Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Wow guy, you need to chill, you seem awfully wound up! lol

About M-Theory I wasn't implying that it is the alpha dog theory. Obviously there are countless theories and even though M-theory is already very old. I also wans't implying that M-theory is BS, as i welcome all Evolutionary theories, as i can't prove them wrong, and I find it interesting.

I am not a physicist, but as an engineer I too consider naturals laws of physics, I'm not implying that science is fake or anything, I'm also not implying that my beliefs are fact and provable.

I still believe that both theories are insane, BECAUSE it involves a timeline that would be unexplainable and uncomprehendable... I simply can't explain it (the theory I have in my head)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by kykweer
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.

No matter the theory, don't they all, (well the one's i have researched) involve a linear timeline? Wherby a lead to b and b lead to c... but that's what I know, you seem quite knowledgable, so maybe you could teach me something, afterall I'm here to learn and maybe i can expand my theory, but I believe in other possibilities, for if the big bang was absolute fact there would be no LHC.

reply to post by kykweer

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Wow guy, you need to chill, you seem awfully wound up! lol

Nope, I'm just precise.

About M-Theory I wasn't implying that it is the alpha dog theory. Obviously there are countless theories and even though M-theory is already very old. I also wans't implying that M-theory is BS,

Well, here's the thing, you sort of set up a false dilemma.

as i welcome all Evolutionary theories, as i can't prove them wrong, and I find it interesting.

...you can easily prove Lamarck's ideas of evolution wrong. It's actually quite easy to point out when theories are wrong.

I am not a physicist, but as an engineer I too consider naturals laws of physics, I'm not implying that science is fake or anything, I'm also not implying that my beliefs are fact and provable.

Well, science is about fact and provability.

I still believe that both theories are insane, BECAUSE it involves a timeline that would be unexplainable and uncomprehendable...

No, the timeline for the universe is about 14ish billion years. It's huge, but I just quantified it.

Again, not insane. Quite sane and based on numbers.

I simply can't explain it (the theory I have in my head)

Then try harder.

No matter the theory, don't they all, (well the one's i have researched) involve a linear timeline?

More or less. There's nothing to show that time isn't linear.

Wherby a lead to b and b lead to c... but that's what I know, you seem quite knowledgable, so maybe you could teach me something, afterall I'm here to learn

and maybe i can expand my theory,

Well, I'm hoping we can teach each other some things. But there's nothing to show that time isn't linear.

but I believe in other possibilities, for if the big bang was absolute fact there would be no LHC.

...um...no, the LHC has nothing to do with the Big Bang....here's a list of questions it seeks to answer:

Is the Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses via electroweak symmetry breaking indeed realised in nature?[14] It is anticipated that the collider will either demonstrate or rule out the existence of the elusive Higgs boson(s), completing (or refuting) the Standard Model.[15][16][17]
Is supersymmetry, an extension of the Standard Model and Poincaré symmetry, realised in nature, implying that all known particles have supersymmetric partners?[18][19][20]
Are there extra dimensions,[21] as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we detect them?[22]
What is the nature of the Dark Matter which appears to account for 23% of the energy density of the Universe?


Are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force just different manifestations of a single unified force, as predicted by various Grand Unification Theories?
Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces? See also Hierarchy problem.
Are there additional sources of quark flavour mixing, beyond those already predicted within the Standard Model?
Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter? See also CP violation.
What was the nature of the quark-gluon plasma in the early universe? This will be investigated by heavy ion collisions in ALICE.

Source (contains citations)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by kykweer

 

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Wow guy, you need to chill, you seem awfully wound up! lol

Nope, I'm just precise.

Again you seem awfully uptight, maybe you need a drink or to get out of the house for a walk or something?

About M-Theory I wasn't implying that it is the alpha dog theory. Obviously there are countless theories and even though M-theory is already very old. I also wans't implying that M-theory is BS,

Well, here's the thing, you sort of set up a false dilemma.

No I'm not, It's either evolution or creation, obviously both are a part of even wider fields that include numerous different theories and possibilities, sorry if i offended you, but the main debate is about big bang or creation, is it no?

as i welcome all Evolutionary theories, as i can't prove them wrong, and I find it interesting.

...you can easily prove Lamarck's ideas of evolution wrong. It's actually quite easy to point out when theories are wrong.

Theories take years to be published as you well know, unfortunately to get mainstream aproval, its not about your content as much as it is it is the way it is carried over to the public and the scientific community

I am sure that if i went on you tube or searched the internet i would find different theories everyday, there would be different branches of theories as well, is it not?

I am not a physicist, but as an engineer I too consider naturals laws of physics, I'm not implying that science is fake or anything, I'm also not implying that my beliefs are fact and provable.

Well, science is about fact and provability.

Science has never been able to answer philosophical questions, like where we come from, has it, has scinece proved why you exist and why there is certain scientific laws?

I still believe that both theories are insane, BECAUSE it involves a timeline that would be unexplainable and uncomprehendable...

No, the timeline for the universe is about 14ish billion years. It's huge, but I just quantified it.

Again, not insane. Quite sane and based on numbers.

It s still insane and imaginative for if the theory of the big bang-big crunch-big bang, we are looking at a timeline of infinity, as he timeline of our universe might be 14ish billion years it doesn't take into acount the timeline preceding the universe. and the timeline preceding the cause of the big bang. For the ultimate question is how did the big bang start, so there had to be a cause. and preceding that, in the search for the "ultimate question" you will go back to and indefinate timeline to find a cause of the cause of the cause.

I simply can't explain it (the theory I have in my head)

Then try harder.

Do you have a dog or something? A mans best friend.

No matter the theory, don't they all, (well the one's i have researched) involve a linear timeline?

More or less. There's nothing to show that time isn't linear.

So time is infinate, which should create a paradox? You seem to know everything

Wherby a lead to b and b lead to c... but that's what I know, you seem quite knowledgable, so maybe you could teach me something, afterall I'm here to learn

and maybe i can expand my theory,

Well, I'm hoping we can teach each other some things. But there's nothing to show that time isn't linear.

If you were going to reply to an extraction of a quote why just not quote the extraction?

but I believe in other possibilities, for if the big bang was absolute fact there would be no LHC.

...um...no, the LHC has nothing to do with the Big Bang....here's a list of questions it seeks to answer:

Is the Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses via electroweak symmetry breaking indeed realised in nature?[14] It is anticipated that the collider will either demonstrate or rule out the existence of the elusive Higgs boson(s), completing (or refuting) the Standard Model.[15][16][17]
Is supersymmetry, an extension of the Standard Model and Poincaré symmetry, realised in nature, implying that all known particles have supersymmetric partners?[18][19][20]
Are there extra dimensions,[21] as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we detect them?[22]
What is the nature of the Dark Matter which appears to account for 23% of the energy density of the Universe?


Are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force just different manifestations of a single unified force, as predicted by various Grand Unification Theories?
Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces? See also Hierarchy problem.
Are there additional sources of quark flavour mixing, beyond those already predicted within the Standard Model?
Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter? See also CP violation.
What was the nature of the quark-gluon plasma in the early universe? This will be investigated by heavy ion collisions in ALICE.

Source (contains citations)

Thank you, obviously as you stated, the LHC isn't solely to support all theories of the big bang, but in the standard model there is a beter way of understanding the big bangm not?

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

 

Creationism will never pass the test of science, just like science will never pass the test of Bible.

You believe in Science, other believe in the Bible, don't act like you are superior to them/

You are exceptionally gifted at completely missing the point. Is this an acquired talent, or has it been with you since birth?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I should have said that something cannot evolve unless it is first created. So even if something can evolve itself by "randomness", and I highly doubt it, it still brings us to creationism reigning supreme over evolution.

Lets just say you need a spark to start a fire, after you collect the firewood/fuel/weeds/lighters/etc. I have no idea if its alien intervention or whatever....that remains to be proven one way or another but I am not holding my breath!

I agree with you here. I don't believe humans were one day suddenly created, but the big bang had to come from somewhere (like created from another dimension). Unless the universe is infinitely old and just going through cycles.

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... point is both ideas are insane

Well thats not quite right, you mean a supreme being created the heavens and the earth then created humans in his own image ?

or you mean that there was Nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs ?

Originally posted by kykweer
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Wow guy, you need to chill, you seem awfully wound up! lol

Hey, I just felt the need to pop a word in here edgewise...will let you two go back to a fairly entertaining session of paddleball after.

But, I see him using unyeilding logic in the face of emotional and false information being pushed out. If you read through the last several pages, you will notice, so long as you do not weigh in on the subject, one side being overly insulting and emotional, while the other side tends to simply call it out and give fairly deadpan answers.


I understand the desire for some to chirp in and simply say "Hey, nobody knows, so lets just hold hands", and for some circumstances, that is good to interject..typically this is like in a bar when a discussion becomes heated and the sides need to calm down before fists start flying...however, this is not one of those cases or places.

Being academically apathetic is overall a disservice to the civilization. Caving in and saying "nobody knows" will not progress anything. Imagine if the nobody knows defense was used in a court system whenever one side became emotionally compromised.

Too often, people back down on rational discussions due to fear that someones feelings are gettting hurt..and in turn, this stops any further discussion in a area..and produces no change.
The easiest thing to do is simply see a debate going on, and without reading...judge neither side to be correct and move on. Its lazy, its judgemental, it makes the person saying that "better" than the sides of the discussion (you see that in politics around here all the time...their true side screws up, so they simply say both sides are the same verses say..wow, I am pretty disillusioned about my side at the moment..intellectual honesty is very hard to come across)

anyhow...carry on.

reply to post by kykweer

Originally posted by kykweer
Again you seem awfully uptight, maybe you need a drink or to get out of the house for a walk or something?

Nope, not uptight at all. I just have an eye for precision in argument.

About M-Theory I wasn't implying that it is the alpha dog theory. Obviously there are countless theories and even though M-theory is already very old. I also wans't implying that M-theory is BS,

Well, here's the thing, you sort of set up a false dilemma.

No I'm not, It's either evolution or creation, obviously both are a part of even wider fields that include numerous different theories and possibilities, sorry if i offended you, but the main debate is about big bang or creation, is it no?

...you're switching fields of science.

Big bang theory is a theory of cosmology.
Evolution is a theory of biology.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not does nothing to impact the validity of the big bang theory.
Whether the big bang theory is true or not does nothing to impact the validity of evolution.

Evolution concerns a single issue, biodiversity. Where the biological organisms came from doesn't matter. Where the planet those organisms live on came from doesn't matter. Where the universe that planet resides in came from doesn't matter.

Creationism, on the other hand, concerns itself with overturning a very large portion of established science, though this portion is dependent on which strain of creationism you believe in and which religion the vreationist happens to subscribe to.

Theories take years to be published as you well know, unfortunately to get mainstream aproval, its not about your content as much as it is it is the way it is carried over to the public and the scientific community

No, to get mainstream approval you need evidence and proper analysis. It's always about content, not about delivery. Hell, read some scientific papers sometime. They're rarely very interesting.

I am sure that if i went on you tube or searched the internet i would find different theories everyday, there would be different branches of theories as well, is it not?

But most of these aren't 'theories' they're 'random conjectures made by people on the internet'.

Theories are supported by data.

Science has never been able to answer philosophical questions,

Because that's not the point of science. Science answers scientific questions like how things work.

like where we come from,

Well, science did tackle this one...

You see, when a man and a woman get a certain physical urge....

has it, has scinece proved why you exist and why there is certain scientific laws?

Well, it's actually working on natural laws with current theories related to astrophysics.

As for why I exist? Well, I exist because of a string of events occurring that eventually led to the...and I shudder to say this...copulation of my parents.

It s still insane and imaginative for if the theory of the big bang-big crunch-big bang, we are looking at a timeline of infinity, as he timeline of our universe might be 14ish billion years it doesn't take into acount the timeline preceding the universe.

Well, we're not sure if it's bang-crunch repeat.
Even if it was, we have no way of knowing if each universe created through this process has the same natural laws and dimensions.
We don't even know if those universes have time.

and the timeline preceding the cause of the big bang.

Time might not even be an issue.

But again, this has nothing to do with insanity, this is all stuff that's being reasoned out.

For the ultimate question is how did the big bang start, so there had to be a cause. and preceding that, in the search for the "ultimate question" you will go back to and indefinate timeline to find a cause of the cause of the cause.

Not necessarily. You're simply stating that there must be infinite regress.

Do you have a dog or something? A mans best friend.

I was simply urging you to find a way to express yourself. 'Try harder' is normally the best way to achieve self-expression.

No matter the theory, don't they all, (well the one's i have researched) involve a linear timeline?

More or less. There's nothing to show that time isn't linear.

So time is infinate, which should create a paradox? You seem to know everything

...no, time is linear. I never said time is infinite.

If you were going to reply to an extraction of a quote why just not quote the extraction?

Because I already referenced the linear nature of time and didn't want to snip anything from your post and forgot to reformat things so that the first part of that was with the rest of the question concerning the linear nature of time.

My bad.

Thank you, obviously as you stated, the LHC isn't solely to support all theories of the big bang,

...what? I just posted every single question the LHC means to answer, none of which involves big bang cosmology.

Please, look at that list of questions again, please show me one where the LHC aims to speak about the big bang.
Please show me a single credible source that says that LHC's experiments have anything to do with big bang cosmology.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Big bang theory is a theory of cosmology.
Evolution is a theory of biology.

but Cosmology is the theory of the Evolution of the universe and galaxies.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


It could be phrased that way but biological evolution and cosmic evolution are not the same thing. Life on this planet started about 3.7 Billion years ago, the Universe was already ten billion years old at that time, so clearly the Big Bang is pretty far removed from biological evolution.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

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.

I already proved Atheism fits the description of insanity more so than Creationism.

Creationism is the norm, Atheists are an extreme minority considering world population.

If you are violating the norm, you are regarded as insane. At least that is one of the definitions of insanity.

Insanity is not a medical term, and doesn't exist in the medical dictionary, in that sense, I don't know what the OP is trying to prove.

He should use a more appropriate word.

[The above is an example of on-topic discussion]

reply to post by oozyism

Originally posted by oozyism
I already proved Atheism fits the description of insanity more so than Creationism.

As with so many claims, like the claim that you prove creationism, you didn't.

Creationism is the norm, Atheists are an extreme minority considering world population.

Sanity isn't decided by population statistics, it's decided by how you act.

Also, creationism is not the norm in a lot of places. Belief in evolution while being theistic is far more normal in many, many places.

If you are violating the norm, you are regarded as insane.

Or you're regarded as 'atypical'.
Wow, you're combining psychology with sociology in an attempt to classify anyone who isn't in a majority position as insane.

At least that is one of the definitions of insanity.

Like so many of your arguments, this is yet another one that rests on a ridiculous use of definitions.

Insanity is not a medical term, and doesn't exist in the medical dictionary, in that sense, I don't know what the OP is trying to prove.

Insanity exists as a legal term. The OP is making a legal point.

He should use a more appropriate word.

Not really. Many creationists, such as Kent Hovind or Ken Hamm or ...well, the entirety of the Discovery Institute or AnswersinGenesis could be legally defined as insane through their actions.

[The above is an example of on-topic discussion]

Hey, you got one right.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Sort of what Skull said.

To add just a bit of elaboration. The use of the term 'evolution' with regards to stellar bodies or the universe is to use it metaphorically.

Evolution relates solely to biological organisms that reproduce.

If it doesn't reproduce, it doesn't evolve.

reply to post by oozyism


Based on the Oxford English Dictionary, insane can be defined as:

2. Of actions (also colloq. of things): Mad, idiotic, utterly senseless, irrational.

.

Furthermore, I would point out that the wikipedia article you linked suggested that insanity might manifest as deviation from established social norms - that is to say, deviation from established social norms may be a sign of insanity, but is not in any way treated as a definition of insanity. Biting fingernails is one possible manifestation of insanity, as well, as is talking to invisible friends or hearing voices.

The point is, being a manifestation and being a definition are two quite different things.

EDIT: To put manifestation and definition in a different context, God manifests himself in a number of ways in the old testament, and at one point appeared as a burning bush. However, you would not define God as a burning bush, would you? Or assume that all burning bushes are God?

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

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.

I already proved Atheism fits the description of insanity more so than Creationism.

The only thing you proved is you have an inadequate understanding of the english language.

Merrimam-Webster

INSANITY
1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

Dictionary.reference.com Reference

in·san·i·ty   /ɪnˈsænɪti/ Show Spelled
[in-san-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.
2. Law . such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity.
3. Psychiatry . (formerly) psychosis.
4. extreme folly; senselessness; foolhardiness.

Your "proof" that insanity = going against society norm would also, as I said, make men collectively insane because they urinate standing up, which statistically is the minority.
Also insane: Wearing skirts

Finally, take any one religion..take a single flavor..lets use an example of Roman Catholic.
Guess what...the majority of society is -not- roman catholic..therefore, anyone whom is going to a roman catholic church is doing something that is going against the collective society norm. This works for any individual religion..however, one thing that is actually the norm is for athiests universally do -not- go to church on sundays..therefore, any one religion, by -your-(not wiki's) definition of insanity, is...insane
Tada..
Love circular arguments based on nonsense.

Creationism is the norm, Atheists are an extreme minority considering world population.

So is above average intelligence.

If you are violating the norm, you are regarded as insane. At least that is one of the definitions of insanity.

it is not a definition of insanity in the same way coughing is not the definition of ebola. it may be a symptom. What Wiki was stating about it in context is simple. manifestations of behavior against society norms...aka, talking to a toaster, eating feces while screaming at plants for being nazi robots, etc...
Most actions by -everyone on earth- are typically against a statistical norm...watching that super popular show is not the average. hell, watching the superbowl is also a minority.
Voting is statistically not the majority action.

Your understanding of the definition is either completely lacking, or you are willfully and purposefully pushing forward a lie
So which one are you, ignorant or a liar? thats the only two options.

Insanity is not a medical term, and doesn't exist in the medical dictionary, in that sense, I don't know what the OP is trying to prove.

Medline Plus Source

Main Entry: in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: in-ˈsan-ət-ē
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·san·i·ties
1 : a severely disordered state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as paranoid schizophrenia)
2 : unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility

He should use a more appropriate word.

My word is correct...I understand the english language, and I know the difference between a manifestion of something, and the definition of something.

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by oozyism

 

Based on the Oxford English Dictionary, insane can be defined as:

2. Of actions (also colloq. of things): Mad, idiotic, utterly senseless, irrational.

.

Furthermore, I would point out that the wikipedia article you linked suggested that insanity might manifest as deviation from established social norms - that is to say, deviation from established social norms may be a sign of insanity,

That was pointed out already repeatedly to him.
He doesn't respond...he truely does not know what the word manifestation is..or...well, or he is flat out lying.

I would think a person whom willfully and repeatedly lies, even in the face of absolute proof, should be banned at ATS...as it goes against their core manifesto...aka, Deny Ignorance.

Spreading it knowingly...well, to me, that seems to go completely against the agenda of the website.

WOWW.

Gentlemen, I propose giving no more credence to any argument that Oozyism makes.

Mainly because I am not sure he really grasps the arguments he is making, or trying to make.

He is using two fallacy arguments known as Straw Man and Ad Hominem arguments.

Straw Man fallacy:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Example:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed

Source


Now for Ad Hominem:

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

Example:

* "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
* "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Source

These are just two fallacies that are being used.(probably unknowingly)
You can see them in Action in his own work. HERE

Either he is being willfully ignorant, or he simply doesn't know enough about what he's talking about to have his own educated opinion. (I do not mean this as an insult, it just appears that his arguments are poorly formed, showing a lack of command of the material)
However, if we are just sharpening our collective debating skills on an opponent. Proceed.

Oozyism,
Are the arguments that you are presenting, from somewhere?
Like another person? A professor? A friend? A book? etc.

Can you provide an argument based on any source? Not personal attacks?
What are your sources? Can you quote them?
Can you also please present in your case for Creationism concise and clear ideas, so others who read your ideasopinions can easily understand?

And if possible base these answers base in fact not supposition.

Fact:

–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Source

Supposition:

–noun 1. the act of supposing.
2. something that is supposed; assumption; hypothesis.

Source

Thanks everyone.
Deny Ignorance.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Main Entry: in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: in-ˈsan-ət-ē
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·san·i·ties
1 : a severely disordered state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as paranoid schizophrenia)
2 : unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility

See how it uses the word mind, rather than brain

I already stated problem with mind is one of the definitions.

But

Scientifically speaking, What empirical evidence is there for mind, how can mind have a disorder?

I thought Atheists don't believe in mind??

Why does Wikileak (Wikipedia I mean ) say the word insanity is avoided in the medical profession? Why is that? Why is it avoided? Maybe because the word is vague and it can apply to Atheists also

reply to post by oozyism


The reason that it uses the term Mind instead of Brain is simple enough.

Brain and mind
See also: Philosophies of mind
Understanding the relationship between the brain and the mind is a challenging problem both philosophically and scientifically.[83] The most straightforward scientific evidence that there is a strong relationship between the physical brain matter and the mind is the impact physical alterations to the brain have on the mind, such as with traumatic brain injury and psychoactive drug use.[84]

Source

With this in mind(pun not intended), Insanity is an effect to the mind, not necessarily something affecting the brain. Insanity can be contained solely in the psyche.
However some forms of "Insanity" are because of neurochemical issues in the brain, such as some forms of Schizophrenia.

Scientifically speaking, What empirical evidence is there for mind, how can mind have a disorder?

The Science, which is admittedly relatively new as far as Sciences are concerned, is known as Psychology.

I thought Atheists don't believe in mind??

This has already been stated to you before and you are using straw man fallacies to ask a question that has already been answered.
For the sake of repetition.
ATHEISM

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2]

Source

Why does Wikileak say the word insanity is avoided in the medical profession? Why is that? Why is it avoided? Maybe because the word is vague and it can apply to Atheists also

Wikileaks is HARDLY a reputable source for MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE.
An educated guess, however, would be they stay away from the term to be Politically Correct.
Ask a medical professional. Not wikileaks.
Deny Ignorance.