@ghost-of-a-duke saidI don't think "incontrovertible evidence" enters into it.
Exactly, evidencing that your beliefs were not delusional at that time (as they did not ignore incontrovertible evidence to the contrary).
It is for this reason that the average chap who believes in ghosts is not delusional, as incontrovertible evidence does not exist that such a belief is wrong.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBelief in Santa, albeit harmless and not unusual in early childhood, is a delusion.
@FMF
A child who believes in Santa because his parents told him he was real is not delusional. But if, when he grows up, he is presented with incontrovertible evidence that Santa isn't real, he would be delusional, in the every day sense of the word (if he chose to ignore this incontrovertible evidence and continue to believe Santa was real).
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThis whole "incontrovertible evidence does not exist that such a belief is wrong" is a red herring in so far as it relates to my perception of what a delusion is. I think a belief that ghosts are real is a delusion.
It is for this reason that the average chap who believes in ghosts is not delusional, as incontrovertible evidence does not exist that such a belief is wrong.
-Removed-As explained, we all share the same basic human desire to want answers as to how we got here and where we are going. (If anywhere). It could be argued that theists willingly accept the wrong answers while atheists soldier on in pursuit of the right answers, and forgo the hope of immortality that most religions would afford them.
So yes, it could be argued that atheists are mentally stronger than theists. Marx called religion the opium of the masses.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo, I'm not. There is nothing about "incontrovertible evidence" in the definition I have been basing my comments on here for 10+ pages and on those 100+ pages recently on the SF.
You are mistaken.