Delusional

[bertatberts]

Man this is getting very tiring.

Isn't it. Wow!

[3sigma]

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?

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

Neither. I too would ask them to prove it.

This doesn’t answer my questions to you. You said in your OP that such a person’s beliefs would only be false if ample evidence was provided by the person who doesn’t hold the belief. 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?

Let’s stick with your example of werewolves. Please provide an example of the evidence you say I have to provide. Please explain how this compares with the evidence I would need to provide to show that a belief in gods is false. For example, I could explain that werewolves have never been proven to be real and the only references to them appear in storybooks. So it is with any gods. I could ask the person to provide evidence that werewolves (or gods) are real and then demonstrate why each piece of evidence they think they have is based on misapprehensions, fallacies or misrepresentations. Would that be enough to show that their beliefs are false? If not then how can we ever call any belief false?

How much evidence is ample evidence? From my point of view, I don’t need to provide any evidence to show their beliefs are false. They need to provide evidence to show their beliefs are true. Now, suppose I don’t provide any evidence to show their beliefs are false. Does that make the beliefs true?

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.

What is the definition of false you are using when you say a person’s beliefs would only be false when ample evidence is provided by the person who doesn’t believe them?

When it comes to beliefs in werewolves or gods, I think the most reasonable and appropriate definition of false is: not true.

[3sigma]

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

It appears from everything you’ve said that your position is: deluded and delusional mean the same thing within a specific context and if the context is different then the meaning may be different. Is that a fair representation?

Is it also fair to say that you think, in the context of general discussion, deluded/delusional means believing something that is not true and in the medical context, deluded/delusional means maintaining a psychotic belief despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?

[Gnu Ordure]

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?

HAL, your question appeared to be rhetorical, and if it wasn't, I don't understand it.

[Gnu Ordure]

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

It appears from everything you’ve said that your position is: deluded and delusional mean the same thing within a specific context and if the context is different then the meaning may be different. Is that a fair representation?

Yes. That's what I mean.

Is it also fair to say that you think, in the context of general discussion, deluded/delusional means believing something that is not true and in the medical context, deluded/delusional means maintaining a psychotic belief despite indisputable evidence to the contrary?

Yes, that's basically it. There's a layman's definition, and a medical one, and both words can be used interchangeably in both contexts. The context determines the appropriate meaning.

[Nam]

3sigma.

You're missing my point: no one[1] has to provide anything for anything. If one questions the other, then they are both making claims. They are making the claim that werewolves are real, and you're making the claim they are not.

It's a room with one way out but no one seems to have the key. Or, both sides believe they do.

-Nam

1.	either side

[jetson]

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.

Minor issue.  God is not always metaphysical.  He has appeared on earth, and he has directly interacted with certain people.  Through Jesus, he has directly manifested his "miracles" in various ways. 

As others have stated, we have no reason to hold even the possibility of a god being real, without some type of evidence, any more than we would hold aliens abducting humans and extracting their eggs without evidence.  And, as has been said many times in the past, what reason does anyone even have in positing a god to begin with?

[Nam]

Jetson,

I think it's the misunderstanding of, perhaps, death. Not necessarily the fear of it but the reasoning for it. Just an idea.

-Nam

[jetson]

Jetson,

I think it's the misunderstanding of, perhaps, death. Not necessarily the fear of it but the reasoning for it. Just an idea.

-Nam

No doubt, that, along with the fact that early humans had no clue as to what was going on around them in terms of plain old mother nature.  Heck, imagine the earliest humans trying to deal with Tsunamis, Hurricanes, Tornadoes...and even lightning!

I stand corrected!

[3sigma]

You're missing my point: no one[1] has to provide anything for anything. If one questions the other, then they are both making claims. They are making the claim that werewolves are real, and you're making the claim they are not.

1.	either side

No, I’m not making a claim. When someone says to me, “Werewolves are real” or “God is real”, they are making a positive claim. When I say, “Prove it”, I’m not making a claim at all. I’m asking them to establish the truth or validity of their claim. If they can’t establish the truth or validity of their claim then why should anyone believe them? If they evade or refuse to answer that reasonable request then what does that say about their intellectual integrity?

You keep evading my questions. You said in your OP that such a person’s beliefs would only be false if ample evidence was provided by the person who doesn’t hold the belief. What is the definition of false you are using? 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?

[Nam]

3sigma,

Yes, you are. You're making the claim that what they say is not true. It's false. It's deluded. It's delusional.

They are deluded/delusional based on their claim that werewolves exist. Or Biblegod exists. Or Allah exists. Or Yahweh.

Or, or, or , or, or...etc.,

You want evidence of this? 9 pages of this topic. Want more? This website.

This website makes claims. It has videos that have claims. It has topics that have claims. So, please with the rhetoric of "they are the one's who make the claims" 'cause that's a lie.

-Nam

[3sigma]

Yes, you are. You're making the claim that what they say is not true. It's false. It's deluded. It's delusional.

They are deluded/delusional based on their claim that werewolves exist. Or Biblegod exists. Or Allah exists. Or Yahweh.

Or, or, or , or, or...etc.,

Good grief. I find it difficult to believe any reasonable person would continue making such an argument. Here’s an example for you to mull over.

Suppose someone says to me, “Extraterrestrial life exists”, and I say, “Prove it.” I’m not making the claim that extraterrestrial life doesn’t exist. I think it’s entirely possible that at least microbial life exists somewhere else in the universe so I’m not denying their claim or making an inverse claim. I’m just asking them to establish the truth or validity of their claim before I’ll accept it as true.

Similarly, when some says to me, ”God is real”, and I say, “Prove it, I’m not making the claim their God doesn’t exist. I’m asking them to establish the truth or validity of their claim. I certainly think the likelihood of anyone’s God existing is far lower than the likelihood of extraterrestrial life existing, but I’m not discounting it outright. I’m just asking them to establish the truth or validity of their claim before I’ll accept it as true.

And yet again you evaded my questions about your OP. Please answer these questions. You said in your OP that such a person’s beliefs would only be false if ample evidence was provided by the person who doesn’t hold the belief. What is the definition of false you are using? 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?

[Nam]

3sigma,

I'm not saying you're making a claim whether they are, or not. I'm saying you're making the claim they are wrong based on the evidence they have (if any), and also making the claim that they are deluded/delusional (or what not) whether vocalizing such thought to them, or not. That's your claim. That's this website's claim about those who are theists. There doesn't have to be specificity in the claim, all it has to be is shown, in what ever manner.

And to say you're not making the claim is either a lie to yourself, or just to everyone else.

You asked before about me calling people an "idiot", since I stated that I do it when only necessary to do so,it must have meant there was no self-gratification on my part. Of course there is. It's one of the main reasons why I call people that.

The difference between me and those here who call people delusional or deluded? I admit it[1], y'all don't. Why? Perhaps it makes you come off looking bad, or something but if you believe it's true, as I feel everyone is an idiot (including myself), then, who cares?

People who call other people names, especially specific ones, do it not because there's truth to it but because they enjoy it because they believe there is truth to it.

See the difference?

Probably not.

[EDIT]

I forgot: ample enough evidence is all 3[2] sides provided for by the party making said claim.

-Nam

1.	that I do it for self-gratification
2.	yes 3: their side, the other side, and the neutral side.

[3sigma]

I give up.

[Nam]

3sigma,

Why? Am I a wall you can't break or climb over? I don't think you'll do well against theists if you can't even do okay with a fellow atheist.

-Nam

[pianodwarf]

Nam, asking someone to provide support for their claim is not a counterclaim.  I'm amazed you don't see this and even more amazed that you don't get it after having it explained to you.

[HAL]

Yes, you are. You're making the claim that what they say is not true. It's false. It's deluded. It's delusional.

They are deluded/delusional based on their claim that werewolves exist. Or Biblegod exists. Or Allah exists. Or Yahweh.

Yes we're making the claim that theists are delusional. We make that claim based on the evidence for being delusional. The evidence is that they cannot bear the burden of proof for their claims yet still believe in them. We bear the burden of proof for our claims that they are delusional based on the fact that they cannot meet the burden of proof - yet still cling to an unreasonable belief.

So we are not delusional for that. Only one side met the burden of proof.

[HAL]

HAL, your question appeared to be rhetorical, and if it wasn't, I don't understand it.

What aspect of the question do you not understand?

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?

[Nam]

Nam, asking someone to provide support for their claim is not a counterclaim.  I'm amazed you don't see this and even more amazed that you don't get it after having it explained to you.

A counterclaim is a claim in opposition to another claim. Their claim is that theire deity is real, the person who disagrees with that claims that person is delusional because they believe that. That's the claim I'm stating they are making: that they are delusional based on their belief, whether in truth, or not.

So, when someone calls another delusional here, they're not claiming anything?

Claim: to state to be true; a statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth.[1]

So, non-theists here don't do that?

Oh, I see.[2]

Hal,

I have no argument about that but 3sigma, and apparently pianodwarf, seem to think that the only people who make such claims are theists when I'm trying to state that atheists, such as on here, make claims all the time with no evidence to back such things up.

Thus, calling someone deluded or delusional is self-gratification because if it was just calling shit[3] shit, then they'd be able to back up their claim of them being delusional/deluded with anything but their opinion.

At least I admit when I call people an idiot that it's primarily self-gratification. If they could only admit that when they call a theist delusional/deluded it too is primarily self-gratification.

I mean, all they have, it seems, is medical definitions from dictionaries that have changed meanings to varying words since their or the words' creation, and their opinion that they state are facts 'cause a consensus of people all agree with such assessment(s).

So,it must be true.

-Nam

1.	american heritage (2000)
2.	sarcasm
3.	as an example

[pianodwarf]

A counterclaim is a claim in opposition to another claim.

Right.  And asking someone to support a claim they've made is not that.

[jaimehlers]

Nam:  The fact that some people call others names does not in and of itself mean that the name is accurate.  It simply means that the person doing it has an opinion about those others.  Which you've admitted is largely true in your case, I'll grant.

However, it's important to recognize that it isn't always a pejorative opinion when someone uses a label.  For example, if we had someone who claimed the moon was made of Swiss cheese, most people would consider them to be delusional, because we have plenty of evidence to contradict that belief.  Astronauts who have gone to the moon and brought rocks back, among other things.

As to your most recent response to pianodwarf, you didn't address the specific statement he made there, you made a statement about what you thought he really meant.  The fact is that if someone makes a claim, and someone else expresses skepticism in some form or another about that claim and demands that they support it through evidence, they aren't making a counterclaim.  For example, if I encountered this hypothetical person who claimed the moon was made of Swiss cheese, and I said, "I think you're wrong.  Can you provide evidence?", it wouldn't be a counterclaim.  Because in this context, I'm expressing skepticism about their claim.  It wouldn't matter if I said "I don't believe you" or "I think you're delusional" before asking for their evidence, the fact remains that it's an expression of skepticism about what they are saying is true.

[HAL]

I have no argument about that but 3sigma, and apparently pianodwarf, seem to think that the only people who make such claims are theists when I'm trying to state that atheists, such as on here, make claims all the time with no evidence to back such things up.

Well look at the claims -

The theist makes a claim about a belief in a deity. We ask for evidence. Theist cannot provide rigorous testable/verifiable evidence for their claim of a deity or how we can justify their belief ourselves.

Result: We justifiably claim they are delusional. The evidence is that they cannot bear the Burden of Proof for their stance.

The atheist makes a claim that a theist is delusional based on an observation of said theist. Our Burden of Proof for stating they are delusional is whether or not they can muster testable/verifiable evidence for their claims. If our Burden of Proof is met (they cannot muster the testable evidence) then we have met our Burden of Proof for claiming they are delusional.

It's really very simple.

Thus, calling someone deluded or delusional is self-gratification because if it was just calling shit[1] shit, then they'd be able to back up their claim of them being delusional/deluded with anything but their opinion.

1.	as an example

I do not call theists delusional for self-gratification. I say it based on the fact they believe in something which has no reasonable evidence for support. It's just a forensic observation, so to speak.

[Hatter23]

The theist makes a claim about a belief in a deity. We ask for evidence. Theist cannot provide rigorous testable/verifiable evidence for their claim of a deity or how we can justify their belief ourselves.

Result: We justifiably claim they are delusional. The evidence is that they cannot bear the Burden of Proof for their stance.

The atheist makes a claim that a theist is delusional based on an observation of said theist. Our Burden of Proof for stating they are delusional is whether or not they can muster testable/verifiable evidence for their claims. If our Burden of Proof is met (they cannot muster the testable evidence) then we have met our Burden of Proof for claiming they are delusional.

It's really very simple.

Thus, calling someone deluded or delusional is self-gratification because if it was just calling shit[1] shit, then they'd be able to back up their claim of them being delusional/deluded with anything but their opinion.

1.	as an example

I do not call theists delusional for self-gratification. I say it based on the fact they believe in something which has no reasonable evidence for support. It's just a forensic observation, so to speak.

Furthermore, I state it is a delusion, only and only if the religious person maintains the belief in face of evidence to the contrary; thus meeting the definition. Sure there's a thousand gradients and when it flips from a mistaken belief to a delusion is a matter of opinion; however when we are talking about a fully cognizant 21rst century adult in the first world, the label 'deluded' is entirely accurate.

This isn't really about the burden of proof argument for me. That's not really the argument. It is about the modern adult ignoring the evidence that religion is just a lot of bullshit. It doesn't matter how many have a belief or not; it is about the availability of evidence that the belief does not match fact.

[jetson]

This isn't really about the burden of proof argument for me. That's not really the argument. It is about the modern adult ignoring the evidence that religion is just a lot of bullshit. It doesn't matter how many have a belief or not; it is about the availability of evidence that the belief does not match fact.

Yes, just replace the premise with Santa Claus and see how far you get with an adult.  What would a professional doctor call a grown adult who is convinced that Santa is real?

[Nam]

pianodwarf,

That's irrelevant to this topic. This topic is about calling people delusional, and why people do it. For what reason. Whether they can back up their claim is irrelevant. 3sigma stated I disregarded many of his questions, and why did I do that? Because they were irrelevant to the topic.

All I've mainly have gotten from people who call people delusional is definitions; medical, or otherwise. "They are delusional 'cause my dictionary says they are.".  I can sit here and do the same thing about atheist members here on a slew of words. But then that would be me attacking, and disrupting yet when people here call theists delusional, it's all in fun. Or, it's been proven so, it's okay.

I called 3sigma an idiot and Jetson comes in and threatens to lock the topic. People call theist members here delusional, and where is the admin or mod threatening to lock the topic[1]?

So, all I can come up with is: self-gratification. Y'all still haven't shown me it's anything else.

jaimehlers,

1st paragraph: Tomato/potato. Apples/oranges. etc., etc.,

2nd paragraph: as I responded the way I did to pianodwarf: I never said or implied they did. I said, and have been saying since 3sigma inquired: the claim by people here is they are delusional based on what they state. No one has actual non-biased and/or scientific data that shows they are delusional. They primarily hold the opinion that they are delusional based on what they say that people here would find to be so[2]; based on their own personal opinion and relying solely on that with little to no actual evidence.

Hal,

That makes them uneducated thus an idiot not delusional. Makes them ignorant thus an idiot not delusional.

Atheist: God doesn't exist.
Theist: Prove it.
Atheist: I can't.
Theist: You're delusional.

Atheist: The God of the Bible doesn't exist.
Christian: Prove it.
Atheist: I have all this evidence that points in that direction but it's not definitive, or 100%, and partially lies on my opinion based on everything the Bible states etc., etc., etc.,
Christian: You're delusional.

This is what I'm reading from most of you except in reverse. Doesn't make them delusional, it makes them willfuly ignorant, or uneducated. It makes them idiots.

Hatter23,

Your last paragraph, in my opinion, signifies willful ignorance not delusion.

-Nam

1.	other topics, not this one.
2.	note Hal's comment to me saying just that after yours.

[Hatter23]

Hatter23,

Your last paragraph, in my opinion, signifies willful ignorance not delusion.

-Nam

When it comes to a question of verifiable fact, show me the difference.

[3sigma]

I have no argument about that but 3sigma, and apparently pianodwarf, seem to think that the only people who make such claims are theists when I'm trying to state that atheists, such as on here, make claims all the time with no evidence to back such things up.

Well, Nam, here is an interesting situation. You say I seem to think that the only people who make unsupported claims are theists, yet I don’t think that and I’m pretty sure I’ve never said that or anything that would give that impression.

What should I do about this? Should I slap you and accuse you of lying as you did two days ago? No, of course not. What would people think of me if I did something like that? If you then explained what I said that caused you to form that impression, should I slap you again? What on Earth would people think of me then?

That's irrelevant to this topic. This topic is about calling people delusional, and why people do it. For what reason. Whether they can back up their claim is irrelevant. 3sigma stated I disregarded many of his questions, and why did I do that? Because they were irrelevant to the topic.

Those questions you keep evading about your OP are relevant to the topic because whether people’s claims are true or not determines whether they do, in fact, hold false beliefs, which, as you state in your OP, is delusional. If they are, by your definition, delusional then it is reasonably warranted to point that out and try to rectify their delusion.

[Nam]

3sigma,

Rectify their delusion? No one here, in 9 pages, has shown they are delusional because they believe what they believe. It's been more to do with them not being able to provide the evidence for what they believe: again: not delusion but ignorance. However, You've pointed out minor things like mysticism, and whether prayer works, or not etc., and based on those things, I can agree, based on the evidence, those who believe in those things can be delusional however, those aren't even close to the main things as to why people[1] call people delusional. The root is the belief in a god. That's the rub.

You sure fooled me with your incessant[2] idealism of the whole thing[3] but perhaps I placed too much emphasis on my opinion.

What lie? It's what you said.

You keep saying that I am stating -- I'm not stating anything. I provided a definition, it's not my definition. It's a general definition of varying dictionaries. Not mine: theirs.

-Nam


edit - fixed bold.

1.	atheists here, or elsewhere
2.	I recognise the irony
3.	in concern to your first paragraph

[jaimehlers]

1st paragraph: Tomato/potato. Apples/oranges. etc., etc.,

This is a fancy way to say that you don't think you have to come up with a reasoned-out response.  And, to be blunt, that attitude doesn't fly.  Don't just say that something's so, show why it's the case.  You don't get to ignore that, especially when it's the very attitude you're criticizing in others.  To put it bluntly, if you're going to act like you don't have to seriously address what someone says because you think you can just say "apples and oranges" and have it hold water, then you sabotage your own argument in the process.

2nd paragraph: as I responded the way I did to pianodwarf: I never said or implied they did. I said, and have been saying since 3sigma inquired: the claim by people here is they are delusional based on what they state. No one has actual non-biased and/or scientific data that shows they are delusional. They primarily hold the opinion that they are delusional based on what they say that people here would find to be so[1]; based on their own personal opinion and relying solely on that with little to no actual evidence.

1.	note Hal's comment to me saying just that after yours.

Doesn't fly.  If someone claims that the sky is a bright green, and that the sun is purple, when all I have to do is look up to confirm that neither is the case, then it's not unreasonable to state that they're delusional, because their observations do not match those that others have made.  Given that a delusion is something that is falsely believed to be true, then if they believe something, easily confirmed to be false, to in fact be true, then it is completely appropriate to state that they're delusional.  Perhaps not polite, but that's irrelevant.

In other words, it is not done out of a sense of self-gratification, as you seem to think.  If someone lies under oath, then it is not self-gratification or pejoration to call it perjury.  If someone believes something false to be true, it is not self-gratification or pejoration to call them delusional.  It's really that simple.

By the way, if someone were to say that he'd been contacted by Vulcans from Andromeda, but couldn't provide any proof of this, then I'd consider him to be delusional, because he'd be making a claim that he couldn't back up.  It wouldn't be to puff myself up (self-gratify) or to insult (pejorate) him, it would be because he'd be claiming that something was true which he couldn't prove true by any standard.  Therefore, it's reasonable to consider it false without evidence to back it up with.