It isn't rational to say you can disprove other people's beliefs about a supernatural God, and more than it is rational to say you can disprove the existance of aliens. There are people here at JU that claim to be able to prove scientifically that God doesn't exist.
There's nothing about the "middle path" in making the statement that a literalist view is wrong, or silly, or leads to all the evils fearmongers here try to portray. I point out that non-literalist, even Atheistic types undertake atrocities against their fellow man all the time.
The point seems to be that literalism is basically flawed. My perspective is that Literalism holds the same inherant flaws as any other belief system, to be used and abused as the character of the 'believer' permits.
Again, if Buddhism is the 'middle path', I see very little but blind judgement of ideas here. Dharma, in addition to criticizing Christians, also criticizes millions and millions of bhuddists to practice Buddhism in the traditional 'Gods and demons and hell" way.
Midde path? Doesn't look like it to me. If it were so, then it seems there'd be no problem with literalists believing what they like. If this were about offenses BY literalists, I think it is obvious the problem is the offenses themselves, not the literalism.
