The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

If Atheists really believed in logic and science without deluding themselves they would go insane.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 975 times Debate No: 81646
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




Hello, would love to debate. I think I might lose since a lot of people on this website are atheists, but it will still be fun.
First round acceptance.


Debate Round No. 1


Hello! I'm already losing this judging by the first comment, but oh well. This will be fun. Hope you all enjoy.

Anyways I actually there was a time when I thought that religion was pretty stupid. So, I tried to think of a better explanation for well life. Then I realised how little we know and no matter how media tricks you and we some how believe that we are the "main characters" in the "story" there really is no reason why we should eventually find everything out. In fact there is no reason for it to make sense.

So, I sat there asking why do I not want to die. I mean why is good good? The only reason I can think of that it stops pain which in turn prolongs survival. Not directly, but humans avoid pain. I believe because instinct tells them their life is endangered by pain. Thus they avoid it. So, yea there is your wonderful "good".

It helps survival. We haven't gotten a clue why we feel the need to survive and reproduce, but we are just going to delude ourselves and say its because of magic...or we'll ignore it.

Just like greed. Another wonderful thing that helps humanity more than we'd like to admit. Seriously everything just comes together to have us survive, reproduce and then inevitably die.

I recently saw a really dumb atheist thing that said something along the lines of,"Religious people do good things because they are scared of going to hell and atheists to good things 'cause it the human thing to do."

Something like that. I sat there and burst out laughing. I mean being "evil" is just as human. And like I said good is just a thing created by evolution to help us survive. Seriously, I'd like atheists to give me another explanation.

If we did not delude ourselves we'd probably know that we know nothing. Your supposed oh so great knowledge really is nothing. We just saw a tree and called it tree. Then we said its was green and big. Than we saw grass and said it was also green and small. All the while we did not really know a thing about it.

Oh, yea we saw atoms and named then atoms, then we saw some protons and neutrons and some quarks. We could have just as well called these things X and Y and Z. Said that the tree is X then the grass is X-5. Well, okay not really, but I'm trying to say its just a giant algebraic equation. We give stuff names and then say what other stuff are according to them.

And I know what your are thinking,"Oh, but we'll find out..."

NO! Where is the logic or evidence? Nowhere! You don't even really know what logic is! Oh, yea go on to say its making reasonable deductions...I'll ask what that is....and then what that is...enc.

You'll probably end with something like,"Its a way humans work things out in a way that makes sense to the human mind."

Something like that. Well, you know maybe we can't process that info. Why should we?

We are not special. There is no proof of "love" being more than a survival instinct or a reproduction instinct. No proof of other people even being conscious or experiencing the world in a remotely similar way you do.

When you look at life in a truly logical way it becomes cold desolate and lonely.

You can't dream anymore because you know its...well you know nothing. Its futile. Everything just to survive and then you...die.

If atheists did not delude themselves and were willing to look that truth in the eyes they would go what people who still delude themselves call "insane". But, they refuse to look it in the eye. Much better to ignore it.

Because if you looked it straight in the eye you realise everything, everything is futile.

Good and bad. Nothing.

Knowledge nothing.

You are not part of something bigger than you. No matter what the movies say.

You are just part of a bunch of organisms living on a floating rock. Wake up.



The resolution isn't very clear so I will take a literal interpretation of what is being said. If atheists really do believe in logic and science (which they do) without deluding themselves (they don't tend to delue themselves) then they would all go insane (false). This is why I am taking the negative position in this debate. I believe that what my opponent is arguing is that atheists that actually believe in science would go insane.

Contention 1: Famous atheists that believed in science

"Democritus was an ancient Greek philosopher, the most prolific and influential of the pre-Socratics and whose atomic theory is regarded as the intellectual culmination of early Greek thought. For this atomic theory, which echoes eerily the theoretical formulations of modern physicists, he is sometimes called the "father of modern science." He was well known to Aristotle, and a thorn in the side to Plato - who advised that all of Democritus' works be burned." (1)

Democritus (or the father or modern science) was also a philospher (as mentioned above). Philosphers are very much the opposite of insane, by definition (2) philosophy is about thinking about the world and discussing reality and existence.

"The many anecdotes about Democritus, especially in Diogenes Laërtius, attest to his disinterest, modesty, and simplicity, and show that he lived exclusively for his studies." (3)

It is clear that Democritus is not insane and studies, research and accounts of his work prove this. His job, more specifically the nature of his job proves that he viewed the world realistically and based his evidence of science and evidence (not decisions due to insanity). Insanity is defined as: extreme [foolishness] or irrationality (4). Democritus (as demonstrated) clearly makes decisions based on science and not on irrationality. People agreed with his scientific studies (by enlarge) and they still do today. Democirtus' job was as a philosopher and scientist he was not insane and my opponent must prove that he is in order to meet his / her burden.

Contention 2: Importance of knowledge

Knowledge is what allows us to drive cars instead of ride horses, it is what helps us survive far longer than we should, and knowledge is even what prevents us from making the same mistakes that we have made in the past.

Sometimes we have problems with knowledge because we have difficulties obtaining it. Being in school, gaining knowledge is mandatory, and people can respond negatively to being forced to learn, but the knowledge you gain in that class can actually help you succeed further down the line. It sounds strange, but it’s possible that you can forget how to learn (5)

Science is important to our understanding and is therefore important to our knowledge. This debate regards insanity and insanity is contradictory to knowledge. Since my opponent has associated Atheism with science they are accepting that the majority of Atheists use science to justify their views. Science is a rational justification as to how things occur in Atheism and that is usually the reason as to why Atheists don't believe in God. Atheists are rational because they believe in scientific explanation that are valid and explain in detail why certain things occur. Religious people decide to base their lives off book when in reality only one (or none) of their books will be the actual book that God and his followers wrote. Atheists actually look at evidence before making irrational decisions. If anybody is is insane, it is the believers in God.

Contention 3: Theists are less rational than Atheists

I will expand upon what I began to refer to in my previous contention. Theists (believes in a deity) and the majority of theists believe in a holy book (written hundreds of years ago). Nobody is alive to validate any of the evidence that these holy books state. People believe in these books because they state things such as: if you don't believe in this religion, you will go to hell.

People fear these claims and decide to base their lives based upon this. In the religion of Islam it states that anybody that converts from Islam to another religion should be beheaded! In Christianity it states that anybody other than Christians will go to Hell. In Hinduism it states that disabled people deserve to be disabled because they were bad in a previous life. That is a horrible and irrational way to view life. My opponent must provide proof that these religions are rational to believe in.

These religion teach us to be satisfied with not understanding the word and by definition, this is an irrational way to view life (6).

I will provide rebuttals in the next round of this debate.



Debate Round No. 2


My opponent somehow seemed to draw the conclusion that I am arguing for Theists, but I don't remember every stating that. Please, remain on topic. This argument is not about Theists vs Atheists. I do not need to prove that these religions are rational to believe in.

I am arguing this as a non-religious and non-atheist person. Just a insane person who knows they know nothing and is pretty much just having fun.

This argument is simply about pointing out that no matter how atheists go on about how "rational" they are, they pretty much delude themselves too.

Now, on to the argument.

I said without deluding yourself! How on earth do you know that these people did not delude themselves. In fact I think they most likely did. Or they were very, very passive people.

Deluding yourself includes thinking that you are "helping society" by gathering more knowledge. Looking from a truly logical and hard perspective there is not reason to doing that.

Why does that person want to help society? There is no reason to do that except for the "feelings" in you head that tells you to strive to help your species so that it can survive longer. The person does not know. Deluding yourself includes that.

No one knows anything. Most people believe they have purpose. Once again no sound reasoning behind it. And don't come and tell me you don't believe that secretly. If my opponent did not believe that, he would not bother to post a reply.

But, no my opponent believes life means something. He believes that maybe he is doing good by spreading the knowledge he believes he is by debating me. If he asks himself why, gets an answer and asks why again...and continues like that eventually he would realise he does not know.

He deludes himself into thinking life has a point. Maybe he believes emotions are more than just fluids in our brains even. No matter how hard atheists try and deny it they also delude themselves in the back of their mind. Whispering that whatever they are doing has a point. That they are part of something bigger.

At least religious people ask for an explanation. Sure, most of the time its far fetched, here is a thing I wrote which its a dumbed down way of seeing it, but will be sufficient for the purposes of this argument.

"Hey, welcome to life! Its pretty much pointless since you die at the end. But, you need to be this thing called "good" and you may not be "bad. You should also want things. That is called "greed". Also you do not want to die. You don't know what happens when you die. It probably feels like sleeping. Just nothing. And...uh just don't think about how futile life is and how everything come down to nothing. You also have science to help you think you know stuff. Its like algebra you just fill stuff in to a "normal" and think you know stuff. Also it won't explain what happens when you die or even bother with purpose and your species and planet also most likely be swallowed by the sun. Nothing makes sense and logic will only take you so far. Have fun." Says scary voice.

Deluded atheist: Sounds cool.

Religious person: Why...?

Scary voice: 'Cause magic!

Religious person: Ok!

Real Atheist: ...that is...(really you'd go insane)

In conclusion, many atheists see "science" as their almost "deity?" and then believe that it will somehow save humanity and we'll eventually be great or know everything. Even a underdog story with "science" being the hero. We'll escape planet earth and live happily ever after thanks to "science". They have no reason for this expect the human hope and natural avoidance of the futility of life.

That is not what science is.

Maybe religion is just a coping mechanism for others. Maybe otherwise religious people would go insane. I mean try and really think about it. We refuse, refuse to think we are nothing.

Its human nature to delude yourself to avoid that. Its logical. Its helps you survive.

We don't know why, though, and we are not allowed to think about why we don't know. We are not allowed to question it. We can hardly even think like that. We fear what we do not know and delude ourselves. Saying it does not matter.

It does not matter we have no idea what happens after death. It does not matter we won't exist. It just does not...

No matter that all human reason tells us to avoid death.

Evolution is literally created upon a concept of survival of the fittest. Survival. Avoiding death for the longest and reproducing.
Our brains are made to accept it. We are made to delude ourselves and its very, very hard not to.


The comments have nothing to do with the actual debate so don't worry about that.

There is very little content in my opponent's argument actually regarding the insanity of atheists so I will just quote out anything I can find regarding the actual topic and respond to it.

"good is just a thing created by evolution to help us survive. Seriously, I'd like atheists to give me another explanation."

Good was not created by evolution. Atheism has nothing to do with being good or bad. As an atheist being good or bad is a choice. Therefore atheists have free will. Being religious usually means that you are forced to be good. It tells you that you must behave in certain ways otherwise something will happen to you, ie. go to hell. This leads many theists to think that morality stems from God and that without religion and God people can no longer act morally. This claim is false. If you analyze the major religions in greater detail you will notice the flaws in their rules. Religions do not tell us to be good. Religion tells us to behead those that convert; to mock the disabled for people bad in their previous lives. Religion tells us to tell our children that if they decide to convert they will go to Hell for an eternity.

" We give stuff names and then say what other stuff are according to them."

Does this have any relevance to the topic that we are discussing?

No proof of other people even being conscious or experiencing the world in a remotely similar way you do."

There is lots of evidence that other people are conscious. The most obvious evidence is that their behavior makes a lot more sense if you assume they are conscious, and doesn't make much sense at all if you assume they are not (1).

Do you require further evidence? If the answer is yes then I will provide it:

1. Person A can’t teach person B what word W means, if A doesn’t know what W means.

2. One can’t know what ‘consciousness’ means if one is not conscious.

From 1 and 2 =>

3.Person A can’t teach person B what ‘consciousness’ means, if A isn’t conscious.

4.I learned word ‘conscious’ from the people in the linguistic community.

From 4 and 3 =>

5. People in the linguistic community are conscious.

OK, now you know… you are conscious." (2)

"Good and bad. Nothing."

My opponent continues to make assertions. Although I will refute them, regardless.

Consider what the world would be like if there were no traffic rules at all. Would people be able to travel by automobiles, buses and other vehicles on the roadways if there were no traffic regulations? The answer should be obvious to all rational members of the human species. Without basic rules, no matter how much some would like to avoid them or break them, there would be chaos. The fact that some people break the rules is quite clearly and obviously not sufficient to do away with the rules. The rules are needed for transportation to take place. Now apply this to good and bad. With good the world can run in an orderly fasion, bad is something that happens and causes chaos. It is stopped by the good (ie. justice system). They aren't meaningless. They shape society (3).

"Knowledge nothing."

I will quote from my importance of knowledge contention:

"Knowledge is what allows us to drive cars instead of ride horses, it is what helps us survive far longer than we should, and knowledge is even what prevents us from making the same mistakes that we have made in the past."

"You are just part of a bunch of organisms living on a floating rock. Wake up."

This is exactly what atheists believe. They understand what we are and that is why they don't believe in God. We are organisms on a rock in the middle of nowhere. Why would God put us here? Since your beliefs are coinciding with atheism you are essentially either doing one of the following:

a) Conceding
b) Calling yourself delusional.




Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Amy_IceFyre 2 years ago
Oh, nevermind. I just read the comments by whiteflame. Ugh, really?? I was winning!!! *frowny face* (jokes...for the idiots.)
Posted by Amy_IceFyre 2 years ago
Huh, what happened to the other too votes. One guy was named Bob13 and the other guy was called logical-master123. Huh????
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: logical-master123// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes and also, Con has better arguments. He had different categories when Pro was unorganized.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter needs to do more than just state that one side conceded or had better arguments. In the former case, it's not clear that the debater conceded, though it's argued by Con that that's the case. The voter must explain how this is the appropriate outcome based on those arguments. In the latter, stating that one side had better arguments is nothing but an assertion supported by no specific analysis of the debate. The voter must directly assess specific arguments, not just make vague allusions to what happened. (2) Conduct is unexplained. Being disorganized is not a reason for awarding conduct.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Bob13// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro gives a convincing argument that an atheist who truly believes in logic and science would go insane, while Con just proves himself to be one of the delusional atheists that Pro is referring to. Con never negated the fact that an atheist that is not delusional would see no purpose in life and thus go insane. Con also makes insulting statements about religion, many of which are false. Con also makes grammar mistakes, such as starting a sentence with, "Theists and the majority of theists...". Overall, Pro won.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct goes unexplained in this RFD. (2) S&G requires better justification than this. Unless the arguments are substantially difficult to understand (which repetition at the start of some sentences does not show), this point is not justified.
Posted by Matt532 2 years ago
I am open to discussing about my RFD if anyone's interested.
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
That is an extremely poor vote and it has been reported. It makes many assertions and when did I make insulting claims regarding religion?
Posted by Amy_IceFyre 2 years ago
I just realised...I'm a point ahead???? *gaps* I thought I was already killing myself by argumenting this on a site with as many atheists. So, thx! Also lol dear person who voted in my favour, I did want to point out that con was acting exactly like the "delusional atheists" I was talking about, but I thought it would be rude. Eh, comment section now, so hopefully it won't be.
Posted by Amy_IceFyre 2 years ago
Yes, it does lead to a paradox. Also remember, logic and rationality can not explain everything. In fact if we follow a logical path on why most hings exist there always comes a point when logic can go no further. I hold logic and reason in the highest regard, but unlike some atheists I do not believe that logic is dare I say "magic".
Posted by rnd 2 years ago
ah, but if an irrational person were to believe they were irrational, would they not be rational? Likewise, if a rational person were to believe they were irrational, would they not be irrational? Seems in either case, believing one's self to be irrational leads to a paradox. :)
Posted by Amy_IceFyre 2 years ago
Er...well Google says it mean,"Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action."

But, seriously it is just something humans can understand. I think that if you really looked "rationally" at it you would go insane and probably act what other humans call "irational" since rationality can not explain everything about the universe. I fact it explains nothing really.

And there is not rational reason why it should.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Matt532 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Too long, didn't post. See