ParanoiA

The burden of proof is NOT on them when you are the one accusing them of having a mental condition. This what I mean about including and excluding science on apparent whims. You're calling them mentally ill, then you invoke "science" to say they have to prove creationism to you. BS. The burden of evidence is on them if they want to include creationism as science. The burden is on them if they're trying to pursuade you to be a creationist. But the burden is on YOU when you say they have a mental disorder. You're the one making the statement, so you're the one who has to back it up - with proof. How about this? I think you're nuts. Now prove me wrong. By your logic, I don't have to do anything - you do. Good luck with that... Per the way god has been defined, he wouldn't "deliver" anyone from 10 feet of water. God also refuses to be tested. So you don't get to go outside yell at god and assume he doesn't exist because he didn't talk to you, or give you a sign, or do something horrible to your stepmother for you...

So, are you saying the tried and true proverbial "couch" isn't really used anymore? And is Jung considered a crackpot? Highly respected? Everytime I hear 46 & 2 I think of him. Funny, when I took an intro to psychology course I had fully expected a wishy washy kind of study with little evidence and alot of speculation. I was so surprised when the first thing we studied was the physiology of the human brain. I was never more fascinated and happy to be wrong.

What about videos? I've seen tons...err...I mean, I've seen a couple...ya know...against my will sort of thing... Anyway, I'd have to agree the dog seemed to clearly be consenting. Thing is, a drunk female can "clearly be consenting" too, while being completely smashed out of her mind and we don't consider that legal consent...because it's not.

I agree with that 100%. Again, I agree with that. Like I said earlier, YEC is probably the best case for mental illness, but I doubt it. Delusional does seem to fit soundly.

You're correct, that is the same kind of question. It's a disingenuous tactic used in pursuasion - a lawyer's tactic. You see it more often with frustrated ideologues. It's a bold statement within a question, and that "statement" is usually the actual point, which is highly contested. Right. That's why I said it's not usually very successful. I didn't mean to imply that any answer, validates the statement. I meant, moreso, that the question attempts to do so. Ok, so how about "Could liberalism be considered a mental illness due to the obvious emotion based logic and easily manipulated sheeple of the country?" You want to tell me how that's a genuine question? I'm sorry you're taking this quite simple pursuasion tactic so hard. Pick whatever vocabulary you like, it's a suggestion nestled within a question - and it's designed that way on purpose. That kind of question isn't really looking for an answer - it's making a statement. I'm not saying the OP meant it that way. I said I've never cared for the tactic, whether intentional or not. If someone used the naturalistic fallacy, intentional or not, you would point it out wouldn't you? I'm just pointing out what I consider a questionable tactic. And as YEC points out, I think anyway, is that god "made it look like" the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It's none of those things. You have no proof there is no god, so you can't prove creationism is false - therefore you can't call it a disorder. Deity is defined to the extent you can't prove anything, either which way. You have no obligation, in science, to recognize creationism at all. You DO have obligation to prove it false if you're going to characterize believers as delusional or as having a mental disorder. The OP question is inflammatory on its own merit. The burden of proof most certainly IS yours if you're going to accuse someone of a mental disorder. You think you can call anyone a nutcase and it's up to them to prove you wrong? Ok...all the stuff we've found that's alive, has a beginning. Things are born and things die. So, anyone who suggests otherwise is as "nutty" as anyone who suggests "god did it". Not that I should have to, but I must point out that the universe CAN have no beginning and no end. But you can't, legitimately, go around spouting this stuff and pretend like it's any more provable or irreproachable than creationism. You have some evidence, and I'll bet they claim to have some evidence. I have a tendency to believe science, but I can't prove it and in good faith slam their ideas to the point we call them mentally ill. We have a long way to go for that. Science hasn't proven itself any more sane when you consider their "strings", and "gravitons". Apparently science shares invalidation of wild ideas with creationism. It's been answered with thousands of words in addition to "no". There's a discussion going on here that you apparently are offended by. It's a valid point, in my opinion, to respond to the OP's question by pointing out that science has crazy ideas with no proof or evidence to back them up either. And then to follow that observation by asking if believing in those things is also a mental disorder. Because of it's meaning. A delusion is a false belief or opinion. You can't prove creationism is false, so you can't say they're delusional. If you CAN say they're delusional, then you have to include scientists who also believe in crazy sounding things that can't be proven. My posts have been more about consistency in this application of mental health. To suggest "creationists" are mentally ill, without applying the same reasoning to others is inconsistent. So, I've spent some time trying to point that out in various responses. Awesome. So, now we're going to pick and choose what we believe is delusional. And we don't have to be able to prove it - and that fact can't be used to refute our accusation. What a convenient paradox. Reminds me of religion and the convenience of not testing god's power, and blind faith. You've set it up to make yourself irreproachable. Sorry. But I believe if you're going to say someone is delusional, you should have to prove it. Also, if you're going to say someone is mentally ill, you should have to prove it. Just my thing I guess... And many believe that explanation. Science, as a study, will let it stand or fall per evidence and so forth. But scientists can believe in it, with zero proof. My only point being that creationists aren't the only ones believing in things that aren't proven, or don't have evidence of their existence. Why can't it? And why do you keep insisting these things are irrelevant to the central point? They are quite relevant. If god exists, as has been defined, then creationism becomes plausible. Because god has been described as omnipotent, with seemingly limitless power and control over the various dimensions, membranes - you pick your favorite construct. So, then, creationism is not a mental disorder. It's quite relevant. So this is where you get all huffy and puffy and assume it should matter to me... You shouldn't take these discussions so seriously that you get pissed off. Hell, I take alternate views sometimes just to add to a discussion. Part of critical thinking requires multiple POV's - even if slamming down these views is more of an exercise. I like to play contrarian, so don't assume my posts are my genuine thoughts - not that it should matter because none of this is personal to begin with. If this thread were full of creationists questioning the mental health of scientists, you'd see quite a different argument coming from my posts. You took a two sentence post of mine, an off hand reply to Phi, and blew it up into a full page issue. And you have the nerve to accuse me of ignoring the OP. You took it personal and you have assailed me for it. No problem. I stand by my posts. But it's not my fault you wanted to transform the thread into your personal agenda. I don't know if the OP intended to use that "tactic" or not, and I don't care. I'm simply pointing it out. It's not an invalid question, it's a loaded question - loaded with the assumption that creationism = false. Some use that technique as an excuse to exercise battering their opponent's belief system. You're not really going to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about are you? Right. And last I checked, science relies on evidence. You don't get to hail "science" and pass the burden of proof onto someone else when you accuse them of being delusional. That's why I repeatedly point out, that there is no evidence of "no god". You seem to invoke and remove science at your convenience. Calling someone delusional, requires your proving it. You have none. And if you want to invoke science, too bad, the study doesn't agree with you either - science has nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of god. It's a null hypothesis. The burden of proof falls on creationism when they attempt to present their study as science. Not when you suggest their delusion, or mental illness. No. My 'tactic' argument is based on the belief that the original poster is pushing the agenda that "creationism = false" when asking the question of mental disorder. Not that creationism = mental disorder. Now I understand the nature of your first few statements and your dramatic conclusion. In fact, I'm seeing now how that subtle misunderstanding has inflamed this whole thing. This 'tactic' I'm talking about is similar to the offense inferred in the title of the thread "Hypothetical Gay Cure". That's the same scenario (except that Sayanara used quotes around "cure" to avoid the offense). The statement suggests Gay = Bad in order to inqure about a cure. That's the same point I'm making with the title of this thread. It's just an observation anyway, I didn't pump out paragraphs of arguments to refute the whole thing. You did that.

Isn't that like saying Homosexuality promotes male to male sexuality? "Creationism" doesn't do that' date=' some creation[b']ists[/b] do. Still a good point, though, I'm just not convinced the study, itself, is doing that. Kind of like how Islam doesn't necessarily call for killing infadels, but extremists can "make it so". Young earth creationism does. And I already agreed that actually could be a case of delusion, but with caution because if you define god as omnipotent as has been recorded, there is built-in refutable testimony.

I would agree, cautiously. Because god is defined in such a way that everything becomes explainable. Ie..he made it look like the earth was 4.5 billion years old and etc. This is the genius of religion, and part of the origination of my personal skepticism. Although, this certainly would be the best case for delusion. However, as similar to the "Cure for homosexuality" thread, you have to demonstrate what's "wrong" with something in order to call it a disorder. How does creationism hurt someone, objectively? You disagree with it, as do I, but how do we know it's wrong? We don't, we just believe it is. Just as they do. It's still an apt comparison because that particular point was about tactic used for pursuasion - not the subject matter. The tactic being, asking a question that assumes an agreement that x = y upon answering the question, when x = y is still being debated. Fair enough. But that seals my point even more, in that not only can you not prove creationism isn't true, you don't even have a source to look for. There is no evidence to the contrary. There's just as much credibility that some intelligent source created the mechanism that we call evolution or still affect it - like aliens, or the earth itself, or anything I can dream up. Science doesn't know yet.

Like doing a thread on...Could liberalism be a symptom of emotional disorder? That's an intellectually dishonest question - as suggestive as any statement, because you are accepting that liberalism is wrong or bad by answering the question on its emotional disorder. It's a popular tactic, and it's rarely successful because most people can see through that fairly easily - but that doesn't excuse the person that phrases that question. I agree. I would never advocate incarcerating delusional scientists that believe in big explosions that create a universe and life. There is no contradictory evidence of god so it's not a delusion. Belief in creationism is not a delusion any more than non-existent "gravitons" are a delusion. You can't prove those either, but we sure have theories don't we? Look, I love science and I believe the idea of god is absurd, although I state no formal beliefs either way. I also have some big issues with certain religions and the restrictive nature of human advancement under their guidance. But I also have the objectivity to realize that science depends on evidence - not absurdity - to disprove things.

If you're determing something to be unknowable, then you're making an assumption about the future - you're predicting. If you believe in the prediction that we will never know something - then you must be doing so on faith. No I'm not. I'm asking for a logical explanation on the definition of atheism. Atheism as man defines it. Then, once we all can agree on what the word "atheism" means, as well as "agnosticism", then we can audit ourselves and choose the terms that represent our position. What I see is people choosing terms they think describe them, and then taken to task by others who define those terms differently. We're not really arguing about what we actually believe. Take doG for instance. It's obvious his position is that he doesn't know whether god exists or not, so he doesn't believe either which way. But despite that, he's still accused of having "faith" that god doesn't exist because he's using the label of "atheist". We already know that he's not saying that god doesn't exist, yet he's being assailed as so. This is because we're using imprecise labels to justify attacking belief, rather than what the person really believes. That, too, is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion. Let's use logic and facts, and see if we can truly define what the words "atheism" and "agnosticism" means. This means pulling out source material, like dictionaries, and logically constructing arguments to prove their meanings. I don't believe it's irreconcilable and sure don't care what atheists want - and neither should any responsible discussion. Let's forget about what they want and concern ourselves with the truth - what does the word actually mean, and to hell with the consequences. That doesn't require God at all. Just logic. We're dealing with our words here. And that's true of any discussion. Just careful avoiding traps to the extent you avoid the point. There's no reason these terms cannot be argued with facts and logic on this forum.

But, see, you're still doing it. Rather than explain to me, logically, how Atheism does NOT have an ambiguous meaning that suggests doubt in one way and certainty in another, you're ignoring that point, while still replying about what atheists need and want. Their motivations for removing "faith" from the definition of atheism is irrelevant. Only the logic they use to do it, matters. I don't share a conviction with any of these terms, but I do see a value in getting them defined correctly. That may not be possible, but if you keep ignoring this part of the issue it will never get pass this point. So are you saying that the ambiguity of the definition of atheism is a "trap"? Because, from where I'm sitting, it sure seems to be the crux of the matter.

No kidding. Not to mention the psychological suggestion of accepting creationism as dillusional in order to respond to the question of whether it's a disorder. I've never cared for that tactic.

It doesn't. And likewise, why does the universe NOT need one? We're all just asking elementary contrary questions about the universe. We can go all day with that - and it's fun too, some interesting ideas come out in discussions like that. But, my point was, and still is, if you can make a case that someone has a mental disorder for believing in a deity's creative proverbial hand, then I don't see how believing in the universe "with no beginning", or other supernatural ideas are free from mental disorder either. I believe the entire suggestion of mental disorder associated with creationism is intellectually dishonest anyway.

But you were asking about Muslim's rights to denounce. There are no rights afforded to anyone that provides for hanging gay people, nor do I see any pressure to provide them such rights. That's why I don't see the diametric opposite as you do. They have a right to denounce, verbally, all they want, as long as they're not violating other's rights in doing so. That doesn't seem all that diametrically opposite to the idea of gay rights.

Because the term Atheist has two meanings. 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. God = False 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. God <> True 1) Belief in "No God", so God = False (Definition 1 - based on faith) and 2) Disbelief in God, or disbelief that God = True (no faith, simply rejecting the idea that God = True, thus leaving God = maybe) THIS is where it all bogs down. Severian and yourself, and others, seem to reject the idea of "atheism" having this subtle ambiguity in definition. Semantics, maybe, but it matters here. Agnosticism seems to contain some duality as well, one of them also including faith - faith that the ultimate knowledge or god, can never be known... 1) a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. God = will never know 2) a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. God = I don't know By these definitions, I'm an atheist and an agnostic. I'm the atheist that rejects the belief that God = true, because I do not know. I'm also the agnostic that believes God = I don't know. It's these loose definitions of words being applied in a precise context, that seems to be the big problem here. As long as we don't address this directly, I'm afraid all anyone in here is going to really do is keep repeating themselves.

I think so, as that's exactly my position. I believe no one has a right to interfere with gay marriage, and I believe no one has a right to stop me from making fun of them. That's live and let live.

Seems to me that's almost like asking how someone likes the taste of chocolate. And isn't there supposed to be a corollation between high intelligence and sexual deviance? So maybe you are just unable to understand... Are you serious? Because of a sick subculture? They probably say things to themselves like...? While it is true that some S&M enthusiasts get pretty..uh extreme, most people into S&M, bondage and so forth don't "live it". That's where this weird imagery and this need to pass judgement seems to come from. It's not a lifestyle, it's a type of sex - intimacy. For most anyway. Some people go to the extreme and turn it into a lifestyle, but hey, they're happy and it gives me something to watch late night on HBO...

No, you're not getting off the hook that easy. You said Rush says "all lies". Why did you have to reach back 2 years if Rush says "all lies"? I guess I'll do the research for you to find the facts on the story, but even if it happened as you say, he just got caught being stupid, that's obvious. Aren't coal and oil basically the same, minus the water content? I know they both come from decayed plant material and I thought they basically share the same process, heating and drying over and over again, except oil contains the water that couldn't escape?? It's ridiculous to say that Rush was "lying" by saying coal and oil are the same thing - like he was saying both are a liquid. You know very well what he was saying. And you and I both know he didn't say that one sentence and leave it alone - he probably went off for 30 minutes trying to dig himself out of that hole. He did exactly what I told you he does, he twists things and creates disingenuous arguments. The fact that coal and oil are similar would only be relevant in a different context, not in the case of a spill, yet he used it anyway - classic Rush. It's stupid, but it's not a lie. I know you hate the guy but geez, at least hate him for the right reasons. No, you're still not understanding what I'm saying. I mean validated in that he said what I felt, only articulated, which I couldn't do. That's actually popular among Rush listeners. It felt good hearing someone say the things I had always wondered myself - he validated my thoughts. And my thoughts were and still usually are on the philosophical, ideological side of things. Not what particular incident is going on somewhere and how "the liberals" are at it again, that always bored me and still does. As for Rush factoids, I've always questioned them because he will be as honest as a lawyer. Yes maybe volcanoes do flood the air with flourocarbons, and maybe that even compares to what mankind puts out in a decade, but you don't have to be a climate expert to wonder about the difference between accumulated C02 output and sudden eruption of that output. Again, I don't think you're going to catch him "lying" about things, I think you're going to see him "squirming" all the time. I like him for the reasons I stated earlier, in my post from which you started assailing me for it. No factual "validations", but rather philosophical validations, alternative thought, the first time I'd heard the term "critical thinking". He got me interested in politics and suggested the idea of thinking for yourself. So I did, and critically thought out his views and eventually decided it was as illogical as liberalism, just as hypocritical and oppressive, for lack of a better word. But, also like I said earlier, I just like him. He still has a handful of views I agree with and when he hits those I do enjoy it, he has a good talent for pursuasion. But we're way out of phase, I'm quite libertarian anymore. Data doesn't interpret anything. It's just numbers, measurements, variables - it doesn't do anything. So the data doesn't falsify a thing. Humans look at it and interpret that it falsifies something. Some of your colleagues disagree with you. I'm not attacking science, I'm demanding a more convincing consensus from science seeing as how 3 previous scientifically prophesied climate catastrophies didn't happen. I see that not all of your hands are up, so do others, and we want to know why before we jump on the bandwagon. So, let it play out. Let the skeptics do their thing, and call everyone out and I'm sure before too long this will get settled. I didn't say that. Must have been somebody else's post. That's really not fair because I have already assumed global warming is true as predicted by science. Logically, it makes more sense to believe the majority than the minority when you have no faith in discerning for yourself. There is no data I "don't like", it all looks convincing to me. I'm prepared to believe we are solely to blame and will ignite in a ball of fire in 10 years, as I'm prepared to believe it's all BS and the world will have an oil fire party. So, I default to the current consensus on the matter, and humbly wait to be convinced.

I don't know...drinking brew on the space shuttle is kinda like getting a hummer in the oval office...you can't really blame a guy for tryin

Or, is our atmosphere something they are accustomed to or are used to? How do we know they didn't copy us in negotiating getting around down here, while the mothercraft parties over the space station? Just a thought... This is the reason why I think it's BS at this time. They've proven many of those "not very crisp" pictures are easily made - including remaking that classic disc in the sky picture by taking the picture from inside a car with a penny on the windshield. May be detected. I don't know. They could be using something organic, something beyond your thinking capacity and certainly beyond our technical capacity. What if they're hundreds of thousands of years beyond us? Or even millions? There's no way to imagine what kind of voyeurism aliens could be practicing on us nor how that would work. We could be as stupid as dogs to them. Hopefully they're nicer than us. We've been pretty aweful to each other.

I never heard that.

Ha, only guys with little guns say that... I'm picking Battlestar Galactica....I mean, somebody as to...

But will the theists concede that atheism is not a belief? That one wasn't in your example, and is still left to discuss. I entered this discussion as an agnostic believing atheism to be a faith. After several pages of discussion, I see the dual definition inherent in atheism and the faith contained in agnosticism - despite Lucaspa's thoughtful posts. Not at all what I expected going into this, but then, that's why I come here. If we had dropped the discussion based on your reasoning, I wouldn't have changed my mind. Maybe you're ok with that since I'm sure it doesn't compliment your particular position on all this, but I'm not. I thought this thread was handled quite well by everyone.

That's really too bad. I was really hoping you would add to the discussion...

So, if the number of baryons minus anti-baryons is different from zero, you must be saying that there is no parity in terms of quantity between matter and antimatter right? Or is this a more local application? I guess I'm not sure what that equation represents, in terms of dynamics. (well in any terms really, but...)

But if we look at the definition of supernatural, we realize it's definition relies on our degree of total understanding of natural law. In other words, the laws of nature are subjective, relative to what we know about them. Anything that exists beyond that, is supernatural to us. Nothing is really supernatural, not even deity, if you had the knowledge of everything. "Supernatural" just describes things that we don't yet understand, or can't comprehend. If I don't understand weather, then I might think it's supernatural that you can predict rain or storm. If no one understands weather, then weather prediction doesn't follow our understanding of the laws of nature, so it's supernatural that you can. I guess I see it as much a measurement of how much we know, as it is a statement of phenomena.