ENOUGH with the god exists debate!
Debate Rounds (3)
If anything, we're not debating the existence of God enough.
We have an obligation to believe nothing without adequate evidence. To quote the mathematician and philosopher William K. Clifford: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence." The reason for this doctrine is evident, namely that our beliefs have an influence on our actions.
As Clifford says in his famous essay "The Ethics of Belief":
"He who truly believes that which prompts him to an action has looked upon the action to lust after it, he has committed it already in his heart. If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever."
This principle, together with the fact, which you acknowledge, that there is no proof of God's existence, settles the debate over God's existence. It proves that no one should believe in God, because there is no evidence of God's existence - everyone must be either an atheist or an agnostic.
However, this is not the case. As things stand, the vast majority of the American population does believe in God. According to the Pew Research Center, atheists and agnostics combined make up only 7% of the American population.
Moreover, the claim that God exists is not merely a theoretical belief that many people hold, it has a direct effect on our personal lives and on American politics, as I said in my opening speech. Many Americans pray and go to church, which they wouldn't do if they didn't believe in God. That time could be better invested if they understood that the concept of God is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.
In politics, most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution in the form scientists hold it, which has a direct effect on science education, and for the most part the reason they are skeptical of evolution is their religious beliefs. In addition, Christians advocate political policies which ban abortion and gay marriage, which negatively affect millions of people living in America. If they understood that Christianity was just an arbitrary assertion, they would be less likely to advocate these policies.
So, to sum up my main points:
1. The fact that there is no evidence for God does settle the debate, because it shows that believing in God is irrational.
2. Widespread acceptance of the fact that believing in God is irrational would have a dramatic effect on our lives and public policy.
3. Therefore, it is critical that we continue to debate the existence of God.
"1. The fact that there is no evidence for God does settle the debate, because it shows that believing in God is irrational."
Exactly! Shut all the debating already, there isn't more evidence!
"2. Widespread acceptance of the fact that believing in God is irrational would have a dramatic effect on our lives and public policy."
A good widespread effect, such as immense saving of time and no power for the monopolizing of religion.
If we continue to debate the existence of God, we waste valuable time to convince people that God is irrational. Moreover, firm believers aren't swayed by argument of logic when it comes to religion. That why the majority aren't atheists or agnostics.
This was a fun debate. To conclude, stop debating existence of God.
My opponent conceded this argument, but argued that it only shows that we should stop debating about God's existence, because the debate is settled. This does not address my point that debating the existence of God could help spread the message that the debate is settled.
Perhaps my opponent intended to address this concern when he said that not debating the existence of God could save us valuable time, and that firm believers aren't swayed by logic anyway. With regard to the second point, it simply is not true that Christians never become atheists on the basis of arguments. The internet is full of atheists who were once firm Christians, but considered the arguments and decided to give up their belief in God.
So, the debate comes down to my opponent's first point, that not debating the existence of God would save us valuable time. The question is whether the time it would save outweighs the political ramifications of theism, including the policies of banning abortion and gay marriage that people base on it (and which my opponent has not addressed).
It seems pretty clear that the latter outweighs the former. Banning abortion and gay marriage have substantial concrete effects on millions of people, whereas saving the time we spend debating the existence of God would only save the subset of people who are interested in the issue the hours they spend debating it (personally, I find debating the existence of God enjoyable, not a waste of time).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 5 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: I think this is quite clear cut, but I'll elaborate: Sources go to Con, as he was the only side that used any. Convincing arguments go to Con, as he was able to disprove Pro's case, and Pro has BoP in this debate. Spelling, grammar, and conduct were not breached to the point where it took away from the debate, so these points are tied. In conclusion, Con did his job: disprove Pro's case. My ballot goes to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.