Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?

So infants can't define who their mother is?

Seriously, if you want to attempt to discuss this topic any further you will have to drop this imbecile notion of thought and awareness having no ultimate form outside of syntax.

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But you are prepared to admit that humans think in words. And that if you ask someone what they're thinking about, they will often explain it in their native language.

What if you don't want to think? If you ask someone what they're thinking and they say, "I'm not thinking", are they deluded since obviously they're aware and "having a dialog"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So now complex expressedlanguage combination s of syntax can exist independent of thinking ... certainly a novel concept and a worthy companion to your previous gem suggesting one can simultaneously pay and not pay attention.
:shrug:

I reiterate, until you give up this absurd notion of thought and awareness existing in no higher form outside syntax, you don't even enter in the arena of this discussion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If by thinking you mean "in words" then what you said makes no sense.

But that seems to be your style: misinterpret things so they fit your agenda. We aren't having a discussion, and we never have.
You admit that humans think in words, but also insist this is something I claim is the only kind of thought or awareness, which I haven't done.
So you invent things I haven't said, thus you can respond through remonstration. I'm not surprised that few people want to engage with you.

But if you're happy with your internal dialog, who am I to criticise? I have to say that despite your projection of being knowledgable, you tend to come across as a bit of a twat.

But here I am, wasting my time. So . . . bye.

 

If by thinking you mean "in words" then your entire contribution to this thread makes no sense

You are leaving this discussion without ever participating in it.

:shrug:

 

And these are not words on a page.


Awww, this is so funny!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But people do think in words. If you think I believe that's the only way we think, then you're obviously just trying to find a reason to preach your own nonsense.

Well, now you can keep talking to yourself, the only person who is interested.

 

Don't know what you are talking about but it has nothing to do with sociology, philosophy or psychology

will the irony never end?
:shrug:

 

run off to learn tap dancing so they could communicate their response to me in Morse code of course.

glad we finally agree

actually its a failure to enter a state bereft of being aware ... I guess that is one of the failings of being alive

don't flatter yourself.

Finding shortcomings with your ideas doesn't require expertise.

:shrug:

 

I am in 100% absolute agreement with you.

 

I'm not.
First he uses "atheism" only in regard to the positive belief that God does not exist.
And not any wider meaning.
Many are atheist without believing that God does not exist.
He confuses the position such people hold with agnosticism which, while often overlapping with such a position and possibly being the cause, is a separate matter (epistemology vs ontology etc).

Second, he is arguing in favor of delusion being defined by popular vote rather than reality itself.
Reality is not a matter of popularity.

I therefore find his definition rather loose and unsatisfactory.
Personally I prefer a definition along the lines of: "a false belief held with conviction in the face of superior evidence to the contrary".
Under such a definition, if one can not show that the belief is false then one can not claim the person to be deluded.
So I do not consider religious belief to be a delusion.
Nor strong atheism.

Holding a belief in the absence of evidence is not delusion.
Nor is holding a belief due to the absence of evidence.

But that is my view.
If one starts with a different definition of such things then one will perhaps conclude differently.

 

Believe it or not, I agree with most of that. If an atheist does not hold a positive belief that a god does not exist, then that atheist is unlikely to have any grounds to characterize a theist as delusional. And you are correct, that is the most accurate definition of atheism. And while delusion is defined as contrary to generally accepted reality, you are correct that reality is not a matter of popular opinion, just normative reality used as a criteria for judging delusion (as the DSM states: "The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture").

I agree that a definition of delusion based on evidence is more objective, but then strong atheists (who my argument was mainly addressed to) are not always objective about the evidence, or lack thereof. I would agree that the label of delusion must be applied, or not, equally to religious belief and strong atheism, as neither are based on evidence for a positive assertion.

 

My Doctors think I'm deluded despite the fact the only way they know what's going on in my mind is by what I tell them. I do not blame them for thinking I'm mental: during one meeting I could not stop laughing because Earl (an alien who created us) put images of a dead alien in a football strip, and a three-peice suit, in my mind. :-D I should not have been laughing at a dead alien but I could not understand why he/she was wearing a football shirt!