The Instigator
funnydan97
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points

Atheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,020 times Debate No: 55943
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (9)

 

funnydan97

Con

Atheists say there is no God, and tell us that if there was, to prove it. That's like looking at a Norman Rockwell painting and saying that it evolved that way. There is no artist, because I can't see him. If there is, then prove it. But my argument is, there has to be a God, if not, then where did we come from?
Romanii

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate.
Since my opponent has not stated otherwise, I will assume that this round is for acceptance, only.
Good luck to Con!
Debate Round No. 1
funnydan97

Con

funnydan97 forfeited this round.
Romanii

Pro

Well... this is awkward...

I will assume that Con's opening statement was his only argument, then.
Based on the analogy he utilized, he seems to be implying that the universe is too complicated for it to have came into being by naturalistic means.
Since it is likely that he is going to forfeit the rest of this debate as well, I'm not going to put forth too much effort in explaining why naturalistic processes CAN explain the origins and development of the universe...


Cosmology- There is no reason to believe that it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence via the big bang without external cause. We have never observed nothingness before; we have never observed a plane of existence in which space and time do not exist. There is a very strong possibility that the conditions of pure nothingness are radically different to the point that our metaphysical intuitions, including that of determinism, no longer hold true. We simply cannot assume that the big bang must have had an external cause, as it would have come about from nothingness, a thing which we do not know enough about to jump to such conclusions.

Earth & Life- There are trillions of planets in this universe; we have already discovered many different earth-like planets just in our relative proximity, so it is not surprising that out of the trillions of planets out their, there would be several that are just like Earth. This shows that Earth having the properties it has is nothing special at all, refuting any notion that it must have been "fine-tuned by an intelligent designer to support life". We have also observed through simulations such as the Miller-Urey experiment that 6 simple elements (i.e. Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, Phosphorus, Nitrogen) make up the vast majority of organic compounds known to us. These organic compounds naturally react to form primitive cells, leading into the next step...

Evolution- There is ample evidence in the form of preserved DNA and fossil record that naturalistic evolution did happen. Random mutations at the genetic level cause certain traits to form within individuals. Some of those traits just so happen to be favored by the environment, allowing the individuals possessing those traits to survive long enough to reproduce and pass down those traits to their offspring. Eventually, through that process, entire populations "evolve" to possess those traits. This is the process known as evolution. It is clearly completely naturalistic and does allow for life to develop and gain complexity through the gradual addition of advantageous traits. Evolution adequately explains how life developed on Earth to the point that it is at today, and is also completely consistent with available evidence.


I have shown that not only is it possible, but that there is also plenty of evidence for the notion that the Universe came into being through completely naturalistic means, thus refuting the intelligent design/fine-tuning argument that my opponent seems to have made in his Round 1.

Hopefully my opponent doesn't forfeit all the remaining rounds...


Debate Round No. 2
funnydan97

Con

funnydan97 forfeited this round.
Romanii

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
funnydan97

Con

funnydan97 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
funnydan97

Con

funnydan97 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
such troll Envisage!
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
RFD 1/2

Full
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
RFD 2/2

Forfeit
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
RFD 1/2

Please see RFD 2/2 for RFD
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
RFD 2/2

Please see RFD 1/2 For the RFD.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
@PeacefulChaos

We do agree on some and I'm enjoying this discussion with you, but I think you are incorrect in stating that differences in religions are due to misinterpretations on the same text. I assume you are referring to the bible here, and Christianity, Judaism and Islam all stem from one original source, but there are thousands of other religions that have nothing to do with that text.

The problem with what you are saying is that you think you know the way religion should be practiced and you are accusing others of practicing it incorrectly. That is a mistake that far too many religious people make... Thinking they know the right way and then judging others for doing it the wrong way.

Many atheists make the exact same mistake. I, for one, don't claim to know the right way though. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god because I have yet to be convinced of any god, but I do not reject the possibility of a creator. I reject the idea of the biblical God because I can see the impossibility of such a contradictory being, but I don't claim to know what the true answer is. My problem with most religion is that it claims to know too much that it can't possibly know. If there was real evidence to prove what the religions claim then I would be willing to look into it further, but as of right now I have yet to be shown a shred of real evidence that the supernatural claims on any religion have any truth to them.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 2 years ago
PeacefulChaos
@Saska -

Yes, not everyone practices religion as it should necessarily be practiced, but this is due to different interpretations of the same text. We sadly have fundamentalists as extreme examples of what happens when religion is taken too literally, or people who believe everyone will go to hell if they do not accept a certain interpretation of a certain religion.

It seems we agree on this much, at least.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
@PeacefulChaos

I never claimed that what the churches say are good. But that doesn't stop many people from following out of fear of the unknown or the fear of burning in hell. Fear is a big part of religion for many people, even if they aren't willing to admit it.

You have an overly peaceful and positive view of religion. I agree with you that people should practice religion the way you describe it, but much like communism, the way it is in theory and the way it is in practice are two very different things.

When people are given the power to control others, too many people take advantage of that power. That is why we see priests taking advantage of children and Muslim leaders sending young men off to die in suicide missions. Too many people in power take advantage of that power and religion provides a means to a TON of power over people. Religious leaders have the ability to tell people how to live their lives.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 2 years ago
PeacefulChaos
@Saska-

I believe there is a miscommunication.

I do not claim to be a person who is representative of what all religious people believe or why people don't kill themselves. Rather, I claim that all religions are founded off of spiritual qualities such as those I have mentioned in my first post. This is something that is true, and it only requires knowledge of the world religions such as Buddhism, Babism, Christianity, Islam, and so on to know this.

Consequentially, we must not kill ourselves so that we can spiritually develop. This is what I believe our purpose is on this world. Other people may believe something different, but it is clear from the teachings of all major world religions that this is true.

"Many people don't kill themselves for many other reasons than out of some spiritual quest for God."

Such a quest would be in agreement with my statements.

"Some may just care too much about the people around them to hurt them in that way."

Indeed, because they love and care for their family and friends. Such qualities help develop the soul, and they thus continue to live. Alternatively, they may not want to die because they realize that there are people who rely on them. To die would be to stop serving them, and service to others is yet another way to develop spiritual qualities.

"Some are terrified because the church says they will burn for all eternity."

What the Church says is not necessarily true. It is what Jesus taught that is true. Ruling through fear is not necessarily a good thing, especially in such cases as this.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
Jjjohn
Not clear why a response to the essential lack of purpose would be to end the life. Why does life need a purpose to be meaningful?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
funnydan97RomaniiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
funnydan97RomaniiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
funnydan97RomaniiTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
funnydan97RomaniiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
funnydan97RomaniiTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
funnydan97RomaniiTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
funnydan97RomaniiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
funnydan97RomaniiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
funnydan97RomaniiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments