Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

reply to post by TruthAboveIgnorance


So I'm right that the idea of mind has not been proven empirically, for an Atheist who rejects the idea of a creator solely due to the absense of empirical evidence and then believe in mind with the absense of empirical evidence is insane

and my argument that medics avoid the term insanity still stands. The word is immensely vague.

reply to post by oozyism


You obviously did not read carefully what I posted in response to your questions. Which you have just RE asked.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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.

ok I will agree to that but it would seem Cosmology uses the same principles, only it's missing link would be the explanation of the 'Big Bang' There is always the theory of Panspermia which is based very much so in biology. Quantum Physics would have you look at a neutron star as an individual atom...

All in all it's just another branch of Darwin tree to me.

Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary discs. If met with ideal conditions on the new planets' surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by kykweer
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.

It's entirely up to you. For the rest of us who do research and engineering, there is scientific method that does involve quite a bit of proof. If your method doesn't, I wouldn't risk crossing a bridge you built. Phew.

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

That's entirely your personal problem hence irrelevant.

for if the big bang was absolute fact there would be no LHC.

As a person who just came back from a work week at the LHC, I say "bull".

The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the construction, operation and motivation for the LHC. The heavy ion program does attempt to study conditions that existed some time after the hypothetical Big Bang, but this is not consequential or salient as far as the LHC is concerned. Do your homework.

reply to post by oozyism


It uses the term mind because it is a dictionary directed towards the general population. To most people brain and mind are interchangeable words. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that the editors of the dictionary are any more up to date on current psychological research than anyone else outside the field.

The reason why the word insanity is not used by the medical profession is because it has always been a legal term. Every profession has their own jargon and insanity is legal jargon. Not to mention that the term insanity has a stigma associated with it and has taken on a pejorative context. Therefore, if you are in a profession devoted to easing psychological suffering you are not going to insult your patient.

I'm going to be honest, this game of you arguing semantics is becoming tiresome. It shows that you cannot actually argue your position with facts and instead must nitpick over the words other posters have used in order to maintain your ground.

Now, if we go with the legal definition of insanity, teaching Creationism as science could be seen as a sign of insanity. It is in a sense doing harm to the children by tainting their education with unverifiable information presented as scientific fact and the one's doing the teaching show no remorse or any indication that what they did was wrong. Under the M'Naughten Rules, which are the basis for insanity defenses in the US and UK, a person is deemed not guilty by reason of insanity if the accused did not their know their actions were wrong due to mental disease or defect.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


after all Evolution is just a Theory too.. it is not proven fact and requires faith from the individual.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by TruthAboveIgnorance

 

So I'm right that the idea of mind has not been proven empirically, for an Atheist who rejects the idea of a creator solely due to the absense of empirical evidence and then believe in mind with the absense of empirical evidence is insane

and my argument that medics avoid the term insanity still stands. The word is immensely vague.

The mind.
Mind if I take a stab at it -har har har-
I actually think in this case, wiki sums it up nicely:

Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason

Without going into a massively in depth discussion of mechanics still under investigation by psychologists, neurologists, and a handful of other fields, lets just say that the mind is ultimately the sum of a persons personality.

The philosophical debate of what a mind is was going on in ancient greece. Since you can never actually solve a issue through psychological debate, then we must wait for the science behind it to create a clear picture.
The field is still young, but month by month, we are learning far more about the brain than ever before. One day, we may find out exactly how ID and EGO is formed biologically (and no doubt that will trigger some fascinating work in artificial intelligence..and cause alot of concern and excitment for new drugs that can fundamentally change your personality, aka mind, by a simple treatment...but thats getting off the point.

Hopefully that made sense to you. (even if it did, I know your too proud to admit learning something...but meh, people can change their mind and admit when they have gained a bit of knowledge.)

reply to post by Xcalibur254


1. Are you suggesting Mind is Brain? and Brain is Mind?

2. Are you suggesting insanity is not a vague word which cannot mean multiple things, as I pointed out, that insanity can also mean violating cultural norm.

3. Are you suggesting Creationists wanting to teach their kids their own version of truth is insanity, but Atheists wanting to teach their own version of truth is not insanity?

I accept that teaching unscientific information as science is stupid, but that doesn't mean it is insanity. Everyone has a sense of stupidity in them, that doesn't mean they are insane.

By this definition most of the world is insane, except the person who is throwing the insanity accusation and his followers.

Reminds me of fanatics who call non-believers insane for not believe in GOD.

reply to post by Kailassa

I am reliably informed that Allah doesn't like it either.

A former advertising colleague in the Middle East told me so after he'd gone the fundie route. Didn't recognize him when he walked into the place where we'd arranged to meet: he had the Stygian robes and turban, the beard down to the sternum, the obligatory wall-eyed look and all the other trimmings of the Islamist fanatic. And to think he'd been a useful rugby player once.

I was fascinated by the transformation, so he was kind enough to describe for me his new life in some detail. Among other things, he told me he no longer stood up to urinate because it was offensive in the sight of Allah. He also told me, in all seriousness, that 'the toilet is Satan's favourite hang-out spot' and one should alway pray before going, as well as immediately afterwards, to ward off possible attacks (on what?) by the Evil One.

It's worth recalling that exposing one's penis to a fellow-male is a status/threat display among some primates. Jaweh/Allah, the ultimate macho male, isn't going to tolerate that kind of affront from his social inferiors.

The converse of penis display is, of course, the submission gesture of kneeling, hindquarters upthrust, to be symbolically mounted and violated by the victor in the contest. It was, perhaps, a bit wicked of the militantly atheistic Christopher Hitchens to describe the Muslim prayer posture thus: 'buttocks proferred to the empty, unfeeling sky in the most ancient gesture of submission and resignation.' Source

reply to post by SaturnFX


Why can't you just accept you are wrong.

Mind hasn't been proven empirically

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


As has been stated time and again in this thread, the scientific definition of theory is different from the colloquial version. The scientific version is applied to a hypothesis that has accurately and consistently predicted real world phenomena. Other things that are labeled theory: gravity, electronics, and germ. Knowing this would you say that the fact that you are securely attached to the ground, or that you are using a computer, or that illnesses are caused by tiny microbes are just theories?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by oozyism

 

It uses the term mind because it is a dictionary directed towards the general population. To most people brain and mind are interchangeable words. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely that the editors of the dictionary are any more up to date on current psychological research than anyone else outside the field.

The reason why the word insanity is not used by the medical profession is because it has always been a legal term. Every profession has their own jargon and insanity is legal jargon. Not to mention that the term insanity has a stigma associated with it and has taken on a pejorative context. Therefore, if you are in a profession devoted to easing psychological suffering you are not going to insult your patient.

Along with that, beyond a standard reference for a very general and sweeping catagorization...its ultimately meaningless..its similar to the word "sick"

If a doctor told me I was sick (no kidding, thats why I am here), My first response is "whats wrong with me"..
If he then responded that I have "sick" and many people die of being sick..I would wonder if I am actually talking to a doctor, or a patient...

insanity is the same...there are tons of catagories (bipolar, schitzo, mpd, clinical depression, etc) that fall under insanity...
insanity is also a very acute (general) form of mental illness.
Everyone has some slight mental illnesses...sort of makes us unique. When they are progressive breakdowns, then it is classified as mental illness..and when a person is trying to pluck their eyes out with a spoon to get to the golden center...its severe mental illness...or insanity.
At least that is how my friend/psychologist explained it in a nutshell

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Why can't you just accept you are wrong.

Mind hasn't been proven empirically

Why would I admit I am wrong to something I never said.

Correct, the mind is not empirically proven..nor has love..however, many processes of the brain is attributed to it.
as we know more, more will be revealed...

reply to post by oozyism


What I mean is that Mind is what the Brain does. Mind is generally used as a synonym for consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Thus Mind and Brain are not separate entities. Instead, the Mind is a function of the Brain.

As for insanity. All words have multiple meanings. Are we now going to state that all words are vague? The fact of the matter is you are nitpicking over semantics because you don't have a leg to stand on. As for that definition of insanity, it is actually very hard to label someone as insane. In this case however, impeding a child's learning by presenting falsehoods during a critical period could be seen as a form of child abuse, especially if it has a negative impact on the child's life. Now that we have identified the crime, we have to look at the defendant, in this case the ones teaching that Creationism is a valid branch of science. As I have stated previously, they show no remorse or acknowledge the fact that they are presenting an unfalsifiable religious belief as empirical science, and that it could potentially harm the child's development. Therefore, we just have to determine whether or not there is mental defect or disease.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Never thought an Atheist would use the GAP of KNOWLEDGE argument

Second line.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by oozyism

 

Thus Mind and Brain are not separate entities. Instead, the Mind is a function of the Brain.

That is not scientifically proven.

As for insanity. All words have multiple meanings. Are we now going to state that all words are vague? The fact of the matter is you are nitpicking over semantics because you don't have a leg to stand on. As for that definition of insanity, it is actually very hard to label someone as insane. In this case however, impeding a child's learning by presenting falsehoods during a critical period could be seen as a form of child abuse, especially if it has a negative impact on the child's life. Now that we have identified the crime, we have to look at the defendant, in this case the ones teaching that Creationism is a valid branch of science. As I have stated previously, they show no remorse or acknowledge the fact that they are presenting an unfalsifiable religious belief as empirical science, and that it could potentially harm the child's development. Therefore, we just have to determine whether or not there is mental defect or disease.

Yes all words have different meanings, but the OP should have been clear in to which definition of insanity it is using.

Keeping in mind that this is something new, hinting that Creationism is a sign of insanity, is something new, and therefore needs clarification regarding what definition of insanity it is using, so there can be a proper debate.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

after all Evolution is just a Theory too.. it is not proven fact and requires faith from the individual.

Please associate yourself with the way the word Theory works in science. I have a still image that I screenshotted from youtube user Aronra which I feel explains it well.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d851ab31c9ed.jpg[/atsimg]

Evolution would never be promoted from theory to fact or theory to truth because theory is about as good as it gets in science. A fact is just a piece of data while a theory often refers to an entire field of study or a unifying framework of ideas.

Also science is evidence based, when you have evidence for something you no longer require faith to believe it. It requires no faith to accept that the Earth is round because the evidence we have tells us its round. It takes no faith to accept that the Earth revolves around the sun because the evidence bears heliocentricity out. It takes no faith to accept that gradual genetic change (Evolution) is responsible for biodiversity because the evidence (genetics, fossils, etc) bears that out.

So you're about as wrong as can be.

Originally posted by oozyism
Keeping in mind that this is something new, hinting that Creationism is a sign of insanity, is something new, and therefore needs clarification regarding what definition of insanity it is using, so there can be a proper debate.

Simply put...

Creationists:
Are you lying purposefully, or do you have a mental illness that prevents facts from entering your skull.

I used the term correctly.

Add/Edit: If anything, you can accuse me, rightfully so, of leaving out other options...such as a physical condition of the brain that is not considered mental illness (damage to the brain), or they have some personal revelation that was quantified however they cannot produce the evidence for some reason (ET abducted me and showed me the secrets of the universe with absolute proof, then for a laugh, set me back down here with nothing to show for it)

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


theory and metaphor have alot in common it would seem.

but you and I will not be around long enough to prove your faith

reply to post by oozyism


If Brain and Mind are separate entities then the Mind is subservient to the Brain making a distinction between the two negligible. Let me give you two famous examples and then let's see if you can continue to uphold a dualistic stance.

First we have Phineas Gage. Mr. Gage was a foreman on a railroad construction project. One day while trying to blast through a mountain he suffered a most serious injury. He had a large iron rod puncture the side of his face, go behind his left eye, and come out the top of his head. Needless to say his brain suffered severe lesioning. Now, miraculously Gage survived his accident and at first he seemed find. After a few weeks though, Gage's friends and family began to notice a change. Before his accident Gage was a well-natured man of morals. Now however, he was quick to anger and had no regard for decorum and manners. He soon lost his job, friends, and house.

The next case taken from the annals of psychological history is that of H.M. Unfortunately for H.M. he began suffering from epilepsy around the age of 9. At the age of 16 the epilepsy became unmanageable and he sought out surgical treatment. The treatment ended up being the removal or part of his medial temporal lobe from both hemispheres of the brain. In a certain sense the treatment worked. H.M. stopped suffering from epilepsy. However, he now had a much bigger problem even if he didn't know it. Essentially the surgery left him unable to produce new memories. So, from the age of 16 to his death at the age of 82 H.M. was unable to produce any new memories.

Now, I specifically mentioned these two cases as they deal with key aspects of consciousness, these being personality and memory. In each of these cases the brain was damaged and the subject's consciousness was irreparably changed. So, please explain how the Mind and Brain are separate when even a small change in the brain can cause profound effects on one's consciousness?