Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?

[pioneer]

There are two sides of the brain. The left is more differential while the right is more spatial. Creationism comes from the right side of the brain. An attempt is being made to market it as left side, which is why science, which is left side orientated, can see that there is something wrong. If one uses the right side of the brain to sense it, the result is different.

 

Let me give an example of the distinction between the two sides of the brain. If we saw an unknown shade of yellow, the right side of the brain would allow us to know it is yellow even without any education. The right side groups similar memories and by its placement in the "yellow" group we would know it was a shade of yellow.

 

The left side is more differential and without formal labelling, the left side would see it as an unknown until it is labelled. The right side would tell us it is a type of yellow but the left does not yet have a specific label to express it yet. After we call it lemon yellow, this differential memory is stored in the left, so the next time we see it, we can access it with either side of the brain.

 

Creationism is a right side memory that has been given a left side label that is not consistent with science, data and logic. An analogy is labelling the unknown yellow, fire engine red. One can call it anything they want but this particular label would be unsettling to the left side of the brain. The left side already has other reds in the differntial data base and that particular label will create data conflicts. If is was called symbolism there would be less left side conflict since this would seem appropriate.

 

As such, the new yellow called Creationism needs a better label that is more settling and consistent with the left side data base. In other words, it is a 3-D memory that can be assessed with the right side but needs a better translation to be acceptable to left side science. The physics of physical creation just does not sit well in the left side.

 

It is not crazy to sense this 3-D memory grouping, it is only difficult to translate in the proper way for the needs of the left side. It is a very fast memory that can not be easily expressed with the slow left hemisphere languages of culture. That is why it is taken literally; to avoid humans messing up and giving a misleading translation.

 

For example, if we recorded a 10 min presentation and then played it back in 1min it would sound like noise with only bits and piecs coming to consciousenss. Inspite of this gibberish tranaltion it contains all the same data as the original spech. It would appear not to convey any meaning to the left side becuase of the speed is too fast to properly translation. One would have to slow it down to say 5-7 mins to get more out of it. But even then, one would get dozens of different opinions on what it said. Creationism is one consensus translation of this fast 3-D language. When a good left side translation is reached, science will be quite surprised at the knowledge this symbolism contains.

 

Compressing 15 billions years into 7 days gives one an idea of relative memory speed between left and right (relative and not absolute). That is why one can only feel this type of fast 3-D memory as type of nebulous intuitive feeling. Being able to use the 3-D memory in a conscious way is the future of the human mind.

[Reaper]

Of course this doesn't have to be the absolute beginning of the universe. The big bang is only the beginning of the current expansion of the [known]* universe.

 

*Depending on how you define universe.

 

Er' date=' not quite. Big Bang wasn't the beginning of anything; it was a rapid expansion. After all, SOMETHING banged

[/quote']

 

 

And then you run into the problem of what came before the big bang.

 

And the rapid expansion you are talking about, yourdadonapogos, is inflation, which happened afterwards.

 

 

What exactly happened at the big bang (as you put it, what banged, or why it banged), or before it is confined to speculation and/or philosophy, because we don't know. And our understanding of time doesn't really apply at that era in any case.

 

Quantum Gravity might help us to understand the big bang event though.

 

 

This is off topic anyway.

 

 

I believe the entire suggestion of mental disorder associated with creationism is intellectually dishonest anyway.

 

I agree. But Richard Dawkins is determined to prove otherwise:rolleyes:.

[Glider]

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.

What tactic?

 

WordNet - delusion

 

noun

1. (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.

2. a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea...

3. the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas.

 

(WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)

 

As I've said a few times, anybody can harbour a delusion on any number of things and it's not in and of itself a sign of a disorder, nor should its use be used to imply or infer such.

 

'Delusion' is just a word used to describe an erroneous belief that is resistant to change in the face of contradictory evidence. By any definition of the word, belief in creationism (particularly 'young earth' creationism) is a delusion, so how is its use a 'tactic', and to what end?

[ParanoiA]

What tactic?

 

 

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.

 

WordNet - delusion

 

noun

1. (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.

2. a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea...

3. the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas.

 

(WordNet® 3.0' date=' © 2006 by Princeton University.)[/quote']

 

There is no evidence to the contrary. You have evidence there is no god? Shock the world and share it. You can't begin to prove it's a mistaken opinion either. God, as he's been defined, can effect evolution and all other aspects of nature without appearing to. Same with the spaghetti monster. Too bad for you it's still faith you rely on to dismiss it, not proof or evidence.

 

The universe has no beginning? Big bang? Yeah, explain to me how that's not delusional. All evidence of life has beginning. Yet some question whether it has a beginning - yeah I see how that's completely different from "crazy" creationists...

 

Next they'll tell me we're all made of little vibrating strings that are so small we can't see them - how convenient.

 

As I've said a few times, anybody can harbour a delusion on any number of things and it's not in and of itself a sign of a disorder, nor should its use be used to imply or infer such.

 

I agree. I would never advocate incarcerating delusional scientists that believe in big explosions that create a universe and life.

 

'Delusion' is just a word used to describe an erroneous belief that is resistant to change in the face of contradictory evidence. By any definition of the word, belief in creationism (particularly 'young earth' creationism) is a delusion, so how is its use a 'tactic', and to what end?

 

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.

[YT2095]

in the case of a YEC, there is indeed evidence to the contrary.

[swansont]

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.

 

If liberalism made specific predictions about the physical world that were inconsistent with observation, then this might be an apt comparison.

 

There is no evidence to the contrary. You have evidence there is no god? Shock the world and share it. You can't begin to prove it's a mistaken opinion either. God, as he's been defined, can effect evolution and all other aspects of nature without appearing to. Same with the spaghetti monster. Too bad for you it's still faith you rely on to dismiss it, not proof or evidence.

 

creationism != belief in/evidence of a deity

[ParanoiA]

in the case of a YEC, there is indeed evidence to the contrary.

 

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.

 

If liberalism made specific predictions about the physical world that were inconsistent with observation, then this might be an apt comparison.

 

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.

 

creationism != belief in/evidence of a deity

 

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.

[Phi for All]

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.

How do we know it's wrong?

• Creationism propagates the lie that evolution denies the possibility of a creator
  
• Creationism tries to refute natural scientific observation with supernatural means, confusing the observable with the unobservable
  
• Creationism asks to be taught alongside regular science courses, introducing supernatural methods into an otherwise natural process
  

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.

But evolution has nothing to say about a creator or creation. Creationists aren't claiming that God used evolution, they are claiming he made everything in six 24-hour days and then just made it seem like evolution was responsible.

 

We CAN prove that the earth is not 6000 years old as some creationists claim, we CAN prove that the evolutionary process changes organisms over long periods of time. You can either use the scientific method to describe the natural universe or you can ascribe a higher, supernatural hand behind those processes, but you can't attempt to mix them so that one refutes the other.

[ParanoiA]

Creationism propagates the lie that evolution denies the possibility of a creator

 

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".

 

Creationism tries to refute natural scientific observation with supernatural means' date=' confusing the observable with the unobservable

Creationism asks to be taught alongside regular science courses, introducing supernatural methods into an otherwise natural process[/quote']

 

Again, good points that I completely agree with - except, they're still subjective. I can also point out shortcomings and societal pitfalls with homosexuality, but that still falls short of proving it as something "wrong", in order to then label it a disorder.

 

But evolution has nothing to say about a creator or creation. Creationists aren't claiming that God used evolution, they are claiming he made everything in six 24-hour days and then just made it seem like evolution was responsible.

 

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.

[Glider]

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.

This makes no sense. It’s like saying anybody who answers the question ‘Is racism indicative of a reasonable and valid world view?’ is accepting that racism is good or valid simply by virtue of answering the question, regardless of their answer.

 

No inferences concerning a person’s beliefs can be made from the act of answering a question. Such inferences can only be made from their answers.

 

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.

 

”Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion.”(from Wikipedia).

 

This would suggest that a question cannot be intellectually dishonest and asking a question is not intellectual dishonesty because in asking a question, no rhetoric is used and no case or argument in support of anything is presented.

 

To make the question “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?” intellectually dishonest you would have to make several unfounded inferences: 1) That the question was in fact a statement 2) That the question was asked in order to advance an agenda 3) That the question was made in knowledge of overwhelming contrary evidence.

 

One is clearly false. Two is possible, but the fact that 1 is false makes 2 unlikely as questions do not present an argument in support of anything. Three is unlikely because if the questioner was aware of overwhelming evidence either way, the question would be redundant (and to think otherwise in the absence of any evidence is mere conjecture).

 

Another reason a question cannot be intellectually dishonest is that it can be answered. In this thread, the question “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?” has been answered (generally) ‘no’.

 

There is no evidence to the contrary.

As YT points out, there is some evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old.

 

You have evidence there is no god? Shock the world and share it.

This is foolish, inflammatory and irrelevant to the central point.

 

You can't begin to prove it's a mistaken opinion either. God, as he's been defined, can effect evolution and all other aspects of nature without appearing to. Same with the spaghetti monster. Too bad for you it's still faith you rely on to dismiss it, not proof or evidence.

The burden of proof is not mine and it is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of the null hypothesis being a sensible default in the absence of evidence in support of the alternative. I am free to reject hypotheses until there is evidence presented in support of them without it being labelled an act of faith.

 

The universe has no beginning? Big bang? Yeah, explain to me how that's not delusional.

There is some evidence for it.

 

All evidence of life has beginning. Yet some question whether it has a beginning –

What? All evidence for life has a beginning, or all life has a beginning? And some (presumably living) question a beginning for life? What are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

 

yeah I see how that's completely different from "crazy" creationists... Next they'll tell me we're all made of little vibrating strings that are so small we can't see them - how convenient.

 

I think you are confused. The original question was “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?”. This has been answered; ‘no’, so I’m uncertain why you are talking about ‘crazy creationists’, in spite of the fact that the general consensus here seems to be that belief in creationism cannot be classed as a mental disorder, and why you think using an inflammatory tone lends weight to your arguments.

 

Originally Posted by Glider

As I've said a few times, anybody can harbour a delusion on any number of things and it's not in and of itself a sign of a disorder, nor should its use be used to imply or infer such.

I agree. I would never advocate incarcerating delusional scientists that believe in big explosions that create a universe and life.

A flippant dismissal of the point which is that the term 'delusion' is simply a term used to describe an erroneous belief. Why do you persist with the implication (even here) that the term ‘delusion’ refers to a psychological pathology? The term is not specific to Psychology or Psychiatry.

 

There is no contradictory evidence of god so it's not a delusion.

The absence of any evidence that a thing does not exist is not evidence that it does exist and so cannot be used to refute the argument that belief in that thing is 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?

Yes, we do, but you seem to be using the term ‘theory’ in the same way as creationists (ID) use it. A theory is a proposed explanation for some natural phenomenon. Gravity is a natural phenomenon and the idea of gravitons is simply one model proposed as an explanation. As with all hypotheses, it will stand or fall on its own merits depending on whether evidence in support of it can be found or not. The same cannot be said for hypotheses concerning God. But again, this is irrelevant to the central point.

 

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.

This must be the bit where you get sincere and reasonable in an attempt to be convincing, which might stand a better chance if it were in the slightest bit relevant to the original question and if you hadn’t already pissed me off.

 

The original question was “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?”. The point of this post is that you termed the original question a ‘tactic’ and have subsequently accused it of being intellectually dishonest. In doing so, you have unjustifiably transformed the original post from a simple question into a statement intended to advance an agenda, made in the knowledge that the statement is false and in the face of contrary evidence. Here is where the only absurdity lies and at best, it makes your argument a strawman.

 

As an aside, your argument also contains some inconsistency (albeit irrelevant to the central point). For example, your assertion that you love science ” Look, I love science, is inconsistent with your discussing evidence for the non-existence of a thing as if it were a sensible concept: ” There is no contradictory evidence of god so it's not a delusion”; ” You have evidence there is no god?”. Loving a thing usually involves knowing something about it.

 

Back to the point. Your entire ‘tactic’ argument seems based on the belief that the original poster is pushing the agenda that those who believe in creationism are suffering from a mental disorder, as opposed to simply asking the question.

 

As far as I can see, you have no grounds for this assumption (which extends far beyond any data available in the original post). You simply drew a conclusion and presented a contrary (and largely irrelevant) case to a non-existent argument (and in an unnecessarily inflammatory manner).

 

Instead of jumping to an unfounded conclusion, it would have been more reasonable just to ask the original poster:

 

agentchange By asking your question, are you suggesting that people who believe in creationism are suffering from a mental disorder, or are you simply asking for people’s opinions?

[swansont]

How do we know it's wrong?

• Creationism propagates the lie that evolution denies the possibility of a creator
  
• Creationism tries to refute natural scientific observation with supernatural means, confusing the observable with the unobservable
  
• Creationism asks to be taught alongside regular science courses, introducing supernatural methods into an otherwise natural process
  

 

As a corollary to this, if one were to accept creationism as being valid, then you have to dismantle all of science and much of engineering. Modern biology and a lot of physics, geology and chemistry would be falsified. Yet the overwhelming evidence is that they are correct, because they work. Science isn't a-la-carte; if you are attempting to describe the material world, science has to apply. It's only the insistence that the data be made to fit some preconceived ideology that buttresses creationism.

[Realitycheck]

 

agentchange By asking your question, are you suggesting that people who believe in creationism are suffering from a mental disorder, or are you simply asking for people’s opinions?

 

For a true creationist, creationism is part of the package. Since Jesus made numerous references to the Old Testament, it simply cannot be tossed away irreverently. There can be no B without A, in their own words, despite the fact that many Jews don't subscribe to A anymore. Why people insist on thinking so rigidly is beyond me.

 

Faith can be something of a complicated psychological process. You can simply have faith in yourself or you can have faith that the God that enabled everything written in the Bible will deliver for you. After all, we are talking about the unswerving, unerring Word of God that just cannot go astray, because it is the Word of God! How many times do we see what appear to be perfectly innocent people getting trounced by mother nature or any other numerous vices in the world? This should be evidence enough.

 

So we have these people who go around preaching it, believing it, etc., and they all expect something out of life as long as they follow the straight and narrow, which is all good, don't get me wrong. It's just that when you expect something based on an erroneous position, things start appearing a bit off balance.

[ParanoiA]

This makes no sense. It’s like saying anybody who answers the question ‘Is racism indicative of a reasonable and valid world view?’ is accepting that racism is good or valid simply by virtue of answering the question, regardless of their answer.

 

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.

 

No inferences concerning a person’s beliefs can be made from the act of answering a question. Such inferences can only be made from their answers.

 

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.

 

Another reason a question cannot be intellectually dishonest is that it can be answered. In this thread, the question “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?” has been answered (generally) ‘no’.

 

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.

 

As YT points out, there is some evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old.

 

And as YEC points out, I think anyway, is that god "made it look like" the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

This is foolish, inflammatory and irrelevant to the central point.

 

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 is not mine and it is not a matter of faith.

 

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?

 

What? All evidence for life has a beginning, or all life has a beginning? And some (presumably living) question a beginning for life? What are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

 

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.

 

I think you are confused. The original question was “Could believing in creationism be considered a mental disorder?”. This has been answered; ‘no’,

 

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.

 

A flippant dismissal of the point which is that the term 'delusion' is simply a term used to describe an erroneous belief. Why do you persist with the implication (even here) that the term ‘delusion’ refers to a psychological pathology? The term is not specific to Psychology or Psychiatry.

 

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.

 

The absence of any evidence that a thing does not exist is not evidence that it does exist and so cannot be used to refute the argument that belief in that thing is a delusion.

 

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...

 

Gravity is a natural phenomenon and the idea of gravitons is simply one model proposed as an explanation.

 

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.

 

The same cannot be said for hypotheses concerning God. But again, this is irrelevant to the central point.

 

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.

 

This must be the bit where you get sincere and reasonable in an attempt to be convincing, which might stand a better chance if it were in the slightest bit relevant to the original question and if you hadn’t already pissed me off.

 

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.

 

The point of this post is that you termed the original question a ‘tactic’ and have subsequently accused it of being intellectually dishonest. In doing so, you have unjustifiably transformed the original post from a simple question into a statement intended to advance an agenda, made in the knowledge that the statement is false and in the face of contrary evidence. Here is where the only absurdity lies and at best, it makes your argument a strawman.

 

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?

 

As an aside, your argument also contains some inconsistency (albeit irrelevant to the central point). For example, your assertion that you love science ” Look, I love science, is inconsistent with your discussing evidence for the non-existence of a thing as if it were a sensible concept: ” There is no contradictory evidence of god so it's not a delusion”; ” You have evidence there is no god?”. Loving a thing usually involves knowing something about it

 

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.

 

Back to the point. Your entire ‘tactic’ argument seems based on the belief that the original poster is pushing the agenda that those who believe in creationism are suffering from a mental disorder, as opposed to simply asking the question.

 

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.

[Reaper]

And as YEC points out, I think anyway, is that god "made it look like" the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

I think most people who are YEC enthusiasts usually deny or ignore any evidence that the scientific community presents on the matter. Besides, the statement "god made it look like...." does have a flaw in it, especially if you consider the fact that He is also made to be "all good" and "all loving".

 

 

Deity is defined to the extent you can't prove anything, either which way....

 

Empirically and scientifically, no. But there are ways to do it philosophically and logically. I'm not giving away my secrets though.

 

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?

 

I'd have to agree with this statement.

 

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.

 

While it is quite easy for sane people to delude themselves, I don't fully agree with this statement. Young Earth Creationism has been proven false, so anybody who still believes in this is, by definition, delusional. I still wouldn't call this a mental illness though.

[ParanoiA]

Empirically and scientifically, no. But there are ways to do it philosophically and logically. I'm not giving away my secrets though.

 

I agree with that 100%.

 

Young Earth Creationism has been proven false, so anybody who still believes in this is, by definition, delusional. I still wouldn't call this a mental illness though.

 

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.

[Realitycheck]

First of all, I found a list of what is considered a "mental disorder", so you all can get a glimpse of what I had in mind. Here is a small sampl.

 

Adjustment Disorder

Anorexia Nervosa

Disorder of written expression

Emotional disorder

Factitious disorder

Fetishism

Hysteria

Mathematics disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder

Pathological gambling

Seasonal affective disorder

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness_(alphabetical_list)

 

Now this list includes no outside poisons and shouldn't include any specific genetic traits, though it is conceivable that they were, in part, affected by a genetic trait. The one missing on it Divine Expectation Disorder.

 

 

 

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?"

 

If liberalism is harmful to your well-being, then yes, it should be considered a mental disorder. This really gets into semantics.

 

You have no proof there is no god, so you can't prove creationism is false - therefore you can't call it a disorder.

We have lots of proof that creationism is false. "God layed it out that way just so you would think it was 4.5 billion years old." Geez. Who is making the rules in this debate? Fairly tales vs. empirical evidence? Give me proof of ANYTHING in the Bible that is scientifically disputed. The burden of proof is on them. Everything science has makes complete sense, except for the incomplete explanation of abiogenesis.

 

 

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?

The proof is already there. If I had the time and resources, I could go out with a videotape and find lots of people who seriously thought that God will deliver them because they are righteous, right before their city got swamped in ten feet of water.

 

But you can't, legitimately, go around spouting this stuff and pretend like it's any more provable or irreproachable than creationism.

Why not? Happens at every football game.

[ParanoiA]

We have lots of proof that creationism is false. "God layed it out that way just so you would think it was 4.5 billion years old." Geez. Who is making the rules in this debate? Fairly tales vs. empirical evidence? Give me proof of ANYTHING in the Bible that is scientifically disputed. The burden of proof is on them. Everything science has makes complete sense, except for the incomplete explanation of abiogenesis.

 

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...

 

The proof is already there. If I had the time and resources, I could go out with a videotape and find lots of people who seriously thought that God will deliver them because they are righteous, right before their city got swamped in ten feet of water.

 

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...

[swansont]

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 would question the oxymoron of "emotion-based logic," but the answer can be "no," and I think that's the answer Glider has already given. Irrational beliefs aren't inherently mental illness; we're all irrational about something or other.

 

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.

 

If it's not intentional, it's not a tactic. I also don't think it's a logical fallacy, since a conclusion is not actually drawn.

 

But I agree that the way a question is phrased can influence the outcome, which is one reason I think most polls are worthless.

[Realitycheck]

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.

 

Well, there are certainly many creationists who are striving fervently to strengthen their support by lying about creationism. I would never let them have any effect on me.

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...

All of the evidence is already there. There is really nothing I have to do. It's a baseless claim. If you want to talk about outsiders taking advantage of a clueless coma survivor simply with a big ego, out of humor, then we can go to town, but it won't accomplish anything.

 

 

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...

Why not? Will I get a speeding ticket or something? I follow a completely different set of laws. Even though I might not agree with some of them, they don't apply to me.

[ParanoiA]

Well, there are certainly many creationists who are striving fervently to strengthen their support by lying about creationism. I would never let them have any effect on me.

 

Me neither.

 

All of the evidence is already there. There is really nothing I have to do. It's a baseless claim. If you want to talk about outsiders taking advantage of a clueless coma survivor simply with a big ego, out of humor, then we can go to town, but it won't accomplish anything.

 

You have provided ZERO proof that you're sane. Try again.

 

Why not? Will I get a speeding ticket or something? I follow a completely different set of laws. Even though I might not agree with some of them, they don't apply to me.

 

This reply makes zero sense. Did you even read what you're replying to?

 

I would question the oxymoron of "emotion-based logic," but the answer can be "no," and I think that's the answer Glider has already given. Irrational beliefs aren't inherently mental illness; we're all irrational about something or other.

 

Agreed. And I didn't imply that anyone in this thread, other than agentchange, answered any different than 'no'. I just brought up the phrasing of the question in an off hand remark, because I too, have noticed this technique used in polls. And I've never cared for it.

 

I think Glider misunderstood me to mean that no matter what answer is given, the conclusion is "creationism = mental disorder", and that's not what I meant. Rather, the phrasing of the question assumes "creationism = false or bad". That could very well be my fault too.

[Realitycheck]

Granted, the proper definition of creationism wouldn't include divine expectations (accept for going to heaven and the inherent benefits of obeying the law). However, I have seen this kind of thinking on many occasions, so we can just call them cultists.

 

As far as the speeding ticket was concerned, I was making a joke. First of all, you would have to have a basis for calling me insane to make a case. You have not. I have.

 

It really gets under the nerves of the creationists when you don't follow their rules, such as respecting the Word of God. And I forgot, they already made a rule essentially passing evolution into legislation, not to mention all of the many passages of conflicting legislation within their "code" of law.

 

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.

 

This is how professional creationist debaters argue, with irrational, false statements such as this. This is not how God was defined 50 years ago. This is not how the Pope explains it. This is a good case for delusion.

[ParanoiA]

As far as the speeding ticket was concerned, I was making a joke. First of all, you would have to have a basis for calling me insane to make a case. You have not. I have.

 

Ah, so you agree that I, the one declaring you insane, would "have to have a basis" for calling you insane? "Having a basis" is as simple as pointing out your odd joke. To make a respectable case, is going to require evidence. If you are going to make a case that someone is mentally ill, then you need evidence. You don't have evidence that creationism is false. You don't have a case.

[Realitycheck]

Of course, we can submit historical evidence by professional anthropologists in any courtroom, on any issue other than creationism. You just didn't get the joke.

[someguy]

I don't see how believing in creationism can qualify someone to be insane. it just makes them wrong. i think that in order to be insane there must be a physical defect in the brain. perhaps believing in creationism could be a symptom of insanity but it is not sufficient. everyone is subject to illusion and everyone is wrong or believes something that is false. i think the majority of us today that don't believe in creationism would believe in it if we were in another period of history all other things being equal, therefore, if we call people that believe in creationism insane i think we would need also concede that all those that would have believed in creationism back in the day are also insane and therefore the majority of mankind is insane, which cannot be pretty much by definition. insane is a loaded word anyways, it doesn't really mean anything. mental disorder i think would be a better term.

 

in order to prove creationism false all you need to do is prove the existence of a god as false. and I am confident that in this day and age that can be done. if not then everyone who doesn't believe in god or creationism is guilty of the same error as those that do, simply believing at random or pleading to popular belief or believing simply the same as certain others you wish to be the same as or maybe something else whatever it may be, but not logic based. and in that case if you believe that believing in creationism qualifies you as insane and you also believe that disproving creationism is impossible then you must also believe that all human beings are insane.

[Realitycheck]

I'm not responding to this thread anymore because everybody thinks a mental disorder warrants a trip to the looney bin.