The Instigator
rockhead1220
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cameronl35
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

A Person Can Not decide to Be an Atheist, They Already Know their True Religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
cameronl35
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 20098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

rockhead1220

Pro

In the course of human events, it is necessary for oneself to look towards another way of thinking. They could have believed in a supreme deity, god, gods, deities, or nothing at all. But, some people find it greatly needed to change and it will seem right. But, can a person really just call themselves atheists and yet feel something for a higher being? Is it possible to do so without even the smallest belief in supreme beings? I believe that is so. Nobody can just give themselves a new religion to practice. They have to really know it is the right one.
cameronl35

Con

Disclaimer: These are not my real beliefs

All I must do to win this debate is to prove that a certain can decide to become an atheist. I can be an atheist simply because I am not "feeling" this invisible man in the sky that is too scared to show himself. There is no scientific justification to believe in him, so I do not have to. It has never been empirically proven so I indeed can be an atheist even if my views are proposterous.



As a matter of fact, many great philosophers have been atheists. From communist Karl Marx to others like Ayn Rande, Friedrich Nietzsche, Democritus, and more. [1] It is indeed possible to be an evidence and Pro needs to justify why I can not be. If Pro would like I will present a case in the next round however as of now it is indeed possible to be an atheist regardless of whether it is correct or not so vote CON.

Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
rockhead1220

Pro

Disclaimer: I would like to state these are also not my real beliefs.

A person can not just walk out on their own religious beliefs and become something they are not. The person already knows that they believe or not believe in something and can not switch. The invisible man in the sky has to be felt, it is not something you can just see. If you never saw a real palace before, it's not like they don't exist. They just haven't been seen by you yet. The heaven and hell idea is a bit skeptical, but it just shows how that man in the sky loves people who get by following his rules and does their best to stay like that. The famous art people know and love were created by Christian or religious artists, including Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Rembrandt, Giovanni Bellini, Caravaggio, and Annibale Carracci. The Renaissance and Baroque came upon us when religion was a greater part of our lives. No one knew of science, they could only believe in what could eternally save their souls, not their bodies.

Sources:

1. http://www.oil-painting-shop.com...
cameronl35

Con

Sorry if I came off too abrasive in the first round, I will be very serious this round.

Case

C1: Every individual has the right to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of its validity.

The resolution questions whether a person CAN be an atheist, not whether the belief is correct. Indeed it is very possible for a person to be an atheist. As I stated earlier some of the best philosophers were atheists and some of the best scientists are also atheists. To assert that it is impossible would be to suppress individualism. Every individual has the right to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of whether you think they have to "feel" god. To say I can not believe what I want to would be to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution and enforce authoritarianism, like the book 1984. We do not need a "thought police" to control every thought we have. An atheist can decide to be an atheist very easily and they CAN be one regardless of whether it is correct or not.

C2: Atheism is a logical position.

There are numerous arguments that work towards the atheistic side. The first and to me the most pertinent is simply lack of evidence. Because there is no empirical evidence or way to prove that a god exists one often resorts to atheistic view due to lack of proof. Consider this: My friend tells me a six-headed monster is behind me. I am not likely to believe this is true because when I turn around I do not see it and there is no evidence. It is indeed a logical position. Micheal Shermer, author of the Skeptic Magazine writes:

"I don’t think there is a God, or any sort of anthropomorphic being who needs to be worshipped, who listens to prayers, who keeps a moral scoreboard that will be settled in the end, or who cares one iota about who wins the Super Bowl. There is no afterlife. We just die, and that’s it." [1]

Take this commonly used argument that discusses omnipotence and the PoE (Problem of Evil):

1. If God wants to prevent all evil, but does not prevent all evil, then God cannot prevent all evil.
2. God wants to prevent all evil, but does not prevent all evil.
3. God cannot prevent all evil (from 1 and 2).
4. If God cannot prevent all evil, then God is not omnipotent.
5. God is not omnipotent (from 3 and 4).

So if god is omnipotent (Christian belief) and evil exists, then god is not perfectly good.

Or consider the Ontological Argument reversed:

1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.
2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.
3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.
6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists.

I could go on presenting more arguments but the point is due to lack of evidence and inherent problems that come with the existence of god, it is a logical position and a person CAN resort to atheism.

Rebuttal

"A person can not just walk out on their own religious beliefs and become something they are not. The person already knows that they believe or not believe in something and can not switch. "

Here is a very presumptuous statement. All the time people walk out on their religious beliefs, regardless of whether they believe in god or not. This is almost to assert that our minds can not change. People all the time go from believing in god to not believing in one simply because they put their emotions aside and analyze whether it is really logical or not.

"The invisible man in the sky has to be felt, it is not something you can just see. If you never saw a real palace before, it's not like they don't exist. They just haven't been seen by you yet."

Pro has no evidence that this has to be "felt". Many people such as I have never felt this being before. People claim to feel it, but many people feel other things too. "Feeling" does not prove anything. Take this quote from Carl Sagan for example:

"But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble." [2]

Think with your brain, do not "feel" because you never know how accurate your "feeling" could be. To determine his existence "feeling" does not work. I can "feel" anything my mind tricks me into feeling, but that doesn't mean that he exists.

Pro just later discusses famous theists and such but I can provide just as intelligent atheists as well. This does not get any side anywhere and this is not an argument. Perhaps if he was proving that someone CAN be a theist that would work but he has not proved that someone CAN NOT be an atheist, thus so far I have won the debate. I apologize if these arguments were not the best however the resolution does not question the validity of atheism, but CAN you be an atheist which is obviously true. Vote CON.

Sources:

http://www.michaelshermer.com...
http://www.goodreads.com...
Debate Round No. 2
rockhead1220

Pro

In the position currently of a man who does not believe in God, he probably never did. He cannot just believe in God at first. He s to feel some shred of doubt or uncertainty in God's existence. If a man decided to go to the left when turning into a parking lot instead of turning right, like if he always turned right, that is not something you are born with. You develop your habits and continue to tweak them for efficiency. Belief or disbelief in God is not changed for efficiency, it is changed at their liking. God is not the issue forthhand. It is only the issue of either believeing in God your whole life or not. Feelings come from pain, when nerves are damaged and sends signals to the brain to say it is damaged. The feelings of sadness or happiness are of creation for only our species. We cannot control what we do sometimes, and that can be used against us. We "feel" God because our local religious leader told us to do so and that we can do it very easily.
cameronl35

Con

Pro does not respond to any arguments so they can all be extended for their validity across the flow. Pro presents new arguments in the last round (conduct) but I will still go over them briefly.

Rebuttal

"In the position currently of a man who does not believe in God, he probably never did. He cannot just believe in God at first. He s to feel some shred of doubt or uncertainty in God's existence. If a man decided to go to the left when turning into a parking lot instead of turning right, like if he always turned right, that is not something you are born with."

Pro essentially forfeits here. He states that it is possible to not be god, thus it is possible to be an atheist. Resolution negated. Ok, you aren't born with it. This has no pertinence to the debate

"You develop your habits and continue to tweak them for efficiency. Belief or disbelief in God is not changed for efficiency, it is changed at their liking. God is not the issue forthhand. It is only the issue of either believeing in God your whole life or not. Feelings come from pain, when nerves are damaged and sends signals to the brain to say it is damaged."
Exactly, believing god is changed at their liking. A topic so vague and abstract like god's existence is always determined by arbitrary discretion. Again, this gets us nowhere. The fact that he is saying you can disbelieve in god again causes me to win and him to concede.

"The feelings of sadness or happiness are of creation for only our species. We cannot control what we do sometimes, and that can be used against us. We "feel" God because our local religious leader told us to do so and that we can do it very easily."

Pro reiterates the same thing he is discussing, we "feel" god. He states it is because our religious leader told us so. So essentially because your religious leader told you child molestation was correct, you would do it and believe in it. That's great logic right there. There really is no need to discuss this further. Pro makes no direct response/argument but just rambles on some point I can't understand.

Conclusion:

Pro fails to respond to any of my points and arguments. Again it is "possible" to believe in god. God is not "felt" for everyone. I think Pro wanted to debate whether it is correct to disbelieve in god but that is not very pertinent. Indeed any body can believe what they want to believe or otherwise you would be violating the liberty of the individual. Ladies and gents, it is cleary possible to not believe in God. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Alkid, you don't get to vote your own beliefs. You have to vote for whoever argued better.
Posted by rockhead1220 5 years ago
rockhead1220
Cameronl35, I would like you to present your case on how it is possible to be an atheist regardless of whether it is correct or not.
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
is first round acceptance?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
rockhead1220cameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conclusive debate: Con's comprehensive arguments went unrefuted by Pro. Con had better spelling, grammar, and organization.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
rockhead1220cameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Obvious win. PRO failed to respond to con's arguments.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
rockhead1220cameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro offered new arguments in the final round, a deduction of conduct. His refusal to address cameron135's arguments prove fatal; Con at least showed----how an atheistic position may seem logical and that individuals should have the right to believe. Moreover, Pro's case was barely legibile (from my view)...his point about feeling god proves futile since the voter is left with questions on how to feel....Overall a win for Con; points for sources are given to Con since he actually used them.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
rockhead1220cameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Can't really tell what Pro is trying to argue, but Con identified a possible resolution, and refuted it. Con gets S&G point because Pro's sentences often don't scan.
Vote Placed by alkid96 5 years ago
alkid96
rockhead1220cameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: a person can DEFINITELY change their religions. i USED to be a christian but i gave up on organized religion and converted to witch craft/pagan