Thou Shalt Not Test The Lord

[En_Route]

I would say that you were deluded (in a  strictly non-pathological sense)and certainly not delusional.

That made me so angry that I nearly fell off of my unicorn!

Seriously, though, as accurate as it may be, "delusional" and "deluded" both strike me as loaded terms, as in casual conversation, they're generally used to denote something approaching insanity.  Something along the lines of "incorrect" or "mistaken" can get the point across just as well without unnecessarily raising hackles.

Of course, if one doesn't care if hackles are raised, or is looking to do so, then that's just fine.

I would construe "deluded" as being profoundly, maybe even wilfully, mistaken, but not as impugning anybody's sanity. I think theism is a serious error which involves casting aside reason and logic.

[statichaos]

I would construe "deluded" as being profoundly, maybe even wilfully, mistaken, but not as impugning anybody's sanity. I think theism is a serious error which involves casting aside reason and logic.

I don't think that casting aside reason and logic is always an error, but rather must be taken on a case by case basis.  There are times and experiences when only intuition has served me well. However, the point is that regardless of how one sees these things (and I admit that this goes a bit off-topic), the term "delusion" tends to be seen by those described as having such as being an insulting term.  I don't see it as such, as I understand the context.  However, it can lead to misunderstandings.

[Gawen]

The only definition for "delusion" I use is:
A persistent false and/or psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence.
Quite sane people can become delusional about a great many things. It doesn't make them 'sick in the head' unless the belief makes them so corrupted due to the belief that they may or will hurt others because of it or a sickness makes them so.
I have never used the words "delude", "delusional", or "delusion" as an insult, regardless if the reader takes it as such.

[statichaos]

The only definition for "delusion" I use is:
A persistent false and/or psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence.
Quite sane people can become delusional about a great many things. It doesn't make them 'sick in the head' unless the belief makes them so corrupted due to the belief that they may or will hurt others because of it or a sickness makes them so.
I have never used the words "delude", "delusional", or "delusion" as an insult, regardless if the reader takes it as such.

Totally understood, and if your major focus is stating things in a manner that is accurate to you without regard as to whether or not it is offensive to others, then have at it.  However, don't be overly surprised if people have negative reactions despite your innocent intent.

[Gawen]

The only definition for "delusion" I use is:
A persistent false and/or psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence.
Quite sane people can become delusional about a great many things. It doesn't make them 'sick in the head' unless the belief makes them so corrupted due to the belief that they may or will hurt others because of it or a sickness makes them so.
I have never used the words "delude", "delusional", or "delusion" as an insult, regardless if the reader takes it as such.

Totally understood, and if your major focus is stating things in a manner that is accurate to you without regard as to whether or not it is offensive to others, then have at it.  However, don't be overly surprised if people have negative reactions despite your innocent intent.

The definition is in most dictionary's. It isn't my problem one way or another if a definition of a word fits a person.

[statichaos]

The only definition for "delusion" I use is:
A persistent false and/or psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, no evidence at all or no good evidence.
Quite sane people can become delusional about a great many things. It doesn't make them 'sick in the head' unless the belief makes them so corrupted due to the belief that they may or will hurt others because of it or a sickness makes them so.
I have never used the words "delude", "delusional", or "delusion" as an insult, regardless if the reader takes it as such.

Totally understood, and if your major focus is stating things in a manner that is accurate to you without regard as to whether or not it is offensive to others, then have at it.  However, don't be overly surprised if people have negative reactions despite your innocent intent.

The definition is in most dictionary's. It isn't my problem one way or another if a definition of a word fits a person.

Except that it does.  I could use the word "Negro" to accurately describe my neighbors, and yet they would likely see the term as condescending and rude.  I could accurately use the term "pervert" to describe those with unusual sexual fetishes that involve consent, and the term would be considered insulting.

I'm not speaking of dictionary definitions here, but rather how the words are generally seen in society.

[Sandra Craft]

I'm not speaking of dictionary definitions here, but rather how the words are generally seen in society.

This reminds me of Dawkin's book Virus of the Mind, which was using the word virus correctly in describing how something can be transmitted, but came off sounding like he was calling religious belief a disease.  Which was insulting, whatever he said about not intending that.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I would construe "deluded" as being profoundly, maybe even wilfully, mistaken, but not as impugning anybody's sanity. I think theism is a serious error which involves casting aside reason and logic.

I don't think that casting aside reason and logic is always an error, but rather must be taken on a case by case basis.  There are times and experiences when only intuition has served me well. However, the point is that regardless of how one sees these things (and I admit that this goes a bit off-topic), the term "delusion" tends to be seen by those described as having such as being an insulting term.  I don't see it as such, as I understand the context.  However, it can lead to misunderstandings.

People who refer to all theists as "deluded" could just as easily say "wrong" or "mistaken."  The choice of the word "deluded" is generally intentional, and generally non-theists get some degree of pleasure or satisfaction out of using it.  It makes them feel superior, and they feel like they have diagnosed a particular psychological defect, rather than simply pointing out an error in logic or reasoning.  Pretending to be a psychiatrist is more gratifying than pretending to be a teacher.

[Too Few Lions]

People who refer to all theists as "deluded" could just as easily say "wrong" or "mistaken."  The choice of the word "deluded" is generally intentional, and generally non-theists get some degree of pleasure or satisfaction out of using it.  It makes them feel superior, and they feel like they have diagnosed a particular psychological defect, rather than simply pointing out an error in logic or reasoning.  Pretending to be a psychiatrist is more gratifying than pretending to be a teacher.

I think there's a clear difference between the colloquial and clinical definitions of the words 'deluded' or 'delusion'. For me 'deluded' in the colloquial sense is a perfect way to describe the Christian belief that a 3-3,500 year old minor western Semitic deity called Yahweh created the universe, and sent his son to Earth 2000 years ago. It doesn't mean I think that people who hold those beliefs are delusional in a clinical way, and reading what Gawen, Tank, En_Route and G85 have said above, I don't think any of them are playing psychiatrist or suggesting that Christians or other theists are suffering from delusions in the clinical sense. I would say someone who believed in astrology and avidly read their horoscope and paid heed to it was deluded in a similar way, but again not clinically delusional.

'Mistaken' isn't a strong enough word IMHO, 'wrong' would also do the job too though, as would 'ridiculous' (!), but I really see no problem with 'deduded'. I think you are choosing to read the word with a clinical subtext, despite the atheists on this forum making it clear it should be read as the colloquial definition.

As a rather amusing aside, I think the first person to raise the issue and use the words delusion /deluded in reference to Christian belief on this thread was a Christian and not an atheist! (reply #71) If that post hadn't been made, maybe the issue would never have been raised.

[arian (Banned)]

So you see nothing wrong that arian claims to be an "atheist" that beleives in god? That makes sense to you? And if religion is nonsense to you, why do you try to defend it?

What I meant is that the majority of HAF probably thinks religion, probably more specific, Christianity, is nonsense yet not enough nonsense that it won't be discussed here.  I don't recall Arian stating he's an Atheist that believes in God or god.  If he did, then I haven't read it or I didn't put much weight on the claim.  My simply point is that belief in God makes no sense to *you, yet we're discussing it a lot.  I'm not defending anything at this point here in this thread, however I'm interested in that Arian seems to suggest he's willing to take all points *you have and discuss them.  I'm interested in reading his responses.  I'm unsure if he will survive because at every turn he's being attacked and not simply asked, "ok...here's one point I'd like for you to explain..." and let him do it.  Maybe *you're not interested, but it seems one was and I'm also interested on his POV.

Well thank you AnimatedDirt, I just checked to see if I was banished yet or not, and to my surprise, ... here I is. LOL

My point was 'Theism', and I made a start as to what the word  was defined as in the dictionary:

Theism:
1.  belief in God: belief that one God created and rules humans and the world, not necessarily accompanied by belief in divine revelation such as through the Bible 
2.  belief in god or gods: belief in the existence of a god or gods 

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

then there is the word 'divine' as in divine revelation, which is an obvious abomination in the Old Testament.
The New Testament was translated with the influence of a Gentile so called Christian Church influenced by an authority like the Pope who is called 'holy father', and the Trinity Doctrine. With careful investigation and an open mind, none of this should be used to refer to our God and Creator, or Bible-God.

Theists believe and always have believed in gods or one great one from amongst those gods, like a Pharaoh who at times elevated himself above all them other gods.

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth', not 'in the beginning there was God'.
What does this mean?
It means God was, who created the universe. There is no 'other god or gods' mentioned, so for us there is just One God, in which the word 'theism' has no meaning. Our God is not divine, thus not found in the word Theism.

You messed up the citations, but I'd like to see all the chants of victory (I mean other than Egor), from anyone on this site. The problem with arian has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with arian attempting to argue by changing the meanings of words to something completely different than what the words mean. So that is why arian doesn't make sense, not because of the concepts being presented, but because arian, by all useful intents and purposes, is speaking a different unknown language that only arian seems to know.

Here again is the argument that "the words mean exactly this and you can't change them!".  Seems to me a person was banned for asking for clarification on exact words and their meanings...of course I'm sure the counter argument is "That's different".  A person can say something, but only in certain situation can the words mean something else or have a context to them otherwise, *you seem to think words mean exactly what they say and nothing more.  Only certain people have the ability to decide when and where there is a difference in meaning or context and here it's the Atheist that decides this...or so it seems. 

If he's speaking a different language, maybe we can learn what his language is, otherwise maybe *you don't want "in" on this conversation/discussion.

The only thing I'm "defending" here is I want to read Arian's explanations.

Thank you, I would be happy to.

What I have to say is not something you might have heard, for Today's Christianity is being taught in a school of Theology which is the study of god or gods. This is because soon after Christ ascended back to Heaven, the Church was infested by Gentile worshipers who were used to serving many gods, and soon perverted the message and included, or adapted their own gods back into the church. A few hundred years later, they turned the one True God with no name into three gods, which was more acceptable for them. Other gods were re-named to Apostles, including naming Mary (the mother of Jesus) to mother-of-god.

I said that I don't believe in all these 'theistic' gods, so as before Christ, those that no longer worshipped all them gods were called 'atheists', I too am an atheist.

My belief in the Bible God has nothing to do with the gods in theism, He is not divine either, nor does He reveal to us anything through divinations. The supernatural realm is where Satan resides, who responds to those who call upon him, through divinations, pretending to be an Angel of light, or God himself.

[Too Few Lions]

You really should try reading the Bible arian. Your Bible-god has a name, he's called Yahweh, it appears over 6500 times in the Bible so it's actually quite hard not to notice it! And he's a god like any other, as any proper atheist would know.

[Asmodean]

The supernatural realm is where Satan resides, who responds to those who call upon him, through divinations, pretending to be an Angel of light, or God himself.

Sounds fun, but why would a creature with that kind of power need or want to pretend to be something other than what it is.

What's wrong with "Yo! I'm Satan. Your cancer is gone, but all your soul is belong to us now", or equivalent?

[Sandra Craft]

You really should try reading the Bible arian. Your Bible-god has a name, he's called Yahweh, it appears over 6500 times in the Bible so it's actually quite hard not to notice it! And he's a god like any other, as any proper atheist would know.

I think he needs to read the dictionary again, as well.

[arian (Banned)]

You really should try reading the Bible arian. Your Bible-god has a name, he's called Yahweh, it appears over 6500 times in the Bible so it's actually quite hard not to notice it! And he's a god like any other, as any proper atheist would know.

Thank you Too Few Lions,

yes, .. I read the Bible, I consider all that it says.

We have only ONE (real) God, the rest are man-made, fabricated, formed. These are worthless to pray to.

Names had meanings in the beginning, but over time it has lost its original meaning and became only names, like identifying the color red from green.
If there was only one color of crayon in the world, let's say 'red', it wouldn't make sense to ask for a 'red' Crayon, right? We have and always had only One God. To name that One God just places him amongst the false theistic gods. Now look up the meaning of 'theism', or 'theology', and you will see that gods like Athena, Odin and so on compete with each other, that is why theology was created, so people could decide which god or gods they would prefer to worship. As I said, the Bible teaches us that for us, there is but One God, .. period.

The 'meaning' of that NAME should be written in our hearts, soul and minds. Just as I said, if there was only One Color of Crayon, it would not make sense to ask for a red one, but only; "can you please give me that crayon?" If I would say 'red' crayon, people would wonder; "Why, ... is there another color?" .. right?

Well that is what happened, people created all these theistic gods, and now they think that the Bible God needs a name too. Remember that the name can change, like Abram was named Abraham, Jacob was named Israel and so on...

I Am, I Will Be that I will be, Jealous, Lord, Jehovah, Yahweh, Adoni, God, Father and so on, and so forth.

Ex 34:13-14
14for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,
NKJV

Ezek 39:25
25 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:'Now I will bring back the captives of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name'
NKJV

Ex 3:13-15
13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"

14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel,'I AM has sent me to you.'" 15 Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'
NKJV

Think about it in these terms, 'there has been only ONE Crayon, and that Crayon has always been red. This Crayon can color anything any color you want, never need any other crayon ever.'

May need to think about it for a second, but I can give more Biblical examples if you wish, ... if not because it offends you, please use the Crayon example.

arian

[Stevil]

We have only ONE (real) God, the rest are man-made, fabricated, formed.

Do you have some proof that there are no other gods?