When is a belief system a Mental Disorder?

Well, then your topic isn't quite what you are claiming it is. It is just your way of calling the opponents of old earth crazy without having to address the arguments themselves. Not a good one as the evidence in that case really is unchallengeable, and how many people are there who deny the reality of the dinosaurs anyway?This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 10:32 AM

There are some - an honor student friend of my daughter's said she doubted their existence, 'cause her preacher had said they weren't real. Southern Baptist, I think.

Ahhhh, yet there are people who don't believe dinosaurs existed (Carl Everett of the Chicago White Sox for example doesn't beleive in dinosaurs because they aren't mentioned in the bible). So maybe this is a better example than I thought. I'm NOT saying they are crazy. It's just an example of a belief that conflicts with observed reality (and the evidence is just as unchallengable as that for dinosaurs if you understand basic science).However, I don't want to just bash on one particular belief system. I'll try to think of something from another belief system that we can more objectively analyze.Food for thought on truth and reality:Truth and falsehood; right and wrong

We could pick on the Mormons! They have fabulous cities of Israelites in North America back a couple of thousand years, with not even a stick of evidence. And they have horses and cows over here in precolumbian times, too.

And Coragyps gave a similar example. Too bad. Not crazy though. Your thread really is misnamed and misconceived I believe. Needs some rethinking.By the way, you haven't been here very long, unless I am mistaken, and I don't recall seeing you dealing with any of the actual arguments about the old earth. Have I missed this? Reread your OP, SNC, you ARE calling them crazy. Rather patronizing of you to post that.

The point of this topic was supposed to be "is belief in things that conflict with reality evidence of a mental disorder".The problem is that you hold some beliefs that conflict with accepted scientific reality so you are trying to debate the beliefs which is not the point. Like I said, I'll see if I can come up with some beliefs that are of a more neutral tone that are easier to debate in a detached manner.Again, I'm not trying to patronize you. I apologize if I came across that way. That's an argument I'm not that interested in because to be honest it's completely ridiculous. You have to remember that to people who are educated on the subject claims of a young earth sound like a claim that 2+2=5 (which is really kind of the point of this whole topic).Like I said, I'm NOT trying to single out fundamentalist Christians; I just happen to be familiar with some of their views that conflict with reality. I'll look for a more netural example from a different belief system that can be discussed more objectively.

I think that's a good example (and please keep in mind there is NO reason to limit our examples to religious examples). However, is there a lot of evidence that directly contradicts these claims? (I honestly don't know.... I assume that mostly there is just no evidence at all, but I could be wrong).I like the young earth example because it's not that there is no evidence; it's that there is overwhelmning evidence that directly contradicts a young earth.And hey, I'm not trying to pick on anyone. Maybe I believe something crazy! I'll have to think about it; we all probably believe some crazy stuff. The issue is; how much crazy stuff do you have to believe before you cross the line and ARE crazy

That's what I thought. You haven't bothered.

I suggest that if you don't want this thread to become merely another debate on OE vs YE that you stay away from this topic as you just admitted you are running on nothing more than your own prejudice and haven't the grace even to read the threads related to the arguments.

I guess there's just a complete absence of evidence for the Mormon claims: no cow or horse bones, no ruins of cities like the Book of Mormon describes in the areas they were claimed to be. I would think that there might be historical records of the first cattle, etc., introduced by Europeans, but there might not be much hard evidence as to the absence thereof before 1492.

But I've been reading AiG and such for several years now. Let's do find another example - Hindu or whatever.

I haven't bothered to try and prove the earth is flat either.I also haven't bothered to try and prove 2+2=5I also haven't bothered to try and prove Santa Claus is real.If you think you know more than my college professors do about geological histories and timescales feel free to start a thread about it.But let's try to stay on topic here.......Let's say we are discussing people with views that conflict with "Well accepted scientific reality". I don't think there is any arguing over the views themselves that way.

I've already participated on many threads on the subject and yes I do believe your professors are wrong about the timescales. They are perfectly idiotic as a matter of fact. I believe that the evidence on the side of an old earth is restricted entirely to radiometric dating methods. There is no other objective evidence. And that evidence is open to question. If you haven't bothered to read the threads on it, there's not much point to discussing anything about "reality" with you.

Well, I DON'T read AIG. I've made my own case independently of any particular creationist system.

I thought you had decided that the science was right but that you don't make your decisions based on that.I haven't seen your discussion of all the other ways that dating can be done, nor your criticism of radiometric dating, not your discussion of the correlation between them all. That later especially I've not seen answered by anyone.