Atheists are Delusional
Debate Round Forfeited
Amy_IceFyre has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||6 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||240 times||Debate No:||94156|
Debate Rounds (3)
I'll be using this round for acceptance as my opponent hasn't made an argument. Good luck to my opponent. If my opponent has no quarrel, then the definition for delusional will be~
Delusional: A belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary .
Implications of atheism are such that a atheist can not believe in morals, without deluding himself. As Charles Darwin himself said: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent
Onto my first point. If there exists no God, then no life after death exists, or there is no proof of it. I therefore believe that anyone who knows they will die, and that they will cease to exist after that, is delusional if they continue to live life, try and make money and achieve other things. It is all for nothing, and I think doing things for no reason at all is stupid, and a person who would in the light of this fact take life seriously, is in fact delusional.
Secondly without some divine power behind it, no foundation for morals exist. I think the best 'godless' way to define morals is acting in a way which benefits the most people, and harms the least. I think however, that the questions then arises. Why would you want to benefit people? Why don't you want to harm people? There is no answer to these questions and I thus conclude that there is no basis for morals, and a atheist claiming to have morals, is delusional.
Thirdly, life has no meaning, or at least meaning we understand. If you took any fact and continued to ask the word 'why', you would be asking why forever, since the only knowledge we have of the universe is relative to other knowledge we have. Imagine it as a giant equation, except that we don't have enough information to ever figure it out. In any case we don't have now, we have no proof of meaning in life and therefore I'm saying that a atheist who still finds meaning in life is delusional.
Those are my first three points. I think atheists who acknowledge these points and still continue to live on, are simply acting on the instincts imprinted in their very being and are not acting in a logical way. They have no logical foundation for their actions and since many of them to believe that, I believe they are delusional.
Thank for reading and good luck to my opponent.
I thank my opponent for their argument.
I don't completely agree with the definition provided by my opponent. I'll provide an alternative instead by Dictionary.com
Delusional: Having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions .
I'll start with rebuttals and counter-arguments considering my position & BoP forces me to start with rebuttals
Rebuttals and Counter Arguments
I'll start by saying that my opponent is nearly entirely subjective in their argument. There is no foundation that an atheist doesn't have morals as I am an atheist myself and I have done quite well by refraining from killing the 4 people I walked by today. There is no delusion in morals other than the admittance of it being a man-made concept under the principles of guilt and humanity, which offers a code to live by in society . Morality is not derived from the Bible, yet more by instinct  as animals have feelings of compassion as does mankind . I should also say, just in case my opponent was hinting, Charles Darwin isn't our "great leader".
Regarding the meaning of life and my opponent thinking life is pointless knowing there is no admittance to a life in the next, that claim is ridiculous. The definition of atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" . An atheist may belief in re-incarnation or next life after death. I'll still attempt to persuade you that there is no delusion in living life, as I do believe there is nothingness after death. The instinct of fear which pumps adrenaline is for the purpose of keeping oneself alive . You cannot escape instinct if you don't have any mental condition which blocks fear or other instinctual features. Without just fear helping in life, the brain has the ability to pump your body with dopamine , a neurotransmitter that is actually the feeling of goodness and happiness. Feelings are created by neurotransmitters, and dopamine is considered an addictive (Refer to Source 7). This neurotransmitter is 'designed' (By evolution) for making life worthwhile, instead of living in fear of death. My opponent may bring up suicide which I have a rebuttal for. Suicide can be the reaction of depression (Or mass serotonin release, designed to initiate a horrible feeling that forces you to avoid the incident which caused it again; AKA the neurotransmitter of depression ), which brings such an unbearable feeling, the only way out may be considered death . Suicide is not just found as an advanced emotion in humans, but animals as well when they feel death is the only alternative to such a destructive feeling .
The next argument of my opponent states that without divine power, there is no foundation for morals which I absolutely destroyed with the material foundation and argument I provided in the beginning of my rebuttals. Please refer to that argument.
My opponent brings up the meaning of life, which doesn't mean an atheist is delusional simply because he will never find out why. I am OK by saying that I won't know, and I may never know. Such a statement by my opponent can simply be countered because since the religious can't find an answer, they fabricate one, regardless of the physical impossibilities the Bible says . There is no other foundation my opponent provides to prove the meaning of life in an atheist is the product of being delusional.
Those are my points against the arguments of my opponent. My opponent can't change the mutual definition of "delusional", and if we can't agree to a definition of 'delusional', then it is up to the voters to decide. Otherwise, his or her current logic would dictate that the belief of anything is delusional simply because it can't be proven. For example, you cannot prove that you exist simply because the information of your existence is relative.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.