nowhere.

Stick a fork in that horse, it's not only dead, its done.

I dont give a rats ass... i was not advocating anything other than that religion is NOT a delusion as proved by the actual definition used by the
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
and others.
again if you want to feel that religion IS a delusion or delusional and want to ignore the clinical definition... fine by me...i dont give a rats ass...BUT if "you" want to try and use clinical data to support your feelings... well you are going to be proved wrong just by the definition alone...if a thread was started WITHOUT the use of "clinical data" ...fine.... have at it... i would never have interjected anything and prolly not even posted because it is just someones opinion...but to try and validate that position with clinical data...is just disingenuous at best and outright obfuscation at the least
i was just presenting some other information for your viewing pleasure(re: Roberts)... if you find no utility in that... fine by me... I dont give a rats ass!!
also if the horse is dead and you dont want it beaten anymore... why start a new thread .....what do you want to hear...BTW Roberts was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1991 thats where that info comes from...so take from it if you will...it was just something that this UNREAD Bignevread read!! ...
just sayin!!

I'm interested in that article. Could you provide me with the volumn #, the page range of the article, and pages # where it discusses depression?

Thanks in advance.

however it was referenced here:
FindArticles / Health / Encyclopedia of Psychology / Apr 06, 2001
again it was just something i brought up for your viewing pleasure...

can't say I enjoy false citations.

The abstract is available on the net, just doesn't happen to say what you say it says.

it is what the article says it says!! did you really read what i was posting? i posited nothing about that article..in fact the only thing i was positing was...by definition religion is NOT delusional in the clinical sense which can not be refuted by reputable clinicians!!

well lulu.... what is it about "your viewing pleasure" that you do not understand? it was just something i found and posted! do you have a reading comprehension problem or do you think me a liar? well actually I DONT GIVE A RATS ASS!! i had a feeling you were being disingenuous in your question! i was NOT CITING ANY SOURCE BECAUSE I WAS NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS!!
and it was NOT false.... are you saying there is no article by Glenn Roberts? or that you dont like his conclusions... either way... but obviously there is an article so please explain how it is "false"... still... i didnt use it to cite anything...so in addition:
I DONT GIVE A RATS ASS!
what i dont like are disingenuous questions!
and disingenuous people which it seems you are!!
also i didnt find anything on the net except what i posted...so take whatever you will from it you disingenuous person you!! :)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 10:38AM by bignevermo.

Whether that appeal to authority is Glades Ency., the DSM, clinical definitions or General Authorities.

They can be wrong.

Glades got its cite wrong and you uncritically accepted it. Possible moral, don't uncrititcally accept an authority. An issue many RfM'ers chew on.

There is an article out there by a researcher with a name similar to the one you and Glades cite. Only his abtract is available, says nothing about depression. If you or anyone else has the full article, I'd love to read it. Disingenuous-disignsemous. First it would confirm that we have the right guy and the right article. I like to get back to the observable, measurable and repicable. Your secondary author might have some if we can find the article.

Accept GA's, DSM's, Glades, clinical dictionaries' definitions of really real reality? Been there, done that and have the Holy T-shirt.

Rat's ass, Benson's ass, horse's ass or ass's ass.

i take it you you also think that all religious people are delusional... from what clinical source would you take a definition from?
American Psychiatric Association. 1400 K Street NW, Washington DC 20005. (888) 357-7924. http://www.psych.org.
American Psychological Association (APA). 750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. (202) 336-5700. ttp://www.apa.org.
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI). Colonial Place Three, 2107 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 300, Arlington, VA 22201-3042. (800) 950-6264. http://www.nami.org.

none of these? are they not reputable organizations? or do you dismiss them because they dont advocate what you believe?
if that is the case... why even bother? just tell me you wont accept these organizations and i will then know how to proceed.

clinical definitions are what are needed because clinical "proof" was supposedly rendered.
just sayin!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 11:45AM by bignevermo.

Perhaps the American Psychiatric Association's inability or unwillingness to diagnose religion as a delusion is a manifestation of our species' inability to self-diagnose our largest problems?

Or perhaps, if religion is indeed a delusion and does in fact cause many of its adherents to manifest symptoms of clinical illness, it has become necessary to the existence of the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations and these organizations' effort to diagnose it correctly would ultimately serve to cure the majority of symptoms of mental illness as opposed to simply treating them, and once cured the necessity for these organizations would no longer exist and they would work themselves out of a job? In other words, it's not in the best interest of these organizations to actually cure anything, only to treat because that's where the money is.

Or perhaps believing in invisible beings who supposedly have power over you isn't dangerous after all and people enjoy internalizing guilt and externalizing blame?

Just perhaps..

It's like expecting a religion to teach someone the true order of prayer and ACTUALLY putting them in face-to-face contact with a god who says "good job. I've been waiting forever for you to learn that. Now, sit down. Are you taking notes?"

Or expecting a guru to teach you the perfect meditation technique that will ACTUALLY raise your kundalini to your crown chakra which will culminate in full satori and enlightenment without having to sweep the ashram for 20 years before he'll even speak to you.

Or expecting the police to arrest anyone on Wall Street...

these are the clinical definitions... but do you really think they have to "protect" their income by keeping people in their care? if you follow that line of reasoning.... they should be more than happy to call religion delusional so they would have almost everybody under their care... really is that really what you think?
i was reading about some peole being mistreated in Missouri because of their insurance coverage...and their are prolly more abuses...but really? put 95% of the people under psychiatric care? really? ok... glad i wont need it!! :)

That's just it. If psychologists unanimously declared that religion was a delusion then there would be two possible outcomes:

1. No one would take them seriously anymore and they wouldn't have as many customers

2. Everyone would quit religion and those psychologists wouldn't have as many customers

So it wouldn't serve their best interests to define religion as a clinical delusion. It's a simple conflict of interest.

but Kolobian... #2 would be saying that all religious people are deluded...is that what you advocate? i believe that it is... and.. as of now... that dont wash....like i said on another now closed thread.... maybe in 1,000 years it will be considered delusional...but...right now it aint!!
and it is right now that we are having this conversation so we have to use the current definition.... or at least clinicians do!

"...maybe in 1,000 years it will be considered delusional...but...right now it aint!!"

I know that ideas and opinions change, and so must therefore definitions, as we've already covered. But to be precise, reality of the universe does not depend on definitions! If it is, it is, whatever humans may think about it.

If religion is a delusion (a majorly mass one!) then it is, whether psychs agree or not and whatever The Book says.

In our day, religion is not defined by psych professionals as a mental illness, which means only that it is not defined as such by psych professionals (or others) and not that it is _not_ a delusion. Likewise, in 1000 yrs, if it _is_ defined as mental illness, in reality it is only mental illness if it _is_ a delusion and not because someone defined it as such.

Just to be precise. :)

i will look at it. be genuine and give the the url...
not that it matters in any context in my posts... it really was just something i put out there for your "viewing pleasure"..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 10:36AM by bignevermo.

Entertainment only?

What's real matters.

Have you read Cheryl's post about the polygamous prophet in their home and how it lead to her father repeatedly slapping here.

Have you read the post about the college student who almost doesn't dare go home for Christmas after a year away because the student fears a "TBM attack." From the family.

Have you heard about the Mormon gays who have killed themselve over what authorities claimed was the one true reality.

You know about the teenage boys who kill themselves because what's in their right hand so deeply conflicts with the authorities' reality.

Entertainment?
Reality matters.

but you see when you include all(almost caped it)... religions and peoples..that is where the problem begins... if you read any of my posts you will see that i did say... yes there are delusional religious people.... but Steve posits that all religious people are delusional... thats the problem... did you think that i was saying that no religious people are delusional? cause i just didnt ever say that... a lot of damage has been done by religious people... but i dont know if they were all delusional in the clinical sense...
are you aware of the clinical definition of delusional? i can post it again if you like. :)
and yes i was just putting up that article for your perusal... dont blame me if you dont like Roberts conclusions...it was however published in the British Journal of Psychiatry was it not?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 11:23AM by bignevermo.

Roberts, BJP, 1991.

Abstract says says nothing about depression.

I don't argue about conclusions I haven't seen.

And please excuse me Mod that I did repeat.

A genetic model compatible with a dimensional view of schizophrenia.
BJP April 1991 158:451-6;
so did you pay to read this? also here is what was posted on the other thread..hint is has to do with schizophrenia and delusions. read on:

One intriguing idea, proposed by G.A. Roberts in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1991, is that delusions actually help psychotic and schizophrenic patients by providing them with a detailed sense of purpose for their lives. Roberts found that people currently exhibiting delusional behavior were less depressed than those who had been delusional but were recovering.
so why do you have a bug up your butt about this? remember i did not use it in anyway but to show something that seemed interesting to me...and i aint gonna pay the $15 to view it...why? well you know why!! :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 12:00PM by bignevermo.

but again....it was not something central to what i am/was saying!! why dont you try addressing my question about the definition!!

Accept GA's, DSM's, Glades, clinical dictionaries' definitions of really real reality? Been there, done that and have the Holy T-shirt.

what clinical definition will you accept?
it seems none at all... so... you dont accept any of the "accepted" definitions...where is your clinical definition??

Bignevermo, how do you explain the fact that this article actually says you DO give a rats ass?
http://www.ratsandass.com/People_who_do_give_a_rats_ass




/may not be a real URL
//even if it was, it may not have actually said that

i even clicked on it!!
and actually i do give a rats ass about some things...certainly not if someone wants to think religious people are delusional.... i do care however if "you" want to use clinical data to call religion delusional... cause at least for now...it just aint so!!

See what religion does in deluding you? :)

DAMN STEVE WRONG AGAIN!!

WHY DO YOU THINK I AM RELIGIOUS??

I AINT!!! .

i havent stepped into a church since my dad died... and i never pray... and i dont think there is a "sky daddy" so how does that make me religious? because you could not prove your claim and i called Steve out on it?? so Steve says i am religious so he feels better... hope ya do Steve!!

and LULU about the ass kicked remark... since Steve could not cite any sources(reputable and not from a poster here on RFM) that could back up his claim... religion is delusional...(which in and of itself is not a problem) he tried to use clinical data to back up his claim(there is the crux of the issue for me because the clinical definition refutes that from the get go)...but none of them actually did.... so instead he used red herrings and logical fallacies to distract from the fact that he could not prove his claim!
as my BIL Judge Alex would say:
CASE CLOSED!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 10:55AM by bignevermo.

Could you please turn down your caps? It interferes with reading, does nothing for your presentation, only makes you appear erratic.

i will (i almost caped locked here) try!! :)
thanks for the feedback though.... IRL i also do tend to "speak loudly" :)

also since Steve cannot back his claims up what do you call it? remember it was he that made an extraordinary claim(which requires extraordinary evidence...heard that plenty here on RFM) and could not back it up...which would be fine...but he went for clinical data to back his claim up...but it just wasnt there... he is drawing conclusions that the PI's dont...again...
just sayin!
is it wrong to use caps when emphasizing?
just asking!! :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 11:02AM by bignevermo.

. . . despite sayin' you were gonna dismount, really you were:

"here is another one... THEN I AM OFF THIS DAMN HORSE!!:)"

(emphasis added, since you like caps so much)

("LOL!!!," posted by "bignevermo." on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 5 December 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357316,357417#msg-357417}


"Don't try to understand them,
Just rope, throw and brand 'em . . . "

Yeehaw!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl2fONPgIJE



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 01:00PM by steve benson.

i was just responding to lulu...
still have those red herrings i see...
i am telling you... i can get rid of them for you... i am in the seafood business!!
also whats this crap about you calling me religious.... disingenuous again!! oy vay!!
what you want me to stop posting so you can say whatever you want without being refuted? i used to think a lot more of you than that.

And, P.S., it's not a red herring when you actually said the stuff about dismounting after just one more citation.

"Don't try to understand them,
Just rope, throw and brand 'em . . . "

Yeehaw!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl2fONPgIJE



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 01:35PM by steve benson.

because it is all you got! :)
when i worked as a manager in the QSR field i knew i was doing a good job when all they could pick on was picayune stuff!! thanks for reaffirming that for me Steve!!

Can't cuz other people won't let you?

Very well, then. Yeehaw!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl2fONPgIJE



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2011 02:00PM by steve benson.

Hey, it's not the horse's fault! Leave the poor pony out of it. :)