personally, I was recently diagnosed with ADOS - Attention Deficit Oh Sparkly but a programmer friend. Also known as Golder Retriever Syndrome. Also known as cat with a tin foil ball complex.

I am bipolar too. LOL.

Hi Creative,

You took the time to develope the case very well, unfortunately the only way it could develope was outside the rather narrow visual scope of some and completely out of range of cognitive rationality in some cases as well.

I have reconsidered my first thought about RF disorder being a psychological one rather, RF is better placed in the realm of 'social' psychology as it tends to affect social and civil society in more extensive and harmful ways than an individual psychosis.

What do you think?

I hope that's why you are a teadipper, because bipolar and alchohol are a really bad combination.

No matter what label anyone assigns to you, don't believe in stereotypes, I just think that's the best way to proceed.

If you persist in calling people stupid (which is what you're doing underneath it all), there are going to be consequences.

Just kidding, I'm not going to report you for this. I know this whole thread was meant to provoke Christians to anger. (It's also offensive to parents of developmentally disabled children for some unknown reason. Did the parents of some autistic kids hurt your feelings in some way?) I guess you just got lucky and got a double shot in at me. I hope that in the future you'll find a better outlet for your anger than randomly insulting defenseless children (and their innocent parents) with this kind of garbage.

Also, "develop" only has two "e"s.

Forget the stereotypes and labels that doctors come up with for disorders. You can fix all that stuff with the proper nutrition probably.

Avoid processed foods, artificial flavoring, too much sugar, etc.

I edited to add the e in order to give you something to complain about. I'm such a people pleaser.

There was no need for that, there is plenty to complain about in your insulting of mentally challenged people.

I agree with the possibility of harmful effects upon civil liberties and/or society at large. History and knowledge confirm that this is the case many times over. I'm not too sure of the psychological link, although I do not think that there can be any doubt regarding the negative effects of teching children at an early age to think illogically.

Have you ever read Bertrand Russell's book "Why I'm Not a Christian"? If not, I strongly suggest that you do. His description(s) of religious faith offer(s) your position very strong philosophical ground. If you'd like, I'm almost certain that I still have a copy on hand and could put forth a few examples after a moment or two of brisking through the book. Although, it'll probably be tomorrow morning, my time.

Just say the word, and I'd be happy to oblige.

Oh my goodness, I had forgotten Bertrnd Russell's book. I have it somewhere. I had not read it yet so I know I kept it when I moved but I'm in such a small place for a short time and catching up on my 'preferred' reading didn't take priority over school. Darn, now it'll drive me crazy - oh well.

Please feel free to post any examples you have. I really like Bertrand Russell. I would like to have met him.

He doesn't seem to care that this is about a subset of all religious people. I have made this clear several times, and really it is impossible for me to believe he cannot understand. He is trolling bro.

Could you quote some of Bertrand Russell's writings that supported the idea of force eugenics on the "inferior" (read non-white) people?

How about when he said that homosexuality was due to bad parenting?

Bushidobillyclub,

I suggest that you go through and re-read my posts.

I have contended repeatedly that violence and child abuse is from a small number of the religious community. To claim now that "He doesn't seem to care that this is about a subset of all religious people" is either delusional, lazy or a flat out lie. Not only do I understand, but I have argued the point.

But as I said, arguing anything in this thread feels like I'm getting my hands dirty. My first objection and I have repeated it multiple times, is the way the Original post insulted autistic and schizophrenic people and smeared their parents as child abusers.

Now you see, we agree. A small number of religious people are bad. That doesn't make them subject to some made up disorder, it just makes them bad or stupid people.

What we apparently don't agree on is that the original post was offensive and unnecessarily insulting to both the mentally challenged and their parents. If you care to look back to the original post I made, that was my point. I've never once argued that there aren't repugnant members of the religious community, just as there are repugnant members of every community.

So Bertrand Russell is not such a smart guy after all.

But any time you start talking about any belief being a disorder you have to examine ALL BELIEFS as a possible disorder. Then you have to draw the line between "normal" and "disorder."

That is why I started a thread about whether or not materialism is a disorder.

Since no one really knows the whole of what truth and reality consists of, pretty much every world view is a belief of some kind.

The difference of course is when a belief is demonstrated to be true vs a belief that cannot be demonstrated to be true. This should be pretty clear at this point in this thread. I mean given the examples, and all.

Oh no, not at all.

We should consider his position, he's such a wise man to reject Christianity, after all...

I think maybe we should consider homosexuality as the result of child abuse and lock up the parents of homosexuals? While we are at it, we should also ensure that homosexuals aren't around children, so that they don't "infect" the future generations with their psychosis.

We should also debate if we should listen to young Bertrand who wrote "In extreme cases there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another[...] It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men" or should we go by the older and possibly senile Bertrand who repudiated his earlier statements about "negroes"? Of course, the time period when Bertrand wrote "Why I Am Not A Christian" was the period when he was most lucid and therefore most correct. We must take this into consideration as this is also the time period he wrote of the inferiority of the negroes.

Straw man much? Where is the thread about homosexuality? Where is the thread about eugenics? It is possible after all to be right about one thing, and wrong about another . . . Spider I am sure you are right about something . . . Just not sure what yet.

U mad bro?

So you feel that all atheists who deny the existence of any gods, should be considered mentally ill?

Do you feel that anyone who believes in the Scientific method (which cannot be demonstrated to be true) should be considered to be mentally ill?

You are placing the burden of proof on the wrong party. I do not believe magical pink elephants hold the world up either.
Science works . . . this can be demonstrated.


Battterbatterbatterbatter . . . swing and a miss.