I have never heard of any of those. Either you have an inventive mind, or you know some weird people.
They're all parts of actual mythologies. The wolf that eats the sun
is Viking in origin; some of the other myths about eclipses on that page are equally strange. Lightning as the wrath of a god stems from Greek myth, specifically Zeus
, the king of the gods and the wielder of the mighty thunderbolt. Earthquakes being the work of a god is also Greek, specifically Poseidon
Those are just scratching the surface of mythology. The peoples who came up with them really believed those things; that wolves chased the sun and the moon and tried to eat them, that gods flung lightning bolts and shook the earth, and many more besides. Would you consider such things delusional?
But, you seem to be saying, and I could be wrong, but, alcohol leads to smoking pot, which leads to doing crack, which leads to doing heroin, which leads to murder, which leads to ass rape in prison! That's what you're saying, right?
Perhaps you should keep your imagination on a leash, if you come up with things like that when you exercise it. This isn't Nam's rendition of "for want of a nail", so try to avoid such strawmen in the future. There's a very simple fact underlying my statement that ignorance leads to delusional beliefs, which is that people try to make sense out of seeming senselessness. That's why you have all those mythological beliefs, people trying to explain something they couldn't make sense of by the exercise of their imaginations.
Ever think that mentality was there before religion? Before ignorance? Before delusion?
As far as we know, all three of those things were around before we had the concept of recording history. Given that every single culture that we have any records of whatsoever have mythologies based on things they invented out of whole cloth to try to explain things they didn't understand, I think that answers your question.
Unbiased evidence is sourced material dealing with the subject but not from the subject's POV, 'cause that'd be biased; which can be collaborated by other sources, yet still holding a neutral position.
Oh, very clever. You've managed to come up with a definition that excludes any statement made by someone who holds possibly delusional beliefs, simply by fiat, because those statements are 'biased'. Well, I don't agree with you or your statement that only evidence you judge as 'unbiased' is valid. 'Biased' or not, I think it's perfectly fine to use someone's own words as evidence about something they believe.
And, sometimes that "opinion" by said "expert" leads innocent people to death row. Not a good example, I feel.
This is a strawman, Nam, and the second one you've used in this very post. Seriously, I'm quite disappointed. Can you not argue without coming up with ridiculous exaggerations of another person's position? Unless you can show that experts send innocent people to death row very frequently compared to other situations (such as convicting a guilty person), your insinuation is not valid.
But that's been one of my consistent points: those calling people delusional usually use the "main" object (i.e. belief in god), and use the relying attributes as just cherry on the cake.
In their defense, every religion ever invented has come up with statements about the universe which are almost certainly false, such as a being in the sky who throws lightning at the ground, or a wolf in the sky that tries to eat the sun. You seem to be insisting that a belief that hasn't been proven false can't be considered delusional, but I think that's taking reasonable doubt to an absurd level.
If someone tries to argue that there's a teapot in orbit of Alpha Centauri, it may not be possible to prove that it's definitely false until we're in a position to tell for sure, but that doesn't make the belief any less delusional. They might end up being 'right' by sheer chance, but that doesn't mean that their belief was at all reasonable, or that they didn't make it up to begin with.
That question is in my OP, did you even read that?
As I stated, you would do far better than to pursue the question of whether it's appropriate to label people as delusional for a belief they hold than to get caught up in arguing semantics and technicalities about whether the term applies at all.