The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
ebob1234
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Athiesm is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
ebob1234
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 45796
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

jh1234l

Pro

Hello, I have proof that athiesm is false and is evil!!!

1. Athiests have no morals

Athiests have no reason to follow any morals, because they do not believe that a higher power will punish them. Therefore, they don't have morality and like to eat babies.

2. Evilution is false

The athiestic worldview is based primarily on evolution as an alternative for a recent creation. I have proof that evolution is false and is evil.Before we go down to the facts, let's just look at what evolution is. Evolution is a theory that states that the universe came from nowhere, and then nothing turned into the solar system through random chance. Then, the Earth formed and life spontaneously appeared out of rocks. Then, the rock-monster turned into plants and animals, then whales came out of the ocean and became cows. Afterwards, dinosaurs went extinct and monkeys turned into people, again through random chance. That sounds ridiculous. It is impossible for all those coincidences to happen all at once.

There are many forms of evolution. They are:
Macro evolution-this is false. I will address it in a second.
Micro evolution-the only thing that is actual science.
Stellar evolution-all 100% of the instances caught on telescope are lies made up by the NASA as a part of a cover-up.
Matter evolution-No, the sun does not convert hydrogen into helium through nuclear fusion. Instead, the sun runs on burning methane from farts.

As you can see, all the above forms of evolution are false.Let's see some details you see in life that disprove evolution.

Look at the banana. They have no seeds and are perfectly fit for the human hand to grab. They were INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED for humans. Some hotshot athiests may use "oh well wild bananas have seeds and they breeded the bananas so that domesticated bananas have no seeds" as a rebuttal, but that is false. Athiests have no morals, because there is nothing that guides them through life. Why trust them over me?

Also, peanut butter. If evolution is true, then life should be able to spontaneously form in peanut butter. Why has nobody sent samples of peanut butter monsters to science labs? If evolution is true, then macroscopic multicellular peanut butter monsters should be able to spontaneously evolve from peanut butter within a few days of purchase.

Transitional fossils and speciation events do not exist. If evolution was true, we should see them. While there are alleged "transitional fossils" (http://www.talkorigins.org...) as well as "speciation events" (http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org...), they were "discovered" by athiests. Athiests have no morals and are more violent than religious people, so why trust them over me? I have a biology PhD from a diploma mill, and cannot know the difference between a gene, genome, or base pair, which is proof that everything I say is right.

Evolution is based on solely random chance. There is no selection mechanism involved. Then, how can it make things better, and not neutral or worse? Evolution is wrong.

Also, look at the creator of evolution, Charles Darwin. There is proof that Charles Darwin is a evil athiest terrorist baby eater liberal communist socialist racist nazi. In fact, Adolf Hitler used evolution to justify his actions. Also, Charles Darwin is responsible for the rise of OOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAA, who we all know is the Anticrist. Teaching evolution in schools has led to a spike in teen pregnancy, crimes, natural disasters, and erectile dysfunction. Evolution will destroy us all!

As you can see, the lie of evolution is exposed in the light and truth brought by faith. Ask your local politicians to take evolution out of schools

.3. Belief in atheism will destroy us all!

As stated previously, athiesm will cause a spike in teen pregnancy, crimes, natural disasters, erectyle dysfunction, and more! The proof is that teaching evolution is causing the rise of OOOBBBBBAAAAMMMAAAA, who is obviously the Antichrist because he is politically liberal.
ebob1234

Con

Hello i'm surprised you wasted your time and put all of that stuff down because it is obvious you didn't check your sources
1. Atheists have no morals
that is false as some atheist may have no morals but i am an atheist and i have morals, like not being mean to people or killing animals and just because they don't believe a higher power will punish them doesn't mean they cant have morals. Also i don't eat babies so that is off now

2. Evolution is false
it is here hat i think you did not review your sources
the atheistic worldview is based primarily on evolution as an alternative for a recent creation. That is wrong my world view is not based primarily based on evolution nor is any of my atheist friends and even if i did it would not be for an alternative for a recent creation.
Evolution is a theory that states that the universe came from nowhere.
No it isn't it is a theory that states living things can change over time to better fit their environment and live longer.

nothing turned into the solar system through random chance. though it was chance it did not come from nothing it came from a large celestial body called a nebula which came from a star which exploded and eventually the gases that were left condensed due to gravity

Then, the Earth formed and life spontaneously appeared out of rocks.
Nope it is stated life came from water anyways and not spontaneously

Then, the rock-monster turned into plants and animals
i don't even understand this rock-monster turned into plants and animals more of the fact the rock monster as i have never heard of the rock monster theory

then whales came out of the ocean and became cows
i doubt that whales just came out of the ocean

monkeys turned into people, again through random chance.
Nope Monkeys are less related to a human than a chimp and humans did not come from monkeys. The orgigin was handy man (Homo Habilis )

100% of the instances caught on telescope are lies made up by the NASA as a part of a cover-up.
A cover up of what and what source did you get this from

Also, peanut butter. If evolution is true, then life should be able to spontaneously form in peanut butter.
Peanut butter is made from a peanut once a peanut is picked off a peanut plant it is no longer alive only alive things can evolve. also it takes if thousands of years to evolve

Belief in atheism will destroy us all!
Well atheism hasn't started as many wars as any other religion
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

My opponent is an athiest, therefore, he supports OOOOOBBBAAAAMMMMMAAAA! Why do athiests hate 'Murica?

1. Morality

While an athiest may think that doing certain things is immoral, they cannot have an objective standard for morality, while religious people have an objective standard through interpeting their holy books.

2. Evolution

Con states that evolution is not the alternative for a recent creation. However, it is, as macroevolution as scientists know it can only happen in a long time period.

Con says that the matter came from a nebula. However, where did the star that created the nebula come from?

Nope it is stated life came from water anyways and not spontaneously
Life coming from water? Nooooooopppee. Evolution states that the deep ocean floor, with volcanic activity, was where life appeared. It WAS spontaneous, as that was the definition of abiogenesis.

Nope Monkeys are less related to a human than a chimp and humans did not come from monkeys. The orgigin was handy man (Homo Habilis )
Where are the transitional fossils, if that happened? My opponent dropped my point that transitional fossils did not exist, as well as my point about speciation.

A cover up of what
A cover up of the fact that evolution is false! Now, where did my other points, such as the evolution of matter, go? They were not addressed by con.

Peanut butter is made from a peanut once a peanut is picked off a peanut plant it is no longer alive only alive things can evolve. also it takes if thousands of years to evolve
I was talking about the formation of life, similiar to the beginning of life, not the peanut butter mutating.

Well atheism hasn't started as many wars as any other religion
Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many other dictators were athiest! They killed a LOT of people! Josef Stalin even started the cold war!

In conclusion, none of my points were adequately addressed by con, and many points, such as transitional fossils, speciation, and the evolution of matter, were ignored. Vote PRO!

ebob1234

Con

My opponent has provided no evidence atheism is evil and only keeps supplying stuff on evolution which the title states Athiesm( spelled atheism wrong) is false. Atheism is not the belief of evolution it is the belief of no god so stop supplying things with evolution

Josef Stalin even started the cold war

The cold war was not a real war as there was no fighting between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many other dictators were atheist

All power hungry leaders
Most atheist aren't dictator's with supreme control over people and power hungry
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

My arguments were purposefully fatally flawed as a parody of common creationist arguments, but con, unfortunately, could not refute them despite how purposefully flawed my arguments were.

"My opponent has provided no evidence atheism is evil"

My opponent has conceded, ignored, and denied all my arguments about morality that I said last round. Let me repeat it to my opponent again. The argument, word for word, that I wrote down in last round that con has not yet refuted: While an athiest may think that doing certain things is immoral, they cannot have an objective standard for morality, while religious people have an objective standard through interpeting their holy books.

"Atheism is not the belief of evolution it is the belief of no god so stop supplying things with evolution"

While evolution can exist without atheism, atheism cannot exist without evolution, as it is the only theory explaining biology that is still supported in the scientific community. My arguments were, therefore, relevant to athiesm, and con flatly ignres them in this round.

Con states that the people were "power hungry", but has no proof.

ebob1234

Con

ebob1234 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by MissAlways-Right 3 years ago
MissAlways-Right
Dear Pro,
Well excuse me, but I am atheist and have morals. How dare you suggest such a thing. Your arguments are biased by your religious beliefs and blown so far out of proportion it's hardly believable. Maybe you should do your research next time.
Posted by MonstercatFan 3 years ago
MonstercatFan
First off, We have morals. We are human. Second, Evolution is a theory so are cells. so is gravity. Theories are backed up by evidence and fact. Third, Peanut Butter is not a living thing. Evolution most likely started with bacteria which is a living thing. And another problem with your statement is that even if that were to happen, it does not happen in a few days. No, evolution happens over a long period of time. Millions of years.
Posted by EthicsPhilosopher 3 years ago
EthicsPhilosopher
AND NO, i AM NOT AN ATHIEST, BUT STILL.... i don't agree..
Posted by EthicsPhilosopher 3 years ago
EthicsPhilosopher
nvm... none of that fit.....

I AM ARGUING, THOUGH!
Posted by EthicsPhilosopher 3 years ago
EthicsPhilosopher
more clearly. For our purposes, through an examination of what is known about the Big Bang itself, the age of the universe, and the synthesis of the first atoms, we believe that we can begin to answer several of these key questions.

THE BIG BANG

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang th
Posted by EthicsPhilosopher 3 years ago
EthicsPhilosopher
Incorrect.
We certainly know that our universe exists, however, this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind's quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself. Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: How did our universe begin? How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.

We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of cosmology and the origins of the universe. Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses. True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions. It seems to be inherent in our search for knowledge that questions will always continue to exist.

Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being. It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly. For our purposes, through an examination of what is known about the Big Bang itself, the age of the universe, and the synthesis of the first atoms, we believe that we can begin to answer several of these key questions.

THE BIG BANG

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the univer
Posted by shellymartin6464 3 years ago
shellymartin6464
Pro loses. I've never heard of any atheist eating babies. Pro is deliberately being ridiculous and this can't be a serious debate.
Posted by TJTretman 3 years ago
TJTretman
Pro's "proof" is simply baseless claims and fraudulent "facts" and "evidence".
Posted by ILL_logic 3 years ago
ILL_logic
pro loses my vote by stating " atheist have no morals" what a simple and rubbish statement
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 3 years ago
codemeister13
jh1234lebob1234Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, this debate was a rather poor debate, in general. Con gets my vote for conduct for sticking true to the resolution and not babbling about unrelated items. Arguments go to Con due to Pro's baseless assertions about multiple topics while providing no supported evidence.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
jh1234lebob1234Tied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Ignoring the incoherent resolution, this debate was a bit interesting. Pro never really addressed the resolution, bringing up somewhat irrelevant points about "evilution", yet Con obliged to respond. I think the arguments were relatively close on this front. The other main contention: I'm not sure how Atheism is proven false by arguing that Atheists have no morals, but that was also contested, and Con showed that Atheists could have morals. The minor contention: Atheism will destroy us all, was quickly put to rest by Con. Arguments to Con, overall. S&G to Pro; his/her arguments were far easier to read. Pro also provided the only sources of the debate. Conduct to Pro, for Con's forfeit.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
jh1234lebob1234Tied
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: Pro intentionally defeated his own case by his own admission: "My arguments were purposefully fatally flawed" That's odd. Anyways, his conduct was awful; his arguments were just a huge rant! Con pointed out how Pro didn't understand his own citations, so Con gets source points. Pro even misspelled the resolution, on top of everything else, so Con gets points for that too.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
jh1234lebob1234Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had rude, biased and prejudiced behavior. Also, Pro arguments were nonsensical with little logic. Con pointed this out and thus made better argument.