The Instigator
FrackJack
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
johnlubba
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Atheism is more rational then Theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 5 votes the winner is...
johnlubba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,641 times Debate No: 34992
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

FrackJack

Pro

Round 1 Con makes his/her first arguments and accepts the rules I laid out.
Round 2 Clash.
Round 3 Clash and Con's closing thoughts.
Round 4 My closing thoughts. Con only posts this: "No arguments here, as accepted."



Theism is :

"...belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...



Atheism is:


Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings

  1. NO COPYING OTHER PEOPLES ARGUMENTS. If you do, it's a 7 point loss
  2. No semantics.

johnlubba

Con

I accept.

My Position as stated below is,

It is not my duty to prove that theism is more reasonable than atheism, but my opponents burden to prove that atheism is more reasonable than theism, my duty is to rebuttal all the arguments put forward by my opponent and give reasons as to why atheism is not more reasonable than theism, based only on the arguments put forward by my opponent, if my opponent fails to convince me or the audience that atheism is more reasonable that theism, I win the debate based on my opponent failing to prove the resolution is true,

Note, I have no burden to prove the resolution true, and therefore do not need to construct an opening argument that defends the resolution, I only have to wait and rebuttal my opponents arguments who has the burden to prove the resolution true. If I fail to do this then my opponent wins.

Thank you FrakJack for making this debate, and I look forward hearing your opinions as to why atheism is more reasonable than theism.
Debate Round No. 1
FrackJack

Pro

No, you may not post rebuttals R5. I never can reply. I find it cowardly.




Here is my opening:



Rational [thought].
1. The quality or condition of being rational.
2. A rational belief or practice.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Rational.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com...



Con is free to disagree. I'm not going to force you to use these, if you don't agree.




Point One.



One thing that really gets me on most Theistic arguments is that they can be used to prove any god. So, even you prove that a god exists, which one is really the one? This isn't my point but I want Con to think it over and answer it for me for why he might think the way he does.


I truly think that it is impossible to prove God. The guy is pretty much outside of logic and time. Holding faith over something is on par with me thinking that there is someone who lives on Pluto. I don't believe in the man on Pluto because I don't having any evidence for such. Replace the man with a teapot or the FSM for taste.


Back to Con. Sorry for the delay.
johnlubba

Con

I would like to thank Frackjack for her contribution. I would also like to mention that I requested a final round to rebuttal Pro, seeing as it is Pro's burden of proof to establish the resolution true, I have been accused of cowardice for this request, and nothing could be further from the truth. Anyhow I will continue and see how it goes.

I will now begin refuting my opponents argument, My opponent states,

"One thing that really gets me on most Theistic arguments is that they can be used to prove any god. So, even you prove that a god exists, which one is really the one?"

Above my opponent reasons that most theistic arguments can be used to prove any God, I do not actually agree with this, but by my opponents own admission, She believes that, MOST theistic arguments can Prove a God is there, but just not which God out of the many people proclaim. By this reasoning, that most theistic arguments prove God, then it would be more rational to believe in God rather than lack belief in God, which is what atheism entails. So here we see Pro has negated her own resolution.

Although I could end my argument here, and not continue, I will extend my argument and try to clarify a few questions that Pro put forward...

To begin with, Which God out of all the Gods people proclaim, is the real God.

First I would like to mention what classical theism accepts about Gods attributes, God is an absolute complete being, in other words, He is infinite, and also self sufficient is power. Absolute means no separation, So absolutely everything is Gods energy, either directly or indirectly, what do I mean when I say either directly or indirectly? Well just like when I use a microphone to speak through and my voice comes out of the speakers, that is my separated energy, also I would like to give another example How God can be Simultaneously one and different with His creation. And I would like to use the sun globe to portray my analogy.....

I would like my opponent and the audience to consider the sun and the sunshine, Both are the same in quality but different in quantity, the sunshine is an expansion or extension of the sun, and both share the same chemical qualitative attributes, they are in effect non different in chemical qualitative attributes, only in quantity. The sunshine being an expansion of the sun is able to be everywhere simultaneously, ( with the exception to night and day in different countries, but you get the gist) And the sun is situated mighty in a single spot,

This is how God is able to be everywhere and yet be situated in a single spot, Although the sunshine is an extension of the sun and shares the same chemical qualitative attributes as the sun, they are still different. Example: If the sun globe entered your window, you would be foolish to believe the sunshine entered your window.......This analogy shows how God is able to be one, yet different with His creation using his separated energy, Which is inconceivably one and different.

Now back to the question of which God is which, in my opinion there is only one God, because God is to defined in the very least, as Supreme, Supreme means highest in rank, But out of all Gods proclaimed by man, which is the real God?,

Well if God is infinite, meaning endless and self sufficient in power, then he is able to manifest into innumerable different entities using His separated energy and still remain a single entity, So in effect they can all be God or part of Gods separated energy. Just like gold is used to fashion different objects.....It is said that God is one who became many and so started the creation, so in effect nothing can exist outside of God or independently from God, so everything IS God or a part of his separated energy.

Inconceivably one and yet different with creation...

I thank the audience for sticking with me thus far and also thank my opponent and look forward to her response....

Many thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
FrackJack

Pro

Above my opponent reasons that most theistic arguments can be used to prove any God, I do not actually agree with this, but by my opponents own admission, He believes that, MOST theistic arguments can Prove a God is there, but just not which God out of the many people proclaim. By this reasoning, that most theistic arguments prove God, then it would be more rational to believe in God rather than lack belief in God, which is what atheism entails. So here we see Pro has negated his own resolution.

"So, even you prove that a god exists,". I never said anything that it is possible to prove God. What I was basically saying is that the KCA proves god as muchas it proves the FSM, but the FSM is treated as nonexistant.



Also I will say you haven't answered by question. WHICH God is it?

To begin with, Which God out of all the Gods people proclaim, is the real God.

First I would like to mention what classical theism accepts about Gods attributes, God is an absolute complete being, in other words, He is infinite, and also self sufficient is power. Absolute means no separation, So absolutely everything is Gods energy, either directly or indirectly, what do I mean when I say either directly or indirectly? Well just like when I use a microphone to speak through and my voice comes out of the speakers, that is my separated energy, also I would like to give another example How God can be Simultaneously one and different with His creation
This is how God is able to be everywhere and yet be situated in a single spot, Although the sunshine is an extension of the sun and shares the same chemical qualitative attributes as the sun, they are still different. Example: If the sun globe entered your window, you would be foolish to believe the sunshine entered your window.......This analogy shows how God is able to be one, yet different with His creation using his separated energy, Which is inconceivably one and different.



Is this a begging the question fallacy? Please. Let's prove god please. I could replace 'God' with 'FSM' and the logic would stay the same. This is the problem with Theistic arguments. I will not dive deeper because it is not worth answering. I be frank, I dont see why I should believe because the sun is shiny and shines everywhere. Why are you tying God with sunlight? This isn't a debate about God itself. This is a debate of why Atheism is more rational then Theism.



You have not proven my first point false. You have sidesteped it.



Back to Con.


johnlubba

Con

Again Thank you Frackjack for your response.

Now I will attempt to address Con's rebuttals.

Con states,

"So, even you prove that a god exists,". I never said anything that it is possible to prove God. What I was basically saying is that the KCA proves god as much as it proves the FSM, but the FSM is treated as nonexistant.

Firstly the FSM is not defined as having the same attributes as God, such as omnipotence and being an absolute infinite being, If the FSM is also given the same attributes as God then the FSM would also be God, because God by definition has all these attributes that make him necessary to be God.

For instance, I stated in my last round that God must be defined in the very least as Supreme, Supreme means first in rank, or highest in authority, if God is not first in rank then he is not God, because there would be another with a higher position who automatically claims the title of God, he would then be the highest authority.

Also in my definition of God in my last round, and my analogy of the sun and the sunshine being the same in chemical qualitative attributes, I state they are yet different things entirely , I state that God is infinite and all energy is Gods, either directly or indirectly, and He can manifest in innumerable different entities or objects if he so pleases, being self sufficient in power, so manifesting into a FSM is not an impossible feat for God if he chooses to create the FSM using his separated energy, he can. Not that he has, but if he chooses he could.

Also my opponent has tuned this debate into a proving God exists debate, by asking for proof of God, I am of the opinion that God's existence can not be proven, but God can be reasoned to exist by using strong supporting arguments for Gods existence, Not proof, but strong supporting arguments.

There is a difference between the two, a theist does not have proof God exists, but instead a theist has faith.

It is my opponents burden of proof to show that it is irrational for a theist to have faith in God, My opponent has not yet shown this, instead she has only offered her own personal reasons as to why it's seems irrational to believe in God.
My opponent has the task of proving all supporting arguments for God are irrational, to prove the resolution true. It is not my duty to prove they are rational but my opponents duty to prove they are irrational.

Below I will list twenty arguments that support the existence of God.

The Argument from Change
2.The Argument from Efficient Causality
3.The Argument from Time and Contingency
4.The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
5.The Design Argument
6.The Kalam Argument
7.The Argument from Contingency
8.The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
9.The Argument from Miracles
10.The Argument from Consciousness
11.The Argument from Truth
12.The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
13.The Ontological Argument
14.The Moral Argument
15.The Argument from Conscience
16.The Argument from Desire
17.The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
18.The Argument from Religious Experience
19.The Common Consent Argument
20.Pascal's Wager

http://www.peterkreeft.com...

Even if my opponent were to find all the above arguments as irrational, which I doubt, then my opponent also has the task of tackling every single argument a theist has ever put forward in the history of time, to verify the resolution as true.

Finally I would like to remind Pro and the audience that I do not have the burden of proving the resolution false, I only have the burden of offering rebuttals of my opponents arguments, in other words the resolution could very well be true, but based on the content of this debate, it is Pro burden to prove it, not mine. I was also accused of sidestepping the resolution when maybe it did get derailed by my attempt to answer the questions put forward by Pro.

Pro has not offered much reason why atheism is more rational and further has not offered any supporting arguments for atheism, whilst I on the other hand have offered supporting arguments for the existence of God and made an effort to answer the questions put forward by Pro.

I Thank Frackjack for making this debate, which has allowed me the opportunity to learn and gain experience in debating. as I understand it I am not to post anything in the last round so will gracefully bow out here.

Many thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
FrackJack

Pro

FrackJack forfeited this round.
johnlubba

Con

"No arguments here, as accepted."
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
I'd be glad to Frackjack, but just not right now, Sorry to hear about your internet going down.
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
O.Z
Oh please accept Con. I actually want to hear pros argument this time.
Posted by FrackJack 3 years ago
FrackJack
I am sorry Con. My Internet was down. I would like to have a rematch.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Strengths of argement may still be voted on with the missing round. Effectively due to pros odd rule this became a 3 round argument instead of 4.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Thanks, And good luck with your debates.
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
O.Z
But again, very nice debate. Con, I supported you a hundred percent all the way. That was very skillful of you. I would vote for you but I don't yet meet the criteria of being able to vote yet.
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
O.Z
What's with all the religious hate? You would think that after Ten thousand years of religion, people would have gotten used to it by now.
Posted by HermitBoy 3 years ago
HermitBoy
Sorry Con. I am on your side, but I do not see you putting forth the best argument. This is not about the existence of God as you seem to be going for. And Pro, you seem to be side-tracking on the whole "which God" argument.

This is a debate about which side is more rational. Pro, if you want a real run for your money, see me later to be schooled :) Theism is infinitely more rational than Atheism.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
You are welcome to vote TUF.

Although I find it odd you have decided to vote even before the arguments have been put forward...

That's very odd.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
I'll be voting this one
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
FrackJackjohnlubbaTied
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: Pro had the BOP, but didn't manage to make any good argument that atheism is more rational, Con still refuted Pro arguments successfully.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
FrackJackjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: It is far more rational to believe in the FSM... anyway on vacation, so i can't give these arguements quite enough consideration on strengths of arguement. However the missing round, and insults over con questioning the odd rules easily sway conduct.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
DoctorDeku
FrackJackjohnlubbaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by utahjoker 3 years ago
utahjoker
FrackJackjohnlubbaTied
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
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
FrackJackjohnlubbaTied
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