Scientists, Please Read

[Rhinoqulous]

Anon, you have not been a victim of libel as this is an internet forum, and you are using a fake name. Unless you can prove that all of us calling you an asshat has caused you undo mental anguish, damaged your reputation in your community/workplace, etc., I kindly ask you to shut the fuck up about legal matters in which you know nothing about.

Anon,

I honestly wouldn't have believed that I would ever have a problem with someone taking on Cal. But I do. You present your arguements in a disingenuous fashion--you make a bullshit statement--and wrap it in a threat-refer to information that is unsupported save for a few questionable internet based references and then --when confronted with a Phd in the area in question then denigrate that area of study to request statements from a psychiatrist.

When a psychiatrist comes on and makes a statement that you do not agree with; will you then start parsing the types of psychiatrists you will accept? Is there some school that is preferable? Or is it really just that you want the ones who will agree with you?

I will give Cal this small point--being brainwashed from birth into believing something untrue will almost always result in an induced belief that is untrue and matches the basic definition of a mental illness.

I would also point out that psychiatrists -some of them at the very least-have a consensus view of what represents mental illness. These definitions change with time and I have the strong suspicion that some are invented just to put a name on a "syndrome."

Me, I'm going with Scathach. Having read her postings and seen her reason-it makes far mroe sense to me than the pitiful meanderings and arguements ad nauseum of a miffed soccer mom internet troll with all this moral certitude-yet seems unable to state--I amy be wrong--in an internet community where her true identity isn't actually known.

And the libel threat--oh my stars and garters--please take your ball and go.

[Tenspace]

anon wrote

Yawn.... zzzz
I may miss scathach American law on defamation 101 and psychiatric diagnosis and treatment of psychosis 101 .... zzz...

Sorry for sleeping while you were waiting for me.

I'm back up now, refreshed, and at work.

Anon, I really don't get what you're trying to say. Sometimes your sentences are decipherable, other times, well, I just ignore them.

Posting every four minutes and awaiting a response is a sign you don't understand how message forums work. I know you're probably west coast, but sorry, I'm not up at 2:30 am my time (usually).

Look. Scathatch is a neuroscientist. Victus, TheJudge, and several others are also professionals in medical fields.

I asked for your credentials. I'm beginning to suspect that your credentials are in the form of patient experience.

I don't care about the profanity, because it really does not matter. It is as hard for me to accept that people are afraid of words as it is for me to accept that people believe in the Sky Faries. I will not restrict or censor the members here unless someone does something so heinous that it requires action.

I remember a time when a member said they wanted to come over and fuck my mother. Most people would ban you for something like that. Instead, I gave them my Dad's address and told them, "The urn is on the fireplace, I'm sure a deposit could be arranged."

And if she were alive today, she would have laughed her ass off about it.

[Tenspace]

Rhinoqulous wrote

Anon, you have not been a victim of libel as this is an internet forum, and you are using a fake name. Unless you can prove that all of us calling you an asshat has caused you undo mental anguish, damaged your reputation in your community/workplace, etc., I kindly ask you to shut the fuck up about legal matters in which you know nothing about.

Rhino, what if his name really is anon! :O

[anthonyjfuchs]

anon wrote

anthony, do you have any friends who are psychiatrists? If you do, just ask them what is the diagnosis and treatment of patients having psychosis.

Anon, I was wrongly incarcerated in an adolescent psychiatric ward when I was in high school, and I spent most of my time there discussing the nuances of the human psyche with a number of doctors who later tried to talk me into pursuing a career in psychiatry (or at least psychology). I don't have any formal training in the psych-fields, but apparently I have a natural aptitude for understanding the mechinations (and malfunctionings) of the human mind.

I know what psychosis is: "impairment of perception."
I know what schizophrenia is: "inability to distinguish reality from fantasy."
I have observed many of the same symptoms in the religious individuals I've encountered, leading me to conclude that religious devotion is merely another form of schizoprenia and/or psychosis (depending on the individual). Of course, I would never dare to make a sweeping diagnosis, or to try to diagnose anyone I haven't met and interacted with extensively (as opposed, say, to the rightwing doctor who "diagnosed" Terri Shiavo from across the country).

The problem here, which you are perpetuating, is that society discriminates. If Patient X claims that unicorns live in the subterranean caverns of Pluton's moon Charon, he is considered insane; if Patient Y claims that a man died, stayed dead for three days, then came back to life and flew up into the sky, he is considered a Christian. Yet there is an equal amount of evidence to support both claims; which is to say, none. Common sense, actually, seems to support Patient X's claim, which is at least plausible in a scientific sense, as opposed to Patient Y's claim, which is biologically impossible. So why is the unicorn-believer considered insane when the zombie-believer is considered devout?

anon wrote

It is American law of Defamation 101 and Psychiatric diagnosis of psychotics 101.

Because the First Amendment guarantees such broad freedom of expression, except in cases of sedition and slander, serious defamation of character must be proven by the complaintant in order to sustain libel charges. The complaintant must prove actual damages; it he lost his job because of the damage done to his reputation by the lies, or he was attacked and sustained medical injuries and had to pay for hospital care, etc.

Thus, if you work at Taco Bell for $5.75 an hour, and I lie by claiming that you are a schizophrenic psychotic (I don't know if that's a lie, since I don't know you personally), and my lie does not cause you to lose your job or in any way incur any kind of actual damages, you have no libel case. You cannot sue me simply for lying about you, because you cannot prove that my lies caused you any actual losses. You might -- just might -- have a case for putative damages if you can show that you were on your pay to a promotion to supervisor, but my lies caused you to get skipped for said promotion, but that'd be quite a stretch.

[Kate]

Fuck no.

[Victus]

Experimental psychologists, I would argue, probably know more about the field than practicing psychiatrists. Experimental psychologists have to be 100% up to date on all the research in their field. Psychiatrists only need to know consuling techniques, which aren't always backed up by the science (Freudian psycho-analysis, for example).

Your asking for a psychiatrist only demonstrates your lack of understanding about what's going on here.

[Kate]

Victus wrote

Your asking for a psychiatrist only demonstrates your lack of understanding about what's going on here.

She's probably just looking for a new provider. An atheist forum is WAY more helpful than an insurance company.

[Tenspace]

Well, we state in our rules:

"...may be edited/closed/deleted at the forum Moderators’ discretion. Attack the content, not the contributor. "

When a member makes an unwarranted attack on another member, especially if this attack is made within the first few posts, I will step in and mediate. However, reviewing this thread, I see instances where you questioned the definitions of Victus, you were corrected by Victus and Scathatch, then you proceeded to make legal threats toward Scat. My analysis is, basically that the profanity leveled at you was the result of frustration on the part of the members who first attempted to respond to you in a civil (albeit firm) manner. The first disingenious claim was actually made by you: "Also seek psychiatric advice on use of terminology, word, diagnosis and treatment of psychosis, and bi-polar disorder. "

I asked twice for you to present any credentials or referential information to substantiate your claim. These requests were ignored. At that point, you're fair game for those who express their views using words that others might find offensive.

"The RavingAtheist.com can not guarantee the accuracy of any information posted within these forums, and any post solely expresses the views of it's author, not those of the RavingAtheist.com"

Your attempt to bandy about legalese in an effort to, I don't know, scare Scathatch into submission, is not very conducive to a good online discussion. Furthermore, your tirades against Calpurnpiso, which included the statement, "Neither would the judges in American law courts, state or federal courts. " lead me to believe that you may attempt to pursue legal action, which would obviously not stand up in any American court of law, considering the above statement regarding the accuracy of the information clearly spells out that this is an opinion board, and as such, is not subject to laws of libel and slander, excepting those instances where personal information about members is shared publicly, and that personal information and subsequent statements causes tangible damage to the reputation of the target.

Now, if you want to play with the neuros, then please, please tell us about your experience which, in your mind, gives you the foundation from which to make your claims.

[Tenspace]

Victus wrote

Experimental psychologists, I would argue, probably know more about the field than practicing psychiatrists. Experimental psychologists have to be 100% up to date on all the research in their field. Psychiatrists only need to know consuling techniques, which aren't always backed up by the science (Freudian psycho-analysis, for example).

Your asking for a psychiatrist only demonstrates your lack of understanding about what's going on here.

Most psychiatrists are MDs, not researchers. I really don't understand what anon is trying to say.

[Tenspace]

A psychotic episode can be significantly colored by mood. For example, people experiencing a psychotic episode in the context of depression may experience persecutory or self-blaming delusions or hallucinations, while people experiencing a psychotic episode in the context of mania may form grandiose delusions or have an experience of deep religious significance. Although usually distressing and regarded as an illness process, some people who experience psychosis find beneficial aspects and value the experience or revelations that stem from it. - Sims, A. Symptoms in the mind: An introduction to descriptive psychopathology (3rd edition)

I liked All the definitions...
I do not "enjoy" hallucinating... But I am not about to say no to a Euphoric Mania either. *blush*... hehe This"Psychosis is a rational outcome that appears irrational due to our ignorance of it's causality"........
But that is because My Experiences surpass "simple" or "standard" Delusional thinking in the Fact that they Indeed happened and took Physical form. There For they became and actual event. A Happening afterward. We can debate Self Prophesizing, But why bother when we still haven't all decided that we landed on the moon for real.. The Harm of psychosis is the reaction....... if the one Experiencing the Psychosis has done no harm, feels no harm... then the situation is Fine and Considered an anomaly.... Should it turn for the worst, and keep the Entranced person from being able to live a Biologically healthy life, or to the point where the person is harming others.. It's Obvious that it needs to be stopped or Hindered... Altered?.... I for one am not about to stop another person from believing in the Existence in Jesus Christ, experiencing a healing and the like... But once you Force it onto my Belief possess where I do not hold those feelings, a Social human line has been Crossed. My beliefs should not Entangle with another's beliefs.. and Visa Versa. And if in a State of Psychosis one is Asked by Christ to kill another human being, it is bad. Period.... Whether it was Christ or Not is moot. A Moral boundary has been Crossed. Now... if we could Just shake of the Anxiety and Paranoia aspect that is sometimes threaded inside the all too real state of Psychosis we would be less suspicious of one another. But Hey... We aren't perfect now are we? - Anonymous suffer of psychosis.

Anon, I'm not a doctor, psychiatrist, or psychologist. I don't even play one on TV. But in a few minutes, I was able to educate myself just a little bit on this subject. It appears that religious psychosis (and psychopathy) are common, mainstream medical conditions.

Now, would you care to share why you are so passionate about this? I've asked several times, but I think you're just dodging my question.

[Tenspace]

anon wrote

AT THIS JUNCTURE, anyone still thinks that religious believers are equated with psychotics?

Well, the more you post, and the more I'm led to research this subject, then I'd have to say, yes, I do think that religious believers are suffering from a form of psychosis. The layman's definition fits quite well: any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. - Princeton University Wordnet

If someone believes in talking animals, corporeal reanimation, a young Earth, global inundation, animal sacrifice, and a whole host of other concepts not aligned with reality, and giving their money to Creflo Dollar, then yes, I guess they are psychotic. I would also surmise that the deeper they are into these detached beliefs, then the deeper their psychosis.

[anthonyjfuchs]

anon wrote

Victus starts with 'manics' who believe in .....

the blank ...... you can fill in (the blank) with
a] little green men
b] UFO
c] ANYTHING

Let's start slowly here, since that seems to be your speed.

Believing that there might be self-consciously aware intelligent extraterrestrial life -- which you so flippantly call "little green men" -- is not "manic." It is scientifically plausible; if life evolved on this planet, then it is conceivable that life may have evolved elsewhere in the vast sprawl of the cosmos. To claim that it couldn't have happened -- to claim that there is no life anywhere else in the universe -- is irrational based on what little inferences can be made.

UFOs on the other hand are merely unidentified flying objects. If you see an object that is flying and you can't identify it, then you have seen a UFO. Whether those UFOs are related to any kind of self-consciously aware intelligent extraterrestrial life is another matter entirely, and I refer you to the above paragraph for an exploration of that topic. It is not inconceivable, however, that a species that migth have evolved a few hundred-thousand years before humans might, by now, have mastered interstellar travel, and thus be able to commute between their home planet and ours. Of course, any life that far developed probably wouldn't view human beings as intelligent life at all, but merely sentient simians.

Option c] is meaningless unless you outline some actual beliefs.

anon wrote

So, like I said, when you have psychosis, your belief system [ even of UFOs] tends to be material for your psychotic expression.

Incorrect. When you "have psychosis," your belief system tends to be the expression of it. If you cannot properly interpret reality, you may begin to believe that the crashing noise you hear during a thunder storm is an angry man in the sky. Your "belief system" (ie, your Thunder God) is not separate from your psychosis, but emerges from it.

anon wrote

It can anything. anything. anything.

Can it be anything?

anon wrote

It would be the height of gross error to equate religious beliefs per se with psychosis.

Incorrect (and underlining your point doesn't make it any more correct).

As explained above, religious beliefs are just another manifestation of psychosis, which is an inability to properly perceive reality. The religious belief in a creator-being, for example, is the result of the inability to properly perceive reality as the result of a chain of natural processes; when one misinterprets reality as having been designed -- a supposition for which no supporting evidence exists -- then one winds up believing that the universe was created. Again: the belief system emerges from the psychosis.

anon wrote

Isn't that simple and clear enough?

You have been very simple and very clear. Unfortunately, you have also been incorrect.

anon wrote

Why is it so hard to understand this?

It is not hard to understand at all. It is simply incorrect; I am attempting to correct your errors.

anon wrote

Why?

Because I am trying to aid you in your understanding of the universe, but you seem to be fighting me on it.

anon wrote

Look Victus said, "...As for 'regular' theism, I don't consider it to be a psychological disorder." What does it mean?

I believe it means that Victus -- one individual -- doesn't consider 'regular' theism to be a psychological disorder.' I didn't think it was that difficult to interpret, but if you need an explanation that badly, I will provide one.

anon wrote

AT THIS JUNCTURE, anyone still thinks that religious believers are equated with psychotics?

Yes. I do; and I'm sure Cal still does. But you're misusing the word "psychotic." The word "psychosis" refers specifically to an inability to properly perceive reality; the word "psychotic" denotes erratic and dangerous behavior.

I do not think that all religious believers act "psychotically"; but I do think that religious belief is a manifestation of psychosis. Please be more careful when you use these kinds of technical medical terms.

Although I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to capitalize the first three words of that sentence. But que sera.

[Victus]

Religion, from what I can see, is the use (or in terms of seeking accuracy, misuse) of the underlying factors that are generally used to facilitate societal cohesiveness. It's like using superglue to stick a bomb to a bridge, that's not really what it's supposed to do. The theists that 'hear' God and manifest abnormal behaviors in the claim that they perceive God directly in some way, these can be said to be suffering from a psychosis of sorts (having a distorted or diminished view of reality).

Edit: But the majority of theists most likely fall under the former (social cohesiveness) rather than the latter (christ-psychosis).

As such, one can argue that a large group of people are following christ-psychotics are like remora on a shark.

[calpurnpiso]

Anon. Gratias tibi ago ( thanks) for PROVING my point that religious beliefs are a form of psychosis..ergo..my postulated Christ-psychosis. You faulty perception of reality, demonstrated in your posts, is a classic example of what this neurological disorder does. Many that didn't agree with me before, now do!!

Remember, you are in a forum composed of mentaly healthy people, aka atheists, which, unlike you, are able to tell between FANTASY ( religious fairy tales) and REALITY. I'm certain that if you discuss your point of view and distorted ideas with the patients at a mental health clinic you'd make perfect sense to them, and they to you.

I suggest you take ziprasidone, wait 15 mts, then post, and you'll see the difference!! .....and I am serious. Since it is a PROVEN MEDICAL FACT, this chemcial will affect your brain by IMPROVING your perception of reality, you'd have made my point, the taking of one of my JETs ( jesus existence tests), and further discussions which time after time proves you wrong, will not be necessary. Try it.....and...why don't you PRAY to jesus that the chemicals do not affect you...then, you'd have created another JET for me.

Do not forget, crazy is as crazy thinks and does, since delusions accepted as reality are ALWAYS in control. :cool: