The Instigator
bsnstl
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Atheism VS Theism

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 1 vote the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 22288
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

bsnstl

Con

Not only are you an idiot to believe an a god, you are mental. There is no proof and science has proven theism wrong over and over. There has been thousands of gods, why is yours right?
KeytarHero

Pro

I'll accept this debate.

Con has made some serious allegations. As instigator, he holds the burden of proof. His contention is that I am both an idiot and mental to believe in God. In order for Con to win this debate, he must prove that I a) Have below average intelligence, and b) that I am mentally challenged. If he fails to prove those two things, or proves one but doesn't prove the other, he has not met his burden of proof and therefore loses the debate.

Additionally, one does not have to have absolute proof to believe in a God, as long as it is reasonable to believe in a God. Con apparently belongs to the New Atheism camp, which is not a camp of reason but of Christian-bashing (note how he only bashes those who believe in one God, when Theism is not limited to monotheists).

I await Con's alleged scientific proofs that prove Theism wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt, and I await his alleged evidence that I am both an idiot and mental for believing in one.

Over to you, Con.
Debate Round No. 1
bsnstl

Con

Throughout time, mainly the time in which christianity has been the choice for the majority, there have been gaps in science that theist have felt that they must be filled with god. It has come to the point where 93% of scientist are theist. I beleive this to be because they can view things with an open mind and have seen what there is to know.

I am guessing that you are a christian. In the bible not only are there countless deaths caused by this god but killing has become the answer when religous beliefs differ from each other. How can you stand along with this.

One instence where the bible contradicts itself is a large majority of animals are named but there is no mention of the kangaroo. At the time when the bible was written Austrailia was not a country, but the bible was written as the word of god through the hand of man. So if god created the kangaroo why would he forget about it. Also why wouldnt he say the Earth was round. Wouldnt he know he created it.

Techniques for dating the Earth are a prime example of how the bible contradicts science, dating using science and radiation found in sea floor spreading and drilling samples show the Earth is much older than the bible says.

I debate with others in my school and when the bible gets proven wrong it ends with them cursing and walking away, i hope this debate doesnt end this way.
KeytarHero

Pro

It's true that some Theists have postulated God when no natural answer was there. This was later named, by a Theist, no less, the God of the Gaps fallacy. However, this doesn't disprove Christianity it just shows that Theists should not be so quick to just say "God did it" without looking for a natural explanation. After all, God created the universe and He created science. In fact, the scientific method was developed by Theists. This is because before the 1860's, with few exceptions, scientists were Christians. [1]

Now, notice that Con did not source any of his claims. There were some deaths caused by God, but He didn't just kill people willy-nilly. The people came under righteous judgment by God. It was always deserved.

Also, he has not shown that killing has become the answer when religious beliefs differ. I certainly don't kill anyone who believes differently than I do, and Con is still alive despite having conversations with Christians.

Con's arguments simply are not strong. The Bible doesn't mention every single animal created by God. He doesn't just leave out the kangaroo, but a whole host of animals. Con is simply being unreasonable for expecting every creature to be named. Con here commits the opposite of the God of the Gaps fallacy, which he claims of Christians. He commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. Because God does not mention kangaroos, He must not have been aware of them. This is an obviously fallacious statement.

We must also remember that the Bible is not a science book, it's predominantly a book of history, prophecy, and poetry. We can't expect scientific details to be present in the Scriptures.

However, the Bible does say that the Earth is round. This is what Isaiah 40:22 says: "[God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Some skeptics claim that the "circle" means a flat disc with the heavens forming a dome above it. Even if this is the imagery Isaiah had in mind, we must remember that they lived in a time where they believed the Earth was flat. In the same way that certain prophets had a difficult time describing Heaven in earthly terms (e.g. when John described Heaven in the book of Revelation), so Isaiah had a difficult time describing the actual state of the Earth which was contrary to what he had believed about the Earth before receiving that revelation.

Con has failed to explain how the dating of the earth contradicts the Bible. In fact, while some Christians are Young Earth Creationists, there are those who are Old Earth Creationists and believe that the universe is the 13.7 billion years old that scientists say it is.

Con has so far failed to make his case, and he has certainly not proven me mental or an idiot for being a Theist. I look forward to our next round.

[1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p.168
Debate Round No. 2
bsnstl

Con

bsnstl forfeited this round.
KeytarHero

Pro

Con has forfeited this round. He has failed to meet his burden of proof. I extend my arguments into the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
bsnstl

Con

bsnstl forfeited this round.
KeytarHero

Pro

My opponent has forfeited again. As such, I extend all my arguments into the next and final round.
Debate Round No. 4
bsnstl

Con

bsnstl forfeited this round.
KeytarHero

Pro

Well, Con once against forfeited his last round, on top of failing to meet his burden of proof. It should go without saying, but please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
bsnstlKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF