The Instigator
kwagga_la
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheism is an illusion.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 949 times Debate No: 92016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (67)
Votes (0)

 

kwagga_la

Pro

Atheism has limited arguments against the existence of God. When confronted to give explanations they often respond by saying they do not know because dont have to know. This limitation can at best be reasonable as Agnosticism who at least says there may or may not be a God. Atheism states there is absolutely no God. This is an unreasonable position to take.
vi_spex

Con

i think my main point this debate is making you forfit your pro position..

theism is atheism

i have evidence that god is false.. so this makes me an atheist according to your world view because surely i am not right about it?
constructions are machines, nature is random.. random is the opposite of specified, intent is specified

nature is chaos, and life being nature, there is no, before life. matter is eternal, no beginning and no end, only now
Debate Round No. 1
kwagga_la

Pro

You claim to have evidence that god is false, that does not essentially mean that you believe there is NO God. For example: Muslims believe that the other gods from other religions are false but that does not make them atheists. Can you please elaborate on what you mean with that statement and provide the evidence? Please specify which god you are referring to that is false.

Can you also perhaps state whether you believe there is absolutely NO god or not?

My position is that no one can reasonably state that there is absolutely NO God.
vi_spex

Con

if i am not a disbeliever and my position is god is false.. i must have a false position according to the theism i am opposing, because surely my position is not true? it has to be disbelief.. or your position is forfitted.. and you are an agnostic

atheism is disbelief, a theist is an atheist to all other possibilities to the contrary...

atheist=a theist, belief to the contrary

love for love, is hate for hate..

the more positive is the more negative by necessity of opposition for positive to exist.. the brighter the light is the more damage to my eyes from the light if any.. theism is positive atheism is negative

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

god as in creator, any god.. there can only be 1 god.. because the creator is the creation, because the creation cant exist without the creator

i have evidence god is false.. my position is i know god is false.. but i have to be an atheist according to a theistic world view

so, if i am unresonable in stating there is absolutly no god.. is it resonable to believe nature is a machine? or construct, intended, specified

nature is opposite of machine
Debate Round No. 2
kwagga_la

Pro

One of the laws of logic is that two opposites that contradict each other cannot be true at the same time. You state that theism=atheism. In this debate theism is the belief that God exist and the position for the atheist is that NO God exists. Therefore the two are not equal in being true at the same time unless you have your own definitions that differ radically from my definitions.

There are many different definitions floating around about what exactly atheism is, including your own brand of atheism because I do not think everyone will agree with your definitions. When Christianity started out, the early Christians were called Atheists because they denied the Roman gods. In this respect they were called Atheist because they denied the Roman god"s existence, but this did not mean that they did not believe NO God existed. The Christians obviously believed in a God while being called atheists. Today the most popular definition is to assert that if you are an atheist that you believe that there is NO God. I have stated that this is the position I argue against, because I specifically mentioned that the atheist I refer to belief there is NO God.

If your position is that God is false then you have not ruled out the possibility that a god can still exist. There are many false things that exist (for example a lie exists and is a reality). To say therefore that god is false is a contradiction if you believe there is NO god because the god who is false must exist to be false. I would say that the atheist lacks belief in God rather than say like you that "atheism is disbelief". However it is not as easy as you try to make it, disbelief can either be justified or not, rational or irrational. Disbelief, if considered as a rational justified belief to hold, implies you have all the facts and based on all the facts you decided not to believe. No one in this world have all the facts. In a universe where we don"t even know how big it is, we are just a speck of dust here on earth. What science have so far observed about the universe, according to some, cannot even be considered more than a 1% knowledge or understanding about what is out there. Does this sound like a logical position? To make an absolute statement like there is NO God when we do not even know 1% of what is out there? This is usually the point where the atheist will insist that he or she do not have to have all the facts. Wrong! You want to say a being who can go anywhere in the universe or who can stay anywhere He likes can ABSOLUTELY not exist and you don"t need to know what"s going on out here in order to know this? Where is the scientific positional basis for your evidence if you cannot verify anything? The atheist made an absolute statement that NO GOD can exist and is therefore obliged to verify it to prove that their position is rational. Somewhere around here the atheist will claim that you cannot prove that which does not exist. This is a totally irrational statement because lack of verification does not automatically imply non-existence. God is a being who can be anywhere He wants to be, until you have searched everywhere in the Universe for a God and did not find Him, don"t go around stating that He does not exist.

You say again that you have evidence god is false. Perhaps you can share this evidence in this debate?

Again, unless you have been everywhere in the Universe, seen everything in the universe and know all about the universe and did not find any God, I will say that you are reasonable to conclude there is no God. If you do not have this background information then you do not know much and there is an uncertainty factor about how true any of your evidence can be and therefore I will maintain my position that you are unreasonable if you say there is no God.

I disagree with the general statement that there can only be one god. There are many gods around, apparently you can even go to India and see some godmen walking around there. There is however, only one TRUE GOD who must have the nature, attributes and abilities to be distinguished from everyone else as the TRUE GOD.

If nature is a machine then you are unreasonable to assume that there is absolutely no God. From practical experience everyone knows that a machine cannot come about by itself. A machine can only work if an intelligent being worked out and designed the mechanics for the machine to be built and also worked out the guidelines of how the machine must be operated. Therefore this analogy that you used is not very good because it contradicts your statements. It is obvious that a machine needs an intelligent designer, and therefore a designer must exist.

Just some personal advice: If the light is too bright, try turning it off, closing your eyes or using sunglasses to prevent damage to your eyes. There are alternatives=514;
vi_spex

Con

theism is positive, positive cant exist without negative

you can not disagree with my position, it is true
Debate Round No. 3
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: H501// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con, but Con refused to capitalize and made no clear arguments. I call it like I see it.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to show how mistakes affected their understanding of the given arguments, and not to merely point them out to award this point. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides in the debate. Generalizing by stating that one side "made no clear arguments" is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by kwagga_la 8 months ago
kwagga_la
@ Heirio 2. There are 14 essential doctrines that must be true to make the GOSPEL (I"m only talking about the Gospel) valid. The essentials can be traced back into history and can therefore be used as a means to see what the correct interpretation was by the early believers when compared to the Bible. So, yes it"s possible to say that another Christian is wrong if they do not follow the doctrines. We have a "measuring stick". Within these 14 doctrines there are a minimum of 4 you must believe to get saved. Historically if someone did not hold to any one of these 14 points as true they were labeled as a heretic. Knowing this clears up a lot of questions why there was division amongst Christians, why they end up with their own different Bibles and many other assumptions etc.
3. Yes it was introduced by Paul, and it is basically about how we are saved by our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior through the grace of God. This also becomes a stumbling block for many in various ways because they do not realize that up until Jesus appeared to Paul and revealed to him the gospel of the grace of God, that no one else knew what it was.
If you want to argue against the Bible, at least try and see for yourself what the Bible teaches and do not trust what someone else dictated when it goes against the Bible or accept the popular views on Christianity that late nigh TV and Hollywood dreamed up. It"s only fair to give God the benefit of the doubt before completely saying He does not exist.
Posted by kwagga_la 8 months ago
kwagga_la
@ Heirio Thank you for answering the questions. I asked because it seemed to me that you know OF Christianity but not in depth. I will give you a quick response on the 3 questions, to mention some points to show you the depth it can go into in order to properly understand Christianity.
1. God is Spirit, transcended, uncreated, possess attributes that is a part of His nature that sets Him apart from any other being and exists as a Trinity. Without getting into an argument, let me explain something. The infinite regress argument states that if God created creation then who created God, and there we go into an infinite regress. The same is with evolution, was it a spinning benzene molecule? Then where did the molecule come from and then were did that come from which caused the something that caused the other into an infinite regress. The infinite regress argument shows only one thing, and that is that the infinite regress argument is irrational and not very logical to explain that which it questions. Although the argument structure might seem like a valid argument, the fact that it cannot provide an answer within the framework of that which is created or caused shows there is faulty reasoning at work. It becomes obvious that no logical reason can be found within the framework of that which can be caused or created to explain its origin so the alternative option must be something that is uncaused, uncreated or outside of creation (transcendent) that must have caused creation. The uncreated is not bound by time or space and falls into the category of everlasting that do not need a beginning. It is a logical alternative conclusion; although I cannot explain what exactly it is God does to be transcendent. However, I can understand the concepts of transcendence and everlasting.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
"1. Can you please define God as the Bible describes God."

That's gonna be a tough one. He's not bound by physical form, but can take physical form/features (like Jesus, who is said to be God). He is also supposed to be invisible. He's apparently very smart and apparently loving as well, despite the occasional genocide. He can be angry too. He is perfect and hence is unchanging and the physical universe doesn't limit him.

" 2. Can you please tell me what the Bible states you must do to be saved?"

Also a toughie, there are loads of parts in the Bible talking about this. Believing in God in a first, and it is implied that being without sin is also needed.

"3. Can you please explain to me what the gospel of the Grace of God is?"

It was called that by Paul, and it basically about how we're saved by our faith and the grace of God.
That was the only part I had to look up.

Are these questions tests of my knowledge on the Bible or do they actually have specific relevance?
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
" That's tone of th Many atheist, and I suspect you included, do not know the reasoning behind the possibility of a God, gods, true and false gods as stated in the Bible."

You haven't yet explained what you mean by a false god and a true god, despite me asking in a previous point.

"Instead you try to force your oversimplified choice of either God or no god on Christians."

Call me crazy but that's what Christians have told me. You're the only one saying otherwise.

"But to understand the concept you will have to open a King Jaqmes 1611 Bible and do some serious studying. I encourage you to do that. Anyone can claim to be a god for that matter, but what will make the claim valid is if it is backed up by the attributes you would expect ONE true God to have. The God who is supreme, who can make all other gods bow to His will."

This is confusing. Do you believe that other deities exist?

"It seems to me that you (although you are not singled out because I have made as similar statement in another debate"s comments) want to argue against Christianity, but you want to force your version of Christianity on me."

I'm sorry, but your version of Christianity, wherein you can be a Christian and still seemingly believe in multiple deities is not the norm. I have argued against many Christians and you are the only one to put forward this version, one which is not even entirely clear.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
I had literally just finished my response.

"If I say that there is ONE true God then there can obviously be one or more false gods."

What do you mean by this? By false God, do you mean a God that is worshipped but not in reality? By true God, do you mean the God that actually exists? What do you mean? You're not clear.

" The concept of a God or gods is not so simple as to say you either have to believe in them or not and when you chose one or the other that you contradict yourself."

It does when the doctrine of one of the Gods you believe in implies heavily that there are no other Gods..

"There are many people who have claimed to be God in history but they lack the evidence to back up their claims that you would expect God to have. "Believing in a true God but allowing therefore false gods in the equation is not a contradiction at all."

Again, what do you mean by true and false Gods?

" In the Bible you find this principle stated, that God refer to others as gods but distinguishes Himself from these other gods as the ONE true God."

What do you mean by true God? The God that exists?

"Can you name the 10 commandments while you are reading this without looking up now?"

Not in order, and not word for word. But I can try.
Don't murder.
Respect your neighbour, don't lie about them and stuff.
Don't covet stuff.
Don't make any idols of me.
Don't take any Gods before me.
Don't take my name in vain.
Don't do adultery.
Don't steal.
Keep the sabbath holy.
Honour your parents.

There we go. Not in order, but I'm pretty sure that's them.

"If you cant then maybe you must concede that perhaps you do not know that much about the Christian God you argue against. If you did know the 10 commandmets you would have know that one of the commandmets were You shall have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:3)."

I know that part very well, actually.
Posted by kwagga_la 8 months ago
kwagga_la
@Heirio Oh yeah, be honest. Don't go on the internet. Give your original unaided answers to the questions.
Posted by kwagga_la 8 months ago
kwagga_la
**King James 1611
Posted by kwagga_la 8 months ago
kwagga_la
@Heirio 1. Can you please define God as the Bible describes God. 2. Can you please tell me what the Bible states you must do to be saved? 3. Can you please explain to me what the gospel of the Grace of God is?
Posted by kwagga_la 8 months ago
kwagga_la
@Heirio If I say that there is ONE true God then there can obviously be one or more false gods. The concept of a God or gods is not so simple as to say you either have to believe in them or not and when you chose one or the other that you contradict yourself. There are many people who have claimed to be God in history but they lack the evidence to back up their claims that you would expect God to have. Believing in a true God but allowing therefore false gods in the equation is not a contradiction at all. In the Bible you find this principle stated, that God refer to others as gods but distinguishes Himself from these other gods as the ONE true God. Can you name the 10 commandments while you are reading this without looking up now? If you cant then maybe you must concede that perhaps you do not know that much about the Christian God you argue against. If you did know the 10 commandmets you would have know that one of the commandmets were You shall have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:3). Many atheist, and I suspect you included, do not know the reasoning behind the possibility of a God, gods, true and false gods as stated in the Bible. Instead you try to force your oversimplified choice of either God or no god on Christians. But to understand the concept you will have to open a King Jaqmes 1611 Bible and do some serious studying. I encourage you to do that. Anyone can claim to be a god for that matter, but what will make the claim valid is if it is backed up by the attributes you would expect ONE true God to have. The God who is supreme, who can make all other gods bow to His will.
It seems to me that you (although you are not singled out because I have made as similar statement in another debate"s comments) want to argue against Christianity, but you want to force your version of Christianity on me. Perhaps you can answer these questions for me so that I can test my hypothesis to see if I am not perhaps wrong. 1. Can you please define God as the Bible describe
No votes have been placed for this debate.