The Instigator
TheOrator
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
FlameofPrometheus
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Christians are illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
FlameofPrometheus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,789 times Debate No: 23961
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

TheOrator

Pro

I've debated this once before but was unsatisfied with the actual debate, so I was hoping I could find another partner for this one.

I'd like to clarify that I actually believe the con., but I argued the con in the last debate, so I'd just like to see what the aff is like.
Rules:
1.) The first round is just for acceptance, both of the resolution and of the definitions
2.) There CAN be arguments in the final round
3.) If definitions are not disputed in the first round, then they are considered the accepted definitions and will be used for the entire debate.
4.) If any definitions are disputed, then they are to be argued over throughout the round and the voters will decide which they prefer to use.

DEFINITIONS:
Christian-One who follows the teachings of a Christian Sect, as defined by their holy text.
Illogical-not observing the principles of logic; not following logical processes
FlameofPrometheus

Con

Challenge accepted, my friend.
Debate Round No. 1
TheOrator

Pro

As we have both agreed to the definitions in the round, let's move on.

My constructive case will be a short one but a simple one. In order to be a Christian, one must believe in their holy text. This holy text is in itself illogical, through the mortal god scenario, the all-seeing anger paradox, etc. etc. As the text is illogical, and the Christians always believe in the holy text, then accorging to the definition of illogical Christians are illogical as long as they believe in the holy text, so their logical process is constantly corrupted. It's as simple as that.

However, logically, this illogical mindset can only last untill the point where an individual realizes how illogical the Bible is and believes that the Bible wrong. However, according to the definition of Christian not believing in the Bible is against the teachings of Christianity, so these people would no longer be Christians according to the definition of Christianity.

Thus, because they constantly believe in an illogical text, and the only way to prevent this illogical state would be to no longer be a Christian (as according to the definition), I affirm that Christians are illogical.
FlameofPrometheus

Con

I would like to thank you for accepting me as your opponent
Brief bio and notice to readers:
In no way is this argument satirical, or in joking fashion. TheOrator and I are both atheists, however the difference between us ( In this circumstance) Is that I believe Christians are logical even though I differ with them on principles of reality and social structures. My entire case will try to prove that Christians do in fact have logic (the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. – dictionary.com)
Brief road map
1.I will discuss definitions
2.Move on to a fallacy in the pro's case
3.Attack the Pro's existing case
4. Move on to my own case.
1.I accept my opponents definitions however I would like to show the following
Christian-One who follows the teachings of A Christian Sect, as defined by their holy text.
There are 5 different sects and within them many denominations that believe in their own structures and have theological differences.
2.Fallacy- A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference – www.thefreedictionary.com
Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization:
A generalization that disregards exceptions. (1)
My opponent is first of all, under the assumption that all Christians are illogical or cannot use reason to their benefit. However there are in fact Christians who have the faculty of reason (which is the ability to use logic) and who are logical [see contention 2]. Many appear on this very website. Also even if the audience does not accept that, approximately 1/3 [2] of the entire population of the planet is Christian, a critical 2.1 billion to 2.2 billion [2][3][4]. It is almost impossible (in the case of probability) to say that not a single person out of 2.2 billion people is logical.
Impact: Why this fallacy matters
If you are to accept TheOrators case, you are in fact saying that one-third of the earth's population are not capable of using logic, a tool that average human inherently has, which is impossible. Firstly because they have the faculty of reason and secondly they can still make sound judgments. For more proof of this
3.TheOrator's (pro) case.
My esteemed opponent's entire case simply states that all Christians believe in a book that does not reach his rules of logic. Thus according to him every Christian lacks the faculty of logic (reason) and appropriate judgments. My entire con case will be to prove that in fact Christians can use logic and be logical within their actions.
The Con case
Contention 1. Logic is necessary for man's survival.
"For man is enabled through his mental
faculties "to keep with an unchanged body in harmony with the changing
universe." He has great power of adapting his habits to new conditions
of life. He invents weapons, tools, and various stratagems to
procure food and to defend himself." [5]
According to Charles Darwin, man has the ability to use complex thought to facilitate a variety of needs to survive and exist. Complex thought in this case is the ability to use logic, to understand different choices and choose the best one given the circumstances. And to use logic implies adhering to the principles of logic thus being logical.
Impact: why this matters
Even at the primal levels humans use logic. We place our hand near a flame and we feel pain and (if we identify pain with negative consequences) we learn not to place our hands near an open flame again. If it is hot outside and we feel warm we go to the shade because we have learned it is colder there rather than stay in the sun. Since humans use what they have learned and choose between desired consequences they are using logic. Logic even at a small level is required for survival. And since Christians are living they are using logic to survive.
Contention 2
Logical Christians have existed.
My identification of the fallacy I mentioned earlier (The fallacy of sweeping generalization) is another one of my arguments here since the resolution states "Christians are illogical" This resolution gives no other identification of which Christians are illogical, it merely states Christians in general. So if the Con (me) can find a single logical Christian at any given time then the resolution is disproved on factual grounds. One such person does exist: Sir Francis Bacon [6]. Bacon was the inventor of one logical process that is nearly used by every scientist from his time to ours. This is the scientific method. This method establishes "truth" or the ability to find it within the scientific community. How could an illogical man come up with such a system that is used by some of the most logical people on the planet? Sir Francis Bacon was a logical person who believed in the Christian god. Even if the audience does not accept him as a source here are some other very notable thinkers who believed in Christianity:
Johannes Kepler
Blaise Pascal
Isaac Newton
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson Kelvin [6]
Guglielmo Marconi [7]
Impact: Why this matters
The resolution says Christians are illogical. I have provided a list of people who are logical and Christian thus the resolution is false. If Pro were to prove my evidence wrong nearly every single scientist's findings would be wrong even though in many cases their findings are perfectly true.
Contention 3.
Christianity does no corrupt every Christians thought process.
The definition agreed upon for Christian is:
Christian-One who follows the teachings of A Christian Sect, as defined by their holy text.
This means that each sect chooses their own text to follow. And through proper research one comes to the conclusion that there are many different denominations that have completely different ideologies and theories. But let's focus more on the "Protestant" sect and one particular section: non-denominational
Non denominational churches adhere to their own views and according to the definition would follow their own text. Some of these churches (Lake wood Church Houston TX, Church of Living Water Prattville AL.) only believe in a Jesus and a god. They accept only certain teachings that prove not to be catastrophic to their way of life.
Impact: Why this matters
If one were to vote pro they would find a paradox since there are various branches of Christianity that only accept certain ideals. That since there are churches that only accept "Jesus" and a "God" there logical mind sets are not as corrupted as one may think. They may only perceive these two beings as an answer to the creation of the universe and in no way does one single subject make a human being totally irrational.
Conclusion
I have defeated my opponents Pro case by proving that the resolution is false (Fallacy section above) That humans, being human, have reason (the faculty to create logic). And Christians have to use logic to be considered living. As well as famous scientists and thinkers who are logical and Christian. And lastly not all Christians make invalid judgments because many have different ideals and can separate beliefs from logic.
I now stand open to receive the Pro's rebuttal.
Sources:

[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[2] Hinnells, The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion, p. 441
(3) http://www.adherents.com...
[4] "The List: The World's Fastest-Growing Religions". foreignpolicy.com. 2007-03. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
[5] Charles Darwin decent of man pg. 157
[6] http://www.godandscience.org...
[7] http://togodandjesuschrist.tripod.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheOrator

Pro

I was half expecting a debate like my last one, but I'm ecstatic to see how worthy my opponent is! I'd also like to clarify once again that even though I'm athiestic, I also disagree with the topic. I just wanted to see what it would be like to argue the pro.
Let's move on to the debate. I will begin by adressing the definitions, then move on to negating my opponent's case, and end with defending my own.

DEFINITIONS:
I agree with the definition of Fallacy as defined by opponent.
Although my opponent is correct that every sect has its diferences (although I'm sure there are many more sects than 5), the part of the definition that ties them together is "as defined by their holy text". The holy text of Christianity is the Bible, therefore Christian is defind as anyone who in a Christian sect and complies to the teachings of the Bible.

MY OPPONENT'S CASE:
Contention 1:
I accept that logic is neccesary for a human's existance, however I never stated all Christians are completely and totally devoid of logic. The agreed upon definition of illogical in the round is "Illogical-not observing the principles of logic; not following logical processes" [1]. My stance in this debate is not that all Christians never have, do, or will use a logical process, simply that they are illogical. According to the definition, an illogical person is someone who does not follow logical processes, or one who does not obvserve the principles of logic. As the Bible is illogical, and because for this round every Christian is considered one who accepts the Bible as true, then all Christians constantly believe in at least one illogical thing at any one time. Because they did not follow logical processes to prove the Bible wrong, according to the definition they are illogical. So it's not that my opponent's contention falls, it just doesn't apply to anything within the round.

Contention 2:
Although I agree that Christians have used logic in the past, according to the definition of illogical as accepted in the round, they are still illogical. Cross apply the arguments made against his first contention into his second contention, as they both adress the same thing.

Contention 3:
"This means that each sect chooses their own text to follow. And through proper research one comes to the conclusion that there are many different denominations that have completely different ideologies and theories."
I have seen no Christian sect that does not follow the Bible, and without any evidence to the contrary It has to be assumed that they do. Even Mormans (even though I do not personally believe them to be Christian I didn't put them in the description/definitions) follow the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon.[2]

"Non denominational churches adhere to their own views and according to the definition would follow their own text. Some of these churches (Lake wood Church Houston TX, Church of Living Water Prattville AL.) only believe in a Jesus and a god. They accept only certain teachings that prove not to be catastrophic to their way of life."
Two points:
1.) Sources Please, otherwise there's no way to tell for sure it's real
2.) Even if they do not accept the Bible, according to the definition of Christian (that you accepted) non-denominational churches are not Christian churches, nor are the people who worship there Christians, so they would not be counted in the round.

"If one were to vote pro they would find a paradox since there are various branches of Christianity that only accept certain ideals. That since there are churches that only accept "Jesus" and a "God" there logical mind sets are not as corrupted as one may think. They may only perceive these two beings as an answer to the creation of the universe and in no way does one single subject make a human being totally irrational."
As I have stated earlier, Christianity as a whole beleives in the Bible. Any who do not believe in the Bible will not be considered Christians for the purposes of the round according to the accepted definition. We are not dissecting each and every belief each church has to determine their Christianity, according to the definition we are looking to the fact that they follow the Bible. And like I stated against your first contention, The constant belief in the Bible provides a constant illogical belief, thus corrupting their logical thought process according to the definition of illogical. This disproves your third contention as a whole.

MY DEFENSE:
I will include the fallacy argument in the defense even though it was not specifically under my case.
"If you are to accept TheOrators case, you are in fact saying that one-third of the earth's population are not capable of using logic, a tool that average human inherently has, which is impossible. Firstly because they have the faculty of reason and secondly they can still make sound judgments."
This is where my opponent claims my fallacy lies, in A.), I claim all Christians to never be able to use logic and B.) Christians must use logic in order to live. However, I will restate what I have stated throughout the round: The definition of illogical does not state at someone never has used logic, simply that they follow illogical processess. The constant belief in the Bible provides for a constant belief in an illogical process (as my opponent has not contested that the Bible is illogical), and as such makes the Christians illogical.

The rest of the attack on my case is one paragraph, which states: "My esteemed opponent's entire case simply states that all Christians believe in a book that does not reach his rules of logic. Thus according to him every Christian lacks the faculty of logic (reason) and appropriate judgments. My entire con case will be to prove that in fact Christians can use logic and be logical within their actions."
However, this paragraph is false, for the same reasons I have repeated multiple times in the debate
1.) I never claim that Christians cannot reason, simply that they hold illogical processes, whichmakes them illogical
2.) Therefore, the claim that Christians can be rational has no impact on the round.

VOTERS:
1.) It has not been refuted that the Bible is illogical
2.) As Christians constantly hold the Bible as true, they are using an illogical process
3.) According to the definition of illogical, this proves all Chrsitians illogical.
4.) The negative case has only stated that Christians can reason and that there have been Christians who have reasoned in the past, but that does not make any impact on the resolution according to the definitions.
5.) I have negated my opponent's case line by line, so he has nothing to negate the resolution with
6.) I have negated my opponent's argument against my case, so he has nothing to negate my case with.

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.debate.org...
2.) http://mormon.org...
FlameofPrometheus

Con

Before I begin my rebuttal I will provide sources since my opponent asked me to [1]
[2]
The above source merely gives statistics about non denominational churches. If one looks upon the "Preaching" section they will find that only a minority of these churches mention "revelations" or "the end time" and most nondenominational churches leave that portion out. [2] Which means it is possible to leave religious text out and still be considered a church. I will prove how they are a church with the next source.
"There are many independent, non-aligned or non-denominational Trinitarian congregations that may take any one of these or no particular position on baptism." [3]
Under the protestant page the Protestants accept these churches under their sect, thus proving they are legitimate followers of Christ.
Now on to my rebuttal
Brief road map
1rst I will solve this definition debate (yay… semantics)
2nd Explain the conditions of my opponent's "voters"
3rdThe con case
4th the pro case
5th voters
2. Christian-One who follows the teachings of a Christian Sect, as defined by their holy text
This is a compound sentence
Phrase1
One follows whose teachings? A Christian sect's teachings
Phrase 2
As defined by whose holy text? Theirs
Theirs - a form of the possessive case of they used as a predicate adjective, after a noun or without a noun: Are you a friend of theirs? It is theirs. Dictionary .com
There are 3 nouns in the definition of Christian
Text – "their" is describing who this is defined by
One- "their" cannot be describing this because then it would not fall under a Christian sect
Sect- this is the only thing the "text" can define. thus the text is defined by the Christian sect. Not by the literal bible but by the selected text of the sect. [4]
Since the sect chooses which text to follow and the Protestants do not have a uniform text throughout all the denominations under it [3] then protestant non denomination al churches may pick any text they want and still be considered a legitimate church
2nd definition
Illogical-not observing the principles of logic; not following logical processes
We both concur on this definition
However my opponent constantly states that having 1 illogical thought process makes a person completely illogical. An illogical person according to the definition does not use logic. It does not give a restraint so it is presumed that an illogical person does not use logic at all
2nd my Opponents voters
1.) I haven't proven the bible logical. That is not my job, I am to prove that Christians are logical, not the bible
2.) Because Christians are using a single illogical process they are illogical as a whole. I have constantly disproven this. Which he dropped
3.) This entire debate he's been trying to win off definitions alone and I have proven him wrong every single time.
4.) He states I have only stated 1 thing: that Christians have reason although I have proven that with the faculty of reason they have used logic in the past and are now using logic
5.) He really hasn't taken it down line by line we don't have enough characters for that. He's saying that to sound smarter
6.) My case still stands because all of his attacks were related to the definitions which I have beaten him on
If you were to vote pro it would be terrible since he has not fully countered anything nor really argued anything beyond definitions
4. THE CON CASE
Contention 1.
My opponent's arguments against
A.I never said Christians are devoid of logic
B.Christians are illogical because of their belief in the bible
C.They believe in one illogical process so they are illogical as a whole.
D.This contention has nothing to with my case so it has nothing to do with the round.
MY DEFENSE
A.Yes my opponent never said Christians cannot use logic. I concur this was never stated. But what was stated was that they do not follow logical processes. So I presume that because they don't follow one logical process according to the definition and my opponent essentially is saying they do not us logical processes at a level that it corrupts them enough to use no logic at all. That they never use a logical process because they are illogical. My opponent states they can use logic, they just never do. This is proven wrong in C2.
B.And C.
These two attacks are simply the same. "-then all Christians constantly believe in at least one illogical thing at any one time. Because they did not follow logical processes to prove the Bible wrong, according to the definition they are illogical." However having one illogical thought process does not make someone illogical as a whole. Human use thought processes to stay alive. Christians use many more than thought processes to live than those that involve their belief in god. Secondly According to Pro having one thought process makes you illogical. So that means everybody before Gregor Mendel (the man who proved genes exist and how they work) was illogical. Or every scientist and human being that believed Pluto was a planet was also illogical. That is impossible.
d.My 1rst contention proves two things. That Christians have the capacity for logic (the pro is in concurrence) and that we use logic to survive and since Christians are living they are using basic logical processes so they are logical. This was not against Pro's case it was against the resolution specifically. Since this idea (and if you look at pro's case it is not) is never countered it is true.
C2
Pro's attacks
A.Even though Christians have used logic in the past they are still illogical.
B.The definition of illogical still proves there illogical regardless
C.All my attacks against con in C1 are added here too.
My defense
A.Illogical doesn't mean that having one thought incorrectly means you do not use logic. My opponent has failed to properly understand the definition he put forth. An illogical person does not use logic. Christians use logic I've provided many people that have used logic.
B.This seriously is one of his only attacks against everything. I have covered this
C.Since I defeated his repetitive attack against C1 this attack does nothing
My opponent says Christians have used logic there just illogical. That is his only attack. One thought does not make you illogical. He never attacks the fact I provided Francis Bacon who created the logical process every scientist still uses to this day. That extends.
C3
Pro's attacks
A.Christians use the bible
B.Definitions

A.As stated above sects chose which parts of the bible to use and are still Christian according to the definition that apparently is hard to understand. And some as shown above emphasize morality and practical needs. Their minds are not as illogical as Pro would presume.
B.Non denominational churches are not churches according to the definition. I have provided sources at the very top of this rebuttal to disprove that. They are churches
The pro's case
It's only his attacks and that's it if I refute his attacks then I refute his case by extension. Which has been done.
Voters
1.)One illogical thought does not make you illogical
2.)All of the Pro's attacks are about definitions (refuted) and how Christians are constantly illogical (Refuted)
3.)Christians use logic to survive thus they use logical thought processes, so they are logical. (It is never refuted by opponent)
4.) Pro never negates how Francis Bacon invents a logical method that is used by all of the most logical people on the planet. Thus making Sir Francis logical
5.) Pro never my evidence on logical Christians
6.) My interpretations of the definitions are correct thus all of his references to them are incorrect
7.)I have removed all attacks against my case proving Christians are logical and leaving my opponent no ground to stand upon
Sources
http://www.debate.org... [1]
http://hirr.hartsem.edu... [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]
http://www.chompchomp.com... [4]
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
I'm just backing up my stand with evidence you can look at if you like this kind of debate :)
Posted by PabloM 5 years ago
PabloM
TheOrator, I hadn't seen that debate. It's almost like you were answering me in advance! :P
Posted by Truin 5 years ago
Truin
All religion is illogical that is were it gets its strength in the eyes of its followers. No one can argue that a god exists or prove he doesn't that makes it have the ability to speech nonsense but be accepted my others.

EX. If god know all before anything happens does free with exist since it is prophecy. He knows what is happening beforehand this means fate exists if fate exists then free will cannot exist in the same plain. So god either know nothing and free will exists or he knows everything and fate exists. They made themselves a hole that thay never want to bring up.
Posted by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
Mine would be Pro, like I stated in the original debate :)
http://www.debate.org...
(I just hope that doesn't give the con any ideas :P)
Posted by PabloM 5 years ago
PabloM
I wonder what the debaters' positions would be if the issue was "Christianity is illogical"....?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
TheOratorFlameofPrometheusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: It all comes down to "Illogical-not observing the principles of logic; not following logical processes". I think Con showed Christians follow some logical processes if not all, but I'll just give Con sources for superior sources as the actual definition of illogical is the major point of contention.
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 5 years ago
thejudgeisgod
TheOratorFlameofPrometheusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ^^apparent retribution
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
TheOratorFlameofPrometheusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Votebomb my debates much, Con? LOLZ