Favourite crazies

Someone (an adult) who believes in Santa, seriously needs a psychiatric evaluation (if he hasn't yet had one). In fact, I would say that such a belief is far more irrational and far more dangerous than belief in Islam.

Finally we are getting somewhere. You agree that there are degrees of irrationality and one way of defining them, as you describe here, is dangerousness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are starting to overuse that phrase (not least because you are using it wrongly).

[b]As Swissgambit pointed out, there are clearly (at least to most rational people) degrees of irrationality.
And I agreed with him.

That you cannot see this does not mean it is not the case.
That you cannot see that I agreed with him, does not mean t ...[text shortened]... tionality is fine because it is harmless? Are you sure it is harmless? What do you base that on?[/b]

I still disagree fundamentally with your comment that someone who believes in "x" (in that example it was Santa Claus) should be labelled "insane". I think you are very polarised in your thinking and this provides you with the opportunity to "label" people based on your view of their irrationality.

I'm relieved therefore that you now do agree that there are degrees of irrationality and perhaps you will be able to self evaluate and see that labelling someone "insane" because of an irrational belief, is itself irrational and actually quite dangerous.

Originally posted by divegeester
Finally we are getting somewhere. You agree that there are degrees of irrationality and one way of defining them, as you describe here, is dangerousness.

Did I ever disagree with that? Why make out like I did?

Originally posted by divegeester
I still disagree fundamentally with your comment that someone who believes in "x" (in that example it was Santa Claus) should be labelled "insane".

How would you label them? Oh, yes, you already did: 'crazies'. How is that different exactly? More playful perhaps?
I see Wikipedia doesn't make a lot of distinction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

I think you are very polarised in your thinking and this provides you with the opportunity to "label" people based on your view of their irrationality.
You seem quite happy to label people based on your view of their irrationality - in fact you have spent some effort trying to convince me that this is justified. Are you too very polarized in your thinking?

I'm relieved therefore that you now do agree that there are degrees of irrationality ...
Did I ever disagree?

and perhaps you will be able to self evaluate and see that labelling someone "insane" because of an irrational belief, is itself irrational and actually quite dangerous.
How is it irrational? I don't think you have shown this to be the case at all. Or did you mistakenly think that I said that everyone with any irrational belief whatsoever was insane? If so, please reread my posts and you will see that you are mistaken.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How would you label them? Oh, yes, you already did: 'crazies'. How is that different exactly? More playful perhaps?
I see Wikipedia doesn't make a lot of distinction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity

[b]I think you are very polarised in your thinking and this provides you with the opportunity to "label" people based on your view of their irratio ...[text shortened]... ief whatsoever was insane? If so, please reread my posts and you will see that you are mistaken.

I think you did yes, on page one. Conversations with you always end up like this; squinting over pedantic nuances, which is why I rarely engage.

As far as I can tell on page one you protested that anyone holding an irrational belief should not be able to criticise anyone else on their irrationality. This is irrational thinking and I called you on it as did Swissgambit. You were being irrational.

If you would like to reset the switches please feel free to do so.

Originally posted by divegeester
As far as I can tell on page one you protested that anyone holding an irrational belief should not be able to criticise anyone else on their irrationality.

Yes, I did (or something similar, depending on how you interpret that sentence). I did not however say that all irrational beliefs are equal, nor did I say that anyone with an irrational belief is insane.
My original point was that if you accept that it is OK to hold irrational beliefs then your position is severely weakened when it comes to arguing against others who hold irrational beliefs, and I concede that SG showed that I was not entirely correct. I do however still think that I have a case: that people with religious beliefs make it more acceptable for others to hold religious beliefs - which may be more extreme. I also think that you should at a minimum be able to justify why you think your irrational beliefs should be acceptable whereas others should not. Is it that you don't really believe? You don't think what you claim to believe is actually true?

Originally posted by divegeester
I think you did yes, on page one. Conversations with you always end up like this; squinting over pedantic nuances, which is why I rarely engage.

I try to find out what people are actually saying because I am not all that good at reading between the lines.
In this case it is hardly 'pedantic nuances' for you to accuse me of saying things that I have most definitely not said, so I want it cleared up that I did not say them - I am not trying to score points, I just don't want you to think I said something I didn't - and I accept that maybe it is my own lack of communication skills at fault.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I try to find out what people are actually saying because I am not all that good at reading between the lines.
In this case it is hardly 'pedantic nuances' for you to accuse me of saying things that I have most definitely not said, so I want it cleared up that I did not say them - I am not trying to score points, I just don't want you to think I said something I didn't - and I accept that maybe it is my own lack of communication skills at fault.

I think the points we are "arguing" over are actually quite interesting and I accept that my OP will raise the criticism you are making; hence the opening line. However, the amusement that atheists find in people like me who believe in a god is not exclusive to them because they are 'completely' rational, they are not, you are not, my colleagues at work at not. We are all irrational to some point.

I concede that believing in (whatever that involves cognition/faith wise) a god is irrational, but it's not abnormal, at least not from a statistical description of normality. I live a "normal" rational life, watch sport, have a drink with my mates, married, hold down a good job etc.

Then there is the "crazy" as I call it. Crazy funny to me, the flesh and the spear etc, and the crazy dangerous; beheading people, denying standard medical treatment.

There is a difference and my mind the difference is huge.

Originally posted by divegeester
I think the points we are "arguing" over are actually quite interesting ...

I think so to.

I concede that believing in (whatever that involves cognition/faith wise) a god is irrational, but it's not abnormal, at least not from a statistical description of normality. I live a "normal" rational life, watch sport, have a drink with my mates, married, hold down a good job etc.
And I would be interested to know how you manage that. How do you believe one thing but act like you don't?

There is a difference and my mind the difference is huge.
But the difference is not in how irrational someone is. If anything, as I said before, they are more rational than you are because they act according to what they believe is true, you however apparently act as if what you believe is not true, which seems remarkably odd. And I think it puts you in a very weak position when trying to argue against them.
For example, how do you distinguish between the following beliefs and say that one is more likely to be true than the other:
1. Believing that there is a God that wants you to love your neighbor.
2. Believing that there is a God that wants you to kill your neighbour.
You can't really say that 2. is inherently more irrational. So you instead seem to be saying 'because 2. leads to bad things, people shouldn't believe it, but believing 1. is just fine.'

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think so to.

[b]I concede that believing in (whatever that involves cognition/faith wise) a god is irrational, but it's not abnormal, at least not from a statistical description of normality. I live a "normal" rational life, watch sport, have a drink with my mates, married, hold down a good job etc.
And I would be interested to know how you man ...[text shortened]... ng 'because 2. leads to bad things, people shouldn't believe it, but believing 1. is just fine.'[/b]

Ok I'll go there with you a little.

What you are pointing to in my life is what the extremists like robbie carrobie call being a "nominal Christian". It is also what some other mainstream Christians would call being "lukewarm" or "backslidden". I've said in this forum several times that I'm a poor Christian by those standards, but ultimately they are someone else's standards and why should I be judged by someone else when I don't condemn others. (I mean in terms of their commitment to their religion not the out working of it).

I have every right as a human being to hold whatever belief I choose or choose not as long as I don't hurt someone else in doing so. I choose to maintain a "belief" (more like a hope I suppose as I don't know for sure) that there is a god and my limited experience of what I believe to be that god is best represented in the Christian faith.

I left organised religion because of the relative irrationality that led to unacceptable behaviour. I see some beliefs like the flesh and the spear as comedic (to me) I see the JW irrationality that leads to preventing people having medical care as dangerous.

I can't put it much plainer than that I'm afraid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Important for what?

[b]For example an irrational belief in Santa Claus or unicorns or a Flying Spaghetti Monster is more or less harmless.
Pretending to believe in them is more or less harmless. Actually believing in them would likely get you landed in a mental asylum.

Not being able to discern between these, or to prefer to group them by th ...[text shortened]... erousness is itself irrational.
How one groups beliefs depends on why one is grouping them.[/b]

Why should actually believing in Santa Claus or unicorns or a Flying Spaghetti Monster land someone in a mental asylum, or merit them the designation "insane"??

Is this charge of insanity justified by their inability to see that none of their peers hold the same beliefs (might makes right), that others' belief in magical entities referred to as "God" are more irrational than magical entities referred to as "Santa Claus", or something else?

Originally posted by divegeester
... but ultimately they are someone else's standards and why should I be judged by someone else when I don't condemn others.

It seems you do condemn others for other reasons. And why should someone else's ability to judge you, depend on whether you judge others?
But the question is why you would 'backslide' in the first place. Do you not really believe? Is it a social thing rather than real belief? Or is it more agnosticism ie you are not really sure?

I have every right as a human being to hold whatever belief I choose or choose not as long as I don't hurt someone else in doing so.
And I am not denying you that right. I do however think that despite having that right, you should still be criticised for holding those beliefs much more than currently happens.
I am also not convinced that your beliefs do not hurt either yourself or others - but I concede that the harm may not be significant enough to be of concern.

I choose to maintain a "belief" (more like a hope I suppose as I don't know for sure) that there is a god and my limited experience of what I believe to be that god is best represented in the Christian faith.
But you apparently don't act on it very much. And when you say 'the Christian faith' you presumably mean a particular version of it that is different from say the Catholic version.

I see some beliefs .... as comedic (to me)
What about other common Christian beliefs? Do you also find the idea that Jesus was born without a human father to be comedic also? Because I do. If you don't, why don't you? If you do, why did you steer clear from it in the OP?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems you do condemn others for other reasons. And why should someone else's ability to judge you, depend on whether you judge others?
But the question is why you would 'backslide' in the first place. Do you not really believe? Is it a social thing rather than real belief? Or is it more agnosticism ie you are not really sure?

[b]I have every right ...[text shortened]... Because I do. If you don't, why don't you? If you do, why did you steer clear from it in the OP?

Which question would you like answered?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems you do condemn others for other reasons. And why should someone else's ability to judge you, depend on whether you judge others?
But the question is why you would 'backslide' in the first place. Do you not really believe? Is it a social thing rather than real belief? Or is it more agnosticism ie you are not really sure?

[b]I have every right ...[text shortened]... Because I do. If you don't, why don't you? If you do, why did you steer clear from it in the OP?

I accept that you find my belief comedic; do you accept that accept it and that I don't care?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems you do condemn others for other reasons. And why should someone else's ability to judge you, depend on whether you judge others?
But the question is why you would 'backslide' in the first place. Do you not really believe? Is it a social thing rather than real belief? Or is it more agnosticism ie you are not really sure?

[b]I have every right ...[text shortened]... Because I do. If you don't, why don't you? If you do, why did you steer clear from it in the OP?

I'd be interested in how you have come to the irrational conclusion that my belief harms other people when you have never even met me.

Can you see how you are being irrational?