The Instigator
KanzulHuda786
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Atheism is Irrational

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 7 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,086 times Debate No: 25835
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

KanzulHuda786

Pro

I would like to debate an atheism, i am going to be arguing that atheism is not reasonale, logical or scientific belief.

First round for acceptance
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept. For reference, I shall post the rules to the debate here. They'll be common standard on the site.

1) Pro holds the Burden of Proof. This means that they go first in the argument, nothing more, regarding the voting.
2) The motion to be upheld is to show that atheism is an irrational position.
3) Plagiarism, either directly or indirectly, is resultant of a full seven point concession.

Irrational means: not in accordance with reason; contradicts reason. For the burden to be upheld, my opponent must show the specific aspect of atheism which contradicts reason.

Invalid means: a syllogism which does not follow. An argument with a fallacy, informal or formal, is invalid. Invalid arguments are not rational.
Valid means: the premises logically entail and necessitate the conclusion.

Inconsistent means: a statement which is inherently contradictory. For example, "atheism is seven" is inherently contradictory, as seven isn't a property. Similarly, "atheism eating is" is inconsistent, for it does not hold a meaning (for the purpose of accessibility of this debate).

Atheism: the lack of belief in a deity; without belief; not holding belief. The website http://www.investigatingatheism.info... is to be seen as a very good, in depth authority for the definition, as it cites repeatedly philosophers in their definitions.

As such, I'll wait for my opponent's opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
KanzulHuda786

Pro

Atheism is a leap of faith

If I were to say that there was no such thing as gold in China, then to prove my statement, I would have to search every square inch of that country in order to confidently say there was no gold. I would also have to search every person to make sure that there were no gold fillings and search every aeroplane in Chinese airspace. Such a mammoth task would be near impossible but would be necessary in order to prove my statement.
Now lets look at the amount knowledge that a human being can possess. It is obvious that even the smartest person who has ever lived couldn't possess even 1% of all the knowledge in existance. But lets imagine that there existed an Atheist who possessed 1% of all the knowledge in existance. This is of course a huge exaggeration, but for the sake of this argument lets say that someone did possess this amount of knowledge. If this person was honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves God's existance. So as you can see from this very simple example, it is impossible to absolutely state that there is no God. Now back to the example. If I found gold in the tooth of one Chinese citizen, then I could truthfully say that there is gold in China even if that amount of Gold was very small.
To conclude: If you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually and Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in God without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.
To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as yourself. However, If you had absolute knowledge then yes God would exist, because you would be God. On the other hand, to say that there is a God only requires personal experience or an understanding that the design in creation warrants a designer. But ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Those who have seen first hand or can see evidence that gold exists in China and those who believe that gold doesn't exist in China, but can never really be sure that this is so.
Also, Atheists often say they have no faith. This is simply not the case. It has to be said that having faith in nothing is not the same as having no faith. Faith that believes that everything came from nothing is a belief and trust that this is the case even in the absence of proof. No Atheist in the world can claim to have no faith. Rather a person who doesn't know whether God exists or not is the person who has no faith.

Atheism goes against Nature

Throughout the history of the world, the majority of people have believed in God. There seems to be something built in the human mind that makes us want to believe.
Over the last decade some really startling facts have been found that show that children have an innate belief in God. Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford Centre for Anthropology and Mind, states "The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children"s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose"" He adds that "If we threw a handful [of children] on an island and they raised themselves"they would believe in God".. To put it simply, his answer as to why anyone would believe in God is that, our minds are designed to do so . Disbelief in God is something which is unnatural to the human being. Oxford University development psychologist Dr Olivera Petrovich, who is an expert in the Psychology of Religion states that, belief in God develops naturally and that ""atheism is definitely an acquired position"" .
So where did this natural belief in a creator come from? We can"t say it is taught by society as this belief is innate, and studies show that it is independent of societal pressures and is cross-cultural
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

My opponent fully plagiarised his whole opening gambit, observable here:

http://www.heaven.net.nz...

If he wants to discuss this issue in the form of a private message, or on the forums, or even in a chatroom, I can message him/post one up/send him a link on the issue. However, the debate itself is a open-and-close case. My opponent broke the third rule and common convention, thus I respectfully request the seven points in favour of CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
KanzulHuda786

Pro

Argument from Morality
Objective morality is when something is absolutely right or wrong without any exceptions e.g. torturing little babies and eating is universally wrong whatever the circumstance.
It is something that is wrong in all places at all times.
Where can we ground these moral value what makes them morally right and wrong where do we turn to? It doesn"t mean you can"t be a good person if you don"t believe in God we are saying they will be literally no right or wrong objectively if there was no god.

 Are they just there- it is like saying when you see a glowing ball floating in the mid air and someone asks you where did that come form and you say it is just there, this is a non explanation. It is not a reasonable world view it would be unbeliveable.
Does It comes from each Individual(conscius)- Some may say morality is based upon personal preferences you just know it by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!
If it is just to personal choice then we cannot blame a person to choose, to murder, to steal for fun. We could not hold a criminal responsible for whatever horrendous thing he did because if each individual decides what"s morally correct then there is no individual who stands above to say what this criminal has done is right or wrong. The entire criminal and court and prison system would break down.
Does it come from Society- If it comes from society then one society cannot tell another society that it is wrong, for example Winston Churchill and British society could not have said to Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany that eradicating Jews is morally wrong. If you were part of the Nazi Germany society it would have been Ok to burn Jews alive. But the fact that we condemn it today shows us that social consensus cannot be the foundation or the place we go to get our morality or our sense of right or wrong.
 World Consensus- if the Nazis had successfully taken over the world and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide or if they instituted a policy or law all over the world that it is Ok to put Jews in concenentration camps and burn them in the oven would then become right. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer. It would matter even if the entire world agreed to it is still would be objectively morally wrong. It is also is not practical, can we ever get an accurate world consensus what will happen will everyone have a buzzer and vote for a certain decision. World consensus will never happen.
It comes form Evolution
oThis makes morality a biological adaptation not less than your hands and feet.
oCan this be the source of morality, first of all is there any scientific evidence that can show this. Have they discovered the moral molecule for atoms. Could they ever no because morality is not a physical thing. Because thoughts, awareness and morality is immaterial. So how can a material thing bring about and immaterial thing like right or wrong.
oMorality cannot be found in a cell or matter because if we are just pieces of matter put together in a particular form, So if someone put a knife through you has he really murdered you or is it just a rearrangement of molecules.
oWe cannot blame anyone for killing for fun because then he would be genetically predetermined to do this, meaning he just evolved like that type of person. None can be judged as morality has just come by chance.
Some may say why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia.
oObjective morality is something that is right or wrong at all places at all times but evolution says that we have changed and evolved. As Darwin himself admitted said if we had evolved like sharks it would have been ok to rape because that is what they do.
oIf we have just evolve like animals then how come we don"t blame a lion of murder for killing a deer. Or if a an ape escaped from the zoo and broke into the shop and stole some banana would he get arrested for shoplifting, Of course not. So if we have evolved what has made us so special that we are the only beings that enforce moral law of right and wrong on each other, it seems like we don"t belong here.
The only way to get objective morality if from a transcendent being who is beyond humans and the universe because the creator is the only beyond human subjectivity or human bias, he is the only one who has higher authority. As objective morality is unchanging and always true no matter what, then it must come from a source that is unchanging and eternal.

To sum up

1) If objective morality exists, the only standard or ground to which to judge this is a transcendnet being outside of human bias and subjectivity (God)
2)Objective morality does exist.
3)Therefore God exist

In order to escape the conclusion 3) you have to find a legitimate reason why 1) and 2) are false.
Debate Round No. 3
KanzulHuda786

Pro

How is my second argument plagiarised, the links you have given are just some random links that i have never been on, just read the arguments and refute them or admit defeat
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

My opponent still accepts his entire first argument was completely plagiarised from the single source. The second post was plagiarised from this specific source, or any one of its numerous offsprings: http://www.chaim.org.... Whether it was this link itself or not is irrelevant: massive swathes of my opponent's arguments are not his arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
KanzulHuda786

Pro

Copying from one person is plagiarism, copying from many is called research

None of the knowledge that anyone has is there own but has been obtained by some way or another, parents, teachers, books etc
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 1 year ago
Stephen_Hawkins
When arguments are 100% plagiarised, in any context other than this site, that is a full forfeit, usually stripping out of a tournament or society. When the rules are also clearly set out as "full 7 points loss if plagiarism occurs" as well, the 3-1 against just seems mad.
Posted by Chelicerae 1 year ago
Chelicerae
If you think someone has cheated in the voting, report it. Otherwise, stop making baseless claims because people voted in a way you didn't like.
Posted by Chelicerae 1 year ago
Chelicerae
If you think someone has cheated in the voting, report it. Otherwise, stop making baseless claims because people voted in a way you didn't like.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 1 year ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
DeFool

You wrote "The 'three votes' in favor of Pro, I speculate, all belong to one person."

What three votes? There is ONE vote for Pro and TWO for Con (at the time I posted this comment). Are you visually impaired?
Posted by wiploc 1 year ago
wiploc
Pro wrote:
: Copying from one person is plagiarism, copying from many is called research

But that's not the issue. Pro copied other people's words as if he had written them himself. He didn't say, "This is from such and such a page," but rather tried to pass other people's work off as his own.

That's definitely plagiarism.
Posted by DeFool 1 year ago
DeFool
Humiliating, and devastating. Hawkins here has properly schooled this classroom. The "three votes" in favor of Pro, I shall speculate, all belong to one person - with three accounts. Perhaps to sycophants. But these are unearned.

For the record, I am accusing pro of worse than merely plagiarism, but group voting.
Posted by wiploc 1 year ago
wiploc
Pro's second post is also plagiarized.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 1 year ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
KanzulHuda786Stephen_HawkinsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made up his own rules Round 1, which I'm not sure should be allowed because it lets you just hijack any old debate you want. Con gets CONduct because Pro plagiarized, but Pro gets arguments because Con never refuted the arguments, no matter how plagiarized they were. I've seen people vote like this before (that is, vote for people who plagiarized), so that's my justification for it. [EDIT] Counter votebomb everyone.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 1 year ago
Sojourner
KanzulHuda786Stephen_HawkinsTied
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: Con clearly articulated that plagiarism results in a seven-point concession. Pro did not object.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 1 year ago
adontimasu
KanzulHuda786Stephen_HawkinsTied
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: Retracting my original vote; Pro agreed to a set of rules that made it quite clear that plagiarism results in a seven-point concession. As such, to honor this arrangement, Con gets all seven points.
Vote Placed by Chelicerae 1 year ago
Chelicerae
KanzulHuda786Stephen_HawkinsTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro because Con did not refuse his case. Conduct to Con because Pro plagiarized.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 1 year ago
larztheloser
KanzulHuda786Stephen_HawkinsTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case may have been plagiarized, but that does not refute it. Pro had BOP, pro had a case, con had no objections. Although pro's arguments were weak, they fulfilled the required BOP.
Vote Placed by EvanK 1 year ago
EvanK
KanzulHuda786Stephen_HawkinsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized his arguments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 1 year ago
wiploc
KanzulHuda786Stephen_HawkinsTied
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: Pro plagiarized.