Everyone Who Believes in God is Most Likely Delusional

I said that I only need one person who is not wrong. My opponent claimed that since the resolution says the words"most likely", 1 is not enough. If I understand him correctly he means that each theist is most likely delusional because he is most probably not "the 1". The resolution was :Everyone who believes in God is Most Likely Delusional. It seems that my opponent has confused the word "everyone" with the term "every one". The difference is not limited to the space between "every" & "one", but they actually have different meanings: "Care should be taken to distinguish between everyone and someone as single words and every one and some one as two words, the latter form correctly being used to refer to each individual person or thing in a particular group: every one of them is wrong" (1) "Every one", would mean each individual, & pro might have a point. But the term everyone, means, the whole of the group. so If there is at least one person in the group who is not probably wrong, it's false to say everyone is most probably wrong. That's how I see it anyway, I leave it to the voters to decide. (It's also possible, that my opponent forgot that the word "everyone" is in the resolution. I noticed that both times when addressing this argument he left the word out, presumably unintentionally) I do believe even without this my other points hold up. My opponent dropped the following argument which I made in the previous round: "Aside from that, it ignores the many theists that believe we cannot describe god at all." With regard my argument from theists who switch to atheism, my opponent made the predictable argument that, when they were theists they were delusional, but then when they switch they are no longer delusional. This is simply not true. Do you think no one became atheist on account of being presented with arguments or facts? Is every conversion to atheism simply a result of a person going from unreasonable to reasonable? No. Many/most atheists were rational before hand, & changed there mind as a result of learning new things that they did not know previously. They weren't believing despite contrary proof, they were believing because they didn't know of that fact/argument. Here is one example from a member of this site: "I started out as the most religious person in my family. Started researching and reading...(2) I pointed out that some theists use reasoning. My opponent responded: "I understant [sic] that theists also use reason, however, most theists hold their beliefs through faith, even if it is a combo of faith and reason, it still uses faith. And for reasons stated earlier, if they hold beliefs based on faith, they are delusional." Notice the words "most theists...", so he concedes that there are theists who do not rely at all on faith. So those theists are not delusional, & thus the resolution is negated. The point of bringing in the list of smart people, is to bring out the implications of the resolution. Bringing out the implications of a statement gives it a new angle. It makes an abstract statement more real. Often an innocent looking resolution can have absurd implication. Bringing out an absurd implication of such a resolution, is a method of showing that the resolution itself must therefor be absurd. This method is commonly referred to as "Reductio ad absurdum". Most unassuming people with an open mind, would consider the notion that all those people are "delusional", to be absurd - even if it is possible for a smart person to be delusional. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) https://debate.org...