tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25206081.post3067341427089598998..comments2024-02-05T04:09:55.009-08:00Comments on Maya's corner: Atheism: a proposed addition to DSM-VMaya Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10877457709995369246noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25206081.post-52575331052879328422008-01-30T23:18:00.000-08:002008-01-30T23:18:00.000-08:00Thank you, Suliman! I also didn't believe that WHO...Thank you, Suliman! I also didn't believe that WHO had altered the definition of health the way Khalid claimed, but I didn't bother to find the actual definition.<BR/>I suppose at the root of the error is some study finding that spiritual people are generally more healthy, or more satisfied with their health, than atheists. I think I have heard about such studies. Also, it is known that employment and family life (if not too unfortunate) are good for the health. This of course is purely statistical and doesn't mean that all married employed believers are healthy or that you are doomed to ill health if you are atheist/agnostic, single or without a regular paid job.<BR/>Also, I find something totalitarian in Khalid's view that if you are sick, you must have treatment, even if you don't want it. In the modern world, treatment is is voluntary, including that of mental disorders. Only in extreme cases is forced treatment applied, mostly when the illness poses direct physical danger to the life of the person having it, or other people.<BR/>Tariq's blog could be dangerous to him, but couldn't endanger other people except by annoying them or persuading them to leave Islam. The first "danger" is minor, and the second one reveals a surprising lack of self-confidence in Islam. If time has come when an ordinary guy's blog is a serious threat to a religion, then... finish the sentence yourself.Maya Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10877457709995369246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25206081.post-45610739316833950122008-01-30T14:47:00.000-08:002008-01-30T14:47:00.000-08:00Greetings, Maya! I don't believe everything I read...Greetings, Maya! I don't believe everything I read. I guess it is the skeptic in me, especially when it comes to faith-based claims. You know there is something called the "Islamic declaration of human rights"? Oh, yes, and some even compare it point by point to the universal declaration by the UN. The only point they do not mention is the UN declaration refers to Humans, whereas the Islamic rights are of course conditioned on the recipient/beneficiary being a Muslim (generally male). Slight difference...<BR/><BR/>Anyway,... According to the WHO web site, their definition of health still says, "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." They also say it has not been amended since 1948. I don't know where Khalid got that they added spiritual to their definition of health. I seriously doubt that the WHO would make spirituality a prerequisite for healthiness, except perhaps for those who view their spirituality as a component of their well being. Further, their definition states clearly that being disease-free is insufficient, i.e., one can be disease-free but unhealthy. So, if Khalid is arguing that being non-spiritual is being sick, then being spiritual (=disease-free) does not guarantee healthiness according to the definition he attributes to WHO. Does anyone doubt Osama bin Laden is a spiritual man? Is he healthy? It is difficult to reason outside the bounds of rationality, despite all appearances to the contrary.Sulimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146402481170823738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25206081.post-42785154657030018682008-01-30T14:18:00.000-08:002008-01-30T14:18:00.000-08:00No, you aren't. I agree!In fact, being considered ...No, you aren't. I agree!<BR/>In fact, being considered insane in this situation sometimes isn't a bad thing. In Afghanistan, the life of apostate Abdulrahman was spared this way.Maya Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10877457709995369246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25206081.post-67799877639944647782008-01-30T11:17:00.000-08:002008-01-30T11:17:00.000-08:00Samuel SkinnerSo the government gets to define acc...Samuel Skinner<BR/>So the government gets to define accepted religions and if you aren't part of them the government can institutionalize you for insanity? Am I the only one who thinks this is insane?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com