[S-99]

Burn the holy books. It can spark something good if people oppose it as opposed to getting ass****ed by it. And don't move the ****ing community center in ground zero. I almost couldn't contain myself when the news correctly referred to the community center new ground zero correctly, and the pastor kept calling it a mosque.

Idk why that muslim guy is giving into stupid demands.

[karajorma]

I say that we give them Arabic copies of the bible by mistake.


Seriously, what are the chances any of these ****ers actually read Arabic?

[Turambar]

I say that we give them Arabic copies of the bible by mistake.


Seriously, what are the chances any of these ****ers actually read Arabic?

I'd say there's about a zero to none chance.  They'd probably be surprised that Arab Christians exist.

[Bobboau]

that would be lulztastic, we must find a way to make this happen.

[MP-Ryan]

Unbe****inglievable.  I'm beginning to think the only major religion with measurable levels of sanity among its devout members on this planet is Buddhism.  Good grief.

Don't we have like 4 pages of another thread pointing out that you shouldn't judge the broader group by it's crazies?

IMHO the willingness of just about everyone to do so (Battuta can probably tell you all of the socialogical science behind it) is the cause of more problems than just about anything.

A moment of exasperated hyperbole does not a prejudicial blanket judgment make.

I'm pretty well-versed in the reasons we all do it too, seeing as I also have university-level education in both sociology and psychology    It's a part of in-group definition by virtue of shared out-group characteristics, as opposed to the traditional method of shared in-group characteristics (define what you are not, in essence).  It's actually beneficial because it can bring social groups with otherwise irreconcilable differences together.  These are part of the forces that produce so-called "alliances of convenience."

Not to mention, irrational beliefs are part of what make up the definitions of several psychiatric illnesses - one could argue that believe in something without a shred of evidence is the ultimate irrational belief, thus rendering all believers in religion clinically "nuts."     (I make this statement with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)

[Turambar]

one could argue that believe in something without a shred of evidence is the ultimate irrational belief, thus rendering all believers in religion clinically "nuts."     (I make this statement with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)

I make that statement with complete seriousness.

[NGTM-1R]

I make that statement with complete seriousness.

YES, SO YOU CAN BELIEVE IN THE BIG ONES. HONOR, DUTY, TRUTH. STUFF LIKE THAT.

[Sushi]

one could argue that believe in something without a shred of evidence is the ultimate irrational belief, thus rendering all believers in religion clinically "nuts."     (I make this statement with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)

I make that statement with complete seriousness.

it'
The thing is, the believer may have their own evidence. It may not be convincing or acceptable to anyone else, but it's still rational for them to take it seriously.

Let's say that the FSM actually appeared to you while you were alone in the woods, taking you for a wild noodly ride through the stars before depositing you back where you started. Naturally, nobody else would believe your story... but as far as you can tell, it happened to you. You sensed it. It is completely rational for you to believe your senses. You'd also be rational to doubt them, but it would be irrational to discount them completely out of hand. Especially if it happened again, or you got a letter the next day saying "Thanks for the fun trip. Peace! -FSM".

My point is that not all evidence is empirical or meaningful beyond the person who experienced it, and that it is perfectly rational for people to believe in that kind of evidence too... even if, in fact, the whole FSM experience was actually the result of someone secretly putting special mushrooms in your breakfast omelet, or even if you are actually just nuttier than a constipated squirrel.

The point is, rational and crazy are not opposites, or even mutually exclusive.

[iamzack]

Schizophrenics are rational now?

[S-99]

They're the experts of their own world i would say.

[Grizzly]

Not to mention, irrational beliefs are part of what make up the definitions of several psychiatric illnesses - one could argue that believe in something without a shred of evidence is the ultimate irrational belief, thus rendering all believers in religion clinically "nuts."     (I make this statement with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)

Yet, didn't the relativity theory have no shred of evidence either?

[General Battuta]

Not to mention, irrational beliefs are part of what make up the definitions of several psychiatric illnesses - one could argue that believe in something without a shred of evidence is the ultimate irrational belief, thus rendering all believers in religion clinically "nuts."     (I make this statement with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)

Yet, didn't the relativity theory have no shred of evidence either?

No; relativity was rapidly and dramatically verified experimentally.

[castor]

The point is, rational and crazy are not opposites, or even mutually exclusive.

It's all rather fuzzy anyway. To be 100% rational you'd need to be 100% dead emotionally, to make sure emotions never interfere with information processing. So a 100% rational human would probably seem (in a way) "crazy" to our eyes.

[Nuke]

we usually lock up or execute those kind of people.

[castor]

Yea. I wonder, does the lack of empathy automatically make one a psycopath in action, regardless of the range of mental capacity of other sorts.

[IceFire]

It's funny... all of this talk about how people form their point of view and rationalize around it sounds surprisingly like an old boss of mine. It was crazy day every day at the office.  Totally impossible to understand or keep up with.

[Nuclear1]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/11/new.york.jones/index.html?hpt=T1

Jones:  "Not today, not ever."

[Bobboau]

Yea. I wonder, does the lack of empathy automatically make one a psycopath in action, regardless of the range of mental capacity of other sorts.

as long as they don't hurt any one they are just considered freaks.

[Bobboau]

stumbled upon this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4XJQO3
I'm think most people will find they agree with it, even if they have a momentary negative reaction.

[Bob-san]

Yea. I wonder, does the lack of empathy automatically make one a psycopath in action, regardless of the range of mental capacity of other sorts.

From what I've been taught, it's not about a person's emotions but their thoughts that could make them psychopathic. Many people are apathetic, but few if any are manipulative.