Is there a way to tell when you are deluded?

Of course they have. I've posted several lists of definitions of "God" earlier.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then you have no way of knowing whether any definition of God is accurate or not, making your demands for definition irrelevant to this conversation. Come back when you actually have something substantial to contribute to this dialogue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're just further proving my point.
- I want to see if the people who claim to know better (whether they are theists or atheists), in fact are putting forward a comprehensive position. And someone who won't even define the core terms they use, sure isn't doing that.

I know, I know. We pesky meta-analysts!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the sake of lending substance to this thread, please tell us how you have any way of knowing what any individual can and cannot know about subjects you can't even define as a concept?
:shrug:

 

You're the one claiming special exemption from defining God while at the same time suggesting you know of one much as you alone knew that turkish word for apple. This suggests only dishonesty on your part, which is pretty much in line with your reputation in this forum as a prevaricating pretentious troll. And you wonder why noone takes you seriously. Sniff..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Will the irony never end?

 

Various examples of sociogenic delusion thruout history. Note that in the case of mass delusion, it is precisely the skeptic that will be the one who is being idiosyncratic and an exception to the majority belief.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/the-madness-crowds/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which is?

'Know better' than what?

I've mentioned several different things that the word 'God' often means, ranging from 'Yahweh' to 'sustainer of being itself', and suggested how I was inclined to think about them at the time I was writing.

Perhaps it's time for you to do the same. What do you think that the word 'God' means? Is it univocal or equivocal? How was the word's meaning established? What do you think that theists are asserting when they express belief in God? What is your own opinion about those assertions? Do you believe that the word 'God' names or refers to something that actually has objective existence?

 

Already addressed.

 

That many atheists tend to refuse to take responsibility for what particular definition of "God" they are working with.
And clearly, since they are using the word "God" and making claims about "God" being such and such, then they are operating with some definition of "God."

Know better than anyone else.

But to the best of my memory, you've never went into why you hold to a particular definition of "God" and reject others.

Given the diversity that is typical for the topic of "God" and the resulting confusion for a person who doesn't already have a firm stance on "God,"I think the only workable solution to this confusion is to focus on one's intentions for preferring one view of "God" over another, and to then analyze those intentions.
This has been my working hypothesis for a while now.
I think that holding to a particular view or definition of "God" (whether they are theistic or atheistic) out of fear, anger, greed, envy, lust, or by default, is a mark of an unwholesome motivation that is bound to lead to unwholesome results (typically, more fear, anger, greed, envy, lust, or acting on autopilot). And that as such, such motivations need to be checked and amends made for them.

 

Atheists use the word God in the exact same sense that the vast majority of theists use it. If you have trouble with that, tell us why. What definition of God would personally satisfy you?

"Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism-

 

we have trouble with it because every time you move to define it, it becomes clear you are working with an inferior definition ... and when this sore point of your presentation is pressed you clam up and start getting vague

:shrug:

 

What "inferior" definition is that? And what in your view is the proper definition for God? You must know of it to be able to judge my definition as inferior.

 

Which suggests you know which are wholesome motivations and which are unwholesome. What gives you the right to belittle people's motivations for not believing in God? It implies you know of the proper motivation. So what is that?

 

one that places god as a product of material nature

one that places god as the cause of material nature

obviously

 

I've never viewed God like that. Quote where I defined God as "a product of material nature". He wouldn't be much of a God if he was.

Actually that's more in line with Syne's definition of God as an emergent property, nature ofcourse being the substrate from which such a property would emerge.

 

Practically every time you talk about there being no "evidence" for god, by dint of the necessary prohibition (at least IYHO) of him having no recourse to a transcendental nature.

 

Are you saying there's no evidence for a transcendental God? Then why believe in one?

ev·i·dence


/ˈevədəns/


noun

noun: evidence

1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

No
i am saying that your favored definition for evidence (one other than the dictionary link you provided) cannot even theoretically approach the subject of god ... so any further conclusions you try to draw from the so-called lack of evidence in this regard are completely useless

IOW you talk about the facts and information surrounding science as if they can somehow offer leverage on teh topic of religion ... despite the the subject matter of religion (namely a transcendental god and his associated potencies) is not even a subject theoretically approachable by science.

:shrug:

 

A delusion occurs when you hold a false belief. Anyone can tell when this has occurred for them self.