The Instigator
lissylol123
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
Esiar
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points

Atheists are wrong and ignorant

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 69281
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

lissylol123

Con

In this text I am going to state why Atheists are not ignorant and wrong. Many atheists don't believe in God because they have wittnessed an event that has got them thinking about God and whether he actually exists. Lots of events happen in the world that make people think about humanity and fairness but really all of that is a question of God. I know that many people, would argue that Adam and Eve sinned and that it is their fault we don't live in paradise, but God is always talking about forgiveness so why couldn't he forgive humans? Also, deer, cows, sleeps and other animals didn't sin so why are they on earth and not in Eden? You may say that everything happens for a reason but why? Why do parents deserve to have a miscarriage? Why does a 6 year old deserve to have cancer? Why does a girl deserve to lose all her hair over chemotherapy? None of these people deserve that, just as you don't deserve to be killed, but why does it happen? If their was a God why did he let the world do that to those people? Is that fair? No. So how come people argue about that. Life isn't fair and you can still argue that God loves, cherishes and protects? How? Are you sure? Because I could say that you are wrong and ignorant for believing in God. But I don't because I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and that I am too, but I shouldn't judge. I am agnostic but i am not ignorant, I truly believe that their isn't a God, but if you believe their is, that is your decision and I cannot change that, but you should think about what you are saying. Not every atheist is ignorant and wrong. Many have good reasons, you just don't know their stories. As I don't know yours and you don't know mine.
Esiar

Pro

"I know that many people, would argue that Adam and Eve sinned and that it is their fault we don't live in paradise, but God is always talking about forgiveness so why couldn't he forgive humans?"
He wants to forgive us. That's why Jesus died on the cross. He can't automatically forgive us because of this: God is eternal. When we disobey him, we disobey an eternal God, thus the consequences are eternal. It needs to be payed for in an eternal way: If we are eternally punished, there is no forgiveness because the sin is never payed for (God is merciful and just. He can't have injustice), so he sent someone else to be punished in our sins, thus fulfilling justice (sin is punished) and mercy (forgiving sinners).

"Also, deer, cows, sleeps and other animals didn't sin so why are they on earth and not in Eden?"
Well, Eden was in Earth, first of all, but that isn't the point: It ultimately doesn't matter why.

Problem of Evil:
-To say bad things even happen, you need to determine what is bad in the first place. If there is no absolute standard, then there is really no problem of bad things happening. Thus is cannot be used as an argument against God because you cannot know what is truly bad in the first place (Who determines it? You? Why should your moral standard affect whether God exists? You're a lump of cells...) If there is an absolute standard, then you need someone above everything else (Like God) to tell us what is bad and what is good, thus it cannot be used as an argument against God, because you need God to exist to even make the argument.

-Bad things happen because of sin. Sin brought death. God gave us a way out of sin & spiritual death. Many won't accept that way out, because they love darkness/sin. Thus evil and suffering in the world is man's fault, not God. God offers us life, man don't want it.

While God is the one responsible for giving man free-will in the first place, since God & everything he does is perfect, it is the best thing he could have done.
Debate Round No. 1
lissylol123

Con

"Well,Eden was in Earth, first of all, but that isn't the point;it ultimately doesn't matter why"
I was just saying that humans sinned and got punished by being sent away from Eden (or so the bible says) but animals(other than the serpent) did nothing wrong. I wanted to know why they were punished too and sent away from Eden. Also, when I was talking about bad things I was meaning journalists being held at gunpoint, all the wars and conflict in the world and babies that are killed. This cannot be right, so why does God let it happen? If there is a God why does he let bad thing happen to people who have no choice? Who have never done anything wrong. Babies that are stillborn, what did they ever do? Please don't just ignore my arguments this time.
Esiar

Pro

Eden - I don't know. But, as I said, "It ultimately doesn't matter why."

Bad things happening - I already addressed this.

If there is no God, there's no Universal moral standard, because there is no one at the very top telling us, "Thou shalt not..." and "Thou shalt...". This means we cannot determine what is ultimately good or bad. Since we wouldn't be able to do that if God doesn't exist, it cannot be used as an argument against God, because there is no waying of knowing if a problem of evil even exists.

If one wants to suggest that a problem of evil does exist, they need to be able to determine what is right or wrong: Which requires God. Since you need God to even make the argument, the point refutes itself: If God exists, he knows what he is doing. Thus, there is no problem of evil, because we aren't anyone to question the actions of a perfect being, while we are imperfect.
Debate Round No. 2
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
I don't understand the lack of sense some of these voters have.

"Pro dropped all of Con's arguments."
I addressed every point Con made in Round 1.
She didn't answer anything I said in Round 2.
I re-clarified what I said.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
1. You're going to dismiss every single things that agrees with me as inaccurate either way.
2. I only used 2 definitions, and said God could fit both.
3. Because you said, "How do you know I got worse, other than being convinced by your massive arrogance?"
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
1. One down, then.

2. Then I shall assume that you're either too lazy to back up your vacuous statements, or you have nothing to back them up. By the way, did you mean consciousness instead of conscience? There's a lot of pseudoscientific nonsense on that topic. Am I to assume you buy into that bs?

3. Now you have a third definition of omnipotent. Which one are you using in your arguments?

4. How is this relevant?
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
1. Yup.

2. Look into it yourself.

3. If omnipotent is defined as the ability to do anything, God fits it. If it is merely great power, God fits it.

4. When people get "better" they are talking about one specific aspect usually. Imagine it as a cup, they are only cleaning one certain part, and the rest is getting more dusty.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@Esiar
1. Dropping this, I guess?
2. Well, do you have any useful sources? I'm not familiar with any scientific theory or hypothesis that could make sense of conscience existing outside of a brain.
3. Your definition of omnipotence does not necessarily mean that god can do anything. You might also notice that your definition actually includes two somewhat contradictory definitions.
4. This was my question:
""so I blocked out that programming and became the evil person I am today"
You already were evil. Everyone is a sinner. You simply got worse."
- How do you know I got worse, other than being convinced by your massive arrogance?
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
@UndeniableReality

1. So you're basically going to say everything that says that there is conscience outside the brain in inaccurate.

2. Omnipotence = the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

God can fit this.

3. What was your question?
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@Esiar,
1. I didn't say that you repeated anything. I repeated what you said, and then it seemed like you were arguing against your own statement, maybe because you thought it was a statement that I made.
2. Research where? Clearly not in any legitimate academic literature.
3. I have no issues with omnipotence on its own. Please read more carefully. You may also want to make yourself aware of the fact that your definition of omnipotence is not the only one that is used, and may not even be the most widely accepted definition.
4. You didn't answer my question.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
@UndeniableReality
1. I repeated what I said because I already answered it
2. Reearch conscience outside of the brain itself.
2. You don't understand the concept of omnipotence. If you did, you wouldn't bound a being that can do anything to only thinks that are logically possible. That is contradictory.
Posted by Lewis_P 2 years ago
Lewis_P
@BoggyB
It's perfectly reasonable to request a proof for the existence of something. It's not Proving_a_Negative's fault that no one appears capable of doing so in the case of a deity :)
Posted by BoggyB 2 years ago
BoggyB
@Proving_a_Negative It is impossible to prove that God exists, we can merely give evidence for our religion. It is unfair and illogical of you to demand the existence of God to be proven 100%.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
lissylol123EsiarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of Con's arguments were just questions. I noticed a few grammatical errors that Con made.
Vote Placed by RepublitariansUnite 2 years ago
RepublitariansUnite
lissylol123EsiarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped all of Con's arguments. The Bible shouldn't be used as a source unless the debate is directly over the Bible. This goes for both sides.