The Instigator
Politician94
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJK
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Being atheist is an illogical move

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 3 votes the winner is...
MrJK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,621 times Debate No: 39956
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

Politician94

Pro

Debate

I am not arguing that a supreme being exists, I don't want you to argue that this being does or does not exist. I am arguing that it is an illogical move to throw out the possibility that there is a "God".

Rules
Round 1 for acceptance only.
MrJK

Con



I accept, and look forward to reading Pro's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Politician94

Pro

Thank you for accepting this; as this is a one round debate I will try to include all I can and hope to address the points I predict you shall make.

First off I would like to clarify this debate in regard to your comment "Rarely do atheists throw out the possibility that there is a god... Are you wanting to debate that it is logical to believe that there is? How can you do this without debating the logic of the belief?"

By definition: Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

And no I am not looking to debate that it is logical to believe that there is a God; I am wanting to debate that it is illogical to throw the possibility that there is a God out. But if you feel that it will increase your argument you are more than welcome to use that in part of your debate sir.

When I had this epiphany a few months back I used to call all my Atheist friends Agnostics, jokingly stating: "I know you are smarter than that; nothing is impossible, so throwing the possible off the table is just illogical." Before I start to argue my side I'd just like to quote something, that may or may not resonate with some of our readers:
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Of course this brings up the argument, and pseudo-religion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his church. This of course is arguing that because you can not prove that a supreme deity exists that it does not exist, or at the very least he should not be brought into intelligent debate. This argument is of course valid and arguing against the FSM would take a whole 8,000 characters in itself.
So in harm to my argument, I will not debate against the FSM in this thread.

Instead I will start at looking at some reasons that some have objected against the teachings of a Supreme Being.

One is the age old debate of science versus religion. I remember arguing with a friend-of-a-friend that was atheist because he said that the church was anti-science. Of course this is true if you go to the conservative right of the church, but in more mainstream religious sects this is entirely false. The Catholic Church and the Church of England, to name two big examples, both believe in the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Another religious leader accepting science is the Dali Lama; he is quoted saying "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality."
In regard to the argument that the Catholic Church and the Church of England are contradicting themselves by accepting these scientific beliefs, I only am going to say that this is false and is for another debate. The Bible is open for different translations and the creation of the universe and life is no different.

Next I will look at the creation of the universe in a logical stand-point arguing that throwing God off the table is a sure sign of an illogical person.

I paraphrase Einstein to open my next statement:
There was nothing before the Big Bang.

Nothing. Not a fleck of dust, not a single atom.
Science dictates as a common rule (or law): something can not be created out of nothing. We have narrowed down the Higgs Boson, or the God atom, that is critical in creating the universe but science is yet to tell us how it got there. Of course you can believe in the multiverse theory, but that still begs into question what or who created the first universe.

This is where I begun my thinking many months ago on the topic and I came to this conclusion that still drives me: something can not come from nothing; therefore until science develops further, if it can ever get to that point (which despite my pragmatistic philosophy I doubt it will), throwing God off the table is very illogical.

I'd also like to use an appeal to authority argument so that I can be fully encompassing:
First I will start with a quote from Einstein. Einstein disassociated himself from the label of atheist arguing that it was "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." Einstein much preferred the title of agnostic.
The smartest man in the world today, whose IQ can not even be measured on the charts we have, believes he can mathematically prove Gods existence.
And a majority of the top 10, "highest IQ" members in the world believe there is a God.

Does this mean anything? Probably not, but I thought it was worth mentioning nonetheless. Citing all this would be a nightmare: just Google top 10 smartest people in the world and then go through and Google Religious beliefs of _______: all 10 times and you will get a majority.

I lost what was going to be my closing statement in my head as I did research on the top 10 and their views on religion, but I think my point has been made well enough so I will end with a quote:

"The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations." - Einstein

Best of luck to you con,
-RJS
MrJK

Con









Unfortunately, the instigator’s title and his opening statement contradict each other, which immediately voids his entire debate.








By definition: Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.


This is the definition that the instigator gives, which is hardly exhaustive and I must say is a very poor definition. However, it essentially reveals the contradiction.

“It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.”
- From the University of cambridge. (http://www.investigatingatheism.info...)

Atheism is a response to theism and nothing more. It is the category of those who have said “I do not concur with your theism”. The clue is very much in the word itself.

A-theism
Root of ‘a-’
http://membean.com...

My opponent is a christian, for example. His belief in god relies on and originates with christianity, the
revelation as described in biblical text. Not science, not philosophy, but faith and ancient texts. It is not the endeavour to uncover the mystery of our origins, it is the claim that those origins are known to us, it is therefore not concerned with whether or not there exists the possibility of a god as it is the positive assertion of a god. (and the claim that they know what its likes and dislikes are as well!)
Atheism likewise is not necessarily concerned with whether or not it is possible for a god to exist, it can only, by definition, be concerned with the
belief that one exists ie: theism.


My opponent claims that his friends are the rarest of creatures, the very lesser (almost never) spotted “gnostic a- deist”
I would like to meet them, it would be worth it just to say that I have met either the cleverest or the stupidest people alive today.
I have not yet met one of this kind, who claims with certainty that no god can ever have existed in the immeasurable expanse of the unknown. Nor have I heard or read any arguments for the impossibility of the existence of a god outside of our knowledge. (ask yourselves, have you?!)

Lets be clear though, I would be dishonest if I did not admit that I hold quite firmly the position that
your god does not exist and can not exist. I adhere to the earthly authority of reason and logic, my beliefs are at the mercy of this authority, which dictates that I must be an atheist. The authority my beliefs are subject to will not tolerate a theism which describes a god as the giver of ‘free will’ and also the mastermind of past, present and future and all that is contained within. It will not tolerate the omnibenevolent god who is also the director of malevolence. It will not tolerate the omnipresent god who also escapes the great and perpetual reach of our senses and sciences.


Atheism, to clarify once more, is non adherence to theistic belief and non acceptance of a particular notion of god. In my case this applies to all notions of gods that I have thus far been presented with, but it also applies to non-adherence to
any theism. (my opponent is an atheist, he just doesn’t know it)

“As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.”
[http://plato.stanford.edu...]


Contrary to popular misconception, a far stronger attitude to take is agnosticism. The agnostic holds not simply that a god is unknown, but more, that one is unknowable.
[
http://www.britannica.com...]








“The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know.
[Robert G. Ingersoll, "Reply to Dr. Lyman Abbott," 1890]






I think I have explained quite clearly the inherent falsehood in my opponents proposition.

Do I need to go on to the second part of his argument?









...








Pro: “Of course this brings up the argument, and pseudo-religion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster…”

I did not find relevance in any of pro’s argument from the above sentence onward, which focused primarily on supporting the ‘logical’ belief in a god, especially given that he had already stated:


“no I am not looking to debate that it is logical to believe that there is a God”

I did however find it somewhat irritating so I shall write a few words in response.






Pro:
“...the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his church. This of course is arguing that because you can not prove that a supreme deity exists that it does not exist...”

No, it represents the idea that anything that exists or does not exist beyond the known world can only be attributed with the same truth value, we can only attribute to the christian god a truth value of equal measure to anything else our imaginations create. As Bertrand Russell explained:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

[http://www.cfpf.org.uk...]




In regards to Einstein I will also offer a quote:

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
[http://www.psaautographfacts.com...]




And in regards to this:

Pro:
“The smartest man in the world today, whose IQ can not even be measured on the charts we have, believes he can mathematically prove Gods existence.”

Well...compelling I am sure, please let me know when he presents his ‘proof’ and I will peel my palm from my face to view it.




My opponent gave false attributions to his claims and thereby presented a void proposition.





Debate Round No. 2
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
"However there is no doubt about what I am"

This we agree on.
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@MrJK aka "whore"

What conclusions can we draw here from our talks.

Fraud 1.) You are no scientist. That's quite evident nor would I even call you a man of science.
and
Fraud 2.) You are no skeptic. Your hijack the name pretending that's what you are. But you are most likely a number of other things, a true skeptic is not one of them.

There is much doubt what you are and what you pretend to be. However there is no doubt about what I am and what I believe.

Talk to ya later Mr scientist wanna be.......I have to get some shut eye.
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@MrJK

Whatever you say establishment whore lol......See my friend I can have God and science you can only have science. I can claim both, you can only claim one.

I believe in the seen and the unseen. That doesn't mean I believe in anything and everything. That means I believe in possibilities which any scientists in his right mind would agree with. Which is another indication that your no science major.

A real skeptic as you pretend to be are skeptical of all sides, not just one. Lol. And what's funny is your only proving my point what a closed minded establishment whore you really are. You are SUPPOSE to be OPEN MINDED. That's the nature of scientific inquiry you hoax.

That's what faith is and that's your idea of God? lol.... That's called over generalizing not to mention just a slight distortion of what faith is and what God is. Common tactic of establishment whores. Lets hear more of your materialist orthodox paradigm that offers little and promises nothing, proves even less. Yet will attack anything that does promises anything of actual beauty because there is no beauty other than what a nihilist reductionist says there is.
Mr scientist wanna be, all you do is attack, ridicule, put down, make in front of, suppress, hush, anything and everything that challenges the your materialist paradigm. Up yours!

Ever hear of "Pyrrhonism" Mr scientist wanna be? Have your ever practiced it? I highly doubt it.

Whore, do you ever engage in lets say a non judgmental open search for truth? Because I see no evidence for it. No scientist in his right mind would goes about with your kind of attitude and general psychosis. Which tells me your no scientist at all. You hijack science pretending it backs your belief that there is no God. Or there is no evidence for God, however It does no such thing genius. Science is a method. It has nothing to do with your "philosophical" belief there is no God. Nothing. The two are completely different things.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
You are embarrassing yourself.

At the risk of stooping to your level...

You offer your mind, 'soul', morality, reasoning and body to a supreme being in exchange for niceties in the afterlife and in fear of divine beatings.
sorry buddy, you and your ilk are the whores.
(you tend to define the supreme being as a man also, which kinda makes you a gay whore, does it not?!)
Which establishment do I cling to? The one that forces me to challenge every proposition I make and encounter with the best available system for doing so.

What is it you cling to? Faith - "it's dumb but I want it to be true so I'll stick with it" and "when it's dumbness is demonstrated to me I'll just pretend I can't see it"

Crabby, grow up and stop trolling, if you have something to challenge me on, then challenge me and we can discuss our ideas in the only legitimate, productive way that humans can, with adherence to reason and logic.

Alternatively, you can get back to prostituting yourself, on your knees, at the crotch of Christ, and stop bothering those that are concerned with understanding reality.
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@MrJK
I was so sleepy when I typed that remark. I apologize for the misspelled words and so on. I did not even think to use the spell check. zzzzzzz

"People claiming to have a personal relationship with the creator and ruler of the universe are a bit of a tragedy, but when they start accusing others of arrogance, fallacious arguments, lazy question begging and circular reasoning...it is just comical."

You know what you are? you're a whore, yup. You see them all over the place, in politics, science, in medicine and other fields. You remind me of the skeptical doctors in the movie "Patch Adams". Ever see it? Never questioning their own medical practices, but quick to be skeptical of anyone who dares stray out of the establishment, the medical doctrines, dogma, that has been set up. Anyone that dares question them one feels the wrath of their whore like reasoning. For they cling dearly to the establishment which in your case would be "materialism". Whore. I mean that's the basic premise here, you can call it other things, one of them being atheism. This establishment you follow, you follow absolutely. Never questioning, oh no, no skepticism towards your own "establishment". So obedient, so loving of the establishment, submissive to the core, and always faithful.
See how the intellectual whore infers that anyone who disagrees with him is basically stupid or in need of more education? The establishment rules. And how dare you question it. Course the one whoring will never question the establishment he is whoring for. Your a whore sir, you'll always be a whore. Your not even a true skeptic. your a fraud, a charlatan. I charge you are only skeptical of beliefs who you do not "personally" agree with. A true skeptic is even skeptical of his own assertions.

Yes, you are the LIVING example of objectivity. *cough* *choke*

Your only skeptical of things that frighten you cause your a scared intellectual whore. Waaaaaaa. You need a bib. Drooler
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
@crabby:

What I said was quite clear, why are you confused?

My "bitter-sweet sympathetic belly laughs" were quite clearly attributed to your belief that "you are in league with the almighty creator of the universe..."

Do you understand? People claiming to have a personal relationship with the creator and ruler of the universe are a bit of a tragedy, but when they start accusing others of arrogance, fallacious arguments, lazy question begging and circular reasoning...it is just comical.

I said that your statement was too ridiculous to respond to because...it is, your statement was pathetic and shows a complete lack of understanding of the concepts. If it wasn't for your attitude, you might be clearer on the concepts (you might get an insight in to why people are laughing at you) and I might be a more pleasant educator toward you.

That being said, I will demonstrate where your idea fails. Before responding, please read and THINK about what I have written.

"Why is atheism true? Because it is reasonable. Why is it reasonable? Because it not a faith or faith based. What happens if you reject faith? Then atheism is true."

Let's break this down.

"Why is atheism true? Because it is reasonable."

No. The Christian god is not true to the best of our understanding because it is illogical and therefore an unreasonable, indefensible proposition.

"Why is it reasonable? Because it not a faith or faith based."

No. Faith is not a part of reason or logic, it is incompatible.

"What happens if you reject faith? Then atheism is true."

No. Faith can not be proposed as a reasonable or logical defence or evidence, it is irrelevant to the question. Faith is what people have when they can not support their claims.

If you want to debate it, then challenge me.

PS: "embilic" --- not a word.
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@ MrJK
Hello sir. Hoping your weekend went well.....

As to the 1st part of your comment "belly laughs" at an almighty? Or belly laughs the unprovable notion that nothing can exist outside the human consiouness? Or what ever the hell your assinine dissenting opinion is.

"I have challenged you to debates, I have offered for you the opportunity to defend your words and your position."
That has nothing to do our discussion now. Non sequiter. I'm talking to you now, I do not have to. It seems you are unhappy when I do not wish to engage you in some embilic topic you decided to hit me over the head with. But conversely it seems you are equally unhappy when I do engage you in a dsicussion. So I'm done trying to make you happy lol ha ha ha

"This statement is almost to ridiculous to respond to...and you accuse me of fallacious arguments?!!!!"

Your intetionally missing the point. You made a comment on how circular arguments concerning God are. I simply pointed out how circular atheism as a position can be. I was being no more fallcious than you were being.

"You need to do some homework before entering these discussions."

It's been my experience that those who think they are so knowledgable and superior quite often are not. Anyways it's always fun talking to you and making you upset. later.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
"Your kind of lazy question begging is hardly rational. It's laughable."

You believe that you are in league with the almighty creator of the universe...
Don't start getting cheeky and promoting the idea that your arriving at this conclusion should deserve any respect, any admiration of your 'reasoning' or should provoke anything in myself outside of massive bitter-sweet sympathetic belly laughs.

I have challenged you to debates, I have offered for you the opportunity to defend your words and your position.

"I saw it and understood it the 1st time thanks."

Yet a christian/muslim/satanist/scientologist/pastafarian you still are.
I'm afraid I have every reason to believe that you do not understand these arguments.

"Why is atheism true? Because it is reasonable. Why is it reasonable? Because it not a faith or faith based."

This statement is almost to ridiculous to respond to...and you accuse me of fallacious arguments?!!!!

You need to do some homework before entering these discussions.
Posted by crabby 3 years ago
crabby
@ MrJk

All you did was repeat to your argument to me! I saw it and understood it the 1st time thanks. And I explained why it is not only faulty reasoning, but a fallacy as well. Your response to me was in large part no response at all. Or, only to say in the end only your right and I'm wrong. *Bangs his head on the wall*

Your reasoning is in fact a perfect example of circular logic. Thanks for bringing it up. Why is atheism true? Because it is reasonable. Why is it reasonable? Because it not a faith or faith based. What happens if you reject faith? Then atheism is true. Lol. How are you any different? You use self-confirming circles of selective definitions to support that your disbelief is true. Give me a break.

And you straw man once again! Painting this wonderful fallacious picture that many if not all Christians are unable to use rational methods of pursuing truth. Really?

Your kind of lazy question begging is hardly rational. It's laughable.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
@crabby:
It is not a quote of mine, it's a quote from Bertrand Russell. It is essentially the same as the 'flying spaghetti monster' or anything else a human imagination can fill the unknown with. That is, that anyone making these absurd claims carries the burden of proof, and until that burden is met to any extent, they have the same truth value. The teapot is as likely as a Christian God, Aten, Eshmun, Zurvan, Yu Di... etc etc.

There really are not many religious arguments for these gods that are not circular (my god exists because my god said so, my god exists because my god is/does/says X) or arguments from personal experience claims (the invisible man revealed himself to me, whispered to me, or "I felt it") or argumentum ad populum (lots of people believe these nonsense arguments for god/teapot therefore the god/teapot is true)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
Politician94MrJKTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: In my view, Pro relies on a fallacy of ignorance (human ignorance cannot disprove x, therefore, x is logical) I think Con spotted this, because he essentially reverses the premise, arguing that since we cannot prove x, it is not illogical to ignore x. This wins arguments. Pro also gets Sources. I think that in this debate, Pro might have done better by sharpening his arguments to be more concise.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 3 years ago
johnnyvbassist
Politician94MrJKTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate. I thought Pro had a good thesis and had the potential to support it. However, Pro did not create enough rounds to really establish a good argument. Con provided good Rebuttal for Pro's points, yet did not establish a good enough antithesis. Con's sources had links but all of Pro's comments were from "friends."
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Politician94MrJKTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con demonstrated that atheism was not inherently or necessarily the position that Pro implied it was. Pro's main argument was basically an argumentum ad populum or a fallacious appeal to authority to argue that Theism should not be rejected out of hand--Con pointed out that that is no defense of the belief, and showed that concluding that there is no God based on available evidence is not "an illogical move"--since that was the resolution under consideration, Con wins the arguments. Con also gets sources for providing some--and using them to support his case about language and about logic. Other categories appeared the same, or close enough to, as far as I was concerned.