The Instigator
MRHumble
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Goooodstuff
Pro (for)
Winning
6 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 2 votes the winner is...
Goooodstuff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 666 times Debate No: 24513
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

MRHumble

Con

Atheist Food For Thought..
IF, "It's arrogant to believe that we're the only ones in our universe." Isn't it also arrogant to discount a supreme being? Remember the Egyptologists trying to decipher ancient runes and inscriptions in the 1800's, only to be declared wrong a century later? Some are so quick to put faith in "Theories" which by definition are not facts, yet look down on others for their belief in something which is just as equally unproven. There are millions world wide that feel they have a personal connection with some deity. If you looked scientifically at the percentage of people on earth that believed in a form of greater power, thinking of each individual as a test, and compared it to the number of non-believer test subjects odds are in favor that the majority feels there is something more to it than just science. What right do Atheists have to feel superior?
Goooodstuff

Pro

As it is late at night, and this was the only argument that interested me, I accept your challenge.

First of all, I would like to clarify what I am arguing for. Is it that Atheism exists? Is is that God is nonexistent? Is it that atheists act superior compared to religious persons. Or is it that atheists are indeed superior?

As this is my first debate, I am ignorant of format and customs of debates. However, I will try my best to use reasoning to argue my side ( whatever it is I am arguing).

I look forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 1
MRHumble

Con

I believe atheism is arrogant. You can browse YouTube and find many Atheist postings which
belittle others for believing in the existence of a greater power. You can find posts on social networking sites
of all kinds in which Atheists post wall posters and images poking fun of religion in belittling ways. If you believe
atheism is so much more correct and enlightened then please defend it. I'm tired of this superiority complex with many atheists I encounter, and want someone to defend their beliefs.
Goooodstuff

Pro

To start this off, I believe you meant to say that atheists, not atheism, are arrogant. I do not believe that a concept can be arrogant, rather people who believe in the concept can be arrogant. Therefore, I will try to prove that atheists are not arrogant while you will attempt to argue that atheists are arrogant.

So it is set. I will be attempting to prove that atheists are not arrogant.

There are two arguments that come with this one argument, and since you have not addressed which one I will be arguing for, I address them both. The two arguments are as follows:
1. All atheists are arrogant.
2. Some atheists are arrogant.

1. It is easy to prove that not ALL atheists are arrogant. It is obvious that some christians are arrogant. I have met a more than a few that could prove my point. However, this does not mean that ALL christians are arrogant, as I have met good-natured christians. What you are claiming is the same thing as claiming that ALL muslims are terrorists. It is an ignorant assertion. A simple google search will show you that there are and were non-arrogant atheists.

2. The second arguments is more difficult to argue. However, I do not believe that this is much of an argument. As I have stated above, some atheists are indeed arrogant just as some christians are arrogant, and just as some muslims are arrogant, and just as some hindus are arrogant. However, for the sake of this debate, I will address the premises you have provided for claiming that atheists are arrogant.

Premises
1. "You can browse YouTube and find many Atheist postings which
belittle others for believing in the existence of a greater power. You can find posts on social networking sites
of all kinds in which Atheists post wall posters and images poking fun of religion in belittling ways."
Would you say it is arrogant to claim something to be true if you truly believed that you claimed was true? For example, would it be considered arrogant if you claimed to believe in God? The atheists are simply asserting what they believe to be true. If both christians and atheists are publicly asserting what they believe in, why would you assume that one side is arrogant and the other not?

And as you asked, I will attempt to defend atheism. Lets first find out, what I am defending. According to dictionary.com, atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God. "

For times sake, I will say that there is no God because I have not seen or read any legitimate proof of its existence.

I look forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 2
MRHumble

Con

I'm sure not ALL Atheists are arrogant, but many are. Also, yes, I believe the concept of Atheism is very arrogant in itself. Why? because they often look down on people for being religious, thinking they are fanatical, or ignorant of science, while at the same time many believe "Theories" which are, by definition, not yet laws, though they treat them as fact. On top of that, there are many scientists that do not believe the Evolution Theory taught in our schools.
Chaos Theory is the study of how order can form naturally without design, simply created by matter and energy, waves, snow flakes, tornado s, ect.They will have their own basic pattern, yet never be the same. Every Snowflake is different, you can play with chaos theory using fractals, its quite fun. However, DNA, is an exquisitely designed coding system. DNA, is not merely a pattern, but a design. Each microscopic cell contains a DNA blueprint that has the plan for an EXACT replica of your body in it. A good example of design is music, you can hear it, and read the notes, it can be presented in two different equivalent mediums, all designs can always be represented symbolically. The 1's and 0's that create images on your screen as you read this, and more importantly, every language spoken on earth. DNA is literally a complicated language, and many scientists use linguistics based software programs attempting to decode it. Darwinian theory is a theory of RANDOM mutation, in mathematical tests, and controlled experimentation random mutation always ends up causing degraded information. Because information is in layers, you need an alphabet, but you also need syntax, grammar, and meaning, which has to be caused by an INTENT. Your Intent translates to an idea in your mind, which you can then translate verbally, or through your keyboard and display as a language. The receiver needs to understand your meaning, intent, and grammar, to understand your language. "You have a green light" could mean Your proposal was accepted, or , your driving and the lights green, so go, or literally you're holding a green light in your hand. The intricacies of grammar, context and intent give the translator your meaning. To be understood, language can only be changed from the top, "intent" down to the bottom, you cannot randomly mutate a sentence over and over, and have it be understood. It creates unreadable data. The problem is that EVOLUTION has been definitely recorded in many species, and not taking millions of years, in fact, University of British Columbia researchers say a small fish known as the stickleback took only three years to develop a tolerance for water 5 degrees colder than what their ancestors could handle. This process could not occur this quickly without INTENT. A language with "intent" is design, not a random pattern, and design as we know it has ONLY been created by intelligence. Furthermore, the "Language" of DNA, is more dense than any electronic information device we have ever created, and more complex than any existing code or language, yet contains all the same rules that scientifically classify it as language. Since "Intent" is necessary to language, language has to have been created by an intelligence, because Chaos, has no Intent. Regardless of religious affiliation, modern science is pointing toward a planned design in all life which cannot be explained through random mutation paired with natural selection, which is the premise of the Theory of Evolution. Rather, there is a complex language inherent in all life on this planet, that was created by intelligence, and programmed to let creatures adapt to changing environments. Evolution did reveal something scientifically amazing, but it seems what it revealed was initially gravely misconstrued. Scientifically its looking more and more plausible that "SOMETHING" intelligent did write the language of life as we know it.
Science is the pursuit of truths, why shun any contradictory evidence on bias of mere "Theory"
Goooodstuff

Pro

"I'm sure not ALL Atheists are arrogant, but many are. Also, yes, I believe the concept of Atheism is very arrogant in itself. Why? because they often look down on people for being religious, thinking they are fanatical, or ignorant of science, while at the same time many believe "Theories" which are, by definition, not yet laws, though they treat them as fact."

Again, my opponent is claiming that the concept of Atheism is arrogant. He continues on to say the "they of look down on people for being religious." I may be wrong, but I have met atheists but not atheism. I believe that the concept of atheism cannot itself look down on other beings because it is an idea, not a living person. Either my opponent has misinterpreted the definition of Atheism or he has met with beings called Atheisms. I will dismiss the ladder as it is preposterous.

If I recall correctly, my opponent was suppose to prove that "atheism is arrogant." However, all he has done so far is write a long definition of DNA and RNA and other signs of intelligent design. He has not mentioned why he thinks Atheists are arrogant. Even if all he claimed were logical (although I do not believe so), he did not even mention how all the information provided can point to his claim that Atheists are arrogant.

Although unnecessary, I will explain what I believe to be illogical in my opponent's information.

1. "On top of that, there are many scientists that do not believe the Evolution Theory taught in our schools."


And I am sure there are many scientists who believe in the Evolution Theory, so this is irrelevent.

2. "Scientifically its looking more and more plausible that "SOMETHING" intelligent did write the language of life as we know it."

Atheists have no problem believing that "something" had a role in shaping the universe. However, this "something" that they believe may be plausible is far from the God that judges individual beings, moreover tells individual beings to act in certain ways. The information my opponent hinted at "something" not a religious God. The information would have equally supported a claim that vampire elves from the thirteenth dimension created the universe.

As for the main argument, that "atheism is arrogant," which I still believe should be "Atheists are arrogant" (Anyways, the wording is not important.), I will not address.

As we have agreed, there were two arguments:
1. All Atheists are arrogant.
In this matter, my opponent has conceded by saying that "I'm sure not ALL Atheists are arrogant"
2. Some Atheists are arrogant.
Again, this is a matter of personality, not of belief. It is inevitable that some atheists are arrogant, just as some christians are arrogant. There is no logic in isolating the Atheist from the rest. In this matter, my argument from the previous round stands.

As the claim that "Some Atheists are arrogant" is obvious, it is not much of an argument. You can replace the word "atheists" with any other believers and the statement will still hold true. Therefore, my opponent must argue that ALL atheists are arrogant, which he has not done yet.

I look forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
MRHumbleGoooodstuffTied
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: Contradictory logic on the part of the CON through the debate and everything that was made on that side of the debate was effectively refuted by PRO.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
MRHumbleGoooodstuffTied
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: Con instigated and has the burden of making a clear resolution. He asserted "atheism is arrogant" which can be true only if every atheist is arrogant. But Con didn't prove that, and seemed to grant it wasn't true. Con's divergence into attempting to prove that belief in a scientific theory was arrogant was a major mistake; atheist may not support any particular scientific theory. some atheists take no position on origins.