Christians are Delusional
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
This debate will be focused around whether or not Christians are delusional. For the purposes of debate, we will be assuming that reality is real/true (no brains in jars or other baseless philosophical nonsense). With that presupposition in place, good luck to my competitor.
delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
- Christianity is not idiosyncratic:
As an idiosyncratic belief is necessarily unusual or strange, a belief in Christianity in America can, by definition, not be a delusion as it is neither strange nor uncommon. In fact, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center poll, 76.9% of Americans are Christians and around 2.3 billion people globally are Christians . Therefore, a belief in Christianity is quite certainly not a delusion as it is an ordinary and conventional belief, particularly in Pro's country of residence (America) but also globally.
- Christianity is not contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality:
Religious beliefs are generally considered to be unfalsifiable, therefore it seems strange to suggests that a Christian belief is "contradicted" by any form of empirical evidence as they should, by definition, not be able to. Science is concerned with the material and has nothing whatever to say about the spiritual (if something of that form does exist). Additionally, Pro ignores the term "generally". Is Christianity "generally contradicted"? It certainly isn't in the United States where Christianity is generally accepted as reality. Atheism, on the other hand, would be a delusion if one only relied on this part of the definition as according to another Pew Research Center poll , there were approximately 1.1 billion religiously unaffiliated people globally which is a clear minority compared to the other 6 billion humans in the world . Clearly Pro would not be willing to entertain the notion that atheism is a delusion (as is ironically suggested in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 ) and for the same reason, Christian belief ought not to be considered a delusion. Christianity is not generally rejected and even if it were, it would hardly be sufficient grounds for considering it a delusion.
- Christian belief is explicitly excluded from the classification of delusion in the DSM-IV:
Professor of psychology Matt J. Rossano pointed out that religious belief is necessarily excluded from the classification of delusion:
"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith)."
- APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, DSM IV-TR, p. 821
(1) its general notions and practices are not obviously contradicted by evidence,
(2) it requires very little mental effort to sustain most religious notions,
(3) it encourages community integration which promotes healthy psychological functioning. Indeed, most empirical studies confirm that religious people tend to be happier and healthier, as well as financially, socially, and interpersonally more successful than their non-religious counterparts — wholly inconsistent with the religion-as-delusion theory. 
- 4. Surely not all Christians are delusional:
As I have pointed out before, there are approximately 2.3 billion Christians. It is likely that some of them are delusional, however, it seems ludicrous that all 2.3 billion (Pro clarified in the comment section that the debate resolution does refer to all Christians, i.e. Pro has to show that all Christians are delusional) Christians who hold vastly different religious views are delusional. Professor Jordan B. Peterson, for example, believes that Christianity contains a higher, perhaps metaphorical, truth which expresses itself in the psychological significance of the Christian stories and he argues that the probability that someone who asks him what his religious faith is construes "belief" or "God" in the same way that he does is "virtually zero" . Finally, the Christian philosopher Paul Tillich argued that religious statements are not to be understood literally but rather symbolically. Neither Prof. Peterson's, nor Prof. Tillich's beliefs are falsifiable and can thus not be shown to be false and are vastly different from what many other Christians believe. Therefore, claming that "all Christians" are delusional is an assertion that is evidently wrong.
In conclusion, Christianity does not fit the definition of delusion in several different ways as it is neither idiosyncratic, nor contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality and is inconsistent with the psychiatric classification of delusion. Furthermore, the claim that all Christians are delusional necessasitates that Pro shows that not only every one who believes every single word of the Bible literally, but also more moderate Christians and even those Christians who take an entirely non-literalist approach to Christianity are delusional.
I will address Pro's arguments in the second round to ensure fairness as I would otherwise have one more round for rebuttals than my oponent.
- For example, science has unearthed enough about chemistry and biology to allow us to extrapolate that someone who has been stone-dead for 3 days in a cave cannot be resurrected by any natural means (Mark 16:5-7). Note, there are different contradicting accounts of resurrection in the Gospels, but all the accounts make the proclamation of resurrection, which is what I am contesting.
- Scientists, through radiometric carbon dating, can demonstrate the world is older than 6 thousand years, contradictory to the extrapolated age from Genesis .
- Scientists, with their latest understandings in biological speciation and genetics, can demonstrate Adam and Eve never existed .
- A miracle would require the suspension of natural laws, and science, at the very least, detect this.
1. Several Christian beliefs are contradicted by evidence, as I previously aforementioned.
2. It requires indoctrination and often weekly congregational communions and commitments.
3. It can also obstruct science (stem cell research ) and politics (same sex marriage ), and inspire genocide . I’m not saying it always does, but it can and often has had negative effects.
If a person doesn't wish to follow or believe the Christian doctrines, that's perfectly fine; but they are then not a Christian by the definition of the word. They are simply a person who amalgamated a few Christian ideas (like Islam borrowing Judaism ideas, and Judaism borrowing Zoroastrian ideas, etc).
So when I say "all" Christians believe in magic, I am referring to all people who belong to an established and recognized Christian denomination.
- P1: All Christians believe in magic.
- P2: Someone who believes in magic is delusional.
- C: Therefore all Christians are delusional.
- Premise 1 Rebuttal:
1. Magic only refers to "apparent" influences:
The definition of "magic" that pro cited "Magic: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." only applies to apparently influencing the course of events. Therefore, if there was an actual influence occurring (e.g. if Jesus was actually resurrected), then it follows that it is necessarily excluded from the definition as only apparent influences are considered magic. So, unless Pro can show God definitely doesn't exist and could definitely not have performed these miracles, then it follows that most Christians do not believe in magic, even by the broadest definition of magic and would therefore not be considered delusional according to Pro's argument as the conclusion would not follow from a false premise.2. Some Christians do not believe that there is a literal God that performed literal miracles:According to Pro, "All Christians believe in one or more of the Christian tenants objectively centered around magic." this is however factually incorrect. As I have pointed out in my second round, there are some Christians who take an entirely metaphorical or symbolic view on Christianity. Furthermore, Christian Mystics focus on developing a spiritual relationship to God, rather than on literal interpretations of the Scripture. Since Pro has to BoP to show that not just some but all Christians are delusional, Pro has to show that those who take a metaphorical, spiritual and entirely non-literal approach are also delusional.
Paul: “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” [Galatians 1:11-12].
: The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine by John Anthony McGuckin 2010 pages 6-7
: Basic Christian doctrine by John H. Leith 1993 ISBN 0-664-25192-7 pages 1-2
hopefully changed some people's views.
Defence of Rebuttals:
- 1 - Christian beliefs are not idiosyncratic:
After I outlined that Christian beliefs are not idiosyncratic (the definition I gave was "idiosyncratic tendencies are unusual or strange, and not shared by other people ". Pro, on the other hand, claims that Christian beliefs are nonetheless idiosyncratic as they are "idiosyncratic to Christianity". Pro cites "google" as his source for this, presumably as to avoid a more specific analysis of his definition of idiosyncratic as he claims that "in its most basic definition it simply means peculiar or individual to something" where Pro gets the "to something" from remains unclear as when clicking on his source one merely gets "relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual.". There are however several reasons (other than that his own source does not correspond to his definition) reasons to reject his interpretation of "idiosyncratic". Firstly, if idiosyncrasy in the definition of delusions referred to "individual to something" beliefs, then it would be redundant. Every belief is "individual to something", whether it be a specific culture, country, religion (such as Christianity which has 2.3 billion members, which makes the use of the word "individual" questionable) or even a species (every single known belief is "individual to humanity" and not shared by any other species). Secondly, other definitions of the term "idiosyncratic" clearly contradict Pro's interpretation. "idiosyncratic tendencies are unusual or strange, and not shared by other people " for example clearly specifies "unusual", "strange" and "not shared by other people" which suggests that in this case, it refers to beliefs that are specific to a few individuals and uncommon in most people. Therefore, as Pro's interpretation of "idiosyncratic" is inconsistent with the source he has provided, his interpretation of the term would make it entirely redundant and it is directly contradicted by precise definitions of the term, his interpretation should be rejected. This alone leads to the conclusion that Christian beliefs can not be delusional as they are not idiosyncratic and is thereby sufficient to disprove Pro's thesis on its own.
- 2 - Christianity is not contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality:
Despite Pro's own definition of delusion and the source that he himself cited in favour of it, Pro tries to redefine delusion to be "beliefs contradicted by reality", whereas his definition reads "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." Pro thereby dodges the fact that whether a belief actually corresponds to reality is entirely irrelevant to the definition of delusion. The definition of delusion is merely centred around beliefs that are in conflict with what is generally considered reality. Pro furthermore argues that it is untrue that Christianity is generally accepted as reality in the US. This is however easily disproven by the fact that a clear majority of the American population believes in Christianity (around 75% ). Pro attempts to redefine another part of the definition to fit his narrative of all Christians being delusional and later even claims that the word “magic” inflammatorily connotates it’s [Christianitiy's] ridiculous nature.", this suggests that Pro's motive is to ridicule Christianity, apparently using any means necessary even changing the definitions of several words (delusion & magic), which I hope is neither taken personally, nor seriously by any one.
Pro finally argues that some claims of Christian doctrine are falsified by science. Pro thereby ignores that science can not decisively falsify supernatural claims which is noted by prominent atheists (e.g. Bertrand Russell's five-minute hypothesis states that the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included . While scientific evidence suggests that the universe did not just spring into existence out of nothing, Russell's thought-experiment is nonetheless unfalsifiable as every possible objection such as us having memory of more than five minutes ago can simply be done away by claiming that is has been created alongside the universe five minutes ago and that all other evidence that suggests an older universe was similarly created alongside it. This demonstrates that an infinite amount of qualifications can be added to any supernatural claim to do away with any possible objection). Furthermore, Pro makes several claims that are unsupported by any sources such as that "there are different contradicting accounts of resurrection in the Gospels" although they are surely not self-evident to the millions of people that believe the word of the Bible to be literally true . Additionally, Pro goes on to cite young earth creationism (the belief that the earth was created six thousand years ago) as evidence in support of the thesis that all Christians are delusional, this is clearly not a widely held belief as even in the most Christian country (America), merely 40% of the Christians take the Bible literally  and even among the Biblical literalists the figure of six thousand years is contested. In conclusion, supernatural claims can not be decisively falsified by science as they are by definition outside the realm of the natural world (although we can show some beliefs to be less likely to be true than others) and Pro continually ignores that the majority of Christians take a non-literalist approach to the Bible and that some take an entirely symbolic or metaphorical approach to Christianity. Therefore, it does not follow that Christianity is delusional as it is false are not generally accepted as reality and as it is furthermore not entirely clear that Christian beliefs are not true (although appeals to the best explanation can in some people's opinion justify believing in a materialistic world instead).
- 3 - Christian belief is explicitly excluded from the classification of delusion in the DSM-IV:Pro claims that speaking in tongues, being possessed by demons and "other socially abnormal delusional traits" are "common" to Christians. Pro does not support this claim with a source and I find it difficult to come up with a source that investigates how high the proportion of Christians is that believes to have been possessed by demons. I would argue that this might be related to the fact that it is extremely rare, I for one can not recall ever having met anyone who claimed to have been possessed by a demon and although this is just a case study, I'm reasonably confident that everyone who reads this debate has not met considerable numbers of people that believe to have been possessed by demons. Other than that, Pro claims that because "special exclusions" were made in the DSM, this "further illustrates my [his] point". How this follows is unclear to me as in the relevant quote that I cited in round one, no "special exclusion" is made for Christianity, rather it is used as an example of a belief that does not qualify as a delusionbecause it is ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture. Clearly, no special exclusion is made, rather the diagnostic criteria are outlined and religious belief is then invoked as an example that does not fit these criteria.
- 4 - Surely not all Christians are delusional:
Pro's claim that me pointing out that it is incoherent to claim that 2.3 billion people suffer from delusions is an ad populum argument is flawed as one of the classification criteria in abnormal psychology (which delusions are a part of) is statistical infrequency . According to the statistical infrequency definition of abnormality, behaviour is classified as abnormal if it is rare or statistically infrequent, with 75% of Americans and 2.3 billion people globally sharing the Christian faith, it is evidently neither rare nor infrequent and therefore not abnormal by these standards.
Pro furthermore claims that all Christians subscribeto a particular doctrine and that all Christian doctrines encompass beliefs based in magic. Pro again provides no source to back up this point which make his claims hard to take seriously at face value as I have given examples of people that neither subscribe to a Christian doctrine, nor take the Bible literally throughout this debate. The clinical psychologist Jordan B. Peterson whom I have mentioned in my opening argument, for example, takes an archetypal and metaphorical stance to Christianity and said that he is not sure whether Jesus resurrected  and nonetheless he is described as a Christian by popular media , self identifies as a Christian  and even Wikipedia describes him as a Christian , therefore it seems reasonable to accept that Prof. Peterson is a Christian by any reasonable standard. By excluding Christians that take a non-literalist approach to the Bible, which would exclude 60% of all American Christians, Pro commits a No True Scotsman Fallacy by excluding all individuals from being Christian that do not fit his pre-conceived notions of being "believers in magic". Furthermore, Pro ignores Christians such as the American "cultural Catholics" which make up 9% of all American Christians , who in some cases even identify as atheists and therefore do not share any beliefs in the supernatural  and of which 40% do not share a belief in Jesus' resurrection either .
In conclusion, Pro fails to argue that all Christians are delusional as his sole argument in favour of the resolution is that all Christians believe in magic, which is wrong on several counts as the majority of Christians does not take the Bible literally and even those that do, do not “believe in magic” as what they are believing could be true for all we know and thus does not fit the definition of magic. Furthermore, to justify the (presumably provocative) claim that all Christians are delusional, Pro has to redefine the word “idiosyncratic” in the definition of “delusion” that he himself provided, which fails as it is contradicted by his own cited source, it would make the term redundant and as other definitions clearly outline that idiosyncratic refers to individual tendencies, not tendency that are individual to whole groups. Additionally, Pro neglects those Christians that take a non-literalist approach to Christianity (60% of the American Christians) throughout the entire debate, as they would not be considered delusional even if all of his arguments were sound which alone is sufficient grounds for rejecting the resolution that all Christians, without exception, are delusional.
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDd2hXZPzb4 minute 1:50
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIB05YeMiW8 0:00
Why is mine the only one that didn't get reported? lol
Vote Reported: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
Reason for mod action: The vote is sufficient
I removed your vote by mistake when I meant to remove the one below you. I apologize for this
Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points to con for conduct and sources
RFD: While Pro did well to stipulate definitions in the very beginning, he failed to stipulate the meaning of "idiosyncratic," a major component in the description of delusion, the subject over which they argue. Con did well to stipulate the definition of idiosyncratic, thereby taking command of the description of "delusion." As far as I'm concerned, since Con won the semantics debate over the term, "delusion," he won the debate, since the subject over which they argue is "Christians are Delusional." However, if we extend the arguments beyond semantics, Con still provided more substantive arguments, particularly when he distinguished the concerns of Science and Religion. Pro focused far too much on scientific authority, which may have been valid had he established reality is subject to the domain of science. This was close, but eventually, I award "more convincing arguments" to Con.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
See below. Neither arguments nor sources are sufficient.
Vote Reported: Athias // Mod Action: Not Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
Reason for mod action: The vote is borderline, but it is more sufficient than not so we will let it stand. If you have any problems or objections, please DM me.
ent. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
(2) The source point is not sufficient. In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
(4) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic.
we all do. It's just habit.
haha secular amen!
I'm an atheist but I still use colloquial phrases like "oh my god", "thank god", "amen", etc..
Amen to that...…. wait Secular Amen?
I agree with @wrick here.. He should have the ability to cast HIS vote without being molested or interrogated for it. I'm thankful that he chose my side to fall on, but I would have no hard feelings if he chose yours - it's his opinion. @Mel and others choose to side with you. I'm not upset with them or holding a grudge because they have a different opinion than me. Nor am I interrogating them demanding justification for their opinion. I said what I had to say in the debate, and they are welcome to form whatever opinion they want from that. What you're doing I find childish, disrespectful and unprofessional.
Telling you to stop harassing me for my vote is not an ad hominem attack. You were being unreasonable and I don't need to explain my vote because I wrote a giant paragraph in my vote that tells you everything you need to know. You're just flaming and being a troll and disrespectful. You weren't just interrogating my ideas, you were telling me my vote was wrong which is bad form on your part. The difference between what I did is that I told you I respected your vote and addressed something separate from the topic that I wanted to know about your methodology. Never did I tell you your vote was wrong or make any of the accusations that you've made about me.
I'm not attacking, I'm asking for justification for claims made during a vote which were contrary to the truth. When I noticed that Ralph would rather trade ad hominems and misrepresent the other person, I blocked him.
I have to say, it's rather childish and unprofessional to cry in comments and attack people for their vote when it disagrees with your own opinion. The entire purpose of voting is to get other peoples opinions on it. You don't see me on here attacking @mel for voting against me. It's his opinion, and even if I disagree with it, he's entitled to it.
No way that even compares to the voter flame I just had to experience from this troll.
good I found it. This is the comment that Con mentioned saying I flamed him for voting. Everyone can just judge for themselves if I acted the same as him.
"I can't speak to what the voters decided. But I personally tend not to cite sources unless I need hard mathematical data.
In my worldview, I find sources containing rhetoric to be appeals to authority.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rhetoric.
But if I'm going to hear somebody's opinion, I'd rather hear the opinion of my opponent rather than my opponent giving me somebody else's opinion. I don't care if my opponent's use sources but I generally don't.
I gladly accept the source point deduction if it means I get to argue in the way that I find most truthful.
I'm here to change minds and votes are just a bonus because that means that I did a good job at changing minds.
Once again, I appreciate the vote.
I believe the more voters, the better. "
That guy is a flaming jerk. I'm half inclined to pull up my comments that he mentioned just to show the difference in manners.
poor conduct? I'm not even in a debate dude! What are you talking about? When I commented to you, the first thing I said was "I respect you vote" and my question was concerning why you disbelieved a certain type of evidence, but did I not specifically say I respected your vote? don't you try to turn this on me like I"m the rude one. oh and now you immaturely block me, thanks buddy. I see where your maturity level is now. have a good day.
See, melcharaz voted for you because your argument spoke to him intuitively. Nothing wrong with that. You can't win every voter. Especially me cause I'm all of the place. I don't even take political parties, lol.
May I remind you that when I voted on one of your debates I responded to your questions about my vote (the whole five times when you tagged me).
Your poor conduct reflects badly on you and what reflects even worse on you is the fact that your votes are clearly biased. You've given the win to the atheistic position in five out of five debates related to religion that you've voted on. In one of these debates you gave the win to the debater with the lowest rating on this website over RM who is currently the highest rated. This was followed by three other users giving a clear win to RM. In this debate you are the only one out of four people to give my opponent the win for a reason that you do not seem to be able to justify during questioning.
Please don't vote on any of my debates again until your voting is objective.
to be clear, I don't agree with killshot's position, but that doesn't necessarily matter when I vote. He made a decent case with the magic assertion, it was intuitive for me and spoke to my life experience when dealing with Christians. I could think of exceptions, but it wasn't my job to think of them, it was yours.
actually, even that doesn't work cause they're not Christian, lol. Maybe the topic was doomed for you since the beginning, lol.
For me, the goal post for you was to find one singular case of a secular Christian. You came close, but a metaphorical is not secular. Honestly, you should have just mentioned cultural jews. They're basically atheist
okay. I really don't appreciate when people flame me for my vote. I'm entitled to my opinion so kindly shove a sock in it.
I already told you why I didn't vote for you. You didn't make a good enough case. Take that how you want but don't harass me.
I'm an agnostic atheist as well, I don't see why your religious views or absence of these should influence your vote in any way though.
I wrote "entirely non-literalist" several times throughout the debate while referring to several people and denominations, whereas I wrote higher metaphorical truth only once while referring to one psychology professor. I don't think claiming that it is "ambiguous" is fair at all since even the (In my opinion not ambiguous) "higher truth" was clarified as relating to a metaphorical truth.
Yeah my problem is the phrase "higher truth". If they thinks it's a truth, then it's not merely symbolic. The very disposition of supporting Christianity implies that you believe it to some extent. Now if you had argued for people using it as a secular moral guide, I might have thought differently about it, but taking the bible metaphorically, the way you outlined, still implies at least some belief in the truth of the story. I mean, I'm sure it makes sense to you, but I'm an atheist so this argument isn't intuitive to me. I feel like I was fair because I was the first one to say that killshot was being hyperbolic but there is still some responsibility on your part to counter his claims because I can't just insert my own beliefs into the vote. You have to lead me there by my hand like I'm a toddler who doesn't know what Christianity is.
How is that? If they reject a literal interpretation and take God symbolically or as "a higher truth" (as I outlined), then surely none of Pro's arguments apply:
P1: Everyone who believes in magic is delusional.
P2: All Christians believe in magic.
C: All Christians are delusional.
If there were even a single Christian out of all 2.3b, then P2 would be incorrect and the conclusion would not follow, since Pro's sole argument for all Christians being delusional was based on them believing in "magic" we can form the following syllogism:
P1: Only those who believe in magic are delusional (since that was Pro's sole argument).
P2: Some Christians do not believe in magic (i.e. the non-literalists).
C1: Some Christians are not delusional.
C2: Not all Christians are delusional
yeah but my problem was that you didn't go the extra step to show why a metaphorical Christian would shun "all" magic beliefs. to me it still seemed like the state of being a Christian would entail at least some supernatural belief. It mainly came down to the fact that I thought your rebuttals could have been more complete I guess.
Do those non-literalist Christians, at a bare minimum, believe in the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ as a literal messiah figure?
As far as I can tell from your vote, you agree that I have established in this debate that there is a fringe group of Christians (namely non-literalists such as those that take the Bible entirely symbolic, metaphorical or are cultural Christians). Is that correct?
No problem :)
Thanks for checking out the debate and voting!
Oh ok, thanks :D
You're allowed to write "tied in all others" without an explanation as long as you explain it when you tie and argument point.
Sorry bro, I'm trying to understand your point of view on it, even though I'm failing miserably haha
Maybe I'm not writing things clear enough or I'm reading past your points. If you want to explain it better, I'm happy to make another attempt at it.
Basically, I am trying to say:
Christian = belief in Jesus's death, resurrection & ascension
Anyone who doesn't hold at least that belief, is not Christian, according to scripture (Paul & Christian creeds).
Most hold that belief + other beliefs (differing from denomination to denomination)
Perhaps my logic is flawed and I'm wrong.
we're just talking past each other.
It's cool man
do your thing.
My argument was not based in any way on fundamentalism; it was actually the opposite. I stripped Christian doctrine down to it's most primal form.
It was only based on the core tenants, specifically the death, resurrection & ascension of Jesus. If they do not believe this, then I would not label them as Christian. It's like a person who decided that 1 + 1 = 3, yet still assumes the label of a mathematician. They made up a new version of mathematics, and it's not the same version that the fundamentals of mathematics was founded on. Much in the same way, if a "Christian" denies the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, they would not be a Christian, even if they hold other Christian-like beliefs because they are missing the "Christ" part that it's founded on. They would be x religion with amalgamated ideas from Christianity.
In you're example, 1 is fundamental and 2 aren't. I assume they all 3 believe in the death, resurrection & ascension of Jesus, so they would all be labeled as Christian (using my logic). If the fundamentalist believes that, but the other 2 don't, then only the fundamentalist is Christian. If someone does not believe in Christ, they are not Christian.
Do we still disagree? If so, can you clarify better? Maybe I'm not understanding your point fully..
Consider this. For every 1 fundamental in the family, there are at least 2 who only believe because of their family.
In fact, most people are Christians because of their families.
I don't think you're thinking this through. You're letting your opinion about Christians could your judgement .
I apologize, I just noticed a small typo in my final rebuttal. That's what I get for debating while working.. Anyways, I just wanted to make you aware of it.
1 Corinthians 14:14 should be 1 Corinthians 15:14
1 Corinthians 14 will get you there, eventually... lol
Considering it's their collective world view, I would argue they are pretty confident in it. Even Paul acknowledges this core tenant and affirms it's requirement in 1 Corinthians 15:14. Additionally, part of the Christian creed is the affirmation of this tenant and their conviction to belief in it. If someone believes parts of Christian mythology without this part specifically, they would be amalgamating Christian mythology into their own.
So under the tenants you mentioned, it would still be too inclusive. You need to divide it further into how confident they are in their believes and you have to do this for each individual sect because they will not have parallel results.
No, you're either mistaking my words or I am not explaining them well enough. Let me try again. I acknowledge and agree different denominations exist, and that those denominations have varying views and interpretations. I believe we agree to this point?
In reference to "all" Christians - what I mean is, all Christians share the common core tenants of Christianity, regardless of their denominational affiliation. The core tenant example I choose to most commonly refer to is the life, death, resurrection & ascension of Christ. This is a requirement of Christianity. It's also miraculous/magical.
That's your opinion. Not everybody agrees with. Including me. There is no one "worldview" for Christians. There's thousand of sects and even if they use the same book, they interpret it differently. One person might read the bible and become delusional. Another person might believe enough of the bible to think it's real, but might not necessarily believe other parts.
You're really only referring to fundamental Christians so you should stop trying to lump them and attack the group that you're really trying to attack here.
Christianity is just a label for someone who subscribes to the religious world views of Christianity. No matter what denomination you choose, it believes in one or more elements involving magic, and that is delusional. That's why I say "all" Christians. I'm not making up a new definition for it, I'm simply saying certain attributes belong to every denomination of Christianity, and those attributes can be considered delusional (aka Jesus death & resurrection, afterlife, etc).
Okay, well, if you want to go that route, you don't just get to pick whatever definition you want, you have to go with the ad populum usage. I don't care what the dictionaries say. A Christian is generally understood as being someone who believes in the resurrection of Christ. You're splitting hairs here.
I would have to respectfully disagree.
Words have meanings associated with them for purposes of communication. Labeling something erroneously or arbitrarily is unproductive to the efforts of communication in a normal colloquial sense.
Christian is a word used to describe a member of Christianity, which is a set of doctrines encompassing a religious world view and belief system. The various denominations do differ, but they all share a common foundation. Christian doctrine encompasses beliefs based in magic (resurrections, miracles, etc), and all established denominations share one or more of these beliefs.
If a person doesn't wish to follow or believe the Christian doctrines, that's perfectly fine; but, they are then not a Christian by the definition of the word. They are simply a person who amalgamated a few Christian ideas (like Islam borrowing Judaism ideas, and Judaism borrowing Zororastrian ideas, etc).
For example, if I say I am an atheist, but then I follow that up by saying I believe in a different God than most people do, I am not truly an atheist and the label is erroneous based on normal colloquial definition. This is also somewhat analogous to the popular gender issue. If a man calls himself a woman because he feels like a woman, that does not make it biologically true. The same examples apply to Christians. If they call themselves a Christian, yet fail to partake in the Christian beliefs, rituals and requirements, then they are not a Christian by definition.
So when I say "all" Christians believe in magic, I am referring to all people who belong to an established Christian denomination. Therefore, I am not committing the scottsman fallacy. Anyone who doesn't believe those things, or made up their own amalgamated version are excluded from my proposition because they do not meet the required attributes of the colloquial word.
that's a no true scottsman fallacy. You can't say what a Christian is. It's decided by societal norms. or arbitrarily.
You're doing the same things that theists do to us when they try to tell use what an atheist is.
Don't you think you should lead by example if you want the theists to be honest?
If a person doesn't believe the tenants of Christian doctrine, are they considered Christian? I would argue no. I can believe something Muhammad said, but that does not make me a Muslim. Furthermore, all versions of Christianity believe in some form of magic, such as their resurrection and everlasting eternal life after death.
if you said 99%, I would have been at least 10 times more likely to believe it, which still wouldn't get me there because I'm simply that far from believing it. I'd say it's more like 30%
and yet..... All theists? Nope, that treat is filled with poison.