Delusional

[3sigma]

No. The two words are synonyms; they can both be used in a medical setting or in a more general discussion, the exact meaning in each case being indicated by the context.

Exactly. The meaning is indicated by the context. In general discussion, deluded means believing something that isn’t true. In a medical context, a delusion is a persistent psychotic belief maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

This is a general discussion. We aren’t all a bunch of psychiatrists sitting around discussing a case. So, in this general discussion, when I say religious believers are deluded, I mean they believe things that aren’t true. I don’t mean they all hold psychotic beliefs.

I'd also point out that in the seven pages of the other thread discussing the medical context, and in these seven pages, no-one as far as I know has suggested that the two words need to be distinguished, and they've been used interchangeably. Except for you.

That is probably because most people are as careless as you when it comes to word usage.

Now, given those meanings of the words, will you concede that religious believers are deluded, but not necessarily delusional?

I already explained in the same post why your question is irrelevant to the topic.

Here is your explanation.

Here's why it's irrelevant; we are discussing a particular scenario consisting of two groups of people with opposing views. Each group thinks they are right and the other wrong. Both groups think the other is delusional, and they both know that they are considered delusional by the other.

I think kcrady’s signature quote from Greta Christina answers this perfectly.

“The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks.”

The point is that religious believers are deluded. Their religious beliefs are not true. Atheists like me don’t even hold any religious beliefs. We can’t be called delusional for not holding false religious beliefs.

This whole thread has just been an exercise in tone trolling by you and Nam.

[Nam]

Tone trolling? Please.

-Nam

[Hatter23]

[
This whole thread has just been an exercise in tone trolling by you and Nam.

While I agree with you the religous beliefs do meet the definition of delusional, and disagree with Nam's position; I think this accusation of tone trolling is going way too far. I don't quite understand his motivation for fighting this, but I don't think it is just to be a pompous blowhard.

[3sigma]

While I agree with you the religous beliefs do meet the definition of delusional, and disagree with Nam's position; I think this accusation of tone trolling is going way too far. I don't quite understand his motivation for fighting this, but I don't think it is just to be a pompous blowhard.

Well… maybe a little too far. Here’s the definition of tone trolling.

A tone troll is an internet troll that will effectively disrupt an internet discussion, because they feel that some of the participants are being too harsh, condescending, or use foul language. They often complain loudly and target specific subjects, even though they may actually agree with their subjects' point of view.

Nam started this thread to complain about atheists calling religious believers delusional, saying it amounts to nothing more than name-calling. However, he agrees that what they believe is delusional.

We, here, may all agree what they believe to be true is delusional but what point is being made when you call them (the person) delusional. I quite understand calling what they believe in delusional I just can't understand why you'd call them delusional. And, don't tell me it's the same thing 'cause it isn't.

So he agrees they are delusional. He just thinks that atheists call religious believers delusional for self-gratification and to be mean. That strikes me as being pretty close to tone trolling. The only element missing is the disruption.

[Nam]

I have no problem with people calling others whatever they want to call them. If I did, then I wouldn't call people "idiot" from time-to-time[1]. However, I don't see the point in doing it to every religious person one comes into contact with, as I've read by several members of this website would do, in any given chance. It seems redundant, and done too often: little, if any, effect.

Whether I agree or not is irrelevant to my point-of-view of those here calling people "delusional/deluded" because they feel they fit the varying definitions.

Most people here seem to think that being negative to people will result in positive results. I disagree.

-Nam

1.	not as often these days as I have in the past

[Gnu Ordure]

No. The two words are synonyms; they can both be used in a medical setting or in a more general discussion, the exact meaning in each case being indicated by the context.

Exactly. The meaning is indicated by the context. In general discussion, deluded means believing something that isn’t true. In a medical context, a delusion is a persistent psychotic belief maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

I see that you still don't get it. And I see that you came into this thread in post #3 making the same error:

I wouldn’t normally call religious believers delusional, mainly because the contemporary connotation of that word is that it is a psychiatric condition. I might call them deluded.

That would be pointless, 3sigma, because as I just said, the adjectives delusional and deluded are synonyms.

This means that they are interchangeable in any context, general or medical.

Here's a psychiatrist speaking:

in modern speech it [delusion] always implies a suspicion of psychiatric illness. It has been appropriated by psychiatry and invariably implies a psychiatric diagnosis. If I am deluded, then I am necessarily mentally ill.

He could have used delusional instead of deluded in that sentence, and the sentence would have meant exactly the same.

Another one:

Abstract : In this paper I investigate the topic of paranoid atmospheres. This subject is especially of interest with respect to persons who are deluded, and also, I will demonstrate, sheds light upon the psychiatrist's "gaze" and knowledge of delusions.

Same thing; he could have used delusional there. The words are synonyms and have identical meanings.

Likewise, in casual conversation someone might say: You think the Bears are going to win the Superbowl this year? You are delusional, man! Or he could say 'deluded'. The meaning would be the same.

Or, Nam could have titled his thread, Deluded, and it would have made no difference.

Also, since the words are synonyms, they can each be defined in terms of the other. In the post where you try to separate the two words...

The problem here is that there is a significant difference between those two words, but you (and Nam) appear to be conflating them. Deluded means believing something that is not true. Delusional means holding an idiosyncratic belief despite it being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

... your second link gives the alternative definition which defines delusion in terms of being deluded:

[mass noun] the action of deluding or the state of being deluded:

So even your own example definitions contradict your claim that the words are different.

I'd also point out that in the seven pages of the other thread discussing the medical context, and in these seven pages, no-one as far as I know has suggested that the two words need to be distinguished, and they've been used interchangeably. Except for you.

That is probably because most people are as careless as you when it comes to word usage.

So you insult all your fellow forum members in order to justify your position. Sure, we're all careless and so we can't express ourselves properly, that must be it.

The alternative explanation is that you're making a mistake.

[3sigma]

That would be pointless, 3sigma, because as I just said, the adjectives delusional and deluded are synonyms.

This means that they are interchangeable in any context, general or medical.

Here's a psychiatrist speaking:
…
He could have used delusional instead of deluded in that sentence, and the sentence would have meant exactly the same.

Another one:
…
Same thing; he could have used delusional there. The words are synonyms and have identical meanings.

Likewise, in casual conversation someone might say: You think the Bears are going to win the Superbowl this year? You are delusional, man! Or he could say 'deluded'. The meaning would be the same.

[emphasis added]

I see. So if the words are interchangeable in any context and have identical meanings as you say then when someone says, You are delusional, man!, he means the person actually has a persistent psychotic belief maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. Or does he just mean the person is mistaken and he’s using colourful language to express it?

By the way, I’m not surprised Andrew Sims, a committed Christian, would argue that faith is not a delusion.

Also, since the words are synonyms, they can each be defined in terms of the other. In the post where you try to separate the two words...
… your second link gives the alternative definition which defines delusion in terms of being deluded:

[mass noun] the action of deluding or the state of being deluded:

So even your own example definitions contradict your claim that the words are different.

If you go back to your Merriam-Webster definition and read it again, you will notice there are bold numerals next to the definitions. Do you know the significance of those bold numerals? I’ll tell you. They indicate different meanings for a word, not identical meanings. Just look up the word set and you will see the structure clearly. Are you going to tell us that all the definitions of set are identical and can be used interchangeably in any context?

So you insult all your fellow forum members in order to justify your position. Sure, we're all careless and so we can't express ourselves properly, that must be it.

The alternative explanation is that you're making a mistake.

It wasn’t meant as an insult, just an observation. For example, it seems most people nowadays don’t know the difference between imply and infer or less and fewer. I notice some people here don’t seem to know the difference between than and then and I often see people write loose instead of lose. I’m guilty of carelessness as well, but I try to choose my words carefully. That is why, as I said, I don’t use delusional instead of deluded. Maybe the rest of the world doesn’t see a distinction, but I do. I see deluded as meaning deceived or mistaken and delusional as meaning suffering from a mental disorder.

Both you and Nam seem to think that both words only mean suffering from a mental disorder with no other lesser meaning. Otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing that they have identical meanings and that using them to describe religious believers is tantamount to claiming they are mentally ill and is counterproductive. The fact that people think that way is why I avoid using either word to describe religious believers and prefer to describe them as credulous, gullible, mistaken or self-deceived. At least I can show that those descriptions are apt.

[Nam]

Wow! Talk about someone putting words in one's mouth. Can't get your way: resort to lying.

-Nam

[3sigma]

What? Where am I putting words in his mouth? Where am I lying?

[Nam]

Your last paragraph of the comment I smited. First 3 lines. You adding me to the argument by Gnu, which is similar but not the same, is you lying about my defense by way of definition(s), by implying I am using, or may be using just a "medical definition" (i.e. mental suffering) and no other. Yet, if you go to the OP, I use a basic definition, while most others use medical definitions. If you even read my comments, I state I use the "basic" definition agreed upon the varying dictionaries I looked up the word. So to say I think it only has one definition is a lie when clearly I state more than one.

-Nam

[3sigma]

Your last paragraph of the comment I smited. First 3 lines. You adding me to the argument by Gnu, which is similar but not the same, is you lying about my defense by way of definition(s), by implying I am using, or may be using just a "medical definition" (i.e. mental suffering) and no other. Yet, if you go to the OP, I use a basic definition, while most others use medical definitions. If you even read my comments, I state I use the "basic" definition agreed upon the varying dictionaries I looked up the word. So to say I think it only has one definition is a lie when clearly I state more than one.

I said you seem to think both words mean suffering from a mental disorder with no lesser meaning. It is my inference from your subsequent posts in this thread.

For example, here you seem comfortable associating being delusional with needing treatment and medication. You say being ignorant of reality isn’t delusional.

You think the vast majority of people in the world need treatment and medication? That, in itself, seems delusional. Most are religious because they were born into it: i.e. brainwashed. Being of said state-of-mind doesn't make them delusional, it makes them ignorant of reality based on said premise. Ignorance is not the same as delusional.

Here you say believing something without evidence or holding false hopes isn’t delusional, which tends to contradict your OP definition of delusional as holding a false belief.

Them believing in something that they can't show exists is not delusional, it's just false hopes, in my opinion.

Here you say fundamentalists could be said to be delusional, but those religious believers who are merely misinformed—in other words, they hold false beliefs—are not delusional.

Those people who follow their religions to the letter, such as fundamentalists, I would contend have delusional state-of-minds but as it has been proven on this website and others, the vast majority of those who follow a particular religion are "cherry pickers", orhaven't even read their holy books, and those people usually only cherry pick the "good" rather than the "bad" parts. I don't see those people as delusional. Misinformed, perhaps but not delusional.

Hatter23 said having a delusion doesn’t mean people are mentally ill.

“Just because a person has a delusion does not mean they are ill to a point of medication and treatment, no more than acne, being a skin infection, requires medication and treatment.”

Your response again associates delusion with mental disease.

Nonsense. Equating a skin disease to what is percieved a mental disease. You would have had a better convincing if you used a mental disease vs. What everyone considers to be equally a mental disease but then what disease equates to mass delusion?

Jdawg70 made a similar comment.

“Just because a person has a delusion does not mean they are ill to a point of medication and treatment, no more than depression, being another mental disorder, requires medication and treatment.”

You say that religion isn’t a mental disorder, which suggests that you think a delusion is a mental disorder and that’s why we shouldn’t be calling religious believers delusional.

Depression is a mental disorder, religion isn't.

Here you say denial is not delusion and go on to imply that having conversations with voices in your head would be delusional.

You're equating all, but your selected criteria, as being so, without any actual evidence, per person you're accusing of being "delusional". The average religious person, where I live in the southern US, doesn't act like that. They usually act like we're crazy or dismissive. That's denial, not delusion.

I hear voices. They don't tell me what to do, or have conversations with me. They are primarily what I feel are "echoes". Just yesterday I swear I heard someone call my name. I went to see, and nothing was there. I went back to what I was doing.  I have even attempted to hear things with my ears with just thinking about a certain thing, and I heard something. Which is why I conclude they are "echoes".

Does that make me delusional? I'm hearing things? I must be. I mean, I don't think it's the devil or god or what not but how is that different from a person who does?

Your OP definition of delusional is holding a false belief. However, your subsequent posts state that being delusional isn’t ignorance or false hopes or being misinformed or denial, which rather contradicts your OP definition. If delusional simply means holding a false belief then why do equate it to name-calling?

The tenor of your posts indicates that you think calling someone delusional is significantly more pejorative than saying they hold false beliefs. The content of your subsequent posts contradicts your OP definition of holding false beliefs and suggests that you associate delusional with a mental disorder.  My comment in that last post was mainly to Gnu Ordure, but you also appear to think that delusional means a mental disorder far more than simply holding a false belief.

[Nam]

Your first example: not what I said at all. The first line of what you quote is to Berta ergs who equates delusion to mental disorder, not me. I referred it to ignorance and perhaps, to an extent, brainwashing, which, yes, can be a mental disorder but not in the sense I' m speaking, more a conditioning.

Your second example: not my definition. It's a consensus of varying dictionaries I reviewed. Your fourth example is not me relating anything to anything but opposition to the commentor, that's it.

I love how you interpret my phrasing to equate to what you believe to be true rather than what is.

I say "depression" is a mental disorder, and religion isn't and from that you get I only think delusion is a mental disorder. You're funny.

No, I go on to imply sarcasm based on stupidity.

I think you're an idiot, I never actually stated, difinitevly anything, yet you seem to think if you take my individual comments to people on here and make them say what you want them to then they must.

-Nam

[3sigma]

I think you’re an idiot

I think someone here said people say this sort of thing for self-gratification. I’ve heard too much self-gratification can be harmful.

I never actually stated, difinitevly anything, yet you seem to think if you take my individual comments to people on here and make them say what you want them to then they must.

Then perhaps you should start stating things definitively, clearly and cogently. I don’t think I’m the only one here who formed the impression you were being equivocal.

[screwtape]

Are we talking about the OP anymore or are we just being obnoxious and calling each other names?  If the former, please explain, because it looks to me like the latter.  And if it is the latter, Imma lock this up. 

[3sigma]

Okay, let’s get back to the OP. Nam, you said in the OP that delusional means holding a false belief or opinion. What is your objection to pointing out to someone that they hold a false belief or opinion? If we can’t tell people they are wrong then how can we ever correct any mistakes?

You also said this in your OP:

By the definition provided above, referenced from several dictionaries, it seems that their belief would only be false if ample enough evidence was provided by the person referring to the other as "delusional".

Why would their belief only be false if we provide ample evidence? What evidence? How much evidence is ample? You are suggesting we couldn’t say that a belief in Santa Claus, werewolves, leprechauns or fairies is false until we provide ample evidence. What evidence and what quantity of it would we need to provide before we could call those beliefs false? If we don’t provide any or enough evidence, does that make those beliefs true?

I suggested in post #3 that you should also look up the definition of false. I can’t see where you ever responded to my post so I’m asking now did you do that? If so, what is the definition of false?

[Graybeard]

This means that they are interchangeable in any context, general or medical.

He could have used delusional instead of deluded in that sentence, and the sentence would have meant exactly the same.

From the full Oxford English Dictionary, probably the best dictionary of the English language:

delusional, adj. Of the nature of, or characterized by, delusion.

1871   J. R. Reynolds Syst. Med. (1878) II. 29   Delusional Insanity.
1884   American IX. 88   They regarded Taylor as a ‘delusional monomaniac’.
1891   Daily News 7 July 7/1   She suffers from delusional insanity; that is, her actions depend upon false judgments of existing facts.

deluded, adj. Deceived by mocking prospects, beguiled, misled: see the verb.

1710   J. Norris Treat. Christian Prudence iv. 153   With disappointment and a deluded expectation.
1781   Gibbon Decline & Fall III. 237   Their deluded votaries.

Deluded and delusional are not synonyms.

Delusional describes a continuing state of mind as an approach to the way in which all perceptions are processed.

Deluded is far more restricted and confines itself more to one particular aspect of thought (See the examples and also my signature - delusion /de·lu·sion/ (d?-loo´zhun) an idiosyncratic false belief that is firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. delu´sional - Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers.)

It is no use saying that Christians or any other theist is "delusional" - (they are simply deluded by Christianity, etc.) - as they usually perform well in other tasks; not believing in fairies, that 13 is unlucky, that going out without a vest will result in a cold, or that radio waves from Mars are speaking to them, etc

[HAL]

Still no answer?

Therefore, calling someone delusional is tantamount to saying that you don't believe what they believe. Which we all knew anyway, so why bother?

Then how can a medical pro call anyone delusional per their own definition?

[TheDaemonsNest]

This means that they are interchangeable in any context, general or medical.

He could have used delusional instead of deluded in that sentence, and the sentence would have meant exactly the same.

From the full Oxford English Dictionary, probably the best dictionary of the English language:

delusional, adj. Of the nature of, or characterized by, delusion.

1871   J. R. Reynolds Syst. Med. (1878) II. 29   Delusional Insanity.
1884   American IX. 88   They regarded Taylor as a ‘delusional monomaniac’.
1891   Daily News 7 July 7/1   She suffers from delusional insanity; that is, her actions depend upon false judgments of existing facts.

deluded, adj. Deceived by mocking prospects, beguiled, misled: see the verb.

1710   J. Norris Treat. Christian Prudence iv. 153   With disappointment and a deluded expectation.
1781   Gibbon Decline & Fall III. 237   Their deluded votaries.

Deluded and delusional are not synonyms.

Delusional describes a continuing state of mind as an approach to the way in which all perceptions are processed.

Deluded is far more restricted and confines itself more to one particular aspect of thought (See the examples and also my signature - delusion /de·lu·sion/ (d?-loo´zhun) an idiosyncratic false belief that is firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. delu´sional - Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers.)

It is no use saying that Christians or any other theist is "delusional" - (they are simply deluded by Christianity, etc.) - as they usually perform well in other tasks; not believing in fairies, that 13 is unlucky, that going out without a vest will result in a cold, or that radio waves from Mars are speaking to them, etc

Not a bad argument here, but it does raise a question. Many people discussing the OP have been using a definition of delusional that basically boils down to "Consistent adherence to a disproved belief". Now, this is a question coming from my philosophy teacher. Say you have a friend who believes that his pocket watch is run by a tiny golem. You carefully open the pocket watch and show your friend that there is no golem inside. After putting it back together, your friend states that the golem is invisible. Yes, it does seem silly, but how do you disprove that? That is one problem with using the word deluded, because it requires proof against the belief. With a concept like God, how are you supposed to argue with a religious person? It's not exactly like we can aim a telescope into space and say "See? No God!", as "God" is not a physical concept. What proof against this concept can there be in a physical world?

Furthermore, if you know history, then you know religious beliefs adapt. This means that even if we were able to have a proof against "God", religious people could just change their beliefs to adapt to this proof.

Not sure if any of that makes sense, but I tried anyway. Good topic here people, lets keep it rolling.

[HAL]

Not a bad argument here, but it does raise a question. Many people discussing the OP have been using a definition of delusional that basically boils down to "Consistent adherence to a disproved belief". Now, this is a question coming from my philosophy teacher. Say you have a friend who believes that his pocket watch is run by a tiny golem. You carefully open the pocket watch and show your friend that there is no golem inside. After putting it back together, your friend states that the golem is invisible. Yes, it does seem silly, but how do you disprove that?

That's easy. It's been repeated ad infinitum on these forums as far back as we go. This is basic, basic stuff. It's not for the skeptical to disprove the claims of others. It's for them to provide the evidence top substantiate their claims to the skeptical thinker. They have the Burden of Proof. I have no requirement to take such claims of an invisible golem that runs a watch seriously at all. As far as I'm concerned they are delusional if they claim such a thing is true. If they don't want to be laughed out of the room then they ought to keep their mouth shut about it until they can muster some testable evidence, because if I was their psychiatrist I'd be compounding a good dose of mood stabilizers for them to take for a month until this golem delusion went away.

But again, this stuff is as old as the hills - the Burden of Proof lies with the claimant.

[Nam]

3sigma.

There's nothing wrong with telling them anything if you explain to them why and not just make a statement about it. It's like theists coming here and making statements but never actually explaining anything.

If a person came up to you and said they believed werewolves existed, would you just say they were delusional and walk off or would you provide them ample[1] enough information to show that the belief that werewolves existed is further from reality than not?

Most probably would do the former; it's easier than doing the latter.

There are many definitions to "false". Just like there are many definitions to "delusional", and "deluded" and each person (here or elsewhere) use the definition(s) that best suit their arguments.

Except me, see, I've been using them all, which is conflicting and you've been using the definition of "false/delusional/deluded" that lines up to your argument. Why use conflicting definitions? Because they don't line up with your argument.

I'm wrong, you're right. That's how theists play the game. Well, you learn from what you know.

-Nam

1.	enough to where you would be satisfied that it was enough.

[bertatberts]

If a person came up to you and said they believed werewolves existed, would you just say they were delusional and walk off

No! I and most others would ask "show me a Werewolf" It is not for us to show them where they are mistaken, it is for them to show us where they are correct.
You still don't seem to understand that yet, do you.

[TheDaemonsNest]

If a person came up to you and said they believed werewolves existed, would you just say they were delusional and walk off

No! I and most others would ask "show me a Werewolf" It is not for us to show them where they are mistaken, it is for them to show us where they are correct.
You still don't seem to understand that yet, do you.

That is the whole problem though, isn't it? You can't really offer scientific proof for or against the concept of a "God". With a werewolf you would require physical proof, since it is a physical thing. However, science is not meant to cover anything metaphysical like the "God" concept. In fact, it likely will never be able to address such issues. So what proof could there be? To decide that the inability to produce evidence regarding the "God" concept  in a physical world isn't really fair to anyone, as it lets religious people say "Prove there isn't a God", while the atheist says "Prove there is", and no proof is offered by anyone.

[Gnu Ordure]

That would be pointless, 3sigma, because as I just said, the adjectives delusional and deluded are synonyms.

This means that they are interchangeable in any context, general or medical.

Here's a psychiatrist speaking:
…
He could have used delusional instead of deluded in that sentence, and the sentence would have meant exactly the same.

Another one:
…
Same thing; he could have used delusional there. The words are synonyms and have identical meanings.

Likewise, in casual conversation someone might say: You think the Bears are going to win the Superbowl this year? You are delusional, man! Or he could say 'deluded'. The meaning would be the same.

[emphasis added]

I see.

No, you don't.

So if the words are interchangeable in any context and have identical meanings as you say then when someone says, You are delusional, man!, he means the person actually has a persistent psychotic belief maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

No. I'm not saying that at all.

Delusional/deluded, which mean the same, have two meanings, the medical version, and the general term. The two meanings are separate; the words to describe them (delusional/deluded) are interchangeable in both contexts.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Also, since the words are synonyms, they can each be defined in terms of the other. In the post where you try to separate the two words...
… your second link gives the alternative definition which defines delusion in terms of being deluded:

[mass noun] the action of deluding or the state of being deluded:

So even your own example definitions contradict your claim that the words are different.

If you go back to your Merriam-Webster definition and read it again, you will notice there are bold numerals next to the definitions. Do you know the significance of those bold numerals? I’ll tell you. They indicate different meanings for a word, not identical meanings.

I know that. When I say that delusional and deluded are synonyms, I'm not saying that they only have one meaning.

 

My bolding:

I’m guilty of carelessness as well, but I try to choose my words carefully. That is why, as I said, I don’t use delusional instead of deluded. Maybe the rest of the world doesn’t see a distinction, but I do.

And there's the problem, 3sigma. When you admit that you use words idiosyncratically, in ways that the rest of the world doesn't recognize, you have officially entered Humpty-Dumpty territory.

I see deluded as meaning deceived or mistaken and delusional as meaning suffering from a mental disorder.

But no-one else does. That's your own private Humpty-Dumpty rule.

Both you and Nam seem to think that both words only mean suffering from a mental disorder with no other lesser meaning. Otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing that they have identical meanings

As explained above, that's a misrepresentation of my position.

[TheDaemonsNest]

Not a bad argument here, but it does raise a question. Many people discussing the OP have been using a definition of delusional that basically boils down to "Consistent adherence to a disproved belief". Now, this is a question coming from my philosophy teacher. Say you have a friend who believes that his pocket watch is run by a tiny golem. You carefully open the pocket watch and show your friend that there is no golem inside. After putting it back together, your friend states that the golem is invisible. Yes, it does seem silly, but how do you disprove that?

That's easy. It's been repeated ad infinitum on these forums as far back as we go. This is basic, basic stuff. It's not for the skeptical to disprove the claims of others. It's for them to provide the evidence top substantiate their claims to the skeptical thinker. They have the Burden of Proof. I have no requirement to take such claims of an invisible golem that runs a watch seriously at all. As far as I'm concerned they are delusional if they claim such a thing is true. If they don't want to be laughed out of the room then they ought to keep their mouth shut about it until they can muster some testable evidence, because if I was their psychiatrist I'd be compounding a good dose of mood stabilizers for them to take for a month until this golem delusion went away.

But again, this stuff is as old as the hills - the Burden of Proof lies with the claimant.

Of course, and I agree for the most part. However, religion plays by a different set of rules then science. When religious people make a statement like "The world was created by God's magic power in 6 days", how do you propose they prove this? Not a single person on earth is able to investigate the nature of this "God", so naturally they would not be able to offer any proof. On top of that, what constitutes proof for them would not be the same thing that constitutes proof for you. An experience they had or a personal testimony could constitute "proof" in their opinion, while you might require something physical. And as I already said, what physical proof can they offer for a metaphysical concept? For that matter, what proof can there be for any metaphysical concept? I guess that's the whole point of my argument here, how can you call someone delusional when there's no proof for or against what they are saying? You don't have to take what they're saying seriously. much less believe in it, but to call them deluded for it might not be appropriate. Stubborn, most definitely. But, the definition of delusion requires proof, not the lack thereof. 

[Nam]

If a person came up to you and said they believed werewolves existed, would you just say they were delusional and walk off

No! I and most others would ask "show me a Werewolf" It is not for us to show them where they are mistaken, it is for them to show us where they are correct.
You still don't seem to understand that yet, do you.

I understand quite perfectly. It's a one-way street. They are making the claim, so all research into the matter relies primarily on them. But what YOU don't seem to get is they have their information already, and they already believe it.

---

Person: I believe in werewolves.
Bertaberts: Werewolves are mythological. They are not real.
Person: I believe they are real.
Bertaberts: Prove it.
Person: No.
Bertaberts: You're making a claim about something you believe is real, and has been shown to be a mythological creature.
Person: So?
Bertaberts: So, prove they exist.
Person: Why?
Bertaberts: Because you say they exist!

Etc., etc., etc.,

But let's say they provided some information; that they provided evidence, of course you'd denounce it as being nothing but fiction, and after who knows how long of debating you'd provide evidence that was unbiased and showed they were just mythological.

But, why not just do that in the beginning? Why go through an unnecessary process when you're going to end up providing evidence in the end, anyway?

I know why i'd drag it out but why you? Or anyone else?

Just because they are making the claim doesn't mean you can't provide evidence, yourself, in the beginning, that it is false.

-Nam

[Gnu Ordure]

This means that they are interchangeable in any context, general or medical.

He could have used delusional instead of deluded in that sentence, and the sentence would have meant exactly the same.

From the full Oxford English Dictionary, probably the best dictionary of the English language:

delusional, adj. Of the nature of, or characterized by, delusion.

1871   J. R. Reynolds Syst. Med. (1878) II. 29   Delusional Insanity.
1884   American IX. 88   They regarded Taylor as a ‘delusional monomaniac’.
1891   Daily News 7 July 7/1   She suffers from delusional insanity; that is, her actions depend upon false judgments of existing facts.

deluded, adj. Deceived by mocking prospects, beguiled, misled: see the verb.

1710   J. Norris Treat. Christian Prudence iv. 153   With disappointment and a deluded expectation.
1781   Gibbon Decline & Fall III. 237   Their deluded votaries.

Deluded and delusional are not synonyms.

I think they are.

And citing archaic definitions proves nothing; this isn't an argument about etymology, we're concerned with contemporary usage.

Delusional describes a continuing state of mind as an approach to the way in which all perceptions are processed.

Deluded is far more restricted and confines itself more to one particular aspect of thought.

Really? Which dictionaries say this?

(See the examples and also my signature - delusion /de·lu·sion/ (d?-loo´zhun) an idiosyncratic false belief that is firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. delu´sional - Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers.)

That doesn't make the distinction you're claiming.

It is no use saying that Christians or any other theist is "delusional" - (they are simply deluded by Christianity, etc.) - as they usually perform well in other tasks; not believing in fairies, that 13 is unlucky, that going out without a vest will result in a cold, or that radio waves from Mars are speaking to them, etc

I once had a patient who believed that a group of homeopaths were trying to kill her by coating the door-handle of her car with a homeopathic poison. This didn't affect her very much - she always wore a glove to open her car door. The rest of her life continued normally.

That behaviour is delusional/deluded. Either word will do. Your distinction is spurious.

[bertatberts]

If a person came up to you and said they believed werewolves existed, would you just say they were delusional and walk off

No! I and most others would ask "show me a Werewolf" It is not for us to show them where they are mistaken, it is for them to show us where they are correct.
You still don't seem to understand that yet, do you.

That is the whole problem though, isn't it? You can't really offer scientific proof for or against the concept of a "God".

There is no need too, only the one claiming a thing exists has the burden.

With a werewolf you would require physical proof, since it is a physical thing.

It is an imaginary thing. With physical attributes, God interacts with this universe therefore it too has physical attributes.

However, science is not meant to cover anything metaphysical like the "God" concept. In fact, it likely will never be able to address such issues.

It does not need too, only the one claiming in the affirmative has the burden.

So what proof could there be? To decide that the inability to produce evidence regarding the "God" concept  in a physical world isn't really fair to anyone, as it lets religious people say "Prove there isn't a God",

They can say it as much as they like, but they would need to produce a god first, for there to be anything to deny. 

Person: I believe in werewolves.
Bertaberts: Show me one. Werewolves are mythological. They are not real.
Person: I believe they are real.
Bertaberts: Do you , show me one. Prove it.
Person: No.
Bertaberts: Why not, I'd believe undoubtedly if you do.You're making a claim about something you believe is real, and has been shown to be a mythological creature.
Person: So?
Bertaberts: Well if you don't want too show me one, then don't expect me to believe in werewolves, ok.So, prove they exist.
Person: Why?
Bertaberts: Isn't it obvious. Because you say they exist!

I've reworded it to something that I may say.
There the debate would end, because it would not be worth while pursuing any further.

[HAL]

Of course, and I agree for the most part. However, religion plays by a different set of rules then science. When religious people make a statement like "The world was created by God's magic power in 6 days", how do you propose they prove this?

I dunno - it ain't my problem dude.

Not a single person on earth is able to investigate the nature of this "God", so naturally they would not be able to offer any proof. On top of that, what constitutes proof for them would not be the same thing that constitutes proof for you. An experience they had or a personal testimony could constitute "proof" in their opinion, while you might require something physical. And as I already said, what physical proof can they offer for a metaphysical concept? For that matter, what proof can there be for any metaphysical concept?

Again - I dunno - it ain't my problem dude. They are claiming it so they have the Burden of Proof. Trying to equivocate around it isn't going to impress me in the least.

I guess that's the whole point of my argument here, how can you call someone delusional when there's no proof for or against what they are saying? You don't have to take what they're saying seriously. much less believe in it, but to call them deluded for it might not be appropriate. Stubborn, most definitely. But, the definition of delusion requires proof, not the lack thereof.

Same mistake again - the proof has to be for it it, and they have the burden.

Man this is getting very tiring.

[HAL]

Man this question must be throwing Gnu for a loop. Why won't he answer it? this is the 3rd time I'm asking -

Therefore, calling someone delusional is tantamount to saying that you don't believe what they believe. Which we all knew anyway, so why bother?

Then how can a medical pro call anyone delusional per their own definition?