The Instigator
SweeneyTodd
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
mbm16
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Atheism is more reasonable and positive than Deism

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 5 votes the winner is...
mbm16
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 712 times Debate No: 58652
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

SweeneyTodd

Pro

From my understanding, a lot of people call themselves deists because they think it's better to believe in something rather than nothing: it's more optimistic and more logical. I not only think it's silly to choose deism over atheism but atheism is definitely more optimistic.
mbm16

Con

I'd like to start with a few definitions, if you don't mind, for the sake of clarity.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods [Google]

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifially of a creator who does not intervene in the universe [Apple].

Furthermore, this question embodies two components, which I will rebut seperately.

1) Atheism is more reasonable than deism.

I'm assuming you make this argument based on the fact that a majority of scienctific principles contradict almost every religious principle. However, no such principle directly contradicts the existence of an omniscient, or omnibenevolent god. Deism holds that science does not disprove a god's existence and the two could coexist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. There is no way to decide which belief - deism, or athiesm - is more "reasonable," because there is no way to disprove the existence of god, or to prove the lack of existence of a god.

2) Atheism is more positive than deism.

How so? Deism is simply the belief that god does not interfere with humanity. What about that makes it less positive than Athiesm, which we can all degree has a very realistic (meaning NOT POSITIVE) take on life after death.
Debate Round No. 1
SweeneyTodd

Pro

I thank you for further setting up the debate in a more orderly fashion. I will tackle the first statement that atheism is more reasonable than deism in this round.

Now, the concept of gods were invented by ancient, scared and ignorant people who knew nearly nothing about the world, and gods were used to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Why would we today impose an ancient, primitive concept onto our knowledge we have now? You might as well say fairies created the universe.

If you want to say, 'a supernatural,' rather than, 'god,' because the latter is outdated then fine. The deistic god by definition is not a falsifiable claim, just like invisible unicorns or fairies that only appear when no one's looking.You can neither prove nor disprove it's existence. This doesn't mean you blindly uphold a belief in it! I would argue that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Unless you have evidence or good reason to believe in something, you should not believe it.

Deism is such a broad and ambiguous belief; what from nature draws you to the conclusion that only one god did it? For all we know there could be many gods, and you couldn't prove otherwise. For all we know, these gods are magical gingerbread men. We don't know; we can't know because it's a man-made, imagined concept to begin with. You can keep adding and adding to it because it is our own creation.

I would say that just because we do not know something doesn't make assuming the supernatural any viable. We don't know how the pyramids were built; there are theories, yes. Saying that gods helped build them or aliens helped without any reason is absurd.

You may argue that the creation is evidence enough to suggest at least a deistic god, however, I would further argue that gods in the first place are the products of a primitive people creating mythology and fiction to explain what they didn't know. When you say god must have done it because we simply would not know otherwise, you're doing the same thing our ancestors did when they created the gods.

Until we have any good reason to believe in the supernatural, don't believe in it. Atheism is a lack of belief in all gods, because gods are an ancient superstition and should be left in the past, not legitimately pondered here in the present. With each new scientific find, the need for gods dwindles. We know how earthquakes happen and we know they're not caused by the gods anymore.

We may never know exactly where everything came from, but saying god created it, then packed his/her/its bags and left is not reasonable, and it's better to say, "We don't know. We may never know."
mbm16

Con

"Now, the concept of gods were invented by ancient, scared and ignorant people who knew nearly nothing about the world, and gods were used to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Why would we today impose an ancient, primitive concept onto our knowledge we have now? You might as well say fairies created the universe."

Whoa whoa whoa, hold you horses. You have NO evidence, anthropological or otherwise, that suggests that the belief in a higher power was "created" by primitive individuals. Is this most likely the case? Perhaps. However, we modern humans are only able to think within our own capacity, and we have no evidence to support the fact that these ancient people were wrong. Does the fact that god may or may not have been first imagined by ancient peoples wishing to "fill in the gaps" diminish the likelihood of there actual being a god? Of course not!
Now, let's distinguish that there is a difference between probablity and reasonability.
Your debate topic was that Atheism is "more reasonable" than deism.

Now, let's cue the definition of "reasonable," shall we?
Definition: "having sound judgment; fair and sensible" [Google].

Now, since we - you, even - have already established that we can't prove or disprove the existence or lack of existence of a god or anything "supernatural," for that matter, we CAN NOT accurately compare the reasonability of Atheism and Deism.

Why?

Simply, something being true is just as reasonable as something not being true. I don't think that believing in the existence of the supernatural is anything beyond what one would consider sound judgement. I'd even call it logical. After all, you there one to claim that ancient people interpreted the existence of god as one which "filled in the gaps" of the unexplained. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing that makes god's existence unreasonable.

Let's be reminded of the debate topic: Atheism is more reasonable and positive than Deism.

It is important to make the distinction that Atheism is the lack of belief, while Deism is an actual religious belief.

You can't say it is more reasonable to not a have a belief in a god than it is to believe there is a god that does not intervene with humanity.

Why?

HUMANS ARE NOT OMNISCIENT. As it happens, however, there is more evidence that points to the existence of a god than there is evidence that contradicts god's existence. No scientific principle contradicts the presense of the supernatural, especially when it comes to Deism, the belief that science and god can coexist. However, religious texts (even if it is absolute BS) have long influenced human belief in the supernatural. When such a myriad of religious writings point to the same conclusion - the existence in a god - how can you call such beliefs unreasonable? The average religious person doesn't just wake up one day and say "gee, I can't wait to meet that friendly sky man!" There are historical forces at work that make all religions - including deism - logical and reasonable.


Debate Round No. 2
SweeneyTodd

Pro

We can trace the evolution of God back through human history, from when monotheism began to polytheism. It actually all began as a deistic belief. Many of those people thought the world was flat because it seems flat, but no, it's not.

We know how planets and stars form, naturally without the assistance of the divine. Science leaves no room for the supernatural. The space where we don't know things does not say, "Insert supernatural here." NO. The supernatural cannot even be demonstrated as true.

Just because it can't be disproven doesn't make it true. Until whatever the hell you mean by, "God," comes down and speaks unicorns into existence, we've just as much sense to conclude where the evidence leads us: that the universe came about by natural means, since with every further scientific discovery, we learn more and more that's how things happen, naturally.

Now to explain why I think atheism is more positive than deism. To be a deist you have to believe that god created our planet and our universe in extreme chaos, quite possibly with enjoyment, we can't know. How can you know this god isn't evil and just watches us humans kill each other over whose right about him/her/it? How can we know that this god sits from afar with his arms folded, watching humanity plummet to extinction, quite possibly with enjoyment? Most likely, actually.

There is so much chaos, violence and tragedy in the world, it's quite possible that the deistic god is just watching with pleasure because it's naturally evil and enjoys watching the misfortunes of its creation. What reason have you to believe that god is somehow distant from the universe? I will put this one step further: How do you know that when we die, this evil god won't throw us all into hell simply for the pleasure of doing so? It's easier to conclude that if there is a deity, it's cruel. If it's cruel and doesn't intervene in human affairs, how do we know it's not going to punish us even further once we die? We don't. You can't, because you can just keep adding to it because it's an imaginary, man-made concept. There is not evidence, thankfully, for a deity.

I submit to you that atheism for this reason is not only more reasonable but more positive. Deism doesn't promote the idea of an afterlife, necessarily, so the only thing you can hope for if you are a deist is that the character of this deity I just described is inaccurate, and we'll either not exist when we die or it'll prepare a more pleasurable afterlife for us to enter. But none of this has evidence; it's just hope; it's just wishful thinking. There's no reason to conclude that there is a deity given the natural harmonics of the universe, and thank goodness for that.
mbm16

Con

mbm16 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SweeneyTodd 2 years ago
SweeneyTodd
Atheism is not the belief that the universe came out of nowhere. All being an atheist means is that you dismiss the existence of all gods because of the lack of evidence. It does not require you hold a belief in naturalistic theories, though, most do. Deism cannot be disprove, it is not falsifiable, and cannot be tested, or demonstrated or observed, which makes it silly to bother believing it.

Atheists have a standard of morality that I think is better than the theist's, because theists do good to gain access into heaven, whereas atheists do good for goodness sake because if everyone went out and cheated on their spouse and raped each other then life would be pretty shitty.

That brings me to my third point: if this life is the only life you are ever going to have and it could be gone tomorrow, doesn't it make life seem more valuable? Life is too short to be mean and cruel and stupid. The grave will provide time for silence. If you believe in an afterlife, then who cares what you do now because you'll have eternity to make up for it or whatever. Life is especially too short and precious to be wasted on devoting it to praying to an imaginary friend.

It's a hell of a lot more positive than saying, "Love me or burn!!" Pay attention to the rest of a debate where I'll further expound on this.
Posted by Kosovar 2 years ago
Kosovar
Atheism really isn't more reasonable as it basically is the belief that the Universe came out of nowhere. I get that a single hot, dense point just suddenly started to expand, but there is no explanation for how that point came to exist and how this could disprove God. I am also baffled about why you say atheism is more positive, with the freedom of religious law, atheists (not saying all atheists) feel that it's fine to, say, cheat on your wife. Another way atheism is more negative, rather than positive, is living your life believing that once you are dead, there is nothing to look forward to. How is that positive?
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Three rounds and 3K characters are too short for this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SweeneyToddmbm16Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by telisw37 2 years ago
telisw37
SweeneyToddmbm16Tied
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: Pros case was totally weak.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
SweeneyToddmbm16Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
SweeneyToddmbm16Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
SweeneyToddmbm16Tied
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: Pro used a lot of assumptions, and biases; both had good spelling and grammar. Con had a lot better arguments because he didn't force assumptions and opinions in his Debate. Like about 'Now, the concept of gods were invented by ancient, scared and ignorant people who knew nearly nothing about the world, and gods were used to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.' Have you been in the past? No. Con gets reliable sources because Pro assumed Science has no room for religion. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."