The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Eugenious
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Christians are delusional

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Eugenious
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,061 times Debate No: 120110
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

killshot

Pro

In order to be a Christian an individual must believe in magic (incantations, Resurrections, Talking snakes, Etc).

The dictionary definition of a delusion is a belief that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument. It is considered a symptom of mental disorder.

https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=delusion

To believe in magic, An individual must reject reality because magic has no basis in reality. Therefore, Christians are delusional.
Eugenious

Con

Before I get into defending the Christian faith, I want to point that in order for my opponent to prove that we Christians are delusional, He would first have to prove that the opposite side, Atheism, ISN'T delusional. His provided definition of "delusion" is: "a belief that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument. " Reality and rational argument. Let's look at the supposed "reality and rational arguments" backing up atheism. To start, You have the Big Bang. They say that 13. 7 billion years ago a small speck of matter exploded and made our amazing universe. First off, How did this matter come into existence? Out of nothing, Allegedly. Reality says that something cannot come from nothing. A whole lot of REALITY there, Right? Next, The formation of stars, Planets, Etc. After the alleged Big Bang, How did all of the matter somehow come together to form the exceedingly complex, Diverse objects in our solar system? Reality says that ORDER does not come from DISORDER. Tell me, If I was to drop a nuclear bomb into a junkyard, Would I create a new Bugatti Veyron? No. I would get destruction. A speck of matter exploding couldn't create the fine-tuned order in our universe. I'm totally seeing a whole lot of reality here so far. . . Next, The idea that life came from non-life. They say that some primordial slime or something similar was struck by lightning and life appeared in the smallest way. REALITY tells us that LIFE cannot come from NON-LIFE. Next, The idea of macro evolution. They say that over millions of years, Life changed from a small amoeba-like creature into the complex life forms we see today. First off, There is no fossil evidence backing this idea up. Even if we had ONE fossil seeming to be an in-between species, There should still be BILLIONS of other in-between fossils! If we were around for as long as they say, There would be many fossils, And there are none. No logic or REALITY there. Plus, Have we OBSERVED macro evolution taking place? No, We have not. Now, Evolutionists might say, "Well, We don't have millions of years to observe it with! " That's exactly the point! You atheists say that we can't believe in God because we can't see or experiment on Him, But then you turn around and preach something that you yourselves can't see or experiment on! Are you beginning to see your own dilemma here? By your own definition of delusion, ATHEISM is delusional! You have no logical or physical evidence of any kind to back you up. So before you start attacking us, I'd like to see you prove that YOU'RE not the delusional one. By your own definition, You atheists are VERY delusional.

Now for proving us Christians as not being delusional. There are many facets of this, So I'll only touch on a few. Now, My opponent's main argument is that since we have to believe in some sort of "magic, " we're delusional. Now, Using logic, If my opponent is going to attack the Bible, It should be the BIBLE that defends itself. But, Since atheists aren't exactly fans of logic, I'll probably have to defend my views from outside sources. I would just like to say that if my opponent accepts logic, Which isn't likely, Then the Biblical defense in this issue is that God is God. He can work miracles all day if He wants to. But let's get into the outside sources. Josephus' work, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3- "Now, There was about this time Jesus, A wise man, If it be lawful to call him a man, For he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, At the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, Had condemned him to the cross, Those who loved him at the first did not forsake him, For he appeared to them alive again the third day, As the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of the Christians, So named from him, Are not extinct to this day. " A great non-Christian testimony comes form the works of Tacitus. There are many other witnesses to the miracles of Jesus, But for the sake of time, I'll leave it at the ones mentioned. Now, My opponent likely is thinking as he reads this, "all he's giving is eyewitness accounts! " Well, If he wants scientific evidence, You can't really provide any solid, Conclusive evidence from science. But I want to say two things in regard to this: First, I have heard many atheist, When questioned about their own lack of evidence supporting the Big Bang, They'll say something like, "We atheists aren't afraid to say we don't know something! We don't always have the answers, And that's okay! That's the point of science. " If they are allowed to say this and get away from defending their view of the Big Bang, That same argument is perfectly okay for us Christians as well in the defense of our beliefs. Second, An atheist, No matter what we say, Is going to say that Christ either didn't actually live, Or he simply wasn't the Christ. It is futile to continue a discussion about the scientific ramifications of miracles.

In conclusion, I find it rather humorous that my opponent has no logical or scientific evidence to support his view, And yet he claims the we Christians are the delusional ones. He has no scientific evidence, And yet he demands it of us in the defense of our God. This is not only unfair in an honest debate, But it also shows the thought process of my opponent. He knows he cannot defend his view, So he instead aims his arguments solely at attacking Christianity. This is not only flawed logic, But also quite sad. If all of you out there are reading this now with an honest heart, Hear this and know the truth. God's not Dead.
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

I'm going to keep my answer simple and not get distracted by your straw-man arguments of abiogenesis, Evolution, Cosmology.

The burden of proof is on you as a theist to prove your God is real. The burden of proof for my claim that you are delusional is on me, And I have provided my proof (magic).

I have proposed that Christians are delusional. I cited a generally accepted definition for mental delusion and a few examples of their beliefs that fit that description. Magic is not within the bounds of our reality, Therefore, It's delusional by definition. Hence, Christians are delusional.

You said "Now, Using logic, If my opponent is going to attack the Bible, It should be the BIBLE that defends itself. ".

I don't care what a bunch of old errant writings by ignorant bigoted stone age peasants say. The Bible cannot be evidence for itself, That's circular reasoning.

Once again, To be a Christian you must believe in magic. Magic isn't real. Belief in it is delusional by definition.

Examples of magic: God speaking things into existence, Jesus turning water to wine, Jesus resurrecting, Talking snakes, Global floods, Etc.

Back to you.
Eugenious

Con

First off, You completely dodged my questions about the Big Bang and evolution. You provided no evidence, And you dropped my applications surrounding those arguments. I believe that you know that you can't prove what you believe, And you are therefore dodging the evidence in a futile attempt to save your side in this debate. This is a poor, Unfair, And very unintelligent method of debating and "proving" your point.

I would like you to, Secondly, Prove that what I said are "straw man arguments. " They are not, And I believe that you don't even know what a straw man is if you think that they were.

Third, You said " I cited a generally accepted definition for mental delusion and a few examples of their beliefs that fit that description. Magic is not within the bounds of our reality, Therefore, It's delusional by definition. Hence, Christians are delusional. " Hmm. "not within the bounds of our reality. " Can something come from nothing? Can life come from non-life? Can order come from disorder? EVERYTHING that you believe as an atheist is "not within the bounds of our reality. " By your OWN ARGUMENT, You are delusional. Please do not dodge this point! I know that may be hard to do when you do not have any speck of evidence in sight, But please at least attempt to actually debate properly the counterpoints being made.

Next, As I said would happen, You would abandon rational thought and not allow the Bible to prove itself, So my prior applications that are not from the Bible still apply here. You, Not surprisingly, Also dropped that application. I ask you, Once again, Please answer these counterarguments as best you can. If you keep dropping my points, You will have given the debate over to me. You cannot simply ignore the arguments made by the opposing side.

Next, I would like to point out that you, Keeping in line with common atheist tactics, Made the statement "I don't care what a bunch of old errant writings by ignorant bigoted stone age peasants say, " and then didn't offer any evidence to support such a moronic claim. If you intend to make such statements, Please make an effort to prove what you're saying. As for a quick defense to what you said, If you quote some alleged contradiction, I warn you that any common "flaws" you may find are mostly taken out of context or just plain manipulation of Scripture.

Finally, You call "God speaking things into existence, Jesus turning water to wine, Jesus resurrecting, Talking snakes, Global floods, Etc, " magic. I would like to say that you support many beliefs that are very complex and have no mind behind them! At least the aspects of my hard-to-believe ideas has an all-powerful MIND behind them. Along with this point, I want to ask you a simple, If not humorous, Question: If I put some petals, A rose, And some pieces of a stem in front of you, Could you make a rose? Certainly not. And yet, You not only have material in front of you, But you also have a mind! And yet you believe that in the Big Bang, Something was made from absolutely nothing to work with, And it was done without a mind! If this happened, What does that say about your intelligence? This wasn't meant as an insult, But as something to get you thinking logically (if such a thing were possible). If you, With a mind, And with material in front of you to work with, Can't make something, How can a mindless nothing make something out of nothing! Does that sound like logic to you? PLEASE answer this. I am sick and tired of atheist dodging questions and not proving what they're saying. If you have such a multitude of evidence, It should be very easy for you to prove your point.

In short, You dropped almost everything I said and didn't back up what you did say. This isn't proper debate, And it's downright ridiculous. Please actually begin debating! Answer what I said, And back up what you say.
Back to you!
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

Ok, So, Once again you have attempted to derail the conversation by proposing straw man arguments. Does this tactic normally work for you? It won't with me.

My original proposition was that Christians are delusional. That has nothing to do with whether or not other theories such as evolution are true or not. Even if evolution were disproven right now, That would not make Christians any less delusional for believing in magic. If you'd like to have other atheist position debates, I'm happy to do so in separate debates - feel free to pick a SINGLE topic at a time and challenge me.

The ONLY thing I am responsible in THIS debate is proving that Christians are delusional. I did that by providing a working definition for what I mean by delusional, As well as supporting examples. Everything else you mentioned is a straw man and irrelevant to this debate topic and I'm not going to let you draw me down a rabbit hole of straw man arguments.

As for you wanting to use the Bible to prove the Bible. That method is circular, Unfalsifiable and completely illogical. I could write a Bible right now, Then by using your logic (my Bible), I could prove my Bible is correct. It would be irrefutable by you since my book says so. Do you see how illogical that is? The book can't be evidence for itself and therefore I don't care about anything your stone age book says (and neither should you).

You said, "If I put some petals, A rose, And some pieces of a stem in front of you, Could you make a rose? Certainly not. " - I would like to point out here that you are using a God of the gaps argument here. In other words, You're saying "If you can't do it, God can". That's a fallacy in itself - Google it. You can't just plug in God as an answer. You first need to prove there is a God, Or at a bare minimum the probability of one. Hell, Even the POSSIBILITY of one would be a good start.

You said, "In short, You dropped almost everything I said and didn't back up what you did say. This isn't proper debate, And it's downright ridiculous. Please actually begin debating! Answer what I said, And back up what you say. " - I'm sorry that I didn't fall into your trap and let you drag me off subject with your straw man arguments. Won't work on me, Try to stay on subject :).

Once again, I'll recite my original proposition. Christians are delusional because they believe in magic, And magic by definition is delusional. I can give you countless examples of magic in the Bible, As I already did. THIS is the debate topic. Either debate it, Or admit defeat.
Eugenious

Con

First, You still have not PROVEN how my arguments have been straw man arguments, And I doubt you ever will. If you can't tell me why and prove why you're right, Your point is of no consequence in this debate.

Second, This has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not evolution is true! IF the opposing theory to creation is wrong, Then the idea of creationism must be right! That's very simple logic! Please answer this. If you can't, Just say so!

Third, You said "Christians are delusional because they believe in magic, And magic by definition is delusional. " And you then proceeded to drop my answer to this. I said in my last argument: "You said " I cited a generally accepted definition for mental delusion and a few examples of their beliefs that fit that description. Magic is not within the bounds of our reality, Therefore, It's delusional by definition. Hence, Christians are delusional. " Hmm. "not within the bounds of our reality. " Can something come from nothing? Can life come from non-life? Can order come from disorder? EVERYTHING that you believe as an atheist is "not within the bounds of our reality. " By your OWN ARGUMENT, You are delusional. Please do not dodge this point! I know that may be hard to do when you do not have any speck of evidence in sight, But please at least attempt to actually debate properly the counterpoints being made. "
If magic is something that was accomplished outside of reality or common sense, Then you have PLENTY of "magic" on your end of things. And don't say that this is irrelevant. If I can prove that by your own definition of magic or delusional that you believe or support either, Then your statement is falsified. In other words, If you support beliefs that are delusional, Then you can't make the argument that we being "delusional" is wrong! That's just using simple logic! Stop dodging my questions about your beliefs. They are relevant in this debate.

Fourth, You said that you could write a Bible right now. I don't think that you could generate a document over 1500 years, From over 40 authors, With over 300 Messianic prophecies fulfilled, And scientific foreknowledge all throughout the book. You must think very highly of yourself if you think you could do such an act.

Fifth, You completely twisted my rose application into what you want it to say. I NEVER said "If you can't do it, God can". As you said I did. You have twisted my words in a deceitful manner, And any unbiased reader will see that. The point I was making that if you can't, With material in front of you and with a complex mind to work with, Create something such as a rose, How could a mindless process make all this complexity out of NOTHING? That was what my point was. I'll thank you to stop twisting my words.

So far, You have twisted my words, Dodged my questions, Provided NO supporting evidence, And have used false logic left and right. Your debate style is very cowardly. You don't even TRY to refute what I say. You dodge questions, Rather than answering them like your'e supposed to. For the last time, PLEASE ANSWER WHAT I SAID. Stop twisting my words, And back up what you say. The more arguments you drop, The more arguments you cause to flow to my side. If you don't start answering my arguments, You have admitted defeat and given up this debate. Please answer like you're supposed to do in a debate.
Back to you!
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Eugenious 2 years ago
Eugenious
It seems that you change your opinion on who must answer for their beliefs every debate. I simultaneously proved that Christians aren"t delusional and proved that you in fact are.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@Eugenious Wrong. Delusional is believing in things that are not in concordance with reality. This debate was on whether or not believing in Christianity was delusional - nothing else. You can be delusional for other reasons, But this debate was over one reason. You tried to change the subject back on me by targeting beliefs you assume I hold with long winded straw man attacks and subject deflection. This debate was only on the subject of Christianity. Christianity is not based on facts about reality, It's based on faith, DESPITE facts that entirely disprove it. It is a view based on absurd absolutes that require faith and gullibility and have no evident basis in fact or reality. THAT is delusional by the very definition, And I won this debate regardless of the sympathy votes.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Pointing out that you yourself are delusional is a very logical tactic in defense. If I can prove that you were delusional, Which I did, Then you have no place accusing us of being delusional. As for doing another debate, Let's do it.
-Eugenious
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@Eugenious

Christian beliefs will either stand or fall on their own merit. They are not automatically "proven" true if counter beliefs are proven false. Proving evolution wrong would only prove evolution is wrong. It will not prove there is a magic genie in the sky making men from clay and women from ribs. Those ridiculously idiotic ideas need to be proven. That is why you bringing up ideas like evolution, Cosmology and the big bang were straw man arguments. They were irrelevant to our debate's subject and only meant as a distraction to draw attention away from the actual issue we were discussing. So to answer your question - those were your straw man tactics.

Re-last round: Yes, Next time we will have more rounds than 3. I agree 3 is not generally enough, Although I feel like i made my point well and you helped. Thanks

That being said, I told you in the debate that I'm happy to debate one of those subjects with you in separate debates. But you need to pick a subject and stick to it. No straw man crap. If you want to debate on the big bang, Evolution, Or anything else - challenge me. Just pick a SINGLE subject at a time and stick to it so we can actually have a conversation.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
A HUGE thing in this debate was that my opponent kept using the phrase "straw man arguments" and never ONCE proved that they WERE straw man arguments! He didn't answer my biggest contentions, And this, As anyone who's done debate knows, Is something that would technically cost you a debate. I urge any of you reading this to vote for my side, Whether you are Christian or atheist! That's what's so great about this! Even if you're an atheist, All you'd be saying if you vote for me is "Christians aren't delusional. " Whether you're a believer or not is of no consequence. Vote for truth.
Thanks!
-Eugenious
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
If my last argument was confusing, It's because I didn't realize that that was the last round. Sorry for the inconvenience! I'll just say that in closing, My opponent didn't answer the overwhelming majority of my arguments, And the ones he did, He deceitfully twisted them or dodged them entirely. This was fun, And thank you to everyone involved!
God's not Dead!
-Eugenious
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@Eugenious: "Before I get into defending the Christian faith, I want to point that in order for my opponent to prove that we Christians are delusional, He would first have to prove that the opposite side, Atheism, ISN'T delusional. "

He does not have to prove that at all. He need only substantiate his own affirmation that Christians are delusional. And it is your onus to refute that. You can affirm your own argument, But then you'd be responsible for that affirmation as well.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Okay. Just message in a debate I am in or on this debate.
I can defend internet ponorgraphy by the way.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
On internet pornography? If so, I'll be gone all this weekend, So we shouldn't do it then. I'll start it when I get back. Be watching!
-Eugenious
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I would prefer to have it tomorrow.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
killshotEugeniousTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof does not necessarily always rest on theists. It rests on the one making the claim. Pro claims that Christians are delusional, thus, he has the burden of proof. The burden of proof also rests on pro in another way. He says delusional is rejection to what is accepted as fact or reality, which he says is atheism. This is a claim. He does not back this up. But furthermore, he ignores most of cons claims concerning atheism, and he doesn't address them which is what the resolution asks him to do. If atheism is what is accepted as reality, then he must prove it, he did not. Conduct was close but I'm giving it to con. I also must counter backwardsedens sources vote. If sources were something that heavily support an argument, then it only matters then.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
killshotEugeniousTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con "He would first have to prove that the opposite side, Atheism, ISN'T delusional." False. Atheism is not a religion. Pro "The burden of proof is on you as a theist to prove your God is real." True. Nobody has to date. Pro "You said "Now, Using logic, If my opponent is going to attack the Bible, It should be the BIBLE that defends itself. " The bible never defends itself. It is its own worst enemy. Its god would also never use text as a form of communication unless extremely stupid. "First off, You completely dodged my questions about the Big Bang and evolution." Not the subject of this debate to do a turnabout. Pro "I could write a Bible right now," Yes he could, and so could anybody who can read and write. "God of the gaps argument here" & "You can't just plug in God as an answer. You first need to prove there is a God," Con did not. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
killshotEugeniousTied
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: This was about like the creator of the debate stated whether or not Christians are delusional. Instead of giving another definiton or stating why they are not. Con uses claims about athiesm, evolution, Big Bang etc which removed from the conversation at hand. One person stuck to the main claim and another made various outside the one that the creator of the debate wanted to stick to. His argument in Round 1 was simple and remained correct due to the failure of Con giving a good argument against Christians being delushioned.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
killshotEugeniousTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering invalid vote that didn't explain what argument Pro made that was convincing.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.