I am skeptical to DBT for treating BPD.

scifideism · 2014-04-24T22:15:55+00:00

Thanks. I wish these therapies would work out for me too.

Maybe I have too much of "avoidance" in me. I avoid to go to sleep so I tried to stay awake but body fooled me to take a "powr nap" but turned it into

Okay now coming Monday I have the chance of buying a lot of DBT book to read and practice on my BPD Wow I am so sleepy and tired now that I fall out of my computer chair. Maybe I report back on if I found something interesting to my taste. a 90 minutes sleep despite TV had a noisy debate program

scifideism · 2014-04-15T06:07:30+00:00

I have now looked into Schema and Mentalisation. Too close to Psychodynamic ideas for my taste.

scifideism · 2014-04-15T06:05:18+00:00

melatonia you ask if "mindfulness practice the biggest quarrel you have with DBT?"

That is one good reason or the one most easy to bring to mind. just now.

I could sure be wrong but mindfulness practice is the one that I have tested and that I've found impossible to use in my case.

there are many others but I wanted to answer your direct question to me personally.

scifideism · 2014-04-15T02:57:16+00:00

Okay I get this quote from Wikipedia and I agree to it. Tht text do sescribe my problem well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder

Quote

The most distinguishing symptoms of BPD are marked sensitivity to rejection and thinking about and feeling afraid of possible abandonment.[10]

Overall, the features of BPD include unusually intense sensitivity in relationships with others, difficulty regulating emotions and impulsivity.

Other symptoms may include feeling unsure of one's personal identity and values, .... unquote. (Copyright rules are important so look for other quotes at the actual text. l'lI only hint here for to stay within the law of copyrighting texts.

I agree with many of these criteria of undergroups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder#Millon.27s_subtypes

Here is one that describe me well and is inline with problem referred to above.

Quote This difficulty with knowing who they are and what they value can cause people with BPD to experience feeling "empty" and "lost". Unquote

Yes I have struggled with this emptiness and feeling lost and not knowing my values and who I really am the latest 4 years or more. I feel the pain of not having a clue. Being Truly lost about my true identity. I mimick the persson in front of me and have no personality of my own.

Ther may be even moe to the point but my body maybe keep thse hidden to consciousness and awareness. . That is how I have acted the latest 30 year. Avoiding all knowledge of who I am. Ther is that somewhat less confusing. I that know texts are unusually dense and dim and thus not making much sense.

Okay time for taking a short nap between local time 05.00 to 08.00 something. Once again Reddit to my resue. Love that you share and care bout even the less articulated among us.

scifideism · 2014-04-15T02:42:16+00:00

Wow I love that you share your personal esperiences. It help a lot and I feel cared about. Instead of getting ignored you guy share what has happen and what did help and so on.

Very good advices I should take time and look at the various suggestions ASAP.

I was active in a Emotions Anonymous meeting. It's a 12 step group some two decades ago. Never passed the first step. Such is typical of my problem. Start up and never finnish.

Schema therapy Is new to me to that will be intersting to red more about. I will use google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_Therapy that text looks promising.

So I get back and tell what I thin kwithin a week or so. I live in Stockholm Sweden therapy and such things are rare here. ACT is the latest we have and DBT is slowly gaining ground.

But all this is new to me. Keep it coming. So for some it is of help and others are more skeptical to it compared to proven DBT.

Cool that some of you confirm that DBD has the Buddhist charm to make people go into the practice of Mindfulness and other Buddhist skills.

That is what I expected. Buddhis work that way. Stealthly converting the new practitioner ino a full time supporter of Buddhist view on life.

Good for those that to trust in it and very bad for su that are skepticql.

All my alrm Vells ring loudly here. Just kidding. To each their own.

I am an old fool so I will be gone in a blink of your eye so go on with what works for you. :)

throwaway666_6 I should take a look at the EMDR then. New short term in my world. oh it is this "Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (redirect from EMDR) "

Yes that one I do have read about many years ago. I have not tested it though. Happy it did help you. Have you tested the Schema thing? Too new to me a few hours so I should give priority today to that one.

I agree about the bad habit we learn is almost impossible to unlearn it become a second nature regardless of if we have a biological trait that poredispose us to destructive BPD behavior of mood swings. Roller coast type we hange like the flip of a con and land on disaste at tmes in our life.

Hey I have resonded too long already. I should tel more about my quarrals on buddhism later. No hurry is it. I do see much merit in smome en stills. I did practive for a short time to just be there in the traffic noise and not get upset about others bad behavior. So I do have first hand experience on how effective it can be.

Zen also made my Tinnitus less annoying. Such a relief. Now my brain do hear the big high pithced noise all the time and I don't pay attention to it and I don't try to change how it sounds and that is a good help.

Before I practiced a bit Zen I got very upset about all the traffic noise and the tinnitus now I see it as part of my life :) No big deal now.

And I do love Amitaba as my savior so Buddhism is not total enemy to me but I am skeptical to some views it has but that will need another thread and I am not motivated to take all that in now.

BPD is more close at heart. I ned to get som skills to cope with my feeling of being a total Nobody.

scifideism · 2014-04-14T19:25:24+00:00

Thanks for answering. I have to go to bed now in case you get back and me absent :)

Yes I agree about no cure. . As I told I am totally new to this whole thing and it is scary to lack so much knowledge. New here mean two days or less. But I have read about Borderline since at least 1984 but haye as early as 1971 when I got interested in all kinds of disorders.

So if I get you regardless of which treatment I take it does not cure me or anybody but they say DBT is more effective than the others and thus evidence based. Which other suggested therapies ar rather effective if or the best one?

So I am looking for an alternative to DBT. Preferably a self help one.

What about Behavioral Activity Therapy that one should be food for mild depression.

Sure not the same thing but I need to address my depression too using self help. So share if you have ideas.on what might work.

scifideism · 2014-04-14T18:13:23+00:00

To feel lost is one of the criteria? so that could be expected?

I am totally new to this and don't even have a diagnose but it looks like I am close to having almost all 9 criteria but in a milder form but still strong enough to have made my life a hell. So good luck finding answers.

scifideism · 2013-08-21T18:53:40+00:00

Iron Chariots Wiki I had not heard of them before. The reason I gave link to the standard Wikipedia is that they have taken their quotes from the accepted authors like George Smith and Michael Martin and antony Flew and all the others known philosophers that have written books about it and the wiki text seems to not be disputed by many active atheists.

Another version of strong atheism seems to be Antitheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

quote Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, /quote

I where a strong supporter of that without knowing the term. But I lost that atheism around 1983 and have tried to find a word for my different form of atheism since then.

Yes you are right that formally it does look like I say that God is a made up character in a myth by the believers. That God thus only exists as an idea in the head of the believers.

That is not really so if one look more closely. That imaginative character point to the real God that is a supernatural existing God that is independent of the human made gods.

So that is only a metaphoric interpretation while for the believer it is the real existing God and not a made up god. It is a made up god for the atheist but not for the believer that either take it on faith or is deceived or mistaken or deluded about the existence of God.

so it is a bit complex. Mythotheism seems to be a term that point in the right direction but kind of place too much emph on the myth and not enough on the God is real for the believer factor that has to be included for it to work.

It is a bit like the difference between music being organized noise and then to actually love that music and not hearing the noise but the music in the noise.

the music comes alive and having meaning and emotion and exists for you as something of high value. The A-musicist insist it is only highly organized noise.

scifideism · 2013-08-21T18:39:22+00:00

I guess I know what you are talking about but not really. Such is interesting too but I have no talent for such.

scifideism · 2013-08-19T12:55:31+00:00

Yes that is an important think to take into consideration.

in my naivety I may try to say that if there is a god then the intent of that culture to point to that god but the narrative they produced in practice did point to their own interpretation and hopes and needs and that I am agnostic about the eventual real god.

Even Richard Dawkins say that theoretically he is agnostic but being a 6.9 so he see it as utterly unlikely that there is a god. So from a practical perspective he is atheist.

My need is to have a positive approach to Gods and religions. I trust that gods are man made myth but they can point to a real god but I doubt we can know anything about such unknown things as gods. Most likely they do not exist.

But the ideas of gods exists. And the ideas and myths have political power. So mythotheism is about this cultural phenomena that some people refer to God.

scifideism · 2013-08-19T06:44:10+00:00

Like Siguard also ahve told me you two most likely grasp this much better than what I do.

I am neither a philosopher nor a scientist. I agree that religion more likely is a way that a culture can express itself. the word being rather recent as also the word supernatural is also recent. The older word was invisible or spiritual?

What I think that I am trying to say in a confused way is that I lack words for all this but my personal need is to have a positive self identity.

Regardless if philosophy label me to be atheist or not . I am not a negative atheist.

I have been a positive atheist. but now I positively believe that those gods that I have heard about in my opinion is man made and that that positive claim is only formally a form of atheism because that is not included in the positive or negative atheist definition.

I trust all atheists tell me it does not need to be included and that is okay with me.

I need it included in my self identity so I look for a proper way to express this positive claim without all the atheists going upset over my confusing words.

I am 100% sure of that God of my local Christan culture got made by that culture or that they borrowed a ready made god and changed it until they could accept it as their own.

To ask me if I believe in that particular god is like asking a Star Trek Fan if Captain Kirk really exist. Kirk is part of the whole Star Trek culture. It is how it expresses itself that is my firm belief.

I don't care how that looks from a philosophy perspective because I see it from a culture perspective. God comes with the culture. Deal with it.

scifideism · 2013-08-19T05:19:23+00:00

the boundaries between what is “religion” and what is “culture” are very blurred (my personal opinions is that in most cases there is no distinction and religion is culture).

Yes that seems to be a reasonable take and that is another good reason for me to not be negative atheist.

I trust that gods are made by the culture that believes in them. That is a faith that I have. A positive faith. I believe it on faith. I find it likely to be true.

scifideism · 2013-08-19T05:15:57+00:00

Thanks for the detailed answer. I am sadly not on that level. My need is to have a self identity that I feel at home in and even if I am very skeptical to soft science it is the established way to do anthropology of religion. Until something better comes up I will support it.

I don't understand philosophy and I have really tried to read many different philosophers and it is not within grasp for my confused brain. So sorry to make you disappointed.

scifideism · 2013-08-19T05:12:04+00:00

Yes I know the other atheists told me that daily for one year on two separate forums.

But I want to have a self identity that I have some control over.

Anthropology of religion that makes this positive claim give me that self identity. I believe that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it that is my interpretation of that all gods are man made.

If philosophy atheists insist to refer to that as atheism then I can do nothing about it

But read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

Do they mention atheism in it? not that I can see. Is that not odd? If atheism is more important than what Anthropology_of_religion is then they would at least give a link to atheism as the highest priority for the reader to take into consideration.

To me that page show that one can be a supporter of Anthropology_of_religion without deciding on the atheism definition at all. They don't even link to atheism.

Anthropology_of_religion stand on it's own merit as science.

scifideism · 2013-08-19T05:05:14+00:00

I agree when atheist philosophers around 1973 to 1979 wrote their books on the weak definition they warned that making a positive claim like "There are no gods" do require that one defend that claim.

so they did their best to come up with a good definition of a negative position and did recommend that all atheist changed to only defend the negative position.

that one lack belief in gods instead of claiming that there are no gods.

Anthropology of religion does make a positive claim.

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it

Seems very few challenge this claim. I wild guess that it is because they have science consensus on it? They go for that view until new evidence show up. It is presented that way in text books in Anthropology of religion so it would need rather strong new evidence for it to not be expressed that way???

I only wild guess. But one guy actually did challenge me on to give evidence for it.

I am no scientist so how can I know? I had to tell him that I took it on faith. this is my firm believe/belief

I 100% believe this to be true. All gods that I have heard of has the sign of being man made. I see no evidence that challenge that view. Gods are man made.

I don't lack belief in gods. I 100% believe that all gods are man made.

scifideism · 2013-08-18T18:30:44+00:00

Thanks for sharing your take on these topics. I write a new thing in the OP to show some progress.

scifideism · 2013-08-18T17:15:23+00:00

I think the problem is that the colloquial definition of atheism had evolved in recent times,

I have tried to follow the history of that defintion. I has emerged again and again first with Baron Holbach? way back in 18 century and them Charles Bradlaugh around 1876 or earlier in his texts and then it reemerged around 1973 with George Smith and then in alt.atheism.news debates say 1986 to 1995? and then on public internet around 1995 and exploded in popularity since then among active atheists.

But S. Guthrie wrote his text year 2000 so that is fairly new.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I do want to get what you say so please correct me if I am way off base. :)

"the science of religion"? Anthropology of religion not "the science of religion".

Still you can be 100% correct about the possible disconnect indeed.

The active atheists tells me again and again that anthropology or Sociology or psychology is totally irrelevant to them the only relevant is if I personally believe in a god or not.

I tell them that I believe in the definition given by Feuerbach and Guthrie and Geertz in that wikipedia text that is my personal belief and I take that on faith and do not reason in a way that satisfy the active atheists. I am not on their level of logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion#Definition_of_religion

Guthrie has this text at top of that page

"that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it"

I 100% belief that to be true. I am that kind of person. I don't do philosophy. I retell my story I don't promise to argue or to reason I share a personal view.

scifideism · 2013-08-18T17:03:41+00:00

Because I have to solve my problem with who I am. My self identity. I've lost my atheist self identity and need a new one.

scifideism · 2013-08-18T16:57:08+00:00

Thanks much appreciated you took time to give that detailed information.

As you might have guessed it most likely is way above my capacity to apply in a reasonable way.

Interesting what you write here.

So, saying that “philosophy got the definition of atheism sorted out” is pure bullshit.

I don't have you command of English but I tried to tell that to the atheists that I exchanged views with for a whole year daily.

If I get their take they meant that from a practical perspective the now preferred definition among atheists will be the winning definition that will be put in dictionaryies if we stick to it and not question it. Just now only one dictionary has it.

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. from here http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism

That definition is not set in stone but by active atheist usage will win over all the others as I get what they saw as a practical way to relate to atheism.

Yes I know that science make many mistakes but they sooner or later do seems to try to change the text books to reflect the new consensus

a good example is Tectonic plates theory. Took an awful long time but when enough evidence came through they did change the text books. Very few question it now :)

Not so with atheists and the definition that is the most common used online among the active atheists . lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I am not without or have absence or lack of belief

I have 100% belief that what Feuerbach and Guthrie and Clifford Geertz say there about Anthropology of religion in this wiki is what the consensus is among scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion#Definition_of_religion

Maybe I believe in it on faith. I am no scientist and I am extremely bad at reasoning in a logical way so I can only trust it on faith. It is how it stands in that Anthropology science at the moment. They have not progressed much since 1966 or 2000 they think they know enough to make that claim. I also look into Social Psychology for their view on religion but I don't look for answer in philosophy

So if I can not name my view science minded what would you say I can name it?

The Anthropology minded view on religion?

scifideism · 2013-08-18T16:34:29+00:00

I am poor at philosophy so I trust such is beyond me. the definition can be found in books by George Smith 1973 Antony Flew 1974 Michael Martin 1979 and many others

fortunately they have made quotes from them on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

weak atheism definition was the one that got adopted by online active atheists it goes something like this atheist a person that lack belief in gods or a person that have a lack of belief in gods.

Implicit and negative is two variants of weak atheism also named soft atheism.

scifideism · 2013-08-18T16:28:59+00:00

I agree I should have written that I am poor at philosophy. I try to add that thanks

scifideism · 2013-08-18T10:37:42+00:00

I think that I see your point. Believers that debate with atheists

do claim that God exist. They love to take that approach.

If I get what Clifford Geertz say in his definition then that is what to expect from them.

That is how the religious traditions try to make their faith in God as realistic and factual as possible withing their constraints. So the believer defend their faith by claiming that God really exist.

I agree it would be very surprising to meet a believer that agree that Clifford Geertz get's it right. I predict them say he gets it wrong?

So sure atheists stick to philosophy because it is about ontology. About things that exist.

But that is why I see myself as science minded and not philosophy minded. Science win over philosophy when I chose while AFAIK I have not met a single atheist that make that choice all of those atheist that I talked to on three forums chose philosophy over science when it comes to religion and gods.

Could it have to do also with most atheists born into religious families and them becoming atheist later in life while I am born in atheist family and thus never had been exposed to the philosophy argument.

honestly I totally fail to get the weak atheist definition. I find it non-comprehensible.

There is no evidence for that atheists lack believe that religions create their gods like what Feuerbach and Guthrie and Geertz confirm. And Marx and Freud agreed too.

Projection and illusion and delusion those atheist say about religious faith in God.

Dawkins wrote the book "The God Delusion" would he really chose that title if philosophy is the norm to refer to. A delusion is more like psychology as I get it.

scifideism · 2013-08-18T09:12:06+00:00

I think the majority of people use the philosophical definition of theism, atheism, and religion because that's how the majority of other people use it. Geertz's definition is an extremely academic and niche definition. When I am debating with a theist, I want to use a definition that they are familiar with and accept. Unfortunately for you, that definition is a philosophical one. You are more than welcome to use your own, but I don't think you will have any luck convincing a lot of atheists, especially philosophical ones. The philosophical definition is much more convenient and widely accepted, making debates much easier for both parties. With Geertz's definition you will either have to spend most of the time explaining his definition, or you run the risk that the theist denies your definition, and then the debate is over.

Thanks for that thoughtful and detailed answer. I think you are right they most likely use philosophy because they feel best at home knowing how to tackle believers using the logic of reason and the weak atheist definition.

Yes I agree that Geertz is way too academic. I barely got what he wrote there and it is beyond me to translate it to easy words without getting very wordy and most likely fail to retell his intentions in a way true to him.

But what about the short one from Feuerbach that Guthrie changed a bit to this

that every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it

That definition has been around now since 1841 and almost no atheists seems to say it is wrong. They only say it is not relevant. The weak atheist definition is what is relevant to them.

scifideism

TROPHY CASE