The Instigator
Jake3844
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Atheists are completely lost.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 59847
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Jake3844

Pro

I will be arguing against atheists and everything they stand for. Atheists are completely lost and have a very light grasp on reality.

R1: Opening Statements/Framework
R2: Rebuttal
R3: Rebuttal
R4: Rebuttal
R5: Closing Statements
KhalifV

Con

This is an odd resolution.

BoP is on pro to show Atheists are "lost".
I'm not sure what is to be said here.

I will attempt to negate pro's arguments and will argue that atheistic beliefs ( more appropriately, lack of belief) are more in accordance with reality.

Good luck to pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Jake3844

Pro

Let me outline what an atheist really is. An atheist is any individual that does not believe a god or gods exist. First, let me say you cannot even take this position with the amount of information we currently have. Second, most atheists argue against organized religion, not monotheism or polytheism as general theories.

What is a God?

1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More

2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

Throughout history these "Gods" have taken on many forms. Science has obviously debunked many religious theories. However, none of this supports the notion that all monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs are wrong, or distant from reality.
Atheists have grown into a different monster these days. They don't argue against the right points, and because of that they do circles in religious debates for hours.

Scientific Views

No science, in any form, has ever uncovered anything to dispute monotheism and polytheism as general concepts. You may dislike the current interpretations, but to throw these ideas away solely because of that is ignorant and not in-line with reality. Atheists are not rational thinkers. They put a wall up and refuse to even study monotheism or polytheism as theories for the origins of life. I think we need to seriously step out of the box on this one.

Physics does not come into conflict with a monotheistic or polytheistic view. Evolution does not conflict. However, it may conflict with the Bible, but you cannot link atheism strictly with one sector of monotheistic or polytheistic beliefs as an atheist denies all forms.

Atheists tend to have a very narrow view of alternative views, labeling them all as "magic" or something similar. That's fine, and I can see the logic in that. However, to say that you "disbelieve" in the existence of a god or gods is ignorant. At most, you could say that you are unsure.

Atheists should realize how much of their own belief structure is pure speculation, just like any religion.

I will save the rest of this for round 2.
KhalifV

Con

Well pro has offered no real arguments, so it's hard for me to respond.
He just kind of ranted.


Well, the topic that we seem to now be debating is:" Is Atheism rational"?
The only thing he has said that even constitutes an argument, is the bit regarding that science has not refuted god(s).
Well just because something has not been disproved, does not mean you should believe it exists.

Noll Hpothesis
"A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis."

So it's the case, one should not believe in any gods, until they're supported by evidence.
So on the basis there's no evidence for god(S), atheism is more rational.


-The Oscillating Universe
This is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed.

-Hartle Hawking
I really like this one because the universe has a begining but no cause.


QET:-
Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.
Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."
The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.
Multiverse-







1. Let's visit the multiverse. The multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation. Via BICEP2 Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.
Inflation accounts for the:
1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.
2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.
3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.
As explained the multiverse is a consequence of inflation. All the other predictions have come true. I would say that would constitute a good reason to think the multiverse is true.
Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe and requires no creator just a prior universe. The multiverse can be eternal.

I don't know what else to say, considering pro has not said anything interesting.
There is not evidence for a god, and there does not need to be a god, thus per Occam's razor, one should not propose the existence of one.


http://wwwphy.princeton.edu.........
http://space.mit.edu.........
http://arxiv.org.........
http://www.universetoday.com.........
http://web.uvic.ca.........
http://www.investopedia.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Jake3844

Pro

Jake3844 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jake3844

Pro

Jake3844 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Jake3844

Pro

Jake3844 forfeited this round.
KhalifV

Con

BoP unfulfilled
Vote con
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Haha, that's what I call sniping Kalif.

That bullet is deadly; as soon as Pro saw those images he knew doom was imminent.

Keepin that 42-0 record fresh :P
Posted by Seiyagolfer421 2 years ago
Seiyagolfer421
Actually it might be more accurate to say that Christians are lost, due to a piece of book that has been edited and touched by human minds over and over, and that is the only voice of god. Not trying to insult the religion, but still.
Posted by gt4o2007 2 years ago
gt4o2007
Very irrational stance as it requires the existence of god to be proven not disproved as you cant disprove an assertion that has absolutely NO scientific evidence behind it.
Posted by Firelife 2 years ago
Firelife
You say science doesn't dis prove polytheism and you say atheists arn't rational? This is a stupid argument science hasn't dis-proved it yes but...

NO ONE HAS PROVED IT EITHER!

Your argument is pointing out things science hasn't dis-puted but this does not mean they exist.
Most atheists are logical and do not like blind faith so PRO I ask to you. Prove that polytheistic gods exist in order to prove me wrong.

If you can't I think your argument fails completley
Posted by Firelife 2 years ago
Firelife
Your confusing words. Dis-Belive doesn't have much to with being 100% sure it just means they don't belive a god created the universe etc. And atheists don't study all religions they mainly dis-belive the christian and islamic god. Some people think that the big bang makes more sense then a god or creator. Some atheists don' belive in gods because they think that science has more logical answers to the creation of life.
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
"However, to say that you "disbelieve" in the existence of a god or gods is ignorant. At most, you could say that you are unsure."

I absolutely used to agree with you. But this statement really just comes from the "unfalsifiability principle" (as I call it) and, perhaps, in different definition for the word "sure". Atheists are as sure that there is no invisible dragon as they are that God doesn't exist. They often can't prove either creates a contradiction, but have decided that it is rational for their threshold for "certainty" to be less strict than this.
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
"No science, in any form, has ever uncovered anything to dispute monotheism and polytheism as general concepts... Atheists are not rational thinkers. They put a wall up and refuse to even study monotheism or polytheism as theories for the origins of life. I think we need to seriously step out of the box on this one."

Though some (much) of what you say is true, I think there is a misunderstanding here. It is true that science has not disproved many modern religions, but, for the most part, these are the religions that are unfalsifiable. And Atheists have adopted the stance that believing in something that is unfalsifiable is not a rational way to think about the universe.

Now, I think I should define "rationalism"; the best definition I have found is "the best/fastest/most accurate way to create, dismiss, and analyze theories that predict reality". And this is the ultimate disconnect between many atheists and religion. Religion, even if it is right, makes no predictions about the observable universe. This means, in practical terms, that religion is not a theory -- it makes no predictions and so is of little use when predicting/discussing the world. And what this in turn means is that it is unfalsifiable.

And what Atheists have decided is that believing in things that are unfalsifiable is not rational (i.e. not a efficient way to predict reality). For instance (this is a common example) there might be a dragon in my garage that cannot be sensed and cannot alter reality, but since accepting such a dragon exists (or even that it might exist) doesn't aide my model of the universe in its prediction-making capacity, it isn't worth entertaining.

Slight overflow in what I want to write so more in text comment
Posted by Firelife 2 years ago
Firelife
Con has an easy win. Atheists are only lost if pro can prove god exists in this very argument and I highly doubt he will do that. If he brings up the bible its an auto win for con since the bible is NOT a reliable source
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Jake3844KhalifVTied
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 YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Jake3844KhalifVTied
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: FF