Are Theists Deluded? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Are Theists Deluded?
in Religion

By SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
It has always been said that if you are religious, you are deluded. But is that necessarily the case?
In the purest sense of being religious, i.e. someone who firmly believes there is a God (or any other supernatural presence) then we could quite rightly label that person as being generally deluded.

delusional
/dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
1. characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

The belief in God is certainly idiosyncratic and of course, such a belief is contradicted by reality or rational argument. 

But, here's the catch. Most people who claim to be religious don't actually believe there is a God. For example, a recent census in Australia found that less than 14% of Roman Catholics regularly attend Church. In other words, it is reasonable to assume that most religious followers give their belief no more than lip service or simply follow the culture that goes with the religion. 

So, is it fair to say then that those who earnestly believe in God are deluded?
AlofRI



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    No ,they're a product of indoctrination which is inflicted upon them from infancy on 


    AlofRI
  • SandSand 213 Pts
    No, you cannot say that. Your definitions are incorrect.

    idiosyncratic - relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual.
    idiosyncrasy - a mode of behavior or way of thought peculiar to an individual.

    When a group of people becomes a class that comes to the same conclusion it is no longer an individual viewpoint.

    rational - based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

    The religious people I know have always been open to reason and logic.
    The concept of God is some form of intelligence created all life forms.
    The concept of "evolution of the species" is time and chance made all life forms.

    The question is can we demonstrate either conclusion.
    The answer is no. 

    My argument states it is more logical to reason that it will take more intelligence than we have now to demonstrate either conclusion.
    This gives more weight to created side of the debate.
    This doesn't mean that things will not change or that the "evolution of the species" will not become more logical.

    The delusional definition does not fit religious people.
    The same way the religious definition does not fit atheists.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    What I find delusional is when millions of people believe in ONE "god", by different names, with different messages and different expectations, and not accepting that this "god", and "his word" are not created by MEN to shape millions to THEIR conceived image. If there WAS a real "god", IT would "drop-in" and see that things were going as IT wished, not just leave it to thousands of convinced individuals to spread different messages to millions of people who hear thousands of different interpretations of what "the god" said. If that's not a delusion, what?  o:)
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    Belief in god is not contradicted by reality. Belief in god simply has no logical basis behind it, but it is fully compatible, in principle, with everything scientists have uncovered about the world.

    There was an interesting philosopher in the Roman Empire, Sextus Empiricus. He believed that the key to ataraxia (the Pyrrhonist version of enlightenment) was suspension of logical judgment, in the sense that every statement is simultaneously true and false from certain points of view - and that means that, even if truth exists, it cannot be inferred from evidence in the real world. Acknowledging this and ceasing to look for truth everywhere would set one's mind at ease, while simultaneously giving them more "real" knowledge than relentless truth-seekers may ever obtain.
    In this sense, both belief that god exists and belief that it does not are neither right nor wrong - and the actual, "ultimate" truth lies in the idea that whether god exists or not depends on one's perspective.

    The more philosophical schools I get familiar with, the more I realize how superficial most of human discussions actually are. "Is there god or is there no god?" - this is a fairly silly question, the answer to which is inconsequential. It is much more interesting and useful to see where either statement leads and where they collide with each other, than to try to figure out which of them is true or makes more sense.

    Now, as far as I am concerned, religion is a product of human imagination. Much like fiction stories. This, however, does not necessarily make it "false". 
    But same can be said about any fiction story. True, maybe there is god. But also, maybe there are minotaurs. Maybe there are elves. Maybe there are space-faring dinosaurs. Do these ideas matter? No.

    While philosophy can be applied to any idea imaginable, it is important to distinguish ideas worth pursuing from useless ideas. And the idea of gods' existence, certainly, is useless.
    It is easy in philosophy to go into the ivory tower kind of thinking, where you start exploring ideas so detached from reality, that you would be better off if you just shut down your mind.

    People like Karl Marx or Benito Mussolini were philosophers of this kind: they went so deep into weird abstractions created by their imagination, that their conclusions were incompatible with the most basic facts we know about the world. And various religious philosophers have walked the same road, in many cases putting even Karl's and Benito's imagination to shame.

    After all, when it comes down to it, the idea of "god" is functionally the same as the idea of "Santa Claus", "domovoi", etc. Nobody takes those seriously nowadays, and everybody laughs at the odd child who, by the age of 8, still has not figured out that these creatures are made up.
    Yet applying the same reasoning to the idea of "god" is rarely done. This demonstrates the power of conformism: it is often easier for people to accept a random claim just because everyone around them accepts it, than to think about it for a little bit, see it for lacking any connection to reality, and dismissing it as an aberration of human thinking.
  • Well delusional... no. I think it would be too much. But I don't think it contradicts the reality.
    carryrocks
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @Sand
    I think that you will find that the word "idiosyncratic" also relates to being peculiar.
    The belief in God is peculiar in that there is not one iota of evidence to support such an absurd notion.

    When you have an individual who has an imaginary friend, you call that person deluded. If you have a large group of people who share the same imaginary friend, you have religion.

    You will note that I did make a distinction between "religious" people and people who firmly believe there is a God, the latter are clearly deluded. I might add though that there has been much authoritative research indicating that those who tend to judge by face value are prone to be spiritual as opposed to those who use reason and logic.
    There is no weight whatsoever to the "created" side of the debate since there is absolutely no evidence to support such an absurd notion.

    Evolution through natural selection has an abundance of evidence and has been proven irrefutably.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @AlofRI
    "What I find delusional is when millions of people believe in ONE "god", by different names, with different messages and different expectations, and not accepting that this "god", and "his word" are not created by MEN to shape millions to THEIR conceived image. If there WAS a real "god", IT would "drop-in" and see that things were going as IT wished, not just leave it to thousands of convinced individuals to spread different messages to millions of people who hear thousands of different interpretations of what "the god" said. If that's not a delusion, what?"

    Exactly right there. 
    Consider that, at last count, there are approximately 10,000 Gods worshipped all over the world.
    The paradox is that Christians are mostly atheists anyway since they disbelieve 9,999 Gods.
    Being an atheist, I'm not too different to Christians since I only disbelieve one more God than they do.
    AlofRI
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @MayCaesar
    "Belief in god is not contradicted by reality."

    Yes, it is.
    I think it is very easy to get sidetracked with philosophy and the attitude that "anything could be right" or, "depends upon one's own (perception of) reality".
    For example, if one were to accept the possibility of the existence of green elephants with wings or any other unfounded, absurd notion, we would be living in a world of utter chaos.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    From a moral sense, it is fair to say those who believe in religion are more likely to take part in public delusions, when a person cannot represent a GOD in a court of law in a way which the court itself cannot repeat the representation on their behalf upon their absence, or relief of duty the idea of God as religion becomes confusing to the ideas of simply just religion. Religion does not need a god only shared belief that can be passed on by writing or speaking in public.

    So, is it fair to say then that those who earnestly believe in God are deluded?
    No, only those people who believe God must only be a religion are delusional. This includes both types of people of faith those in organized education and church.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    Well, @John_C_87, I can only say .. you MAY be right.   :frowning:
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    AlofRI said:
    Well, @John_C_87, I can only say .. you MAY be right.   :frowning:
    The is premise correct. You have unlogical doubts, or you are afraid. The contradiction to the reality of there being no numbers is far more delusional then the idea there is only a belief of numbers as faith made by humanity 
    AlofRI
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    Religious views are not scientific.  They are opinionated, biased and unprovable.  For one biased individual to claim another biased individual is deluded for not agreeing with his biased opinion is unscientific and illegitimate.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @John_C_87
    "No, only those people who believe God must only be a religion are delusional. This includes both types of people of faith those in organized education and church"

    I think you are swinging your own lantern here.

    Fact: Whether or not someone belongs to a religious institution, if that person firmly believes in God, that person is clearly deluded.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @marke
    "For one biased individual to claim another biased individual is deluded for not agreeing with his biased opinion is unscientific and illegitimate.

    Quite right, although I have no idea what that has to do with the price of pork. 
    For my part, I have quite rightly and objectively exposed the fact that those who firmly believe in God are deluded and I have correctly backed up my assertion.

    I did not write the Oxford dictionary.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    I can no more prove atheism is a lie than atheists can prove God is a lie.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

    It's not up to Atheists to disprove a God it's up to you and others to prove a God exists no one has come close to doing so 
  • Dee said:
    @marke

    It's not up to Atheists to disprove a God it's up to you and others to prove a God exists no one has come close to doing so 
    Well can't the BOP be shared a bit? :p
    carryrocks
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @ScienceRules
    "Well can't the BOP be shared a bit?"

    No, not at all. ScienceRules is quite correct. The way it works is as per the court system.
    The prosecution (theist) claims a murder happened (God exists) and must prove it.
    The defence (atheist) has no onus whatsoever to provide any evidence that the murder did not happen (God does not exist).
    If the prosecution has not satisfactorily provided any evidence to prove the murder, the charge is dismissed without the defence having to utter a single word.

    "God exists" is a positive assertion that carries the burden of proof.
    "No, God doesn't exist" is not a positive assertion but a rebuttal of the positive assertion and needs no explanation, let alone, proof.

    From a common-sense point of view, how can an atheist be expected to disprove something that hasn't even been proven in the first place?

    Anyone who firmly maintains the presence of an imaginary friend (including God) is deluded.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @marke
    "I can no more prove atheism is a lie than atheists can prove God is a lie."

    The wires are a bit crossed here.
    Being an atheist or theist is not a matter of being a lie or not.

    Theists have a case to answer in that they have made a claim that God exists.
    Atheists are neutral in that they have not made a claim.
    "God does not exist" is not a claim but a rebuttal of the absurd and unproven claim made by theists.
    It would be ridiculous to expect someone to disprove something that isn't even proven in the first place. What is there to disprove? Nothing.
    Therefore, as it stands, there is no God and anyone who firmly maintains otherwise is clearly deluded....whether or not they accept the fact.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @ScienceRules


    Well can't the BOP be shared a bit

    If I stated there was no god yes , but I have not concluded that for certain making my position the opposite to a believers 

    Only one of these positions is rational and it’s not the theists 

  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Dee

    I see no need for anyone to try to prove their opinions about the origin of the universe.  Nobody was there.  Scientific observation is out of the question.  All that remains are assumptions, conclusions, speculations and the like which all may be based on the available evidence and data, but which are still, nonetheless, beyond the scope of scientific proof.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    The issue of evolution was tried, somewhat, in court in the Scopes Monkey Trial.  The evolutionists presented their arguments but failed to prove anything.  In fact, they refused to discuss the main of their arguments in open court and, instead, listed their 'facts' and opinions in the brief which was to form the basis of an appeal.  The evolutionists were wrong in every scientific argument they presented.  The Plltdown was not scientific evidence like they assumed, it was a hoax.  There are not 180 vestigial organs in the human body like they erroneously claimed.  Nobody had ever claimed such nonsense before the trial.  And everything else presented failed to provide reasonable scientific evidence or argument for acceptance as real science.

    Humans are notorious for latching onto bad ideas and conclusions and holding onto those bad ideas for life.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @marke

     I see no need for anyone to try to prove their opinions about the origin of the universe

    That’s fine your belief in god is only an opinion , this I knew,  wish you would tell other believers to follow your lead 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @marke
    "The issue of evolution was tried, somewhat, in court in the Scopes Monkey Trial."

    Come on now.
    The issue of evolution was not tried at all and the Scopes Monkey Trial was about the constitutional right to teach evolution; it had nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Moreover, it was nearly a century ago when the state of Tennesse still upheld draconian, religiously tainted legislation.

    Evolution by natural selection has been irrefutably proven and to date, nobody has successfully challenged that.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    You do not honor evolutionists in the Scopes Monkey trial for believing the Piltdown was a scientific evidence of evolution or believing there are 180 vestigial organs in the human body which prove evolution.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch