-Removed-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.
-Removed-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?
-Removed-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.
-Removed-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 twhiteheadWhy 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"??
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]
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?
-Removed-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?