizophrenic, to take a page from your tired, robotic playbook

DONT PUT WORDS IN MY FUCKING MOUTH.....you double standard fuck.

If you are not going to contend that the cult members of Heaven's Gate or the Manson Family are insanel...I see no point in discussing it further.

I have not even made the slightest effort, to search for this information as I believe the popular cases I have presented to be self evident.

We don't have to discuss this particular matter further... you can just admit that it's unsubstantiated - at least in the context of this thread. The only one here mentioning these people is you. I just wanted you to actually provide some evidence for the things you say... you know as a change of pace..



I said earlier that Christians are prone to periods of mania and depression for the brief period of one hour a week, or the moment after they do things the voices told them not to.....jerk off, swear etc.I know what you said. Please, don't repeat it, it was stupid enough the first time. The problem is:

1. You have no fucking evidence of that. This here means you argument fails miserably from the get-go.

2. Even if we entertain your ridiculous argument further, there was no point in mentioning their mania or depression (which you took right out of your ass) because this doesn't help your point because the presence of mania or depression either refutes schizophrenia, or it's irrelevant to it!

Either you like mentioning irrelevant things, or you didn't read the criteria correctly and mentioned they had depression and mania because you thought it would help your case and now you're trying to fix things.


You personally believing it does not is meanigless as well.Of course! And since you are the one trying to diagnose thousands of people - not me - and have only given those useless comments as your support, then that's a problem for you, not me.

Hey fuckstick, here is a fact for you: I said that auditory hallcination and delusions of influence are two symptoms of schizophrenia that a vast majority of religious people suffer from.No, "fuckstick" ( :rolleyes: ) you said that it meant they were mentally ill and right after that provided some symptoms of schizophrenia to link them to that mental illness. Then after I provided the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia you began to "use it" to diagnose them as schizophrenic.

Not to mention that this still doesn't refute the fact of what I said. At best you would be arguing with me for not good reason since what I said would still be absolutely true!



UNDERSTAND THIS>>>>>it is not the facts you provided, that I lumped you in with, it is a personal and ultimately unprofessional interpretation of those facts. Deal with it.Yet I haven't given an "unprofessional interpretation" of anything! I provided facts. Deal with it. You are the one who is trying to diagnose thousands of people you've never even met through the Internet, not me.

I simply said that hearing the voice of god alone would not qualify as being schizophrenic and gave the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia . Those are facts. After you attempted to diagnose all believers as schizophrenic by trying to pin them down to the criteria, I pointed out how you failed miserably at proving that they fall into the criteria given for schizophrenia:

1. You have not given any evidence that they don't suffer from depression and mania - a requirement of the criteria, one that doesn't need any "unprofessional interpretation" like you so stupidly suggest; much less that they are "are prone to periods of mania and depression for the brief period of one hour a week".

2. You haven't given any evidence for their"Social/occupational dysfunction" save for the your irrelevant commentary.

3. You haven't shown that the duration of the disturbance (this is not synonymous with simple belief in god) lasts for more than 6 months.

4. You haven't excluded substances or another medical condition.

This doesn't require me to give an "unprofessional interpretation" of anything. It requires me to read basic English and then notice how you provided no fucking evidence. It's a simple as that. This is just you grasping at straws; your ship is sinking so you want to take me down with you by putting me in the same boat. That's not going to happen. Again: Please don't lump me and the facts I have provided with your inane bullshit. They are nothing close to similar.

P.S. Want to bring in a professional opinion to this matter? We can! It's quite fucking easy. Let's find clinical/academic Psychologist and send him an e-mail asking him. I would think you wouldn't want to be embarrassed any further after having linked schizophrenia and its diagnostic criteria with Ted Bundy and other disorders like a fucking moron, but we can raise this embarrassment of yours to epic proportions if you wish; just say the word!

I am sorry, who the fuck are you?

I'm the guy that poked the first hole in your now sinking ship of stupidity.

Just accept the difference between insanity and being gullible or whatever you want to call it and get over it.

"You personally believing it does not is meanigless as well."

I can personally acclaim that my 'hallucinations' and 'delusions of influence' have improved my interpersonal relationships. I'm no longer a criminal, I'm welcome at my parents', I speak to my siblings, I get along with most people I come across unless they're really trying to pick a fight with me.

Shit, if this is schizophrenia, I'm wondering why the fuck my fellows have to take medicine...

Shit, if this is schizophrenia, I'm wondering why the fuck my fellows have to take medicine...

Of course you think you're happy, you're insane! You don't know how you should really feel, we do. We tell you whats right and whats wrong. We are the ultimate authoritah. Its wrong to believe in God, boy, even if you believe it makes sense and makes you happy and does not cause you to do harm to others or to push this or other beliefs onto them, we know better! Its wrong, plain wrong, and we are going to make sure we remind you of that! Don't even think about God, in fact, don't think for yourself at all ... we'll handle that for you, and make sure you think right.

Of course you think you're happy, you're insane! You don't know how you should really feel, we do. We tell you whats right and whats wrong. We are the ultimate authoritah. Its wrong to believe in God, boy, even if you believe it makes sense and makes you happy and does not cause you to do harm to others or to push this or other beliefs onto them, we know better! Its wrong, plain wrong, and we are going to make sure we remind you of that! Don't even think about God, in fact, don't think for yourself at all ... we'll handle that for you, and make sure you think right.

Not only was this post absolutely hilarious in its sarcasm, but its irony as well.

We don't have to discuss this particular matter further... you can just admit that it's unsubstantiated - at least in the context of this thread. The only one here mentioning these people is you. I just wanted you to actually provide some evidence for the things you say... you know as a change of pace..

The people of Jonestown were not mentally stable people. They fed poison to their children and then drank it themselves. The Manson Family killed innocent people b/c their cult leader told them to. The Family allowed people to fuck their children and they themselves fucked their own children.

I will not argue whether or not they are insane. I have gone on a famous Rust tangent long enough with this. If you do not wish to accept they are crazy, feel free to do so.

If you need proof the sky is blue, look at it.


[QUOTE=Rust;9984628]I know what you said. Please, don't repeat it, it was stupid enough the first time.

Do you?

1. You have no fucking evidence of that. This here means you argument fails miserably from the get-go.

Christian guilt at sexual things is legendary. If I have to provide an agnosto-bot like you with proof of this, what should I do? Find every Christian in the world who feels guilty at their own sexuality and have them sign a sworn statement?

Fuck you.

2. Even if we entertain your ridiculous argument further, there was no point in mentioning their mania or depression (which you took right out of your ass) because this doesn't help your point because the presence of mania or depression either refutes schizophrenia, or it's irrelevant to it!

Probably so.

Of course! And since you are the one trying to diagnose thousands of people - not me - and have only given those useless comments as your support, then that's a problem for you, not me.

Initially I pointed out that beleiving an invisible imaginary external force influences your life and things around you and having auditory hallucinations are symptoms of mental illness most notably schizophrenia.

SYMPTOMS of schizophrenia. Not trying to diagnose thousands of people as having it. Just saying millions exhibit symptoms of a mental illness. THAT IS A FACT.

No, "fuckstick" ( :rolleyes: ) you said that it meant they were mentally ill and right after that provided some symptoms of schizophrenia to link them to that mental illness. Then after I provided the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia you began to "use it" to diagnose them as schizophrenic.

After you suggested I was wrong (EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT SAY THEY WERE SCHIZOPHRENIC) and posted your diagnostic criteria, I interpreted it as best as an unprofessional like myself can.

You did the same.

Not to mention that this still doesn't refute the fact of what I said. At best you would be arguing with me for not good reason since what I said would still be absolutely true!.

Here is yet another post in which Rust determines he is correct. How I have no idea.

I said religious people suffer from two symptoms of schizophrenia. They do and that is a fact.

Does this alone make them schizophrenic? No.

Does it change the fact that something isn't mentally right with these people? No.

Tell me exactly what you are arguing, and how you win?

Yet I haven't given an "unprofessional interpretation" of anything! I provided facts. Deal with it. You are the one who is trying to diagnose thousands of people you've never even met through the Internet, not me.

You ARE giving your unprofessional interpretation when you assert it cannot mean what my unprofessional interpretation is.

Thanks for your opinion.

I simply said that hearing the voice of god alone would not qualify as being schizophrenic and gave the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia . Those are facts. After you attempted to diagnose all believers as schizophrenic by trying to pin them down to the criteria, I pointed out how you failed miserably at proving that they fall into the criteria given for schizophrenia:

I just used your criteria to see how many points I could nail most Christians to. Perhaps not all stick, but I am of the OPINION that some can and do. You have a different OPINION.

I do not and have not asserted that all Christians are schizophrenic, and throughout this thread have used terms like insane or crazy or suffering from symptoms of schizophrenia.

Your strawman that I assert all believers as schizophrenic is pleasant looking though. Since I said if someone believes in a higher power and does not believe that power exerts influence or speaks to them are likely not insane.

Put your argument in a field to scare crows where it belongs and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

This doesn't require me to give an "unprofessional interpretation" of anything. It requires me to read basic English and then notice how you provided no fucking evidence. It's a simple as that. This is just you grasping at straws; your ship is sinking so you want to take me down with you by putting me in the same boat. That's not going to happen. Again: Please don't lump me and the facts I have provided with your inane bullshit. They are nothing close to similar.

You simply refuse to accept that our unprofessional opinions on this matter equal. Opinions are like that, though. Equal.

You don't believe that what you are stating is opinion. That is your problem. Get out of your own ass a bit so you can fight for some air.

P.S. Want to bring in a professional opinion to this matter? We can! It's quite fucking easy. Let's find clinical/academic Psychologist and send him an e-mail asking him. I would think you wouldn't want to be embarrassed any further after having linked schizophrenia and its diagnostic criteria with Ted Bundy and other disorders like a fucking moron, but we can raise this embarrassment of yours to epic proportions if you wish; just say the word!

Ask him this "Are people who hear the voice of God and believe this creature effects all things throughout space and time and takes an active interest are crazy?"

THAT IS ALL I HAVE STIPUTLATED, so go ahead and ask him.

If you wish to ask the question you have pathetically attempted to put in my mouth "Are all religious people schizophrenic" Go ahead and ask that, just realize it is YOUR question and I will have no part of it.

Rid me of your strawman already.

I'm the guy that poked the first hole in your now sinking ship of stupidity.

Just accept the difference between insanity and being gullible or whatever you want to call it and get over it.

Really?

Are you sure you got the right ship? This is my ship:

Tell me, how delusions of influence and auditory hallucinations are not symptoms of schizophrenia and then tell me how most religious people are immune to having these symptoms.

Whose boat did you sink, cunt?

If you believe in God and/or a devil and believe they influence things hear on Earth, you are by all rights bat shit crazy

Gee Broke, I believe in God, as the oneness of all. As such, I also believe it could be said that God influences things here on Earth, as well as all things, as all things could not be without God.

This alone makes me and anyone with similar beliefs bat shit crazy?

Could you specify which illness you mean by "bat shit crazy"?

Gee Broke, I believe in God, as the oneness of all. As such, I also believe it could be said that God influences things here on Earth, as well as all things, as all things could not be without God.

This alone makes me and anyone with similar beliefs bat shit crazy?

Could you specify which illness you mean by "bat shit crazy"?

The grown ups are talking.

Please be quiet.

Please be quiet.

"... in fact, don't think for yourself at all ... we'll handle that for you, and make sure you think right."

Just shut up and respect your authoritah, eh Broke?

Where have we heard that before in the last ... oh, two thousand years, or earlier?

It looks to me like you're still a carrier of that dreaded "meme of deception" you enjoy crediting religion to. Otherwise you would be verifying your claims scientifically, wouldn't you?

I will not argue whether or not they are insane. I have gone on a famous Rust tangent long enough with this. If you do not wish to accept they are crazy, feel free to do so.

If you need proof the sky is blue, look at it.


This was a tangent so afar as you made it one by mentioning them in the first place. Don't blame me because I don't automatically take your bullshit as true.

So then you're not going to provide any evidence and thus your claim remains unsubstantiated? Awesome.



Christian guilt at sexual things is legendary. If I have to provide an agnosto-bot like you with proof of this, what should I do? Find every Christian in the world who feels guilty at their own sexuality and have them sign a sworn statement?

Fuck you.


What you do to find the evidence is your business, certainly not mine, You don't get to cry like a baby once the evidence is too tough to find. Don't like it? How about not making stupid fucking claims in the first place?

It's not my fault you cannot fulfill the burden of proof you brought on yourself.

It's quite sad that you turn into the very same people you continuously whine about here on totse. You cry about how creationists post no evidence and try to escape their burden of proof, yet when you make one outrageous allegation after another, you conveniently don't have to provide any evidence (and no, you don't have to provide evidence that Christians suffer guilt... you have to provide evidence of what you claimed, which was a lot more than that. Apparently you don't even know what you claim. That or this was just a lame attempt and trying to change what you said).



Initially I pointed out that beleiving an invisible imaginary external force influences your life and things around you and having auditory hallucinations are symptoms of mental illness most notably schizophrenia.


"Initially" being the key word. You then started "using" (your own word) the diagnostic criteria which - *gasp!* - are used to diagnose people, in order to show how they were supposedly schizophrenic.

After you suggested I was wrong (EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT SAY THEY WERE SCHIZOPHRENIC) and posted your diagnostic criteria, I interpreted it as best as an unprofessional like myself can.

You did the same.

I posted the diagnostic criteria and you began to use it. Guess what? Diagnostic criteria are used to diagnose people as schizophrenic. If you're using them to diagnose believers, and you're saying they fit the criteria, you're saying they are schizophrenic. It's as simple as that.

Stop grasping at straws, it's pathetic.



Here is yet another post in which Rust determines he is correct. How I have no idea.

I said religious people suffer from two symptoms of schizophrenia. They do and that is a fact.

Does this alone make them schizophrenic? No.

Does it change the fact that something isn't mentally right with these people? No.

Tell me exactly what you are arguing, and how you win?

1. Please read what I said again. I said that even if we take this silly back-peddling of yours as true, what I initially said (i.e. "simply hearing the voice of god doesn't mean they are schizophrenic") remains true.

2. Hallucinations are symptoms of a vast number of things. You cannot claim they are "symptoms of schizophrenia" unless you're claiming they are suffering from schizophrenia - that is, unless you've ruled other things out. You haven't.


You ARE giving your unprofessional interpretation when you assert it cannot mean what my unprofessional interpretation is.

No, I'm not.

I'm reading Basic English sentences and noticing how you failed to give evidence. That is nothing close to what you're doing which is trying to diagnose people.

By your stupid logic, if someone is saying that their deductive argument proves the existence of god, I can't point out how (for example) the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises because that's an "unprofessional interpretation" :rolleyes:. It's not, at least not in any meaningful way. Noticing that only requires me to understand the English Language. I do.

But hey, lets indulge your stupidity for just for fun. I like refuting you multiple ways; it's entertaining. Here:

I take back everything I said regarding your usage of the diagnostic criteria. Now I request that you provide evidence for the following, as required by the Diagnostic criteria:

1. Evidence or proof that these had social/occupational dysfunction.

Your guesses or opinion that they do aren't proof or evidence.

2. Evidence that the periods of depression and mania you claim they suffer from (I'm throwing you a bone and not demanding you provide any evidence for that moronic statement) only lasted for a brief period in time.

3. Evidence that their disturbance lasted more then 6 moths.

Again, your guesses or opinion that it has aren't proof or evidence.

4. Evidence that you've excluded other medical conditions and substances.

Note that none of these require an interpretation of anything save for reading the criteria and noticing where it says "Social/occupational dysfunction:" or "if mood episodes have occurred during active-phase symptoms, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the active and residual periods". In other words, I need only know how to read English.

Now please, either provide that evidence or admit that your attempt at diagnosing these people as schizophrenic was an utter failure. None of this requires an interpretation. Thank you.



I do not and have not asserted that all Christians are schizophrenic, and throughout this thread have used terms like insane or crazy or suffering from symptoms of schizophrenia.

Talk about straw men, did I say you said all Christians are schizophrenic? No I did not.

Sorry, but the fact is you said they were mentally ill. The DSM contains the list of known mental illnesses. If you claim they are mentally ill - which you did - then you're claiming that they have one of those illnesses contained in that book. So which one is it? If not schizophrenia - even though you've mentioned it constantly through out this thread and tried to diagnose people as having it once I provided the diagnostic criteria - which one?

Let the backpedaling continue! This will be entertaining as hell. :)



You simply refuse to accept that our unprofessional opinions on this matter equal. Opinions are like that, though. Equal.

No, I correctly notice how what I've done - state facts and notice how you've provided no evidence for your claims - does not equal what you have done - tried to say that thousands of people fit to the criteria.

The two are not the same and you trying to make them out to be just shows how pathetic you are.


THAT IS ALL I HAVE STIPUTLATED, so go ahead and ask him.

If you wish to ask the question you have pathetically attempted to put in my mouth "Are all religious people schizophrenic" Go ahead and ask that, just realize it is YOUR question and I will have no part of it.

Bullshit. You stated that if they hear the word of god, they have a mental illness. Mental illnesses are covered by the DSM. Either you're saying they have schizophrenia, or something else that is covered in the DSM. Which is it?

Not to mention, that's you've stated a lot more stupid shit than that. Like for example :

" Type in testimonials to find out how average churchgoers are (according to psychology) bat shit crazy."

(You can start providing evidence for that whenever you want...)

Shall we ask him/her if the average churchgoer is bat shit crazy, "according to Psychology"? :rolleyes:

I'm really sorry BrokeProphet, but even though I agree with much of what you're saying, you're really getting your ass kicked in this thread.

In response to Rust's stats from the APA (probably the only worthy information on this entire fucking thread. You've disappointed me on this one &Totse, I was hoping for someone with credentials to be on here) -

A. I'd say that a fair amount of Christian Fundamentalists fit into 3 of these categories. They are -

- Delusions

- Hallucinations

- Disorganized speech

Now, note that much of this is because I have watched the fucking horrific documentary that is Jesus Camp. Both children and adults all fall into a sea of tears in a few scenes because they believe that they are talking to god, and thus creating some sort of driving force in changing the world. Not only that, they're speaking in tounges.

This most definately counts as "Delusions and Hallucinations", but I'm not entirely sure that speaking in tounges counts as disorganized speech...Seems pretty fucking disorganized to me (you basically babble gibberish, and it's supposed to be some fucked up way of speaking with god).

B. Social/Occupational dysfunction? You fucking bet your ass! They may be fine in their own little group, but just about ANY Fundie I've met thinks they're going to try and save my life by converting me!

When I was an infant, my own mother was told by one of these people that I would burn in hell, screaming in pain for eternity if she was to not become a Christian. How fucked up is that?

Also, in Jesus Camp (yes, I know, this is a pretty extreme case, but it makes it more relatable) you see people that can't function worth shit in real life! Not only that, but they pass it on to their innocent children as well! There's one scene where this crazy little girl asks a black woman if she thinks she'd go to heaven if she were to die right now. With the response of "Yes", the little girl takes it further and says "Are you REALLY sure about that?". Again, a "yes" is uttered.

She comes back to the camera, and says with a disturbed look on her face "I think they were Muslims". Now, that seems pretty fucked to me, and borderline racist. I'm sure I'm not the only one who shares this view.

C. Duration - I'm sure it goes without saying that much of these people will have their beliefs all the way up until they die.

D. Exclusion of manic depressive/schizoaffective disorder. Now, this one is a definate yes. Simply question a fundie's belief, and you may just find your head lying on the ground, freshly bitten off. There are obviously exceptions, and maybe the people that I've seen on the documentary I keep referring to (Jesus Camp), and the people I actually KNOW that are like this would be "fucking bat shit insane" anyways, but I really do think that their belief has something to do with this.

However, it is a widely accepted fact that Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia are two VERY close disorders (read the first paragraph in http://www.schizophrenia.com/ami/diagnosis/moreocd.html), so I'm not sure exactly how updated that document you have really is...

And E and F are just obvious. If you have either of these things, I'd say that they're more likely to influence your symptoms of mental illness than religion.

Also, because of the affect that D has on this, I'd like to change one little thing in this thread from now on -

Would you say that religion is closely related to not only schizophrenia/psychosis, but any mental illness? Certainely alot of religious folk "Fly off the handle" when their beliefs are challenged, are they not?

I think a fairer question than any asked thus far would be such: Does group-think constitute mental illness?

I ask this for two reasons:

1. The focus is no longer just limited to recognized religions, but any sort of 'worship' group...be it anything they herald as the supreme purpose of life...drugs, sports, guns, gods, stars, etc.

2. If group think does constitute mental illness; I think it would then be fair to examine whether it is one's desire to be free from personal responsibilities that leads to the joining of 'worship' groups...essentially, escapism. And if this is the case, if one engages in a worship group without the motivation of escapism and maintains their independent thought, don't they avoid categorization as mentally ill?

It seems to me that the only real problem within organized religion and other 'idolatry' is the crippling aversion many hold to trusting their own abilities, thoughts, opinions, etc and the decisions that come from them. Which I find quite funny for Judeo-Christo-Islam: (From Isaiah) Woe to him who says to his Father, "What have you begotten?"

It seems even in the religions themselves, which taken in a broad context, attempt to greatly increase one's trust in their inner resources and natural abilities, is so full of those who hold contempt for their freedom.

I could be quite wrong here, but it has always seemed to me that the embracing of self-deception and the aversion to responsibility are not just limited to the religious, but exist within all creeds and colors of mankind.

I suppose you can call the religion or the faith the sickness...but one's understanding of reality isn't their sickness. Engagement in dishonesty and irresponsibility to the point of impairing your ability to function as an individual and a social creature is the sickness. Perhaps I'm taking too humanitarian of a view on it though.

Anyways, I'm interested in seeing what you all have to say about this.

Not only was this post absolutely hilarious in its sarcasm, but its irony as well.

I've only met one evangelist in my life other than Jehovah's Witnesses. He was a street preacher. Nobody told me to believe what I do. Thanks for showing that your opinion of the faithful is that we all blindly follow.

I believe what I do because my life experience sits side by side my faith in perfect relationship. Less faith = less joy. More faith = more joy. I choose to be happy, and if that means having faith, so be it. It'd be true to mental illness to purposefully choose misery through faithlessness over joy through faith, as that would indeed cripple my ability to socialize, with both the material realm and the personalities of my fellows.

Do I think everyone is wired exactly like me? Nope. If something else in the world besides faith is what makes you happy, cool. It's what does it for me, though. A man is truly useless to his calling if he cannot smile.

Yes, are saturday/sunday night football fans mentally ill? As they gather around the boob tube to worship once a week? When they get angry and shout incoherently at the television, is this their metal illness showing?

Are 'fan clubs' of hit bands and celebrities not little 'cults' of their own? What about organizations like MADD or NORML, are they mentally unstable as well? How about PETA?

It seems to me that the only real problem within organized religion and other 'idolatry' is the crippling aversion many hold to trusting their own abilities, thoughts, opinions, etc and the decisions that come from them.

Thats a good point there, Hex.

Humans are pack animals still learning about individuality. Lots of current research indicates that "me" is a rather new addition to the human mind. Perhaps these groups are just the result of people struggling with the weight of individual responsibility, seeking out the comfort of an authority (or group) to hand that responsibility over to.

SydMorrison, point D says exclusion, as in the "an act or instance of excluding" You must exclude (i.e. make sure they are not present) Schizoaffective and Mood Disorders. The Psychologist must be certain that these are not the cause of the problems. If they are - if Mood Disorders are causing this - then they don't have schizophrenia! So please, tell me, why would you say "but I really do think that their belief has something to do with this"? What has something to do with this? Mood Disorders? Because that doesn't help your case...

This of course ignoring the fact that you''re trying to diagnose people you've never even met in your life... because of a fucking movie! Really, a fucking movie?

SydMorrison, point D says exclusion, as in the "an act or instance of excluding" You must exclude (i.e. make sure they are not present) Schizoaffective and Mood Disorders. The Psychologist must be certain that these are not the cause of the problems. If they are - if Mood Disorders are causing this - then they don't have schizophrenia! So please, tell me, why would you say "but I really do think that their belief has something to do with this"? What has something to do with this? Mood Disorders? Because that doesn't help your case...

This of course ignoring the fact that you''re trying to diagnose people you've never even met in your life... because of a fucking movie! Really, a fucking movie?

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make it clear in what I wrote.

I was making the concession that they would most definately fit into the D category, and the schizophrenic diagnosis would hence not be final. However, I stated that certain mood disorders and schizophrenia are often confused for one another, so point D is almost completely mute in and of itself. Because psychoanalysis is still so far from an exact science, you can't completely rule something out when it's so close to several other disorders.

I also questioned WHEN exactly that APA reference was from, because they would obviously know this...Either that, or I'm not exactly up to date on my information either.

AND, finally, I am NOT trying to diagnose people because of a movie. The only reason I made so many references to the movie is because of its popularity and the fact that it is thus recognizable (saves me from finding websites, and saves you from reading fuck all if you've seen the movie)

The whole purpose of this thread is to simply point out that there seems to be a connection between religion, and mental illness, and seeing if anyone other than myself can come up with some kind of logical explanation for this, or some sort of statistics for or against this notion.

Yes, are saturday/sunday night football fans mentally ill? As they gather around the boob tube to worship once a week? When they get angry and shout incoherently at the television, is this their metal illness showing?

Are 'fan clubs' of hit bands and celebrities not little 'cults' of their own? What about organizations like MADD or NORML, are they mentally unstable as well? How about PETA?


Certainly there are some similarities, but I'd say that there are much less. Note that they don't speak to any invisible force, and that everything they're involved in is very much related to this world, and visible.

Certain organizations do get more intense though. A PETA extremist that shrink wraps themselves in front of the Whitehouse, and then proceeds to molotov cocktail a petstore later that day is certainly not the most mentally stable person in the world.

The whole purpose of this thread is to simply point out that there seems to be a connection between religion, and mental illness, and seeing if anyone other than myself can come up with some kind of logical explanation for this, or some sort of statistics for or against this notion.

I am under the impression that there is no solid state of mind we could call sane, or 'right'. That 'sane' should be closer in meaning to the word 'like' then the word 'right'.

That every member of humanity has a split mind, that we are all insane.

Thanks for showing that your opinion of the faithful is that we all blindly follow.


Not necessarily that you all blindly follow, but the irony I was pointing out is the controlling factor that religion has. Governments absolutely LOVE religion, because people are so much more easily controlled when the threat of a being that they don't necessarily understand is there.

Many monotheist religions in their purest form are, ideally, an autocracy.

I am under the impression that there is no solid state of mind we could call sane, or 'right'. That 'sane' should closer in meaning to the word 'like' then the word 'right'.

That every member of humanity has a split mind, that we are all insane.

Heh. While we could argue the metaphysical approach to the whole thing, I'd really rather not (although the thought is intriguing)...

It would stretch things out much more than I'd like it to, and be a complete stalemate no matter what arguement was to come up.

I also questioned WHEN exactly that APA reference was from, because they would obviously know this...Either that, or I'm not exactly up to date on my information either.

The reference I provided is from the most up-to-date manual there is: the DSM-IV. The DSM-V is currently being written, edited, revised etc. for publication in years to come.

Also, it is precisely because the two are so similar that they make a specific point of telling Psychologists that are going to diagnose Schizophrenia that they have to rule the other disorder out!

If they were vastly different, there would be no point in telling them, it would be completely obvious. So that they mention Mood Disorders doesn't mean they are implying they are vastly different, it means they are implying there are differences that could be so subtle the Psychologist misses them, and thus make it a point to require that the Psychologist exclude them before making a diagnosis of schizophrenia.


AND, finally, I am NOT trying to diagnose people because of a movie. The only reason I made so many references to the movie is because of its popularity and the fact that it is thus recognizable (saves me from finding websites, and saves you from reading fuck all if you've seen the movie)

You're trying to diagnose people you haven't even met - save from some short interactions you may have had with them in your life - over the Internet. That's equally idiotic.

You don't have a degree in this field, you have virtually no fucking evidence about the condition (or lack therefore) this people have, and thus the honest thing to do is definitely not to try to diagnose people over the internet.


The whole purpose of this thread is to simply point out that there seems to be a connection between religion, and mental illness, and seeing if anyone other than myself can come up with some kind of logical explanation for this, or some sort of statistics for or against this notion.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread connect religion to mental illness, so I have no idea how you could say "there seems to be a connection". For example, I have yet to see anyone show any statistics that would even imply that, let alone allow us to reach a conclusion.

A connection to silly, stupid and/or weird shit like hallucinations and speaking in tongues? Sure. Mental illness? No. Mental illness is a lot more than that.

I'm one of those crazy fucks occasionally hears God.

I would discount myself as certifiably insane had listening to this voice ever produced a negative effect.

I've heard him call my name once. I've heard him ask me a question once. I've seen four visions.

He called my name when I was on the verge of suicide. Complete serenity and peace of mind overcame me.

I was listening to a song one time while going through a trying time with a friendship. One of the lines said, "I'll be there for you." And I heard the Voice say, "For who?" It set in motion a chain of thoughts that brought about a clear solution that has since strengthened the friendship and solved the problem it faced (essentially, selfishness on my part).

And the Vision. The first time the Vision visited me, I was shown the Earth as it was created, as it was originally, before we abandoned ourselves and hid from reality in our delusional societies. From this vision, I've understood the detriments of abandoning the inner light.

The second visit, I was shown my place of belonging...my home. This happened when I felt complete loneliness and ostracism from life. From this vision, I've come to understand the meaning of true kinship and love.

The third was given as a request to the Spirit to show me what my heart truly is: I was sitting under a tree singing a song. From this vision, I've pursued song to a wonderful success.

The fourth, I was shown a collection of white stones with symbols on them. I wrote down the symbols and learned what they were. They were Hebrew: Yod Heh Waw Heh. From this vision, my concept of the Spirit changed.

Am I insane? Probably a little...but my life is far from what you'd expect an insane individual's to be. :)

Hey, uh, just a bit of advice. It's usually not a good idea to go around talking about yr most amazing spiritual experiences/ that time you had complete power over everything. It totally degrades the experience and honestly is kinda stupid. It only leads to mystical pride. I know the urge you have to talk about it etc etc but you need some sobriety. And not normal people sobriety, most people don't have that.

Also, on the subject of sanity: http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html

Pride? Nah. I'm an outright arrogant prick. Better than all of you, and what not...

Really though, I understand your point. Nobody asked me what my most powerful spiritual experience was, and I just blurted it out anyways. Not right of me...nobody cared to hear that shit, I suppose.

The reference I provided is from the most up-to-date manual there is: the DSM-IV. The DSM-V is currently being written, edited, revised etc. for publication in years to come.

Also, it is precisely because the two are so similar that they make a specific point of telling Psychologists that are going to diagnose Schizophrenia that they have to rule the other disorder out!

If they were vastly different, there would be no point in telling them, it would be completely obvious. So that they mention Mood Disorders doesn't mean they are implying they are vastly different, it means they are implying there are differences that could be so subtle the Psychologist misses them, and thus make it a point to require that the Psychologist exclude them before making a diagnosis of schizophrenia.



I realize that, but what I was saying originally is that because they are so similar - it's hard to rule anything out. This isn't really an exact science we're talking about, and people can go from being diagnosed as bipolar to schizophrenic pretty quick.



You're trying to diagnose people you haven't even met - save from some short interactions you may have had with them in your life - over the Internet. That's equally idiotic.

You don't have a degree in this field, you have virtually no fucking evidence about the condition (or lack therefore) this people have, and thus the honest thing to do is definitely not to try to diagnose people over the internet.



*Sigh* Is that not the whole fucking reason of me making this thread? I can personally see similarities between religion and mental illness is all I'm saying. I've admitted (a few times) that I have no degree in the field, and have simply asked if anyone else agrees or disagrees with me after providing my case.

We can all see your take on it, so if you'd kindly shut the fuck up and stop restating everything 100 times (and making me restate everything 100 times), maybe this thread will have some space for progress as opposed to you just getting rid of anger on your keyboard.



I haven't seen anyone in this thread connect religion to mental illness, so I have no idea how you could say "there seems to be a connection". For example, I have yet to see anyone show any statistics that would even imply that, let alone allow us to reach a conclusion.

A connection to silly, stupid and/or weird shit like hallucinations and speaking in tongues? Sure. Mental illness? No. Mental illness is a lot more than that.

For fuck sakes. Go back and read my post pointing out the connections I've seen in point A, B, and C of the thing you posted. If you had actually READ the whole thing, you'd realize that I was pointing out similarities.

I realize that, but what I was saying originally is that because they are so similar - it's hard to rule anything out. This isn't really an exact science we're talking about, and people can go from being diagnosed as bipolar to schizophrenic pretty quick.

Then how is the fact that they mention it any sort of indication of the age of the document? You said:

However, it is a widely accepted fact that Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia are two VERY close disorders... so I'm not sure exactly how updated that document you have really is...

The fact that they make it a point to tell the Psychologist to exclude the other disorder goes to show how up-to-date it is since they correctly acknowledge the similarities of these disorders and thus the importance in making sure that the Psychologist is not mistaken in his diagnosis by making sure he/she excludes other disorders.


*Sigh* Is that not the whole fucking reason of me making this thread? I can personally see similarities between religion and mental illness is all I'm saying. I've admitted (a few times) that I have no degree in the field, and have simply asked if anyone else agrees or disagrees with me after providing my case.

We can all see your take on it, so if you'd kindly shut the fuck up and stop restating everything 100 times (and making me restate everything 100 times), maybe this thread will have some space for progress as opposed to you just getting rid of anger on your keyboard.

You were asking for facts -you even made it a point of saying how the only real facts provided where the diagnostic criteria I gave -yet you yourself were providing absolutely none of them. That's my point.

Instead of doing the honest thing, which is to admit that since you have no degree in this field and no real evidence, you shouldn't be diagnosing anyone, you ignore this and proceed to do it anyway!


For fuck sakes. Go back and read my post pointing out the connections I've seen in point A, B, and C of the thing you posted. If you had actually READ the whole thing, you'd realize that I was pointing out similarities.

I know what you did, perhaps you should take the advice you give and actually read what I said. My point is that what you did (point out what you - an untrained, uneducated, uncredentialed guy on the Internet - thinks are the similarities) is nothing close to the facts you were supposedly asking for (e.g. "Is there a statistical increase in the amount of mentally ill religious people?") and does not support the allegations you've made.

I don't think anyone here cares what you think the similarities are, they care about what you can provide evidence for. You claimed that there was a connection between being religious and being mentally ill, but then you provided no good evidence for it. That's the problem. What you think are similarities doesn't serve as evidence of anything; anyone can claim that or the opposite.

Let me state the point I continued to make throughout this thread and the one to which you have not really touched on AT ALL.

I said before and will say again:

Delusions of Influence and Auditory Hallucination are two symptoms of schizophrenia in which most religious people suffer from.

I have not said that all religious people are schizophrenic. I have not even said all believers in a higher power are insane. In fact I have stated just the opposite.

Please tell me how my position is incorrect. Feel free at any time.

Caught up in the moment of debate I used your guide to see how many points I could stick to Christians, the difference is I realize my opinion on it is unprofessional.

What is more is before that I had stated BEFORE I USED THAT GUIDE, that not all religious people suffer from the symptoms of schizophrenia.

I realize my problem in this debate was my allowing you to proceed with your usual semantical diversional rhetoric and draw me into it.

Realize it or not you are unprofessional interpreting a guide used by professionals. I have admitted I have done so unprofessionally. Take your head our of your ass for a moment and realize you are doing the same thing.

It is not a matter of reading basic English, if it were English majors could be psychologists, every bit as on the mark as you.

So, please tell me how my long stated position in this thread is incorrect, or kindly shut your fucking mouth hole.

To reiterate:

Delusions of Influence and Auditory Hallucination are two symptoms of schizophrenia in which a great deal of religious people suffer from.

This is what I opened with in this thread, this is the point I have made.

I am not really sure what you have been attacking this whole time, but it certainly isn't my point.

So, please tell me how my long stated position in this thread is incorrect, or kindly shut your fucking mouth hole.

Yet another creationist tactic: You cannot refute the points I made so you ignore all of them and conveniently only deal with the ones you think you can handle.

Sorry, but you've made a long list of claims during this thread, so I have every right to call you on them. My objection has always been with your claim that they are mentally ill and your attempts to link them to schizophrenia. I don't have to suddenly argue the argument you want just because you've come to the realization that you've said some incredibly stupid things in this thread and now don't want to be accountable for them, and think you can pick and choose which ones you get to defend and which ones you can just ignore.

Again:

1. You said that they are mentally ill. Either provide proof of this mental illness, be it schizophrenia - which you've tried to link them to through out this thread - or some other mental illness, as covered in the DSM-IV, or admit that you cannot.

2. You said that "According to psychology" "the average churchgoer is insane".

Please either provide evidence of this claim, or admit that you cannot.

3. You used the DSM-IV criteria for Schizophrenia in an attempt to diagnose them as schizophrenic. Please provide evidence for the following or admit that you cannot:


a. Evidence or proof that these had social/occupational dysfunction.
Your guesses or opinion that they do aren't proof or evidence.

b. Evidence that the periods of depression and mania you claim they suffer from (I'm throwing you a bone and not demanding you provide any evidence for that moronic statement) only lasted for a brief period in time.

c. Evidence that their disturbance lasted more then 6 moths.
Again, your guesses or opinion that it has aren't proof or evidence.

d. Evidence that you've excluded other medical conditions and substances.

Like I already said, this does not require any "unprofessional psychological interpretation". This requires me to read English and notice that you have failed to meet the requirements as explicitly stated in the criteria; requirements, for example, that necessitate that you provide proof of the duration of the disturbance, the dysfunction in the individuals work/social relationships, among other things. You have provided no such proof.

By your ludicrous logic, I cannot possibly point out how someone has failed to provide evidence, ever, because according to you that's an "unprofessional opinion". No. Sorry, that's not how it works. That's an unbelievably pathetic cop-out, one I would expect from a creationist not someone who claims to be rational.


Now please, stop embarrassing yourself. Either provide the evidence, or just do the honest thing and admit that you've said a number of incredibly baseless things for which you have no evidence for. It's that easy.

To reiterate:

Delusions of Influence and Auditory Hallucination are two symptoms of schizophrenia in which a great deal of religious people suffer from.

Sorry I am not playing anymore of your "Prove the Manson Family was insane" bullshit.

To reiterate: You claimed a lot more than just that, so it falls on you to substantiate more than that. You do not get to ignore your burden of proof the moment it gets too difficult. If you want, you can admit that what you said was baseless and withdraw the statements you made. Like I said, either fulfill your burden of proof or admit that you cannot.

Also, there is no "Prove the Manson Family was insane"bullshit". I was quite happy to ignore this since it had little to do with my main point.

In short: Don't like substantiating the stupid shit you say? Don't say stupid shit. It's a good phrase to live by. Sadly you just want to berate creationists/theists as much as you can and then use their same tactics the moment it gets too tough. It's fucking pathetic.

THE FACTS:

Delusions of Influence and Auditory Hallucination are two symptoms of schizophrenia in which a great deal of religious people suffer from.

---------

If you wish to suggest that Delusions of Influence and Auditory Hallucination is mentally sound, please provide evidence that suggests this is mentally sound behavior.

I reject your claim that it is, until you do.

Actually, the facts are that you claimed a lot of stupid shit. Chief among those stupid claims was your assertion that they are mentally ill. You even made that claim in your second post in this thread - when I hadn't even posted yet so you can't even blame me for your stupid remarks.

At the very least, substantiate one of your allegations! Tell us which mental illness they have as covered in the DSM, or admit that you cannot.

I reject your claim that it is, until you do.

As far as I can tell, Rust hasn't made any claims at all.

If you wish to suggest that Delusions of Influence and Auditory Hallucination is mentally sound, please provide evidence that suggests this is mentally sound behavior.

I am not a mental health professional, so my opinion (like yours) is to be taken with a grain of salt. However, I feel that displaying symptoms of schizophrenia is mentally unsound behavior.

If you feel different please explain why.

I'm dealing with the numerous other statements you've made, which you have a burden to substantiate just as much as that one you keep mentioning. Just because you think that one is easy to substantiate doesn't mean you magically get to ignore all the other stupid shit you've said.

Now again:

You said they were mentally ill. So please tell us which mental illness they have as covered in the DSM, or admit that you cannot substantiate your allegation that they are mentally ill.

And I have told you:

I am not a mental health professional, so my opinion (like yours) is to be taken with a grain of salt.

However, I feel that displaying symptoms of schizophrenia is mentally unsound behavior.

On a scale of sane to insane, it stands to reason that auditory hallucination and delusions of influence (two symptoms of schizophrenia) are going to be closer to insane.

IF YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY...

Or can you?

Is deconstructionism all you practice?

Is deconstructionism all you practice?

You bemuse me, because I honestly cannot tell if you are a troll or just stupid. Simply asking you to substantiate the plethora of unsubstantiated statements you have made in a thread, and not allowing you to attempt to get away with making them unquestioned through trying to limit the discussion, is not an act of deconstruction. I cannot believe that you have suggested otherwise.

Is deconstructionism all you practice?

More pathetic tactics right out of the creationist playbook.

Like Hare said, this is nothing close to "deconstructionism". I'm not "deconstructing" anything; you made that very specific claim: you claimed they were mentally ill. I want you to substantiate that by showing us which mental illness they have. It's that easy.

Either you can, or you can't. Which is it? And please, spare us the bullshit.

And I have told you:

I am not a mental health professional, so my opinion (like yours) is to be taken with a grain of salt.

However, I feel that displaying symptoms of schizophrenia is mentally unsound behavior...

This post sounds exactly like a religious or spiritual person explaining that their faith or beliefs are personal and cannot be known to be correct, and that other people will have different beliefs.

Yet you started out your posts in this thread by presenting your beliefs as if they were known truth:

So yes, they are insane. In-fucking-sane. No doubt about it.

That is in your first post!



"I feel that displaying symptoms of schizophrenia is mentally unsound behavior."

I do feel differently. What is mentally sound?

Tell us, whats the right way to think, Broke?

I'm crazy!

And...I think...I like it!

What!

What is my craziness!

I like to wake up everyday and IV some schizophrenia before breakfast. Keeps the arteries clean and flowin' smooth. Like ice cold water. A spring. It's like a rush of adrenaline, serotonin, and dopamine. WOW! life! what in the HELL was that?

im not on topic at all, -but what

would you expect from

madness?