Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

reply to post by SaturnFX


Insanity is regarded as being outside the norm of society, in this case the norm of the world.

The norm of the world is creationism.

Atheism comprise of a very small part of world population.

The above being said, Atheism should be regarded as insanity, not creationism, because creationism is the norm.

reply to post by SaturnFX

so, explain how a non-belief in magical beings and a acceptance of the scientific method is somehow insane then.

Scientific method defines the creation.

For you to separate the creator from the creation, and call creationists insane, puts you in a very tough spot to argue.

Evolution describes design, how the Universe was designed to change from one state to another. Everything within this Universe changes.

With help of what?

With help of laws/

We have Zero instances of laws coming to existence without intelligence, and have thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence.

It would be insane to claim the source is not a creator, or intelligence.\

Once again, it already insane to be an Atheist, because insanity means going against the norm, and statistics show that the norm is Creationism.

reply to post by andy1033


How you can possibly suggest that evolution has no basis in observable fact is beyond me.

That is why scientifically minded people wonder the kinds of things that this thread is asking.

It's actually very very scary that you display such certain dismissal towards something which you obviously have never taken an honest look at.

Yes, Creationism is a form of mental disorder. To be a creationist requires one to deny what is in fact a visible and measurable reality OR to believe that one may redefine the very words of your own god to fit that reality, ad nauseum.

So are you delusional or Megalomaniacal?

Originally posted by oozyism

Insanity is regarded as being outside the norm of society, in this case the norm of the world.

This is not the standard for judging what is sane or insane. You are confusing pop culture and socially implied norms with rational thinking - or mental health - when they, in fact, very different things.

Originally posted by oozyism

The norm of the world is creationism.

The word "norm" cannot be applied to concepts involving personal preference or bias. This would be like saying "I just polled 20 people about which flavor of ice cream they like. 16 said chocolate, therefore the other four are insane."

Originally posted by oozyism

Atheism comprise of a very small part of world population.

Depends upon where you are at. For example:

Several studies have found Sweden to be one of the most atheist countries in the world. According to Davie (1999), 80% of Swedes do not believe in God

Source

So, by that standard, am I to assume that one is only "sane" or "insane" dependent upon where they happen to be at any given moment, geographically?

Originally posted by oozyism

The above being said, Atheism should be regarded as insanity, not creationism, because creationism is the norm.

"Should" implies opinion and personal bias. An atheist could mount an equally valid argument to the contrary based upon similar criteria.

Many biases depend upon proliferation of "norms" to sustain themselves. Slavery was once a "norm". Second class citizenship was, and still is in some places, the "norm".

It would be more applicable for you to use the term "status-quo" than "norm" as the reality is that just because something is predominant in society, does not mean it is "normal".

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Yes, that is what insanity means.

But

If you want to change the title of this thread to mental disability, or mental retardation, or mental illness, or some other word, then you have a point.

insanity means going against the norm.

If we were to take the whole world, then Atheists should be regarded as insane.

That is why couple of pages back I state that the bases of the OP is wrong.

I explained why and I also posed a problem, hence, if the whole world is insane, and you are the only sane, would you be considered insane?

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Insanity is regarded as being outside the norm of society, in this case the norm of the world.

The norm of the world is creationism.

Atheism comprise of a very small part of world population.

The above being said, Atheism should be regarded as insanity, not creationism, because creationism is the norm.

Actually, being outside the norm is not insanity, it is considered a subculture. If it is aggressively challenging the norm, then its a counterculture...neither are defined as insanity though.

Sorry...popular belief does not = sane, nor does unpopular belief = insanity.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms

Wikipedia

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

so, explain how a non-belief in magical beings and a acceptance of the scientific method is somehow insane then.

Scientific method defines the creation.

No...it doesn't. scientific method is method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses.

For you to separate the creator from the creation, and call creationists insane, puts you in a very tough spot to argue.

No, it doesn't because there is no evidence of a creation. there is evidence of only what is observed and measured. a creator does not factor into this at all.

Evolution describes design, how the Universe was designed to change from one state to another. Everything within this Universe changes.

no, Evolution maps changes...all things change, yes...new things become old, things deteriorate. replicating cells mutate and form differently, etc...evolution is simply a way to sort of count back on the map to origin to understand the process...no design necessary. If you see a wave coming to shore, you do not assume there is a guy out in the water pushing it your way..you assume it is a natural process of moon, potentially seismic activity, or other such natural phenomona

We have Zero instances of laws coming to existence without intelligence, and have thousands of instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence.

-drops an apple and watches it fall to the floor...wonders if that is intelligence at work, or simply gravity-

you fail to understand what laws mean in the scientific arena...a better word than laws would be the word "understandings".
we understand certain things through the scientific method. there is no intelligence behind what is happening..the only time intelligence comes into play is through the observer...aka, us

It would be insane to claim the source is not a creator, or intelligence.\

Well, since every point you made so far has been shown to be misinformation or ignorance, then that statement is, of course, false.

Once again, it already insane to be an Atheist, because insanity means going against the norm, and statistics show that the norm is Creationism.

insanity, as pointed out, does not mean that...you can claim insanity means peeling potato's...but you stating it means that does not make it suddenly mean that.

Athiesm is a subculture or counterculture at the moment due to a superstitious world,

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms

Wikipedia

And insanity may manifest as talking to invisible people...or conversations with angels, or counting the hairs on your knuckles.

manifestations of a mental condition is not a definition of anything...its...-manifestations of a mental condition-

insane people put on pants...does that mean putting on pants = insane?
insane people scratch their head as a manifestiation...therefore...you get the point


source:
-grasp of the english language and the word manifestation-

Originally posted by SaturnFX

And insanity may manifest as talking to invisible people...or conversations with angels, or counting the hairs on your knuckles.

manifestations of a mental condition is not a definition of anything...its...-manifestations of a mental condition-

insane people put on pants...does that mean putting on pants = insane?
insane people scratch their head as a manifestiation...therefore...you get the point


source:
-grasp of the english language and the word manifestation-

edit on 7-12-2010 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

\

Exactly, the above just proves the bases of your thread is completely wrong.

There is more justification to call Atheists insane than Creationists

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by SaturnFX

And insanity may manifest as talking to invisible people...or conversations with angels, or counting the hairs on your knuckles.

manifestations of a mental condition is not a definition of anything...its...-manifestations of a mental condition-

insane people put on pants...does that mean putting on pants = insane?
insane people scratch their head as a manifestiation...therefore...you get the point


source:
-grasp of the english language and the word manifestation-

edit on 7-12-2010 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

\

Exactly, the above just proves the bases of your thread is completely wrong.

There is more justification to call Atheists insane than Creationists

No, it is clear that you are either unable or unwilling to understand the english language. Perhaps its not your first language and there is some sort of communication barrier here.
Your wikipedia quote is not defining what insanity is...the one sentence you are snipping is, as stated, discussing what some manifestations may include.

the dictionary definition has been given. insanity is not "going against the norm". You are incorrect here and the adult thing to do would be to acknowledge it and move on.

Your trying to take the context of manifestations about something and equaling it..like coughing is a manifestation of the flu...but that doesn't mean everyone whom coughs has the flu

Originally posted by SaturnFX

reply to post by SaturnFX

 

No...it doesn't. scientific method is method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses.

What is science?

No, it doesn't because there is no evidence of a creation. there is evidence of only what is observed and measured. a creator does not factor into this at all.

I have already provided evidence supporting a creator, we will get there soon/

no, Evolution maps changes...all things change, yes...new things become old, things deteriorate. replicating cells mutate and form differently, etc...evolution is simply a way to sort of count back on the map to origin to understand the process...no design necessary. If you see a wave coming to shore, you do not assume there is a guy out in the water pushing it your way..you assume it is a natural process of moon, potentially seismic activity, or other such natural phenomona

Yes, all of the above is creation, just because everything changes inside the Universal system doesn't mean it wasn't created, it just means your views are extremely narrow, that you think a mountain was formed due to tectonic plate movements, forgetting that tectonic plate movements is cause by something else, and then when you go to the root of it, you see that the root of all changes is Universal laws.

-drops an apple and watches it fall to the floor...wonders if that is intelligence at work, or simply gravity-

you fail to understand what laws mean in the scientific arena...a better word than laws would be the word "understandings".
we understand certain things through the scientific method. there is no intelligence behind what is happening..the only time intelligence comes into play is through the observer...aka, us

Universal laws means just that, laws governing the universe. Everything in this universe is governed by those laws, including Evolution.

Well, since every point you made so far has been shown to be misinformation or ignorance, then that statement is, of course, false.

Nope, I told you that you would have a hard time arguing putting yourself in that position:

Let's put the three facts on the table:
1. We have many instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence.
2. We have many instances of laws coming to existence through unknown cause (hence gravity).
3. We have absolutely ZERO instances of laws coming to existence without intelligence.

You do the math.

insanity, as pointed out, does not mean that...you can claim insanity means peeling potato's...but you stating it means that does not make it suddenly mean that.

Athiesm is a subculture or counterculture at the moment due to a superstitious world,

You are the one who used the word insanity, maybe next time use a more appropriate word.

I will stick to the fact that insanity defines an Atheist more than a Creationist. Atheists are going against the norm.

reply to post by oozyism


There are many types of creationism. Judging by the videos in OPs post, he meant young Earth crazy type of creationists, that deny the reality of evolution and possibility of abiogenesis. Creationists that believe that it was God who established basic physical laws in the first instant of creation are not crazy, this approach would be compatible with our current understanding of science.

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Exactly, the above just proves the bases of your thread is completely wrong.

There is more justification to call Atheists insane than Creationists

No, it is clear that you are either unable or unwilling to understand the english language. Perhaps its not your first language and there is some sort of communication barrier here.
Your wikipedia quote is not defining what insanity is...the one sentence you are snipping is, as stated, discussing what some manifestations may include.

the dictionary definition has been given. insanity is not "going against the norm". You are incorrect here and the adult thing to do would be to acknowledge it and move on.

Your trying to take the context of manifestations about something and equaling it..like coughing is a manifestation of the flu...but that doesn't mean everyone whom coughs has the flu

I have already proven my point, I still don't know why you are arguing.

The snip from Wikipedia clearly states that violation against societal norm manifists insanity.

That is the evidence.

Then I clearly said that if the whole world was insane, and you were the only sane, would the world consider you as insane?

So what is insanity really? It is a vague word, it has no place in medical dictionary, so what are you trying to prove by saying Creationists should be considered insane?

If you want to look at non-medical definition of insanity, it is either violating societal norm, or having an unhealthy mind.

And Atheists don't believe in mind, what is mind? Insanity is not about the brain, it is about the mind, "Sane" is a Latin word.

You have brought yourself to this situation by creating a baseless title for your thread to stir emotion, and lure people in.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by oozyism

 

There are many types of creationism. Judging by the videos in OPs post, he meant young Earth crazy type of creationists, that deny the reality of evolution and possibility of abiogenesis. Creationists that believe that it was God who established basic physical laws in the first instant of creation are not crazy, this approach would be compatible with our current understanding of science.

Kids believe in Santa, that doesn't make them insane, that makes them innocent.

If Christians want to believe Evolution is false, and that the Earth is so on and so forth years old, then let them.

Choice comes first.

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by SaturnFX

reply to post by SaturnFX

 

No...it doesn't. scientific method is method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses.

What is science?

your arguing against something without even knowing what it is? -facepalm-
google is your friend..but let me help you:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

No, it doesn't because there is no evidence of a creation. there is evidence of only what is observed and measured. a creator does not factor into this at all.

I have already provided evidence supporting a creator, we will get there soon/

You posted absolutely nothing supporting a creator. I look forward for such a post...indeed the world looks forward to such supporting evidence...your going to make bloody history mate...well done...lets see it.
to think...all these years, all these eons...and some guy on the internet has supporting evidence. absolutely breathtaking. quick, someone call CNN, MSNBC, FOX, BBC, and everyone else...there is finally evidence of a creator...some guy on the internet has it and will reveal it soon I imagine..meanwhile, lets move on

no, Evolution maps changes...all things change, yes...new things become old, things deteriorate. replicating cells mutate and form differently, etc...evolution is simply a way to sort of count back on the map to origin to understand the process...no design necessary. If you see a wave coming to shore, you do not assume there is a guy out in the water pushing it your way..you assume it is a natural process of moon, potentially seismic activity, or other such natural phenomona

Yes, all of the above is creation, just because everything changes inside the Universal system doesn't mean it wasn't created, it just means your views are extremely narrow, that you think a mountain was formed due to tectonic plate movements, forgetting that tectonic plate movements is cause by something else, and then when you go to the root of it, you see that the root of all changes is Universal laws.

bad example. techtonic plates create some mountains. the plates move based on a number of factors, including but not limited to, gravitational forces of the moon, sun, etc. magma pooling and pressure zones, etc. there is a massive series of understanding about this...its what is called science. Science is not some focused instance, it is a broad field of observation to see how things are connecting. None of which involve a creator.

actually...there is no example you can possibly give that would show that science is somehow narrow considering science is simply attempting to map and understand things...by its very definition, it is not allowed to be narrow.
you seem to not understand what the use of science is for.

-drops an apple and watches it fall to the floor...wonders if that is intelligence at work, or simply gravity-

you fail to understand what laws mean in the scientific arena...a better word than laws would be the word "understandings".
we understand certain things through the scientific method. there is no intelligence behind what is happening..the only time intelligence comes into play is through the observer...aka, us

Universal laws means just that, laws governing the universe. Everything in this universe is governed by those laws, including Evolution.

universal laws...also known as physics...moving on

Well, since every point you made so far has been shown to be misinformation or ignorance, then that statement is, of course, false.

Nope, I told you that you would have a hard time arguing putting yourself in that position:

Let's put the three facts on the table:
1. We have many instances of laws coming to existence through intelligence.
2. We have many instances of laws coming to existence through unknown cause (hence gravity).
3. We have absolutely ZERO instances of laws coming to existence without intelligence.

1) absolutely false. there is not a single instance of any understanding coming to existance through intelligence
2) science is used to determine the unknown...many unknowns are being known via this process
3) every single understanding we have today, from the computer your using, to the food you eat, to the very shape of your body, is all examples of things "coming into existance" without intelligence as some sort of creation force. We use our personal intelligence to control and form these understandings to exploit for our own needs, but electricity is not intelligent. sand is not intelligent, gravity is not intelligent, etc.

You do the math.

funny...math is actually a science

insanity, as pointed out, does not mean that...you can claim insanity means peeling potato's...but you stating it means that does not make it suddenly mean that.

Athiesm is a subculture or counterculture at the moment due to a superstitious world,

You are the one who used the word insanity, maybe next time use a more appropriate word.

I will stick to the fact that insanity defines an Atheist more than a Creationist. Atheists are going against the norm.

edit on 7-12-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)

You can stick to clearly and irrifutably incorrect use of the word "insanity". you can even contact websters and beg them to change it to what you want it to mean...but your desire for a word to mean something means absolutely nothing overall...the definition of the word cares not for your desires of it meaning something its not...definitions...cold and unmoving things they are.

reply to post by oozyism


Psychosis would be a better diagnosis to describe radical creationists.

Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή "psyche", for mind/soul, and -ωσις "-osis", for abnormal condition) means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic. Psychosis is given to the more severe forms of psychiatric disorder, during which hallucinations and delusions and impaired insight may occur. [1

However, many people have unusual and unshared (distinct) experiences of what they perceive to be different realities without fitting the clinical definition of psychosis. For example, many people in the general population have experienced hallucinations purportedly related to religious or paranormal experience.[2][3] As a result, it has been argued that psychosis is simply an extreme state of consciousness that falls beyond the norms experienced by most.[4] In this view, people who are clinically found to be psychotic may simply be having particularly intense or distressing experiences (see schizotypy).

lol, look at that paragraph. Religious people need to be specially excluded from the definition.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by oozyism

Kids believe in Santa, that doesn't make them insane, that makes them innocent.

We are not talking about kids. Adults with mental capacity of a child are indeed classified as having a mental condition.

If Christians want to believe Evolution is false, and that the Earth is so on and so forth years old, then let them. Choice comes first.

I agree.

reply to post by SaturnFX


i am so tired of these threads. why do people waist life on trying to prove people wrong and or ignorant? it seems that threads like these are more about the the people than the beliefs. iv said it before and ill say it again.... why do you care what others believe? if science says that quantum theory (and i mean the real bizarre stuff like parallel universes and many others) is possible then any thing is possible. it seems impossible for the universe to be here in the first place but it is.

so if the simple fact that "we are here" is so called real, then why cant a God/gods/creator be real? oh that is right, because human scientists say that they are not....... it seems like every 50 or so years what we know about physics changes because we find something new. so who knows what the next 50 years will bring us.

reply to post by Maslo


We have adults who believe in Aliens.

I don't know why you are trying to argue here.

At least we agree that Christians should be allowed to believe what they want to without having to be called insane.