90-year-old's corpse left on toilet for weeks

[fishbait]

Another case of child abuse by religious parent:
Two children and their mother lived for about two months with the decaying body of a 90-year-old woman on the toilet of their home's only bathroom, on the advice of a religious "superior" who claimed the corpse would come back to life, authorities said today.
Link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/NEWS07/80509088)


The children were in foster care today. Their mother, Tammy Lewis, and self-described "bishop" Alan Bushey remained in custody on felony counts of being a party to causing mental harm to a child.

[boloboffin]

This is one of the most terrible things I've ever read.

[DoubtingStephen]

Anything this crazy was almost certain to involve religion.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Either religion or modern art.

[Ateius]

This is one of the most terrible things I've ever read.

Seconded.

At least the people responsible are getting charged this time.

[kerikiwi]

At least the people responsible are getting charged this time.

I'm not convinced that 'charging' insane people is a good thing.

[westprog]

Anything this crazy was almost certain to involve religion.

Well, obviously. Mental illness and child abuse becomes impossible under atheism.

What next - "Local Pastor Double Parks, Hypocrisy Of Religion Demonstrated, Churches Close"?

[Autolite]

Well, obviously. Mental illness and child abuse becomes impossible under atheism.

What next - "Local Pastor Double Parks, Hypocrisy Of Religion Demonstrated, Churches Close"?

So help me out here westprog. Where do you draw the line between religious belief and insanity? It's a little hazy for me...

[westprog]

So help me out here westprog. Where do you draw the line between religious belief and insanity? It's a little hazy for me...

Like I draw the line between atheism and insanity. When people start doing crazy stuff.

If someone lives a normal, productive life, I don't tend to assume that their belief system is indicative of insanity.

[fls]

When you're scrambling for a way to justify whatever crazy idea you're about to propose, does that task become simpler when your audience has been primed?

Linda

[westprog]

When you're scrambling for a way to justify whatever crazy idea you're about to propose, does that task become simpler when your audience has been primed?


Ask Stalin.

[fls]

Ask Stalin.

What was his audience primed with?

Linda

[westprog]

What was his audience primed with?


For a lot of them, being told that what Stalin said was evil and wrong. Stalin said that it was scientific and based on pure reason.

[AkuManiMani]

For a lot of them, being told that what Stalin said was evil and wrong. Stalin said that it was scientific and based on pure reason.

Tru-dat. Demagoguery, deception, and group insanity doesn't require theism.

[westprog]

Tru-dat. Demagoguery, deception, and group insanity doesn't require theism.

And Lenin's corpse has been displayed by good atheists for considerably longer than he was alive.

[Civilized Worm]

Like I draw the line between atheism and insanity. When people start doing crazy stuff.

If someone lives a normal, productive life, I don't tend to assume that their belief system is indicative of insanity.


So after how many weeks does believing the dead can rise become crazy?

[Autolite]

Like I draw the line between atheism and insanity. When people start doing crazy stuff.

If someone lives a normal, productive life, I don't tend to assume that their belief system is indicative of insanity.

This is where I get confused. Do you mean "crazy stuff" like talking to imaginary, invisible nonexistent entities???

[Achán hiNidráne]

If someone lives a normal, productive life, I don't tend to assume that their belief system is indicative of insanity.

You mean belief systems that involve people rising from the dead, walking on liquid water, bread and wine being turned into flesh and blood when injested, talking animals, "angels" and "demons", genocidal floods, biblical plagues, life after death, the earth being created in six 24-hour days, and/or that an invisible tyrant rules the universe and judges all?

THAT isn't "indicative of insanity?"

[DoubtingStephen]

If someone lives a normal, productive life, I don't tend to assume that their belief system is indicative of insanity.

Is there someone else in this thread who is not made entirely out of straw and also does conclude that if a person leads a normal, productive life their belief system indicates they are insane?

My earlier comment, which may have touched a nerve, was intended to indicate that my life experience has shown me that persons who are very much insane are very frequently also suffering from religious delusions.

If I encounter a crazy person on the street, and they are mumbling incoherent babble, it is usually Bible babble. I have never encountered a crazy person roaming the streets while mouthing phrases from a science textbook.

I have not observed, in people I have known, any apparent correlation between an intense interest in science and irrational behavior.

I have observed on many occasions an apparent correlation between extreme religiosity and irrational behavior. This does not come as a surprise, since religious delusions are inherently free of reason.

Many people suffer from religious delusions without behaving in a way that suggests insanity. This may be because many people only give lip service to their religious delusions, and are not actually inclined to commit the types of crimes endorsed as holy by their particular religious delusion(s).

[jj]

Well, obviously. Mental illness and child abuse becomes impossible under atheism.


Please justify your sarcasm.

[Ateius]

I'm not convinced that 'charging' insane people is a good thing.

Why not? An insanity plea still ends them up in a nice, padded psychiatric ward, doesn't it? They get proper care and are no longer able to harm others.

[AkuManiMani]

Okay, time to have a lil fun as 'devil's advocate ;)

You mean belief systems that involve people rising from the dead,

Medical procedures that involve rendering a patient clinically dead for the duration and then reviving them aren't unknown.

walking on liquid water,

Bigs, birds, and lizards have been known to do it.... >_>

bread and wine being turned into flesh and blood when injested,

I think that bit was supposed to be symbolic :rolleyes:


talking animals,

Polly wanna cracker?


"angels" and "demons",

Mythological staples, dontcha know?


genocidal floods,

Floods tend to kill things and folks around the world tend to remember the really bad ones in folk lore.

biblical plagues,

As distinguished from non-biblical plagues..?

life after death,

Not very likely but hasn't be conclusively ruled out yet.

the earth being created in six 24-hour days,

That ain't exactly the weird part. Its the critters popping, fully formed, into existence out of nothing. The idea seemed plausible thousands of year ago before modern science, apparently. Most modern day believers in that particular story tend to re-interpret it to be not quite as literal as originally intended :p

[quixotecoyote]

Okay, time to have a lil fun as 'devil's advocate ;)


Yeah, that was silly.

[Mobyseven]

I think that bit was supposed to be symbolic :rolleyes:

Not iffin you're Catholic.

[fls]

For a lot of them, being told that what Stalin said was evil and wrong. Stalin said that it was scientific and based on pure reason.

Do you think people primed by science and reason are more, or less, likely to blindly accept crazy ideas?

Linda

[H3LL]

Leave westprog alone!

There is nothing insane about believing in a Brain-eating Zombie (http://www.themostholyrosary.com/images/glorius_mystery1.jpg)*.





* Sorry, I'm still on a major giggle from another thread about JC as a walking corpses and zombie ...

[westprog]

Do you think people primed by science and reason are more, or less, likely to blindly accept crazy ideas?


I think that science and reason are necessary requirements for everyone, religious and non-religious. The idea that religious belief precludes acceptance of science and reason is quite wrong.

There are religious beliefs which conflict with science and reason, and they can be safely rejected.

This isn't an abstract question. We can look at examples of people who are capable scientists or engineers and judge whether they are made incompetent by holding a religious belief.

[fls]

[LEFT]

I think that science and reason are necessary requirements for everyone, religious and non-religious. The idea that religious belief precludes acceptance of science and reason is quite wrong.

There are religious beliefs which conflict with science and reason, and they can be safely rejected.

This isn't an abstract question. We can look at examples of people who are capable scientists or engineers and judge whether they are made incompetent by holding a religious belief.

I agree. However, that doesn't seem relevant to what you said earlier and it doesn't answer my question. And I am interested in the answer since Stalinism and the Holocaust are often thrown up as consequences of atheism. I suspect that most of the time it is done as a strawman or red herring, however, I am willing to assume that you are sincere and wish to understand how you get there.

Linda

[I Ratant]

So after how many weeks does believing the dead can rise become crazy?
.
Obviously, longer than 90 days
Those meddling secular authorities will do anything to put a worse face on religion!

[triadboy]

Either religion or modern art.


I also noted this happened in Wisconsin. So you can never count out some kind of cheese-making process gone awry.

[DoubtingStephen]

This kind of a comment wheys heavily on me. I'm reminded of curdish rebels.

[westprog]

I agree. However, that doesn't seem relevant to what you said earlier and it doesn't answer my question.

Then to answer more directly yet - yes, I believe that science and reason do make one less likely to be susceptible to crazy ideas. And as a supplement to this, I don't believe that science and reason are unable to coexist with religious belief.

If one takes it as read that all religion is considered to be in the realm of crazy beliefs, then the above will cause a conflict. So be it. Clearly, for me, it doesn't.

Also, since it's not possible for all religious beliefs to be true, I consider it possible to hold incorrect religious beliefs and still accept science and reason. And hence, even if all religious belief is false, it isn't incompatible with science and reason.

And I am interested in the answer since Stalinism and the Holocaust are often thrown up as consequences of atheism. I suspect that most of the time it is done as a strawman or red herring, however, I am willing to assume that you are sincere and wish to understand how you get there.


When I refer to Stalinism (in particular) it is not in order to argue that atheism leads inevitably to oppression and genocide. It is to counter the claim that religious belief is always bad, and that atheism is always good. It's a simple counterexample. The only reason I stress the explicitly atheistic nature of communist regimes is to counter the claims that I'm not comparing like with like.

Having lived in a brutal theocracy, I'm well aware of how the abuses of religion operate. Having talked to people who lived in a society where religion was rigourously suppressed, I'm aware that atheism is no panacea.

[Cainkane1]

Well, obviously. Mental illness and child abuse becomes impossible under atheism.

What next - "Local Pastor Double Parks, Hypocrisy Of Religion Demonstrated, Churches Close"?

Why do you say atheists can't abuse children? The most abusive person I have ever met in my life was an atheist and he regularly abused two girls in his home. I'm an atheist myself but I've never abused anybody young or old.

[westprog]

Why do you say atheists can't abuse children? The most abusive person I have ever met in my life was an atheist and he regularly abused two girls in his home. I'm an atheist myself but I've never abused anybody young or old.

And I've no reason to suppose that his actions were due to his atheism. Nor do I think that abusive priests were abusive due to their religion. There are bad people out there, who have all kinds of beliefs. There are crazy people out there.

When someone posts an article like this, and says "Look! This is what they do" it's unhelpful and unhealthy.

[The Gnomon]

Another case of child abuse by religious parent:

Link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/NEWS07/80509088)

Thank Crom it wasn't those fershluggener atheists.

[Civilized Worm]

There are religious beliefs which conflict with science and reason, and they can be safely rejected.


So we can reject the idea of Jesus coming back from the dead then.

[The Gnomon]

Then to answer more directly yet - yes, I believe that science and reason do make one less likely to be susceptible to crazy ideas. And as a supplement to this, I don't believe that science and reason are unable to coexist with religious belief.


I agree. I have not found any way in which my personal ethical/religious beliefs intersect with the results of scientific investigation, and would strongly argue against the apparent modern trend to try to "disprove" science through religion, or religion through science.

(This is not true if you substitute "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-religion." )

[westprog]

I agree. I have not found any way in which my personal ethical/religious beliefs intersect with the results of scientific investigation, and would strongly argue against the apparent modern trend to try to "disprove" science through religion, or religion through science.

(This is not true if you substitute "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-religion." )

I agree up to a point. I think that the fundamentalist belief that the Earth is about six thousand years old is a genuine religious belief, that encroaches into an area where it can be disproved by science. I think that it's valid for science to state what it knows, and if religion decides to overlap, it must take its chances.

In general terms, I think that the point is sound.

[westprog]

double post

[negativ]

Demagoguery, deception, and group insanity doesn't require theism.

A rose by any other name...

[I Ratant]

So we can reject the idea of Jesus coming back from the dead then.
.
And the 12th Imam. Still drowned after all these years.

[Autolite]

When someone posts an article like this, and says "Look! This is what they do" it's unhelpful and unhealthy.

If you were referring to the OP then I disagree. The profane absurdities of religious belief need to be brought to light. It's "unhelpful and unhealthy" to ignore the damage that religion does to the human race. If exposing the "dead grandma on the toilet" story shakes just one theist back to reality then it was worth it...

[westprog]

If you were referring to the OP then I disagree. The profane absurdities of religious belief need to be brought to light. It's "unhelpful and unhealthy" to ignore the damage that religion does to the human race. If exposing the "dead grandma on the toilet" story shakes just one theist back to reality then it was worth it...

And if it turns out some lunatic atheist has a dead body in the house, perhaps that will shake one atheist into going to church. Meanwhile, sensible people look at the big picture.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This study was interesting. I was looking for information on why/how religious delusions occurred in mental illness. I think it is easy to make false assumptions about the connections between religion and mental illness if we are not careful to look objectively at the evidence.

Frequency and severity of religious delusions in Christian patients with psychosis (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165178101002621)Psychiatry Research , Volume 103 , Issue 1 , Pages 87 - 91; G . Getz

Abstract


The influence of religious activity on the severity of religious delusions is unclear. This study examined whether Catholic and Protestant patients experienced more religious delusions than non-religiously affiliated patients. We also explored whether the severity of religious delusions, according to the Religious Delusions item on the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS), was associated with the amount of religious activity. The Protestants experienced more religious delusions than Catholics and those without religious affiliation. Although when the groups were combined, patients who were more religiously active experienced more severe religious delusions (n=133), there was no difference in the severity of religious delusions across the non-religious, Catholic and Protestant groups. Religious affiliation may influence the frequency of religious delusions, particularly in Protestant individuals, but religious affiliation appears to be independent of religious delusion severity.Sorry I don't have the full article.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This one was also interesting, along the same line as my previous post. Again, only a summary of the actual paper.

Psychopathology of Schizophrenia in Ljubljana (Slovenia) From 1881 To 2000: Changes in the Content of Delusions in Schizophrenia Patients Related To Various Sociopolitical, Technical and Scientific Changes (http://isp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/2/101)Methods: A total of 120 records of first-time admission schizophrenia patients at Ljubljana's psychiatric hospital in the period from 1881 to 2000 were randomly selected. Information was taken from each record to fill out a form specially created for this study. The frequencies of delusions with regard to their content in various time spans were compared.

Results: A marked increase in two delusional themes — persecution and self-reference — was found after the change of political regime (1941—2000) in Slovenia. After the spread of radio in the 1920s and television in the 1950s in Slovenia, there was an obvious increase in delusions of outside influence and control as well as delusions with technical themes. A striking increase in the percentage of Schneiderian first-rank symptoms was found after the spread of Schneider's ideas in the 1950s.

Conclusions: Sociopolitical changes and scientific and technical developments have a marked influence on the delusional content in schizophrenia.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Another case of child abuse by religious parent:

Link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/NEWS07/80509088)

I don't see that this is a case of a single delusional person. The two adults, the religious "superior", Bushey, and the mother, Lewis, fit a diagnosis of being mentally ill, but not psychotic. The poor kids sound like they've been thoroughly indoctrinated or brainwashed. Definitely child abuse there. That's one of the dangers of home schooled children. Makes you think all home schooled children should have an occasional CPS visit. I wonder, though, how you would write a law that distinguished between pathologic indoctrination of your kids vs religious freedom to indoctrinate them? The Texas polygamy case is one of those tests of where to draw the line.

[fls]

Then to answer more directly yet - yes, I believe that science and reason do make one less likely to be susceptible to crazy ideas. And as a supplement to this, I don't believe that science and reason are unable to coexist with religious belief.

If one takes it as read that all religion is considered to be in the realm of crazy beliefs, then the above will cause a conflict. So be it. Clearly, for me, it doesn't.

I realize that there is a group of people who consider religion a form of insanity and/or consider subjecting children to religious teaching a form of child abuse. I am not one of those people. When I refer to crazy ideas, I refer to ideas that most people would consider over the top, such as leaving the body of a dead woman on the toilet in the hopes of resurrection. Probably most of the people involved in this story were somewhat religious (being the US and all), yet most found the situation bizarre and disturbing, once discovered. And presumably the reporter expected his audience to have a similar reaction.

But unless Bushey and Lewis are mentally ill, would Bushey have come up with this idea and would Lewis have accepted it, in the absence of religion? And seems like even the children bought into it a little bit - otherwise why not immediately contact the police (although, to be fair, they may have simply been threatened and didn't do anything out of fear, rather than belief). Is there something about religion, that when faced with an idea that would usually be rejected on the basis of common sense, dulls our reason and takes us down that slippery slope of self justification?

Also, since it's not possible for all religious beliefs to be true, I consider it possible to hold incorrect religious beliefs and still accept science and reason. And hence, even if all religious belief is false, it isn't incompatible with science and reason.

I'm not arguing anything along that line.

My basic position is that we are all inclined to behave in a particular way and that these various ideas come in to play after the fact as a form of self-justification. If there was no religious reason to justify Lewis' behaviour (to herself), she may have admitted that she was simply attempting to hide the death so that she didn't have to support herself and her children.

However, I suspect that I am wrong and I am looking for disconfirming evidence.

When I refer to Stalinism (in particular) it is not in order to argue that atheism leads inevitably to oppression and genocide. It is to counter the claim that religious belief is always bad, and that atheism is always good. It's a simple counterexample. The only reason I stress the explicitly atheistic nature of communist regimes is to counter the claims that I'm not comparing like with like.

Having lived in a brutal theocracy, I'm well aware of how the abuses of religion operate. Having talked to people who lived in a society where religion was rigourously suppressed, I'm aware that atheism is no panacea.

It seems to me that the scope for self-justification provided by atheism is very limited.

Linda

[Mobyseven]

When I refer to Stalinism (in particular) it is not in order to argue that atheism leads inevitably to oppression and genocide. It is to counter the claim that religious belief is always bad, and that atheism is always good. It's a simple counterexample. The only reason I stress the explicitly atheistic nature of communist regimes is to counter the claims that I'm not comparing like with like.

Seeing as how no one on the forums has ever made that claim, I have to wonder why you'd ever bring it up then...

[kerikiwi]

Seeing as how no one on the forums has ever made that claim, I have to wonder why you'd ever bring it up then...

I am happy to make that claim.
Religion is always bad, but sometimes it is more bad than others.
Atheism is neither good nor bad. it is simply an absence of belief in deities.
Atheists, on the other hand, can be good or bad.

Hypothesising a dead body left on the toilet by atheists, and asking whether that would be taken as a negative reflection on atheism, is to miss the point.
These people left the body there because of religious belief.
The hypothetical atheist may have done it to demonstrate the falsity of said belief, but could not have done it because of the teachings of atheism. Atheism has no teachings.
Not comparable at all.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The social camaraderie that goes along with belonging to religious groups is not all bad. If a person substitutes religion for drug addiction, that is not all bad. There are other ways to achieve these things without god beliefs, but nonetheless, god beliefs are not 100% bad.

[Autolite]

And if it turns out some lunatic atheist has a dead body in the house, perhaps that will shake one atheist into going to church. Meanwhile, sensible people look at the big picture.

You're missing my point. The corpse left on the throne scenario happened BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Christianity tells us that dead people have and will come back to life. Your counter-point makes no sense unless an Atheist does something equally stupid based on an Atheist belief. Hardly likely...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040918.htm

"The writers of The Bible commonly referred to death as sleep, not just because death and sleep both involve unconsciousness, but because both are a state of being from which people awaken. According to God's plan, some will be resurrected as spirit at The Return Of Jesus Christ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:50-54), while others will be resurrected physical (i.e. Revelation 20:5, Ezekiel 37:6). For the reason why some will be to spirit and others back to physical life, see When Will You Be Judged?".

"Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of The Lord. Thus saith The Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am The Lord."