The Instigator
SenorSwanky
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
The_Master_Riddler
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheist beliefs are incongruous with the tenets of science.

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 8 votes the winner is...
SenorSwanky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,253 times Debate No: 29831
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (8)

 

SenorSwanky

Pro

The belief system of atheists is contrary to the teachings of science.

Atheist beliefs are in contradiction with the nature of science, more specifically:

1) The empirical nature of the physical world.
2) Inductive reasoning.
3) Not seeking an absolute truth.

Thank you for considering the debate.
The_Master_Riddler

Con

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I am not an atheist, but I know all I have to do is find one belief that doesn't contradict with science and I win the debate.

Pro has the burden to prove that every belief that an atheist has is incongruous with the tenets of science.

tenets- a belief

incongruous- notin line with (personal definition)

Atheist- a person who does not believe in God (personal definition)

science- a subject that is taken in school that teaches children about the matters of the world we live in (personal definition)

Debate Round No. 1
SenorSwanky

Pro

My opponent starts Round 1 with a straw man logical fallacy. My opponent offers a close but not truly accurate version of the argument, twisting the idea by exaggerating its scope. Besides, there is no one ideology to which all atheists adhere.

I have listed three specific tenets of science where atheists are in contradiction. The debate is regarding those three tenets.

1) The empirical nature of the physical world.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) lists several universal constants such as Newtonian constant of gravitation, Planck's constant, and the speed of light.
http://physics.nist.gov...

The fundamental forces of physics are measurable.
http://www.nobelprize.org...

Empirical tools like math and physics would only be used if those tools are appropriate to the physical world they are describing. Mathematical formulas express the laws of nature. Atheist believe the universe came into existance by random chance. Science would need a different set of tools to explain chance occurrences, thereby contradicting the atheist belief.

2) Inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is bottom up approach. Based upon observed instances, we form a judgment about the unobserved.
Darwin used inductive reasoning to come up with the theory of evolution.
http://www.nsf.gov...
Inductive reasoning is used in science.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Through inductive reasoning, many scientists offer a proof of God.
http://www.simpletoremember.com...

However, atheists only accept deductive, "show me" reasoning, contradicting another tenet of science.

3) Not seeking an absolute truth.

The scientific method questions our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final.

"Science does not purvey absolute truth, science is a mechanism. It"s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature, it"s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match." ~ Isaac Asimov
http://www.brainpickings.org...

Atheism's explicit denial of the existence of God is an absolute truth. However, the existence of God is unknowable. The atheist belief is in contradiction to science.

I have demonstrated that atheist believes are incongruous with three basic tenets of science.
The_Master_Riddler

Con

Atheist believe in evolution. Evolution is accepted by science. This alone is enough to vote Pro as I stated earlier.

I don't understand how this was a straw man.
Debate Round No. 2
SenorSwanky

Pro

I pointed out three broad tenets where atheist beliefs are contradictory to scientific thought. My opponent, employing a straw man tactic, tried to narrow and divert the argument simply to evolution. My opponent did not attempt to address the points brought up in Round 1.

But to address the evolution claim, there are different creation stories:
1) We were created by God.
2) Evolution.
3) Another as yet unknown reason such as aliens.

An atheist could believe 2) or 3). You can find atheists that reject evolution.

Thank you.
The_Master_Riddler

Con

My opponent just so conveniently stated that an atheist can simply not believe in evolution. This may be true, but there can be atheist that believe in inductive reasoning and finding a higher truth. Also, inductive reasoning is not necessarily incongruous with science. It is more congruous with logic. My opponent's argument fails and I win the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Noumena 4 years ago
Noumena
SenorSwankyThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This should have been an easy win for Con (or at least a less devastating loss). Con begins by misconstruing both the BoP and the scope of the debate. He need not defend a single atheist belief, but must defend atheism (qua disbelief in God) against Pro's attacks. He failed entirely to do so. On Pro's arguments, the first strawmann's atheism (or at least offers certain beliefs of atheists as universal when in fact they are not), the second does the same (but also adding that some people use a certain way to justify God's existence which atheists reject- attempting to show inconsistency(?), and the third discounts entirely various philosophical systems predicated without belief in God.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
SenorSwankyThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: What a shambles.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
SenorSwankyThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Shame on CON. Seriously. If you aren't a naturalist, it's poor conduct to attempt to argue that position; generally naturalists are naturalists BECAUSE they understand naturalism, and to argue as a non-naturalist for the naturalist position is almost certain to be arguing from a straw-man position. Further, CON did a poor job of defending naturalism and clearly did not understand the position nor give suitable effort to defend the position. Finally, CON used no sources for his defense, but rather only to present a definition.
Vote Placed by eastcoastsamuel 4 years ago
eastcoastsamuel
SenorSwankyThe_Master_RiddlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: As an atheist, I found this particular debate rather interesting. I was expecting to vote for Con, but unfortunately he did little to anything to rebut the points made by Pro. Thus, all of Pro's points stood, while Con's few points were all addressed by Pro. I disagree with Pro on this issue, and he hasn't convinced me away from atheism in any way, but in this instance it is clear he has won.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
SenorSwankyThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con puts up a weak defense of atheism, ingoring Pro's three main arguments. Pro also uses many appropriate and reliable sources.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
SenorSwankyThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and convincing arguments to pro because con does not really respond to pro's argumennts and does not make his case clear. S&G is the same. Sources to pro because pro is the only one who uses sources.
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 4 years ago
KeithKroeger91
SenorSwankyThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Good Job Swanky.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
SenorSwankyThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even try.