Originally posted by inimalist
the 1st is from the DSM 4, the second is the ICD, what Europe uses.I've actually never heard of the 4-TR, what is it?
TR is the latest revision. They changed the wording of a number of entries to give consistency (the addition of the "disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment" to several entries) and keep the DSM up to date with more recent work.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to profess the belief that people should hold absolute letter of the belief in their religion and never question it . . . or be atheist. That's absurd, irrational and falls into the 100% fallacy which makes it illogical too. If that isn't what you believe please explain what you do, I'm sure you're trying to be rational but your beliefs as expressed do not seem to be reasonable.Which DSM is that from?
I think it bears mentioning that a) much of that applies to plenty of atheists, b) a majority of people cannot (by definition) all have the same abnormality, c) the broadness with which you want to apply this would make most attempts to move forward scientifically "delusional" as they involve having deep conviction and willingness to challenge what is typically believed.
I'm fairly certain that delusion requires a person to continue believing in the face of positive evidence that they are wrong, ie a faith healer thinking he can still heal people after being shown the reasons for all the people he "healed" getting better would be delusional but a person who believes that faith healing is possible would only be delusional if the belief was held in the face of every healer in the world being disproven.
To your first statement, believing in any magical belief system is crazy. Choosing what crazy things in that religion you want to believe and disregarding other parts of it at will is even crazier. If you're going to believe in Santa Claus why not believe he flies on reindeer? It's a crazy belief either way yet you're allowed to choose which parts you think are crazy and which aren't? And then based on that decides which parts are true? As far as what I said not being rational it's completely rational. If you don't understand it I don't know what to say. For some reason you seem to not be comprehending what I'm typing and I don't think it's any more possible to make it clearer than what I typed above.
As to your second statement....just because the majority of some people believe something doesn't mean it's not crazy. The majority of Germans believed that they were the master race and that killing everyone else was ok....that by no means meant the germans were right. The majority of people of indigenous population believe in witchcraft and demons that stalk them. That doesn't mean they're correct, it just means they don't know enough about the world to make a proper conclusion. Most religious beliefs are based on a lack of knowledge. Mormon belief is just based on insanity. It was developed long after the advent of science. For them to claim that native americans were cursed jews who came to america and that black people were just cursed by god as well is completely crazy. Now you've said most Mormons don't believe that anymore. Why not? What has happened to change what was written in their religious doctrine? Just deciding a certain crazy thing in the religion is now too crazy to believe in defeats the whole purpose of following any of it. If it's possible for one part of it to be changed to match the times then why not throw the whole thing out and base your beliefs on scientific fact rather than unprovable faith based reasoning? For instance, I don't know how the universe came in to existence. But I do know rocks exist and atoms exist and whatnot. I don't know that God exist, or angels or devils. I cannot prove a single magical thing from religious beliefs exist. Yet I should just assume they do based on zero evidence?
Walls of text are really annoying. Try hitting enter a bit more often so people can read what you write.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
To your first statement, believing in any magical belief system is crazy. Choosing what crazy things in that religion you want to believe and disregarding other parts of it at will is even crazier. If you're going to believe in Santa Claus why not believe he flies on reindeer? It's a crazy belief either way yet you're allowed to choose which parts you think are crazy and which aren't? And then based on that decides which parts are true?
Who cares if it's a crazy belief? There's no rational reason for saying that people shouldn't think differently that you say they should.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
As far as what I said not being rational it's completely rational.
No it's not 🙂
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
As to your second statement....just because the majority of some people believe something doesn't mean it's not crazy. The majority of Germans believed that they were the master race and that killing everyone else was ok....that by no means meant the germans were right. The majority of people of indigenous population believe in witchcraft and demons that stalk them.
None of those are the majority of all people. You definition (which is out of date anyway) would mean that more than 50% of the planet is abnormal in the same way which is illogical and inaccurate by definition.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
That doesn't mean they're correct
I never said it made them right. I said it made them not abnormal.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
it just means they don't know enough about the world to make a proper conclusion.
Then it's not a delusion at all . . .
Not even by the version you were trying to use.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
It was developed long after the advent of science. For them to claim that native americans were cursed jews who came to america and that black people were just cursed by god as well is completely crazy. Now you've said most Mormons don't believe that anymore. Why not? What has happened to change what was written in their religious doctrine?
The same thing that happens in science. New people come along and view things differently. People apply a different avenue of thought to things.
I mean people used to think the world was flat. By you logic we should critisize science for having ever believe that. Which you have to admit isn't particularly logical.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Just deciding a certain crazy thing in the religion is now too crazy to believe in defeats the whole purpose of following any of it.
No it doesn't. A lot of religious teachings are largely unrelated to one another.
Say someone doesn't like psychology, you'd never insist that he ignore physics too.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
If it's possible for one part of it to be changed to match the times then why not throw the whole thing out and base your beliefs on scientific fact rather than unprovable faith based reasoning?
Because certain things are positively disproveable others are not. People want to hold onto the things that haven't been disproven because it gives them a sense of meaning that scientific fact doesn't give them personally even if it's enough for you.
Originally posted by LDHZenkai
I cannot prove a single magical thing from religious beliefs exist. Yet I should just assume they do based on zero evidence?
Now you've resorted to putting words in my mouth 😬
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Walls of text are really annoying. Try hitting enter a bit more often so people can read what you write.Who cares if it's a crazy belief? There's no rational reason for saying that people shouldn't think differently that you say they should.
No it's not 🙂
None of those are the majority of all people. You definition (which is out of date anyway) would mean that more than 50% of the planet is abnormal in the same way which is illogical and inaccurate by definition.
I never said it made them right. I said it made them not abnormal.
Then it's not a delusion at all . . .
Not even by the version you were trying to use.
The same thing that happens in science. New people come along and view things differently. People apply a different avenue of thought to things.
I mean people used to think the world was flat. By you logic we should critisize science for having ever believe that. Which you have to admit isn't particularly logical.
No it doesn't. A lot of religious teachings are largely unrelated to one another.
Say someone doesn't like psychology, you'd never insist that he ignore physics too.
Because certain things are positively disproveable others are not. People want to hold onto the things that haven't been disproven because it gives them a sense of meaning that scientific fact doesn't give them personally even if it's enough for you.
Now you've resorted to putting words in my mouth 😬
I am saddened by your lack of reading comprehension. You somehow did not understand nearly anything I wrote. Like not even in the smallest way. You put 1 and 1 together and got 8. And arguing that believing in religious things is ok because can not prove that they're not real is crazy. Prove that the easter bunny isn't real, or santa claus, or the tooth fairy. Prove that elves, unicorns and bigfoot aren't real. Believing in something that is so completely ludicrous to make yourself feel better doesn't make it ok. Letting little kids believe in santa claus is ok, but if you let them keep thinking Santa was real when they were well into their 20's that would be completely crazy. And i'm not sure how you got that I said all religions were the same. I said they all believe in crazy things, which is true. Also, something being the majority doesn't make it correct. As I already said (and posted a valid argument that you were unable to dispute) the majority of people in the Amazon believe that evil spirits inhabit the forest and cause illness and bad luck. If they believe someones been possessed by an evil spirit they will kill the person. This behavior is normal to them. To a rational person who is better educated this type of behavior is looked at as crazy and barbaric. As far as continuing trying to argue your point with me (which seems to not even actually be a point, more of just arguing for the sake of disagreeing) explain to me how the Mormon belief system isn't based on craziness.
Mormons believe Jesus came to America - crazy
Mormons believe you must donate a lot of money to get into the spirit world.
Mormons believe in prophets. This prophet can then say whatever they want and it becomes Mormon canon.
Black people weren't good enough to be priest until 1978 (changed not because of a prophet, but to be more P.C.) Females still aren't good enough according to Mormon beliefs (is bigotry supposed to be ok?)
Mormons believe theres three Heavens (ones bad enough but three is just even more insane)
Mormons believe that God created multiple worlds and each world has people living on it. They also believe that multiple Gods exist but each has their own universe. We are only subject to our God and if we obtain the highest level of heaven we can become gods ourselves. (sounds like a comic book universe)
Also if anyones interested in the virtuous beginnings of the Mormon church.... More Crazy Mormon Things definitely worth the read.
So, back to my first reply in this thread concerning LDS changing their views on Negros due to financial pressure try this link and decide for yourself. The facts are what they are. I chose the word negro because their original stance was held for any black person regardless of place of birth.
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_blacksandthepriesthood.html
It has been 2 years, boy how time flies. This isn't a cartoon but is worth a watch.
For the sake of education.
Originally posted by you get thorns
2 weeks, 117 views, no attacks or insults directed at me, no denials or accusations of conspiracy.Is this still the same site I posted on back in November?
If you want to have a discussion, you could post those items on the fairlds.org forums and get proper responses. Since I consider it an act of futility to have any sort of intelligent discussion with any anti-mormon, I gave up on it about a year and a half ago, on KMC.
But, if you REALLY want a conversation and you want Mormons to give you responses, then, yes, post those same things on the fairlds.org site: they will definitely argue with you in a civil manner and both sides will probably learn something, assuming they haven't already seen what you have.
Originally posted by you get thorns
Something tells me it will just involve dumbassery on one side of the fence or the other.If one chooses to believe Mickey Mouse is real nothing will deter him. I was just trying to educate people with open minds.
If you were actually interested a real discussion, you would post it up to the people who genuinely care about this stuff: it's like a second job to them to watch this kind of stuff and talk about it. There are lots of people, just like you, on fairlds, that would love to hear your thoughts. Yes, I'm serious.
What you want from someone like me is an argument or disagreement: I cannot provide that because:
1. That stuff has already been torn a new one and it would be a waste of time. Mormons are serious business nerds when it comes to stuff like that.
2. I don't have the time nor the resources to provide an awesome rebuttal other than, "more lies and half-truths presented as 'enlightenment', again, eh?"
That's the last I'll say of it. I can PM you links to the apologetic responses to said material, if you'd like, but I'm sure you've already run across those because you seem much more serious business about this stuff than I am. (That's a compliment, NOT an insult.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you were actually interested a real discussion, you would post it up to the people who genuinely care about this stuff: it's like a second job to them to watch this kind of stuff and talk about it. There are lots of people, just like you, on fairlds, that would love to hear your thoughts. Yes, I'm serious.What you want from someone like me is an argument or disagreement: I cannot provide that because:
1. That stuff has already been torn a new one and it would be a waste of time. Mormons are serious business nerds when it comes to stuff like that.
2. I don't have the time nor the resources to provide an awesome rebuttal other than, "more lies and half-truths presented as 'enlightenment', again, eh?"That's the last I'll say of it. I can PM you links to the apologetic responses to said material, if you'd like, but I'm sure you've already run across those because you seem much more serious business about this stuff than I am. (That's a compliment, NOT an insult.)
I'm gonna pass that to someone who thinks they can milk a duck.
What I will say is that if the people and places don't exist then the events had nowhere to happen. It is what it is.
Since I am a man of science professionally yet a man of faith personally I hold everything involving faith to a high standard. I feel faith must be based in fact even though I do understand the definition of the word "faith". As far as the first link I posted about the legal reason for the change in status of blacks in the LDS church, I am old enough to remember it. People can twist the facts to suit their opinions but the facts can and do stand alone to be assessed.Elephants and horses. Large cities of stone but no ruins. Maps of what?
Facts are facts and any educated person should see things for what they are.
And now I am through.