Not a strawmen.
Not a strawmen.
Is this really the best you can do? "Not a strawman". Give me a break. Didn't you just get done saying that when you state something, that you have to back it up? Yet here you are, 'rebutting' my accusations of you using strawmen by simply saying, "not a strawman". That doesn't fly. If you weren't using strawmen, then precisely what were you trying to do?
For example, the first strawman was basically a massive exaggeration of my point; I quote, "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?" Except that you never really showed how that actually tied into what I really said, which was that delusions that are not medical or psychiatric almost always come from ignorance. Instead of something simple and straightforward, like "Delusions may come from ignorance, but does ignorance always lead to a delusion", you instead came up with an overly-convoluted causal chain which you used to describe my argument. The fact that you phrased it as a question and said you could be wrong doesn't change the fact that you caricatured my argument and then treated the caricature as if it was my actual argument, which is what a strawman is.
The second strawman was just as bad. You 'countered' my example of experts testifying in criminal cases by stating: "And, sometimes that "opinion" by said "expert" leads innocent people to death row. Not a good example, I feel." In other words, you took my example and addressed the worst possible outcome, then acted as if you had countered the example in full, when in fact you had only addressed a very small subset of possible outcomes of expert testimony. Again, that's what a strawman is.
And now you simply say, "not a strawman" in response to me calling you on them and expect that to fly? No, it does not, and it will not if you try it again. I expect you to respond to this, and I expect you to not respond with "not a strawman" or some variant on that theme.
You're talking about myths that, most likely, don't even believe in anymore. Why not, as examples, use ones that people do believe in? There's a thought.
Dodging. I asked you very specifically if you thought those beliefs counted as delusions, and you basically sidestepped it entirely by claiming nobody believed in them anymore. So I'll ask again. Do you think those ancient beliefs that I cited count as delusions?
Only if ones words canbe sourced neutrally.
Let me reiterate, I don't accept your idea that someone's words have to be "neutrally sourced" in order to count as evidence.
"In their defense" -- another one of my points.
I think you misunderstood. The "they" I was referring to are the people accusing theists of being delusional and various unsupported theistic beliefs of being delusions.
I find it's always "semantics" et al, that one goes to in certain discussions dealing with one's belief, or in this case: non-belief.
This sounds an awful lot like an excuse to justify continuing to argue about the semantics of what delusional means rather than arguing about whether it does any good to consider people delusional.