Actually, the empirical evidence is on the side of GID being a real medical condition, so a critic would have to ignore the evidence to call it a delusion, and they'd be wrong.  That's different from calling religiosity a delusion, since it's widely accepted to involve belief without evidence, or against evidence, i.e. faith.  If there were evidence for divinity, it would cease to be religion and become a scientific hypothesis.

Quote from: Kate the Lesser on September 25, 2008, 01:28:12 PM
Actually, the empirical evidence is on the side of GID being a real medical condition, so a critic would have to ignore the evidence to call it a delusion, and they'd be wrong.  That's different from calling religiosity a delusion, since it's widely accepted to involve belief without evidence, or against evidence, i.e. faith.  If there were evidence for divinity, it would cease to be religion and become a scientific hypothesis.

I'm still trying to get my head around this, but it doesn't make sense to me. There's no verifiable evidence so that means it's delusional? To  me, that just doesn't add up.