Bible thumper with anti-gay logic. Help me out here, guys.

[sloth]

This Bible thumper is trying to convince me that homosexuality is a mental condition. This has been going on for a couple of days now. I've been beating down his logic, but he is not ALLOWED to accept that he is wrong, because of some Book that he read, so at this point he's refusing logic even when it's obvious, and I need a fresh point of view, lest I end up just repeating myself. Please help. What are your opinions? So far the only point that I have made is that his arguments are faulty, and I want to keep it that way, as I don't KNOW that he isn't right, and don't care. I only know that his arguments are flawed. I have not stated anything further than that, only that his arguments are faulty. When he stated that going into the "closet" was a sign of a mental disorder, I stated that there were other possible explanations, and listed prejudice as one of them. In this last post of his, that is what he is attacking. Keep in mind that I am limiting my arguments to merely discrediting his claims. Nothing more. The full conversation (several pages long) is available upon request. " Oh BTW, claiming prejudice, and blaming society for their manifest psychological problems is not a Reasonable alternative, it is a cope out. That argument can be used for any social abhorrent behavior like pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality. "I hid what I was doing your honor, because society doesn't under stand my form of love, it is bigoted and prejudiced against me." That is not an acceptable argument thus your logic and reasoning is a FAILURE you have not refuted my points or evidence you just blame society. The individual then never has to take any responsibility for their own behavior look here [Link to some rape case, in which the attacker is blaming the girl for wearing provocative clothing] This guy is blaming the girl, it is her fault. I and every sane person in society rejects the "it is because of society" argument. Since if you look at the cites that have the greatest acceptance of homoism they also have the highest rates of homo suicide, and drug use and alcoholism. The blame society argument has been used by the homo apologists for the reported higher rates of these phenomenon in the homo community at large. Thus if it was because of a prejudiced society these rates would be lower in these areas where the homo is openly accepted and allowed to flaunt their perversion where ever. But we don't it is higher in those areas which proves that their reasoning is not sound or based on any reality. Just a cope out from people who are depressed and don't want to deal with their issues. Now if this theory of mine is true, and homoism is a mental disorder then there would not only be the personal manifestation in the homos, psyche, which I have shown, but it would then infect the rest of the culture. This is the nature of a sound theory it has predictive value. If homos, as the APA said, were the product of stunted personal and emotional development, with them in positions of authority, their need to limit personal angst would come to light. Thus we has "Sensitivity Training" this is the social manifestation of the depressive mind of the homo put forth on society. It is were the homos do PTSD mitigation on the healthy population. They will tell you what you can and can't say so that you don't touch one of the psychological or emotionally unresolved issues that the homos have. Since they never dealt with their issues they just placed the burden to change on society. This then would be the logical continuation of the mental illness of homoism on society. It fits perfectly, and is a validation of the predictive value of the theory. And the justification for doing such things is what? Let me say it for you "Well because of a prejudice society such a program would be needed" The only argument you have is to blame society, which isn't acceptable, it wouldn't hold up in a court. "

[Woodstock]

What exactly are you trying to say?

[sloth]

I'm saying that this man has made the argument that is within the quotes there, and I am asking for your opinions on it. I have been combating this guy's bad logic for days, and I would love some insight.

[snoop]

I'm not sure if you think you can actually change this guy's mind, but you realise he's borderline retarded right? I mean, if he isn't just trolling you or whom ever then he's obviously off his rocker.

[Alyzarin]

I'm not sure if you think you can actually change this guy's mind, but you realise he's borderline retarded right? I mean, if he isn't just trolling you or whom ever then he's obviously off his rocker. ^^ This. More than likely this guy's opinion will never change. But I would probably start by pointing out that acts of pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality all involve partners who are unable to give proper consent. Gay relationships are just regular setups, two consenting individuals who both want to be with each other. Lumping them together is ridiculous.

[Universal Mind]

For the immorality issue, ask him what his favorite food is and what his least favorite food is. He might know where you are going with that and tell you he doesn't have a favorite food or a least favorite food. If he plays that game, ask him for one of his favorite foods and one of his least favorite foods. Then ask him if he can make them trade statuses. Make it clear that preference and behavior are two different things. If he is ever honest enough to agree with that point, ask him what men who are very attracted to men but not at all attracted to women are supposed to do. Are they supposed to live a facade by having sex with women and pretending they are men? The same kind of argument can be applied to lesbians. Pedophilia, beastiality, and necrophilia involve victims. They infringe on the rights of others. Consensual adult homosexuality is not a form of victimization. The reason more homosexuals commit suicide in areas where homosexuality is more accepted is that more homosexuals live in the places where it is accepted than the places where it is not accepted. For the last part, ask him why sexual attraction shows up so early in life if people aren't born with it. Ask him what studies show external factors that are consistent with and exclusive to early development in homosexuals. Then ask how he knows they are results and not causes.

[sloth]

I really appreciate your points of views, guys. However, I am attempting to limit my posts to only discrediting his claims, only because if I open up new points, I don't think he'll be able to keep the subject matter limited. I'm afraid to open up things like the fruit thought scenario, and things like that, because I am not arguing any points, other than that he has no proof. I didn't wait for you guys on this one. I went ahead and posted. However, I would greatly appreciate any insight you guys have along the way. I posted here because I was having a real hard time with his pedophilia, necrophilia comparison, but I was finally able to work it out in my head. All in all, though, this guy has just been hilarious. He is offering a real challenge, only because of his LACK of logic and reason. I'm having to basically describe how logic works every step of the way, and it's becoming exhausting. Here is what I ended up posting while I waited for you guys. "Oh BTW, claiming prejudice, and blaming society for their manifest psychological problems is not a Reasonable alternative, it is a cope out." Yeah. I can see how this is definitely true, just because you said so. Who needs valid points, right? Why didn't you just say this in the first place? lol "That argument can be used for any social abhorrent behavior like pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality. " This is a good point, tcarey. This one took me a minute. However, claiming prejudice does not automatically mean guilt. IT IS POSSIBLE for a man to hide, physically or metaphorically, due to legitimate prejudice. That fact FORCES us to accept the possibility that you are wrong. As long as we accept that possibility, you cannot make the claims that you have made. In order to prove that your points are not proven, I do not need to prove that all people who claim to be discriminated against are telling the truth. I only need to show the POSSIBILITY that SOME of them are. In order to prove your evidence, you must rule out any other viable explanations. I've already stated this. (over and over) It's not like the laws of logic are going to change for you. In order to show that you do not have proof, I need only show that other viable explanations exist. I am not required to nail down exactly what causes these things, due to the laws of reason and logic. A theory cannot be proven to be true if other possibilities exist, but it IS possible to disprove a theory based off of the fact that there are other explanations. It IS POSSIBLE that homosexuals become reclusive due to the discrimination that they face. The same thing can happen with any other form of discrimination. If I said that magnets stick together due to the use of black magic, you would not need to prove the intricate workings of magnetism in order to show that black magic is not necessarily the answer. Even if you can't prove exactly why magnets work, that still does not mean that I can claim black magic as proof. If I provided the evidence that it must be black magic, because black magic is known to make things defy gravity, you would not need to disprove that black magic is known to make things defy gravity, because other explanations exist that don't involve black magic. Does this make sense to you at all? Why am I repeatedly having to explain the basic laws of logic to you? I freely admit that I don't know why homosexuals do what they do. I don't need to prove why they do this, in order to show that you haven't proven why they do this. I can show that your evidence is faulty, based on the lack of evidence itself. In that case of the rape victim that you provided, the prosecutor will need to prove that the offender raped the victim, and that there are no other possible alternatives. This is dubbed, in laymans terms, as "Innocent until proven guilty". In this case the subject states that he did what he did because the victim dressed provacatively. It has been proven that human beings have the ability to make choices. Therefore his argument does not hold true. In your point, that homosexuals blame society for the fact that they are reclusive, there is nothing that proves that this is not true. Do you see why your logic doesn't work? I don't know how I can make this any clearer for you. IT IS POSSIBLE that homosexuals go into hiding, for reasons other than mental disorders. In the past, black people went into hiding from prejudicial society. Do you think that all of them did this because they had mental disorders? In the past, Jewish people went into hiding from prejudicial Nazis. Do you think that all of them did this because they had mental disorders? DO NOT IGNORE THESE QUESTIONS like you have with my others. I am tired of you skirting the issue. Do you think it is possible that people go into hiding for reasons other than mental disorders? I want an answer! "I and every sane person in society..." An argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so." or "Everybody's doing it, so you should too." Please provide proof that the cities that have the highest acceptance of homosexuality also have the highest rates of suicide, drug use, and alcoholism amungst homosexuals. Otherwise this "evidence" is getting the boot, just like your "scientific studies" and "testimonials" that you couldn't provide a shread of evidence for. "Now if this theory of mine is true..." is begging the question. You haven't proven that your theory is true, so why are we exploring what it would be like, so to speak? Your "predictive value" is not used correctly here. Scientists make predictions BEFORE they run their experiments, and even then it is not considered to be proof. Once again I am explaining basic logic to you. You can say: "Based off of this evidence, if I do A, then B should occur." You can not say: "B occurs sometimes, so therefore I have "predicted" it just now, therefore C is DEFINITELY what causes B." That is flawed. It does not work! To put it another way, you can say: "Here are the findings to our experiment. What conclusions can we draw from them?" But you cannot say: "Here are our conclusions. What experiments can we run to prove them?" Scientists don't do that! Here's how I can apply your logic and construct a bunch of stupid nonsense, in the exact same way that you just did. Keep in mind that your theory is EXACTLY the same as this one, except I replaced the word "homosexual" with "woman". I'm using not only the same arguments, but even the exact same wording, and exact same spelling/gramatical errors, and the exact same connections of logic. Tell me if this works for you: My (PRETEND!) theory is that all females have mental conditions. Okay? Now if this theory of mine is true, and being a female is a mental disorder then there would not only be the personal manifestation in the minory's, psyche, such as not spending their time with sexist people, but it would then infect the rest of the culture. This is the nature of a sound theory it has predictive value (That sentence sounded just as ridiculous when you typed it.). If women were the product of stunted personal and emotional development, with them in positions of authority, their need to limit personal angst would come to light. Thus we has "Gender-Sensitivity Training" this is the social manifestation of the despressive mind of the woman put forth on society. It is were the women do PTSD mitigation on the healthy population. They will tell you what you can and can't say so that you don't touch one of the psychological or emotionally unresolved issues that the women have. Since they never dealt with their issues they just placed the burden to change on society. It fits perfectly, and is a validation of the predictive value of the theory. And the justification for doing such thinsgs is what? Let me say it for you "Well because of a prejudice society such a program would be needed" Now, this is the exact same argument, word for word, as you just used to try to prove that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Do you notice how I didn't actually provide any evidence at all? Do you see why even if it fits, it is not proof? This sounded just as ridiculous when you wrote it, as when I wrote it. It has the exact same evidence as your argument. Even the same wording. At this point, your burden of proof has become extremely complicated. You can't prove that homosexuality is a mental disorder directly, so you provided characteristics that SOME homosexuals MIGHT possess, are ASSUMING that those characteristics are signs of a mental disorder, and then trying to combat every other possibility. That's not how science works, and because of that, you will never be able to prove your claims. Consider the fact that at this point you are actually trying to prove that people only hide from things due to mental disorders. I want an answer. Do you think that having a mental disorder is the only possible reason why someone would go into hiding? If so, you will need to defend the assertion that hiding from slavery and genocide is insane. If not, then you admit that it is possible that society has forced these people "into the closet". Again, GOOD LUCK!" I will keep you guys posted, until I stop receiving responses. I agree that he will likely never change his mind. He's not allowed. lol God wants him to be prejudice. Again, I really appreciate your insights. I love you, Dreamviews!

[Woodstock]

I'm saying that this man has made the argument that is within the quotes there, and I am asking for your opinions on it. I have been combating this guy's bad logic for days, and I would love some insight. I somehow missed the quotes so I thought that was what you were saying. Yeah, he's an idiot.

[Universal Mind]

Then ask how he knows they are results and not causes. * causes and not results

[Descensus]

The fact that he feels comfortable using the term "homoism" probably indicates the amount of coherent thought occupying this man's brain, which is to say, not much.

[Woodstock]

What's the point of arguing with him? Nothing is going to change.

[Arra]

This is the main argument which sticks out to me: P1: There are only two possible explanations for why suicide rates among homosexuals are higher than those of heterosexuals: (1) Society makes them feel bad about it or (2) they're naturally predisposed to suicide, making homosexuality a mental disorder. P2: But those suicide rates are higher even in places where homosexuality is accepted. C: Therefore, explanation (1) fails, so homosexuals must have a mental disorder. This argument is valid but not sound. I'm going to deal with P1, since I don't know whether P2 is true or not but I'll assume it is. There may be more explanations for the higher suicide rates than not being accepted by society. For example, it could be because less people are gay than straight, making it harder for gay people to find partners, which may lead to higher levels of unhappiness. Also, there may be other side-effects to being gay which actually aren't accepted by society (I don't know whether this is true or not, but it's still a possible explanation). Furthermore, I think it's important to note that it's highly unlikely that homosexuality is ever completely 'accepted' anywhere. Even when it is socially acceptable, it is almost certain that people will have unspoken biases which will cause them to treat gay people differently, particularly among younger people. The suicide rates go down significantly once the person enters adulthood; most suicides occur among adolescents and teenagers. Anyone who has been in school through the ages of 10-15 or so knows that kids will tend to bully other kids for being noticeably different in any way. Considering all of this, it seems a lot more likely that one of these reasons, or some combination, is the real explanation for the higher suicide rates. Also, even if he did have the right reason, that homosexuals are naturally more predisposed to suicide, that still doesn't make it a mental disorder. A lot of regular human attributes which are certainly not mental disorders may make them more likely to end up committing suicide, such as being introverted or more emotional than average.

[Universal Mind]

Does "suicide rate" here mean "percentage of homosexual population per year" or "percentage of general population per year?" If it's general population, at least part of the explanation is that homosexuals make up a higher percentage of the general population in places where it is relatively accepted. If it's percentage of the homosexual population, then that is not an explanation.

[Woodstock]

Also, even if he did have the right reason, that homosexuals are naturally more predisposed to suicide, that still doesn't make it a mental disorder. A lot of regular human attributes which are certainly not mental disorders may make them more likely to end up committing suicide, such as being introverted or more emotional than average. Great. Now I'm 3x more likely to commit suicide.

[Arra]

Also, even if he did have the right reason, that homosexuals are naturally more predisposed to suicide, that still doesn't make it a mental disorder. A lot of regular human attributes which are certainly not mental disorders may make them more likely to end up committing suicide, such as being introverted or more emotional than average. I want to add, being male. More males commit suicide than females. Is being male a mental disorder? Great. Now I'm 3x more likely to commit suicide. Lol, obviously it wasn't meant like that. And with the male thing added, 4x.

[Universal Mind]

Is being male a mental disorder? In some ways.

[Alric]

Ask your friend if he has ever worked on Saturday. Not just work you get paid for, any work including chores and house hold stuff. If he says yes pick up the bible in your left hand and turn it to exodus 31:15, then pick up a big fat rock with your right hand and read the bible. "For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death" Then look at him with the meanest look you can muster and stare him straight in the eye and ask him, "God has commanded me to kill you, shall I follow through with his command?" If he gives any excuse at all for why he has worked on Saturday repeat the sentence, "For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. God has commanded me to kill you, shall I follow through with his command?" If he give any excuse at all, repeat the command once again.

[Linkzelda]

Homosexuality was considered (and probably still is considered) to be 'sexual inversion,' or individuals that had sexual, non-sexual, and other feelings that contradicted what society has been led to believe that heterosexuals is what is considered to be properly gendered. In most cases, people would refer to these individuals of also potentially being transgendered individuals. However, there are individuals that prefer men and they themselves want to stay as men for their own personal reasons and preferences. But because how society in general conceptualizes as men fitting masculine traits and females fitting feminine traits, people who don't align themselves in the "right gender" are considered be outcasts from the delusional "polarity" of what is a proper gender. Even you use the obvious statements that higher suicide rates were due to less acceptance and what have you, it's more important to emphasize that regions that have different social constructs on how people generally conceptualize "proper alignment of gender" vs. going beyond the spectrum of the two concepts of men and female and how certain traits fit into their roles of accomplishing heterosexuality. People don't have "natural" predispositions to commit suicide because of lack of acceptance, etc. The fact that he uses "natural" to make it flow easily in people's unconscious to justify it's a reason for it being a mental disorder is clearly wrong. Again, people have tendencies to contemplate on suicide simply because they feel they're in an extreme state of powerlessness. But the opportunity to commit suicide is only when the individual reaches a breaking point, a nadir (extreme downfall), and feels there's no other options of resolving. Now, with the logic, there should be many people dead right now, but of course, things such as what belief systems have on suicide being a sin and such and much more stabilization factors is what keeps the individuals....staying alive. And with this logic, if he's saying homosexuals are naturally shifted into committing suicide due to the lack of acceptance, he forgets society causing the predisposition itself should be "natural," if he were to truly hold on to his logic. So homosexuals who are blaming society can't be his excuse for the sexuality being a mental disorder. There are numerous stories of post-op transgendered individuals that were able to get through being in the body that they wanted to be in. But does anyone try to question how science has made procedures and surgeries to fit these people's dreams of aligning themselves into the body they want some kind of mental delusion? It's clearly not a delusion or mental illness/disorder, because how science has explored into sexuality and to allow individuals to have more options in coping with the presumed "polarity" that comes with heterosexuality. So if it's clear that person is a transgendered individual based on testing before they receive hormone therapy, that their body language and mindset clearly fits the shell of the gender they're "supposed" to be aligned to, that their attempt to accomplish this alignment....is that a mental disorder they have? So the bigger issue here is how the person defines polarity with gender and heterosexuality's role being saturated into social constructs and such as the "norm." - If a transgendered person aiming to be in the body they want to be in is considered to be a "mental disorder," for them to want to be themselves and live in a body where they can be happy with is a "mental disorder," then clearly we're living in horrible world that would think so. - The same with homosexuality, if the person emphasizes how not being accepted by society is what makes them "naturally" commit suicide, and yet doesn't realize its not a natural predisposition to commit suicide, but rather descending into levels of powerlessness....how can homosexuality be a mental disorder with his logic? The more society starts slipping in acceptance and/or more empathetic mindsets of other types of sexualities, the more science and other models of research will explore it to expand the polarity much further than conforming to heterosexuality as well. The same goes with his dreary book and faith with religion and how religion itself has its own discussions of whether or not people are "mentally ill" for believing in singular/multiple entities. People believe in these things to reduce the chances of contemplating conflict with themselves and their existence in this reality. The same goes for homosexuals who are trying to have their sexuality accepted and hopefully become part of the "gender polarity" that heterosexuality was a major role in. They just want to leave a healthy, fulfilling, and happy life, and with anything (whether you want to become a CEO, Congressmen, A mother with good children, etc.), if there's conflicts in those desires being accepted, of course people will shift blame and find scapegoats. And to exclude all of those and much more and only focuses on homosexuality itself shows how he can only go so far with this implausible logic

[Sivason]

Here is a paper about homosexuals having a higher amount of mental disorders than hetrosexuals,,, BMC Psychiatry | Full text | A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people Here is another about police and firefighters having a higher risk of mental disorders,,, Police and Firefighters in Early Career at Higher Risk for Mental Disorders Following Traumatic Events Now we have to play this game to make the homosexuality = crazy card. We go SAT style, "all apples are fruits, so all fruits are apples" or some other stupid twist. Perhaps some explanation exists. I will make one up for conversation,,, perhaps some mentally ill people are drawn to rebelling against society, and they are drawn to the culture they perceive in homosexual themed settings. That would mean 'some' people who are mentally ill make up some small amount of that community. You could use the same logic for stoner/hippies. That is some mentally ill people are drawn to the hippy life style. How would any of that implicate the population as a whole? It is a total "all fruits are apples" line of crap. Now, maybe this could be of use. I copied this out of a medical journal. It contains the 'official info' While you probably will not be able to change this man's mind, at least you will have solid facts... **********Dr. Robert Spitzer and other members of the APA Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics agreed to meet with a group of gay activists who presented the scientific evidence to its members and convinced the Task Force to study the issue further. The subsequent research review led the Nomenclature Committee of the APA to propose that homosexuality be eliminated from the DSM. This proposal was approved by the APA's Council on Research and Development, its Reference Committee, and by the Assembly of District Branches before being accepted by the APA's Board of Trustees in December 1973. Other major mental health professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, soon endorsed the APA action. The decision to declassify homosexuality was accompanied by the passage of an APA Position Statement, which supported the protection of the civil rights of homosexual persons. Some APA members, primarily psychoanalysts who continued to espouse pathologizing views of homosexuality, challenged the leadership of the APA by calling for a referendum of the entire APA membership. The decision to remove homosexuality was upheld by a 58% majority of voting APA members. When the diagnosis of homosexuality was deleted in 1973, the APA did not initially embrace a normal variant model of homosexuality (Drescher 1998, Bayer 1987, Krajeski 1996). In recognition of the opposition, it made a compromise. The DSM-II diagnosis of Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD) replaced Homosexuality. Accordingly, individuals comfortable with their homosexuality were no longer considered mentally ill. Only those who were "in conflict with" their sexual orientation had a mental disorder (SOD). This compromise engendered continued controversy. Those opposing it pointed out there were no reported cases of unhappy heterosexual individuals seeking treatment to become homosexual. This problem was addressed in the 1980's DSM-III where SOD was replaced by ego-dystonic homosexuality (EDH). During the revision process of DSM-III in the mid 1980's EDH also engendered enormous controversy. In these debates openly gay and lesbian members of the APA played a decisive role in bringing about change (Krajeski 1996). Those on the APA Advisory Committee working on the revision who wanted to retain the EDH category argued that they believed the diagnosis was clinically useful and that it was necessary for research and statistical purposes. The opponents noted that making a patient's subjective experience of their own homosexuality the determining factor of their illness was not consistent with the new evidence-based approach that psychiatry had espoused. They argued that empirical data do not support the diagnosis and that it is inappropriate to label culturally induced homophobia as a mental disorder. The APA Committee agreed with the opponents and the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality was removed from DSM-III-R (1987).*********** Also, keep in mind, he likely has homosexual feelings that hurt him inside. He is forced to insist it is a form of mental illness to explain to himself why he would have 'sinful' thoughts.

[TimeDragon97]

I don't know if you'll be able to change his mind. For fundies, belief is more important than truth and fact. Try this: Ask him if he is against homosexuality because God says so/it's in the Bible/etc. If he says yes (which he likely will), tell him about the other horrible things that God supports, such as rape, slavery, genocide, child abuse/murder, etc. (read the Bible; it's in there). If he still holds fast to his "good book", he is likely a lost cause. If you ask me, we need to get to the children and other impressionable people before they do. Don't let them be indoctrinated with this utter bullshit. Teach them reason and logic, not bigotry.

[Universal Mind]

Preach these Bible verses to him. Top 10 worst Bible passages - Telegraph

[StonedApe]

Isn't it strange that a person isn't considered to be insane if they say the voices in their head are god?

[Zoth]

Isn't it strange that a person isn't considered to be insane if they say the voices in their head are god? Yup, and that's something that is present in famous sociology of mental health books. You'd think that mental health illnesses take credibility out of the subject, but in these specific cases (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed), we're talking about religions founded on people that seem to have them, but it actually raised their credibility. Here's a more detailed view on this: Thus, generally, religious commitment and experience can be a focus of diagnostic interest for psychiatrists. This interest may discredit the patient’s right to be taken seriously by others. On the other hand, the charismatic seminal leaders of the main world religions could be diagnosed retrospectively as suffering from some form of psychosis. With the exception of Judaism, the major religions have placed a positive value on poverty, social isolation and even begging. Christ wandered in the desert and knew that he was the son of God (any other person making this claim now would be called ‘deluded’). Siddhartha, who became known as the Buddha, abandoned his comfortable aristocratic existence and went into the forest, isolating himself from the world and putting himself in jeopardy. This type of incorrigible social withdrawal has traditionally been associated with madness – the aimless wandering described in antiquity. The prophet Mohammed craved isolation and sought refuge in a cave near Mecca, where he experienced a frequent command hallucination, telling him to cry. These three famous individuals rejected the constraints of daily living and the norms of their host society and acted in a way that would now invite a diagnosis of ‘schizophrenia’. However, eventually, their actions yielded not less, but more, social credibility. Together, Jesus Christ, the Buddha and the prophet Mohammed are now worshipped by the majority of the world’s population – they have what could be called a form of global and transhistorical ‘hyper-credibility’. They also reflect and reinforce a tradition, which pre-dates their existence, in Hinduism of a mendicant tradition of holy men, who put themselves outside of society, with no direct means of support. This lifestyle overlaps strongly with that of madness. Holy mendicants, venerated religious leaders and mad patients are separated only by whether their conduct in common is deemed by others to be a product of spiritual choice and duty or of involuntary psychological incompetence. Source: A sociology of Mental Health and Illness by Anne Rogers and David Pilgrim.

[TimeDragon97]

I don't really think Siddhartha Gautama was crazy. Most of characters in the Bible would be thrown into mental institutions for schizophrenia. Abram/Abraham, for example, heard voices in his head which nearly drove him to kill his own son.

[Woodstock]

I don't really think Siddhartha Gautama was crazy. I agree, leaving a materialistic life to look for peace isn't crazy. But the other two would definitely be considered schizophrenic now.