The Instigator
Loofa
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
75 Points

Atheism is Illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,692 times Debate No: 3100
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (27)

 

Loofa

Pro

Atheists believe, from my understanding, That there is no God. This however obviously is very illogical because despite countless miracles, the human body is far too complex to be made by chance. One such miracle is a fountain at Lourdes, France with healing water thousands of people have been healed by this water. Atheist doctors have stated their bafflement by these healing of people who probably would have died. This is just one of the many miracles I could use in this debate. I hope an atheist will try to prove me wrong.
Kleptin

Con

The belief that the Judeo-Christian God does not exists is not illogical. My opponent makes two claims to support his hypothesis that it is illogical.

1. Argument on complexity.

2. Miracles.

Both of these things are relatively common in Pro/Con God debates. Why? Theists tend to rely on circular logic in order to justify their faith. This is because religion in and of itself is based on faith.

I will now respond to each of these points.

COMPLEXITY

My opponent argues that the human body is too complex to have gotten there by accident, much like how a pocket watch in a field can be attributed to a maker, and not evolved from grass.

This is a good analogy among theists, because it appeals to common human nature. However, this is also its flaw. Common human nature is very biased. We allow our social surroundings and culture determine the way we think. In the watch-in-the-field example, we look at a pocket watch and assume a maker. Why? Because we recognize human ingenuity and the social concept of manipulating our environment. Thus, we can identify a thing as "artificial" by relying on that bias.

That having been said, a hypothetical man has now found the hypothetical watch in the hypothetical field and assumes it had a creator. Does it assume a HUMAN creator or a DIVINE creator? The only logical conclusion would be to assume a human creator. Our subjectivity in assigning the status of "designed" applies only to things that humans designed.

Next step. The assumptions the man makes now fall into the classic trap of anthropomorphism (or rather, anthropocentrism). He takes these assumptions and egregiously brings them outside the scope of human behavior. Now, he likens the human to a watch. However, the hidden assumption here is a doozy: God now becomes the human. The man has taken an aspect of human culture, the creation of tools/manipulation of the environment, and made it a universal good. He puts intelligence on a pedestal and worships it. He gives this "super power" to God.

Thus, the whole concept of my opponent's argument, the argument by complexity, is based on a non-sequitor. Although given that a pocket watch is created by a man, it does not logically follow that all things we compare to a pocket watch are created by a superior being.

MIRACLES

Humans are afraid of the unknown. They attribute everything unknown to faith because it gives them a temporary answer, an alleviation to the fear. Improbable events are often termed miracles, but they are simply that: improbable events.

After doing some fast wikipedia browsing on the miracle Grotto, I have concluded that the grotto is probably not some miracle healing fountain. If this were the case, we could say that "placebo" is a miracle drug that can be used to treat about 60% of all diseases in the world.

Placebo is not an actual drug. It is a term for a non-medicative pill used as a control for drug studies. Why? Because the placebo effect works. People who are given a placebo frequently show improvement, because the mind is tricked. This is called a "psychosomatic response". Psycho = mind, Soma = body. It is common knowledge that this placebo effect exists, and this is probably the case with the fountain.

My opponent shows 67 cases that the Roman Catholic Church (biased source) has designated as miracles. How about the thousands upon thousands of other people looking for cures? In addition, all diseases that were apparently "cured" were shown to be diseases prone to spontaneous remission (without the presence of a magic fountain in other cases) or where the placebo effect takes place (also without the presence of a magic fountain).

Funny note from a source I used:

"Emphasizing the uncertain nature of Lourdes' power, French writer Anatole France visited the site in the late nineteenth century and said, surveying all the discarded crutches, "What, what, no wooden legs???"

It's reasonable that a "cripple" with both legs intact can throw away his crutch. If a man with a wooden leg suddenly grows a new one, I'm flying to Lourdes and bringing back a few gallons of that water to sell on eBay.

************

The stance that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, or that deities in general do not exist is not an illogical one. It stems from a lack of evidence. If a person is not convinced of the existence of a particular thing, how would it be illogical to say that the thing does not exist?
Debate Round No. 1
Loofa

Pro

Loofa forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

My opponent has decided not to respond. My counterpoints and argument still stand and I await my opponent's next response.
Debate Round No. 2
Loofa

Pro

Loofa forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

To conclude my argument, since my opponent has forfeited both his chances to respond, I will repeat some basic points.

First, my opponent's argument on complexity is a result of flawed human bias. Scientifically speaking, human complexity has nothing to do with probability.

Second, my opponent quotes miracles which are actually not miracles, merely improbable events with several other explanations.

This renders my opponent's initial and only arguments useless.

As for my case that Atheism is NOT illogical, I can only point at the mountain of scientific evidence that is used to explain all of the things that were once attributed to acts of God over the years. The more we learn, the less we attribute to God. Thus, we can only assume that as the trend continues, God will be reduced to a thing that has no purpose. As such, God essentially does not exist.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tmf_luvs_debate 8 years ago
tmf_luvs_debate
I think that many religions are ilogical, but the thing is you arent an athiest so of course you think its ilogical. Because you were born/raised to believe in some kind of god. well it is the same kind of thing with athieism. They are born/raised to believe that there is no god, and who knows. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. When you boil it all down it really just comes down to what each person needs to believe for themselves. Not what other people think about other religions.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
Exactly, ellyphant. It's the most frequently-used false dichotomy up theist's sleeves.
Posted by ellyphant 8 years ago
ellyphant
If you are arguing that Atheism is illogical, don't prove your point by saying that Intelligent Design is logical; it has far less basis, and the fact that one is logical does not necessarily disprove the other. Well done, Kleptin.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
I'm not sure what grounds you want to debate on Agent, why don't you set up a debate with a clear topic and an opening statement?
Posted by Agent_D 8 years ago
Agent_D
Athiest is illogical perse. How could an existence be existence without the gift of existence? Science has no proof without data gathered from facts. Science presume and assume a Theory only. Challenge me!
Posted by Black.Nite17 8 years ago
Black.Nite17
Wow Loofa you got beyond dominated, I applaud Kleptin for giving a good, nay, GREAT debate.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Thanks for attending the debate ladies and gentlemen. Please don't forget to vote CON on your way out.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
don't stoop to their level korezaan.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
I'm not sure how I should proceed with this argument. I can argue that the fact that atheism exists is logical or that atheism itself is logical.

Hmm
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
I'm tired of losing debates just because there are religious people on this site that don't like my beliefs and vote against my position just because I offend them. Unless the person who takes this debate forfeits or creates a really idiotic case, they have my vote.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
LoofaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by BewareItsAndrew 7 years ago
BewareItsAndrew
LoofaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
LoofaKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
LoofaKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
LoofaKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
LoofaKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
LoofaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
LoofaKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Loofa 8 years ago
Loofa
LoofaKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
LoofaKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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