...and it would be meaningless to respond to a thesis that isn't fully defined.
Your request for the a logical basis for the thesis you posted (i.e. the Original Question {OQ}):
i.e. Theism is delusional.
Is an interesting topic for discussion, but we need to agree on what is being discussed, in order to have meaningful dialog.
I asked for your definition of
Delusional.
You replied with:
A belief that is contradicted by reality.
Example: The earth is demonstrably and provably spherical. Any claim that the earth is flat is obviously delusional.
Your definition largely comports with the Webster definition:
1a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
1b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.
2 : the act of tricking or deceiving someone : the state of being deluded …
I will slightly modify Webster's general definition, to avoid using the word or its root in the definition, to offer:
A persistent belief that is falsely believed or propagated about one's self, other persons or objects outside the self.
Once we get these definitional questions/uncertainties cleared up, we can then systematically work our way to answering the OQ. Any demand that we jump ahead to a poorly evaluated response to the OQ before we clear up all definitional questions strongly suggests that that there is an agenda out there which is angling for a pre-planned or canned answer. I would like to avoid that if possible.
Let's work on an answer to your OQ together and reach an mutually agreeable conclusion, through honest dialog.
= new reply since forum marked as read