The Instigator
amandamllr23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Atheism is a more rational starting point, in theological debates, then theist.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 589 times Debate No: 67822
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

amandamllr23

Pro

When approaching a religious debate, coming in at an atheistic viewpoint is more rational/logical then if you were coming into it a theist.
Mike_10-4

Con

I (Con) will take the position that: Deism, not Atheism, “is a more rational starting point, in theological debates, then theist” who are dogmatic and religious based.

Deist: “The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws.”
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Both Atheist and Deist understands the importance of the scientific method to study repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. When we understand a pattern to some degree, we classify it as a Law in Nature.

Through science, both Atheist and Deist recognize the current scientific view about the Big-Bang is the creation of the universe.

The difference between Atheist and Deist is belief in the event entity before the Big-Bang. Today, the men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the “Big Bang;” until then, we have faith (Deist, Theist, etc.), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions (Atheist).

Deist believes, like all Theist, God created the universe and everything in it, including the Laws of Nature. From the Deist's vantage point, the Laws of Nature is simply the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting.

On the other hand, for Atheist and those of faith (Theist), including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.).

Historically, many from the Theistic camp, fears the outcome of science intrudes on their belief. This is where Deism is most affective, to help bridge the fear-gap between science and myth.

In general, I get the impression from Atheists, throughout many debate sites and blogs, whether intentional or not, the presentation of their ego in science demeans those of faith; and in the end, there seems to be more conflict than, the desire of “a more rational starting point.”

And in saying that, I find Deist to be more sympathetic and understanding towards Theist, compared to the condescending nature from Atheist. For example, the title of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
amandamllr23

Pro

The title of this argument isn't meant to be condescending, just to find the most rational starting point in a debate.

If the debate is "is there a god" or "is god good for the world" if you are coming into the argument with a belief in a god then you are already biased. You have your own ideas of what this god is like, and if you believe that god is Yahweh and the creator of all morals, then you are going to say yes even before the debate begins.

Atheist can also be biased, can look around the world at things religious people has done and say no, before the debate begins.

If you were to find two rational debaters, one atheist and one theist, the atheist would have a more rational starting point, since he/she is starting from scratch. No gods.

Deist on the other hand, are also coming from a starting point of "there is a god" just different from theist. They have defined god as a "creator" god, and either find him indifferent, or mildly involved, depending on the deist you talked to.

So they would come into the argument with gods existence firm in their minds, and an answer already formed in their minds before the debate.

Coming into a debate with no god is a more rational starting point then coming in a debate with a god theistic or deistic.
Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you Pro for your reply. I'll try to address your concerns.

Pro stated,If the debate is "is there a god" or "is god good for the world" if you are coming into the argument with a belief in a god then you are already biased."

Debates starting out with a topic “is there a god” are simply dead-end debates. Why even trouble yourself in a debate that has no “rational starting point.”

Debates starting out with a topic "is god good for the world" is simply a matter of your existence, experience of life, and your philosophy.

Pro stated,You have your own ideas of what this god is like, and if you believe that god is Yahweh and the creator of all morals, then you are going to say yes even before the debate begins.”

The answer is, yes. A Deist believes that God created everything, including “morality.” The subject of morality is more challenging, please bear with me.

It may surprise many, including Pro, Morality is an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, Morality is a derivative of the physical Laws of Nature (the handwriting of God), not metaphysics.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...

Let's take a journey following the traceability path from Thermodynamics (moments after the Big Bang) to Morality. The Laws of Thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy flow. Constructal Law deals with patterns and systems generated by this energy flow as a function of optimization relative to resistance, in the evolution of biology, physics, technology and social organization. At the biological level, there is a bio-program common to all life, once inanimate matter becomes alive, “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty” in the optimization relative to resistance), in “the pursuit (energy flow) of” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the label “Unalienable Rights” representing a polished version of this bio-program, in his following celebrated statement (http://www.constitution.org...):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [God] with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The following is a video overview of the Constructal Law:
http://www.youtube.com...

Continuing with our journey, morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights in group formation. The binary values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights of the members within the group. Goodwill promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc, the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). A moral individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

The empirical evidence of the diversity of language, belief, and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates morality is the thread that runs through the tapestry in group formation. By the way, throughout the ages, the historical record found not one isolated human culture to be atheistic. This non-atheistic phenomena suggests religious faith based norms (“theism”) are associated with life having higher cerebral faculties during the evolution of life.

Again, morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the symphony of life, to name a few, in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.

Jefferson's discovery of Unalienable Rights found its way in the design of the US Constitution. This event set off a social experiment, where in a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example, of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are morally free to flow, having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of God's Laws of Nature, the “invisible hand.”

The “invisible hand” is a function of morality working within the Laws of Nature (the handwriting of God) independent of religion, of philosophy, of culture, etc. The following short youtube presentation shows the power of morality with life's bio-program (Unalienable Rights) interfacing with humans and the Laws of Nature in the evolution of the standard of living. The presentation starts with the familiar tree pattern (Constructal Law), concluding with the “invisible hand;” stressing the absence of human “masterminds,” while spontaneously working together in the creation of something so simple we all use.
http://www.youtube.com...

This overview of morality coming from a Deist to one who is ingrained in religious dogma from the Dark Ages, may just be enough to crack the ice of the fear of science relative to their dogma. The discussion will not sink to the irrational level of “is there a god” but focus on God's Laws of Nature is the program of the universe for controlling the dynamics of inanimate and animate operating within God's matrix.

The late Joseph Campbell (one who studied the evolution of religion) once stated (http://www.brainyquote.com...):

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”

I feel science, from the vantage point of God's Laws of Nature, is a constructive step helping to deal with some of those “metaphors, interpreting them as facts,” to help expedite evolution in religion relative to God's handwriting. For evolution is the machinery of God's nature.

Pro stated,If you were to find two rational debaters, one atheist and one theist, the atheist would have a more rational starting point, since he/she is starting from scratch. No gods.”

Rational” is relative and starting a debate “from scratch. No gods,” is simply irrational from a theist point of view. Put yourself in the shoes of a theist, would the above thesis of morality sound more “rational” with reference to God compared to “No gods” at all? For you atheist, play the deist card, and don't be surprised, if you both learn something in a constructive debate.

Pro stated,So they [Deist] would come into the argument with gods existence firm in their minds, and an answer already formed in their minds before the debate.”

What answer? What debate? If the sole task of an Atheist is to prove there is no God, and if that Atheist has no scientific empirical evidence to back the claim, that is not a “rational starting point.”
Debate Round No. 2
amandamllr23

Pro

amandamllr23 forfeited this round.
Mike_10-4

Con

I hope Pro takes my advice in playing the Deist card during her next “theological debate,” and see the difference it makes in constructively embracing the scientific method, in reading the handwriting of God.

Then, and only then, may harmony reach its climax for both atheist and theist.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
The Deist belief is the only religious belief I respect because it's the middle ground. It offers the best of both worlds and is definitely the more reasonable starting point to thinking of universal origins. If the concept of "before" or "outside" the universe wasn't so ludicrous to me, I'd probably be a Deist. Proponents on either side claim it's a cop-out answer but neutrality should always be the starting point of an argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
amandamllr23Mike_10-4Tied
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 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by rikomalpense 2 years ago
rikomalpense
amandamllr23Mike_10-4Tied
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 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: Conduct: Pro forfeited. Point to Con. S/G: No issues on either side. Tied. Arguments: Neither's arguments were particularly more convincing, but point to Con as Pro did not rebute their final claims. Tied. Sources: Automatic point to Con as Pro did not source anything.