The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BrettBoelkens
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Believers in atheist Dogma Are Exactly as Dumb as Animals (Shanor Is an Example)

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 1 vote the winner is...
BrettBoelkens
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 103418
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (65)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

The human species (which is the most intelligent species on the planet) is the only species on the planet that worships God.... Hogs, dogs, asses, atheists, pond scum, and piles of feces are all on a lower intellectual platform, and that is why none of them worship God, as mature human beings with fully human intelligence always do. Remaining just like a barking dog, the atheist will never take good instruction regarding God's factual appearance and activities. Here's a related short video:

https://www.youtube.com...
BrettBoelkens

Con

Okay, let's enjoy this absolutely marvelous debate on whether atheists are less than animals and piles of feces, a question that if applied to a race would make the questioner somewhat racist. Let's not ignore how the very resolution of this debate compares a member of this site to animals as well. But nevertheless, that is beyond the point.

My opponent is missing the key to argument; evidence. What evidence does he have for his dehumanization of atheists? How come the fact that they don't believe make them intellectually inferior? And what neuroscience supports your posistion that atheists don't have fully human intelligence?

If my opponent's claims are true about atheists lacking intelligence, how come on average atheists/agnostics know more about religion then anyone else does in the US? In a survey by Pew Research Center of 3,412, on average, atheists/agnostics scored the best on religious knowledge tests, with Jews and Mormons being close behind. And to add, a great deal of Jews are merely cultural Jews.

To add, how come 95% of the American public believes in God/universal spirit while only 51 of AAAS members believe. Wouldn't you expect the same people who put men on moons and study the stars to be more religious than the public under my opponents worldview? Several of the most influential people in our history have been agnostics/atheists/freethinkers, such as Hawking, Turning, Edison, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson, Sagan, Sakharov and such. This is not to say religious people aren't intelligent, for you have Newton, Collins, Galileo, Kelvin, Bacon, Lemaitre, and Boyle.


http://www.pewforum.org...
http://www.pewforum.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"...somewhat racist."

Without God, racism could not be objectively wrong.

"compares a member of this site to animals as well."

I guess you're right about that: It was unfair of me to compare dumb animals to believers in atheist Dogma, and for that I would like to offer my sincere and heartfelt apology -- to the animals.

"To add, how come 95% of the American public believes in God/universal spirit while only 51 of AAAS members believe."

Human beings are the smartest species on the planet, but 0% of the dumber species, such as hogs, dogs, camels, and asses, worship God (they are all atheistic). Therefore, Theism is an exclusive characteristic of the more intelligent.

Feces, bacteria, and slime-mold also doesn't worship God because they are also less intelligent than human beings: Same goes for two-legged animals that claim to believe in the lies of atheist Dogma.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
BrettBoelkens

Con

What evidence do you have for the claim that "without God, racism couldn't be objectively wrong"?

Again you compare atheists to pond scum, dehumanizing them. What evidence do you have that makes this comparison valid?

Lower animals have no intellectual capacity to believe or disbelieve. Their opinion on the matter is practically worthless since they have no real opinion. Theism is exclusive to humanity, but so is a belief in tooth fairies, leprechauns, demons, 9/11 denialism, Sandy Hook denialism, astrology, alchemy, faith healing, flat earth, etc. You too could say that feces and slime muck are afaireists, alepuranists, and nonastrologers, yet this wouldn't get you anywhere intellectually. Just because the intellectually inferior do not believe in a claim, does not mean you should. By the same logic, you could reach infinitely many self-contradictory claims.

Intelligence does not necessarily correlate to a belief in theism. If that was true we would expect theistic beliefs to be more prevalent in the highly educated. Again we see some of the most influential people in our history being nonbelievers. The atheist Alan Turing cracked the Nazi's enigma codes during WWII by building a computer, helping prevent an Aryan rule.

My opponent ignores my arguments from religious knowledge and scientific occupation. Therefore, they still stand. He has failed to provide neuroscientific evidence that nonbelievers are less intelligent/intellectually deficient, nor does he present evidence that this should make atheists at the level of donkeys.

http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"What evidence do you have for the claim that "without God, racism couldn't be objectively wrong"?"

There is nothing in existence other than God that could provide a basis for objective moral values. Therefore without God, racism couldn't be objectively wrong. The only way that you could validly refute that statement would be to posit something other than God that could provide a basis for objective moral values, and then prove that the thing you posited does actually provide that basis. You have failed to do either one, and in fact you cannot do either one, because there is actually nothing in existence other than God that could provide a basis for objective moral values. Therefore you lost the debate.

"Again you compare atheists to pond scum, dehumanizing them. What evidence do you have that makes this comparison valid?"

That evidence is in my OP: Don't ask me to explain something that I already explained -- that is stonewalling on your part. Also, without God, dehumanizing someone could not be objectively wrong.

"Lower animals have no intellectual capacity to believe or disbelieve."

True, and they also don;'t have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the revealed facts about God. That is why they don't worship God. Two-legged animals that claim to be humans and yet don't worship God are also on the same lower intellectual platform as the four-legged animals, and that is also why they do not worship God. (By the way, this was also already explained in my OP, so you have a continuous problem with stonewalling, which is bad debating on your part).

"Their opinion on the matter is practically worthless since they have no real opinion."

Yes, -- same with those two-legged animals that identify as atheists.

"Theism is exclusive to humanity"

That is my point, yes. It is exclusive to humanity because humanity is smarter than the four-legged animals, and humanity is also more intelligent than the two-legged animals that identify as atheists.

Your insane rant about your "fairies" is nothing but a red-herring, and has nothing to do with the subject of this debate, so it does not warrant a direct response, except that resorting to red herrings is typical behavior for believers in atheist Dogma because of their lower intellectual capacity paired with their logically and intellectually inferior atheistic worldview.

"Intelligence does not necessarily correlate to a belief in theism."

I never claimed that it did. In fact, I never even mentioned any so-called "belief" in Theism, so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"If that was true we would expect theistic beliefs to be more prevalent in the highly educated."

Humans are more highly educated than animals and piles of feces, so actually, belief in Theism is definitely more prevalent in the highly educated, but as I alluded above, this is a side-issure since my actual argument has nothing to do with "belief in Theism." All people who worship God are also more highly educated than animals and more highly educated than piles of feces, so in those cases, too, those who do not worship God are less educated than those who do. Education does not make one more intelligent -- it provides data, either false or true data, but it does not provide intelligence. Also, relaying facts about God are part of the human education system, which both four-legged animals and two-legged animals that identify as atheists fail to complete, so your reference to education is helping my side of this debate, not your side.

"by building a computer"

Without God, there could be no science, and without science, there could be no computers. Therefore, without God, Turing could not have helped defeat the Nazis. Also, without God, Nazi rule (or the rule of any other person or group of persons that you may subjectively assess to be immoral) could not be objectively wrong. Also, Hitler was an atheist, and that is why he murdered six million Catholics and six million Jews. Also, without God, mass murder and genocide could not be objectively wrong.

"nor does he present evidence that this should make atheists at the level of donkeys."

Yes I did.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
BrettBoelkens

Con

It has once been said that some can speak as many lies in a sentence as there are words in that sentence, and I believe that what happened here with my opponents Gish gallop of arguments, someone who is completely irrelevant to the resolution.

Pond Scum
My opponent just asserts that my reductio ad absurdum rebuttal to his argument is a red herring, without displaying any evidence that is. Therefore they still stand. I could say a belief in fairies are exclusive to humanity, and only pond scum, feces, and afairiests deny their existence. The logic in this is horrendous, but so is his argument.

Morals
Again, my opponent moves the goalposts, asking me to deal with the moral argument as well, and then saying I lost the debate before I even had a chance to respond.

I must ask why God is the only source of objective morality. Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? If whatever that is commanded by God is good, then God could order genocide and then that would be good. Under God, anything could be permissible. However, if morality is separate from God, then God is powerless to change it. And if that sense of morality is separate, what is to prevent us from finding it out ourselves.


I must also ask, how did you discover that God is good and Lucifer is evil? If you made this decision yourself, where does this secular sense of morality come from? If you didn't make it of your own moral code, and rather the one God wrote on your heart, how did you find that God was good? If the devil wrote his moral code on your heart, wouldn't he come out like sunshine and rainbows?

I fail to see why objective morals are always better than subjective ones. An objective moral system could include divinely mandated rape, torture, genocide, and child abuse being the epidemy of morality.


Godwin's Law
Now I could just invoke Godwin's Law, saying you lost the debate for a mere Hitler comparison, yet I think I'll continue on his argumentum ad Hitlerum. Why do you think he was an atheist, when repeatedly he mentioned words like creator, lord, god, and such in his speeches. In the closing of Chapter 1 of Mein Kampf he says, "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Does this sound like a nonbeliever to you? And Hitler was not the one that did the killing blow, rather a country primarily protestant and catholic. This is not to say Hitler was a Christian since we have some contradicting evidence in Hitler's Table Talks, but it seems he enjoyed the idea.

To add, why does it even matter. If Hitler was an atheist, I could just cite Alan Turing or such. If he was a Christian, you could cite Mother Teresa. The arguments about whose camp he was in makes no real difference since this is a false comparison. Former dictators had no hope to make body counts as large as Hitler before the 20th century. Imagine a modern Crusade, with guns, explosives, planes, gas chambers, and tanks. The comparison is like comparing currency from 2 different centuries, it isn't equal.

My opponent merely asserts that without God there could be no science. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed for the same reason.

Conclusion
My opponent has propagated the argument, asserting that nonbelievers are pond scum without any reasonable argument. His line of reasoning could be used to dehumanize nontruthers, alepurcanists, and such. He brings up the moral argument, something irrelevant to the discussion, as well as a comparison between Hitler and atheists. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
I have won all the debates in which I have participated, except one, which I deliberately forfeited.
Posted by Masterful 5 months ago
Masterful
Nobody buys your BS
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Actually, I have won all the debates in which I have participated, except one, which I deliberately forfeited.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Sorry I meant to say won, I hate my autocorrect. You only have won 2 debates, with 7 losses and 11 ties as of right now.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
One believer in atheist Dogma claims that I have over 100 debates, and another believer in atheist Dogma claims that I have only 2 debates:

Believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
There may be a reason you only have one 2 debates so far, with one of whom being you and your opponent accusing each other of strawmen.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
There may be a reason you only have one 2 debates so far, with one of whom being you and your opponent accusing each other of strawmen.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Without God, having an infallibility complex could not be objectively wrong.

The "voting" process on this site is severely biased and skewed and unfair, and it is utterly worthless.

I won our debate, no0 matter how anyone votes because the "voters" don't have the qualifications to make unbiased decisions on any of the "vote" criteria. (Believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars).

We are done here -- bye!
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Infallibility complex much? No matter if everyone in the whole world disagrees upon everything, you'll still be right. Not a good skill in debate.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Your shameless begging for votes only confirms the extremely biased and unfair nature of this site's "voting" process -- I clearly won this debate, no matter how anyone votes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaBrettBoelkensTied
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: It's people like Pro that killed this website.