Pharyngula

Posted by: vanharris | October 15, 2009 10:54 AM

PZ, comments are not superfluous on this one.

It doesn't say in the ad that the christian man also must have mental illness & hear voices, or, if he doesn't actually hear voices, he still nevertheless tries to communicate telepathically with the god thing.

Posted by: James Sweet | October 15, 2009 10:54 AM

It's funny, but before we point and laugh too much remember that hearing voices is a serious issue that often can't be helped (i.e. schizophrenia) and that if a person can get it under control that is really a great thing. My brother-in-law is schizophrenic and NOT "self-controlled" most of the time... he's not too bad if he is on the right meds -- but when he suddenly skips town to take a bus across country, and winds up living on the street, you can probably imagine that he's not getting the right meds :/

Posted by: vanharris | October 15, 2009 10:58 AM

James, we weren't thinking of mental illness as in schizophrenia, just mental illness as in adults believing in fairies & other magical beings.

Posted by: Kobra | October 15, 2009 11:10 AM

I cannot muster up the words to adequately sass this image.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | October 15, 2009 11:26 AM

She has the voices, she has the xtian.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 15, 2009 11:35 AM

On the other hand, hearing voices is actually better evidence for God than most Christians demand. Look at Francis Collins and his frozen waterfall.

Posted by: Sanction | October 15, 2009 11:45 AM

I guess I just feel a little compassion for the woman talking about hearing voices, having it mostly under control, and wanting someone who understands it.

Me too. I was mentally ill for some time back in the days of yore, and it wasn't fun. I was already an atheist then, but a couple of times I actually offered up a prayer for relief from the pain. You know, on the off chance...

But don't worry, I also get the joke :)

Posted by: mikecbraun | October 15, 2009 11:54 AM

Has she met public servant glorifier of Jesus Almighty Christ Lord Master Glenn Moon? Glenn enjoy hockey head injury voices in head from Jesus times ten x Lord God Master incredibly!

Posted by: Kevin Nolan | October 15, 2009 12:09 PM

Failblog failed on the latest post:
http://failblog.org/2009/10/15/protest-fail-3/

Ignorance of Fr. Ted is shameful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM

Posted by: Irenaeus | October 15, 2009 12:12 PM

OT, but have you seen this Arschloch: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/n-c-church-to-burn-satans-books-including-works-of-mother-theresa/

Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | October 15, 2009 12:44 PM

I wonder if this ad is a prank.

Posted by: Shadow | October 15, 2009 1:02 PM

But what happens when his voices get into an argument with her voices?

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 15, 2009 2:00 PM

Poor taste in my view, PZ; and not really on target. While the religious do believe things that are as loopy as any mad person, the social context in which a belief is held does make a difference: most of them function well enough, and keep the loopy beliefs in a compartment marked "religion".

Posted by: senecasam | October 15, 2009 2:10 PM

So, was the ad placed by Michele Bachmann or Tania Beck?

Posted by: Creature of the Universe | October 15, 2009 2:27 PM

I wonder if anyone really called her? And how would she know for sure? My Aunt Janet was like her.

It would probably be better if she used an online christian social/dating service to eliminate voices.

Posted by: Tulse | October 15, 2009 2:43 PM

While the religious do believe things that are as loopy as any mad person, the social context in which a belief is held does make a difference: most of them function well enough, and keep the loopy beliefs in a compartment marked "religion".

So the problem is that the psychotic are actually more consistent about the implications of their beliefs?

Posted by: MikeM | October 15, 2009 3:19 PM

So, a pastor is planning a Bible burning. Anyone wanna go?

http://www.mercurynews.com/weird-news/ci_13567852

Can't they just recycle like everyone else?

Posted by: idlemind | October 15, 2009 3:26 PM

Well, there is a difference between "talking" to God and when God starts speaking back. I've known fundies who claim God "talks" to them, but not as an actual voice.

So redundant, not.

Posted by: JackC | October 15, 2009 3:58 PM

And the Natural Guard. Don't forget the Natural Guard. Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers.

JC

Posted by: lose_the_woo | October 15, 2009 4:44 PM

Christian woman looking for Christian man partner who is sympathetic with woman who has mental illness and hears voices but is self controlled.

You had me at "Christian".

Posted by: MadScientist | October 15, 2009 5:19 PM

[OT] While on the topic of religion, Mooney's lying again:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/10/15/more-on-dawkins/

Still more of that crap about R. Dawkins being an accommodationist. I think it's rather funny how Mooney has become a liar for jeezus while proclaiming to still be an atheist. Is this a new tactic of the evangelicals - no longer the "I was once an atheist but I saw the light" instead "I'm an atheist who sees the light and accepts jeezus"?

Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 15, 2009 6:55 PM

Is it just me or did anyone else find "Christian man partner" hilarious?

And Fil, not knocking your friends' tragedies and all, but shut up. Don't be coming around here trying to guilt trip people because you apparently haven't gotten your daily uh, fill. You're proof that something really rather benign can be taken in the worst way randomly by just about anyone. If you're that pissed off about it, why are you here grousing instead of working a clinic?

Posted by: Eidolon | October 15, 2009 7:09 PM

Blue Indi:

I don't think Fil was trying to guilt trip so much as pointing out that mental illness is, perhaps, not all that funny. In fact, it can have tragic consequences.

Is this benign? Fil is not the only one who does not see this as something just for grins. I know - the humor was supposed to come from the juxtaposition of Christian and mental illness. Why grouse here? This is where all the fun started.

I guess some of us can make a distinction between laughing at the craziness that comes out of AiG and having a few yuks at the expense someone with mental illness who also happens to be a christian.

Posted by: Kapitano | October 15, 2009 8:16 PM

@Richard Eis: So, how do we tell the difference between schizophrenia and religion again?

Schizophrenic voices go away with treatment, religious voices go away with education. Sometimes.

Posted by: Desert Son | October 15, 2009 8:34 PM

This ad makes me feel very sad. Assuming it's not a joke, or some kind of subterfuge, here's a lonely person, acknowledging mental illness, still trying to reach out to someone for understanding in a relationship. The Christian descriptor seems almost incidental; maybe its a cultural component in which she feels some stability. It doesn't make the Christian god any more real (or probable, or plausible), she may be simply mustering all the resources she feels she has in an effort to find connection.

Perhaps I have less sympathy for the protestations of Christians that don't otherwise demonstrate characteristics of mental illness because I feel like they are still agentive in their lives, still capable of thinking through issues of belief, evidence, and so forth. A schizophrenic may still exercise agency in their own lives, but it may not be in the same way, or to the same degree, or with the same compartmentalization, or focus, due to a neuro-chemical difficulty. I don't know enough about schizophrenia, though, so that crude description may, itself, do disservice to those afflicted by it. The ad just strikes me as sad.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | October 15, 2009 8:48 PM

Eidolon got it right.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 15, 2009 9:05 PM

Inevitable, if you tell a joke to a crowd of a million, someone won't find it funny.

"In poor taste" comes to mind, though it doesn't seem to make enough of a statement. It's just tragic really.

Posted by: georgefromny.myopenid.com | October 15, 2009 9:14 PM

"Outburst," eh? I didn't see Fil posting giant all-caps text blocks or a forest of exclamation points... or are critical comments "outbursts" by definition?

While I don't agree with or defend the entirety of what Fil wrote, he nailed it with

"...but you can't help yourself poking fun at her condition just for lols because of her religious beliefs."

because that IS how it comes across: Let's mock this self-admittedly mentally-ill, lonely person because, hey, she's one of those stooopid God-botherers.

Please spare me the riposte of, "Hey, the gag here is that 'Christian' and 'mental illness' are redundant," the weakness of which should be more than apparent.

Posted by: Eileen | October 15, 2009 9:33 PM

This person is so lonely and desperate I don't give a shit about the redundancy. Obvious pain is nothing to sneer at.

Posted by: of-the-willows | October 15, 2009 10:37 PM

I'm not laughing at this woman. I'm laughing at how apt a definition Schizophrenic is for the rest of the godbotherers. They won't admit that their religion is a symptom of some underlying mental illness.

The joke, for those of you who don't get it, is that there is an overlap between mental illness and the popular "talk to god and he talks to you" religions. Kindly stick.

Posted by: Kamaka | October 15, 2009 10:56 PM

flyonthewall:

Thank dog Thank goodness!

Good luck I hope things work out.

Bless you Be well.

Posted by: iasasai | October 15, 2009 11:44 PM

That gave a nice little chuckle/groan.
To those getting indignant about the rest of having a chuckle at someone else's expense - deal with it. For some of us ANY mention of being religious, regardless of context, social or otherwise, is worth laughing at. Some of you may not like that about us, but that's the way it is; if you don't like humour that might be darker than you'd prefer, that's just too bad.

The holding of religious convictions, regardless of how benign they may be, is functionally equivalent to mental illness.

Posted by: Shamac | October 15, 2009 11:54 PM

@PZ:

There is absolutely nothing funny about mental illness. [snip] What struck me about the ad is that she is demanding a Christian man.

Then why the title "Department of Redundancy Department"? Sorry, PZ, but you can't post hoc rationalize your way out of it—you clearly implied that there is no difference between being xtian and having mental illness. This is the joke that most of the other commenters have been discussing thus far; don't pretend you weren't the one to make it.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 16, 2009 12:12 AM

The holding of religious convictions, regardless of how benign they may be, is functionally equivalent to mental illness.

Posted by: Shamac | October 16, 2009 12:46 AM

@#69:

???? You actually thought your comment was funny and relevant to my point?
LOL. Now that is funny!!!

Most of the creos and fundie xians that show up on this blog are not representative of most xtians. Relevant or not, you definitely didn't put much thought into this.

Posted by: Shamac | October 16, 2009 1:22 AM

...belief in god and jebus is a form of madness. Perhaps even more crazy than mental illness, as the believers volunteer to be crazy.

So, it's a meta-craziness? I think we can dismiss that hypothesis on grounds of absurdity.

Posted by: iasasai | October 16, 2009 1:55 AM

I see nothing unreasonable in assuming that 75% or more of the population is mentally ill, from one thing or another. We belong to one messed up species...

Posted by: Shamac | October 16, 2009 2:26 AM

...religion is definitely it's own special kind of crazy.

I just love how this line of thought ("xtians are crazy") gets so swiftly wittled down. First it's "xtians are mentally ill". Which soon after gets rebutted. Then it morphs into the more generic "xtians are crazy". After that gets worn down, it becomes "xtians are a special kind of crazy." (A "special kind" being a diagnosis that exists only to insult people.)

Why are so many atheists so desperate to prove that theists are crazy? This theme constantly crops up in comments on atheist sites, and every point you have to offer in its support gets shot down every goddamned time. Can you finally let this childish assertion go? They're not crazy by any meaningful standard, and no amount of rhetorical acrobatics is going to show otherwise. Now would you please come up with a different childish insult to use? This one wore out it's welcome years ago.

Posted by: iasasai | October 16, 2009 3:24 AM

So, for example, if everyone on the planet had lupus, would that make the term absolutely useless? No, it's still a condition that needs attention, so why should mental illness be any different?

Posted by: georgefromny.myopenid.com | October 16, 2009 3:34 AM

"Can you finally let this childish assertion go? They're not crazy by any meaningful standard, and no amount of rhetorical acrobatics is going to show otherwise. Now would you please come up with a different childish insult to use? This one wore out it's welcome years ago."

A good question, Sham. And the answer is; it's a silencing tactic known as Pathologizing Dissent.

To wit: I do/do not believe XYZ and those on the other side are not only wrong in the sense of factual ignorance or broken logic - there is something wrong WITH them.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 16, 2009 4:21 AM

So, for example, if everyone on the planet had lupus, would that make the term absolutely useless? No, it's still a condition that needs attention, so why should mental illness be any different?

Posted by: SEF | October 16, 2009 4:33 AM

@ Qwerty #45:

If she commits the voices to paper, we'll have another Christian denomination.

and PZ #60:

she is demanding a Christian man. That won't help her at all.

What struck me was that she'd failed to specify a flavour of Christian. It's not as though all Christians are alike or can tolerate each other.

I'm not sure what the worst combination for incompatibility would be though. Especially since the individual members are often not (in terms of their actual beliefs) what they claim to be at all. It's a bit like compatibility in astrology but somewhat more real!

Posted by: Shamac | October 16, 2009 5:12 AM

@A.Noyd:

...if your capacity for reason is taken over by a parasitic meme, could you really volunteer to host it, especially if it infected you when you were a child and it infuses your identity and it's got built in defenses against its host getting "treatment" and the vast majority of society is likewise infected...

Oh, wow. You're one of those people who take memetics seriously.

(Invisible things. Living in your mind. Invisible, undefinable. Forcing you to do things against your will. Feasting on your mind. A parasite. OM NOM NOM NOM NOM.)

If I share the fact that I am mentally ill and say I consider religious belief to be a type of madness that is very similar in effect to mental illness, am I merely being insulting?

You wouldn't merely being insulting to others, you'd also be making a big ass of yourself for assuming that you being mentally ill qualifies you to diagnose others; you being mentally ill yourself is irrelevant.

I'd be insulting myself, wouldn't I? Like you're insulting me by saying that to call a religious person what I am is a terrible and childish thing.

Logic fail. Do I really need to explain this?

Your diagnosis was given to you by a qualified psychologist/psychiatrist(s), most likely after undergoing numerous tests, or having multiple sessions with them. It assigned to you clinically, not as an insult.

This is opposed to atheists' diagnoses of xtians as "crazy" or "mentally ill", which are intended to demean and insult them first and foremost, with all rationalizations for the diagnoses being entirely post-hoc.

That you so easily confuse the latter with the former calls into question your judgment.

Posted by: Sigmund | October 16, 2009 5:40 AM

In terms of hit and miss I'm afraid I put this particular post down as a miss. I get the intended joke but it comes too close to using a real infliction as a source of humor. While the woman in the advertisement clearly requires psychiatric treatment for her condition I don't see anything wrong with the idea or her seeking a partner of a similar religion.
I don't regard religion as a mental illness. It's more a case of adopting a societal norm that doesn't happen to correspond to evidential investigation.
Religion is not the only thing that falls into this category. Look at something like patriotism or nationalism and you will see exactly the same thing. The sort of blind allegiance to the armed forces, without examining motivations, methods or results, is commonplace in the US - and probably many other countries - and is exactly analogous to religion in this sense.

Posted by: A. Noyd | October 16, 2009 6:05 AM

Shamac (#88)

Oh, wow. You're one of those people who take memetics seriously.

Oh, wow. You're one of those people who assumes his own failed understanding of a subject automatically informs everyone else's.

You wouldn't merely being insulting to others, you'd also be making a big ass of yourself for assuming that you being mentally ill qualifies you to diagnose others; you being mentally ill yourself is irrelevant.

What I am is not irrelevant to finding your opinion of mental illness completely insulting. I never said that being mentally ill qualified me to diagnose others, only that I would have to be simultaneously insulting myself if I were to demean religious people by calling them crazy. Nor have I anywhere said religious folks are mentally ill, only that the effect of religion and mental illness on the individual are very similar.

Your diagnosis was given to you by a qualified psychologist/psychiatrist(s), most likely after undergoing numerous tests, or having multiple sessions with them. It assigned to you clinically, not as an insult.

Indeed. And you are saying that to be likened to me is insulting. Even if the analogy is mistaken, the opposite of "accurate" isn't "insulting," it's "inaccurate," you fatuous fuck.

This is opposed to atheists' diagnoses of xtians as "crazy" or "mentally ill", which are intended to demean and insult them first and foremost, with all rationalizations for the diagnoses being entirely post-hoc.

I am a mentally ill atheist. When I say religious people (and not just Christians) are crazy and draw parallels between the effects of religious belief and mental illness, it's not intended as an insult. If you wish to criticize my observation, rather than telling me my intentions are not what I claim and whining about tone, why don't you cough up some arguments of substance such as pointing out how the two are not similar.

That you so easily confuse the latter with the former calls into question your judgment.

That you are a whiny tone troll with a serious deficiency in reading comprehension makes your opinion of my judgment utterly laughable.

(#91)

Despite your claim to the contrary, you have been participating as one person within a large group—a group, which, when observed as a collective, possesses observable trends.

This doesn't excuse you from conflating specific arguments. You accused me of diagnosing religious people as mentally ill. Doing that doesn't make you an astute observer of some trend who can win an argument against me by pretending I conform wholly to your atheist chimera; it just makes you wrong. I am not a collective, and when you address me you better respond to what I said.

(By the way, I find it amusing that you think your inane equivocation makes you look like you know what the fuck you're talking about.)

Posted by: shonny | October 16, 2009 6:10 AM

Ugh, looks like some are getting their knickers in a knot over nothing.
It is the ad itself that is subjected to the laughter, not the person placing it. But that is maybe a bit too subtle to understand for some?

Posted by: SEF | October 16, 2009 6:25 AM

@ A. Noyd #93:

Anything else to make religion dissimilar from mental illness other than its relative normativeness?

The psychobabble professionals themselves evidently don't think there is. Otherwise they wouldn't have to exclude religion from the diagnosis of "folie à deux" by mere assertion in lieu of having a good reason to differentiate it (ie they indulge in special pleading). They artificially make that diagnosis rare by unfairly excluding the most common cases of it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 16, 2009 6:39 AM

There might be a difference between xianity and mental illness. But quite often they are hard to tell apart. It would be funnier if they weren't trying to destroy our society.

From what I recall when I studied some psychology there only reason the more rabid forms of religious belief are not considered mental illness only because religious belief is often explicitly excluded from diagnostic criteria. In other words one can have the same symptoms, but if the symptoms are a result of religious belief one will not be classified as being mentally ill, whereas if the beliefs concerned aliens, or the CIA, you would.

It never struck as being a distinction that had much justification, except on grounds of pragmatism. Most mental health services struggle with their current case-load. Imagine how much worse it would be if you added in loads of people who had god delusions.

Posted by: SEF | October 16, 2009 6:51 AM

@ Sigmund #90:

I don't regard religion as a mental illness. It's more a case of adopting a societal norm that doesn't happen to correspond to evidential investigation. ...

The religion isn't so much the illness itself as a symptom of the underlying mental "illness" or disability or lower functionality - in failing to care enough about truth and evidence and logic etc. Patriotism etc are merely other symptoms of the same problem (or superficially different manifestations of the same symptom - depending on how exactly you define "symptom" in the scheme of things).

It's a bug/feature of primitive inbuilt social behaviour which hasn't yet given way to more advanced social behaviour. Just like optical illusions result from seeing patterns which aren't there because the brain has evolved with the priority of not missing any patterns which are there. The personnification-of-nature aspect to religion is another of those quick cheats gone wrong.

Posted by: speedweasel | October 16, 2009 7:47 AM

As you have participated in this conversation, you have observed what others have said, made note of them, kept track of how the conversation is progressing and adjusted your comments accordingly...

What? Just because you assert something, doesn’t make it true.
What HAS happened is that I have noted a couple of posts and decided to respond to them individually, voicing my opinion. This is different to your approach which was to quote me directly, presumably to highlight a point you are desperate to make about atheists as a group.

Now, you could cheerfully insist that you are merely commenting on trends within this thread (and I wouldn’t take issue if you had made it clear that was what you were doing) but quote me directly and you need to address my post, not just stand on my back to promote your view of atheists everywhere. Don’t try to shoe-horn my position to fit the curve of your atheist-bashing graph.

Despite your claim to the contrary, you have been participating as one person within a large group—a group, which, when observed as a collective, possesses observable trends.

You’ve already denounced ‘creos and fundie xians’. How would you like it if I bundled your arguments in with those of YECs or Islamic extremists? Despite your claim to the contrary, you have been participating as one person within a large group – of religious people – which, when observed as a collective, are batshit insane.

By the way, I find it amusing that by your standard, most studies conducted in the social sciences would consist of "conflating" the data of individuals with each other and erecting "straw man" trends.

My friend, you are trolling an atheist forum. You are not undertaking an observational study. To even liken your worthless ‘insights’ about atheist arguments to science is insulting to scientists everywhere. If you understood that we might be getting more sense out of you.

Posted by: Eidolon | October 16, 2009 8:04 AM

For those who don't see what is objectionable to poking fun at this person, let me help you. Really, you're not too subtle for us to understand. We get why it's supposed to be funny.

I sussed that those who say "you don't get the joke" or "there's nothing wrong with a bit of humor at the expense of someone" sound just like playground bullies. You know, the sort when called out on their poor behavior say that "we were just having some fun" or "What, can't you take a joke" or "We were just kidding".

As for PZ's lame ass excuse back up at 60, WTF is so funny about saying she wanted a xian? I sure as hell would put atheist at the top of my list so why is the converse funny? I guess I draw a distinction between believing in strange woo and mental illness that threatens a persons' ability to function.

Posted by: Sigmund | October 16, 2009 9:48 AM

shonny, PZ shoots from the hip. He's smart and thoughtful and quite often he hits the target.
On occasion, unfortunately, he misses completely. Those of us who enjoy his usual posts have every right to point out on the rare occasions (such as this case) when he gets it glaringly wrong. Eidolon was quite correct about PZs post at #60. Go read it again and see if it sounds reasonable to you.
I think a little peer review in this matter should not be discouraged.

Posted by: shonny | October 16, 2009 10:14 AM

Sigmund, when people tell a flat joke, some make a point of telling how silly it is. Often at great length. The rest of us just let it pass.
But not the likes of you, making a point of showing everybody listening (and those not) how bad the joke is.
Take Jewish jokes, like the one about the fastest thing on two wheels: Two Jews on a tandem bike through Berlin in 1944.
Bad joke, bad taste, but still being told. And still sort of funny in a cartoonish way. So, to repeat what I said, don't get your knickers in a knot, just get over it!

The one here was maybe not the most tactful one to laugh at, but hardly worth the agony some seem to go through. The person in question WILL NEVER KNOW (unless some asshole makes a point of telling her, 'for her own good' (the #1 xian reason for being a bastard)!

Posted by: Sigmund | October 16, 2009 10:30 AM

shonny if you are looking for knickers in a knot I'd advise a quick check of the contents of your trousers.
PZ has a bit of a blind spot on occasion in his posts. He sometimes over-generalizes a bad situation to particular religions. To point this out might even be useful to him in honing his future posts such that they avoid this problem. Unfortunately its a little difficult to gently point this out without knicker-knotting certain PZ fanboys that treat every non-supportive comment as an unwarranted attack on their sacred cow (or should that be squid?).

Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | October 16, 2009 10:52 AM

If on a Christian attack blog put out a 'personal ad' like this:

Atheist woman looking for an atheist man partner whose sympathetic to a woman who likes getting knocked up just to have abortions. Let's spend eternity together - in HELL!!1!

Wouldn't you be glad to see some of the Christians on that blog saying "Hey - that's stupid and in really bad taste, and it makes us look a bit desperate"?

I don't think the personal ad PZ linked to (which - again - is an obvious poe) is all that nasty, but people who are telling those that don't like it to 'shut up' should think about it a bit. You might not agree with what they're saying, but their dissent doesn't need to be squashed.

And, before you make the argument that the ads aren't equivalent: of course they're not directly equivalent! ...it's just what I came up with on the spur of the moment. The point is that they're both about the conflation of distinct but parallel issues.

Posted by: Eidolon | October 16, 2009 1:43 PM

Shonny @ 105

If you're happy being an insensitive lout, great. What's with the pious compassion shit? Pious has nada to do with it. I just don't like smug twats getting a laugh at the expense of someone who has no control over the deal. Bullies piss me off.

Apparently, the fact that you find it a yuk justifies your behavior for you. At some point, try to remember that there is a person at the other end of you joke.
Sorry I offend thee, but to borrow from you,

FUCK OFF!

Posted by: georgefromny.myopenid.com | October 16, 2009 3:47 PM

@ A.Noyd (87)

"There is something wrong with them. They want unreality to be real and want everyone else to share in their delusion. It's not a matter of belief A vs. belief B, it's that their beliefs do not agree with reality. And in relying on those beliefs, they do harm to themselves and other people. I'm referring to religious people, but up till this sentence, I could have been talking about people with certain mental illnesses, too."

1) There is a difference between sloppy or wishful thinking versus actual neurological or cognitive malfunctioning.

2) I believe theism to be a claim (or collection thereof) for which insufficient evidence exists, therefore I am an atheist. I presume you would agree.

It does not follow, though, that those who disagree with us are insane. They might simply be WRONG. Their minds may well be in perfect working order.

3) We can label theism as "unreality" once we know for a fact that... there is no god. As proving this will have a greater impact on modern thought and culture than Martin Luther and Isaac Newton combined, we'll be rather busy once we accomplish it. On the other hand, at that point we may state with confidence that theists are indeed "delusional" in the clinical sense.

4) Speaking of that, a few here have already referenced the DSM and such, so I will take it as read that we all know "delusion" as having a rather slippery definition in psychology/psychiatry. This doesn't make it a useless or wholly arbitrary diagnosis, but does warrant caution.

Posted by: speedweasel | October 16, 2009 6:53 PM

Shamac said:

I'm an atheist.

My apologies. I assumed that you were a theist.

Posted by: speedweasel | October 16, 2009 8:54 PM

I just wanted to mention that I recently went from Catholicism to Atheism. Does that mean that I stopped having a mental illness?

It depends why you 'converted'. If you decided to become an atheist because all the cool kids were doing it, well you might still be sick. But if you decided to ditch the religion because you could no longer reconcile the glaring incompatibility between superstitious belief and rationality, then your catholicism may have been a self-limiting condition that just cleared up on its own. If so, then congratulations, all religious people should be so lucky.

Posted by: A. Noyd | October 16, 2009 10:29 PM

Eidolon (#114)

What's with the pious compassion shit? Pious has nada to do with it. I just don't like smug twats getting a laugh at the expense of someone who has no control over the deal.

If you mean the woman in the ad has no control over her mental illness, her own words contradict that. If you mean she has no control over being featured here, well, that goes for pretty much everyone we joke about or mock or discuss humorously.

At some point, try to remember that there is a person at the other end of you joke.

You've no right to assume you know her feelings regarding her mental illness, either. Maybe she, like me, would find your kid-glove treatment of the matter incredibly patronizing.

~*~*~*~*~

georgefromny (#116)

There is a difference between sloppy or wishful thinking versus actual neurological or cognitive malfunctioning.

So what I described is merely sloppy or wishful thinking in a religious person but evidence of malfunction in a mentally ill person? Special pleading much? Malfunction is malfunction is my point.

I believe theism to be a claim (or collection thereof) for which insufficient evidence exists, therefore I am an atheist. I presume you would agree.

Why, how... presumptuous. And wrong. There are a range of beliefs about god and most of them are either incoherent or can only be maintained by denying reality. The sort of deist/pantheist god that I would say might exist is not the sort of theistic god most people believe in, and their god isn't merely "a claim...for which insufficient evidence exists," but one for which copious contradicting evidence exists.

It does not follow, though, that those who disagree with us are insane.

I'm not making the argument that religious people disagree with me and therefore they must be insane. I'm saying that the effects of religion on the individual are similar to those of mental illness. Yes, I consider religious belief a type of craziness, but do you think I'm dismissive of it on those grounds?

We can label theism as "unreality" once we know for a fact that... there is no god.

Ah, no. Are you new at this or something? If I believe that fairies talk to me and there's no evidence to support they exist and every testable claim I make about fairies can be disproven yet this doesn't diminish my faith in the fairies, does my faith really only become "unreality" when we can absolutely disprove the existence of fairies? No.

On the other hand, at that point we may state with confidence that theists are indeed "delusional" in the clinical sense.

Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. My point isn't about religious belief being literal mental illness.

~*~*~*~*~

Shamac (#117)

Too bad nothing in my posts was whiny. Wrong, yes, using faulty logic, yes, but "whiny"? Not by any standard.

Perhaps when you have an objection of substance instead of insisting that we abide by your standards so you can win I'll take back the "whiny" bit.

I wasn't contrasting the accuracy of diagnoses, Noyd. I was contrasting the intent behind them.

You don't know anyone's intent; you just assume it and generalize in a circular fashion. And I've made it clear that my intent is not to be insulting which it seems beyond you to acknowledge. Oh, but I forgot, you're striking mighty blows against your bizarre composite opponent while using my name. Carry on, o brave vanquisher of viciousness.

Posted by: Shala | October 17, 2009 2:00 PM

#120, #121:

Thank you for the answers. Yes, I began realizing I didn't believe in God when I read an interview with Richard Dawkins where he basically explained that 'good' people with religious beliefs could end up raising children that took their religion to extremes, and how we should pick the simpler of options when it comes to belief/disbelief.

Posted by: A. Noyd | October 18, 2009 12:31 PM

Ben Mueller-Heaslip (#125)

If inventing and arbitrary term affirms your views, steal it and use it at random. Or might that blur the line between distinguishing "reasoned argument" and the alternative?

"Pious compassion" is just a better term than "hand-wringing pity" which I used in my first post in this thread. Why would I use it at random when it describes something quite specific? And I'm not sure what you're on about in the second sentence here.

There are lots of substitutes for "pious compassion" - one of them is "platitude". Squashing the former with the latter is called "weak".

Ah, no, "platitude" wouldn't come close to covering what I mean by it. It's a misapplication of political correctness to stand in for nuanced understanding. We shouldn't involve mental illness in humor because mental illness is tragic and the mentally ill are victims and nevermind that this attitude is really aggravating to actual mentally ill people. Same sort of deal for calling deaf people "hearing impaired." They hate that euphemism, but it's used everywhere because hearing people want to be "sensitive."

So if "dissent" against the ad being humorous is based on this sort of knee-jerk "compassion" that ignores the attitudes of actual mentally ill people towards mental illness, then, yes, it should be squashed. It's nice that people want to be respectful of mentally ill people, but there's a right way to do it and a wrong way. Being patronizingly protective is the wrong way.