Would Ameen Washington have been horribly killed like this if his father had been an atheist?

[el_bryanto]

Following up on a suggestion.

As a follow up, do you think the answer to this question has an implications for the practice of religion in general?

Bryant

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I am a believer and the answer is Yes
	0 (0%)
	I am a believer and the answer is No
	0 (0%)
	I am an atheist and the answer is Yes
	0 (0%)
	I am an atheist and the answer is No
	2 (100%)
	There's no way to know
	0 (0%)
	Why do you post such bullshit polls!
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MADem]

1. Sure--it would have been "the boogeyman" or some figment of his imagination. What a lousy question.

It's flame-baity. You really should be ashamed.

The man was a raging, unmedicated schizophrenic. He would have created an alternate circumstance in his head based on experiences--a film he saw, a book he read, something he imagined.

His religion didn't MAKE him schizophrenic. His schizophrenia caused his brain to think in a disordered fashion where he heard voices and felt threatened.

Horrid poll. One of the worst I've seen here.

[el_bryanto]

4. It was recommended by another poster as being a more fair way to ask my question

I thought he had a point so posted it.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

6. No, it wasn't

See my reply below. Why aren't you telling the truth about this?

[MADem]

7. I think you may have been punked. It's an ugly question that creates a false association.

You might as well ask "If he'd gone to private school/been raised in Canada/eaten a good breakfast every morning/ would he have....?"

Schizophrenia doesn't discriminate.

[skepticscott]

11. No, but it does feed off

what people have been indoctrinated with. How many schizophrenic atheists have killed their child in the process of trying to exorcise demons from them?

[MADem]

12. What you are doing is ghastly. You should be ashamed of yourself.

It doesn't matter if the schizophrenic individual is imagining "shatan" or zombies from The Walking Dead; what you're doing is taking a serious mental illness where it is not uncommon for paranoid delusions to overcome the afflicted, marrying it to a religion, and "blaming" the religion for the consequences.

What you are doing is, frankly, despicable. It is not what someone purporting to be a "progressive" would do. You're coming down like an absolute intolerant and ignorant ass on the mental health front as well as the religious freedom front.

Heckuvajob, Brownie. Pat yourself on the back.

[skepticscott]

16. Do you have any actual facts or arguments

or are you content to just fling insults and misrepresent what I've said?

[MADem]

26. You know full well that schizophrenia has nothing to do with religious belief or lack of same.

So why are you trying to associate the two, and then "get insulted" when someone calls you on it?

I see what you are doing--and I'm not the only one, either.

[trotsky]

36. Of course it doesn't.

But can you propose a guaranteed way to determine whether someone is acting out of sincere religious belief versus out of mental illness?

[MADem]

57. I should imagine a competent psychiatrist could make that determination. nt

[trotsky]

107. Definitively? Nope. n/t

[MADem]

108. I'll put my money on the scientist. I'll bet the shrink could suss it out. nt

[trotsky]

109. Thanks for your speculation. n/t

[MADem]

110. And thank you for yours. n/t

[trotsky]

111. I wasn't speculating. I was asking.

You had no answer for me, so you guessed.

[MADem]

112. You obviously need to have the last word for some reason--so go ahead! nt

[trotsky]

113. Just had to correct your error, that's all!

But if you need to get the last word, fine by me. I've made my point.

[rug]

38. Pretty accurate.

[cbayer]

8. Agree.

The fact that some people exploit the horrors that often accompany severe, untreated psychiatric illness to score points in a useless battle over whether religion is a good or bad thing is appalling.

Those that do this will continue to do it no matter what a poll says or the disgust that most people experience when they see it done.

[trotsky]

10. Where do people get the idea that demons can possess others,

and that they can be driven out by exorcism?

How can we as outside observers tell whether someone was attempting an exorcism to remove a demon, or simply killing someone using method to look like an exorcism?

[MADem]

15. Nowadays? The Sci-Fi Channel. The local movie theater. Stephen King.

I don't know a lot of people who learn that shit "in church."

[trotsky]

17. And where did the ideas originally come from? n/t

[skepticscott]

18. Nice try

And where did all if those sources get the idea? From religion. Taking the association a step further away doesn't change that. It's just an unconvincing dodge.

[MADem]

21. It wasn't a "try." It was a home run. Your arguments are not supported, and your associations are

reprehensible. Your effort to marry a sad case of schizophrenia with your crazed and relentless, and entirely pointless hatred of "religion" has failed.

And now you're playing a desperate game, of six degrees of separation.

Where did religions get their ideas? From pagans! Pagans who didn't put a nickel in the box so they'll be saved!

How far back do you wanna go...to oral traditions, to myths and legends...to the cave man?

Unless you're trying to tell us that atheists don't read, is that it? They don't watch television or movies? And if they do, why, it's all (insert diety's name here) fault!

Get over yourself. You started this ugly mess, this nasty "blame game," exploiting an horrific tragedy, and the shame is on you.

It's rare to see such crass exploitation here on DU, but I guess you win the prize.

[skepticscott]

37. You must really enjoy the taste of bile in your mouth

to spew it out so eagerly. But peppering your rants with insults as a way to try to feel superior doesn't make you any less full of shit, and repeating the same empty crap over and over doesn't make it more of an argument.

Tell you what...let's ask Stephen King and the writers on the Sci-Fi Channel see how many of them got their notions of demons and exorcism from ancient pagan beliefs. I think we both know the answer will be zilch. And yeah, gee...ancient pagans believed all kinds of shit, that there were beings who hurled down thunderbolts, send plagues and fertility and made volcanoes erupt. But essentially everyone in the modern world has managed to get over those beliefs, somehow, and they are no longer taken seriously. Why have so many people NOT gotten over the false and dangerous belief that supernatural beings exist who can possess human beings? Because certain religious groups continue to promote that false belief and indoctrinate people in it to this very day.

Frankly, the attempts by you and cbayer to imply that mentally ill people murder their children simply because they are mentally ill, and totally unable to control their actions, is as ignorant and despicable as anything you've tried to accuse me of. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

[MADem]

59. Get a grip--you specialize in vitriol. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Sci-Fi Channel, local movie theater, and Stephen King present themselves as fiction

Possession by Shatan is presented as truth. "The Truth", in fact.

I'd blame a "psychic researcher" too, if one had spent ages trying to persuade the man that their claims were real.

[MADem]

22. So, you believe it to be the truth?

Sounds more like an opinion to me, that some people like to insist is "The Truth."

Sort of along the lines that Citizen Kane is the BEST film ever made--and that's THE TRUTH!

In any event, it's reprehensible to take an aspect that a schizophrenic focuses on, and use it as a tool to indict. It's weak reasoning from a mind trying to make a cheap, fast, shit-stirring point, one that doesn't understand how devastating severe mental illness is.

The guy who tried to assassinate Reagan had a fixation on Jodi Foster. Is she to blame for the bullets that hit Reagan and grievously wounded Brady? Is it The Truth that, had he succeeded, he would have won Jodi's hand? You couldn't have convinced him otherwise.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Do you not understand that demonic possession is taught to believers as a reality?

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. I don't think MADem can understand that, from what they say

Maybe they've led an incredibly sheltered life.

[MADem]

53. Speak for yourself. nt

[MADem]

34. Do you not understand that many religions don't "teach" a damn thing? It's cultural association?

And do you not understand that most people know what they know about "demonic possession" from movies like "The Exorcist?" NOT from "religious classes" they have attended?



The bottom line, though, is this: Schizophrenia is an horrific mental illness. It can devastate families if there is a sufferer in the clan who is unmedicated, and terrible, terrible things can result--even if the family is a bunch of atheists. The unmedicated schizophrenic mind will find SOMETHING to latch onto, if their chemistry is causing them to be fearful and paranoid. If it's not "Shatan" telling them to do awful things, it's "the television" or "Son of Sam, the Dog" or the frigging bedside lamp.

The whole purpose of the conversations leading up to this thread were an attempt to associate schizophrenia with religion. That's just a non-starter. It's ugly, nasty and weak, and it's intolerant, too.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. "many religions don't "teach" a damn thing? " no I didn't know that.

Mostly my experience is with various Christian and Jewish religious institutions and every time I've been in any organized event from one of those organizations there has been some "teaching" in the form of "religious indoctrination" going on. But I guess that is just me, and I may very well be generalizing from my own limited experience. I guess I just had a skewed sample. Although, oddly, all the reading I have done on various religions seems to indicate that religious indoctrination is really very common. Again, I may have just read all the wrong books.

[MADem]

54. Well, you don't know shit about cultural Muslims, that's pretty obvious.

Or secular Jews. Or Easter/Christmas Christians.

So yeah....I guess that IS "just you."

[Warren Stupidity]

61. i almost have a clue what your are talking about.

So perhaps you have misread me and think I have somehow claimed that "all people who have any religious identification at all engage in religious indoctrination". How you got that from anything I wrote escapes me, but just to clear things up:

Some major religious institutions teach people that demonic possession is real

I hope that is clear. If it isn't please let me know what you still find confusing.

[MADem]

71. And some people who purport to practice a major religion have gotten little if any

"indoctrination" into it at all...like I said, cultural Muslims, secular Jews, Christmas Christians, etc. They wouldn't know the rules if they were spelled out, and they wouldn't follow them on a bet. Give me a bacon sandwich, every day is Fat Tuesday....

[Warren Stupidity]

75. i give up. have a nice day.

[Goblinmonger]

44. Why does the RCC have an exorcist, then?

Just for the hell of it? (see what I did there? It's a funny, too.)

[Warren Stupidity]

47. "an exorcist"? They have teams of exorcists, and recently added more.

[struggle4progress]

55. Mostly because people demand exorcisms

For Catholics, Interest in Exorcism Is Revived
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 12, 2010

The rite of exorcism, rendered gory by Hollywood and ridiculed by many modern believers, has largely fallen out of favor in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.

There are only a handful of priests in the country trained as exorcists, but they say they are overwhelmed with requests from people who fear they are possessed by the Devil.

Now, American bishops are holding a conference on Friday and Saturday to prepare more priests and bishops to respond to the demand. The purpose is not necessarily to revive the practice, the organizers say, but to help Catholic clergy members learn how to distinguish who really needs an exorcism from who really needs a psychiatrist, or perhaps some pastoral care ...

The Rev. Richard Vega, president of the National Federation of Priests’ Councils, an organization for American priests, said that when he first heard about the conference on exorcism, “My immediate reaction was to say, why?” ...

[Goblinmonger]

68. So the RCC is still teaching

that supernatural beings can possess the body.

[struggle4progress]

79. Here is the official catechism on the topic:

1673 When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and office of exorcizing. In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.

That might be understood in a wide variety of manners; and one should expect that the billion or so Catholics in the world understand it diversely, according to their abilities, inclinations, or personalities. Were I to call myself Roman Catholic (which I do not), I should be little inclined to have much interest in your question, whether supernatural beings exist and can possess the body, since the question seems (according to my understanding) entirely to miss the actual important issues of "the power of the Evil One" or of "his dominion" -- and that this is not merely my view, as a non-Catholic, but also the view of numerous Catholics, may be inferred from the remark of Richard Vega, quoted in my #55 upthread, to which you are here responding. Roughly speaking, it seems to be the Catholic view, that not every distress of the psyche is a medical matter, and that some distresses result from our own failures of proper intent, a view that to me seems accurate and proper -- though, of course, you are free to disagree

[Warren Stupidity]

86. what is amazing, although not surprising is that you can post the words that clearly state

that the RCC promotes the delusional belief that people can be possessed by demons, and then proceed to claim that it doesn't mean that at all.

Well done.

[struggle4progress]

87. What I actually said was that the interpretation in Goblinmonger's

post #68 seemed to me not only uninteresting but also to miss the actual intent of the Roman Catholic view

[MADem]

56. Write to the Pope and ask him, then report back to the class, why don't you? nt

[Goblinmonger]

67. It is a counter to your claim

That religions don't teach anything. You have the answers about what religion teaches so why exorcists?

[MADem]

72. They teach those who study. Many who purport to be from those religions are not students of them.

That was my point, it was clear, but hey....woosh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:6

Since you don't seem to have any familiarity with religions, I have to tell you - they really claim to hold the 'ultimate truth' about existence. You're obviously familiar with Jodie Foster, so you know she never made claims about the necessity of killing anyone. But you can't know anything about religions, or you wouldn't compare her to organisations and cultures that have convinced billions of people over thousands of years to believe in miracles, possession, souls, afterlives, and much, much more.

[MADem]

58. Last time I checked, "shatan" was the devil in Islam--not Jesus's 'satan.'

And I'd bet a guy named Amin or Ameen was raised in the Islamic, not the Christian, traditions.

Not sure why you're crabbing on and on and on about how much you "know" about religions, when that bit of business didn't jump out at you....seeing as you're such an "expert" and all....

The BIBLE had nothing to do with this murder. Not a damned thing.

Ooops....guess what? I'm right about that.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/muslim-father-kills-his-possessed-three-year-old-son-after-prayer-brings-no-relief/

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. I said 'religions' - just like you did in #34

Yes, we knew he is a Muslim. See eg http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=117098 , from well before.

The Bible had a profound effect on Islam. Jesus is a prophet in Islam. There's a clear link between 'Shatan' and 'Satan', and the similar ideas of possession.

But frankly, I was dumbing it down for you, since you seemed unable to comprehend that religions' claims to be "The Truth" are wholly different from an opinion on a movie. I thought that, despite your inability to understand the difference between Jodie Foster and religious teaching, you might have had some contact with Christianity and its sayings at some time. Islam makes similar claims to be absolute truth.

[MADem]

66. You're the one spouting about Jesus and waving the Bible -- not me.

How hard is it to type Quran, or even KORAN for the very lazy?

Nice back up, though--I can hear you beeping from a mile away.

[MADem]

13. It's shameful. And it's even more shameful on a liberal/progressive message board.

This kind of thing is what I'd expect to see on some flaky fringe site, not DU.

[cbayer]

19. In his defense, I think the OP is trying to show how ridiculous and offensive

it is to take the position that religion is the cause of tragedies like this.

What is shameful to see are the attempts to make that link, imo.

The thing that bothers me about these polls is that it gives an additional platform to those that pursue that path.

[MADem]

23. I take your point. I wish the thread starter hadn't taken "the bait."

He was goaded and baited. This isn't intelligent discourse, it's a blame game, using the vehicle of schizophrenia to indict people of faith with an ugly broad brush.

I find it reprehensible and beneath the dignity of DU.

It's not about "the atheism," because there's nothing wrong with that--it's about being so stunningly ignorant about mental illness (and being, seemingly, proud of that ignorance, too).

[cbayer]

25. I agree with you.

My approach is not to feed the beast at this point.

I am a passionate defender of psychiatric patients and it makes me sick to see what has been going on here lately.

It's indefensible.

[MADem]

28. +1 nt

[rug]

39. There's a strong effort to do that.

I wonder why.

[MADem]

63. What I find hilarious is how I am being lectured, with a wag of the finger,

about how much I don't know about this religious tradition or that, and how I'm naive, and so on, when I've grown up and lived a long life to old age surrounded by every one of the Big Three, and a few minor ones as well.

What is funnier still is that these so-called experts, waving around Bibles and spouting off about Catholic exorcisms and Jeeeeeeeee-sus, didn't bother to take a frigging minute and LOOK at the dead child's name.

I happen to know that Amin is a Persian word--it's also an Arabic one. It can be translated as 'honest' or 'trustworthy' or 'truthful.' I also know that "shatan" is the Arabic and Persian word for satan...we in Amrika (America) are the "Great Shatan" to the ideologues in Iran. My first thought was that the familly was Muslim, not Christian--but you'd sure not know that based on what I read in this thread.

A quick check revealed to me that the father of this child was indeed a Muslim, and he'd consulted his Imam after he started hearing voices. The Imam advised him to pray and go to the masjid.

So all the Bible and Jesus stuff the "experts" here were throwing at me? They can take it back and eat it. Of course, that would require acknowledging that they aren't "The Way and the Light" and I think that might be a challenge.

[rug]

73. There's no worse hypocrite than one who judges another with disgust as he goes home to beat his dog.

Thanks for the background on his name. The sadness is the man who chose this name for his son is the same man who did this to same boy. All from an illness he didn't seek, want or invite.

I've met two women and one man who had killed their children. Each of them realized the horror of what they had done as they slowly responded to treatment. The hospital had to take the man to court for an order to medicate him over his objection. If they get the order, it's an ugly process often involving forced restraints. When I asked him why he refused the medicine that appeared to be helping him he told me he couldn't take the pain of knowing.

[MADem]

76. Yes, it is a simple and terrible tragedy.

I've no doubt when this guy gets the needed treatment for his severe mental illness, he will be bereft and likely stay that way for the rest of his life.

I don't understand--regardless of one's position on the atheist-to-religious continuum--why anyone would use this terrible occasion to try to "prove" a point about a religious/non-religious POV...

It certainly "proves" something, but it's not anything of which to be proud.

[cbayer]

88. He couldn't take the pain of knowing.

That is one of the more tragic things I have ever read.

[Iggo]

2. No.

That's what you're looking for, right?

[trotsky]

3. Nope, there is no way his child would have been killed in an exorcism attempt. n/t

[skepticscott]

5. You might at least TRY being honest

And ask the question I proposed: "Would Ameen Washington have been horribly killed like this if his father had been an atheist?"

Changing the question and then pretending it's what someone else suggested is just shit-stirring intellectual dishonesty.

What a shock.

[el_bryanto]

9. I apologize - i just assumed people were familiar with the case that the like this

would go without saying and I was concerned about it being too long.

Corrected it.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

14. We don't know.

[LiberalAndProud]

24. I tend to think not.

The story of Abraham and Issac is really disturbing. It's not possible to separate the man from the belief. Would his derangement have manifested this way without religion? It remains an unanswered question in my mind.

I think that Andrea Yate's children would still be alive if not for religious fanaticism, but I have no way to know that empirically.

[cbayer]

27. I think Andrea Yate's children would still be alive if she had received appropriate

psychiatric care and treatment.

The problem is with our health system and with a society that treats psychiatric patients like garbage.

If anything, religious organizations can and do offer services to the chronically and severely ill population that are not available anywhere else.

[trotsky]

29. Would Abraham have benefited from psychiatric care and treatment? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

30. for example: they offer exorcisms.

[pinto]

35. I'd wager that's minuscule compared to many of the social support / health care services some offer

One example - local church near me, a non-denominational Protestant type, one of the largest congregations in the city, offers a weekly food bank. The line is around the block every Saturday morning. No proselytizing, no questions. They also have a gardeners' group led by a CA Master Gardener. All the public housing in the city has had basic landscaping / vegetable gardens donated and installed by the group.

It's not all about the extremist elements evident in some religious organizations.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Food banks are great! Remind me again what they have to do with

"mental health services not offered elsewhere"? 'cause that was what I was responding to.

The only "mental health service not offered elsewhere" I know of that a mainline religious institution offers is "exorcism of demons", offered for example by the RCC, but I'm sure you can dig up some other "mental health service not offered elsewhere".

[pinto]

45. I think you may have misread the post.

I didn't read "services to the chronically and severely ill population that are not available anywhere else" to mean professional psychiatric care or "mental health care services". That's not what it said. What came to mind for me was in-home support services for disabled / chronically ill, aid with daily living tasks, nutrition support, transportation assistance, an empathetic ear and, yes, spiritual support if appropriate and requested. Those are gaps in services that remain unavailable to many. Not psychiatric care, per se. Legally disabled individuals have access to psychiatric services. Such as it is.

I may have misread the post as well. Cbayer could clarify if we're all talking past each other.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. I believe Cbayer has me on ignore in retaliation for my having rug on ignore

so she will not respond.

Yes I know exactly what cbayer intended to mean. My offering up the RCC's exorcism service was not because I misread cbayer but because:
a) the RCC does offer exorcism as a mental health service, and:
b) cbayer is continuously and most likely deliberately choosing to misread anything any atheist posts here that can possibly be misread so as to portray said atheist as a bigot. And finally:
c) the fact that major religious institutions promulgate the delusional belief that people can be possessed by demons is, in my opinion, hugely irresponsible. They should stop doing that.

[pinto]

52. Yeah, they should stop doing that demonic possession stuff. I think it's a minority, extremist pov.

Rare among people who find something worthwhile in religious practice and most of the mainstream religions. At least I hope it is, for what it's worth. The blaring examples make news, part of the media approach to sensationalism. Drive by snippets.

(aside) I can't speak for cbayer in any way, shape or form. Especially second hand discussion. I feel it's awkward here on DU in any instance for any member.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. it is official RCC doctrine.

And it is pervasive in "bible belt" fundamentalists branches of Christianity. Offhand, that is likely a majority.

[LiberalAndProud]

40. Aren't those two separate arguments?

Yes, Andrea Yates needed psychiatric treatment as, clearly, did Washington. That's a given. The question I pose is this, would Andrea have felt compelled to kill her children if not for her fanatic religious beliefs? Again, I have no way to prove that she would not, but I think she would not. I think the same of Washington.

[cbayer]

42. She was psychotic and developed religious delusions, including command hallucinations.

These were not her religious beliefs in the way we understand religious beliefs. They were symptoms of a serious psychiatric condition.

If it had not been religion, it most likely would have been something else (aliens, the CIA, Charles Manson, etc).

[LiberalAndProud]

48. You know this how?

I believe she would not have. You telling me otherwise probably won't change my opinion on the matter. You know things, though. Good on you.

[cbayer]

49. Er, because she had a psychiatrist who testified to that.

[LiberalAndProud]

50. Testified that she would have killed her children without the influence of her religion?

Like to know what study he cited for that one.

[cbayer]

51. She was treated and her religious delusions went away.

You are conflating what you think is "her religion" with her psychotic symptoms.

Treatment of severe psychiatric conditions does not rid people of their religious beliefs, but it does rid them of their delusions, some of which may be religious in nature.

This is widely known accepted and backed up by actual science. To believe otherwise is akin to a religious belief.

[struggle4progress]

60. Where's the "both yes and no" option?

The old reasoning rule ex falso quodlibet allows us to derive absolutely anything whatsoever from an assumption contrary to fact

[MADem]

65. You're expecting FAIRNESS? Can't have that, now, can we?

[struggle4progress]

69. It is evidently just as unrealistic to expect LOGIC

[MADem]

70. That, too. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

77. here is a clue: the author of the poll is on "your side".

[MADem]

78. My "side" is this--I think it is dogshit sucky to use mental illness as a cudgel, as a "gotcha" to

advance any argument. As I said, if the feelings that guy was experiencing didn't cause him to be terrified of "Shatan," he'd be thinking the bedside lamp was telling him to do evil things. The sense of terror, of paranoia, of foreboding, of doom and of the need to lash out in a misguided way to "protect" himself would have been there had he had no religion at all.

It's not about religion, this guy's problem--it's about mental illness.

I think this entire discussion is just lower than dirt, and I think goading/baiting the OP into firing up this thread was sick and shameful and beneath the dignity of this progressive board.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. well, then the author has succeeded in his little game.

[el_bryanto]

82. Are just my polls games? or what about the inspiration for this poll.

"Religion Kills Yet Another Child." Was that a game as well?

Bryant

[LostOne4Ever]

74. I think alot of this question depends on what you mean by atheist

If you are using the definition of someone who lacks a belief in god or believes there is no god, then I think it would be possible it would have happened anyway, but there is no way to know.

You could be this type of atheist and still believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories and woo. The stereotype being the atheist astrologer. They might believe in demons while not believing in gods, or might replace demons with a government conspiracy. Its also entirely possible, that without the religious input they might not have committed the act at all. I have no way to know.

If you mean Skeptic (which I find a lot of people mean when they say atheist) then no I don't think it would have happened. Someone who is deeply grounded in logic and rationalism would realize this belief goes against all logic and science and would seek psychiatric help. This type of person would realize there is no such thing as demons or would realize the conspiracy theory growing in their mind is not logical.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Does the answer to this question have an implication for the practice of religion?

Well, before I answer that, let me just say that I use the mathematical definition of implication. In other words, its the contract of logic, where the implication is only not true when the premise is true and the conclusion is false.

I guess the implication would be that religion makes some practices more or less likely. It could push someone to give to charity who might not do so otherwise, and conversely to push one to commit an action that they would not do otherwise, like disowning a child for being gay or in this case killing a child while trying to exorcise the kid.

I guess it depends on your view of how influential religion is in our society. If you are going to give religion credit for giving people hope, inspiration, encouraging charity and so forth; then I fail to see how you could deny that religion shares in the blame for this tragedy.

If, on the other hand, you give credit to the person and none to religion for their works; then I see no way that you could blame religion for what happened here.

I do think that religion does encourage people to do things like giving to charity and inspiring them to do good works. So it would be hypocritical of me to claim that religion is blameless in this situation. You have to accept the bad with the good. At a minimum it helped justify the fathers actions in his own mind, and at most it is what created the delusion that drove the father to commit this act.

There is no way for me to know where in the spectrum between those two cases it does fall.

[TM99]

83. This is just wrong.

If you mean Skeptic (which I find a lot of people mean when they say atheist) then no I don't think it would have happened. Someone who is deeply grounded in logic and rationalism would realize this belief goes against all logic and science and would seek psychiatric help. This type of person would realize there is no such thing as demons or would realize the conspiracy theory growing in their mind is not logical.

Schizophrenia can and does impact even the most brilliant, logical, and scientific minds. John Forbes Nash is illustrative of the actual reality of mental illness as opposed to this arrogant ignorance.

[LostOne4Ever]

84. Not all scientists are skeptics

Mayim Bialik who plays on the big bang theory is a well known neuroscientist. She is also an anti-vaxxer. Isaac Newton believed in all sorts of non-science and even tried to predict the end of the world.

As for Nash, his illness has caused him to engage in numerous conspiracy theories (and make occasional anti-Semitic comments).

What type of skeptic engages in conspiracy theories? If a skeptic saw a god land in front of their house what would they do? Believe it? Or question if they were having a delusion?

Which was my point.

[TM99]

85. The one true Scotsman fallacy then?

So there is a mythical skeptic whose powers of reason and logic are sooooo great that in the face of a true mental illness like schizophrenia, they would be able to recognize they were deluded?

You know zero about mental illness and zero about reason & logic.

[LostOne4Ever]

89. I have been very polite and respectful in all of my posts

I guess its too much to expect the same from you?

First off its not a one true scotsman as no one has ever called Nash a Skeptic. NO-ONE. Further, he does not fit the definition of a skeptic. This is a refutation via definition not a one true scotsman. If he was a skeptic you would have a point.

Secondly, if there are no skeptic who are or were at one time schizophrenic then by extension you end up going back to my first statement on the issue (WHICH YOU COMPLETELY GLOSSED OVER). I made no statement about the number of Schizophrenics who were also skeptics, rather all I said is that if one were a skeptic that they would have seen that this action was not logical.

You on the other hand, are the one making an indirect comment on them not existing. You made the claim that they were mythical, please provide proof. I hear that negative proofs can be extremely hard to make, good luck with that.

Finally, you know zilch about me. Nothing. You know nothing about my family and our experiences with mental illness, and you have no clue about my education. On top of that, I made no claims to be an expert in either field. But, for your information, my family has a small amount of experience with mental illness, and I have taken courses in mathematical logic and reasoning and will soon have a degree in mathematics and engineering to go with a degree I already have in biology.

If you want to have a mature conversation on this issue I'm more than willing to have a dialogue with you. If you want to throw around dispersions and passive aggressive insults because you didn't understand what I actually saying then quit replying to me.

I have no time or patience for arguing with someone who just wants to troll.

[TM99]

90. Sigh.

This is the quote yet again that is simply wrong:

If you mean Skeptic (which I find a lot of people mean when they say atheist) then no I don't think it would have happened. Someone who is deeply grounded in logic and rationalism would realize this belief goes against all logic and science and would seek psychiatric help. This type of person would realize there is no such thing as demons or would realize the conspiracy theory growing in their mind is not logical.

It does not matter if someone is deeply grounded in logic and rationalism. That would not make someone seek out psychiatric help. If someone, irrespective of such a highly vaulted degree of logic and rationalism, was aware of a need for assistance, they would not be so far into their delusional illness as this man truly was when he murdered his son. Period. If you can ask if you are delusional, then you are not truly delusional.

I gave the example of Nash as one refutation of your premise. Nash meets your definition of a 'Skeptic'. He is an atheist. Check. He is a man of science deeply grounded in logic and rationalism. Check. He has a mental illness - schizophrenia. Check. And despite this, he did not know he was ill when he was in his delusional & extreme states.

Your idea of this ubermensch - a Skeptic who would know when and if he or she is mentally ill to the degree illustrated in this tragedy - is not possible. If you were truly well-versed in psychology you would get this - familial history or not. Are you using that as an appeal to emotion?

Please restudy the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

You: No Skeptic (as I defined it) would act this way under similar psychological conditions.
Me: John Nash (who fits the definition of the Skeptic you presented) did act this way (thankfully not murdering someone) under similar psychological conditions.
You: Well, John Nash, is no Skeptic. He engaged in conspiracy theories during his illness.

Dude, that is a classic No True Scotsman.

So stating that you are wrong in both instances may not be what you want to hear, and it is not 'trolling' nor is it 'insulting'.

[LostOne4Ever]

102. Lets go over these one by one

It does not matter if someone is deeply grounded in logic and rationalism. That would not make someone seek out psychiatric help. If someone, irrespective of such a highly vaulted degree of logic and rationalism, was aware of a need for assistance, they would not be so far into their delusional illness as this man truly was when he murdered his son. Period. If you can ask if you are delusional, then you are not truly delusional.

Skepticism is an attitude of approaching claims via empiricism and an attitude of doubt. I would think if he would have been a skeptic he would have found that his thoughts were illogical a long time ago and at least have taken corrective measures to safeguard against his delusions (assuming they would not seek help).

Delusions are INCREDIBLY hard to recognize as delusion. I get that, and I am not disagreeing there. By definition, a delusion is something that is not real but that said person holds to be true. I think Skepticism, or an skeptical attitude can be a way to realize that one is experiencing a delusion.

I think this because people can and do realize they are experiencing delusions and seek help. The statistics put this at 45% of patients. It is a minority but it does show that one can realize they suffer from delusions and seek help.

But I make no claim to be a mental health expert. It very well could be that one is unable to be a skeptic while schizophrenic, which in my mind would put the population at 0 and default to my earlier statement about atheist in general and there being no way of knowing.

I did do a quick look though, I could not find ANYTHING about skeptics with schzophrenia other than:

http://www.psychforums.com/schizophrenia/topic97612.html

Which was not much help one way or the other.

I gave the example of Nash as one refutation of your premise. Nash meets your definition of a 'Skeptic'. He is an atheist. Check. He is a man of science deeply grounded in logic and rationalism. Check. He has a mental illness - schizophrenia. Check. And despite this, he did not know he was ill when he was in his delusional & extreme states.

Okay, to start with, I specifically said that not all atheists are skeptics. I even reiterated that statement in the passage you quoted from me. In particular, the section I put in parenthesis and the part where I was talking about atheist astrologers.

Again, Nash is not a skeptic. He has never identified as a skeptic, and just being a scientist does not make one a skeptic. I showed this by naming two other scientists who would not be identified as skeptics. Again, would anti-vaccine advocate Mayim Bialik count as a skeptic? She is a neurobiologist, but she also believes in anti-vaccination denialism.

Neither being an atheist or a scientist makes one a skeptic.

Nash is an atheist, but where has Nash claimed to be a skeptic? When has he approached his delusions with an attitude of doubt and questioning his own senses?

Skeptics may even doubt the reliability of their own senses

I can't even say for certain Im not dreaming right at this moment. I try to approach everything with a questioning attitude. Even things that agree with my world view:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4585463

Your idea of this ubermensch - a Skeptic who would know when and if he or she is mentally ill to the degree illustrated in this tragedy - is not possible. If you were truly well-versed in psychology you would get this - familial history or not. Are you using that as an appeal to emotion?

I am not claiming to be a mental health expert. But I am a skeptic. I mentioned my family because you accused me of knowing zero about mental illness. Having to deal with a parent who occasionally suffers from psychosis and once claimed to be "Barack Obama" and thought that the "real" Sarah Palin was a actually a black woman on an insurance commercial, I found that rather insulting.

I am no expert on mental health. I bring up my family solely to refute your assertion that I knew nothing. Had you not of said that, I would not bring it up at all. Its not something I like talking about. And as such can we leave the issue of my family out of this from here on out? Its not pertinent to the overall discussion.

Please restudy the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

You: No Skeptic (as I defined it) would act this way under similar psychological conditions.
Me: John Nash (who fits the definition of the Skeptic you presented) did act this way (thankfully not murdering someone) under similar psychological conditions.
You: Well, John Nash, is no Skeptic. He engaged in conspiracy theories during his illness

Im well aware of the no true scotsman fallacy. There is a difference though, between pointing to another scotsman and pointing to a German. Again, when has Nash claimed to be a skeptic? Under what definition does a person who engages in conspiracy theories fit the definition of a skeptic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Where have I attempted to redefine the definition of skeptic? How is engaging in a conspiracy theory an approach with doubt and empiricism? I would also like to point out that, other than saying that not all atheists are skeptics, I did not ever give my own definition of skeptic.

I don't want to make any assumptions about your position, but it really sounds like you are mis-interpeting what I said. What I said in the original post was:

1) Depends on one's definition of atheist
2) there is no way to know if the father's simply being an atheist would have prevented the tragedy
3) Atheist, in general, are just as able to believe in delusions and conspiracy theories as anyone else
4) I don't think a skeptic would have done this as they would recognize the errors in logic
5) answer to the other question

Just to avoid confusion I would like to reiterate that I don't think there is any way to know if had the father had simply been an atheist, that it would have or would not have prevented the tragedy.

I believe that had the father was a skeptic, and had approached his delusions with an attitude of skepticism, doubt, and empiricism it would have allowed him to see through the delusion at the very least. The same would hold true whether or not he was an atheist skeptic or a theist skeptic (again skeptic =/=atheist and vice versa, though people often make that association).

If it is not possible to be both a skeptic and a schizophrenic then that is a population of 0 and the statement then falls under the category of my first statement:

You could be this type of atheist and still believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories and woo. The stereotype being the atheist astrologer. They might believe in demons while not believing in gods, or might replace demons with a government conspiracy. Its also entirely possible, that without the religious input they might not have committed the act at all. I have no way to know.

So I am not seeing the issue with my statement. I am not attacking any group, and I was not saying it was due to a weak mind. Again, Isaac Newton, who I consider the greatest genius of all time, believed in a variety of non-scientific ideas. I would not call him or Mayim Bialik weak minds (though I vehemently oppose anti-vaccination advocates like Bialik).

Sorry, for the long post but I wanted to adress everything in detail. Also thanks for the apology and the more civil tone. I do understand how these forums are, how passionate one can get on an issue, and that there really is no tone of voice on the internet like there is in person.

[TM99]

96. Follow-up

As you can read between Cbayer and I there was a legitimate reason for my harshness on this topic given recent discussions.

We may have come quite far so that psychiatric illness is no longer viewed as being from God, by possession with demons, or haunted by spirits. The truth, however, is that despite science, reason, logic, etc., it is impossible for someone who is an extreme state of delusion to 'think' their way out of it.

I am a huge proponent of the power of the mind. I teach mindfulness techniques to aid in therapy with and without drug interventions. I am qualified in CBT and know how powerful it can be in treating depression, personality disorders, and eating disorders for example.

And there are still limits to what the mind can do when faced with the illness that this man experienced when he murdered his son. To equate it with a weak mind or religion is horrid. When this man emerges from the cloud of this delusion, he will have to face the fact that he took the life of his own son without any conscious control on his part.

That pain is real. I do passionately fight against those who ignore that pain to score points, promote an ideology, etc.

I was too harsh in reply with you because of this and because of the errors in your argument that I have identified, and I do apologize.

[cbayer]

91. I'm not sure what triggered this, but it seems uncalled for.

The person you are responding to is a civil and thoughtful contributor to this group.

[TM99]

92. I offered a reply just below.

It was not intentionally 'insulting'.

I admit that I have a very low tolerance for people assuming an understanding of extreme psychiatric illnesses when clearly they do not despite a family history of dealing with other mental illnesses.

It is not acceptable to me to see these kinds of malformations presented as factual. They are disrespectful to those who do suffer greatly and experience tragedies of this nature. This man who murdered his son is suffering from an extreme disease. Whether an atheist, a Skeptic, a Muslim, or a Christian, he was simply incapable of stopping the disease without help. To state otherwise is the classic 'pull yourself up by the bootstrap' approach to mental health. Is that acceptable to you?

So no I can not apologize for attacking that, though I will curb my passion in response to him and others on this topic.

[cbayer]

93. And I am with you in terms of the misuse and misunderstanding of

psychiatric illness which has been flagrantly seen in this group recently.

I just think you should know that this member does not really have a tendency to do that and I think she was just voicing her take on things.

You have been a clear and very valuable voice in this debate and I am very thankful for your presence and input here.

As a professional, you have the opportunity to educate those who are receptive to it. While there are those who post here who clearly are not, this particular member has repeatedly shown herself to be very thoughtful.

[TM99]

94. Thank you for giving more information.

The past week has shown me how truly hateful some 'progressives' can seem to be on this issue.

I was perhaps too harsh on her, and for that I do apologize.

[cbayer]

95. There have been things said in this group this past week that have

literally made me feel ill.

There are two groups that I defend with some passion - believers/non-believers and the psychiatrically ill. So what has been being discussed here is something of a perfect storm for me.

I say that because I empathize with your response and understand what triggered it. I have done the same thing.

[TM99]

97. I agree.

Thank you for addressing me directly in this sub-thread about this. I appreciate it.

[cbayer]

98. Someone recently addressed me directly when I had reacted with more anger

than reason and I really appreciated it.

Paying it forward!

[TM99]

100. I find it to be a constant balancing act

between the heat of our emotions and the cold of our reason.

Again, thanks.

[rug]

99. You really can't think your way out of scizophrenia any more than you can cancer.

I honestly don't know which disease is worse.

[cbayer]

101. I think schizophrenia is much worse. No ribbons. No marches. No fund drives.

And even worse, there is stigma and social marginalization.

None of this is true of cancer.

[LostOne4Ever]

103. I don't know what one is worse either

But seeing someone you know and love having delusions and acting like a whole other person is a very frightening ordeal.

Especially when, in the blink of an eye, they go from happy and loving to trying to claw your eyes out for conspiring to ruin their lives.

That is one thing I hope I don't have to experience again.

As to my original post, if it is not possible to reason your way out of or approach a delusion as a skeptic then I would think that puts the population at 0 and defaults to my earlier statement that there is no way to know.

[cbayer]

104. I'm so sorry that you and your family has had to go through this

and I hope that those affected are able to access the kind of medical care they need.

In terms of the skeptic/schizophrenic discussion you are having, this is my thought.

Someone who is a skeptic is at just as much risk of developing a psychotic disorder as anyone else, imo. The thing about delusions is that they are generally held very tightly despite any evidence presented that would prove them untrue, something which you are familiar with I am sure.

A skeptic might be very skeptical about those trying to show that they are wrong. The are more likely to be skeptical of others than their own thoughts.

When psychotic, people often think that it is only their thoughts that can be trusted and that everyone else is trying to fool them.

So I don't think one can make the argument that a skeptic is more likely to recognize that they are delusional and seek help. The opposite might even be the case for some.

[LostOne4Ever]

105. Thanks!

Although, fortunately for us, it a temporary situation that only happens occasionally. The thought of it being 24/7 like schizophrenia is pretty scary though.

Also thanks for post in my defense

My experience was that we would explain that the delusion was not real, and then she would proceed to say "Okay," and then continue on with the delusion forgetting we said anything at all. This was during her happier episodes, during the angrier ones we usually just stayed quiet and ignored all the shouting.

Since I am not an expert, I have no idea how her temporary psychosis compares to full on schizophrenia. Of course she also has other issues that have to be taken into consideration as well.

I will take your and TM99 word and retract my previous statement about skeptics (though I still reject the idea that I made a NTS fallacy). I just ask that all of you understand that I was not attacking anyone or implying that they were "weak minded."

Rather, I see a skeptical outlook as a strong tool to determine truth.

[cbayer]

106. This has been my approach, which has been fairly successful.

I do not argue with delusional people but I also do not agree with them.

I acknowledge that they believe whatever it is but state clearly that I do not hold the same belief.

Your post did not read as an attack to me, but things have been a little tense around here, particularly when the discussion point involve psychiatric illness.

Truth becomes totally distorted during a psychotic episode and what a person believes at that time, they believe as truth. So the argument could be made that a skeptic might have an even more difficult time.

But I don't think one could take a definitive position either way.

[hrmjustin]

80. Did they say this guy had a mental illness?