The Instigator
Tvirus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Atheism is right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 786 times Debate No: 53108
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Tvirus

Pro

Who challenges Me if you challenge me you'll get a hard debate to win but it is possible to beat me first you must come up with a worthy argument and see if it will be enough to win so let me begin for millenniums humans have believed in so many gods but now we say there all fake and that there is only one god why believe I a god that has no proof when when we so much evidence to prove evolution and the Big Bang theory when god has almost no evidence dinosaurs existed but the bible says nothing about them when the bible says it took god 7 days to create earth when it was formed after billions of years it says the earth is less then 20000 thousand years lets see if anyone can brogue with this
Truth_seeker

Con

My opponent will argue in favor of Atheism while i am opposed to it. I will now argue for my position:

The fact that dinosaurs existed and the Big bang is a proven theory does not disprove the existence of God as he logically created the universe, thus he is outside the boundaries of this realm. Where is the evidence to support that these gods are false? Pro has given no evidence. The fact that God has no evidence doesn't imply that he doesn't exist. The Bible may not mention dinosaurs, but that doesn't imply that it neglected their existence. The Bible doesn't necessarily support a literal 24-hour set of days taken for the creation. A day in Hebrew can mean a period of time, thus there is no contradiction. Atheism is not right because it fails to completely disprove God.
Debate Round No. 1
Tvirus

Pro

First let me say something about my Opponent I respect you greatly for your effort you put in your argument I respect those who always try to get and fight for what they believe I like you so far and I can tell so far this is going to be a great debate so lets continue . My opponent says that the reason dinosaurs existed does not prove god is false But I believe that is false because if dinosaurs existed then evolution existed and with evolution Come the dawn of the first humanoid creature witch adapted and grew more intelligent but sadly all but 1 survived homosapeans while we were the only one . In our DNA remains the DNA of on onother humanoid creature I forgot the name but it begins with n . My opponent claims that the Big Bang does not prove god but yet my research shows that the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but was the point of a new dawn were a the universe was like before the Big Bang . Also during my research I found that the universe is expanding but at an growing rate which is caused by inflation but if inflation doesn't stop everyone at he same time. Then what happen of it stops at one point and continues the multiverse which disproves god because in the bible it claims that god created the universe when if the theory of the multiverse I'd right then who created them .
Truth_seeker

Con

Dinosaurs existing doesn't imply that evolution is proven, thus it is illogical to conclude that God is false.

I am not sure what you are trying to explain in bringing up human evolution, so i would like for you to clarify your position.

You claim to have research showing the big bang was not the beginning of time, but a point in a new dawn, but this is false. The Big Bang theory describes the development of the universe, not it's origin (1). First of all, you haven't provided evidence for a multi-verse. Second of all, the concept of "heavens" (plural) in the Hebrew mind is not only made of the outer atmosphere of a planet, but also of outer space. Even if the multi-verse exists, God is still the creator. This does not disprove God.

Sources:

1. Wollack, E. J. (10 December 2010). "Cosmology: The Study of the Universe". Universe 101: Big Bang Theory. NASA. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 27 April 2011. "The second section discusses the classic tests of the Big Bang theory that make it so compelling as the likely valid description of our universe."
Debate Round No. 2
Tvirus

Pro

This is not my argument yet but here is my reason for not believing in god during most of my life I had terrible happenings happen to my life I never did I anything wrong I was a smart kid I listened to my mother but somehow nothing good happened in my life when my sisters were born it felt like the ignored me so I turned to god but nothing happened I read the bible and went to church but nothing happens a 1 day I met this girl who was atheist already on the brink of loosing my faith I realized what I did wrong was praying to a figment of human evolution the reason humans whant to believe in a god is not that he exist but they want answers to questions they want answers so that created gods all gods were crates so that humans would feel important look at what there doing to the earth why doesn't god stop them becouse ther no god don't get me wrong there is a possibilitie that I may be wrong but I see s much things that a god wouldn't want to see in his creation to do to a once buetifull planet . One reason why the dod doesn't exist is that . Unreliable Source: The only way creationism can ask a person to reject so much scientific truth that supports evolution is by offering its own source of more important and presumably more reliable truth. the Bible is Not a Perfect Text makes clear, the Bible may be a source of important truths, but it is not a source of historically and textually reliable truths. Creationists almost always affirm some form of biblical inerrancy " the belief that everything in the Bible is literally true " but such affirmations of inerrancy are not credible. Two Bad History: Creationism depends on a literal reading of the Genesis stories. However, a literal reading of these stories is a very recent phenomenon within the history of Christian thought. Not until the latter half of the nineteenth century did such biblical literalism get a significant public defense. Prior to this period, just about every major Christian thinker, from Origin, to Augustine, to Aquinas, to Luther and Calvin, affirmed an allegorical reading of the Genesis stories of creation. Creationism is thus an innovation in Christian thought, not a defense of traditional Christian truth. [However, even Christians who have affirmed an allegorical reading of Genesis often still seem to affirm a literal sense of the Fall of humanity, presumably from some original act of sin, usually committed by some original human person couple. While I do not find this allegorical/literal method consistent or compelling, it does not detract from the conclusion that a strict literalism regarding Genesis 1-3 is a very recent position in the history of Christian thought . 3 3. Bad Science: Despite the work of Henry Morris and others to develop so-called "creation science," these efforts to create a scientific foundation for creationism have been a dismal failure. For example, no model has ever been created to explain successfully either where enough water for a global flood came from or where it went after the flood. Additionally, not even one essay in creation science has been accepted in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead, creationists produce journals where they talk to each other. Finally, creationists are again, and again, and again, wrong on the facts when they try to refute evolution. This would be very tiresome if it were not for the fact that affirming false facts can always sound impressive to people who do not realize that what is being affirmed is false. Mark Isaak"s book The Counter-Creationism Handbook makes very clear just how often creationists make claims that depend on false claims. Needless to say, such a practice is a clear sign that one is defending a very weak position. 4 4. No Consistent Position: Creationists cannot agree on what it means to be a creationist. Today, young earth creationism (which, against massive evidence to the contrary, affirms that the earth is 6-10 thousand years old) is the dominant position, but there are still many old earth creationists (a position that did not require rejecting almost all findings of modern geology), the position that was originally more dominant. Additionally, creationists are divided on the question of whether or not the flood was a local phenomenon, or a global one. Creationists disagree with each other over the question of whether or not God continues to create new species, or if such new species have actually evolved since God"s initial creation and the flood. Thus, if someone asks you if you believe in creationism, you might first ask them what they mean by the term. This disagreement among creationists is not comparable to disagreements among scientists who affirm evolution. There is universal agreement among the supporters of evolution regarding the basic features of evolutionary theory. Disagreements arise over particular mechanisms for evolution, or particular explanations of the evolution of a particular species. 5 5. Not Falsifiable/Testable: Evolution is, in theory, vulnerable to countless falsifications and countless tests of its truth. Find a single species that fails to display all of the major fingerprints of evolution, find a single fossil that is not where it is supposed to be in the geologic column, etc. and evolution would have a problem on its hands. It would have to explain the anomaly. That is, evolution is falsifiable. Rather amazingly, given the millions of species on our planet and the millions of fossil findings, no compelling anomalies have been found. Creationism, however, is invulnerable to falsification. Every apparent falsification can be ignored by appeal to "mystery" or the limits of human understanding. Generally speaking, arguing with a claim that cannot be falsified either empirically or on the grounds of coherence is a waste of time. The philosopher Bertrand Russell made this clear with the example of "Last Thursdayism." In theory, the entire world could have been created last Thursday and all of the memories we have of life before last Thursday could be part of the initial set up of the creation. Of course, one could never test or disprove this theory, and believing it adds nothing to our understanding of the world. Creationism is just like Last Thursdayism. There are really only two reasons to argue with creationists; first, to help them understand why so many people think their affirmations are ridiculous; and, second, to stop them from causing trouble, either in our classrooms, or our society.5. Not Falsifiable/Testable: Evolution is, in theory, vulnerable to countless falsifications and countless tests of its truth. Find a single species that fails to display all of the major fingerprints of evolution, find a single fossil that is not where it is supposed to be in the geologic column, etc. and evolution would have a problem on its hands. It would have to explain the anomaly. That is, evolution is falsifiable. Rather amazingly, given the millions of species on our planet and the millions of fossil findings, no compelling anomalies have been found. Creationism, however, is invulnerable to falsification. Every apparent falsification can be ignored by appeal to "mystery" or the limits of human understanding. Generally speaking, arguing with a claim that cannot be falsified either empirically or on the grounds of coherence is a waste of time. The philosopher Bertrand Russell made this clear with the example of "Last Thursdayism." In theory, the entire world could have been created last Thursday and all of the memories we have of life before last Thursday could be part of the initial set up of the creation. Of course, one could never test or disprove this theory, and believing it adds nothing to our understanding of the world. Creationism is just like Last Thursdayism. There are really only two reasons to argue with creationists; first, to help them understand why so many people think their affirmations are ridiculo
Truth_seeker

Con

Once again, my opponent did not present evidence for humans created God to answer their deepest questions, thus we cannot verify his claim. While yes, creationism is a specific interpretation of the Bible, it does not imply that it is the only correct interpretation as the Bible has many different kinds of literature. A good student of the Bible seeks to understand the Bible in it's ancient historical and cultural setting.

To summarize my position, this does not make atheism right. This is aimed a particular group of people who hold a particular set of biblical interpretations, assuming that this is what the Bible teaches when this is a flawed approach. Disproving creationism does not equal disproving the Bible if the Bible conflicts with this mode of thought in the first place.
Debate Round No. 3
Tvirus

Pro

Truth_seeker you are driving me to the point of insanity I give you so many reasons yet you claim there not reasons here's the rest . 1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.

When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.

All these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it"s caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?

Exactly zero.

Sure, people come up with new supernatural "explanations" for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources? Again " exactly zero.

Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don"t have a thorough explanation " human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the Universe " will be best explained by the supernatural?

Given this pattern, it"s clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn"t understand the world as well as we do now" but that, on more careful examination, has never once been shown to be correct.

If I see any solid evidence to support God, or any supernatural explanation of any phenomenon, I"ll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I"ll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.

(Oh " for the sake of brevity, I"m generally going to say "God" in this chapter when I mean "God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being or substance." I don"t feel like getting into discussions about, "Well, I don"t believe in an old man in the clouds with a white beard, but I believe"" It"s not just the man in the white beard that I don"t believe in. I don"t believe in any sort of religion, any sort of soul or spirit or metaphysical guiding force, anything that isn"t the physical world and its vast and astonishing manifestations.

2: The inconsistency of world religions.

If God (or any other metaphysical being or beings) were real, and people were really perceiving him/ her/ it/ them, why do these perceptions differ so wildly?

When different people look at, say, a tree, we more or less agree about what we"re looking at: what size it is, what shape, whether it currently has leaves or not and what color those leaves are, etc. We may have disagreements regarding the tree " what other plants it"s most closely related to, where it stands in the evolutionary scheme, should it be cut down to make way for a new sports stadium, etc. But unless one of us is hallucinating or deranged or literally unable to see, we can all agree on the tree"s basic existence, and the basic facts about it.

This is blatantly not the case for God. Even among people who do believe in God, there is no agreement about what God is, what God does, what God wants from us, how he acts or doesn"t act on the world, whether he"s a he, whether there"s one or more of him, whether he"s a personal being or a diffuse metaphysical substance. And this is among smart, thoughtful people. What"s more, many smart, thoughtful people don"t even think God exists.

And if God existed, he"d be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don"t see God in even remotely the same way?

The explanation, of course, is that God does not exist. We disagree so radically over what he is because we aren"t perceiving anything that"s real. We"re "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brain that"s wired to see pattern and intention, even when none exists, is inclined to see and believe.

3: The weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics.

I have seen a lot of arguments for the existence of God. And they all boil down to one or more of the following: The argument from authority. (Example: "God exists because the Bible says God exists.") The argument from personal experience. (Example: "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists.") The argument that religion shouldn"t have to logically defend its claims. (Example: "God is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence.") Or the redefining of God into an abstract principle" so abstract that it can"t be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name God. (Example: "God is love.")

And all these arguments are ridiculously weak.

Sacred books and authorities can be mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred book that doesn"t have any mistakes. (The Bible, to give just one example, is shot full of them.) And the feelings in people"s hearts can definitely be mistaken. They are mistaken, demonstrably so, much of the time. Instinct and intuition play an important part in human understanding and experience" but they should never be treated as the final word on a subject. I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves," and I offered as a defense, "I know this is true because my mother/ preacher/ sacred book tells me so"" or "I know this is true because I feel it in my heart"" would you take me seriously?

Some people do try to prove God"s existence by pointing to evidence in the world. But that evidence is inevitably terrible. Pointing to the perfection of the Bible as a historical and prophetic document, for instance" when it so blatantly is nothing of the kind. Or pointing to the fine-tuning of the Universe for life" even though this supposedly perfect fine-tuning is actually pretty crappy, and the conditions that allow for life on Earth have only existed for the tiniest fragment of the Universe"s existence and are going to be boiled away by the Sun in about a billion years. Or pointing to the complexity of life and the world and insisting that it must have been designed" when the sciences of biology and geology and such have provided far, far better explanations for what seems, at first glance, like design.

As to the argument that "We don"t have to show you any reason or evidence, it"s unreasonable and intolerant for you to even expect that"" that"s conceding the game before you"ve even begun. It"s like saying, "I know I can"t make my case " therefore I"m going to concentrate my arguments on why I don"t have to make my case in the first place." It"s like a defense lawyer who knows their client is guilty, so they try to get the case thrown out on a technicality.

Ditto with the "redefining God out of existence" argument. If what you believe in isn"t a supernatural being or substance that has, or at one tim
Truth_seeker

Con

I will now present my counter-arguments.

I refute Pro's claim that there are natural explanations replacing supernatural ones. Throughout the Bible, diseases, evil, and good are all determined by God. Yes, there might be a natural explanation for why that person is being affected by a particular phenomenon, but does that completely rule out God at work? Absolutely not as natural explanations cannot replace what is supernatural.

What caused this universe to come into being? As i've pointed out before, the big bang theory describes the development of the universe from a single point, it does not explain how that single point came into being. Pro has failed to provide ample evidence for how we got here.

My argument rests on divine revelation. God exists based on experience. Science rests on observable data, however he has failed to provide a reason for why Science and Atheism are the only means of finding truth.

2. Just because there is no agreement between world religions on God, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. There are disagreements on the theory of evolution, should we then conclude that evolution isn't proven? I'm sure you wouldn't go by that logic. Just as you go by the observations of evolution to conclude it to be true, regardless of what people think, we go by an experience of God himself, regardless of whether people accept him as Lord or not. Once again, what God does, what he wants from us, how he acts, what his being is, etc. is all given by divine revelation of the Bible.

To answer your question "And if God existed, he"d be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don"t see God in even remotely the same way?" He is all-powerful because he is invisible. A tree can be destroyed, it can perish, and fall, but with God, absolutely nothing can destroy him as he is beyond natural limits.

3. You haven't given a solid argument for why the Bible is mistaken. Some of your objections to believing are rhetorical questions or arguments with a faulty understanding of God. On another note, the analogy you gave is inaccurate. We don't base reality on the feelings on our hearts, we base it on a revelation of God's Word. We as Christians simply trust what God says about himself through his Word.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tvirus 3 years ago
Tvirus
Ran out of chats ters so I couldent finish my statement
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Omg the last comment...

I think your title is ambiguous. What does "atheism is right"?
Does it mean that you are an gnostic atheist? I mean that you actually believe that you can prove god false?
Or does it mean that someone have very good reason to be an atheist.
Posted by Jesus_christ_loves_You 3 years ago
Jesus_christ_loves_You
The big bang theory is false because how can the ability of nothing create something so big as the universe? How can "nothing" create us? How can nothing create something?It can't, because "nothing" lacks the ability to so something. "Nothing" can simply do nothing. It's simple as that. Sweetheart that's just common sense. :) For evolution, sweet heart, I don't come from a monkey. I come from the One True God, who created me, I am a Child of the one true King. And one day everyone will stand face to face before God. It will be a happy day and a terrible day for people. For me, it is going to be the happiest day of my life, when I see God,Jesus and The Holy Spirit. And anyways, where does these monkeys come from? Are you saying that God created the Monkeys? There you go, God is real. Why do people hate God so much if people don't even truly know Him. If you would truly know Jesus you would love Him so much, and you would regret everything you did against Him. It's a good thing God gave us Jesus to die for our sins, Repent now before it's too late. No offense. :) Jesus Christ Loves you! All of you! Everyone so Much! Jesus Christ died on the Cross for everyone's sins because Jesus Christ Loves everyone and then three days later after Jesus died,Jesus rose from the dead! Jesus Christ is The Son Of God! Jesus Christ Is coming back for His People very soon, (All the signs that The Rapture is soon from The Holy Bible are completed, the signs are still going to happen, but there completed) if you want to be part of Jesus Christ people, want to be saved and want to go in The Rapture to heaven, you have to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you got to say sorry for all of your sins,every time you sin say sorry for all of your sins to Jesus Christ, and you got to stay believing until the end of God time for you, and at that very moment when the Rapture happens and The Trumpet sounds your not in sin. Then you will go in The Rapture to heaven. If you want to accept
Posted by Tvirus 3 years ago
Tvirus
I am not an idiot I get so consist rated on my argument I forgot them but please have som respect for others it will be nice even if you don't like it
Posted by Tvirus 3 years ago
Tvirus
Don't worry I'll be a hard person to win so let this guy try to win but there's no 100% chance Ill win so accept it
Posted by Tyler5362 3 years ago
Tyler5362
There are so many incomplete words and thoughts... Also, it is a huge run-on sentence.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
I want to accept this, but that'd be noob sniping.
Posted by Tvirus 3 years ago
Tvirus
Thanks
Posted by Tvirus 3 years ago
Tvirus
What do you mean proper grammar
Posted by Tyler5362 3 years ago
Tyler5362
I think you should retype this and use proper grammar...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
TvirusTruth_seekerTied
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 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: Much stronger argument made by con. Better sources, better grammar, and better conduct go to con as well.
Vote Placed by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
TvirusTruth_seekerTied
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 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: Though I fully agree with Pro's stance, Con won this debate outright. Pro attempted to prove atheism true by making an argument against just one god, but it takes much more than that to win this argument. Plus, trying to read one giant paragraph with no breaks was just painful.