The Instigator
SpotlessMind
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
diddleysquat
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Atheism is Illogical

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 3 votes the winner is...
diddleysquat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 58180
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

SpotlessMind

Pro

I will be arguing that Atheism is illogical. I take Atheism to mean the denial of the existence of an afterlife instead of just merely the absence of belief in an afterlife. Though Atheism is often related to the denial of a deity along with the denial of an afterlife, I chose not to posit any stance upon the belief in a deity as illogical or logical. Thus, the debate will center solely around whether it is logical or illogical to deny the existence of an afterlife. I define the afterlife the continuation of consciousness after death.

The debate shall have the following format: 1) Agreement 2-3) Arguments/Rebuttals 4) Summary and Rebuttals--No New Arguments
diddleysquat

Con

I thank Pro for the opportunity to debate this topic, and look forward to an interesting discussion. I have to say I find Pro's definitions very odd - mainly because in my mind it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and to believe in an afterlife. Nevertheless, since I don't believe in God or an afterlife, I am happy to accept the definition, and will be arguing that there is no such thing as life after death. May the best argument win.
Debate Round No. 1
SpotlessMind

Pro

SpotlessMind forfeited this round.
diddleysquat

Con

Atheism isn't illogical. Throwing a party and not turning up is illogical. I'll reserve any argument until I have someone to debate.
Debate Round No. 2
SpotlessMind

Pro

SpotlessMind forfeited this round.
diddleysquat

Con

I disagree with every single thing my opponent has said in the last two rounds. Furthermore, there is no evidence to substantiate any of it.
Debate Round No. 3
SpotlessMind

Pro

SpotlessMind forfeited this round.
diddleysquat

Con

It is not logical to believe in something until it is proved not to exist. If this were the case, we should all believe in unicorns, fire breathing dragons and fairies at the bottom of the garden. None of these have been conclusively shown not to exist. No proof has been offered in this debate that an afterlife exists, therefore Pro's burden of proof has not been met.

Furthermore, since Pro has indeed been logged on to the site on a number of occasions during this debate, I presume that his failure to enter any argument is not the result of some unforeseen circumstance preventing him from doing so; rather it is a conscious decision to waste my time.

I would ask those who do not believe that Pro's case has been established, or who believe that wasting the time of other people on this site should be discouraged, to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Funny how Spotlessmind cannot produce a Spotless Debate.
:-D~
Posted by diddleysquat 2 years ago
diddleysquat
haha :)
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Okay, I can do that, Diddly, I'm crap at being a DA, but I'll give it a try.
I'll have to bite my fingers at every attempt by them to type 'I Agree'.

:-D~
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Many other stupid decisions the US has made in the international community was also fueled by this we are a Righteous, Morally Upstanding Christian Nation nonsense.
George Bush has made many such emotion based idiotic speeches and decisions.
Though he certainly is not alone there, as you can pin at least one such irrational and stupid decision on every devoutly Christian leader.
Posted by diddleysquat 2 years ago
diddleysquat
At least someone is providing something interesting to read in the course of this debate. Sagey, want to play Devil's advocate and jump in the Pro side seat? I'm sure we could make it entertaining.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
An example of emotional driven poor decision was Vietnam.
The South Vietnam leadership deliberately made appeal to the United States sense of Christian Morality, knowing it would stir such irrational emotions of we are doing it for the people and for God's glory against the atheistic communist expanse of Chinese assisted Viet Cong forces.
The US did not research the conflict properly, if they had, they would have discovered that the common people of Vietnam wanted the French South Vietnam leadership gone and thus entering the conflict would be against the wishes of the majority of the Vietnamese.
The decision to enter into the Vietnam conflict and choose the wrong side (friends) was an irrational decision mostly emotional driven.
Had the US done their groundwork properly, thus being more rational/logical, they would never have entered the conflict.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BTW: High EQ or control over emotions, is not like denial of your emotions.
High EQ means understanding your emotional make-up and putting emotional responses into their correct place, as emotions are required to make us sensitive, caring humans.
But, stray, poorly understood emotions if not controlled can lead to disastrous actions and results.
Having an high EQ is about high self knowledge and knowing which emotional responses are useful and when they are needed to be controlled and how to control them the best possible way for balance.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Tis trew, most people's irrational actions and thoughts are emotion based, since to be truly rational, one has to see past emotions. EQ or emotional Intelligence is part of intelligence, which is the control of emotion. RQ is rational intelligence which is your most logical decision maker, extremely religiously fundamentalist people have a low RQ as indoctrination destroys RQ, and they also have by indoctrination a low EQ as religion relies on emotionally driven victims to stay in the church.
Such people are mostly entirely irrational from their low RQ and low EQ.
People with a Low EQ are emotionally driven and they are usually the most illogical.
Religious Fundamentalists are by far the least logical/rational people on the planet.
There are many on DDO who prove this as Fact.
Most knowledgeable Atheists have high RQs and high EQs, so they are strongly rational and have very sound control over their emotions, thus they are by far the most logical/rational people you will find.
Those that were also born with a high IQ, are the most intelligent people on planet Earth.
There are absolutely no Religious Fundamentalists any where near making that claim.
They are almost all over indoctrinated, thus totally emotional driven NutJobs.
Posted by Molzahn 2 years ago
Molzahn
Is pro defining illogical as emotion-based? If so this may prove entertaining.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
I don't think using gnosticism is enough to make atheism illogical.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
SpotlessMinddiddleysquatTied
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: Pro Forfeited, since I don't think Pro really understands what Atheism is, my Atheist Psychic ex gf believes in an afterlife and that she can communicate with the dead. She just has no God in her spiritual world that she sees as a parallel world to our own. No God here and no God there, makes her an Atheist.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SpotlessMinddiddleysquatTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
SpotlessMinddiddleysquatTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff