…and this is a 
Dysfunctional family circus
Category: Kooks
Posted on: July 30, 2007 9:02 AM, by PZ Myers
And I do mean dys. What a horrible scene to come upon, and even worse, what evil chaos to have lived it:
A bed had been pushed up against the door; the officers pushed it open a few inches and saw Marquez choking his bloodied [three year old] granddaughter, who was crying in pain and gasping, Tranter said.
A bloody, naked 19-year-old woman who police later determined to be Marquez's daughter and the girl's mother was in the room, chanting "something that was religious in nature," Tranter said.
The elder Marquez was tasered to stop him from strangling the child, and later died of unknown causes (although tasers are dangerous, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the cause of death).
And what, exactly, were these people trying to do to the kid? It was an exorcism. They were trying to purge the poor little girl of nonexistent malign spirits, when what she was probably afflicted with is an insane family.
What's saddest about this story isn't that the lunatic grandfather died; it's that the bloody, naked fanatic who had the privilege to have this child was not arrested, and may still have custody. If she had anything to do with this crazy ritual, I hope someone gets the kid away from her soon.
Comments
As Hector Avalos says, "Religious belief X, therefore act of violence Y."
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 30, 2007 9:07 AM
I've gotta quibble with you just a little bit here. The saddest part of the story is that we're into the 21st century and there are still people in this world who so believe in fairy tales that they're willing to crush the ribs of three year olds based on their beliefs. Second saddest is that this kid is very likely screwed for life, first by likely lingering emotional trauma and second by the likelihood that she'll either find herself with equally insane relatives or some series of foster homes until she reaches the age of majority. I'd go with third place for the mother not being arrested. It appears her mental health is being looked into now; that it would take an incident like this one for that to happen says something about the state of mental health care, too.
I shouldn't read stuff like this first thing in the morning. It makes me want to crawl back into bed sometimes. I wish I could believe that this kind of thing would just stop happening within my own lifetime...
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 30, 2007 9:12 AM
Hah! The commenters got out ahead of you on this one, PZ... though the instant I saw this story, I knew it would be a topic here.
As I've already noted, she may yet be, and in any case, despite being a mother, she was still a 19 year old girl living with her 42 year old father: I'm betting she wasn't sensibly in charge of what went on in that household.
That doesn't mean, of course, that she should retain custody -- you don't have to be a criminal to be an unfit parent -- but I think it's at least possible that she's a victim of the "old" man's religious obsession, as much as (if not more than) she is a perp.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 30, 2007 9:12 AM
Ironically, it seems perfectly clear to me how people can believe in metaphysical evil when confronted with atrocities like this one. It indeed seems implausible that anything in this world could make someone do that to a three-year old, or any other child.
Posted by: forsen | July 30, 2007 9:20 AM
One look at the past couple centuries of human history should knock that sense of implausibility right out of your head. We're a cruel species.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 30, 2007 9:27 AM
every time i read one of these stories i think the problem isn't that we have too many abortions in this country; it's that we don't have enough.
Posted by: dr.filbert | July 30, 2007 9:31 AM
We're a cruel species.
Compared to what?
Posted by: Graculus | July 30, 2007 9:35 AM
I want to know why they thought a three year old was infested by demons in the first place.
Posted by: LM | July 30, 2007 9:36 AM
Re dr.filbert @#6:
Yeah, that or at least rational sex education. Either way, it's hard to imagine a (presumably single) 16 year old would choose to become a mother if she had adequate information and a sense that she actually had choices in the matter.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 30, 2007 9:36 AM
Kristine posted this story last night at her site. I made a crack that she will be called intolerant for being against 'exorcism'. Sure enough, someone started the argument the 'exorcisms' should be allowed if it is consensual.
Now lets see if the same kind of argument rages here and if it will go past one hundred statements.
Posted by: Janine | July 30, 2007 9:39 AM
One look at the past couple centuries of human history should knock that sense of implausibility right out of your head. We're a cruel species.
That is, of course, true.... and infanticide is by no means unusual in the animal kingdom. Still, this kind of cruelty towards children isn't exactly standard behaviour A1 for most of mankind... most people do, after all, react with shock and disgust towards events like this one. It's an anomaly, not the norm.
Posted by: forsen | July 30, 2007 9:39 AM
Perhaps even more oddly, the grandfather here actually thought he had the means of performing an exorcism. Maybe the spirit of Caucasian Christ compelled him!
What I find most interesting about these stories is how quickly religious organizations denounce the actions. Sadist Catholics think they're eating Caucasian Jesus. Evangelicals believe in these very demonic spirits. But Jesus' communication is only real if it happens to them.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | July 30, 2007 9:44 AM
The story doesn't say who the father is. It couldn't be the grandfather by any chance, could it? Like in "Chinatown".
Posted by: bernarda | July 30, 2007 9:45 AM
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro:
Fr. Gabriele Amorth (born May 1, 1925) is an Italian Roman Catholic priest and the senior exorcist of Vatican City.
Amorth was born in Modena, Italy in 1925. He was ordained a Roman Catholic Priest in 1954 and became an official Vatican exorcist in June 1986 under the tutelage of Father Candido Amantini.[1] He is a member of the Society of St. Paul, the Congregation founded by James Alberione in 1914.[2]
In 1990, he founded the International Association of Exorcists and was president until he retired, at 75, in the year 2000. He is now honorary president for life of the association.[3]
Amorth authored two books specifically on exorcism. The publications marked a defining moment in literary history, being the first public documents to treat this subject. The two books An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories are not official Roman Catholic documents, rather personal accounts of his office, as Exorcist. The books use witness accounts and personal experience as evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_Amorth
Posted by: jlm II | July 30, 2007 9:46 AM
I wonder how many of the "exorcised" were actually just epileptic...
(LM = epileptic)
Posted by: LM | July 30, 2007 9:51 AM
"It indeed seems implausible that anything in this world could make someone do that to a three-year old, or any other child."
That's the kind of comment that always gets me. When people characterize behavior as "inhuman" or violent criminals as "monsters>"
Violence is very human. Extreme violence is one of the things we're best at.
The top five most common human behaviors are breathing, eating & drinking, sleeping, fucking, and killing each other.
Posted by: craig | July 30, 2007 9:55 AM
"I want to know why they thought a three year old was infested by demons in the first place."
Clearly, you've never had a three-year-old. Only demons could enjoy Teletubbies quite that much.
Posted by: DaveX | July 30, 2007 9:56 AM
"Clearly, you've never had a three-year-old. Only demons could enjoy Teletubbies quite that much."
Pshaw. Everyone knows that BARNEY is the anti-christ...
Posted by: LM | July 30, 2007 9:58 AM
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 30, 2007 9:59 AM
Apparently, little girls are particularly tough. This is a fascinating interview:
http://www.thecatholiclibrary.org/Documents/orders/ssp/article1.php
What is the most difficult case [of exorcism that] you have ever met?
Fr. Amorth: It is one I am "treating" at this moment, and that for two years now. It is the young girl who was blessed - it was not a true exorcism - by the Pope in October, at the Vatican, and whose case caused a great stir in the press. She is buffeted twenty-four hours a day and is the victim of unspeakable torments. The doctors and psychiatrists can make nothing of this. She is completely lucid and very intelligent. A truly sad case.
It gets better:
Don't you ever feel afraid of the demon [PZ]?
Fr. Amorth: Me, for that animal? It is he who should be afraid of me; I act in the name of the Lord of the world. But as for him, he is nothing but God's monkey.
Posted by: jlm II | July 30, 2007 10:00 AM
"(although tasers are dangerous, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the cause of death)."
This just shows how much an atheist knows. The death was obviously caused by The Demon. This is what happens when non-believers meddle with the Lords' work.
Posted by: procyon | July 30, 2007 10:03 AM
"She is buffeted twenty-four hours a day and is the victim of unspeakable torments."
Well if those catlicks would just back off, she could maybe get some peace.
Posted by: Bob | July 30, 2007 10:05 AM
Ummm... Danaus plexippus?
Bernarda (#13) I confess the same thought occurred to me almost at once. There's quite a bit of Ń–ncest in my own family history, so the thought does not require any great leaps of imagination.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 10:09 AM
Oh. LM (#18) ye must not mention his name, lest ye summon him! Tis safer to refer to him by one of his many other names, such as B'harne.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 10:11 AM
So the demon is god's monkey? Then isn't exorcising said monkey o'god going against god's will? Acting in mysterious ways and all that. Why oh why don't their heads explode?
Posted by: Bob | July 30, 2007 10:21 AM
Of course the demon is god's monkey... the bible is perfectly clear as to where demons come from in the first place.
And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand. (1 Sam 19:9)
http://bible.cc/1_samuel/19-9.htm
Posted by: forsen | July 30, 2007 10:27 AM
It's so frustrating to see so many of the reports put the word "exorcism" in quotations. Oh, ok. It wasn't a real exorcism. Real exorcisms are performed by professionals with extensive training.
Posted by: Mark | July 30, 2007 11:07 AM
Ummm... Danaus plexippus?
Obviously you aren't a milkweed.... ;-)
We often hear about how "violent" we are as a species, but we manage to get through days, weeks, months and years of our lives without getting into physical altercations. How many people do you interact with every day without blows being exchanged?
Posted by: Graculus | July 30, 2007 11:11 AM
For a bit of historical perspective take a look at the National Geographic site.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070726-devil-england.html
Posted by: atlliberal | July 30, 2007 11:17 AM
A little pruning of the family tree may help this girl achieve her potential.
Posted by: obscurifer | July 30, 2007 11:32 AM
Just imagine if the god botherers didn't believe in repercussions from on high. That appears to be the only motivation they have for not killing and raping and looting and on and on...
Posted by: Bob | July 30, 2007 11:34 AM
From #10:
"Consensual"? How would that work? Would the demon need to agree to be exorcised? Presumably, he's a part of the process, too. Does he have to sign a form? Does he need to be over 18? Can he sue if the process goes wrong?
Posted by: Debbie | July 30, 2007 11:36 AM
Here's an exorcism where the cops got there on time, and so far has a bit happier ending (except the city council member is still practicing her woo in office, I suppose . . .):
http://www.wftv.com/news/13681617/detail.html
The death of the supermarket tabloids may keep us from ever knowing the facts.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 30, 2007 11:38 AM
On a lighter and mostly unrelated note:
The Nietzsche Family Circus
http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/
Posted by: Scotty B | July 30, 2007 11:41 AM
The scary thing is that, in these twisted people's lives, it makes perfect sense to strangle a three year old girl. A dead child is a demonless child in their screwed up heads.
Posted by: Dan | July 30, 2007 11:42 AM
P.Z.: "scene"
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 30, 2007 11:46 AM
Dan, they weren't trying to kill the child - they were trying to save her, by choking out the demon.
I'm sure the man would have stopped short of killing or even injuring her. </mordancy>
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 11:58 AM
Call it an 'exorcism' if you must... of course this term invokes feelings of pride in the brighty brights as this story will no doubt validate a sense of self superiority while lending conformation to a held belief that religion or more precisely, a 'faith' or 'belief' in 'God' is at the very root of all the violence and atrocities that humans bestow upon each other... or call it attempted murder via strangulation. Let's get real, remember the lady who drown her (5) kinds in the bath tub? Oh sure she went off her meds..... but I'm pretty sure she heard 'voices' telling her to do it. Same with the woman who drove her car full of children into a lake.... Or what about the father who threw his 4 year old daughter into a t.v. subsequently killing her because.... 'she wouldn't stop crying'.... I'm sure if we dig deep enough.... Wade threw all the 'postpartum blues syndrome' bullshit what we will find are people killing children because they believe in 'God'.
Am I right brighty brights......?
Of course I'm right.....
Posted by: The Pacifier | July 30, 2007 12:14 PM
Religion is at the root of delusion and irrationality.
Which can lead to violence... with the right justification
all violence seems permissable.
Do you deny that christians believe in possessions, demons and the devil?
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 12:20 PM
Pacifier:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 12:23 PM
"Postpartum blues syndrome" BULLSHIT?
Who are you, Tom Cruise?
Posted by: LM | July 30, 2007 12:24 PM
The odds are pretty good that the 19 year old mother experienced her own exorcisms at an earlier age, which probably explains her state of mind. The 3 year old got out early, and alive. Her future actually bodes well.
And I understand that B'Harne comes as a dinosaur of peace.
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | July 30, 2007 12:24 PM
Oh come on, let's be fair. Every good Christian knows these people weren't 'real' Christians. 'Real' Christians know the Bible doesn't say anything about literal, body possessing demons. What's that? It does? Hmmm, OK scratch that.
Well, a 'real' Christian wouldn't harm a child and certainly wouldn't try to kill... oh wait, forgot about the Old Testament.
Well, I'm not sure how, but this definitely wasn't the work of a 'real' Christian. 'Real' Christians don't do those sorts of things. He was probably some sort of godless atheist pretending to be Christian.
We can always pray that he had time to ask forgiveness before he died so he can receive his heavenly reward. That will certainly make everything right again. If we just sit on our asses and pray enough, everything will be alright.
On a serious note, this is a sad sad story, with or without the religious overtones. Just thought I would get a jump on the apologists.
OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | July 30, 2007 12:25 PM
Kristine posted this story last night at her site. I made a crack that she will be called intolerant for being against 'exorcism'. Sure enough, someone started the argument the 'exorcisms' should be allowed if it is consensual.
He didn't call me intolerant, though. Crandaddy and I have some interesting and respectful discussions.
To whit, I don't believe that the state should be figuring out if an exorcism is "consentual," but preventing the behavior. I don't see exorcism as merely a "religious ritual," in the same manner as praying or taking communion. Besides, it's my understanding that most exorcisms are nonconsentual anyway (because the person is "possessed," you know).
It could be that mental illness is involved here - however, since they didn't take the woman into custody, they can't evaluate her. If she's sane she should be prosecuted, and lose custody of the kid, no doubt about it. We can't tolerate this kind of crap.
I really hate stun guns - they're terribly dangerous, and it seems like they don't stop those who are mentally ill and/or out of control, anyway. This is the latest of many deaths - including a Somali man in Mpls who had mental problems and some mixed-up kid yelling "I want Jesus!" at officers. As far as I'm concerned there's no difference between the police having stunned these people and having shot them with a regular gun. I'm not sure that the cops had much choice in this situation, but let's stop pretending that stun guns are "nonlethal means."
Posted by: Kristine | July 30, 2007 12:33 PM
Right? You're not even lucid Pacifier.
Anyways, when I was a kid I met Father William Bowdern (there's an Alexian's monastary/hospital near my home) who was the senior priest present at the exorcism that The Exorcist was based on. Alas, I was far too young to talk to him about it.
Posted by: Sarcastro | July 30, 2007 12:34 PM
LM, I believe Pacifier is saying quite the opposite.
Pacifier is not advocating those positions. He is sarcastically implying that most commenters here will ignore obvious mental-health explanations for many of these atrocities IF it the incident offers an opportunity to bash religion and the religious (therefore we are all hypocrites, I guess.)
However, there's no indication (yet) that this guy was mentally ill. Oops, I meant to say "mentally disordered." There is no indication that this was anything more than an attempted exorcism. Why Pac is calling anyone to task for referring to it as such, I can only speculate. Could it be that he's trolling for emotional responses?
Naaaah.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 12:44 PM
I guess I wasn't fast enough. Pacifier beat me to the apologetics bandwagon.
It's always interesting when "religious" people do bad things. The apologists are quick to point out that what they did had nothing to do with their religion. However, when someone who is religious does something good, the same people claim they did it because they are good (Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Pastafarians).
Why is it that the religious association only works in one direction? Very convenient, isn't it?
OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | July 30, 2007 12:46 PM
What I'm getting at is..... out of all the stories of children being abused, hurt or murdered... this one makes it to this blog 'obviously' because it includes an element of 'religion'; after all this act of intentional harm was (presumably) committed in the name of 'God'. So this story caters to the audience (here) who would have you believe that 'religion and or the belief in 'God' are at the root of all things "evil".... (yeah I know.... we can debate if there is really such a thing as "evil" at some other time). So when I read the story I'm saddened that such an innocent child would be subject to this horrible act of violence. But I'm equally disturbed that those who comment here can't see the forest through the trees.... this has little to do about religion and or the belief in 'God' and everything to do with an obvious mental disorder, biological in nature and no doubt treatable through medication. Like I've said before; if the concept of 'God' was non-existent, I do wonder in whose name the killing would be taking place.... Perhaps Money... Love... Power... Greed... Oh wait a minute....?
Bottom line.... This site as well as many others on both sides of the 'God' debate serve only as fuel to the fire for what is already, a bloody war over ideology. I see no benefit in pointing out others 'so called' delusions'.
Posted by: The Pacifier | July 30, 2007 12:49 PM
Gee, I didn't know that you had to get naked and cover yourself in blood to do an exorcism. My childhood mainstream protestant church never told us that.
Come to think of it, they didn't seem to believe in the demon theory of mental illness or exorcisms anyway.
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2007 12:52 PM
I should add that it might behoove us all to contemplate, in the safety and privacy of our own heads, the extent to which Pacifier's intended point has any validity.
Likewise, I should add that it might behoove Pacifier to contemplate, in the safety and privacy of his own head, the extent to which religion feeds the delusions and drives the behaviors of the mentally ill, and whether or not that suggests that embracing religious beliefs and engaging in religous activites are behaviors whose risks are prohibitively high.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 12:52 PM
There's no profession, no matter how vapid, that the proper uniform and licenses cannot make respectable.
I'm always amazed that in the 21st century people still believe in magic. Reciting the proper words in conjunction with the proper material components will force the evil spirt out! Or signify that you are bat-shit insane, whichever comes first.
Posted by: commissarjs | July 30, 2007 12:54 PM
Geez, Pacifier, why didn't you start with #48 instead of laying out the sarcasm as an opening argument?
You don't know this. You could be right, and if it was you or me choking the demons out of a little girl I'd hope that we'd be restrained and airlifted straight to Bedlam without a moment's hesitation. Still, I repeat: We don't know this. Heinous acts beyond number have been committed in the name of God (or Allah - need I say more?) by otherwise clear-headed individuals. This is undeniable.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 1:00 PM
pac, this story made it to this blog because the snooze media chose to pipe it around. I read this literally moments before opening pharyngula, on my ISP home page. It's of interest because it is a symptom of the greater problem that religon justifies anything.
There is as yet no established explanation of who has what mental disorder in this tragedy. But there are people practicing crazy ass religious ceremonies all over this country. Will you say all the snake handling christers have mental illnesses when one of them dies from a rattlesnake bite? How about all the self-flagellating religios? Would they really do that if they weren't kissing Hank's ass?
Posted by: Bob | July 30, 2007 1:00 PM
Insane is insane. Religion merely allows insane people to indulge in their fantasies without people criticizing them for being batty. These people would be insane without religion.
Posted by: Chaoswes | July 30, 2007 1:05 PM
It's not stun guns we should hate - it's people who think they're a harmless way of subduing someone. (Of course, if such people are overwhelmingly the majority of users, further stun gun restrictions, or even a ban, may be the only useful policy responses - but I'd prefer to see further efforts at education before giving up on stun guns entirely.) At this point, stun guns appear to place the subdued at greater risk of injury or death than manual subdual, but less risk than firearms. In the context above, the situation is complicated by the presence of the 3-year-old, who is at risk by either manual or stun gun subdual. I don't know which is the greater risk, so I don't see any lessons about stun-gun to be drawn from this isolated incident (aside from the obvious 'sometimes they don't work' which is of little use without knowing the frequency of failures).
Posted by: llewelly | July 30, 2007 1:05 PM
Yes, yes - we're a cruel species. We all know full well that our distant ancestors were smashing helpless tyrannosaurs over the heads with heavy rocks and clubs just so they could then pry the coconuts from their cold, dead reptilian jaws. But is recognizing that there are multiple motivating factors behind selfish and violent behaviors a reason to decline to address any of them?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 1:07 PM
Re: stun guns...
I don't know if this matters to anyone, but my father in law is a retired cop and told me that all police officers are required to be tazered (is that a word? No matter...) before they are allowed to carry the thing on the job - I suppose this is so they can experience for themselves how much it sucks to be zapped with the thing, and give them pause before using it.
Posted by: LM | July 30, 2007 1:09 PM
Yeah, I have no idea why someone might consider him mentally ill.
Posted by: Chris | July 30, 2007 1:17 PM
One of my friends is an animal control officer and he had the option to get zapped, which he did. Others did not and they still got the guns. He did say that he would never use the damn thing because no man or animal deserved that kind of treatment. He went from excited about the prospect of using it to never using at all. It takes is a simple heart defect for the shock to kill. This was never discussed in his stun gun training class. Many police officers are told that "it will do no lasting harm."
In essence, they lied about its possible dangers because then the officers would not use them.
Posted by: Chaoswes | July 30, 2007 1:22 PM
I think there is tasered and there is tasered. One zap versus several would probably make a big difference to your CNS, as well as precisely where contact was made. Being tased by two tasers at once would surely be another significant factor, as well as any possible meds the victim is on.
When I've seen video of taserings, it's one zap in a controlled setting with cushions and spotters, if it's cops in training, and it's zap zap zap zap zap if it's real world. And zap zap again for good measure. Not so controlled, not so non-lethal.
The trade is, do I want to physically wrestle this dude (where he might win, or my gun might discharge, or maybe he has a knife), taser him (which might not subdue him and might kill him), or open fire with my peacemaker (which could easily miss or go through him and harm someone uninvolved). I for one am glad I don't have to make that choice, but someone made the excellent point that it isn't really non-lethal. Hell, a fist isn't always non-lethal, It's just that the cops are in less danger that way.
Posted by: Bob | July 30, 2007 1:26 PM
I wouldn't be so sure. Though I couldn't find it in the story PZ linked to, the version of the story I read (apparently the same wire service story, but edited differently) said that mother and daughter had both been hospitalized. I don't know what injuries they might have had (neither version of the story said much about where all that blood had come from), but presumably if the mother was hospitalized, some sort of mental status examination would be part of the drill... especially since the cops are still considering charges against her.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 30, 2007 1:39 PM
But is recognizing that there are multiple motivating factors behind selfish and violent behaviors a reason to decline to address any of them?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 01:07 PM
No... where would be the entertainment value in that? Listen, we will agree that 'belief' is indeed the # 1 culprit behind a countless number of heinous acts. Which 'belief' takes the lion's share...? I don't know... but I think I can safely say that the overwhelming motivating factor behind the violent things people do is that which they 'believe' is in their own self-interest. Unless you're a 'suicide bomber' I don't think the belief in 'God' is the main motivating factor. And of course the 'suicide bombers' do garner a lot of media attention... (to their credit... it's working) but they're still a relative minority when compared to violence on a global level.
Posted by: The Pacifier | July 30, 2007 1:41 PM
Chris (#58) You win! I knew someone would cough that one up within a few minutes of my post. ;-)
You've touched the kernel of the debate... at least, the one that rages here. Religion=Delusion. It's just a question of degree, then, isn't it? Is it only a matter of time before "Holds Religious Beliefs" shows up in the DSM?
1. Jesus died for our sins, et cetera.
Mostly harmless.
2. Jesus died for our sins, etc. and anyone who doesn't believe that will burn in hell for eternity.
Mostly harmless, but... ouch!
3. Jesus died for our sins, etc. and anyone who doesn't believe it will either come to believe, or be put to death.
Not quite so harmless.
Same belief, though, eh? More or less? What defines the illness: the underlying belief, or the willingness to act?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2007 1:43 PM
--You've touched the kernel of the debate... at least, the one that rages here. Religion=Delusion.--
Just out of curiosity, do you realize that if you are right, and Relgion = Delusion, how many people you have just called deluded?
You know, I get annoyed when a Christian fundamentalist claims any sort of special knowledge/special mental ability. But fundamentalism is fundamentalism even if its atheistic. "Everyone else is deluded... except for us. We get it. We're the smart ones".
But that's all right. I know you view me as just another deluded theist. Just as I view you as just another deluded fundie.
Posted by: David | July 30, 2007 1:53 PM
"Marquez was placed in handcuffs after a struggle with officers and initially appeared normal, but then stopped breathing, Tranter said. He could not be revived and was pronounced dead at a hospital."
Clearly it was the work of the demon...good demon, yer getting a cookie for that one.
Posted by: Seamus Ruah | July 30, 2007 1:58 PM
Anyone who believes in a deity or an afterlife is deluded.
They are accepting something based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
They may be mildly deluded. But deluded none the less.
That they may be offended by that reality isn't my problem.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 2:04 PM
David, I believe that discussion has been had here before. I think you are assuming that the word "deluded" carries with it a negative connotation... I think all that Kseniya is saying is that a person is deluded if s/he believes something for which there is no sound, scientific evidence (and isn't that the definition of faith?). So in that context, yes, anyone who believes in a god would be, in fact, deluded.
Posted by: LM | July 30, 2007 2:06 PM
Anyone who believes in a deity or an afterlife is deluded.
They are accepting something based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
They may be mildly deluded. But deluded none the less.
That they may be offended by that reality isn't my problem.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 02:04 PM
Oh come on steve C... That might be all fine and dandy but, ask yourself what you 'believe' but cannot prove. For example; do you believe the universe is infinite? Or do you believe that 'life' may exist elsewhere in the universe or multiple universes (if there are multiple universes). You see... belief in a creative force underpinning our existence a.k.a God is a belief by choice.... just as any other 'belief' is a 'belief'. Get it? So you can say that people who choose (for whatever reason) to believe in that which is unknown are delusional... sure, but I think that would be inclusive of our entire species.
You see to believe in anything requires well..... 'belief'. Otherwise you simply "know" it. So, I do 'believe' it's safe to say that you.... don't 'believe' in anything.... Ya know, cause obviously you're not "delusional".
Posted by: The Pacifier | July 30, 2007 2:21 PM
Some beliefs require FAITH.
Some evidence or common sense.
Numbers are infinite... so why could space be? Can I prove it? Nope. But common sense kind of leads you to the concept doesn't it.
Life elsewhere in the universe? Considering there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand... it's VERY likely that life exists elsewhere. That it has knowledge of us... I've seen no evidence for that.
Deities and afterlife require FAITH. FAITH=DELUSION. You have to really work hard to believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence.
There's a gigantic difference.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 2:27 PM
Pacman,
Even atheists aren't immune to delusion! And I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I for one firmly believe that there is a sock monster residing in my dryer. I have no evidence to support its existence other than the fact that I always seem to come up one sock short whenever I do laundry.
Posted by: LM | July 30, 2007 2:27 PM
And kseniya...... you would be better to ask if someday simply 'holds belief' will make it to the DSM.
Let me ask you a simple question. If belief in God is delusional, is belief without God equally delusional? I'm not saying "belief that there is no God" I'm saying 'belief' in anything or anyone in general..... believing, to the best of your knowledge... taking into consideration the evidence and holding that belief even though you cannot prove what it is you're subscribing to. The funny thing is.... I know atheists who claim there is no evidence of 'God' in nature.... and of course theists who claim (yep you guessed it) the evidence IS nature.
Posted by: The Pacifier | July 30, 2007 2:39 PM
Billions. Worse yet, it would mean billions more are deluded than are not. But it's not as bleak as it sounds, because we have to make a distinction between deluded and mentally ill. Stipulating that religious belief truly is a delusion, it's a collective delusion, part of folk's received culture. Most people who hold religious beliefs (or other popular superstitions, for that matter) do so because that's what they've been taught, and not because they suffer from some mental disease that renders them incapable of reason.
Thus, it's possible to say "Religion = Delusion" without meaning "Religion = Crazy." Which is not to say, of course, that some religious people aren't really crazy.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 30, 2007 2:45 PM
No.
Beliefs are not all the same. Their origins matter.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 2:46 PM
It seems that foundational to the idea that belief in God is "delusional" is the idea that belief in God is completely without evidence.
It is one thing to say that belief in God is completely without scientific evidence. I would actually agree with this. Of course, if one believes that the only evidence which ever matters is scientific evidence then that's one thing.
But is that the only type of evidence out there?
No.
Yes, DEITIES and AFTERLIFE do require FAITH, as Steve posted. But its about the same amount of faith that Steve evidently has about life on other planets. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it takes more faith to buy into Steve's argument, than it does to believe in a God.
Posted by: David | July 30, 2007 2:50 PM
Well, you're wrong.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 2:52 PM
Oh right, forgot about all that completely unverifiable, yet way solid, evidence for your magic sky captain.
/eyeroll
Posted by: Bob | July 30, 2007 2:53 PM
No steve... you are wrong. You just stated that some beliefs require faith. I strongly disagree. All belief requires faith. We could perhaps argue as to how much of a 'leap' it's going to take to solidify a belief but, nevertheless a degree of faith accompanies any and all beliefs.
So now we can get into the evidence for justifying a particular leap of faith. As I mentioned above; you see no evidence in your own existence of a creator God.... others will see their own existence as the evidence of a creator God. Indeed.... Maybe perception really is reality... as quantum physics would suggest. What does it mean....? It means we don't know much of anything..... we haven't even made it out of our little bitty solar system yet and we have these fools who claim to "know" with certainly whether or not a "God" exists.....
Phhht....
Posted by: The Pacifier | July 30, 2007 2:56 PM
Pac is obviously delusional. He seems to be unable to differentiate between a well-founded belief and ill-founded or unnecessary beliefs. You have two classes of well-founded beliefs, as per Wittgenstein: 1) normal beliefs based on a preponderance of good, logical evidence, and 2) fundamental beliefs (beliefs necessary for reason to work). The former includes such things as believing that the earth goes around the sun. The second includes such beliefs as I have a body - they are necessary for well-formed statements.
Now, many (but not all) religious beliefs fall into neither category. It is not logically necessary to believe in a kosmokrater to make meaningful statements, and it has little supporting evidence. Evidence from aesthetics (look at nature!) are only valid within the realm of aesthetics, or to differentiate between two otherwise equally supported beliefs; it is not valid as a basic empirical support.
But since we will always have a portion of the population who are unable to make those fine judgments (or don't care to try), what should we do? Maybe the Euro's have the right idea - stop trying to educate them, and just give it to them. Create some bland state religion under control of random civil servants, but dominated by the country's business class. Give it a few centuries, and voila - basically dead religion. I bet even Iran will end up looking like Denmark if business goes well for 100-200 years!
Posted by: frog | July 30, 2007 3:00 PM
Ummm... Danaus plexippus?
Don't underestimate their ferocity. I've seen 'em cannibalize their own siblings. Of course, they were under nutritional stress on an artificial diet, so it wasn't anything personal.
Now, Vanessa atalanta is another story. I've had them attack me in the woods, and they go right for the throat.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | July 30, 2007 3:03 PM
And here we see how the "Pacman" is a dilettante who prefers radical subjectivism rather than hard thinking: "Maybe perception really is reality... as quantum physics would suggest."
Quantum physics suggests nothing of the kind. It describes an objective, external reality which depends, to a certain degree, on the observer. That degree can be calculated and formulated. On top of that, it does not depend on the subjective nature of the observer, but on the clear objective nature of the observer.
It is no different in kind from relativity's description of observation: it is relative to the observer, but OBJECTIVE. The quantum version adds in uncertainty, and works at different scales.
I really, really hate it when people try to support fuzzy, subjectivist ideas by giving a half-digested and incorrect interpretation of physics. I won't mutter about what Jesus meant by Eli Eli Sabacthani, if you stay out of science, OK pacman?
Posted by: frog | July 30, 2007 3:06 PM
David:
We have evidence that life has occured atr least once in this universe.... We see a LOT of otyher p[laces in the universe that look awfully like this little corner that we personally inhabit... THerefore it is REASONABLE to assume that life exists elsewhere.
Can you make the same argument for belief in deity or afterlife? All you have is what people have collectively decided is true... no different that any other 'recieved wisdom' it's very often wrong, and occasionally dangerous.
Steve_C's argument is sound. your's is non-existant (like your deity)
Posted by: tony | July 30, 2007 3:08 PM
There's a big difference in "faith" that the scientists are checking each others work and are basing their theories and evidence on solid data; and the faith required to believe that there's a great super being that created the universe, knows everything and will judge you after you die.
What makes sense.
The other is quite absurd.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 3:09 PM
Reading about this made me think immediately of Marcus Wesson.
The mother would have been only 15 when she was impregnated; by whom? It seems plausible that she is a victim here as well.