Starting with Thomas Aquinas, and William Paley, there is a movement with Christianity (and possibly other faiths, I'm not sure) to prove god through reason. These people consider themselves rational, and that they have a rational basis for faith. These are the people I seek answers from.
< You're simply not going to get a rational argument about the existence of God. >
Like I responded to you in January: this isn't acceptable.
This requires an entry labeled 'Faith' in the DSM5. 'Faith' then becomes a mental aberration that requires treatment, as a subcategory of schizophrenia.
At best, all of these people are living in Conflict: they live their live with reason, but for the area of morality and Ethics they suspend reason. Because they believe that they are 'saving souls', this allows them to commit horrific acts in the Real World: creating 50' long displays of aborted fetuses to say "hey, it looks horrible, so don't do it!"; to SHOOT abortion clinic doctors; to deny rights to women/different ethnicities because 'they're not the chosen people of god'.
In short: if there is no rational argument for god, then faith is a disease and needs to be treated as such.
Well, I don't want to get onto this too much, one long reply is about all I aim for ;p As far as I am concerned there is insurmountable evidence that the established points of fact are not enough to sway devout "faithies". Therefore, where is the reason in pursuing your quest? You say this isn't acceptable and I wonder - why not? even if it is a madness, a sickness, a malady, a lurgy or a pox does that mean people aren't allowed to believe? For the record, I'm totally on your side, it's just you have reason and proof that "faithies" don't listen to reason or proof, yet in the face of that reason and proof you say this isn't acceptable.
< You say "this isn't acceptable" and I wonder - why not? >
Exhibit A: "Intelligent Design" Exhibit B: The attempted removal of Evolution from Schools across the US Exhibit C: The banning of Stem Cell research Exhibit D: The shooting of Abortion Clinic Workers Exhibit E: Galileo
That's the short list, off the top of my head. There's an indefinite list of why the proliferation of madness in society *isn't* acceptable: because crazy people do crazy things, and harm society.
< even if it is a madness, a sickness, a malady, a lurgy or a pox does that mean people aren't allowed to believe? >
If it is the same as these things, then the carriers of this thing need to be treated the same as carriers of other mental illnesses: banned from public office; medicated; treated; helped.
Would we want someone with (unmedicated and/or untreated) bipolar disorder in charge of a country? How about schizophrenia?
If religion is the same, it should be treated the same.
I'm looking for a reason to treat it differently, because the people with religion (much like the people with schizophrenia) want to be treated differently.
Starting with Thomas Aquinas, and William Paley, there is a movement with Christianity (and possibly other faiths, I'm not sure) to prove god through reason. These people consider themselves rational, and that they have a rational basis for faith. These are the people I seek answers from.
< You're simply not going to get a rational argument about the existence of God. >
Like I responded to you in January: this isn't acceptable.
This requires an entry labeled 'Faith' in the DSM5. 'Faith' then becomes a mental aberration that requires treatment, as a subcategory of schizophrenia.
At best, all of these people are living in Conflict: they live their live with reason, but for the area of morality and Ethics they suspend reason. Because they believe that they are 'saving souls', this allows them to commit horrific acts in the Real World: creating 50' long displays of aborted fetuses to say "hey, it looks horrible, so don't do it!"; to SHOOT abortion clinic doctors; to deny rights to women/different ethnicities because 'they're not the chosen people of god'.
In short: if there is no rational argument for god, then faith is a disease and needs to be treated as such.
Reply
As far as I am concerned there is insurmountable evidence that the established points of fact are not enough to sway devout "faithies".
Therefore, where is the reason in pursuing your quest?
You say this isn't acceptable and I wonder - why not? even if it is a madness, a sickness, a malady, a lurgy or a pox does that mean people aren't allowed to believe?
For the record, I'm totally on your side, it's just you have reason and proof that "faithies" don't listen to reason or proof, yet in the face of that reason and proof you say this isn't acceptable.
Reply
Exhibit A: "Intelligent Design"
Exhibit B: The attempted removal of Evolution from Schools across the US
Exhibit C: The banning of Stem Cell research
Exhibit D: The shooting of Abortion Clinic Workers
Exhibit E: Galileo
That's the short list, off the top of my head. There's an indefinite list of why the proliferation of madness in society *isn't* acceptable: because crazy people do crazy things, and harm society.
< even if it is a madness, a sickness, a malady, a lurgy or a pox does that mean people aren't allowed to believe? >
If it is the same as these things, then the carriers of this thing need to be treated the same as carriers of other mental illnesses: banned from public office; medicated; treated; helped.
Would we want someone with (unmedicated and/or untreated) bipolar disorder in charge of a country? How about schizophrenia?
If religion is the same, it should be treated the same.
I'm looking for a reason to treat it differently, because the people with religion (much like the people with schizophrenia) want to be treated differently.
Reply
Leave a comment