The Instigator
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
baus
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Belief in god is rational.

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 4 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 978 times Debate No: 55424
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

KhalifV

Con

Round one: outlines
Round two: Initial arguments
Round three and four: rebuttal
Round five: conclusion.
In this debate I will be arguing that belief in god is irrational, and my opponent will be arguing that a belief in god is rational. A rational belief (to me) is one that there is good evidence for, or that is philosophical or logical reasonable.
I will argue 1)That there is no evidence for god.
2) That the evidence of the world points to there not being a god.
3)The implications of the very absolute definitions of god render the belief irrational.
The god in question is the god of Abraham. Deist are welcome too, I have never debated one and I find your position fascinating. Please have arguments aside from faith. I am looking fora challenging debate because i wish to become better at debating, and specifically debating god, and morality and such.
This debate is always fun and relevant, and I thank in advance whom ever accepts, and wish you good luck and a good time.
baus

Pro

I have no idea what exactly you mean by "round one: outlines" but I assume you want me to state my position.

I will simply be defending the the belief in a god of any kind is indeed rational.

You are welcome to define the terms.
Debate Round No. 1
KhalifV

Con

I am sorry if I messed up the format, this is my first debate. I meant by outline that, one would state his position, and maybe how one would go about validating that position, and maybe just some opening thoughts.

1) There is no good evidence for god's existence. A belief that is rational, usually has evidence behind it. For example,a belief in atoms is rational, because there is direct observational evidence of atoms. I would go further to argue that the concept is rational. An object exist and one continues to break it down further and further, and given the object is finite it can't be broken down forever, thus there is a point at which it can't be broken down anymore and that is the atom. However for god, no such evidence exist, and the notion is not rational of its self. A brief thought on the burden of proof is needed. If a notion has not direct evidence against it, that alone does not make it rational. Russell's teapot is great exemplification. Just because there is no evidence that an undetectable teapot is not orbiting mars, does not make the belief that one is rational.

2)The evidence of the world points to the non-existence of god. A debate that has been prevalent in the philosophy of religion community for centuries is the problem of evil and its compatibility with god's omnibenevolence. It is no mystery that there is immense suffering in the world, all one must do is drive around for a while, and one is bound to come into contact with the homeless and hungry, and the problem is magnified immensely when one views other countries. The characteristic of god is omnibenevolence, that is to say god is good to everyone, and this seems to be utterly false given the evidence of the world. Starving children in third world countries seem to be ignored by god, and the European aristocracy seem to be blessed. In order to exonerate god of any questioning, the theist often says god gave us free will, and consequently some are bound to suffer. This would be a valid, except for that it is commonly claimed that god intervenes in the universe, and every time god does that, he imposes free will. A biblical example is the plagues of Egypt; the Jews were being tortured and enslaved, which I agree is awful, but given god allows free will, this event is compatible with god. By placing plagues open the Egyptians, and killing their sons(because that's really acceptable on the part of an omni-benevolent god) , god is coercing the Egyptians. If god could bring himself to negate the free will of the Egyptians, who were wicked, why is it the case the that god can not bring himself to negate the free will of the wicked now? Stalin was much worse than the Egyptian rulers. It is estimated that around six hundred thousand Jews were oppressed or killed in the slavery episode, which is awful, but Stalin is responsible for at least twenty million deaths. For god to intervene on the behalf of the Jews, but allow the death and suffering of thirty three point three times as many citizens of the USSR, is completely incompatible with the notion of omnibenevolence. It is impossible to have it both ways;either god doesn't intervene, and free will of the wicked prevails, and thus suffering is possible, or god intervenes, but only for some, but the consequence of the latter situation, is god has more regard for the well being of some as opposed to others.
A common seemingly evidence based argument for god is causality. That is to say everything must have a cause, and given an infinite causal regression can't exist, there had to be a first cause, and that is god. However everything does not need a cause. In quantum physics particles are observed, not mathematically inferred to, but observed coming in and out of existence with no cause. When quantum physics is applied to the universe and the laws of physics, universe can come into existence from nothing.
3) Implications of common definitions.The first trait is omnipresence, meaning present everywhere, this creates a gigantic problem for the followers of the Abrahamic god. In the Abrahamic religions god is not defined as everything, however it is proposed god is observant, and conscious of everything. This raises a problematic question. How can something exist everywhere and be conscious of everything , and yet not be everything? This is preposterous, by definition it is only possible for one to experience what one feels himself; one can not feel anything that anybody else feels. One can attempt to understand what another feels through empathy, but of course that is quite different from experiencing the same experience as another. If god is completely conscious of what one experiences, that is to say god experiences everything one experiences, god is consequently indistinguishable from the individual experiencing the experience, and this applies to every single being in the universe that experiences anything, and the consequence is that god is actually everything that experiences anything. The concept of god is then turned into a pantheist definition of everything, and loses allure. The implications of god's omnipresence is contradictory to the notion of god being independent of everything. It is also agreed that god is eternal and given god has omnipresence, it follows that god has been present everywhere forever. It is accepted that the universe has existed for thirteen point seven billion years, but given god is eternal, god existed prior to that. However it is also accepted that there was nothing before the universe, so it follows that god was present everywhere when nothing existed. It logically follows at that time god was nothing. This is often avoided by saying god exist outside of space time. For this to be the case, the word exist would have to be used in a way that is completely different from its usual definition. If one was to say god existed before time,it is the same as saying god existed for no unit of time, and in the general usage of the word exist, if something exists for no unit of time, it doesn't or didn't exist. In regards to space, the same problem arises; if god was to exist before space, it is the same as saying he existed in no space, and consequently if something exists no space, it does not actually exist. It can still exist as an abstract concept, such as numbers, but the definition of god is that god actually exists. The implications of god's omnipresence is contradictory to the concept of god.
baus

Pro

My opponent states that a belief in atoms is rational. My opponent has never seen an atom, heard an atom, felt an atom, smelt an atom nor tasted an atom on its own. Con has only experienced things which he/she perceives to be a combination of atoms but in actuality may not be at all. He has read books on the matter that are agreed by those in the scientific community but much like God, atoms are often disputed as being 3 or 5 parts, being truly apart from one another or overlapping. In fact, the atom has most likely had more dispute over not only its existence but its very nature than any god ever did in the first generation of religion. Thus, I do not at all see how it is any more rational to believe in an atom than to believe in a god.

Following on from this, Con states that there has been direct observational evidence of atoms. There have also been people who have not only seen god but seen the devil himself as well as hell, heaven the virgin Mary, Jesus Christ as well as Muhammad and would call you a fool for doubting them with the same sincerity as any physicist would if you doubted the existence of the atom that they hold so much faith in the existence of. On top of this people have seen the miracles and effects of a god first-hand and have supplied us with written evidence as well (well written evidence as best they could back then).

Moving on from this, con claims that "if an object exists and one continues to break it down further and further, and given the object is finite it can't be broken down forever, then there will be a point at which it can't be broken down anymore and that is the atom."

I shall now reword his logic replacing only the nouns:

"If a timeline of creation exists and one continues to break it down further and further, and given the timeline of creation is finite it can't be broken down forever, then there will be a point at which it can't be broken down anymore and that is the god.

This is identical to Con's logic only changing the nouns to suit my needs as he/she did to suit his/hers.

Con states: "Just because there is no evidence that an undetectable teapot is not orbiting mars, does not make the belief that one is rational."

I reply: "Yes indeed and just because there is no evidence that no atom whatsoever exists, does not make the belief that one is rational."

My opponent then states that god is omni-benevolent. It actually is not written in any single religion on Earth that god is omni-benevolent and this fallacious claim is why the paradox doesn't work. God makes the rules, but he isn't playing our game. He is the referee, he doesn't have to follow the same rules as the football players. He has no obligation to be 'good' because there is no one to punish him. He is permitted to be as malignant as he wishes as long as he loves us all in his own. subjective way.

God makes people suffer to test them. He has no obligation to make the test fair on everyone nor does he have any obligation to send you to heaven or hell based on how you behaved in life, it's all his choice and his decision. He has the power, you have none. You can question him and say he's a hypocrite but the fact that god is a hypocrite does not make believing in his existence irrational. that would mean that believing that Stalin existed would be irrational. If you wish, I can prove that Stalin was just as much of a hypocrite as god (not Hitler though, if you were wondering, that guy was super-consistent in his values [no sarcasm intended]).

My opponent states that:

"In quantum physics particles are observed, not mathematically inferred to, but observed coming in and out of existence with no cause. When quantum physics is applied to the universe and the laws of physics, universe can come into existence from nothing."

In return I reply:

"In Theism, gods are observed, not mathematically inferred to, but observed coming in and out of existence with no cause. When Theism is applied to the universe and the laws of physics, God can come into existence from nothing."

Although God hasn't yet come out of existence, it is possible that he can come in and out of our reality, as in our universe, and move to other ones as he pleases.

My opponent raises the question:

"How can something exist everywhere and be conscious of everything , and yet not be everything?"

I reply:

"How can something exist in a body and be conscious of a debate on a website, and yet not be a debate on a website?"

This was quite an amusing debate and I thank mu opponent for this fantastic opportunity.

Best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
KhalifV

Con

My opponent makes some good points and I shall do my best to rebut them.

My opponent states that he does not see it any more rational to believe in the existence of atoms than god, given that I have not seen an atom directly, and the disputes over the atom.
Now I shall have to concede to my opponent that I have not seen an atom and I do rely on accounts in this regards, however if we really wanted to, my opponent and I could go to a research institute, use the STM and see an atom. The same is not true for god, I can pray all I want and not see god. Also a consensus has been reached and all scientist agree that the atom exists. The same can not be said for god. The fact that a dispute has taken place over a claim says nothing about the rationality of the claim.
On the reliability of accounts. We must ask ourselves what is more likely? That the characters actually saw god or the devil, or that they didn't. I think it is more likely they didn't. The evidence for atoms and the evidence that these figures saw god or the devil are not the same. At this moment in time, as I have mentioned before, we can see an atom with an STM, but even if we couldn't, the math still checks out. The evidence for observations of the devil or god is that someone wrote them down. Writing something down does not make it true, as my opponent would agree. I highly doubt my opponent would accept the written claims of Joseph Smith. In history we don't believe something just, because it's written. My father used a similar argument not too long ago. He said "how can I know that George Washington had a mother?" Well that claim is consistent with everything I know about the universe, and there is not reason for me not to believe Washington had a mother. With the claim of one seeing god or the devil, it is different. The claim that George Washington had a mother is not a huge claim and consequently does not require much evidence. I would also say that the claim that atoms exist is not a huge one. Also my opponent did not say anything about my logical argument about atoms. The claim that one saw god or the devil or was raised from the dead or was born of a virgin requires a bit more evidence than writing.

I'm not sure if my opponent's rewording of the argument is applicable to god. Time came into existence when the universe did, and thus the start of the universe is the start of the timeline. To input god into the sequence would mean that god is not eternal,and comes into being with the universe.

My opponent states:" just because there is no evidence that no atom whatsoever exists, does not make the belief that one is rational." This a real brain teaser, with the double negatives and all. My response is that there is evidence for atoms, and consequently I don't understand his point.

Next my opponent states that my claim that god is omni-benevolent is a " fallacious claim".My opponent is actually the only theist I have ever encountered who has said that. I checked out a source and omni-benevolence is certainly implied, and is also implied from the holy books. I also would like my opponent to adrress the notion that god is required to love us, but not required to be good. And yes I would like you to expand on Stalin, not because I disagree with you, but because I'm sure it will be insightful. http://www.theopedia.com...'s_known_attributes

I would disagree with my opponent when he states "gods are observed" , and when he states that they come into existence with "no cause". I've never heard of gods being observed and I would like him to explain. Also the view that god came into existence with no cause is interesting too, and I would also like him to expand on this. The implication is that god is not eternal, given he came into existence. It is also generally held that god is cause of himself, or a necessary being, and my opponent's view contradicts this, Also I would like him to expand on the part about multiple realities, which I find fascinating. From my understanding particles do pop into other realities when they pop out of existence in our reality, but they not longer exist in our reality. I fail to see how god can leave our reality and not cease to exist in our reality.

Finally, on my opponents final analogy. The something inside of the body is not omnipresent, therefor its spatial parameters and the website's spatial parameters don't over lap. Also I'm not completely conscious of what my computer or the website experiences .

I am looking forward to my opponent's responses, and I would like to thank my opponent for sharing some very interesting, that I have not yet heard,
baus

Pro

The first error Con makes is in stating that "My opponent and I could go to a research institute, use the STM and see an atom."

No atom has ever been actually seen. It's too physically small for the human eye to see. Even the most powerful microscope on Earth can't begin to get to atomic levels.

You may say that a consensus has been reached and all scientists agree that the atom exists but a consensus between all religious people has been reached that god exists.

The only evidence for atoms is something people wrote down as having observed. It could all be a lie. there is literally no more proof that any of the research is even real than there is that God-sightings and miracle instances are real.

Why is there any more logic to atoms than God or a virgin birth? We never said it was the Christian god and we never established whether or not the word 'virgin' back then just meant you still had a tight vaj at the end of the night.

God begins to explain what made the things that made time and the rest of the universe; atheism fails to remotely indicate what made these things.

There is no more evidence for atoms than there is for god.

Omni-benevolence may be implied but it is never explicitly stated, thus I shall negate it as a bias, fallacious interpretation.

God has no physical presence, it is a sentient being and is raw sentience with omnipotence. Thus, for God to be everywhere it wouldn't require him to physically be everything but merely to spread his consciousness far and wide. God requires no physical presence at all, only a spiritual one.
Debate Round No. 3
KhalifV

Con

I equivocated seeing and detection, but detection is evidence. Since we can detect atoms, it is rational to believe in them. In the quantum world detection is about as good as it gets, but at least it's something. God's are not detected.

I can extend my statement even further by saying: everybody with an understanding of an atom, believes that the atom exists.
I have yet to encounter someone who doesn't believe in atoms, in person or in any other regard. I doubt my opponent has encountered or heard of anybody who disbelieves in atoms.

The consensus among those who know about gods is not that gods exist. My opponent's statement that the consensus among religious people is that god exists is the same thing as saying that everybody who believes in something, believes in that something.

The big difference in the evidence is that the claims written down about atoms can be falsified. What is said about atoms can be tested. The written claims about seeing god or the devil can't be falsified or tested.

My opponent states that god begins to explain what made the universe. I think this makes the whole situation more complex; it's like solving a mystery, by appealing to a bigger mystery you didn't need to appeal to. Atheism is not a doctrine, so obviously "atheism" does not have anything to say about the subject; atheist get their views from science, and reality, and philosophy. Science does attempt to explain what caused the universe, and based off the evidence of quantum physics, the universe does not need a cause.

Things that don't physically exist, only exist as concepts, and I'm sure no one thinks god only exists as a concept, and so a problem remains present for the theist.
baus

Pro

First of all, just because Gods are not detected doesn't make it less rational to believe in them than atoms. Numbers are not detectable but it's rational to believe in them because it helps us cope with life, much like God does for many people and much like atoms have for many scientists.

Secondly, the evidence that atoms have been detected is all word of mouth and written scripture that you assume "scientists" actually carried experiments out to discover when ti could all be a lie to better explain the terrifying unknown which religion seeks to explain away too.

What is said about atoms can indeed be tested but that doesn't prove that the results are due to the atoms existing. Int he same way, God can save many people who have lost all hope but that doesn't prove that the thing that had the effect to make them gain hope again actually exists. We assume that the results being received prove the existence of atoms but in reality that could be a mistaken theory.

"Everybody who believes in something, believes in that something." This is true. This is exactly what the 'consensus' about atoms has been based upon.

"The claims written down about atoms can be falsified." The claims about atoms might be falsifiable but the claims are about effects of what we presume to be existent atoms but, in reality, may be something very different altogether or nothing at all. Atoms are beyond the capacity of our senses and we have no way of determining their existence, or lack thereof.

You say that science attempts to explain what caused the universe. God could have made everything that happened happen. Where did the energy and matter required for the big bang come from? Science explains absolutely nothing about the true origin of things, it only studies the processes that any rational individual would realize that a god could have caused to happen.

"Things that don't physically exist, only exist as concepts, and I'm sure no one thinks god only exists as a concept, and so a problem remains present for the theist." Actually, God is just as much of a concept as atoms. I do not see anything less conceptual about an atom than a god.

"The universe does not need a cause." God doesn't need a cause either.
Debate Round No. 4
KhalifV

Con

The fact that something helps one cope with life, does not make it rational.
rational is defined as"based on or in accordance with reason or logic." If I sincerely believed in reincarnation, and believed I would reincarnate as a king, I'm sure I would feel a lot better. I would cope with this life a lot better, because I would believe something better is coming, however there is no ground for accepting the belief as true, thus it is irrational.

Numbers are a human concept, and if we never came up with the concept, they would not exist. They don't naturally exist in the universe.

I concede that I am assuming they carried out experiments, but that is because I have no reason to disbelieve that scientists carry out experiments, because that's what a scientist does. I do acknowledge that atoms could be a lie, but what ever is said about them is testable. If I go do the experiments, and they turn out false, I will promptly end my belief in atoms.

" God can save many people who have lost all hope but that doesn't prove that the thing that had the effect to make them gain hope again actually exists." My opponent just basically admitted that god is not testable. If god saves people, he exist. Things that don't exist can't save people. I maintain that things that don't exist, don't have effects on anything. Just like things that don't exist, don't have traits. It's kind of like saying "that square circle gives me hope, and it helps me out in bad times." A square circle can't exist, and thus it does nothing to anyone."

"Science explains absolutely nothing about the true origin of things." This statement is just plain false. There is a whole branch of science dedicated to the origins of the universe. "Cosmogony is any theory concerning the coming into existence or origin of the universe, or about how reality came to be."
https://www.princeton.edu...

I agree that atoms and gods are concepts, but atoms have a physical existence. No religious system I know defines god as merely a concept, and there is no reason to think that god is anything but a concept. My opponent might be holding a definition of god that means "the perfect ideal", but I know of no system that holds this. I find his neo-theism fascinating though.

God is commonly defined as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. " However a concept, that lacks a physical existence, can't create a universe. This idea contradicts my opponent's statement that "God requires no physical presence at all." God needs a physical existence to create something.

Since the common notion is that god created the universe, and we both agree that neither needs a cause, why still even incorporate god? Occam's razor dictates that the solution that provokes the least additional questions, is the most rational.
Thus god just becomes an additional and irrelevant term in the sequence.
http://math.ucr.edu...
baus

Pro

As round 5 commences, Con states that if a belief keeps the individual sane, as opposed to the insanity that would commence if the person did not uphold this belief then this does not warrant the rationality of the belief itself. I would argue that if someone goes insane, they'd never be capable of rational thought in the first place and so to avoid that trap at all costs is indeed a rational thing to do. Thus, if someone believes in God to remain sane and happy so as to avoid becoming so insane that they are never capable of rational thought again, they are indeed having a rational belief for the belief is rational to have, regardless of the validity of the claim being believes.

The point my opponent makes about numbers doesn't counter the fact that believing in them is a rational thing to do despite their nonexistence.

My opponent concedes that there is no more evidence for an atom's existence than there is of a god's existence and since they claimed believing in atoms to be rational the entire debate, believing in the existence of a god must also be rational.

I am not sure how a square circle is synonymous to god and will negate this due to lack of any validation on Con's part to justify that erroneous simile.

I will now explain why science does not explain the origin of everything and only explains how everything after the origin works, rather than the origin of all matter and energy itself.

First let's work out what science does not do [http://undsci.berkeley.edu...]. Science does not cover morality, include anything in regards to a supernatural origin to the universe nor explain how to actually use science itself to reach conclusions in the first place. All of this is left up to the one interpreting the data that the scientific process gives them and to make their own, subjective, conclusions (although a lot of scientists like to think of their conclusions as 'objective' but in reality it's only correct according to their brain's subjective interpretation of supposedly objective data).

Now let's see what science can't do in terms of explaining things.
http://powertochange.com...

It can't prove that you are not a brain-in-a-vat, it can't prove that morals exist, it can't prove that logic is valid, it can't prove that Barack Obama was President of 2008 and it can't prove that any experience, such as the sighting of Jesus was actually true or false.

Thus, science has no place in discussing the origin of the universe and I have successfully countered the rebuttal that Con made regarding this claim.

Following this, Con states that although both atoms and gods are concepts, atoms have a physical presence. Yet, I stated in round one that Con has neither seen, heard, felt, smelt nor tasted an individual atom, independent of others in their life. All that Con has done is sensed physical objects that he/she has blind faith in being the sum of many atoms.

God does not need to be physically present to generate physical activity any more than the consciousness of the voters on this debate has to be physical to influence their decision of how they vote.

Occam's razor actually contradicts itself because to conclude that Occam's razor is true is to assume that adding Occam's razor to a set of possibilities will render the right one. Using Occam's razor, in itself is an unnecessary additional burden that the one seeking an answer is doing and thus Occam's razor would deem them unnecessarily complicating the answer by using an unnecessary razor to find it. Occam's razor is paradoxical and self-defeating and is thus negligible.

In conclusion, belief in god is just as rational as the belief in atoms which Con has asserted is rational.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Thank you for the criticism, this is my first debate, and your criticism will make me better :).
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
---RFD points---
Agreed with before: Atheist here, but neither agree nor disagree prior to arguments (incredibly subjective subject).
Agreed with after: Neither one truly proved their case to me.

CONDUCT: Con spent a lot of time trying to claim a fallacy really wasn't a fallacy, rather than accepting being caught on it and dropping the point.

S&G: Small errors throughout, however nothing greatly distracting from their cases.

ARGUMENTS: Neither proved their case, however I felt con gained a lot more ground. Pro made the classic mistake of inventing too heavily in trying to disprove con, rather than just citing a couple good examples of historical rationality of the specific religious belief (for example: in Rome protection from certain plagues is historical, and a very rational reason to do something, unless survival ceases to be rational). It stayed too metaphysical, and centered on if God is rational, instead of if belief in God is rationally supported (at least under certain circumstances).

SOURCES: I am opposed to introducing sources in the final round, doubly so when that round is already stated to be for conclusions only... However either way there was not enough even alone to give either debater an edge. Con's first one being shot full of holes. So yeah, this section IMO favors pro by a bit, but not by enough to take the point.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
---VOTE RFD EXPANDED---
R1:
"In this debate I will be arguing that belief in god is irrational, and my opponent will be arguing that a belief in god is rational" this opening round statement clearly means BoP is shared. Otherwise decent definitions.

R2:
Highlights CON: "If a notion has not direct evidence against it, that alone does not make it rational." God's conflicting policies exemplified in ancient Egypt. Small problem was wall of text syndrome. PRO: counters the talk of atoms with "...atom has most likely had more dispute over not only its existence but its very nature than any god ever did in the first generation of religion..." also caught con's use of the straw man fallacy, and backed it up by dismissing claim that God is all good (which would explain a lot, assuming God was real). Pretty good joke about Stalin, however proving belief in Stalin to be irrational, would not make belief in anything else automatically rational.

R3:
Con claims to have commited no fallacy, begins cross examination by requesting expanions. Also used a souce Theopedia, which did not back the claim of "omni-benevolent" all-knowing and all-powerful sure, but not "all-good."
pro "We never said it was the Christian god" huge mistake to me, as in R1 it was clearly outlined that this debate would be "The god in question is the god of Abraham."

Running out of characters... More back and forth back and forth, a decent play on people using belief in God to fend off true madness... New arguments and sources in final round, "razor would deem them unnecessarily complicating the answer by using an unnecessary razor to find it. Occam's razor is paradoxical and self-defeating and is thus negligible." Very bad concluding point.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Reading through this, not at the voting point yet...

Key suggestions for future arguments:
1. Avoid walls of text. This isn't a book, this is a website, ease of reading is important.
2. Bold or italicize quotes, so as to make it clear who talking (be consistent). Also it became confusing when debaters began inserting their own replies into quotations.
3. Proving one thing to be non-rational, does not prove anything else to be rational. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, is the ultimate argument from ignorance fallacy (not saying either crossed that line, but it was approached).
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Really Motormouth? You didn't even give reasons for anything.
Posted by baus 2 years ago
baus
Lol at Motormouth
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Science is discovering the source of Morality, evolution and group survival has formed human morality along with concepts of morality that exist entirely in the human mind, and thus subjective.
Objective morality is an illusion only.
Morality is something humans developed for survival, and that's from Evolution.
Science will uncover all those things claimed as unexplained.
Most are unexplained because they only exist as mind based concepts.
But even those concepts are derived from human experiences and evolution of the human brain.
Neuropsychology will eventually explain all those things science has failed to explain in the past.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Frankly, I don't find a belief in God irrational, it depends on a number of factors, such as level of education, type of education and life experiences.
A belief in a God could in my books be entirely rational, according to such knowledge and experiences.
Yet a belief in Divine Scripture (Christian, Judaism and Islam) is to me Irrational.
With some scriptures being extremely Irrational: Scientology, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventist, Young Earth Creationist Doctrines and Jehovah Witness Doctrines.
Because there is no Rational support for those scriptures in existence.
Belief in those Irrational doctrines demonstrate a damaged mind, usually via Indoctrination and deliberately limited access to real knowledge.
Thus the products of Brainwashing.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Thank you for the link to the atoms article. In light of this proof, I would say it is definitely more rational to believe in atoms than god. I'm sure my opponent will dismiss the article as hearsay though.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
KhalifVbausTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
KhalifVbausTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm surprised this was never said, but Pro has the BoP here, which means that he has to prove that belief in god is rational. What I see here is that he took just one route to get there, which was to equate belief in atoms with belief in god. In most ways, though it pains me to see it, I think he's successful. The point that it becomes hairy, and the reason why he lost this debate, is by declaring, without warrants or evidence, that the evidence scientists generate through their experiments is all just belief. I don't buy this, and I think it's a stretch in any instance. If the only thing Pro can do here is state that there could be something else instead of atoms that are generating those results, then it's still not equated to god, since god doesn't have any evidence to support its existence. As long as I see evidence as something that can support rationality, and as long as there is no such evidence for god whereas there is for atoms, I can only conclude that the two are different.
Vote Placed by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
KhalifVbausTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's analogies were weaker overall, and his understanding of many areas of discussion were questionable. Having said that, con did leave some questionable data and analogies as well. Ultimately, the key areas of discussion leaned heavily in con's favor. Pro's point about comforting thoughts being rational could have lead somewhere, but it should have been used more than it was. All said, good debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
KhalifVbausTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro' analogies were inappropriate and do not support his argument, and sources are not convincing, Neurology is discovering the sources of many of those things Pro claims science cannot deal with, such as morality, which can now be explained greatly by neuro-psychology. The attack on the atom was ludicrous, since we shoot atoms which is a bit hard to do if we cannot prove they exist. Con's arguments were stronger and sources better in supporting Con's arguments.