The Instigator
Zbot
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Christians are illogical.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Zbot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 23918
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

Zbot

Pro

I will be arguing that "Christians are illogical."

Definitions:
Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus[1].

Illogical: not observing the principles of logic[2].

My argument:

Christians believe in Biblical Inspiration.
Biblical Inspiration is illogical.
If one espouses illogical arguments, he/she is illogical.
Christians are illogical.

Biblical Inspiration is defined as the doctrine in Christian theology that the authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God[3].

Argument of Biblical Inspiration:

The Bible says that God exists.
What the Bible says is true, because it is God’s Word.
God exists.

This argument presupposes (in the second premise) the truth of its own conclusion and thereby commits the fallacy of circularity. As such, it can be deemed illogical, and anyone who believes it can also be deemed illogical.

Conclusion:

Christians believe in the Bible because they believe in God, and they believe in God because they believe in the Bible. This is circular reasoning and is illogical. As such, Christians are illogical.

Hezekiah_Ahaz

Con

I am going to simply counter this claim by saying that non-Christians are irrational.The little rationality that they do have they cannot account or justify without reducing themselves to irrationality. Some questions for my opponent are what does he base the laws of logic on?Why or how does identity hold through change? How does he account for the law of excluded middle? Is reality static or is it always changing? Yes, I believe that the bible is true because God says its true. However, my argument is if you reject that claim then you cannot account or justify any other claim.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Zbot

Pro


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting and wish him the best of luck.



My opponent’s counter argument is a red herring and is completely beside the point. Whether or not non-Christians are irrational is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not Christians are illogical. It may very well be the case that non-Christians are irrational AND Christians are illogical, in which case the vote goes to Pro. As such, my opponent will need to address my argument.



My opponent demonstrates the circular reasoning my argument is based on:


Yes, I believe that the bible is true because God says its true.”


The problem is that Christians believe what they believe about God because they have presupposed his existence when reading the Bible. Because they buy into this fallacious logic, they can safely be called illogical.


Hezekiah_Ahaz

Con

"The problem is that Christians believe what they believe about God because they have presupposed his existence when reading the Bible. Because they buy into this fallacious logic, they can safely be called illogical."

My point is that you are relying on my beliefs to argue against me. Now, I noticed you ignored all of my questions that I presented.
Debate Round No. 2
Zbot

Pro


To the audience:


Readers and voters, I assure you that I regret what this debate has become as much as you do. I was sincerely hoping for serious, quality argumentation on this interesting topic and apologize for the disappointment.


To my opponent:


As I said in round two, your counter argument is off-topic and irrelevant. To demonstrate this, I will, for the purposes of this debate, concede that every single non-Christian, past and present, is utterly and hopelessly irrational as you assert and I furthermore concede that I myself am a pitiful fool of a man and am completely incapable of answering any of the questions you posed in round one. None of this, however, has anything to do with the argument I presented to you in round one. My original argument is still valid and it is still sound, and unless you can debunk it, Christians are illogical.


In conclusion:


To recap, I argue that Christians are illogical and my opponent argues that non-Christians are irrational. The topic of the debate is “Christians are illogical.” You do the math. VOTE PRO.


Hezekiah_Ahaz

Con

You missed the point. Like you missed all the questions I asked. Not unsual.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zbot 2 years ago
Zbot
Accepted.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Zbot. I put up a new debate challenge. Feel free to accep it
Posted by Zbot 2 years ago
Zbot
Hezakiah_Ahaz, could you explain why my argument is invalid?
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
The problem is Zbot doesn't understand validity. He's merely putting up a facade.
Posted by Zbot 2 years ago
Zbot
I realize it is a bit ambiguous to say that someone is illogical, let alone an entire group of people. Does that mean they are incapable of thinking logically ever or are guilty of thinking illogically just this once? Instead of arguing that "Belief in Christianity is illogical" I opted for a more polemical argument in the hopes of attracting a good debate. Fail.
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 2 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
Note: back it up with logic and arguments-not like robots spitting up the bible or walking images of the pope (Catholics) no offense to anyone.
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 2 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
From reading the debate, not all christians can be classified as illogical as I understand the pro's point here. The Jesuits (spelling probally wrong) can back their religion up (debatably -->) the best out of every mainstream religion - Jewish, Christian, Islam, etc.
Posted by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
could've been a good debate :P
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
Are you arguing that Christians as a people are illogical or the the belief in Christianity is illogical? 'Cuz there are plenty of logical Christians out there (this guy is a perfect example of what they aren't.)
Posted by Zbot 2 years ago
Zbot
Dude, you are a tool. I don't mind risking the conduct points to say so.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 2 years ago
TheOrator
ZbotHezekiah_AhazTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Hezekiah did another unsatisfactory job. Don't have such a superior attitude when you clearly did a much worse job.
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 2 years ago
bossyburrito
ZbotHezekiah_AhazTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had no case at all. He just said "haha you're wrong and i don't have to prove it."
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
ZbotHezekiah_AhazTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a case and Con essentially conceded round 3.
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 2 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
ZbotHezekiah_AhazTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments go to pro for presenting what seemed like the only case, Hez dropped the arguments. Are Christians not illogical, the con did not show anything into that, hence arguments go to the pro.
Vote Placed by Meatros 2 years ago
Meatros
ZbotHezekiah_AhazTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to pro - while not particularly powerful, he did present some. Con ignored them in round two and didn't dispute or attempt to argue against the charge of begging the question. Hez, you can do better than this.