The Instigator
janetsanders733
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Atheism is an Illogical Worldview

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,164 times Debate No: 39694
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (87)
Votes (4)

 

janetsanders733

Pro

I would like to debate you on Atheism, and how it is an illogical worldview. I will take the affirmative.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I accept. State your case...
Debate Round No. 1
janetsanders733

Pro

I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. Here is how the debate will go.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal/Closing arguments.

To answer the question, we must first look at four questions that every world view must answer: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. When you take Atheism and apply it to these four questions, atheism fails.
Let us start with Origin. How did I get here? Atheism says that you got here through evolution, so you"re an accident. Next we begin with Meaning: Why am I here? Well evolution says you"re here to self-replicate and pass on genes to the next generation, but this is really misleading because there is no goal in evolution. What is good and bad? If evolution is true and God does not exist, then there is no real way of right and wrong, this is because atheism has no moral objective source outside of itself to explain good and evil objectively. This leads to the last point of Destiny: Where am I going after I die? Well Atheism says you are going nowhere. Eventually the Universe will cease to exist and all mankind will die and decay. (This also relates to my point of no evolution not having a goal).
So when you take Atheism and apply to these four questions, you end up with no hope, no meaning, no morality, and no destiny.
Let"s take a look at the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Origin: How did I get here? God created man from the dust of the earth. Meaning: Why am I here? God created man to be in a relationship with him, but man broke that relationship through his/her choice of sin. Morality: What is right or wrong? God created mankind with a moral conscious, to know good and evil. Destiny: Where am I going when I die? Because God loved the world so much, he gave his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins John 3:16, so that if we believe and put our faith and trust in him as our Lord and Savior we will have eternal life. (Hell is for those who did not trust Jesus as their Lord and Savior, therefore God has to do the right thing, because of their sin and send them to hell. He does not want to send anyone to hell. God desires for all mankind to come into a relationship with him through Jesus Christ. )
Only in the Judeo-Christian Worldview, are all four of these questions answered with corresponding answers coherently, and objectively.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

I thank my opponent for engaging in this discussion with me. He assumed the burden of proof in this debate, and must show that Atheism is indeed an illogical worldview. My job is to sufficiently undermine his claims.

The Four Questions

Pro asserts that a worldview must be able to answer questions pertaining to origins, meaning, morals, and destiny. However, Pro presented no argument to support his claims that a worldview must have to account for all four. Regardless, it seems reasonable enough to assume that a worldview should be able to account for these things. Thus, I will not quarrel with Pro about whether or not a worldview should have to be able to account for them or not. What I do have a problem with, is the comment that if you take these four questions and apply it to Atheism; Atheism fails. He did not support this position.

Origins

Evolution accounts for the origin of humans[1], and Abiogenes accounts for the origin of life itself[2] under an Atheistic framework. Atheism answers the questions of origins just fine. Pro hasn't really shown any logical problems with this view; he just asserts that this means humans are an accident. Accidents happen all the time, so the idea of something being illogical because it is an accident is a non-sequitur (which, ironically, is illogical). Pro needs more argumentation here to really establish his conclusion.

Meaning

Pro claims evolution posits that we are here to self-replicate and pass on our genes to the next generation, but that there is no goal. However, this simply begs the question. The word "goal" implies intention, which implies a sentient being who intended for evolution (a God). However, no argument was given as to why there has to be a "goal" pertaining to evolution. Evolution being illogical does not follow from the notion that there is no overall goal with regards to evolution. Thus, this argument for Atheism being illogical is based on a non-sequitur just like the origins argument.

Morals

This section is based on a bare-assertion fallacy. Pro asserts that there is no real way of right and wrong under Atheism, because atheism has no moral objective source outside of itself to explain good and evil objectively. However, he has not proven that morality cannot have an objective source; he just presumes it. There are plenty of objective moral theories that do not take any God into account (contractarianism for example[3]). Pro hasn't actually shown that Atheism cannot account for objective morality. Not only that, morality could be subjective. He hasn't even shown that morality is objective in the first place.

Destiny

Pro claims that if Atheism is true, then we have no destiny. But Pro debunked his own claim himself. He claims that our destiny under Atheism is to have our consciousness cease to exist at death, with mankind eventually dying and decaying. Well, if that's our destiny under Atheism, then obviously Atheism accounts for our destiny. He mentions his point about there being no ultimate goal again, but hasn't shown why there has to be a goal in the first place. What about "no goal" = "illogical"? Unfortunately, there are too many holes in Pro's arguments for them to go through.

In Conclusion

In conclusion, Pro states

"So when you take Atheism and apply to these four questions, you end up with no hope, no meaning, no morality, and no destiny." - Pro

Not only has Pro not shown them true, he hasn't even shown that if they were true, Atheism being illogical would follow. He then talked about how Theism can account for four things he mentioned. That has no relevance to the debate, because even if Theism can account for those things, that wouldn't make Atheism illogical.

Additionally, my opponent states;

"Only in the Judeo-Christian Worldview, are all four of these questions answered with corresponding answers coherently, and objectively." - Pro

The above is false. Islam accounts for all of those things as well... Either way, I have already explained the problems with the steps needed to reach the conclusion above earlier in the round.

Pro has not established the resolution.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
janetsanders733

Pro

"Evolution accounts for the origin of humans[1], and Abiogenes accounts for the origin of life itself[2] under an Atheistic framework. Atheism answers the questions of origins just fine. Pro hasn't really shown any logical problems with this view; he just asserts that this means humans are an accident. Accidents happen all the time, so the idea of something being illogical because it is an accident is a non-sequitur (which, ironically, is illogical). Pro needs more argumentation here to really establish his conclusion."

Abiogenesis is impossible. The consensus on how the earth's atmosphere has changed since the 1950's Urey-Miller experiment. Scientists now believe the initial atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. This gas mixture does not readily produce organic compounds in prebiotic simulation experiments. The only way Abiogensis can work is, if there is an Inteligent Designer who knows the right mixture. Science does not explain what caused the big bang theory to happen. They assume life created itself. If something began to exist, then it must have a cause. Otherwise your left with the question: Why did the Universe began to exist?

Meaning

"Pro claims evolution posits that we are here to self-replicate and pass on our genes to the next generation, but that there is no goal. However, this simply begs the question. The word "goal" implies intention, which implies a sentient being who intended for evolution (a God). However, no argument was given as to why there has to be a "goal" pertaining to evolution. Evolution being illogical does not follow from the notion that there is no overall goal with regards to evolution. Thus, this argument for Atheism being illogical is based on a non-sequitur just like the origins argument."

Con is correct. If evolution is true, then there is no ultimate meaning to your existence. What is evolution supposed to accomplish? Death is the end of all things, so what meaning do you have for your existence. The only meaning you can give to your existence is self-meaning, which is subjective. Atheism fails to give you meaning as a human being because you have no meaning as a human being if evolution is true. This then leads to the question: Why do we exist?

Morals

"This section is based on a bare-assertion fallacy. Pro asserts that there is no real way of right and wrong under Atheism, because atheism has no moral objective source outside of itself to explain good and evil objectively. However, he has not proven that morality cannot have an objective source; he just presumes it. There are plenty of objective moral theories that do not take any God into account (contractarianism for example[3]). Pro hasn't actually shown that Atheism cannot account for objective morality. Not only that, morality could be subjective. He hasn't even shown that morality is objective in the first place. "

That is correct if Atheism is true there is no objective source of Morality. What moral value do you as a human being have without God? None. You can only give yourself moral value and again that would be subjective. Why do morals matter in evolution? You don't need morality to survive in evolution, because it is survival of the fittest. Contractariansm can only come from one's perspective of how a moral agreement should be (pragmatic), but it doesn't tell you why you should do these things, or where they come from.

Who are you accountable to if there is no God? Who cares if you live life as a Mother Thereasa, or a Joesph Stalin? Why does it even matter what you do if there is no accountability?

What motivates you to do Good? If there is no God, then what motivates you to do something good?
What motivates you to do something bad? If Satan does not exist, then what motivates you to do something bad.

Who are you obligated to if there is no God?
Who gives you the right to make a claim "this is good or this is evil" and on what grounds?



Philosphy and Science can only argue morality subjectively or at best pragmaticly. Here is why God must exist for moral objective valeus to exist. Take the problem of evil for example. Whenever the problem of evil is raised it is either raised by a person, or about person(s).


If there is a such a thing as evil, then you're assuming there's a such a thing as good. If there is a such thing as good and evil, then there must be a moral law to differientate beteween good and evil. If there is a Moral law, then there must be a Moral law Giver, who gives us the right to differ between good and evil. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove, because if there is no Moral law giver there's no moral law. If there's no moral law then there's no such thing as good. If there is no such thing as good then there's no such thing as evil. If there is no such thing as evil, then what's your question?

Only if there is a moral law giver who transcends you and I can you make the claim "This is good, or this is evil." Anything other than that is subjective and has no basis.

Destiny

"Pro claims that if Atheism is true, then we have no destiny. But Pro debunked his own claim himself. He claims that our destiny under Atheism is to have our consciousness cease to exist at death, with mankind eventually dying and decaying. Well, if that's our destiny under Atheism, then obviously Atheism accounts for our destiny. He mentions his point about there being no ultimate goal again, but hasn't shown why there has to be a goal in the first place. What about "no goal" = "illogical"? Unfortunately, there are too many holes in Pro's arguments for them to go through."

Con misunderstood me again. I did not debunk myself. I was showing him that Atheism debunks itself particulary on destiny. When I say there is no destiny in Atheism, I mean objectively there is no life after death. Eventually the universe will grow old, dark, dead, and diluted. Everything will caese to exist. If that is the case then there is no ultimate hope for humanity. So then what is there to live for?

Only in the Judeo-Christian Worldview, are all four of these questions answered with corresponding answers coherently, and objectively." - Pro

"The above is false. Islam accounts for all of those things as well... Either way, I have already explained the problems with the steps needed to reach the conclusion above earlier in the round.

Pro has not established the resolution."

No, Islam does not account for any of this. In Islam Allah has no moral character. Also allah does not gurantee you a destiny when you die. Islam and every other religion , your good deeds must outweigh your bad, and there is no assurance of salvation in Islam because you could stand before Allah and he'll turn you away even if you have been doing good deeds, he could say that your good deeds were not good enough to outweigh you bad.

Only in the Judeo-Christian worldview show the real problem, and that is the heart. The heart is deceitful. That is why when you look at our world today, it is fallen because of man's sin. God says we can't earn salvation through our deeds.

But he loved us so much that he gave us his son Jesus to die for our sins John 3:16, so that if we believe in him as our Lord and saviour we will have eternal life. That is a gift of god and not by man's deeds or actions.

I can not think of anything more loving than God himself sending his son to die for all mankind's sin, and was buried and raised to life, he conquered the judgment that we desrve. It has always been through faith in trust in the OT and NT, not through our works. That is why the Judeo-Christian worldview is the right view.

Only in Christ are all four of these answered correctly, because Christ claimed to be way the truth and the life, and proved it through his death and resurrection. That means everyone else is false.

So in Conclusion Atheism can not account for our existence, our meaning as humans, our source of morality, and a destiny or after life, as to where we are going.

www.rzim.org
www.reasons.org
www.cbn.com

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

Pro did not provide any sources to back up his scientific claims in support of Abiogenesis being impossible. I therefore reject them on those grounds, as we have no way to know in the context of the debate whether Pro's facts are true or not. Either way, Pro mentions that the consensus about what the early atmosphere of Earth contained has changed since the experiment Stanley Miller was working on with Harold C. Urey was carried out. This is true, that the consensus has changed, but contrary to what Pro says, the results are still extremely similar:

"Many scientists now believe that the early Earth’s atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. Modern experiments with this mixture of gases produce similar results suggesting that early conditions on Earth produced complex organic molecules that probably became the basis for the development of more complex organisms."[1]



Pro's argument against Abiogenesis clearly fails because even if the early atmosphere was the way he described it, that wouldn't mean life still couldn't arise naturally. Since he has not met his burden of proof in this regard, he has not shown Atheism is illogical with regards to the origin of life.

Science Explaining The Universe

Pro claims that science doesn't explain the universe. However, some plausible scientific models do just that. One way the beginning of the universe could have happened was through a spontaneous quantum tunnelling process. Space, time, and energy could have emerged from a timeless and spaceless background describable by the laws of nature[2]. This idea has been put forward by well respected physicist Alexander Vilenkin, who describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It is plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model, and no initial cause is needed:

"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[3]

By "cause", Vilenkin simply means a sufficient condition. The timeless and spaceless background would of course serve as an unstable necessary condition. If one simply views necessary conditions as a cause, then the universe would still be caused under this scenario. So, there are scientific models which explain the universe just fine with no logical problems.

Meaning

Pro may be correct that there would be no ultimate meaning to our existence under evolution. However, evolution would explain the evolution of the brain; the thing which enables us to give "meaning" to anything. Thus, in one sense, Atheism does explain meaning. As far as meaning in an ultimate sense, Pro has not shown why this is required of a worldview. There may be no meaning in this sense; we could be a cosmic fluke! Pro hasn't shown how this is illogical.

Morals

Pro commits the special pleading fallacy. He says that if humans assign moral value it is subjective, but if God does it, it is objective. How does that make sense? Pro says you don't need morality to survive in evolution but that is not true. If you work together in groups you can get more accomplished for everyone than if you worked alone. Thus, morality could be looked at as essential. He asked some questions that I will respond to:

"Who are you accountable to if there is no God?" - Pro

We are accountable to each other.

"Who cares if you live life as a Mother Theresa, or a Joseph Stalin?" - Pro

Human beings do.

"Why does it even matter what you do if there is no accountability?" - Pro

Who said there was no accountability?

He also asks what motivates us to good or bad, and that would be our brains and our environments. He claims that if there is no objective moral law giver then there is no objective moral law. Pro hasn't explained why human beings themselves cannot be the objective moral law givers.

Pro hasn't even shown morality has to be objective in the first place. This means his argument is a non-starter.

Destiny

Even if there is no afterlife or hope for humanity, that wouldn't mean there is nothing to live for. As philosopher Shelly Kagan explains:

"It all ending up the same, isn't the same thing as 'and so it doesn't matter what happens until we get there'" - Shelly Kagan

Even if everything all ends up the same in the end, it wouldn't follow that life doesn't matter. That is a non-sequitur.

Islam And Christianity

This section has nothing to do with the resolution. I feel no need to respond to it.

Conclusion

Atheism can account for the origins of life and our universe. Meaning is explained by evolution, as this gave rise to brains which give rise to meaning. Pro did not show that God is required for morality, and that an afterlife is needed for our lives to be worth living.

Since Pro failed to show that Atheism is illogical; the resolution has not been established.


Sources


[1] http://lcogt.net...
[2] http://mukto-mona.net...
[3] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)

Debate Round No. 3
87 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
umm...erhhh... Yes. I just think its funny when I hear Canadians say "eh", but in a good way not bad. I ain't got no disrepect for Canada or nothing.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Lol Why, because I am Canadian?
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Will do RT! do you say "eh" alot?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I forgive you. Just try to be more fair in your voting...
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
So you don't forgive me?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
It just seemed like you vote for the theist no matter what, because your RFD's are largely inadequate and make no sense until you are forced to change them. It shows a lot of bias. Just because you are a theist, doesn't mean you always have to vote for the the theist. Take KRFournier for example, he is known as one of the best Christian debaters on this site and he voted for me (an Atheist) in this debate against you.

You gave him source points when he had NO sources in the Modal Ontological Argument debate for example, and had a one liner RFD. That showed your true colors to me as biased.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
I would like to apologize to RT. I was not trying to vote- bomb, just vote. I ended up not realizing the process of voting since I am new on here.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Abiogenesis is possible in principle but not in reality."

Nope. It is possible in reality, and most scientists agree with me!

"Scientists manipualte the results. They either take out certain chemicals or add something to it."

You just made that up. Stop making things up....

"It still proves you need an Inteligent Designer to know the amount of chemicals to add or take away."

No it doesn't. All that is needed is nature itself, no intelligent designer needed.

"So you believe your an accident"

Not necessarily, but it is likely that we are.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
http://www.freerepublic.com... poem by Steve Turner Called Creed.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
So you believe your an accident
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
janetsanders733Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more organized and logical.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
janetsanders733Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate; been a long time since I've seen Kent Hovind's arguments. I agreed and still do agree with Con here. Conduct was fine. Spelling and grammar were fine. Arguments were easily refuted; Pro never showed how "I don't like what these facts tell us" = "Illogical". Thus, the whole case was a non-sequitur, and Con argued correctly for this, plus boosting refutations. Sources to Con, too, because it seems as though one of Pro's sources rejects evolution. Not reliable for information.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 3 years ago
KRFournier
janetsanders733Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I understand what Pro was attempting to do, as I am a presuppositionalist myself. However, Pro wasn't able to bridge the gap from things like meaning and destiny to atheism being illogical. In order to bridge that gap, Pro needed to convincingly argue that meaning and destiny was real. Even the discussion on evolution was deflated by Pro's lack of sources, which left those scientific claims open as bare assertions. Thus, I am compelled to give the sources point to Con as well. I personally think atheism does fail as a worldview, but this in this debate, Con was the better debater.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
janetsanders733Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually only ever attempted to demonstrate that atheism is an undesirable world view which lacks hope or meaning. She never came anywhere close to demonstrating that it is illogical. Con had no obligation to agree to the four critera suggested by Pro, but it probably made for a better debate that he did argue each of those points. Pro frequently relied on statements which may be automatically accepted as "true" in her social sphere (i.e. abiogenesis is impossible), but in a debate context, claims which are unsupported are just bare assertions.