The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Atheism

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 4 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,855 times Debate No: 25740
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Anti-atheist

Con

You asked for debate
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

OK, I accept, but before you present your argument I will state the some rules and clearifications.

The Resolution shall be as follows: Atheism is most likely a fact.



~~Rules~~

1. No Semantics
2. 8,000 characters for arguments, however sources can be posted in the comments section if one has no room.
3. No Plagarism
4. No new arguments in last rounds.

Atheism will be defined as follows: The lack of an all-powerful being that created the universe.

Now with these presented, I leave my opponent to present his opening arguments.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Con

Ok I accept the rules

"Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God."

So athiest where did the universe come from? Where did the matter and energy comeform to make the big bang
Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.

Where do your morals come from? How do you know whats right and wrong without god
Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to.

According to TV Guide, a number of years ago, 96% of Americans actually believe in God's existence. Which means there's 4% that don't, which equates to something like 10 million atheists in the United States.

Whats more likely that 4 percent are wrong or 96%. uhhhh 4% duh!

Atheism is a faith which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism.

SO prove atheism is correct. Give us your best Proof and Evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.

of course men like Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind". Are you as smart as him?

Lets but god through occams razor

It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.

God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?

You see atheists don't disbelieve for intellectual reasons, but for moral reasons. They just want to sin, and so do you. You dont want a God telling you what to do. So you disbelieve. sad
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my oppenent for his response.

Rebuttal 1: Where did everything come from?

Greetings, my opponent has started out his case by using the one argument that is used the most in the debate of over the facts or fictions of the divine creation. He claims that nothing can not cause itself. I will prove this wrong by using one logical objection and one evidential objection.

Objection 1: Some things really do come from nothing

It has been observed that certain phenomina where random particles can appear and build up from out of absolutely nowhere [1]. This posses a challenge to my opponent since if something like this can happen, then it is proof that random reactions can build up and if given the right circumstances and the right amount of time, then it could explode andcause things we do not know like the creation of matter. Furthermore, the laws of nature would not have existed since nothing would have existed and even after matter was caused it would have taken a lot of time for the laws of nature to form so any attempt by my opponent to say that it is against the laws of nature will be in vein. Furthermore, it has been proven fact that evolution occured [2], and it has be accepted by the majority of the world's scientists [3].


Objection 2: What caused the creator?

My opponent then goes further on by saying that god must be the first cause. There aer two logical problems with this. The first being what is commonly refered to as the 'god of the Gaps Fallacy'. Just because we don't know something does not mean that a god created it or intervenes in it. And the second is that if something can't come from nothing or be caused by itself, then what caused this creator? What caused this god and him to become all-powerful. I tell you know that it is far more logical to believe or rather know that particles of energy can come from nothing, build up, and explode to become matter then it is that a there is a god that has always existed and he just decided to create our universe and wait 15 billion years for mankind to reach where we are now. My opponent's point is illogical.

Rebuttal 2: gods do not explain morality.

Here my opponent has stated the moral argument, but it holds no water. Gods are not need to explain morality. Morality is the result of intelligence. Our species homo sapiens as we evolved became equipped with intelligence that far exceeds that of all other species on this planet. As a result we are aware of things such as the feelings of others, the need for manners, we became aware of the consequences of our actions. We found out that as we created our own societies and interacted with one another, we were feld accountable ny others around us. Therefore, god is not needed for morality, and morality is not a explination for god.

Rebuttal 3: Popular opinions

Obviously, my opponent's third point is false because for one, the percentage of Atheists in America is at 16% [4], and Atheists are ranked third and close to second in the percentages of religious groups in the world [5]. Furthermore, just because a huge number of people say something happens, occurs, exists, is, etc. does not means that they are right. 99% of the world could believe that 2+2=5 but would they be right? No!

MY CASE

Contention 1: Lack of Evidence

Carl Sagan once made the claim that " Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" [6]. It is clear that the claim that a all-powerful god created the universe is a extraordinary claim. So, Where is the extradordinary evidence? Obviously, if my opponent is to win this debate he must prove that a god exists with some pretty good evidence, if not then I have already won this debate.

Contention 2: Omnipotence is impossible

If a creator is to be exist and be able to create the universe, then it must be all-powerful. However, the following scenerio will prove that to be all-powerful is in fact imposssible:

Can a god create a stone that can not lift? If he does then why can't he lift it? This resulting paradox is just one logical refutation of omnipotence. As you can see, gods are impossible.

Contention 3: Imperfect Design

Obviously our World and the Universe that it and we are in are not perfect. It has been proven that the age of the Universe is at least 15 bilion years old [7]. It took 15 BILLION years! to reach the point where we are now. If a god were all-powerful I doubt he would take so long to make something. Furthermore, the Universe and the Earth are both on there way to destruction, and no by gods, but by themselves. It has been determined that the ever since the the Big Bang, the Universe has committed to a outward expansion that will eventually result in all of it being plunging into the endless coldness of space [8]. And the even further, if one takes a look at the night sky they will see sometimes the Andromeda Galaxy. We are headed for a one on one collision that will result in the destruction of both us and it [9]. Every second a star explodes, and the life that was dependent on it is extenquished. Is this the world of a all-powerful god? or is it the work of random events? I say the second, because the odds are in it's favor.

I will now await my opponent's response.

Thank You.

Sources

[1]http://truthisscary.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://www.adherents.com...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[8]http://skyserver.sdss.org...
[9]http://www.nasa.gov...;
Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Con

Pro stated these particles that come from nowhere
Ok good. Where is a universe that comes from nowhere? Tiny particles are tiny particles NOT universes.

Who created God?

No one did. He cannot be God if someone created him. He always existed, always was just there

Pro says that humans decide morality through evolution(which is a fairy tale).But why is murder wrong? He doesnt answer why. If your moral standard is evolving and can contradict itself, can that system of moral determination be true since it can produce self-contradiction?

I'm saying that since a lot of people believe in God means its likely he exists. If 99% of the population say 2+2=5 then its likely it does. If 2 is redefined and a mathamatical law is redefined and 99% of the people agree, then 2+2 can = 5.

Lack of evidence
I have presented evidence. It is extraordinary proof and evidence. However you have not presented any extraordinary evidence for atheism.

Omnipotence
God can make a rock so big he cannot lift it. Then he would lift it. He can limit his power then become more powerful.

Imperfect Design

The universe is only 6000 years old.

The outer planets Uranus and Neptune have magnetic fields, but they should be long "dead" if they are as old as claimed according to evolutionary long-age beliefs. Assuming a solar system age of thousands of years, physicist Russell Humphreys successfully predicted the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptuneimg.[1]

The number of type I supernova remnantsimg (SNRs) observable in our galaxy is consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions. So NO the universe is NOT 20 billion years old, even if it was God is timeless so it dosn't matter.

Pro hasn't presented any extraordinary proof and evidence.

vote con

[1]http://creation.com...;
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Rebuttals

I will begin by quoting my opponent:

'Ok good. Where is a universe that comes from nowhere? Tiny particles are tiny particles NOT universes.'

My opponent obviously hasn't made a good refutation of this. As I said in my last round given the right amount of particles over a large amount of time can result in a large reaction such as the Big Bang. The very fact that this has the chance of happening proves that a creator alone is not the only way to explain the causation of the Universe.

My opponent then says evolution is a fairy tale. Of course 99% of all scientists are evolutionists and they are the ones who observes the evidence up close. The fossil record proves it to be true [1], we share 96% of our DNA with the Chimp[2], and we ourselves as embryos and fetuses we have tails and gills[3]. These things that we have are not things we used, so it has been concluded that they are left-overs from our long evolutionary heretage. There fore this that is claimed by my opponent (like all of the others) is flase. Morality is a result of our intellect.

I'm saying that since a lot of people believe in God means its likely he exists. If 99% of the population say 2+2=5 then its likely it does. If 2 is redefined and a mathamatical law is redefined and 99% of the people agree, then 2+2 can = 5.

My opponent's claim here is absurd. 5 is a concept that while, can be renamed, the concept can not! You can rename god in anyname you wish, but the concept would remain. You can rename 5, and the concept will still remain. Just because the majority is Theist and Deist does not make it the truth, no more then the majority of humans a thousand yours ago thought the world was flat and were wrong.

Defense of Contention 1

My opponent's claims were easily refuted, and the burden of proof is on him because is the challenger and the Theist. He is trying to prove Atheism isn't true, and I am defending it. He being the challenger and the defender of a positive claim has the burden to present credible evidence.

Defense of Contention 2

But can he do them at the same time? No. Plus, one can not limit power if they are all-powerful.

Defense of Contention 3

I contend that the methods such as carbon dating, melecular dating, and radioactive dating are all quite reliable for determining that the Earth, and the universe is billions of years old [4,5,6]. Furthermore, the length between the expanding planets tells us that they have been expanding for billions of years [7]. My opponent stated one speck of evidence, I am sure that if anyone proved that the Universe is 6,000 years old, then they would have gotten pier reviewed in at least one scietific magazine or the nobel prize. But no such thing has occured. Why you ask? Because it is not evidence for anything, and the evidence all points to not 6,000 years nor 20 billion. It points to 15 to 14 billion years.

Sources

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[3]http://www.skepticreport.com...
[4]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu......
[5]http://www.botany.wisc.edu......
[6]http://www.lbl.gov......
[7]http://skyserver.sdss.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Con

Give some observed evidence of these particles producing universes then! These particles go out of existence anyway so pro is either being deceptive or special pleading. How do we know these particles are uncaused? Because we don't know what causes them! Just because we don't know doesn't mean their uncaused. Particle of the gaps!

The fossil record shows nothing! There just bones you cannot prove the bones had kids. Many bones are just incomplete and fossilization is rare. So its an invalid assumption to say one creature evolved into another(because one like it may existed with it) or say that the creature isn't a life form that exists now(since they're incomplete and rare)

Fossils show that creatures are just variations. We have fish fossils then we have land fossils. Are you tellin me that the fish gave birth to land creature?

They use to say we share 99% of our DNA with CHimps, then somewhere between 98-99% now 96%. There is a diminishing evidence here. Some biologist say we share a lot of DNA with the worm and banana.[1][2] Yeah the worm must of birthed a human. Maybe the Ford and the Toyota all evolved from a skateboard after all they share a lot of similarities. We share 70% of our body with the ocean. Since we ae 70% water, maybe the ocean birthed a man? NO we have a common designer

We don't have a tail in embryo stage. Its our feet that are hunched up. And the "gills" are just folds in the neck because the embryo's head is hunched up to. Much like if you put your neck down you will have folds in your neck. If morality is a result of intellect if someones intellect is different the morals are different.

You say the concept can be defined then say it cannot. WHAT? Many people believed the earth was round it out numbered the flat earthers. We know that the majority a lot of times cannot be wrong because many philophers had to rethink concepts to appeal to the majority.

Contention 1

The atheist ran! He didnt give any proof or evidence that atheism is accurate or correct. If atheism needs no proof then its just a faith. So in the next round without evading or asking me a question give some valid proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.

Contention 2

Why do you state he cannot at the same time. Do you have proof he cannot at the same time? In quantum physics a particle can exist and not exist at the same time, this is known as a Quantum superposition[3]. So if God is all knowing and the creator of physics therefore he could create a quantum superposition of a rock that he cannot lift and can lift at the same time.

Contention 3

Pro assumes that the decay rates are constant. Which is the typical evolutionist assumption. Carbon dating doesn't date up to a billion or even a million. The expansion shows nothing. If the planets were expanding for 12 billion years or even 4 billion years the planets wouldn't be at the right place to sustain life. Pro then says since scientists think YEC is wrong it is. Well there are many scientists who accept young earth and reject evolution[4][5]. The reason why many scientists want to think the earth is 4 billion years old is because they hate God and are sinners.

[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[2]http://www.information-facts.com...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...
[5]http://creation.com...
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Rebuttels

R1: If something can come from nothing, then that's all I need. It is all I need for the flowing reasons:

1. It disproves my opponent's statement about something can not come from nothing.

2. It proves that it is possible that something such as the material need for the formation of the Universe can be brong forth through reactions of different particles. Which disproves the idea that a universal, all-powerful, and causelee god is the only why the Universe can come into existence.

These particles while not lasting long since some have high amounts of energy, can also stay for long amounts of time.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that a system can never have precisely zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, pairs of particles can form spontaneously as long as they annihilate one another very quickly. The less energy such a system has, the longer it can stick around. Thanks to gravity – the only force that always attracts – the net energy balance of the universe may be as close to zero as you can get. This makes its lifespan of almost 14 billion years plausible [1]. Furthermore, it is not this 'Particle of the Gaps' that my opponent has stated. Particles we have observed, Quantum Mechanics we have observed, and Evolution we have observed. A god is something that has not been observed.

R2: My opponent's refutation of the Fossil record is not even a refutation. He merely dismisses it with a bunch of unscientific babble that is not even worthy of a response. Fossil isn't as rare as my opponent wants to make the voters think. We have recovered 250,000 different fossilized species and the amount of fossils are in the millions [2]. DNA sequencing proves that all species share DNA with one another [3]. Virus's can even mutate into even stronger virus and can evolve a immunity against medcines and anti-viruses, so if you think take medicine then you defeat your own point of veiw because if it wasn't for Evolutionay Biology then we have died long ago from different diseases [4].

Different sources may differ from time to time, just like the different versions of your Bible. It has already been proven that all species on earth including plants come from a single common ancester [5]. My opponent fails with his analogy.

Science disproves my opponent yet again [6]. He should really state more sources for his claims. Also, Morality isn't objective. As David Hume argued one can not get an ought from an is [7]. Morality is relative and the proof is all throughout history. It used to be that Women could be raped and that was OK, and now it is considered wrong by the majority, Slavery used to be permissible, and now it is morally rejected by the majority, and even now the death penalty is being increasingly looked at as wrong.

R3: I said that one can redifiend the word, but the concept can not be changed. My opponent does not even sources this claim, so I will dismiss it without sources.

Defense of Contention 1

I have not ran. It is my opponent that has put up a failed attept to prove his claim. He challeged me to this to challenge the plausability of Atheism, therefore it is up to me to defend against his claims. He is also claiming that something exists, ehich means he alone has the Burden of Proof. If I say that I say that Ghosts are real, then it is up to me to provide the evidence, or else there is not reason to assume that what I say is true. The same goes to my opponent's claims of the existence of a god.

Defense of Contention 2

Does my opponent have proof that god exists? There is nothing in my opponent's source that affirms his claim. The idea that he can lift a rock that he also at the same time can not lift is illogical, and proves all-powerful gods can not exist.

Defense of Contention 3

My opponent's first claim is unsourced, and he ignores my other two methods that are used in predicting the age of the Earth. Planets are not expanding, the galaxies are expanding and sooner or it will expand to far to where nothing will be left. Also, my opponent's last answer is ignorant. Evolution is proven, god is not nor does it have evidence. Scientists do not accept Evolution and Sciencetific facts because they hate god, it is because facts are facts!. And there is no real reason to think that gods exist.

Conclusion

I have disproved every single one of my opponent's claims and have defended mine. I have proven that morality is relative and not objective, I have proven that Evolution and the old age of the Earth is fact, and have proven that there is no way that a god could be so stupid as to design a Universe and take 14 billion years to do so, and make species that inheret defects, and a Universe that is on it's way to destruction by random events. I have proven that Omnipotence is impossible, I have proven that the cause of the Universe does not have to be a god, but is merely science in action. My opponent has spent most of the debate trying to disprove Evolution, however, I have fented it off and I contend that even if evolution was false and the Universe is 10,000 it does not in no way prove the existence of a god.

Thank You

[1]http://www.newscientist.com...
[2]http://facstaff.gpc.edu...
[3]Douglas J. Futuyma (1998). Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates Inc.. pp. 108–110.
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[6]http://news.discovery.com...
[7]http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com...






Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
The Lack of Evidence for Theism and Deism are perfect evidence for Atheism. Plus as I said like three times already, YOU HAD THE BURDEN OF PROOF. I was you who wrote up the challenge to this debate and you were claiming something existed and that one philosophy is not valid. I WAS UP TO YOU TO PROVE YOUR CASE. Plus, I gave numerious contentions that were backed by countless sources that proved why Atheism is a permissible and viable philosphical position. Not only did you not refute my claims, but you gave phony evidence, but you also backed it with s that were not in the least bit credible. Therefore, you lost. And you are stupid and should feel stupid. Your rude commenting on the debate and your persistent denial of loss has proven that. Good day sir!
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
I really won the debate. Death ran from the question
"what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct"

He didn't give any! My arguments went unrefuted. The atheists showed favoritism to death just because he's an atheist!
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
I really won the debate. Death ran from the question
"what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct"

He didn't give any! My arguments went unrefuted. The atheists showed favoritism to death just because he's an atheist!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by happy-bread 4 years ago
happy-bread
Anti-atheistDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: It was painful to read Con...
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
Anti-atheistDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: Con only offered non sequiturs, conjecture, faulty pseudoscience and bandwagon fallacies. Terrible sources, might I add. Pro absolutely destroyed con. This is clearly manifest.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 4 years ago
XStrikeX
Anti-atheistDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con got obliterated. Repeatedly. This was rape in its severest forms.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
Anti-atheistDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: Some people need to be euthanized. And cast into the fiery pits of Mordor. In case somebody thinks this is a VB, read the debate.