The Instigator
GufranLahib
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheists Are Wrong

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 2 votes the winner is...
GufranLahib
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 67187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

GufranLahib

Pro

Even Darwin regretted the lie of evolution
Towards his twilight years, as he faced the prospect of burning in Hell forever for his blasphemous ways, even Charles Darwin himself admitted that he regretted sparking the lie of evolution. Atheists, however, still do not want to admit it is wrong as the only other explanation would be God.
Something cannot come from nothing. It is a scientific impossibility. The idea that one second there wasn"t anything then there was is frankly offensive to one"s intelligence. The big bang relies on an unknown spark, kind of like the gunman on the grassy knoll theory, that mixed with chemicals and blew up into planets and suns and people and plants.
There is lots of historic evidence of God.
If God didn"t create the Earth, why does everything work so well?
It can"t be coincidence that we have air to breath, water to drink, and land to live on. God intended it that way. This can"t be something that just happened to occur.
Miracles happen everyday
Even scientific studies have confirmed the power of praying to God for help. Atheists only use science when it falls in their favor. To them, anything that isn"t liberal or Godless simply must not be heard.
Ozzyhead

Con

Atheists do not assert anything. Simply put, people who believe in a god have made a claim, and atheists are simply people who evaluated the claim and they did not find it believable. An atheist, by definition, can only be wrong if a god has been proven to be real. In order for a god to be proven real, it has to be observable. An atheist does not have to believe the big bang theory, evolution or abiogenesis (even though all of them have been proven to be the case). I personally accept all those theories because they can be proven. Abiogenesis and evolution are observable. We know the rate in which to universe is expanding and if we go backwards we find that the universe was at one point, that is the universe we understand. The big bang theory is a poor name for the theory because astronomists don't actually believe it exploded. They believe that the universe started at one point and simply started to expand (or has been constantly expanding.
If my opponent can prove that a god exists, then I will forfeit. But, if you look at many of my religious based debates you will notice not a single one of my opponents have proved to me that a god exists. Nor have they been able to prove it to the voters in my debates, as you will notice not one has voted in agreement with me and then voted in agreement to my opponent. It's not that I, nor the voters are emotionally tied to our beliefs. It's just that no one has been able to prove me wrong
Debate Round No. 1
GufranLahib

Pro

First, you seem to have misunderstood me. In my opinion, I explained what I had in my mind and it was pretty understandable. I might be wrong. Please let me clear things up.
a) I DO believe in the Big Bang Theory. However, I do NOT believe that it just appeared by itself. I believe that God made it occur, and now that that is explained, let me move on.
b) I believe in evolution. but not as Darwin has explained it. I believe that our bodies have changed a lot since humans existed, but that is not the case that Darwin suggests. Darwin suggested that we were APES. I do not believe in that. I believe that we were slightly intelligent ape-like (ape-LIKE, not completely ape) creatures, then we slowly turned into the humans we are now.
Okay, my opinion is clear now. Let us go on with our debate.

In a spectacular and telling failure of journalism MSNBC reported recently that Pope Francis "broke with Catholic tradition" by asserting that the Big Bang theory is real. Instantly, the Internet responded with the name Georges Lemaitre, one of the creators of the Theory of Universal Expansion who also happened to be a Jesuit priest. He is also the first entry on a Google search of "Catholic Big Bang."
1. Religion Is About Morality, Not Creation Myths
2. Religion Is the Foundation of All Morality, Not Merely an Expression of It
Christopher Hitchens, of all people, inadvertently exposed the complexity of religion"s relationship to morality and barbarism in a debate. Confronted with the fact that Stalin was an atheist who committed genocide.
Hitchens is too clever for his own good here. In broadening the scope of immoral actions caused by religion to capture the acts of atheists, he broadens it so completely that it captures everything. Hitchens, in his eagerness to blame religion for Stalin"s atrocities asserts that religion is the foundation for all moral choices, not merely those made in religion"s name.
3. Religion Was the Foundation of Society, Not an Addition to It
4. Atheists Do Believe
5. Science Can"t Teach Us Right from Wrong
The idea of a cold finite existence ending in complete oblivion is not the harshest concept an atheist must swallow. Far more present and paralyzing is the notion that our actions are devoid of moral consequence. As Hitchens points out, so ingrained is our credulity towards morality and our servility to it that most people cannot ignore it. It is not merely silly superstitions that atheists seek to remove from our personal and policy choices, it is the idea that an objectively, morally correct choice is even possible. But even if we accept the premise that morality is entirely subjective, we still have to decide how to act.
This is where religion, far from being the natural enemy of science, comes to its aid. Just as believers must always fight nagging doubts about the truth of their beliefs, the atheist must fight nagging beliefs when confronted with moral choices. Just as there is no paradox in a believer knowing that science can reveal important details of how the physical world operates, there is no paradox in an atheist knowing that religion and its ancient history of moral investigation is relevant to moral understanding.
7. Ignorance of Religion Is Ignorance of History, For Atheists and Everyone
Later in his essay, Harris argues that "religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of global, civil society." This, in a nutshell, is what atheists get wrong. It is only through religion, and its metaphysical, moral obligations that global society is possible at all. As Harris pulls the offending thread of religion out of the global moral tapestry, it falls apart, replaced only with his preferences. In the end the battle, between atheists and believers in the area of moral choice is little different than the battle between Jews and Muslims.
Ozzyhead

Con

Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GufranLahib

Pro

I fully understand that you stated in your acceptance speech/last argument round that when you forfeit, it means that I've proved that God exists. But for the sake of the debate, and because a huge gap at the bottom of this page would be unsightly, I've had a few things in my mind I wanted to point out.
So you're an atheist. I won't condemn you. How could I? Some atheists think they've taken a heroic stand, but could it be that they really don't want to face up to the possibility that God is indeed there? I hope you'll be intellectually honest enough to consider what I have to say and see if it makes sense.
You might say, If God is there, let him prove it to me. I don't want to take an irrational leap of faith. Fine. In Isaiah 2:18 God says: come let us reason together. He wants us to reason and He certainly wants us to be be rational, but He will not submit himself to human scrutiny; to do so he would need to stop being God! He will not bow to our perverse judgements. Ask yourself, Would I ever be willing to believe God is there, however strong the evidence? You see, your problem may not be in your head as much as in your heart. Perhaps you've already taken a leap of faith. To assert God cannot exist, despite the impossibility of proving that statement, is the ultimate irrational leap!
Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical method and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical method. You might reply: But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God's existence, if based on the emperical method, is absurd. Why do I say that? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, based on emperical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! But some would say you can indeed assert something does not exist if its existence is logically self contradictory, such as a square triangle. By definition it cannot exist. It is illogical for something to be a square and to also be a triangle. Again, granted, but this line of reasoning assumes logic and real meaning exist and are our basis for knowledge --something an atheist has no right to assert! The existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential. (We'll get to that more later below.) One cannot prove logic exists unless one first presupposes a God in whom reason and meaning are transcendentally rooted, otherwise these categories are mere philosphical prejuduces. Atheism is inherently self-contradictory. The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. King David wrote: The fool says in his heart there is no God. (Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. For the sake of brevity, let's simply consider ethics.
Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I ve known atheists who are more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is not the issue. The question is, why be ethical? Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong. If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples. If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference.
Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right? If one believes God gave the law You shall not murder, the answer is obvious. Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard? Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil? One can try to argue that it isn't just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer.
What of an evolutionary model for morality? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and religious people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results.
What of basing morality on one's personal preferences? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste.
Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical? No.
A wise rabbi, the Apostle Paul, wrote:

"The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the Godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."
God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer. Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and a God who has a perfect moral standard.
Ozzyhead

Con

Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by not-playing-golf 1 year ago
not-playing-golf
God has a perfect moral standard??? Now that has added the laugh to my day!
Posted by GufranLahib 1 year ago
GufranLahib
NoMagic, look back at my debate entries. In ALL of my debate entries, you will notice that not once did I mention which God I believe in. You will see that the only point I'm proving is that Atheists are wrong. I did not mention anything about which God I believe in whatsoever. Please review your facts before commenting against me, thanks.
Posted by NoMagic 1 year ago
NoMagic
Historically there have been thousands of gods. Pro is an atheist towards all gods but his. Con is only an atheist more than Pro by one god.
Posted by not-playing-golf 1 year ago
not-playing-golf
Again in this debate theists back tracking. Science does all the work and like a child they just write yeah but god did it to make it look that way. It's like a final bit of laziness.
Posted by Longline 1 year ago
Longline
Then what will be the point of knowing history? everything we know today, is what our pass ancestor knew. in order to ease our search of knowledge we need there knowledge as well, or else we would start from point zero every time we wish to search the truth of any knowledge.

And for Christianity God is the core knowledge of existence and life as we know it. this Name God, will forever be acknowledge when speaking of existence. and the term Evolution as creat by older Philosophers will also be known and acknowledge even today, and generations after this. we have what was giving to us by our ancestor to work with. sure there knowledge was limited but so is our own. that is why this debate will never be solve.
Posted by Hi5562 1 year ago
Hi5562
To say that a religion or the lack of one is wrong is unacceptable. There is not a single belief in the world that anyone can completely prove. There are a few beliefs that have more proof than others (atheism and related), but even these have gaps and cannot be explained fully. Moving back on topic, saying that another belief is wrong and going so far as to drag up century-old evidence and fabricate some to simply prove a point (like some chapters of religious documents) is slightly over the top.
Posted by not-playing-golf 1 year ago
not-playing-golf
I see this theistic argument a lot. To most theists (christians in particular) god is a default position. If it is possible x didn't do it god must be the answer! No. All this shows is x is wrong and we need to find a new explanation. Theism of this kind is typically "The suspension of critical thinking!" Try finding the answer instead of just saying goddidit!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 1 year ago
NoMagic
GufranLahibOzzyheadTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
GufranLahibOzzyheadTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture