Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You know what a subculture is also...technically, peeing standing up. there are more females on earth than males, therefore your standing is against statistical norms...welcome to the cool sub culture of man.

I'd watch out for that standing up to pee thing.
You know god don't like that, don't you? Or don't you ever read the word of god?

Mark Twain did, (read the word of god I mean, I don't know if he stood up to pee,) and he can explain better than I can, him being one of the appropriate sub-culture 'n all.

A person could piss against a tree, he could piss on his mother, he could piss on his own breeches, and get off, but he must not piss against the wall – that would be going quite too far. The origin of the divine prejudice against this humble crime is not stated; but we know that the prejudice was very strong – so strong that nothing but a wholesale massacre of the people inhabiting the region where the wall was defiled could satisfy the Deity.

Take the case of Jeroboam. “I will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall.” It was done. And not only was the man that did it cut off, but everybody else.

The same with the house of Baasha: everybody was exterminated, kinsfolks, friends, and all, leaving “not one that pisseth against a wall.”

In the case of Jeroboam you have a striking instance of the Deity’s custom of not limiting his punishments to the guilty; the innocent are included. Even the “remnant” of that unhappy house was removed, even “as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.” That includes the women, the young maids, and the little girls. All innocent, for they couldn’t piss against a wall. Nobody of that sex can. None but members of the other sex can achieve that feat.

(Mark Twain - Letters From The Earth 1909)

Of course, as is traditional when discussing the bible, the same verses are also used to prove diametrically opposed points of view. Here is a preacher's take on the matter:



For myself, when told to choose between position 1 and position 2, I will always choose position 3, 4 or 5.

Position 3 in this case is that originally god, (being female and being obsessed with hygeine,) threatened to lop off the member of every man who peed so carelessly he got it on her walls. The Hebrews who collated therse stories into the bible were all such clumsy at handling their circumcision-scarred equipment they had to cover up the threat for their own protection, which they did by burying it in a fanciful concoction of their own invention. Did they really expect us to believe god would kill all the little girls because their daddies didn't pee straight?

This is what's behind the refusal of many religions to let women into the pulpit. They are afraid the day will come when women, seeing through the debris under which god's truth has been buried, will stand in the pulpit, brandishing the sword of truth, calling on all women to arm themselves with said sword and carry out the will of the lord!!!!!

Off with the iniquitous agent of desecration!!!!!!


What was it again you don't like about religion, Saturn?

All religious ideation is indicative of delusional thinking; creationism is no different. There's a reason schizophrenics are so prone to "hearing the word of God".

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by 1FutureMarine1

 

Then he took this idea and said "hmm if this lizard can change color based on his environment, why can't he sprout wings and fly".

I've seen lots of Creationists quote mine but it truly is rare to see them just make stuff up. Darwin never said that and the theory of evolution doesn't support the idea of a lizard sprouting wings. Not only is this a straw man but its an argument from incredulity.

A lizard may well have done just that. - well, tree-climbing lizardy creatures may have gradually sprouted wings and feathers over some long time-span. And it's possible that at least some types of dinosaur descended from these early birds.

Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

Science is an exciting world, isn't it?

Sadly, even if creationists could somehow witness this whole proceedure with their own eyes, they'd say, "ahh, but that wasn't species change, it's still a bit the same, so that's only micro-evolution. Show me a lizard turning overnight to a tiger, and then I'll believe!"

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

What are ghosts?

Ghosts are a product of infrasound waves affecting the way the brain works. Ultrasound as every knows are sound waves of a high frequency (above our hearing range of 20,000Hz.) Conversely infrasound waves are sound waves below our spectrum of hearing (~20Hz)

When people enter an area where infrasound waves are present, they get a malicious feeling of dread and helplessness and their body temperature starts to drop. (Sound familiar) Infrasound also causes visual disturbances in the peripheral vision and can cause dark spots to appear. The natural frequency of the eye is said to be about 19Hz, when a person enters into an area with infrasound waves it causes their eyes to resonate, extremely blurring their field of vision.

Add all these together and what do you get? A ghost!

Here's a link to another rational explanation of ghosts

A Rational Look At Ghosts

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Yes he did and your crucifying YOURSELF as well

I'm sorry, but you can say it as many times as you like, but it won't be true unless you actually demonstrate it.

Considering how easily I dissected your previous post, I think you might be just a tiny bit wrong on that.

1)And where does "brain meat" come from?

Brain meat is arranged by genetic material.

2)In case you name x,y,z chemical compounds...where do those chemical compounds come from? Everything must have an origin,correct?...a point of singularity if you will!

So you're just going to argue regress and then, when I come to the point where either my personal knowledge is limited or science is uncertain, you're going to go "SEE! I'M RIGHT!"

I've encountered this before.
We go as far back as the Big Bang. We know that everything started out at a single point and expanded from there.

Unfortunately, we aren't sure as to what happened before the Big Bang, but science is working on it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

What are ghosts?

Well, the evidence would point to them being nothing more than hallucinations based upon cultural constructs.

Wrong! True scientific evidence would point to residual energy/matter that is not easy to examine with conventional equipment,

Except that there is no 'true scientific evidence'

Why hasn't there been a single paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal if there's so much 'true scientific evidence'.

much less with biased scientists

Scientists may have personal bias, but they have one bias that they must put over all others: The bias of evidence. There is a tyranny of evidence in the scientific community. All who practice science must bow down to positions which have the most evidence.

Bias is really not an issue in the scientific world unless there's one of those situations where we don't really have enough evidence to put forth a position with certainty.

that think EVERYTHING IS A FIGMENT OF THEIR IMAGINATION..."hallucinations"

Actually, hallucinations wouldn't be figments of your imagination, they would be neurochemical events that trick you into seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting things that aren't there. Hell, we can simulate hallucinations in the lab....quite easily.

Also, stop shouting. If you want to emphasize something there are at least three other methods that can be used to add emphasis to your points in a more civil manner.

Of course that "residual energy" is not just any old energy. Its special "energy"!

...what sort of 'energy' is it?
Hell, can you actually define the term 'energy'?
Pseudoscience loves to latch onto that word without an actual understanding of what it means.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

What is a soul?

A fictionalized account of consciousness.

Consciousness is not fiction any more than ufos are fiction.

...hey look, you stuffed some words into my mouth.
I said the soul is fictional, not consciousness.

Also, UFOs are several phenomenon, some of which are easily explained by known, natural causes, others of which are explained by human activity, and then there are the few, rare, unexplained ones.

Of course, since they're unexplained they must contain little grey men.

It is time to discount such misconceptions once and for all!

How is it a misconception? You know, you keep saying that my points are wrong without providing evidence

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

What role does the pre-fix *PYSCH* play in the term *psychology*?

It's used as a latin derivation of the idea of 'mind', making 'psychology' the 'study of the mind'

Wrong again! PSYCH is derived from the greek word psihi(spelled differently in greek) meaning SOUL

Actually, you're wrong. It comes from Latin. And Latin didn't have a word for 'mind', it only had a word for 'soul', because people who spoke Latin were far less advanced in their understanding of...pretty much everything.

So an archaic language's oversight means souls exist.

.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Anyone that has studied the English language beyond primary school should realize that taking "insane" as "in+sane" is really, really stupid.[.quote]

Just like someone who cannot understand what A SINGULARITY means must be really, really stupid!

Where have I demonstrated a lack of understanding of the term 'singularity'?

Also, this is a red herring, you are not addressing that I just pointed out that you statement was silly and useless.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
just like disclosure means DISC + LO + SURE= I am sure a disc is flying low!

...are you being serious? Please tell me you're not.

Yes I am being serious.

Well, glad that's cleared up. Here I thought that was a very, very clever troll.

Perhaps its too deep of a concept for a shallow thinker such as yourself to possibly comprehend.

No, it's a very simple concept. It's also very easy to comprehend why it's wrong

No worries. It would be CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT for me to continue?

Why is it that people who hurl insults are so often those that lack any sort of reasonable claims and merely shout that other individuals are wrong?

I'm skeptical of your claims and will remain so until you provide evidence for them.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Just like scientology, masonry, the "illuminated ones" and luciferianism?

..no, those three are all positive beliefs. Atheism is a rejection of theistic beliefs. It is simply a lack of belief in any deity.

Wow believing in the devil is "positive"...

...says someone who doesn't understand the English language very well. I mean, I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a native speaker, because it would be rude to say you're simply bad with your own native tongue.

In this case the term "positive" means that you are asserting a belief. A negative position, like atheism, is the rejection of a positive position.

Or did that all just fly over your head?

who would have thought something like that, other than "an atheist" only in name.

And who would have said such a ridiculously stupid statement other than someone who doesn't understand the English language and is trying to stick words in my mouth.

Not particularly. Atheism is actually met in many places with prejudice

And for good reason I might add.....


Hooray for bigotry!

Someone who either a)can't put 2 and 2 together to get 4

I hear this a lot about atheists. Please, show me the elusive items that you are metaphorically representing as '2' which, when combined, lead to an understanding of 'god is real' which is represented by '4'

I mean, I'm open for all evidence.

OR b)is really a satanist disguised as "an atheist"

...nope, not a satanist. I find satanism, and all other forms of oppositional theism, just as silly (if not sillier) than theism.

Not a satanist, it has just as little evidence for it as Christianity.

deserves NO RESPECT what-so-ever. NONE...NADA!

Well, at least I know why you're not giving me any respect. If you're a Christian, you clearly don't understand the good stuff your Christ said. He had at least a few good points, even if I don't accept his claims at divinity. One of them included to love your enemy.

However, I just think you're a bigot who is justifying your bigotry with ignorance.

...um...that conspiracy belongs in another forum.

No, it belongs in THIS FORUMN because it has to do with conspiracies in religion.....


No, you're in the "Origins and Creationism" forum. You don't even know which forum you're in and yet you claim I've 'crucified' myself?

You for one failed!

No, I succeeded at exposing your general ignorance, bigotry, and bullying. You have no reason in your claims, you shout that others are wrong, and you lack even the most basic respect for individuals because they simply disagree with you on one point.

I'm sorry, but I did quite well here, you're the one that has failed at quite a lot.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Or just willful ignorance?

Without reading the whole post, I want to say, it is just as insane, as not understanding (..via rationale, and logic only..) that one is a multidimensional soul, a timeless consciousness made out of timeless soul material - because only that makes (even in theory) possible the possibility of free will, and that is has to be so, and that it is no otherwise since incase the time and matter space continuum hadn't had a beginning, it would be timeless (..right?=yes..) and incase the time and matter space continuum [..we call a universe, or a reality.. or even multiple realities - and their co-existence..] had a beginning, we would have to consider that beginning having been (..begun..) straight out of non-timeness, and non-matterness - which is equal to (..everything being made out of a substance that is by its very nature, and its deepest essence..) timeless and multidimensional, since multidimensionality is always equal to that which is not restricted in time and that which is timeless - therefor we can understand everything, by mere rationale and by necessitation of logic, to be consisting of that which is multidimensional, that which is of timeless nature, in order for anything to exist.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

Hey look, another post that insults both the intelligence of those posting on ATS and that of anyone with any level of reason.

Oozy, start contributing to conversations instead of trolling.

\

How about you stop dictating what this debate and mind your own business.

I can post what ever I like, as long as it is on TOPIC.

If you want just Atheists agreeing with each other by humming from left to the write, then next time just put that in the thread title, hence (Atheist only debate (about GOD)).

Atheism and Theism are faith based religions.

Neither has proof either way, but they believe anyways.

So yes, I would say that both are signs of self-delusion.

But, the most insane thing of all, obviously, is to post a thread with the words "Creationism" in the title. It goes downhill real quick.

I don't know though. You tell me.

Is beating a dead horse for eternity insane or not?

Yes, Yes it is, just look at all the Scientists. They are choosing the evil path.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Is beating a dead horse for eternity insane or not?

I don't think so, Creationism is beyond Darwin and we can be sure the ancients knew of evolutionary theories well before Darwin.

Originally posted by Beavis
I think our solar system mimics the way protons and neutrons make up a nucleus.

Please explain the similarity. I don't see any.
TIA

reply to post by laiguana

I never went off on a tangent. An atheist cannot believe in an afterlife. An afterlife would mean a spiritual world, and a spiritual world would mean that there are beings of higher power than us. A God is simply a being of higher power beyond our perception. Yes, you can not buy into any of the popular Earth religions and still believe in the soul/spirit or an afterlife. What you are describing is a spiritualist, not an atheist.

By the way, don't assume what I believe. I never said what my beliefs were. I just can't stand people that label other people are insane for believing in something that they can't wrap their narrow, biased mind around. And what really ticked me off about the OP is the true agenda - it's written by a social progressive looking to legislate away any thought that opposes their own. That kind of outlook is despicable.

reply to post by oozyism

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

Hey look, another post that insults both the intelligence of those posting on ATS and that of anyone with any level of reason.

Oozy, start contributing to conversations instead of trolling.

\

How about you stop dictating what this debate and mind your own business.

I'm not dictating anything, I'm simply pointing out trolling when I see it.

What's more, I'm a member of ATS and I'm posting in this thread, so it is most assuredly my business.

I can post what ever I like, as long as it is on TOPIC.

How is the following from you on the topic of whether or not Creationism should be considered a sign of insanity?

Yup. make an Atheist Church, tell your followers to send Charity money for Atheistic cause (to prove that GOD doesn't exist), then that money will be TAX free

Theism is a belief DUUUH.

(Emphasis mine)

That last line is specifically a trolling statement. It adds nothing but animosity to the conversation.

If you want just Atheists agreeing with each other by humming from left to the write,

The common tactic I find from you of stuffing words in my mouth yet again!

I don't want that, I want reasoned discussion. If you think Creationism isn't insanity, please demonstrate that it is instead of making statements that are ludicrous and include pointless guttural sounds in an attempt to make the other side look stupid.

then next time just put that in the thread title, hence (Atheist only debate (about GOD)).

I'm sorry, but that is actually against my own personal morality. Excluding people from a debate is just as silly as trolling a conversation that you have nothing to add to.

reply to post by muzzleflash

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Atheism and Theism are faith based religions.

Neither atheism or theism are religions, they're single positions on a single question.
The question is "Do I believe in any deity?"
The theist says "I do believe in a deity!" or "I do believe in multiple deities!"
The atheist says "I do not believe in any deity."

The atheist rejects all claims of deities based upon a lack of evidence or based upon possible evidence against specific or all deities.

The theist accepts one or more claims of deities without evidence.

Christianity is a theistic religion. Islam is a theistic religion.

Neither has proof either way, but they believe anyways.

Atheism is a skeptical position based on a lack of proof for the claim "There is one or more deity". It doesn't require proof.

Just like the claim "I don't believe that the invisible pink unicorn is with the Flying Spaghetti Monster having a tea party using Russel's teapot" doesn't require evidence if there is no evidence for the assertion that such a tea party is occurring.

So yes, I would say that both are signs of self-delusion.

They're the only positions one can have. You either believe or you do not.

But, the most insane thing of all, obviously, is to post a thread with the words "Creationism" in the title. It goes downhill real quick.

Yes, with random posts made out of ignorance, like this one.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Atheism and Theism are faith based religions.

Athiesm is lack of faith..just going with the facts as currently understood. As more facts come in, the picture will undoubtably change.
how is that faith? the facts are carefully vetted before even put up for consideration.
anyone using "faith" in any part of the process is quickly ridiculed and cast out of the field.

Neither has proof either way, but they believe anyways.

There is mountains of evidence...peer reviewed, well documented and examined evidence. 150 years of evidence from across the globe and a consensus from the entire scientific community...
show me a shred of evidence for any religion worldwide to back up their claims.

So yes, I would say that both are signs of self-delusion.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

But, the most insane thing of all, obviously, is to post a thread with the words "Creationism" in the title. It goes downhill real quick.

ignoring the subject will not make it go away. its time the primitive superstitions get challenged and hopefully in time, abandoned for fact and reason.

Is beating a dead horse for eternity insane or not?

in a court of law, plaintiffs will say one thing. defense will say something different. the debate will rage on, evidence shown for their claims, and eventually, the sides will rest. The jury will look at the evidence and make a ruling.

the jury in this case is the person being quiet and listening to both sides..listening to the rationale of each, and will determine which one is the truth of the matter, and which one is nonsense with no backing.

reply to post by muzzleflash

Atheism and Theism are faith based religions.

1) What does that have to do with Evolution and Creationism?

2) Atheism is a lack of belief, it does not require faith to lack belief in something. When someone doesn't believe in Santa Claus you wouldn't say they have faith that Santa Claus does not exist, no, they LACK faith in the existence of Santa.

Neither has proof either way

You don't need evidence to disbelieve and disproving something entirely is nigh impossible. Atheism makes no claim to know for sure whether god(s) exist, it is merely a lack of belief in god(s). Again I don't need evidence to tell me not to believe in Santa, or fairies, my disbelief comes from the complete lack of evidence in their favor. If the ones making the claim cannot meet the burden of proof or provide evidence than I will not believe in what they are claiming. Atheism is a rational and skeptical point of view. This goes the same for everything from Unicorns to Aliens, if someone makes a claim that these things exist and can provide no evidence than I'm not going to believe, that doesn't mean becoming close minded or dogmatic and in fact requires staying open to new evidence.

So if you're going to continue down this line of thought I want you to offer proof that fairies don't exist. If not I'm going to accuse you of self-delusion

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
reply to post by laiguana

 

I never went off on a tangent. An atheist cannot believe in an afterlife.

An athiest can believe in unicorns as a person. They however will not put their belief as a truth. I believe in extraterrestrials, however, there is no proof, and so I am skeptical about any and all claims of extraterrestrials until it is vetted properly. I do not want it taught in schools as anything more than a concept if at all, and I do not want government funding with my tax dollars, or tax exemptions, for any place that is trying to spread the alien messages.

An afterlife would mean a spiritual world,

Why would it mean that? I can off the top of my head think of alternatives.
1)Existance after death: you woke from an elaborate game..all of this is simply a very convincing holodeck program mmorpg

2) Existance after death: We are actually a highly advanced race that have over millions of years, reduced our size down to something the size of a few nanometers that attach ourselves to these exceptionally primitive animals called humans for fun..death of the species and we are back in our original nano form...and will attach ourselves to another fetus down the line if we want for fun or whatever.

Point is, I can speculate about a ton of stuff...entertaining one concept does not mean you rigidly have to accept everything someone else said about it by default...matter of fact, such "spiritual world" thinking makes little sense overall.

and a spiritual world would mean that there are beings of higher power than us. A God is simply a being of higher power beyond our perception. Yes, you can not buy into any of the popular Earth religions and still believe in the soul/spirit or an afterlife. What you are describing is a spiritualist, not an atheist.

I have no problem accepting the possibility of a higher life form as we are higher life forms to chickens and bugs...as a matter of fact, I would find a universe with no higher life form beyond man to be absurd...hell, that concept alone, if found to be true, would have me believing in a God...because of just how unlikely a empty universe would be.
a spiritualistic claim can mean anything...ultimately, its subjective. Some spiritualists will believe in almost any new age nonsense spouted out by every flea market hack psychic, and others may be athiests whom only wish to quiet their mind and find a greater self purpose in their life beyond tomorrows meal...a desire for a personally created design and fate.

I just can't stand people that label other people are insane for believing in something

Read again..I didnt say "creationists" are insane...I asked if "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity. like licking windows, or self mutiliation..warning signs. Doesn't mean that a creationist is insane, nor does it mean that anyone whom is not a creationist is not insane.

that they can't wrap their narrow, biased mind around.

I have no problem wrapping my mind around anything a creationist says. I have no problem wrapping my mind around any creative thinking exercise. Understanding is one thing, accepting is another. I can also understand why a serial killer kills if presented with the psychological reasonings..but that doesn't mean I find the reasoning valid or acceptable.

And what really ticked me off about the OP is the true agenda -

Sweet...I have a true agenda. Cant wait to see what it is...

it's written by a social progressive looking to legislate away any thought that opposes their own.

Bah, you brought politics into it...fail.
incidently, its amusing..you get grumpy that I may have labelled someone something (incorrect), but then you "label" me a progressive liberal (I am, but that has little to do with the topic at hand beyond...you not liking progressive liberal outlooks obviously).
Irony...how sweet it is.

That kind of outlook is despicable.

Glad your judging my outlook on things. I likewise judge yours as simple.


Add/Edit: Above I said an athiest can believe in things...slightly poor wording. athiesm is a lack of belief...but an athiest can believe in the possibility of...or entertain the notion of. meh..semantics

reply to post by SaturnFX

You can either believe a supreme being came to earth and created us in His image or you can believe that there was a sudden big bang from colliding membranes of different universes with different universal laws... point is both ideas are insane

Personally I believe there was another way, but that would be too great for a simple human mind to comprehend as there would have to have been a time before time, which is impossible...so I'll read my Bible lol

ETA: with linear thinking both ideas are insane, but there is just no way to understand the universe

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
reply to post by laiguana

 

I never went off on a tangent. An atheist cannot believe in an afterlife. An afterlife would mean a spiritual world, and a spiritual world would mean that there are beings of higher power than us.

I'm sorry, but an afterlife would require a spiritual world? How is that a given?

And how would a spiritual world require that there are beings of a higher power?

And how would beings of a higher power classify as gods?

You're automatically ruling out so many possibilities here:
Reincarnation without deities
Spiritual worlds without deities
Naturalistic afterlifes

A God is simply a being of higher power beyond our perception.

Evidence please.

Yes, you can not buy into any of the popular Earth religions and still believe in the soul/spirit or an afterlife. What you are describing is a spiritualist, not an atheist.

A spiritualist can be an atheist. Atheism is no gods, not no spirits.

By the way, don't assume what I believe. I never said what my beliefs were.

Alright then, what is your belief on this issue?

I just can't stand people that label other people are insane for believing in something that they can't wrap their narrow, biased mind around.

...it's not insane because we can't wrap our heads around it, it's insane because it contradicts reality.

And what really ticked me off about the OP is the true agenda - it's written by a social progressive looking to legislate away any thought that opposes their own.

What? Wow, you're definitely the one with the agenda here, the OP isn't about legislating away thought that opposes a personal position, this would be about legislating away deliberate lies.

Creationism is dependent upon deliberate lies, making it illegal to teach deliberate lies in the classroom would be a benefit to all.

That kind of outlook is despicable.

So is the outlook that labels people's politics based on a single post

reply to post by kykweer

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

You can either believe a supreme being came to earth and created us in His image or you can believe that there was a sudden big bang from colliding membranes of different universes with different universal laws...

Wow, false dilemma much?

There are myriad explanations for the origin of the universe in science, though the big bang part is certain. M theory isn't the only one.

Also, there are like...dozens upon dozens of other religious explanations.

point is both ideas are insane

Nope, the scientific idea is based upon some level of evidence.

Personally I believe there was another way, but that would be too great for a simple human mind to comprehend as there would have to have been a time before time, which is impossible...so I'll read my Bible lol

...so...it must be different because of my personal beliefs that I cannot back up with evidence.... so I'll accept a non-evidence based solution.

ETA: with linear thinking both ideas are insane,

Shall I ask what Edward De Bono thinks of it? He's a professor at my University, he's the one that came up with the concept of lateral thinking.

but there is just no way to understand the universe

There is a way to understand the universe, it's called the scientific method.