Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Lunatic?

[CBGLuthier]

I have been informed on DU that those who believe in "invisible people in the sky" are lunatics.

And since yet another anti religion debate is brewing over Mcain's statements about the grand canyon I must ask the question of my "fellow" atheists.


Was he a lunatic? Was JKK? RFK? Any other great men or women of faith?

[spoony]

1. I'll throw my lot in with those lunatics any day :-)

And defend them to my detriment, I'm sure.

[Dhalgren]

2. We are all lunatics in one way or another.

You are not necessarily a lunatic if you believe that a myth is literally true, many people have and still do. It depends on what you do with this belief that singles you out as beyond the pale or not. Just my two cents...

[Squatch]

3. You had to start another thread on what I said?

"The guy believes in evolution and God. Good on him.

I believe the same thing.

Now, can we get to the real issue at hand, namely that McCain is a raving lunatic?"

One can be a lunatic whether or not he believes in God.

[CBGLuthier]

19. This was not about your comments

Rather a blanket statement made during the weekend that went so far as to state that every single human being who believed in god was a lunatic.

The McCain thread was just starting to be yet another religion bashing thread on DU so I thought I would throw this out. If anyone who believes in god is nuts or delusional then that has to include one hellofalot of people who I respect more than most of those who would call them mad.

[bryant69]

4. This is sure to provoke a well reasoned and sensible debate

I look forward with interest.

Oh wait, it will probably be locked as flame-bait.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[undeterred]

5. I fell asleep the other day listening to the radio

and while I was sleeping Martin Luther King's "I Had a Dream" speech came on and I was stll half asleep half dreaming. I cannot even describe how powerful the effect was on me because it was going deeper than my consciousness... it was powerfully wonderful.

If he was crazy, I want to be that kind of crazy too.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. My guess is that it's quite possible to entertain...

... "lunatic" ( perhaps 'delusional' would be a better term) beliefs or thoughts and at the same time have many keen insights and profound abilities.

No... I would not characterize MLK as a lunatic, nor any other theist for that matter based on the 'invisible people in the sky' dealie alone.

Also, seems to me ( I haven't followed the discussion) one might want to ... for the sake of clarity , at least... make a distinction between those who approach religion metaphorically ( I believe this to be the case with MLK, though I'm willing to be corrected on that point if need be.) and those who approach it as something akin to history and/or science.

[bryant69]

7. Metephore verses history and/or science?

Interesting distinction.

Seems pretty close to saying "It's fine to believe in religion so long as you don't actually believe in religion." But maybe I'm misreading you.

Another way to look at it is spheres of inquiry. Religion is good at answering a certain set of questions (those dealing with morality or metaphysics (in my opinion, and I recognize that many of you strongly disagree with me here)), but it's not good when you try to use it to answer scientific or historical questions. Or, for that matter, legislative questions.

Bryant

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. *Literally*. Lots of religionists don't take it literally.

>>Seems pretty close to saying "It's fine to believe in religion so long as you don't actually believe in religion." But maybe I'm misreading you.>>>

It's about metaphor and imagery. MLK wasn't literally talking about Pike's Peak when he said he'd "been to the mountain top".

The 'scriptures' are often approached in that spirit... no pun intended.


>>Another way to look at it is spheres of inquiry. Religion is good at answering a certain set of questions (those dealing with morality or metaphysics (in my opinion, and I recognize that many of you strongly disagree with me here)), but it's not good when you try to use it to answer scientific or historical questions. Or, for that matter, legislative questions.>>

It ( 'religion') is way to intertwined with other stuff to even begin to separate all of the elements. I view organized religious traditions as *vehicles* on which certain moral and ethical values have been transported down thru history.

Some of that truckload should be ...and IS... cast aside as times and human conditions change. Some of it seems pretty much timeless and universally true. This is usually the stuff that is *common* to all of them. We should keep this stuff.

I know of no religion that promotes the principle: "treat your neighbor worse than you would like to be treated".

Openly, anyway. (Please don't call me 'pro-religion'; you'll ruin my day. And just because religions can and do promote some positive values doesn't mean that non-religionists can't come to the same conclusions re. universal human values. We can and do.)

[bryant69]

10. Obviously there is metaphor in religion

On the other hand, saying that the idea that "Christ died for our sins" is a metaphor would drastically miss the point in my opinion. In other words, the metaphors of religion point to something literally real beyond this existence.

As for the second question, I think that they are two ways to come to the same opinion. Regardless of how religion was used in previous societies, in the 21st Century world, religion should not be used to answer Scientific or Political questions.

Bryant

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. That's a tough one. I have no clue what they are....

>>>On the other hand, saying that the idea that "Christ died for our sins" is a metaphor would drastically miss the point in my opinion.>>>

.... talking about with this... metaphorically or otherwise.

On my "list of things I'll never understand." What sins, exactly? And how does his death mitigate them?

And do we no longer commit them... now that he's paid-up for us? And if we do, is he going to be crucified again? All very counter-intuitive.

This is one of the points at which I lost interest in religion. What difference does it make? None, to me. Apparently makes a difference to a lot of folks who are wired very differently, however.

[bryant69]

14. Yeah but almost every religion points to reality beyond this

I used Christianity as a point of reference, but you find similar points in Islam, Judaism, some forms of Buddhism, Shintoism and so on and so forth. Most religions point to a real world that exists outside of our frame of reference but affects this one; a mystical world.

I think saying that that mystical world is a metaphor is a way of taming religion, of making it safe, after a fashion. Of papering over the very real disagreements between a mystical and a materialistic way of looking at the world.

Bryant

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. Seems to me, fear of death acct's for the near....

... universality of the 'mystical world'.

Also our cluelessness down thru the ages re. the nature of things: Afraid of thunder? Invent a thunder-god; preferably one that might be appeased in some way, shape or form.

>>I think saying that that mystical world is a metaphor is a way of taming religion, of making it safe, after a fashion. Of papering over the very real disagreements between a mystical and a materialistic way of looking at the world.

Bryant>>

Again... for the religiously *literal*, yes. Some "Christians" ( let's stay with them since I'm more familiar with that tradition) do not regard heaven as a literal place. They may regard it as a state of mind to which one can aspire and can actually achieve by doing X, Y, and , lest we forget... the ever-important "Z".

*In other words: if you wanna feel good... DO good.*

This may be a minority of religionists but it's far from a tiny minority. Or so it seems to me.

And it's why I will sometimes rise to the defense of this outlook... even though it's "religious" and I'm not. It's not unlike the way this secular humanist/agnostic views the world, and our "place" in it. It's more psychology ( i.e. material) than truly "mystical".

Are there consequences to leaving the 'mystical' aspect unchallenged? Probably.

I'd rather the religiously metaphorical cross the bridge entirely but I don't stay awake nights worrying about it. They will in time. They can't go back, seems to me. It's like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube; once it's out, it's OUT.

[Toots]

8. "invisible people in the sky"

Just who might those people be? God is not a person if that might be who you are referring to. I think anyone that believes in invisible people in the sky might have some delusion but if you are referring to UFOs I would hardly call them invisible...

[omega minimo]

11. This does not reflect well on you

:thumbsdown:

[bryant69]

15. I think it's an obvious question

For those who mock belief as being for idiots and children, and I realize that not all DU non-believers do this, bringing up laudable believers seems like fair game.

Bryant

[CBGLuthier]

20. How so?

I merely request that those who hold that belief=lunacy would go so far as to extend that label to these people I have listed. If not, what makes them different?

In what way does this reflect on me?

[stirlingsliver]

13. Bright? Yes. Good? Yes. Lunatic? Also Yes

MLK was a bright and good man.

But, if he believed in a supernatural spirit that exists "out there", then he was a lunatic.

[slowry]

16. Hey, nobody's perfect. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

17. those who believed the earth rotated around the sun were also called

lunatics and other (not complementary) names-

As to his faith - no, I don't believe he was any more a lunatic than a person who has placed their "faith" in 'logic'- or 'scientific fact' or 'hard evidence'.

Sir Issac Newton, famous for his theory of gravity, as well as the laws of motion, and an early theory on the speed of sound wrote more about his religion, than science-


MLKjr's ability to respond with patience, gentleness, compassion, mercy, wisdom and truth when confronted with hatred, violence, bigotry, brutality, and murderous anger, is something I've heard people discuss the "sanity" or "intelligence" of. Some label him a "lunatic" for these examples of how deeply held his "faith" is/was.

Along with others (Gandhi etc.) who lived lives that required self control- rather than rationalization.

I consider it an honor to stand beside some very wonderful people which mainstream society sometimes choses to label "lunatics"-

peace,
blu