CreateDebate


Debate Info

153
103
He is He isn't
Debate Score:256
Arguments:239
Total Votes:282
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 He is (115)
 
 He isn't (96)

Debate Creator

IchthysSaves(621) pic



Is God(s) A Delusion?

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further"

""Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."

- Richard Dawkins

 

He is

Side Score: 153
VS.

He isn't

Side Score: 103
3 points

To me a delusion is believing in something even if there is no good reason to, or if there is plenty of reason against it. I could believe that I have a million dollars somewhere, that I will obtain once I hit retirement, I could believe that somehow, someway I will obtain this when I need to retire, but I have no reason to, then again can anyone prove me wrong? This would be considered a delusion, and believing in god is to me the exact same situation.

Side: He is
2 points

"Delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind." (Merriam Webster)

A belief in God is not founded in reality, but it is an active distortion of reality that refuses to acknowledge our insignificance, mortality, and the unknown. It is a comforting placation for minds too incapable of fully perceiving and accepting reality.

Side: He is
1 point

There is not one god. The only god you should be following is your true love.

Side: He is
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

There is no proof for or against a god, therefore, it is illogical to say definitively that there is or the isn't one.

Also, true love is not always a good thing.

Side: He isn't
goodmale(1459) Disputed
1 point

I was wrong to say that. But your wrong to say that true love is not always a good thing.

Side: He is
0 points

What isn't a delusion?

Side: He is
AuntieChrist(803) Clarified
3 points

What isn't a delusion?

Anything backed up by empirical evidence.

Side: He is
Nebeling(1117) Disputed
1 point

I guess you mean that everything backed up by observation isn't delusion. What if I am able to directly perceive God, what am I then? Deluding myself?

Side: He isn't
Intangible(4934) Clarified
0 points

So God isn't a delusion.

Side: He is
2 points

lol nope.

Side: He isn't
2 points

It cannot be proved if any God exists, it cannot be proved which religion if any is correct on this basis I don't think God is a delusion and I don't think someone should be scorned for believing in a God or Gods or not. Once it can be proved undeniably that someone is correct fine but until that time I think peoples beliefs should be respected. Debate religion, the discrepancies in religions and the hypocrisies of the followers fine but in the end to call someone's belief or lack of belief delusional just because it differs from yours is arrogant and disrespectful.

Side: He isn't
Jace(5222) Disputed
3 points

There is no reason to believe in any God(s). However, there are reasons to think that such God(s) are a socially constructed and/or bio-neurological effect. Preliminary research indicates that human genetics at least partially predispose to religiosity. While there is no singular God or set of Gods, religion is a recurring phenomenon across all human societies; if God(s) were real we would suspect that universality but not the variation. When belief in God(s) is accompanied by a particular religious belief, the evidence against its being true mounts: internal contradictions and selective interpretation, flagrant mistruths and misrepresentations of known reality, and so forth.

So while it is true that calling any belief delusional for the mere reason that you disagree with it is arrogant, doing so when you have cause to think that it is actually delusional is not.

Side: He is
1 point

hahahaha.

Okay.

Here's the way it is.

Evidence is in many shapes and forms, and is accepted or denied by many, respectively pertaining to their particular beliefs.

Within science, they're all about empirical data, whilst simultaneously acknowledging things, such as dark matter, or frequencies beyond the human threshold, or things that science has yet to "understand".

Within spirituality and region, they too are about evidence, yet their evidence is mostly based upon faith and empirical data (physical testimony and scientific data). Whilst simultaneously understanding that spirituality and religion has yet to "understand" the world around them.

Similar to science.

And so, they're both after the same thing, the truth of the world around them.

Science claims "the BEST evidence for truth is empirical data."

Spirituality/religion claims "the BEST evidence for truth is both faith and empirical data".

So why the discrepancy? It is obvious both are searching for the truth.

GOD IS NOT DELUSIONAL. IT IS NATURAL FOR A HUMAN TO BELIEVE IN GOD.

Side: He isn't
Jace(5222) Disputed
2 points

Evidence is something which proves another thing to be true. In order to prove something you have to utilize the objective and definite, otherwise there is room for ambiguity and uncertainty and therefor nothing is actually proven. While some would claim otherwise, I have never seen an adequate argument advanced as to why the subjective alone should be considered proof of anything. Belief is inherently subjective, and religion is inherently a matter of faith-based belief. Thus, no actual evidence.

I also strongly disagree that science and religion are pursuing the same thing at all. Science seeks understanding; it seeks true knowledge where we lack it. Religion seeks explanation; it substitutes assumptive answers without proof where we lack knowledge of certain things, and even were we have definitive knowledge. We knew the earth was round and religion insisted it was flat. We knew the earth revolved around the sun, but religion insisted the sun revolved around the earth. We know human sexuality is genetically predisposed for, and religion insists it is choice. Actual truth is anathema to religion because religion creates clear accounts of what is that allow little to no flexibility. Further, religion has no internal system of checks upon human fallibility and subjectivity. Science does.

I quite agree though that it is natural for many human beings to believe in God(s). That belief has served an evolutionary function, as suggested and substantiated by a growing body of bio-neurological research. However, being natural does not preclude delusion. The entire mental phenomenon of delusion is itself naturally occurring.

Side: He is
1 point

There isn't an option for "sometimes", so I have to go with "No"

There are many whacko religious people who believe in things that are in conflict with evidence in the real world. When this happens, they chose to reject the reality and use their beliefs. These individuals are certainly deluded, although probably not in the typical psychological meaning of the word.

However, there are many who freely admit that they do not know the details, and attempt to resolve the world based on the evidence around them, in a way that includes the existence of God.

These theists, who treat God and their religion as providing philosophical explanations of their existence rather than as a belief in conflict with the reality of science and freely admit that all the facts and knowledge of him is not known are perfectly rational and do not exhibit the telltale irrationality and denial that is typical of self delusion.

Side: He isn't

NO HE ISN'T'' EVERY HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED BY SOMEONE' (HEBREWS CHAPTER 3 VERSE 4 )'THE ONE TRUE GOD JEHOVAH IS NOT A DELUSION. HE CREATED EVERYTHING ESPECIALLY YOU AND ME HIS GREATEST CREATION. TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT CREATION THE STARS THE MOON THE SUN.THE TREES THE SEA,THE RIVERS, THE LAKES,

Side: He isn't
1 point

There are strong arguments to show the answer to the question is a certain NO. They include the undefeated kalam argument, fine tuning argument, free will argument, morality argument, and NDE argument.

Side: He isn't
1 point

Well, um, science time, boys and girls. So, Big Bang, right? Widely accepted as how the universe was created, right? Well, so basically, what it states is that energy was always there. This doesn't make sense. At all. Something can't have always existed. I mean, that's what science says, right? So, how did something that cannot be created(energy) just randomly create itself?

Side: He isn't
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

Even assuming that all were true, this makes God not a delusion... how?

Side: He is
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

Science makes no claim that something can't have always existed. In fact, the laws of thermodynamics claim just the opposite- that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted to other forms. According to science as we understand it, all matter and energy in the universe has always existed in one form or another, not since the 'beginning' but in fact extending towards infinity in both the past and the future.

The big bang isn't usually claimed to be the beginning of time and the universe (at least by those who understand it- plenty don't.), it's a hypothesized backwards extrapolation that more or less fits what we can observe about the current state of the universe and the changes it is currently undergoing. The theory doesn't speak to how or why the matter and energy got condensed into such a small area, or in fact anything prior to it.

Side: He is

I'm going to have to go with No, in this case.

Simply stating "I believe in God" or "I do not believe in God" doesn't require evidence or justification, as it's just a statement of belief; you aren't making a claim or assertion of any kind other than stating what you believe. If you believe in God, it is factually correct to state that you believe in God.

But claiming "God is a delusion" is making a positive claim, just as claiming "God is real and provable" is making a positive claim. The burden of proof lies on the theist claiming that God is real and provable, as they are making a specific positive claim and presenting it as fact. The burden of proof lies on the atheist claiming "God is a delusion" as they are in fact making a specific positive claim with two components- firstly, that there is no God, and secondly that there is a mental deficiency in the minds of those who believe otherwise causing them to believe in this. While it's not necessary to 'disprove' God in order to not accept the existence of a god or gods as valid, this is taking it a step further. If one is to claim that God is a delusion, in order to use belief in god as proof of this, God would in fact need to be conclusively disproven. As that does not appear to be possible, there needs to be some other evidence to support the 'God is a delusion' claim.

Side: He isn't
1 point

God is not a delusion. Have you ever thought who created the Universe? Let's assume that the "Big Bang Theory" is true. If that's the case, who do you think was responsible for the entire process? Did things really move at its own? And if that's the case (again), how did it move?

Over the years, religion has been one of the most popular debate among the individuals. Specifically, the subject of the said debate is whether the existence of God is factual or not. There are 'unbelievers' who rather believe in the statement "To see is to believe." That is, whatever things that cannot be perceived by 'their' eyes are said to be fictional or imaginary.

The existence of God is evident from our surroundings and even on ourselves- our body. Questions like 'Who was the first person on Earth?' and 'How was he created?' can't simply be proven by science. For the latter, the aforementioned questions still remain a mystery.

Let us face it, all things (including universe, galaxies and even the existence of 'black-hole') are created by God. Even the most powerful and greatest person couldn't simply precede the omnipresent, omniscient divine Afflatus. It's indeed unprecedented. Things will not just come to existence without being 'navigated'. There is really 'someone' who makes it move. And that 'someone' could no other than God himself.

Side: He isn't
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

Let's assume that the "Big Bang Theory" is true. If that's the case, who do you think was responsible for the entire process? Did things really move at its own? And if that's the case (again), how did it move?

String theory (aka the big bang theory) has been studied for over a century. Surely someone must have though of this already. I am no expert on the matter though, so I would advice you talk to a theoretical physicist about this.

There are 'unbelievers' who rather believe in the statement "To see is to believe." That is, whatever things that cannot be perceived by 'their' eyes are said to be fictional or imaginary.

No. These people simply do not believe that which has no evidence. There is no evidence for or against a god, therefore they do not believe in one.

Before you say "But you must have faith", consider this: Why faith on this? Why are you having in this over that?

Let us face it, all things (including universe, galaxies and even the existence of 'black-hole') are created by God

Let's assume your argument is correct (which I doubt), then let me ask you this: Why does it have to be God? It could be anything really, it might even be a Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.

Side: He is
-1 points

He is a need. A father figure for the progress of civilization and a guidance to turn to during dark times.

Side: He isn't
8 points

He is a need. A father figure for the progress of civilization and a guidance to turn to during dark times.

...like when a woman is raped.

Without the guidance of a god, forcing her to marry the perpetrator or stoning her to death might not have been considered good options.

Now that's what I call progress.

Side: He is

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Needs several upvotes

Side: He is
Centifolia(1319) Disputed
1 point

I never saw this one on browsing list.

Anyway.

...like when a woman is raped.

Without the guidance of a god, forcing her to marry the perpetrator or stoning her to death might not have been considered good options.

Now that's what I call progress.

The concept of God is different from the corruption of religion

Side: He isn't
rexwilson(37) Disputed
1 point

You certainly took the text out context to reach the misguided opinion.

“But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

An amplified look shows the second scenario to mean a man violating a virgin by taking away her virginity through the act of fornication, and not rape. "Seize" is more in the context of a man convincing a woman to give up her valued virginity. That she didn't cry for help as in the preceding preceding scenario shows that it was consensual. That they are found shows they had conspired to keep their sexual relationship private, until their sexual relationship could no longer remain private.

To save the virgin from shame of losing her virginity outside of marriage, seeing that no other man would approach her for marriage in the very conservative society, the man must marry her. The payment of money is in the context of a dowry.

And in speaking of progress, scientific inquiry thrived the most in a Christian background.

Side: He isn't
Thejackster(518) Disputed
3 points

I beg to differ, and it doesnt matter how good believing in god makes us feel, that doesnt determine whether or not he is real. That just makes the concept of him a placebo.

Side: He is
Centifolia(1319) Disputed
1 point

The question of whether he is real or not is something that we cannot answer. But he certainly isnt a delusion.

Side: He isn't
IchthysSaves(621) Clarified
1 point

So do you think he is a delusion?

Side: He is
Centifolia(1319) Clarified
1 point

Delusion is a degratory term for treating your own imagination as a reality. My argument states him as a necesserary defence mechanism of mankinds intelligence

Side: He is
1 point

An imaginary friend that tells you what to do is not a father figure, it is a make believe figure made up by people who usually have mental issues. A delusion is a delusion no matter how convoluted you make it.

Side: He is
1 point

it is a make believe figure made up by people who usually have mental issues.

So over 80 percent of people are insane?

Side: He isn't
Centifolia(1319) Disputed
1 point

When a person is pressured by too many problems, it is a normal psychological defense to create an external image that will share your burdens with you.

It is the basics of psychology.

Side: He isn't
Lynaldea(1231) Disputed
1 point

Hah, imaginary friend, Right. LOL

Do you feel the ambition deep down to figure out the truth?

I do.

Yet you have problems with those that believe, as if it affects you? lol!

Get over yourself.

We're all trying to figure out WHAT THE FUCK is going on.

Yet you get mad at people that believe in anything. Nice job.

Side: He isn't