3 ms·

My simple definition is "harmful actions are bad, not beliefs." What is or isn't religion isn't very important. I wish people didn't hold beliefs I find nonsen

My simple definition is "harmful actions are bad, not beliefs." What is or isn't religion isn't very important. I wish people didn't hold beliefs I find nonsensical, but they likely feel the same way and any action I try to force on them will not improve anything. It's unfortunate that many are fine forcing things on me, but that doesn't mean I should adopt the practice. >DSM-5 DSM-IV, it was changed in DSM-V.

Layke1123 6y ago
Beliefs can lead to harmful actions though, that is why people can be locked up for "delusions" or "beliefs that can lead to harmful actions" in the first place. Your definition doesn't really address the idea that ideas can be harmful and that we do actually disallow certain beliefs in society. As for your definition of religion, I think it is entirely relevant, as you suggest my ideas on redefining Christianity to include a gay Jesus is offensive to religion. Well, if you are going to claim that, I would challenge why this religious belief is less sacred than the traditional view of Jesus according to Christianity. How do you define religion is definitely relevant. As for the last comment of it being DSM-V, what does that matter when referring to it as DSM-5? As far as I can tell, it is not a meaningful distinction. Do you disagree with the idea that religion has a specific exception in the current DSM when concerning religion?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  I don't think certain beliefs should be disallowed. I've never heard of a person being arrested just for having a delusion, it may be possible. >gay Jesus is offensive to religion No, its intentionally trying to be offensive to the person you are talking to. Any example of a theological difference works for your argument, yet you kept returning to ones I said we're offensive. The definition you provided was in the DSM-4, the one in 5 is different. I have no opinion on diagnosing delusions.
  - Layke1123 6y ago
    Arrested or committed are a very thing line apart. More so when you realize that what is defined to be a delusion versus a religious belief is arbitrary in nature. I think you realize this since you dodge the issue of defining exactly what religion is in the first place as "not relevant". As for the DSM 4 versus DSM 5, please, if the distinction of which document we are using to define delusion has changed, do you mind explain your rational for why the DSM 4 has an explicit exception for religion concerning delusion when compared to how the DSM redefines it?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      I took the term "lock up" to mean arrest. People don't get committed just for having a delusion either, which is why I don't need an specific definition of religion. I don't need to label other people's beliefs. I was just fixing your mistake on the DSM part, but if I'm honest the religion exception was probably to prevent assholes from using it to label anyone religious crazy, and the new one makes it more clear harm is necessary.
      - Layke1123 6y ago
        Yet you use a word to label people's belief like religion as somehow protected. I'm not the one giving it a label. You are. I'm simply asking you to explain what you mean by the label you use which is the label of religion. And harm isn't necessary in the DSM 5. Where are you pulling that idea from? Which part of the wording specifically? I'm referring to delusion disorder.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Again, I think no beliefs should be persecuted. What I call a religion is based on casual observation and deserves no additional protection, but it's broadly someone's metaphysical beliefs. All i said was banning an app based on intolerance of a belief is more objectionable than going after an app out of geopolitical rivalry. Every classification describes harmful delusions, and the symptoms are about ways it negatively impacts your life.

Layke1123 6y ago

Beliefs can lead to harmful actions though, that is why people can be locked up for "delusions" or "beliefs that can lead to harmful actions" in the first place. Your definition doesn't really address the idea that ideas can be harmful and that we do actually disallow certain beliefs in society. As for your definition of religion, I think it is entirely relevant, as you suggest my ideas on redefining Christianity to include a gay Jesus is offensive to religion. Well, if you are going to claim that, I would challenge why this religious belief is less sacred than the traditional view of Jesus according to Christianity. How do you define religion is definitely relevant. As for the last comment of it being DSM-V, what does that matter when referring to it as DSM-5? As far as I can tell, it is not a meaningful distinction. Do you disagree with the idea that religion has a specific exception in the current DSM when concerning religion?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
I don't think certain beliefs should be disallowed. I've never heard of a person being arrested just for having a delusion, it may be possible. >gay Jesus is offensive to religion No, its intentionally trying to be offensive to the person you are talking to. Any example of a theological difference works for your argument, yet you kept returning to ones I said we're offensive. The definition you provided was in the DSM-4, the one in 5 is different. I have no opinion on diagnosing delusions.
- Layke1123 6y ago
  Arrested or committed are a very thing line apart. More so when you realize that what is defined to be a delusion versus a religious belief is arbitrary in nature. I think you realize this since you dodge the issue of defining exactly what religion is in the first place as "not relevant". As for the DSM 4 versus DSM 5, please, if the distinction of which document we are using to define delusion has changed, do you mind explain your rational for why the DSM 4 has an explicit exception for religion concerning delusion when compared to how the DSM redefines it?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    I took the term "lock up" to mean arrest. People don't get committed just for having a delusion either, which is why I don't need an specific definition of religion. I don't need to label other people's beliefs. I was just fixing your mistake on the DSM part, but if I'm honest the religion exception was probably to prevent assholes from using it to label anyone religious crazy, and the new one makes it more clear harm is necessary.
    - Layke1123 6y ago
      Yet you use a word to label people's belief like religion as somehow protected. I'm not the one giving it a label. You are. I'm simply asking you to explain what you mean by the label you use which is the label of religion. And harm isn't necessary in the DSM 5. Where are you pulling that idea from? Which part of the wording specifically? I'm referring to delusion disorder.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Again, I think no beliefs should be persecuted. What I call a religion is based on casual observation and deserves no additional protection, but it's broadly someone's metaphysical beliefs. All i said was banning an app based on intolerance of a belief is more objectionable than going after an app out of geopolitical rivalry. Every classification describes harmful delusions, and the symptoms are about ways it negatively impacts your life.