'I didn't kill her. I killed the demon inside her' - Religious delusion kills again.

[cleanhippie]

An unhinged actor Thursday calmly described hacking his beloved mother to death with a sword because he believed a demon had taken hold of her soul. "I didn't kill her. I killed the demon inside her," Michael Brea said in a chilling hourlong interview with the Daily News in the prison ward at Bellevue Hospital. When told his mother, Yannick Brea, 55, had died in the grisly assault early Tuesday, Michael was unrepentant. "So be it. It was the work of God," he said.

--snip--

"I didn't want to kill her right away. I wanted to give her time to get right with God," he said. By this point police had arrived outside the apartment, but Brea said he had no doubt he would be able to finish the job.

"I was slashing my mom and I heard the police knocking on the door yelling, 'Michael, open up, Michael, open up,' but I knew they wouldn't open the door and stop me because the spirits were protecting me," he said.

"I just kept cutting her. No one could stop me. I was doing the work of God," he said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/michael-brea-bit-part-ugly-betty-actor-didn-kill-killed-demon-article-1.456954

Mental illness, powered by religion.

Yes, it's an old story. It is also still relevant.

[rug]

1. 4 year old flame bait, powered by cleanhippie.

[hrmjustin]

3. This is 4 years old.

Really?

[cleanhippie]

4. And?

Your religion is 2000 years old, yet you still talk about it every day.

[hrmjustin]

5. Oh lord!

[cleanhippie]

6. There you go again!

That guy died a long time ago, right?

[hrmjustin]

7. You should ket oeople know your article is 4 years old in the op.

[cleanhippie]

8. I did.

Not that the age of the story is in any way relevant to the point.

[hrmjustin]

9. Ok.

[rug]

10. You edited it to add this:

Yes, it's an old story. It is also still relevant.

Fundamental dishonesty.

Why don't you update it and say where he is now? I'll give you one guess.

[hrmjustin]

11. So what is your conclusion from this?

[Brettongarcia]

16. Insanity/murderousness seems to take on a religious character often. Or vice-versa.

[hrmjustin]

18. And how do you deal with this?

[cleanhippie]

22. We start by talking openly about it, like we are doing here.

[hrmjustin]

24. But this is not of religion he has a mental issue.

[Brettongarcia]

25. A mental issue strangely corrolated to Religious belief

[hrmjustin]

26. But that is not religions fault that his illness manifested itself this way.

[Brettongarcia]

27. That's a subject that remains to be seen

[hrmjustin]

29. Really? Can religion make you mentally ill?

[Brettongarcia]

31. That's the matter we are interested in determining here, in an open-minded way

Let's try this train of logic for example:

1) Probably all talk of "demons" comes from some kind of religion.

2) So if someone is speaking of them, he must have learned that way of thinking from Religion.

3) But thinking of "demons" seems psychologically unhealthy.

Therefore? 4) people speaking of demons learned something mentally unhealthy from Religion.

[hrmjustin]

34. You do realize if he did not hear of religion he still could have done these things.

Sorry but religion is not responsible for mental illness.

Nice try.

[Brettongarcia]

37. "Would have" is sheer speculation.

The known facts are that this murderer used religious concepts.

Let's look at this case itself, closely. Just in itself. Let's not get off topic. Let's stay focused.

By the way, the murderer was not just using "primitive" religious concepts, about "demons" and so forth. He was also using elements of high modern Christianity to some extent: hating not the sinner, but the sin." Or in this case: murdering the person, but not as a person. But as vehicle of a bad spirit that needed to be destroyed.

[hrmjustin]

39. Where is the guy now?

[Iggo]

69. Hmm...

[hrmjustin]

70. Ah!

[cleanhippie]

30. "I was doing the work of God" is not religion?

"I said, 'God, is my time on earth over?' I heard a voice say, 'Yes Michael, today is your last day.' I asked if I could say goodbye to my family."

--
Brea also arranged three saint cards around him - including one of Saint Jude holding a sword.

--

"I didn't want to kill her right away. I wanted to give her time to get right with God," he said.
--

"I'm named after a saint myself - Saint Michael. He was protecting the house from the police. They weren't allowed to enter the apartment."

--

"Grand Architect of the Universe means God," he said, referring to an expression neighbors said he shouted as he was being removed from the bloody scene. "I was praising God. To you it might sound silly, but in my culture demons are very real."

Yeah, sure, nothing to do with religion here....

[hrmjustin]

32. Would you answer my question I asked you?

Where is he now?

[cleanhippie]

36. Religion had nothing to do with this?

"I said, 'God, is my time on earth over?' I heard a voice say, 'Yes Michael, today is your last day.' I asked if I could say goodbye to my family."

--
Brea also arranged three saint cards around him - including one of Saint Jude holding a sword.

--

"I didn't want to kill her right away. I wanted to give her time to get right with God," he said.
--

"I'm named after a saint myself - Saint Michael. He was protecting the house from the police. They weren't allowed to enter the apartment."

--

"Grand Architect of the Universe means God," he said, referring to an expression neighbors said he shouted as he was being removed from the bloody scene. "I was praising God. To you it might sound silly, but in my culture demons are very real."

He is, from what I read, locked away in a padded cell where he belongs, hopefully getting the treatment he needs. But to say that this had nothing to do with religion appears to be a frightening disconnect from reality.

[hrmjustin]

38. Did religion make him ill?

What exactly do you propose?

[cleanhippie]

41. Religion fueled his illness.

I don't propose anything. Talking about it openly and honestly is all that can be done.

[hrmjustin]

43. There is nothing that can be done about this.

There are mentally ill people in all walks of life.

[Act_of_Reparation]

62. You're making a fundamental mistake here...

...in drawing false equivalency between all forms of delusion.

Delusions can manifest in myriad ways, but they are not all equivalent in their severity and resistance to treatment. We don't, for example, hear too much about filicidal parents thinking their children are alien pod-people or spies for the Illuminati.

And the notion that a person's religious upbringing plays no part in forming religious delusion is patently absurd. It is no accident that in this society so few have killed their children believing them possessed by Loki, while so many have done so believing their children possessed by demons.

[hrmjustin]

63. So what is your solution?

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. That's above my pay grade (n/t)

[el_bryanto]

67. So Many? How many are killed each year by their religious parents? nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

68. More than zero, it would seem (n/t)

[rug]

44. He won't. He can't let facts interfere with his narrative.

I can tell you this: the institution he's in is not a monastery.

http://prospectheights.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/man-who-chopped-off-mother-s-head-with-samurai-sword-b06e26e1b4

[hrmjustin]

45. I just don't get this.

Well actually I do.

[rug]

46. Perseverance is also a symptom of mental illness.

BTW, I updated the post with a link to show where he is.

[hrmjustin]

47. Thanks for the info.

[Brettongarcia]

49. An institution for mentally ill people that did what some call crimes?

Even if mentally ill, our question remains: what role did religion play in encouraging his mental illness?

[hrmjustin]

50. Ok well lets assume it triggered him off.

There is nothing that can be done about it.

[Brettongarcia]

51. Except warning people to avoid the trigger

[hrmjustin]

53. or take their meds properly

[Brettongarcia]

55. Both are helpful. But if he'd seen it intellectually in time? Less need for meds. And maybe ...

No murder.

[hrmjustin]

56. With what he had you need meds I think.

[Brettongarcia]

59. That's what we're trying to determine here.

By the time his delusions progressed to the point of murder, meds or physical restraint might be all that would do it.

But what if someone had begun to tell him much earlier in life, about problems with the trigger?

What if we'd slowed down the delusions, much earlier?

[hrmjustin]

60. Well we know what he has.

http://prospectheights.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/man-who-chopped-off-mother-s-head-with-samurai-sword-b06e26e1b4


The question is could this tragedy been prevented.

[cleanhippie]

52. Whats not to get?

That you choose not to see is just that, your choice.

[hrmjustin]

54. I see it just fine.

There is no answer to this whole question. People have mental illness and they will at times manifest it in different ways.

[Brettongarcia]

57. Maybe we can FIND the answer

We've begun to look at case after case, to see to what degree religion correlates to mental illness and violence.

First we've established a few interesting cases not just in 1) the popular press, but also 2) in formal psychological journals. As well we might easily find a billion such cases in 3) history.

Especially though, looking at current journal articles, we have quoted scholarly articles where professional psychologists assign "religious delusion" a causal role in murderous mental illness. A role to some extent distinct from and in addition to, any other supposed mental health problems.

Religious ideas seem to be at the very least, a "trigger."

[hrmjustin]

58. How would you put this in action in real life.

[Brettongarcia]

97. Actually, I here offer thanks to DU for providing part of the answer to Mental Delusion/Illness

Part of the solution comes from offering forums like this one; to examine and discuss the problem.

Just as AA apparently knows, acknowledging or hearing about the problem, is a good early step in the solution. Once you see you have a problem, then you can begin to address it more effectively. There is wisdom in self-criticism, confession of one's sins.

Generally in fact, Liberal/modern Christians already partially know there are problems with ancient/fundamentalistic religion. Especially say when it commanded religious killings. (In religious wars; executions for "heresy" and so forth). So here, Liberals at least back quietly away from this element of religion.

Still liberal Christians generally are not vocal enough in criticizing the bad things in traditional Christianity. For that, we rely more on the atheists.

[hrmjustin]

105. We speak out plenty. maybe you're just not listening enough.

[Brettongarcia]

106. You mean "you're"?

[hrmjustin]

107. Yes thamk you.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

35. I think the 'and' part is because you are posting this

in a way that makes it seem like it's topical news, and you tack on the word 'again'.

I would imagine if you really looked around, you could find a lot of more recent instances of religious beliefs killing people. Even ones more directly related to politics, such as all of the people dying for lack of shelter, food, or health care because a bunch of idiots in Congress whose religious beliefs seem to center around notions such as 'people who don't work shouldn't eat'.

Your chosen example, though, is simply some random lunatic, who, if he didn't have religious ideation, would have no doubt found some other source of delusions to send him off on a killing spree.

So if you actually want to bring people around to agreeing with you that religion is a source of evil, you might avoid posting about insane people, and focus more on the banal evils of denying social justice and care to the poor or persecuting homosexuals in the name of religion.

[el_bryanto]

12. Thank you for sharing.

But really what you need to be looking for is stories about people who believe God told them to kill. Rather than this exorcism stuff. While many believers do believe in Demons and Devils, just as many don't. And there are plenty who do believe in devils and demons and spiritual darkness, but who don't believe in exorcism. My own belief system doesn't really have an exorcism tradition (although there are some stories about it, it's hardly common or a mainline practice).

But if you could start posting stories about people who say "God told me to kill," that'd be much more hard hitting. Belief in some sort of God is much more common, as is the belief that you can communicate with God. So if you started putting up stories about that specifically, it'd be much more damning towards DU Believers, in my opinion.

At any rate this is an awful story, and I wish Michael Brea had gotten the medical help he clearly needed before it came to this. And yes, religious belief is partially responsible for inspiring this tragedy.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

13. The point is that the largest and oldest christian institution

continues to teach its followers that demons are real, that demonic possession is real, and that demons that have possessed humans need to be cast out via exorcism.

That institution should stop doing that because deranged people do not understand that it is a bunch of utter bullshit and act out this nonsense in real life.

[el_bryanto]

14. Are you sure that's Cleanhippies point?

I understand that's your point.

Also, aren't you limiting it when you talk about Catholics? Plenty of protestant faiths believe in demons as well, and there incidents described in the Bible of Christ casting out demons - unless a Church specifically says there's no such thing as demons, don't they all share in this condemnation?

Also I should clarify - by the largest and oldest christian institution you mean the Roman Catholic Church, right?

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

15. The RCC is one example. yes really religion should stop propagating dangerous woo.

Wouldn't you agree?

[el_bryanto]

20. It depends on your definition of dangerous woo.

I don't believe in exorcism but I do believe in a spiritual world, which includes evil spirits. You could call them Demons.

How do you distinguish between dangerous woo and safe woo?

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

28. So you disagree and think it is fine that religion continues to

teach that demonic possession is real and that people possessed by demons need to have those demons exorcised, despite the evidence that deranged people act out on these teachings in horrible ways.

Good for you for being such a strong advocate of irresponsible theistic idiocy. Most theists here try to distance themselves from the absolute nonsense done in the name of religion. I find that dishonest.

[el_bryanto]

33. I kind of specifically said I don't believe in exorcism. And I don't.

I do believe in a spiritual world; there's a distinction. I don't believe in possession - or to be precise, I believe it is possible but very unlikely, and I wouldn't encourage more than praying for a person.

Those might seem like meaningless distinctions to you, but they aren't meaningless to me.

But I'm grateful that you are proud of me for being a proponent of irresponsible theistic idiocy; warms the cockles of my heart, but really to underline your point you should have probably included the word murderous rather than irresponsible. Hits the nail harder.

Bryant

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. All woo can be dangerous.

On the other hand, real science can be dangerous too.

Anything can be a tool for harming others in the hands of those wanting to do so.

I think the distinction should lie rather in teachings that deliberately focus on two things. First, requiring that in some way other people be given worse treatment than people who share whatever common traits the 'in-group' have. We should treat everyone equally well, whether they share skin tone, gender, gender preference, nationality, or any other traits with us or not.

Second, teachings that we should treat the world we live in now as something that doesn't matter as compared to some future world or 'afterlife'. Not only do we live here now, but those who come after us will have to live with what we leave behind. So we shouldn't just not care about trashing the world simply because we may think that we'll die soon enough and go somewhere 'better'.

So the good parts of religion? Be kind, helpful, generous to others, be a good steward of the world.
The bad parts? Purge the unbelievers, help those who do believe above those who don't, and the lack of respect for our current world, no matter how transient believers might consider it.

[el_bryanto]

42. That's pretty accurate i believe

I do think those two aspects to religion are distressingly common, but not universal (thank goodness).

Bryant

[skepticscott]

66. In a nutshell

there is an enormous difference between a tool and a motivation.

[skepticscott]

61. And here is yet another example

of you defending the dangerous crap preached by religion, the kind of crap that gets people killed. It's people like you lending legitimacy to this nonsense that allows it to persist.

[el_bryanto]

64. Thank you for stating your position so clearly

so unless i become atheist, or at least keep my mouth shut about my beliefs, I'm a philosophical accessory to murder.

Maybe someday you will get to live in a world free of religion.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

99. The Bible warns about "false" and evil "spirits" that appear to be good and from God

So perhaps you are in the grip of false spirits, just when you THINK you are being very, very good. Related to this, the Bible told us that "Satan" comes to people disguised as an "angel of light."

Interestingly, the Bible at least once warned that a very spiritual religion or Christianity can be very, very bad (James 2.14-26). Since it gives us mere words and sentiments, rather than the physical material things we need to live.

For this reason in part, I write that a religion that learns practical science is better than a spiritual one.

[el_bryanto]

101. I'm not sure what your point is here

Yes the Bible teaches about a multitude of spirits, which is why I can't just deny their existence. I also believe that psychologists/psychiatrists are far better at diagnosing and treating mental illness than priests or bishops.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

108. Sounds about right. My point though would be that even spiritual Christianity has problems

Many here seem to feel that modern, more spiritual Christianity, and its compassion say, is better than Fundamentalism or religious force. But there are hazards even in spirits, and therefore spirituality, the Bible tells us.

Even the spirit of "love" can go wrong; we can love the wrong things. "The heart is deceitful above all things" the Bible tells us.

So? Even our most apparently compassionate, spiritual Christianity might not be exempt from delusions and other problems.

[el_bryanto]

111. I think those are good warnings; anything if carried to extremes can be problematic

Even specific virtues which might be very good in the right amount can create real problems when carried to extremes.

It is a bit like medicine; some medicine if taken too much can create real health problems for the body. If taken in the right balance its healthy and good for you in getting past an illness.

But of course there are those who are arguing that spirituality or religion isn't a medicine at all, but a poison and the right amount of religion for a person is no religion.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

17. He did think god talked to him.

"I was sleeping in my bedroom. God came above my bed and reached his arm to me," said Brea, wearing a light-blue prison jumpsuit and slippers. He told his tale while sitting unhandcuffed on a blue chair behind a wood table.

"I said, 'God, is my time on earth over?' I heard a voice say, 'Yes Michael, today is your last day.' I asked if I could say goodbye to my family."

Still not "hard hitting" enough?

[hrmjustin]

19. ehere is he now?

[EvilAL]

73. Where are all the other people

who claim God talks to them, but do not end up killing people because of it? A lot are in positions of power. I guess only acting on what God tells you to do makes you insane. A lot of people claim god speaks to them and don't hurt anyone, are they sane? I mean the books are based on God talking to people, telling them to kill on many occasions, were all these people insane? Maybe God is insane.

[hrmjustin]

75. If you hear voices seek medical attention.

Eom.

[EvilAL]

76. I see.

So the people that wrote the books and heard the voices needed medical attention all those centuries ago, they just happened to write it down and the rest is history.

[hrmjustin]

77. No they heard the Holy Spirit.

[EvilAL]

78. aaah.. How convenient.

Mary talks to an angel, easily explained.
I talk to an angel, I'm off my fuckin rocker and should seek medical attention.

[hrmjustin]

79. Yes pretty much.

[EvilAL]

80. Wow, it's just that simple.

People 2000 years ago talking to angels and god, not insane.
People in the 21st century talking to angels and god, insane.
Why do you get to decide who is really hearing the voice of your god? Who needs or needed medical attention?
The answer is you don't.
You pretty much said people that hear voices need medical attention, but that doesn't apply to the people in the books.
I think they were all insane, but made just enough sense for people to believe them.

[hrmjustin]

82. Well we disagree.

[EvilAL]

83. Yeah, no shit.

It doesn't strike you as odd that you can take the position that you know who was or wasn't insane 2000 years ago, but you know for a fact that the guy that slashed his mom wasn't really hearing the voice of god?
I'd say if god never commanded people to kill each other you might have a point. The truth is you don't know, you won't admit that Mary could have been insane, not that she WAS insane, but there is a possibility that she didn't really talk to an angel because she had a mental illness. Because hey, she's Mary for fuck's sake, this guy is just some schizophrenic.

[hrmjustin]

88. I have faith in that the events of the NT happened.

I don't believe the were ill.

I don't believe God speaks out loud to people today.

[el_bryanto]

23. Missed that part - yes there it is

Sorry about that.

And yes - very hard-hitting - but I'd put the lead out in front more. Underline that it's more far reaching than just a belief in exorcism, but a belief in God that caused this person to kill.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

21. "'I was doing the work of God,' he said. "

[hrmjustin]

48. Thanks to rug for finding this.

http://prospectheights.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/man-who-chopped-off-mother-s-head-with-samurai-sword-b06e26e1b4

The man who almost 18 months ago has reached a plea agreement with the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office.

Michael Brea pleaded not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect Friday in Brooklyn Supreme Court after psychiatrists for both sides diagnosed him with schizophrenia.

He will be sent to a mental health facility, likely either Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan or Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center in upstate New York, said the prosecutor on the case.

[Brettongarcia]

98. This does not clear up the matter; it's not either/or Religious Delusion v. Mental Illness

1) Even this kind of report admits that the mental defense is a "plea bargain." Which means it is not necessarily true.

2) It may be that in any case, persons suffering from religious delusions are to a degree say, schizophrenic. So that they are BOTH religious, AND mentally ill.

It's not either/or.

[hrmjustin]

104. M aybe your wrong.

[Brettongarcia]

109. Most of the Psychology articles we looked at in "Religion=Delusion" confirm what I'm saying

It's not just me; it's in the professional literature of Psychology.

[hrmjustin]

110. It's not religions fault.

[Brettongarcia]

112. Psychiatric literature, here, is suggesting it might BE religion's fault

Last edited Wed Mar 26, 2014, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Here's the author's abstract to one of the articles we looked at. This begins to get at some of what you are disputing. Later we can cite even more directly relevant authority:

From The Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 2001

"Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
Pierre JM.
Author information
Abstract
In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520"

MY SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: 1) The first key sentence here tells us that normal religious beliefs cannot be distinguished from mentally ill, religious "delusions"; they are so close as to be inextricably intermingled, in effect.

2) Another tells us that "psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional." If all religion is delusional, then logically, all religion contributes to/creates mental illness. Other psychologists disagree; but this approach is supported by the likes of Freud himself and others.

3) If the DSM or other sources disagree, their position is often however that whatever is the norm for religion in a given culture, is "good" or acceptable. But this is not a good standard. This article for example suggests, against that idea, that bad, delusional ideas (as of religion), can be accepted as key values by cultures.

So the fact that a given religious idea is widely accepted in a culture, is no proof that it is good or non-delusory. The author mentions "entire delusional subcultures"; others suggested entire delusory cultures.

The author has a rather distinguished professional psychiatric career; he's teaching at the UCLA med school, and is head of a major clinic in LA, after many years of distinguished practice.

[hrmjustin]

113. Just another attempt to smear and get rid of religion.

[Brettongarcia]

114. If you're going to speak on mental illness, isn't testimony of professional psychiatrists relevant?

This isn't a personal vendetta. Here' another professional article also assigning religion responsibility for much of mental illness; especially those who kill their own children, in the present case:

"Mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychology
of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. [Killing one's own children]. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to
confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood that this dreadful act will take
place"

"Religious Delusions and Filicide: A Psychodynamic Model
Academic Journal
By: Knabb, Joshua J.; Welsh, Robert K.; Graham-Howard, Marjorie L. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. Jun2012, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p529-549. 21p. 1 Diagram. DOI: 10.1080/13674676.2011.594998. , Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?sid=0787b9b2-c3c2-4b48-9535-2cf26434af66%40sessionmgr4003&vid=3&hid=4206&bquery=Religious+AND+Delusions+AND+Filicide&bdata=JmRiPWY1aCZkYj1hOWgmZGI9Y21lZG0mZGI9YXdoJmRiPXN5aCZkYj1sZ2gmZGI9cGJoJmRiPXNlciZkYj10ZmgmdHlwZT0wJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d

[hrmjustin]

115. Yeah ok.

You can believe what you want. Religion is not at fault for mental illness.

[rug]

124. For one thing, the not responsible defense is a defense, not a plea bargain.

The prosecution conceded the evidence, including their own psychiatrists, could not overcome it.

For another thing, the issue is not whether a person can be both religious and mentally ill. The answer is obviously yes, just as one can be both atheist and mentally ill. The argument that this OP, along with two other near identical OPs, ghoulishly attempts is that religion caused the mental illness and these deaths. It is an exceedingly stupid and bigoted argument.

[okasha]

71. If one were to take the trouble

to look up the facts about schizophrenia, one wold discover that:

there is a significant degree of genetic predisposition to the disease;

there are significant abnormalities in the brain structure of persons with schizophrenia;

there are significant and probably prenatal abnormalities in brain cells of persons with schizophrenia; and that

there are significant abnormalities in levels of dopamine and other neurotransmitters in the brains of persons with schizophrenia.

In short, one would learn that schizophrenia is as much a physical illness as, say, a brain tumor or diabetes.

Now, what would we call a person who thought that religion caused brain tumors and diabetes?

Just personally, I'd go with "delusional."

[hrmjustin]

72. .

[cleanhippie]

74. When someone makes the claim that religion causes brain tumors and diabetes, you'll have a point

Since no one did that but you...

[rug]

86. Analogy has never been your strong suit.

[cleanhippie]

89. But not giving a crap what you think is.

You have a blessed day.

[rug]

90. It's not unusual to disregard uncomfortable truths.

You're perfectly normal.

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. I took the trouble to earn a degree in the subject...

... but, since your intent is to argue against a position no one has assumed, that's really neither here nor there.

The argument isn't whether religious upbringing causes mental illness, but whether or not it worsens the symptoms. There is, incidentally, evidence to support this... but you're probably not going to find it on amateurish wikipedia pages.

[okasha]

84. I donT think the Natioal Institute of Mental Health

qualifies as "amateurish," but perhaps it pales in the light of your superior knowledge.

But I doubt it.

And the argument has indeed been made in this room that religion in itself constitutes mental illness. Don't go all disrngenuous on us at this late date.

[Act_of_Reparation]

85. I think anything worded as so amateurs can understand it is amateurish.

And your stunning theory of the effect of religiosity on mental illness, "Crazy is as crazy does", is pretty fucking amateurish indeed.

And the argument has indeed been made in this room that religion in itself constitutes mental illness.

But not in this thread, as far as I can tell, or in the OP to which you replied. I suppose, then, I could start a subthread here about pizza and beer; likely, it has been discussed in very room at some point in time.

[skepticscott]

93. Religionists here who keep claiming that

mentally ill people kill people simply and only because they're mentally ill are the ones bearing the delusion. Mentally ill people don't simply act randomly. They don't simply run around doing things that make no sense to them. Their motivations have context, and religious indoctrination sometimes provides that context.

[rug]

94. What bizarre logic.

Religious belief causes mentally ill people to kill and people who disagree (I expect you know but ignore the fact that this includes people who are not "religionists&quot are deluded.

Your streak of using mental illness as a slur is intact.

[okasha]

95. Interesting. Your post title

pretty much puts you out of the credible discussion of anything religious, now doesn't it?

Sorry, I never said anything remotely like "Crazy is as crazy does." Perhaps that was the doorknob talking to you. What I did do was list known causes and predisposing factors of schizophrenia as found on he National Institute for Mental Health website. Forgive me, but I think their knowledge of the subject is greater than yours.

[Brettongarcia]

102. Beyond your vague general source, the professional articles we cited clearly disagree with you

Last edited Wed Mar 26, 2014, 10:35 AM - Edit history (2)

Key parts of the 3 or 4 or 5 professional articles that we cited in our discussion on Religion=Delusion often assign a causal or formative role to religion, and by name "religious delusion," in forming mental illness, or causing "delusion".

Note our referenced article by Dr. Pierre, above.

[Act_of_Reparation]

116. As long as you're digging that hole, let me hand you a shovel:

Interesting. Your post title pretty much puts you out of the credible discussion of anything religious, now doesn't it?

Not especially, no. I wasn't criticizing the credibility of the source, merely its scope. If you had quoted a book, or even an academic paper, I would not have objected. For a person who claims to be teaching others in the finer points of reading, I find your inability to do so yourself somewhat worrying.

Now, onto brass tacks:

1) The most commonly held explanation for the emergence of mental illness in individuals is the diathesis-stress model. This was summarized to some effect by the NIMH material you cited, but it is worth noting the NIMH publishes that material to promote general awareness of mental illness, not to give armchair experts (read: you) a sense of authority when debating the particulars of clinical psychology. In other words: it is dumbed down, as not to encumber you with the minutia.

Diathesis-stress states, rather simply, that genetics predispose (diathesis) one to mental illness, but the illness itself is triggered by environmental stressors (stress). Somehow, you think this contradicts the OP, or for that matter something I've said. If, of course, you didn't have exactly no idea what it is you're talking about, I would find that perplexing. But you don't. So I don't.

2) And, yes, "Crazy is as crazy does" is very much the apologist's go-to explanation for these incidences of filicide. Religion has nothing to do with it, we are told. These people are "mentally ill", as if mental illness is somehow an adequate explanation as to one human being would kill another, let alone their offspring. "They are delusional", we're told, as if, against all fucking evidence, delusions are devoid of social context.

You either agree with diathesis-stress or you don't. If you don't, understand then that you are on the wrong side of academic consensus. If you do, I'm not sure what the fuck you're trying to get at, if anything at all.

Sometimes, guard dogs bark at shadows.

[okasha]

123. Are you a practicing clinician?

Perhaps you missed that other, mile-long thread, on which at least three professionally credentialled therapists weighed in to call bullshit on the notion that religion is or causes "mental illness." As long as you've got that shovel in your hand, there are several posts on this thread, as on the previous one, where it could be put to good use.

Why do you assume that psychiatric illness is not sufficient cause for a violent act? A former colleague of mine is both an atheist and a high-functioning schizophrenic. He is normally a gentle, artisitically gifted intellectual, both a visual artist and a poet of some ability. When he goes into crisis, though, he acts out sexually. The last (and worst) time, he raped a child. Nothing else in his character connects with that--not his previous episodes, not his lack of religion, not his artistic side, not his interest in literature. Certainly it can't be connected to his love for his own daughters. Yet there you have it--he never would have commited such a terrible crime except in the context of his illness.

By the way, you might consider losing that word "crazy." Especially if you want to present yourself as a professional in the field.

[Brettongarcia]

128. Do you understand academic articles? You've COMPLETELY misread them

Re-read the writings in "Religious Belief=Mental Delusion." http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=114774

Though at times these articles support religion ... other times they clearly acknowledge that many psychologists note huge problems in religion. To the point that one article would say "Freud and other psychologists said all religion is a delusion" (Dr. Pierre, Jour. Prac. Psych. 2001).

If all religion is a delusion, and religion is learned, then religion teaches us/gives us delusion.

You appear yourself to have no qualifications whatsoever to read, understand, or interpret.

1) Here is first, the APA article:

"Harking back to Sigmund Freud, some psychologists have characterized religious beliefs as pathological, seeing religion as a malignant social force that encourages irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors. " http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

The rest of the article goes on to say some positive things about religion. However? This scholarly article does acknowledge that many psychologists "see religion as a malignant social force that encouraged irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors" (e.g.; Religion).

2) Next, here's the article by Dr. Pierre in the Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2001:

Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
Pierre JM.
Author information
Abstract
In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520

3) Here's another professional article cited there. In which it is suggested that religious ideas, specifically "delusions," "contribute to_ - or in other words, partially cause - filicide. Or the murdering of one's own children:

"Conclusion
"In this article, we argue that mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychology
of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to
confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood that this dreadful act will take
place. In the end, we hope that our psychodynamic model encourages further discussions
on the many contributing variables to this form of child murder, with a particular return to
the family-of-origin experiences and psychological processes that may contribute to such
acts. After all, understanding its many layers can only strengthen preventative efforts in
order to reduce its prevalence in contemporary societies."

"Religious Delusions and Filicide: A Psychodynamic Model
Academic Journal
By: Knabb, Joshua J.; Welsh, Robert K.; Graham-Howard, Marjorie L. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. Jun2012, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p529-549. 21p. 1 Diagram. DOI: 10.1080/13674676.2011.594998. , Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?sid=0787b9b2-c3c2-4b48-9535-2cf26434af66%40sessionmgr4003&vid=3&hid=4206&bquery=Religious+AND+Delusions+AND+Filicide&bdata=JmRiPWY1aCZkYj1hOWgmZGI9Y21lZG0mZGI9YXdoJmRiPXN5aCZkYj1sZ2gmZGI9cGJoJmRiPXNlciZkYj10ZmgmdHlwZT0wJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d

Do you understand these abstracts?

You seem to have completely, utterly misunderstood them. Or to be willfully misreading them.

[Act_of_Reparation]

144. Are YOU?

Perhaps you missed that other, mile-long thread, on which at least three professionally credentialled therapists weighed in to call bullshit on the notion that religion is or causes "mental illness."

Perhaps you missed the part where I never said anywhere that religion causes mental illness.

Why do you assume that psychiatric illness is not sufficient cause for a violent act? A former colleague of mine is both an atheist and a high-functioning schizophrenic. He is normally a gentle, artisitically gifted intellectual, both a visual artist and a poet of some ability. When he goes into crisis, though, he acts out sexually. The last (and worst) time, he raped a child. Nothing else in his character connects with that--not his previous episodes, not his lack of religion, not his artistic side, not his interest in literature. Certainly it can't be connected to his love for his own daughters. Yet there you have it--he never would have commited such a terrible crime except in the context of his illness.

Oh. Wow. Anecdotal evidence as interpreted by an armchair expert.

Shit. You drank my milkshake.

By the way, you might consider losing that word "crazy." Especially if you want to present yourself as a professional in the field.

It certainly doesn't harm my professional credibility more than your failure to comprehend scare quotes does yours.

[okasha]

147. Translation:

It's no more your professional field than it is mine. And you're pissed at your failure to intimidate.

You do realize that all these "religion kills" posts are anecdotal, right?

[Brettongarcia]

153. Are the cases of religious filicide quoted in our cited psychological journal also anecdotal?

These cases reported informally in the press - were later sustained by serious psychoanalytic literature.

You do realize that, don't you?

Or are you just using cheap superciliousness and condescending language, to make up for your own lack of credentials or credibility?

Over and above credentialed authority. Who confirm say, the following:

"Religious delusions and filicide: a psychodynamic model
Joshua J. Knabba*, Robert K. Welshb and Marjorie L. Graham-Howardb
aPhilhaven Hospital...(Received 14 February 2011; final version received 5 June 2011)

In this article, we present a psychodynamic explanation for the complex crime
of filicide motivated by religious delusions. To begin, we provide an overview of
filicide, including its typology and epidemiology. Second, we examine the
psychoanalytic theories of Heinz Kohut and Otto Kernberg so as to better
understand how family-of-origin experiences add to the ways in which psychotic
disorders later take shape in filicide cases. Third, we offer an explication of the
psychology of religion, including the role that religious defences and religious
delusions play in cases involving filicide. Ultimately, we hypothesise that mothers
with religious delusions commit acts of filicide due to the dynamic and reciprocal
interaction between mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychological
role played by religion. We conclude our article with a case illustration
to demonstrate our theoretical model.
Keywords: filicide; psychoanalytic theory; forensic psychology; chronic mental
illness; religious delusions
Introduction
In 2001, 36-year-old Andrea Yates killed her five children by drowning them in a bathtub
(Spinelli, 2004). Specifically, Yates stated that her children would go to hell because she
was evil; therefore, she believed that she needed to kill them so as to save them from the
fire and turmoil of hell (Spinelli, 2004). Prior to the incident, she was diagnosed with major
depressive disorder with psychotic features (O’Malley, 2004). Roughly two years later, in
2003, 39-year-old Deanna Laney used large rocks to smash the skulls of her three children,
killing two of them (Bender, 2004). Laney believed that she received ‘‘urgings’’ from God
in the few days leading up to the crime (Bender, 2004). Moreover, Laney thought that if
she did not follow through with the killings, God would banish her to hell (Bender, 2004).
After the crime, she was diagnosed with delusional disorder, grandiose type
(Bender, 2004). Finally, in 2004, 35-year-old Dena Schlosser killed her 10-month-old
daughter by cutting off her arms with a knife as ‘‘an offering to God,’’ stating God
commanded her to do so. Prior to the episode, she was diagnosed with depression
and postpartum psychosis.
These recent cases in the media elucidate the global phenomenon of filicide, or a parent
intentionally killing his or her child, motivated by religious delusions."

Why don't you just act condescending here? Surely that's all that is needed to make this go away?

[rug]

87. "Religious delusion kills again."

That's the title.

"Religion Kills Two More Children"

That's the other title.

"Religion Kills Yet Another Child"

And yet one more.

What do these three threads have in common?

[struggle4progress]

91. An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted

by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument?

[rug]

92. I am compelled by the evidence to agree.

[Brettongarcia]

103. So when one professional psychologist after another links religion to mental illness,even as a cause

And you don't see it? That means that you....?

[struggle4progress]

120. Here are the first few openly-available results for the search

religion and mental illness pdf

... To summarize, religious involvement, broadly defined, exhibits a salutary and primary-preventive function in relation to psychological distress and outcomes related to mental health and well-being. Findings are consistent, and a protective effect of religiousness seems to be especially salient among older adults. But it is important not to overinterpret this overall result ...
Religion and Mental Health: Theory and Research
JEFF LEVIN
Int. J. Appl. Psychoanal. Studies (2010)
Published online in Wiley InterScience

... Does research confirm the connections between religious involvement, neurosis and mental illness? While a few studies support such findings, the vast majority does not. In fact, of the 724 quantitative studies published before 2000, 476 reported statistically significant positive associations between religious involvement and a wide range of mental health indicators (Koenig et al, 2001). Studies published since 2000 have largely confirmed these findings, extending them to negative and positive emotional states, across geographical location, and demographic and clinical characteristics (Koenig, 2008) ...
Religion and mental health: what should psychiatrists do?
Harold G. Koenig
Psychiatric Bulletin (2008)

... There was no discernible link found between religiousness and psychotic illness ...
Mental Health and Religion: A Guide for Service Providers
E. Paul Chapple
<pdf hosted on Royal College of Psychiatrists website; perhaps an MA thesis; appears to have been cited in the literature>

... Among our key findings: the frequency of church attendance bears a positive association with well-being and an inverse association with distress; the frequency of prayer has a slight inverse link with well-being and a weak positive association with distress; belief in eternal life is positively associated with well-being but unrelated to distress; in general, the net effects of these religious variables are not mediated by the risk of social stressors or by access to social or psychological resources; other religious variables, including measures of church-based social support, are unrelated to distress or well-being; and there is limited evidence of stress-buffering effects, but not stress-exacerbating effects, of religious involvement ...
Religious Involvement, Stress, and Mental Health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Area Study
CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON
JASON D. BOARDMAN
DAVID R. WILLIAMS
JAMES S. JACKSON
Social Forces 80(1):215-249
September 2001,

[Brettongarcia]

121. Even our most positive reports are indecisive. 1) The most pro-religion source is just an MA thesis?

2) While 476 out of 724 positive results is a "vast majority" in the world of Levin and/or Koenig? This figure itself is probably not in the realm of statistical significance.

3) Then religion "seems to be" positive in some areas;

4) but "it is important not to overinterpret this overall result."

No slam dunks here for the positive camp.

5) While the literature we have reviewed here earlier is often far more negative.

Nothing much there.

6) Koenig seems rather positive on religion at times. But he does now and then report many negative views on religion in his own field:

"Religious beliefs and practices of patients have long been thought to have a pathological basis and psychiatrists for over a century have understood them in this light.... Religion is an important psychological and social factor that may serve either as a powerful resource for healing or be intricately intertwined with psychopathology.

At the end of the 19th century, French neurologist Jean Charcot, and later his star pupil Sigmund Freud, linked religion with hysteria and neurosis (Charcot, 1882; Freud, 1927)."

[struggle4progress]

122. Your claim in #103 was "one professional psychologist after another links religion to mental illness

... as a cause"

[Brettongarcia]

126. Freud and many psychologists ... said religion is a delusion (Dr. Pierre, Jour. Psych. Prac. 2001?)

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 11:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Often Psychologists and others do not want to make their positions too well known. But follow the logic: 1) if religion itself is a serious "delusion," 2) then it is itself likely, in effect, a form or part of mental illness. 3) So when we are taught religion, then what we were taught was a major element in mental illness; i.e., delusions.

4) Dr. Pierre and/or others then referenced large numbers - "many" - psychologists holding this position.

5) Aside from the logical deductions here, if it was necessary, I suppose we could find literature positing even more explicit causal links.

Psychologists to be sure are human beings working in touchy situations; often they do not want to make things too, too explicit to their patients. But it's all there, just under the surface. For those who know how to read complex language. And who know a little simple logic.

It's almost as if much of literature on religion - even in the Bible itself - is deliberately talking over the heads of many people. To those persons without much independent judgment, the only message that is accessible encourages them to simply, faithfully obey their leaders. But those who are educated or intelligent enough to read the subtext are allowed to hear the more critical message.

With that in mind, re-read the following article abstracts, say. In which the authors rather clearly suggest that religion is related to religious delusions; which contribute to/precipitate mental illness. To the point that they amount to what Bacon might have called the "efficient cause" I would say:

1) Here is first, the APA article:

"Harking back to Sigmund Freud, some psychologists have characterized religious beliefs as pathological, seeing religion as a malignant social force that encourages irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors. " http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

The rest of the article goes on to say some positive things about religion. However? This scholarly article does acknowledge that many psychologists "see religion as a malignant social force that encouraged irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors" (e.g.; Religion).

2) Next, here's the article by Dr. Pierre in the Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2001:

Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.
Pierre JM.
Author information
Abstract
In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15990520

Here it is noted that it is hard to distinguish between good and bad religion; functional or pathological.
But it is noted that "psychiatrists such have Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional." If religion is delusional, and religion is taught, then delusions are taught to people by Religion.
And? Religion is said to have - note causal - "impact on functioning"

3) Here's another professional article cited there. In which it is suggested that religious ideas, specifically "delusions," "contribute to_ - or in other words, partially cause - filicide. Or the murdering of one's own children:

"Conclusion
"In this article, we argue that mental illness, psychological functioning, and the psychology
of religion all contribute to acts of filicide. Specifically, chronic mental illness, coupled
with childhood narcissistic injuries and religious delusions that provide meaning to
confusing psychotic experiences, may increase the likelihood that this dreadful act will take
place. In the end, we hope that our psychodynamic model encourages further discussions
on the many contributing variables to this form of child murder, with a particular return to
the family-of-origin experiences and psychological processes that may contribute to such
acts. After all, understanding its many layers can only strengthen preventative efforts in
order to reduce its prevalence in contemporary societies."

"Religious Delusions and Filicide: A Psychodynamic Model
Academic Journal
By: Knabb, Joshua J.; Welsh, Robert K.; Graham-Howard, Marjorie L. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. Jun2012, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p529-549. 21p. 1 Diagram. DOI: 10.1080/13674676.2011.594998. , Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?sid=0787b9b2-c3c2-4b48-9535-2cf26434af66%40sessionmgr4003&vid=3&hid=4206&bquery=Religious+AND+Delusions+AND+Filicide&bdata=JmRiPWY1aCZkYj1hOWgmZGI9Y21lZG0mZGI9YXdoJmRiPXN5aCZkYj1sZ2gmZGI9cGJoJmRiPXNlciZkYj10ZmgmdHlwZT0wJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d

[struggle4progress]

135. I think psychologists and psychiatrists are entitled to opinions, like everyone else

The current DSM does not define religion per se as a delusion

Of course, neither psychology nor psychiatry is currently an exact science

And as I have pointed out repeatedly in this group, the abstract word "religion" may be far too ambiguous for us to expect good reproducible studies of "religion" itself

[Brettongarcia]

139. Psychologists have opinions. But professional opinions expressed in refereed journals....

... are subjected to expert scrutiny before and after publication.

Not sure what you want to do with the definition of "religion." Any suggestions? One related problem I've noticed on DU is that most believers are defending "religion" - meaning their own "good" liberal religion. While they ignore deep ties to Fundamentalism, the religious right, and ancient deadly religious rituals and wars.

I think most defenders of the faith here, are really defending liberal, spiritual religion. But I suggest that as long as they call it "religion," their allegedly pure modern faith is going to inevitably be linked in unexpected ways, to the older, darker era. Or to say "Religion" or even "Christianity" broadly defined; to include Fundamentalist errors.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. Nonsense. Mental illness kills again; religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. N.T.

[Brettongarcia]

100. Very clearly stated. Unfortunately, we've cited Psychiatric lit which directly contradicts you

In our long discussion on "Religion=Delusion."

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. A delusion involving God, the bible, saints and demons is not a 'religious delusion'?

What you typed is the 'nonsense'.

[cleanhippie]

118. Not only nonsense...

Delusional nonsense.

[rug]

125. You missed what he typed. I'll repeat it.

96. Nonsense. Mental illness kills again; religion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. N.T.

What you typed is a non sequitur.

[Brettongarcia]

127. We've cited many psychologists who say 1) "delusion" often takes religious form

And 2) many who say that religion itself, per se, is a delusion.

Therefore to speak of a religious "delusion" as "non sequitur" - as if a delusion could not be religion, and/or vice versa - is simply wrong.

According to established professional authority.

[rug]

130. Your appeal to authority, besides being a fallacy, is inaccurate.

[Brettongarcia]

138. Vs. your bald appeal to your own authority, offering no proofs?

The Appeal to Authority by the way is not always a fallacy. Ignoring all authority is probably a far worse mistake.

In the meantime, I am documenting all my claims; as you have not.

[rug]

140. Lol! You are quite entertaining. I'm glad you signed up.

[Warren Stupidity]

129. It is the dishonest circular argument

that when a commonly held religious belief is acted on and results in a horrific tragedy, a magical transformation occurs and the commonly held religious belief is now not that but is instead a pathological delusion.

[johnlucas]

119. The common denominator is ALWAYS people

Delusion can come from any source INCLUDING religion.
Politics, sports teams, dishwashing liquid, car brand preference.
Human beings will find a way to take an interest, obsess over it, & turn it into madness.

Here's the truth about the human race.
We're ALL unstable to some degree or another.
It takes constant work & vigilance not to go off the deep end.
Nobody is truly 100% sane.

When mild, it's just seen as eccentricity & quirkiness.
Might even be endearing.
A neat freak who MUST have a spic-and-span house or they become irritable.
An adrenaline junkie who jumps out of planes skydiving for the thrill & the rush.
A workout fanatic who is OCD with checking carbs, calories, & body fat percentages.
A dog lover who buys outfits for her pets that match her own clothing.
A free spirit who sees secret worlds in the bodies of crystals.
A workaholic who feels out of place without his suit & tie at the office.
A superstitious type who never steps on sidewalk cracks because it's supposed to be bad luck.
A hot sauce maniac who keeps looking to eat the most caustic ulcer-causing sauces & be able to take it.
A piercer who feels naked unless there's a piece of metal poking through each part of his/her skin.

Harmless quirks everybody has.
Odd. Unique. And perfectly human.

It's when the degree gets extreme that it becomes dangerous.
It's one thing to be a passionate Green Bay Packers fan who gets happy & sad when your team wins or loses.
It's another thing to say "ALL DENVER BRONCOS MUST DIE IN THE NAME OF FAVRE!!".

Religion CAN exacerbate delusions like this but so can anything & everything else.
There have been extremists in the name of science too. You don't remember the story about eugenics?
It ain't religion that's the cause of this or anything else.
It's people.

WE are the monsters.
At any time, brain functions can get crossed up & we can turn into another Michael Brea.
Focus is a good thing generally but it can easily become obsession & then DANGEROUS obsession that leads to murderous acts like these.

You can study the particular effects religion has on delusional minds, cleanhippie.
But just recognize that you're just looking at effects & aftereffects.
You won't cut down that tree focusing on the leaves & branches.
Religion is not the root of delusion.
Delusion comes from the people themselves.

Remember that people created religion. It's just a vehicle.
And people create MANY vehicles for their seemingly infinite delusions.
Study how the human brain works & maybe we'll discover how to keep these inherent traits on the level of harmless quirks & eccentricities.
John Lucas

[skepticscott]

131. Tell you what

Show us one Bears fan who has stabbed their child to purge them of possession by Brett Favre.

Then we'll talk about your babbling cavalcade of false equivalency.

[johnlucas]

132. You know sports riots exist, right?

You can dismiss what I say as babbling but that doesn't make your opinion fact.

I'm not religious so you can't say I'm a religion apologist.
ANYTHING can develop into the madness you saw Michael Brea exhibit.
ANY interest.
Demonizing religion ain't gonna solve your problem because if it ain't organized religion it'll be something else.

The problem as always is the Man In The Mirror.
There are no monsters "out there".
The monster has always been INSIDE.
Anybody has the potential to turn out just like that fool did if the right switches are pushed.

That's why Hitler paranoia exists. Any society can fall into that kind of madness given the right conditions.
That's how the Salem witch hunts got started, how the McCarthy paranoia got started, how the Inqusition got started, how the Crusades got started.
Some people recognize just how horrifyingly easy it is to lose grip & lash out against anything they believe could cause it.
You see parallels & start accusing people of becoming Hitler.

That's the motivation behind cleanhippie's post.
He believes he's providing an antidote to religious madness by posting this story as a cautionary tale.
Religious madness DOES exist but it's far from the only madness & is also not the cause of it.
It's one of many vehicles that madness travels in.
The home of that madness is within the human mind itself.

The fact that people have riots when their sports team wins or loses shows it is only a matter of degree.
The theme is the same.

I got no problem with people exposing religious madness.
It is DEFINITELY one part of the problem.
But it is not the source of the problem.
And if you wanna solve problems, you have to deal with the source not the symptoms.

The boogeyman is us & HAS ALWAYS BEEN us.
When we can deal with that reality, then maybe we can make some significant progress with the situation.

Bottom Line: You ain't gonna get rid of murderous insanity by shutting down religion.
John Lucas

[trotsky]

133. I'm sorry, did someone actually propose that by "shutting down religion," we could...

"get rid of murderous insanity"?

[skepticscott]

134. Are the people participating in sports riots

mentally ill? Can you cite any cases of someone in a sports riot killing their own child by deliberate action? As I said, babbling false equivalency.

And as trotsky noted, your "bottom line" is a horseshit strawman.

[johnlucas]

136. My bottom line is made of bricks not straw. Sorry Big Bad Wolf.

People have been killed in sports riots, skepticscott.

The theme is consistent even if the particular details differ.
That theme is excessive human obsession & fixation leading to madness.

The person could be an atheist who has never gone to church & still pull off something as horrible as what Michael Brea did.
You guys are too caught up in his religious explanation of his murderous act to see what the big picture is.

I'm telling you that religion is beside the point.
You're not gonna accomplish a goddamned thing pouring over the religiousness of his insanity.

You wanna say "See?! It's that religion! Look at what religion does to people!"
And that's the mistake you will continue to make.
And that's why you'll never solve the problem.

I don't really care if you like my bottom line or not.
It's the TRUTH.

It IS scary because the madness comes from within.
People can't deal with that so they seek to find scapegoats to blame.
Just like the people who blame videogames, movies, rap music, rock music, & everything else for how people behave.

We barely understand ANYTHING about how the human mind works but that's where your answers lay.
One thing I do know. Religion is just one of many many vehicles where madness can travel.
It ain't the cause, bruh.
John Lucas

[trotsky]

137. Well done. Very well done.

You have dispatched your straw man with gusto and efficiency!

If you fancy yourself up for a bigger challenge, would you like to address what was actually said?

[johnlucas]

141. You're out of gas. Refuel by absorbing my words.

All you can do now is make snippy remarks.
But you cannot refute the content of my argument.

Focusing on religion as the end-all be-all of insanity like this will do you no good.
It won't solve the problem.
The madness comes from inside the human being first.
Then that human being uses any number of vehicles to display that madness.

That's what makes it so scary & that's why people want to assign blame to everything else they can besides the mind.
They don't know how to solve mental problems like this & they feel like they're accomplishing something by focusing on scapegoats.

Huff & puff, Big Bad Wolf, but you can't blow these bricks down.
John Lucas

[el_bryanto]

142. I think you are missing the point

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not that they don't understand how the mind works (as you say, no one does) - it's that they know that Religion and Belief are negative things. I think the argument is probably more that "since we don't know how the mind works, why shouldn't we try and discourage wrong and dangerous ideas, like religion, that might provide pretext for the unknowable mind to do horrible things." While that won't actually stop people from going crazy and doing horrible things, it will slowly fade away religion, which is, from their perspective, a good thing anyway.

Edited because as Trotsky pointed out of course no Atheist at DU wants to eliminate religion.

Bryant

[johnlucas]

143. But here's the thing. You can't excise religion from humanity.

Human beings make religions out of anything.
We have things not officially called religions but are exercised in the very same ways.

Some people have the "religion" of capitalism.
The "religion" of the "free market".
Some people have the "religion" of Americanism.
All the rituals with the hand on the heart, the elaborate folding of the flag, the venom that comes out if someone "desecrates" the flag.
It's right there in the word! Hahahaha! Desecrate = De-Sacred. Un-Holy.

Nationalism is a religion in itself.

Star Wars & The Lord of the Rings are religions to some people right now.
I know you have already heard of the Church of Elvis.
We already can see how American Football (high school, college, & pro) is a religion to some people.
They even have games on Sunday! Hahahaha! Super Bowl Sunday might as well be a federal holiday! Hahaha!

Politics is a religious experience for many people.
How many political junkies listen to their "ministers" on the TV & radio like it's a sermon?
The priests of information on news & opinion shows.
I ain't just talking about Republicans either. Democrats, Libertarians, & any other political gang you can think of too.
Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, G. Gordon Liddy, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Jack Cafferty, Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace.

We know Ayn Rand is a religion to some people, don't we?
We remember Ron Paul's cult of personality, right?

It's blasphemy to say that the Democratic Party is merely a political vehicle to use here at Democratic Underground.
It is treated with the same fervor as any other religion.
That's because of symbolism. To reduce the Democratic Party to just a tool to use is "a slap in the face" to all who value what it is supposed to symbolize.
That explains the split between the rah-rah cheerleaders & the contrary dissenters at this forum.
I call it the split between the DEMOCRATIC & the UNDERGROUND.
Say anything bad or merely critical about the Democratic Party & its members & some people here will condemn you.

Human beings can't live without symbolism. We cannot understand the world around us without attaching labels & symbols to it.
The number 'One' is a universal concept. But we cannot put that into our brains without drawing a symbol such as this "1" & pronouncing a set of speech sounds which is written in English as "O-N-E".
We attach meaning to the color red, the color blue, the color pink, the color yellow, the color green, the color purple.
Red means fire, red means communist, red means blood, red means passion.
Blue means boy, blue used to mean girl, blue means sad, blue means water, blue means dependable.
Pink means girl, pink used to mean boy, pink means cotton candy, pink means vagina.
Yellow means coward, yellow means caution/safety, yellow means school bus, yellow means sun.
Green means nature, green means money, green means envy.
Purple means royal, purple means night, purple means Prince & The Revolution.

All religion is is a collection of symbolisms & rituals passed down by tradition.
You will NEVER EVER get rid of religion with people.
You may end Christianity one day but like Futurama says Oprahism will take its place.
Get rid of Islam & Judaism then Wicca, Hare Krishnas, & Scientology will take its place.

I know what you're thinking. "Science! Science!"
Science simply means "knowledge" but that doesn't mean people will stop with their religious natures.
Scientists are looked up to just like Priests of religions.
There are people who hang on Steven Hawking's every word.
People defer to Charles Darwin's views just like they do any other religious figure.
And also use (& misuse) him as an authority figure just like religions do.
Darwinism & the Darwin Awards.

Religion is EMBEDDED in human beings. You CANNOT get rid of it.
The best you can do is have religion match up with universal reality so people will be less likely to use religion as a vehicle of delusion.
Devise a religion that says we are all bits of stardust just like the planet we live on & the moons, comets, asteroids, meteors that surround it.
Make a metaphorical tale that puts reality into story form to be digested & accepted.

I stopped following the religion of Christianity officially when I was 15 because I saw the flaws in parts of the dogma.
At the same time, I know truth is exampled in many places.
A cartoon show can teach you about truths. I learned "work smarter not harder" from Scrooge McDuck of Ducktales.
I learned about accepting people for who they are from the story of "weirdo" Baby Gonzo from Muppet Babies.
You can learn truth from any source. Fairy tales, Scientific journals, Homeless men on the street, & Religion too.
It's all about separating the wheat from the chaff.
Though I stopped following Christianity years ago who can dispute the truth of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I look for universal truths that are beyond human subjectiveness & bias.
Stuff that pans out beyond the partial analogies.
But in my short time on Earth, I discovered that human beings cannot function without some religious exercise of some sort.
If it's not there, they'll make one.
It's because human beings can't function without symbolism. Or rituals for that matter.
Look at how some people go about their morning coffee routine.

I love the atheists. They are very necessary to challenge religious dogma & tyranny.
But the militant ones are fighting a futile battle.
They're never gonna get rid of Religion as a concept. They may be able to dismantle one PARTICULAR religion but they'll NEVER get rid of the notion of Religion altogether.
It's like taking the wood out of a tree.

And that's why I made my post to cleanhippie the way I did.
I KNOW cleanhippie is using the story as a way to say "Look at the evil religion causes".
It's easy to make that conclusion but it's the wrong conclusion.
It's BEYOND religion. That's my point.
Delusions come from our minds & our minds alone.
It doesn't matter what frame we put around it after the fact.
This delusion may have a religious frame but tending the religion won't curb what behind the frame.
John Lucas

[trotsky]

146. As are you, it seems.

But keep claiming that people here want to eliminate religion. That'll help things a lot.

[trotsky]

145. I don't need to refute your argument.

It's not in opposition to anything I or anyone else have said on this thread.

You have taken a strong stand against someone who claims that without religion, there would be no mental illness and no violence against each other.

That someone does not appear in this thread. But you looked good taking down that imaginary person! That's something, I guess!

[el_bryanto]

148. That's not precisely what i said

What I said was that many would like to see religion go away - which is pretty irrefutable. And that bringing up cases in which mental illness latches on to religious belief as a trigger for violent acts is a way to further argue that we'd be better off without religion.

If there isn't some link between religious belief and these terrible acts why are they brought up on a seemingly weekly basis?

Bryant

[trotsky]

149. You precisely used the word "eliminate."

That much is irrefutable.

[el_bryanto]

150. Ah I see the difficulty - i'll revise my post

By the way did you hear that one of your fellow atheist stated that in his opinion all believers are thoughtless and dishonest?

Bryant

[trotsky]

151. Wow, you should probably express your disagreement with that person! n/t

[skepticscott]

152. Now you're down to just babbling

And dodging direct questions. You'll fit in well among the clueless religionistas here. But hey, at least you do it in stanzas. And "argument" by declaration.