The Instigator
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points
The Contender
SniperJake94
Pro (for)
Losing
49 Points

Evolution is part of atheism.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,990 times Debate No: 6634
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (16)

 

Tatarize

Con

Originally Offered to "Nobody", he failed to accept.

Despite common claims that evolution is simply preaching atheism, this is not the case. Evolution is a well established and evidenced theory which explains the progression, form, organization, and distribution of all the life on this planet without the need of any outside forces. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. There were plenty of atheists before Darwinian evolution became widely known and easily properly understood as the mechanism for the design of life.

While there is some congruity between having a firm and robust theory which allows us to understand all life on the planet without needing to genuflect to God and not believing in God. They are completely different.

Ken Miller: Ken Miller is a theist and a world class biologist who fully understands evolution.

Raelians: Raelians are a religious group who believe that aliens created Earth and the life on this planet. They don't believe in God and thus are atheists while they believe in creationisms and often deny the basic science behind evolution.

Without overlap between the two it seems remarkably hard to show that evolution is part of atheism. Further, atheism is only a lack of belief in God giving it a total of 0 claims needing to be accepted by all atheists for them to be atheists. With zero claims and evolution being one claim, it's once again a nearly impossible argument to make.
SniperJake94

Pro

I would like to thank my oppoment for starting this case. So good luck!

Observation on the resolution: Evolution is a theory that life came from atoms that appeared out of nowwhere. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Please do not be confuse with anatagism (something like that) which is a belief that there is a God but cannot be sure which one.

Contention 1: Evolution is a theory that describes how life came from nothing. Evolution describes that life came from nothing thus claiming atheism because the evolution theory has no theory involving a religon. According to a textbook: Pretince Hall Biology it states, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." The reason for putting this to to warn students about evolution. In the state of Georgia several parents are sueing the company for describing evolution as atheism. The parents also won the case. This biology book contains evidence that evolution is considered atheism.

Contetention 2: Evolution has no stand in religon therefore it falls into the atheism catagory. Any theory that has no stand in whether or not there is a God or not is considered atheism because atheism is considered a theory that life ends and there is no afterlife and your born to die. So what's the point of atheism if it has nothing to support it? Evolution provides that key.

My oppoment's case: "While there is some congruity... different" We do not understand all life on the planet. Evolution is an athisem theory.

My oppoment claims, "Evolution is a well established...God" It may have been described but not well established. There is not such thing as a well evidenced theory. Every experiment has a flaw. Evolution never really described how life started or how that one hydrogen atom came to being just out of nowhere. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, true, but my oppoment fail to mention that atheism describes that life begins and ends without an afterlife. Evolution describes that life begins and ends after it has fulfilled its purpose.

And can you rephrase your paragraph on this:"Without overlap between the two it seems remarkably hard to show that evolution is part of atheism. Further, atheism is only a lack of belief in God giving it a total of 0 claims needing to be accepted by all atheists for them to be atheists. With zero claims and evolution being one claim, it's once again a nearly impossible argument to make," that way we can have an even ground to debate on.

In conclusion evolution is atheism. I have posted my case and I await for your rebuttal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Con

Evolution is a theory of how life acquires the complexity and the forms it has. Given any species such as bacteria or crickets or flies and no way of stopping every possible offspring from growing to adulthood and having every possible organisms likewise the entire planet would, within a very short period of time, be covered with them. There must therefore be some set of natural factors which constantly reduce the number of viable organisms of any species to a much smaller number. Considering animal breeders, farmers, fanciers and all manner of other professions have managed to cause startling and remarkable changes the organisms they selectively breed, it shouldn't be too far fetched to consider that perhaps nature has somewhat the same effect on all the natural species. That within any group of breeders there might occasionally arise a slight difference which makes that organism more likely to have offspring than it's many cousins. Thusly, we should find the struggle of nature, natural selection, and by necessity some organisms having chance changes which cause them to be better adapted towards survival in their niche.

By the virtue of the struggle and the happenstance of changes those which improve an organisms chances should be more popular and more frequent and those which do not help an organism within that struggle should become less popular. Now, given this process and the vast stretches of time we now know to exist, this gentle tweaking over a few million and billion years can and does cause species to change and adapt and diversify into all the species we see today.

Such a theory makes a startling number of predictions. It requires that the development of life follows a given path, that traits need to be useful when they arose and that if there's no way to gradually change from one form to another they can't do so. Further, the ancestry of organisms is important to know how and why traits evolved and what traits are possible. So occasional humans are born with tails because our ancestors had tails, but none of them are born with wings because none of our ancestors had wings. Whales are born, from time to time, with legs and still have a pelvis bone because they evolved from land walking mammals. All mammals have hair because they evolved from a single hair possessing ancestor, but no mammal is going to be born with feathers because those are not available. Evolution demands a rigid adherence to a tree with traits developing in other branches being unable to switch over. Because the mammal ancestor had no wings, then bat wings are a more recent adaptation and because bird wings are on a different branch they must be different than bat wings, and they are.

This is what evolution is. Evolution isn't the theory that life came from atoms. You are confusing it with abiogenesis. Which, likewise, isn't that they appeared out of nowhere but they commonly occur. We get the basic organic compounds everywhere we look, from the moon Titan to asteroids. That with a bit of luck and a lot of time, we can have life arise out of unguided chemical processes. That seems to be where the evidence is leading.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. You need not deny the existence of God, or disbelief but rather not accept the position as accurate. Atheism is "a-" meaning without and "theism" meaning a belief in God. Just as I don't believe dark matter exists but I'm not bold enough to deny that it does, I can do the same for the question of God. Knowing that religious claims are largely absurd, I do not accept them. That alone suffices to make me an atheist. Agnostics are making a knowledge claim. They may either be atheists or theists but they largely claim that they do not know if there is a god or not. There's no way of knowing and no evidence on the point so they remain agnostic.

So on one side we have a firmly grounded, robust, theory that explains the arrangement, form, position, complexity and design of life in the theory of evolution by natural selection and on the other side we have a lack of a belief in God. These are not related in any real way. Evolution is not included in atheism because atheism doesn't include anything. It's a lack of a belief in God. It doesn't have anything.

Evolution does not, categorically, say that life came from nothing. It says that life evolved from earlier forms. That statement is remarkably quiet on the origins of the first form. You can believe in God and believe in evolution. Such as Ken Miller who when asked for comment on that sticker placed on the textbook by some religious zealots in the school board commented that the sticker didn't go far enough. The sticker claimed that evolution should be examined critically but ignores the rest of the book and the rest of the biological theory, implying that those should be accepted with an uncritical eye and recklessly.

--

Implying that that is the word of the textbook is dishonest and wrong. It is from an unconstitutional sticker placed on the cover of some textbooks by the school board and derided by almost everybody as absurd. They lost the case and lost it rather clearly. Feel free to cite the case if you think I'm stating this in error.

--

Evolution by not declaring itself part of a religion does not become part of atheism. There is no sign on the capital lawn declaring that the God exists. Does this mean that the white house is atheistic? The book the cat in the hat does not mention any religion, it is atheistic? The sky contains many clouds but none of the clouds spell out in any clear terms that a God exists, are clouds atheist. If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby. The theory of evolution like the theory of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics have no reference to any gods because they don't need any gods to function.

There's no point to atheism. It doesn't have anything to support it. It is the lack of belief in a God. The only argument for atheism ever needed has been the lack of any good reason to accept theism. The lack of a reason to believe in a God is every reason needed to be an atheist.

We understand much of the life on this planet because of the theory of evolution. Without the light of evolution, most all of life would seem odd and mysterious and insuperable and quite strange. This has nothing to do with atheism. We simply wouldn't understand life without understanding evolution. This has no bearing on the question of whether we should believe in God or not. Knowing how a magic trick is done doesn't change its nature.

--

There are thousands of very well evidenced theories. Not every experiment has a flaw, and even those which do are repeated enough that any mistakes are factored out. Evolution doesn't seek to answer how life started or how hydrogen arises after the initial cooling of the Big Bang. Atheism is not believing in a God. We actually have some pretty good ideas of how life begins and ends without an afterlife. Evolution doesn't say life has any purpose, rather it describes how reproduction and heredity can end up producing extremely amazing and varied forms.

There is no overlap between the two. Not all atheists accept evolution. Not all evolutionist are atheists. In fact, most evolutionists aren't atheists as the population of Christian evolutionists exceeds the number of atheists. Considering this, it seems hard to establish what seems complete false. I stand by my claim.

--

Evolution is not a part of atheism. Evolution as a theory stands alone and lives and dies by the evidence. Atheism is the non-belief in god(s). It doesn't include anything at all, much less evolution.
SniperJake94

Pro

I would like to congratulate my opponent for being very specific on what evolution is. If he would had posted this earlier it would have given be an A+ on a science research assignment. My opponent seems to know much about evolution and athieism.

First I would like to attack my oppoment's case then defend mine.
My opponent did not defend his case, he just defined more in depth. He Evolution started with a hydrogen molecude that came out of no where.
"The lack of a reason to believe in a God is every reason needed to be an atheist." -Con. Evolution is a reason why we should not believe in God. It's a scientific theory backed by evidence. This is a lack of a reason to believe in a God because it is supported by heavy evidence. And my opponent stated that "it is every reason needed to be an atheist."
I will prove it below:
The Greeks ideas of creation without a Creator were man's first attmpt at developing a pattern of origin called evolution. They started the ideas of spontaneoius generation, materialism, superstitions, and blind chance. Evolution describes that matter and energy were not created but already existed. Evolution forms the sceintific evidence foundation of the philosphy of materialism in today's world. This is atheism because evolution is based on sceintific evidence and not beliefs.
Miller's and Urey's experiments showed how mixtures of organic compounds started the first amino acids. After a few days amino acids began to accumulate. Amino acids are the base of life. Forming on it's own proves that dark magic does not exist and thus it happens without any "relgious" help.
There are also different patterns of evolution such as adaptive radiation, covergent evolution, coevolution, and punctuated equilibrium. Therefore there are many ways to describe these theories and evidences are numerous. For example adaptive radiation are like Darwins' finches stating that more thna a dozen species are very similar to one another. Coevolution is the process of changing over time. Species are clasified according to their "ancestors" and this is the reason why some animals look similar to one another such as the finches. It all happened over time without "religoius" help.
Basicaly my opponent is contradicting himself by this own quote. Because the lack of an evidence to believe in God=Evolution. And "is every reason needed to be an atheist" describing that evolution is the lack of evidence to believe and it is the every reason that it is part of atheism.

Defending my case:
Definitons:
atheism: theory that God does not exist. (Oxford dictionary)
Evolution: "The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment, but he was unable to explain a mechanism for this. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin toward a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology." (Oxford Dictonary)

I will defend my contentions:
"There is no sign on the capital lawn declaring that the God exists. Does this mean that the white house is atheistic?"
Our Declartion of Independence has the word God in it and our Pledge of alligence has the word God. These are as important as the captial law declaring that the U.S is a God based country.

Atheism is supported by faith, it does not require hardcore evidence, just faith or by not taking a side between the issue of God or Hell.

"Without the light of evolution, most all of life would seem odd and mysterious and insuperable and quite strange. This has nothing to do with atheism. We simply wouldn't understand life without understanding evolution."-Con. My opponent states this and "light of evolution" emphasizing that evolution is a part of atheism because it is superior and is a "savior" of atheim. "most all of life would seem odd and mysterious and insuperable and quite strange," The Greeks believed in this and formed the foundation of evolution to try to solve the mystries of the world without religion interfering. If we wanted to find out something we wouldn't want anything to interfer. This is human nature. Same happens here because we want to find the mysteries of the world and nothing interfering it. It's like playing a sport, you're focused on winning and you don't want discouragement, fear, or thoughts of other things to interfer with your game. Same applies here we don't want fear, discouragement, religion, and failure to disappoint us.

"Not every experiment has a flaw, and even those which do are repeated enough that any mistakes are factored out." -Con. My oppononent agrees that experiments are flawless. So the evolution evidence are based on experiments are all true and if they do lead up to atheism they cannot be proven false.

"We actually have some pretty good ideas of how life begins and ends without an afterlife."-Con. My opponenent states that we do have an idea from birth to death on how life works, stating atheism because in religions there are an afterlife an atheism doesn't believe in an afterlife..

"Evolution as a theory stands alone and lives and dies by the evidence. Atheism is the non-belief in god(s)." They both share a same concept and support, faith. You either believe in atheism or not, and you either believe in evolution backed by evidence or not. Atheism is a theory that relys on faith. Evoulution is a sicentific theory that relies on absurd facts and faith. bottom line they both rely on faith.

And about the sticker case here are some quotes:
Marjorie Rogers a parent who protested against the stickers described it as "ATHIESTIC" and "There is a wealth of science that would support intelligent design, and that is not taught." This means that intelligent design is the scientific argument that life is too complex to have evolved on it's own meaning evolution can be doubted because of religions.
According to a lawyer that was defending a school in Georgia stated that "the sticker doesn't say anything about faith. It doesn't say ANYTHING ABOUT RELIGON." The American Civil Liberties Union that backed the parents also stated "Non-evolutionary view about the beginning of life ARE religious."-New Current Volume 24, Number 12, Dec 7, 2004

For these exhausting research and refutations I urge you to vote pro. Because in several quotes my opponent has described that atheism links to evolution. Thank you, and I hope this debate doesn't offend anyone.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Con

You sir, are quite dishonest. Evolution can't be a part of atheism because atheism has no parts. I went to a lot of trouble to explain evolution and exactly how and why it works and the obvious facts that it doesn't share any relationship with atheism which simply exists as a lack of belief. You turned around and had the audacity to suggest:

"My opponent did not defend his case, he just defined more in depth. He Evolution started with a hydrogen molecude that came out of no where."

I'm sorry but there should be some sort of instant lose function for being that wrong. Evolution is evolution. It's a good and robust scientific theory and atheism is the nonbelief in the existence of God, and contains absolutely nothing. There's more theists who accept evolution than atheists who accept evolution in the United States.

Since my opponent never gave any plausible reasons to accept the claim there's not much to defend. The supposition that evolution has anything to do with molecules popping out of nowhere AFTER I explained it in great detail and claiming that stickers placed on the cover of text books are part of the text book are beyond the pale.

"Non-evolutionary view about the beginning of life ARE religious." is a statement of fact. Creationism and intelligent design are religion claims and are barred from being taught as such. However that does not command us to accept the contrary view that evolution views are similarly religious. That simply doesn't hold.

I wish this debate could have been better. Vote Con.
SniperJake94

Pro

I very pleased that you went though some time to explain it. I'm very sorry about this incident. Perhaps you could have explained how each round would work out. I was just parsing my oppoment's rebuttal. I could have asked you to clarify your reasoning and condense your theory, my mistake I didn't.

First I would like to ask is :how did evolution came to being? It must start from somewhere, most suggest by an atom.
2nd: evolution, some people believe may tie in with creation. but there is no evidence about it.
3rd evolution depends on faith and theory and atheism falls on faith. Evolution may fall upon different beliefs but one belief includes atheism.

Abiogensis is a branch of evolution, it explains how elements form life. Organisms require hyrdogen, carbon, and oxygen. These are abotic factors but it still is essential to life. Life must start from nonliving elements.

Evolution is a belief and may fall on many, one of these many beliefs include atheism. It was a confusing debate. And my opponent was being abusive by not providing any fair ground ("there's not much to defend" he never specified which side so therefore it must be Pro's because I may finish the sentence "...on Pro's case) and giving insulting rebuttals. For these reasons I urge you to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jesusfreak012095 7 years ago
Jesusfreak012095
I don't know if this will help but here it is:

John 1:3

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Evolution states everything came out of nothing, that clearly goes against that passage. Which means evolution is an atheist theory.
Posted by Jesusfreak012095 7 years ago
Jesusfreak012095
this is to the Pro contender, the religion of you believe there is a God, but not sure which to believe, is agnostic
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I apologize for the grammatical issues in my earlier comment...

As it was meant to read
The only thing I would have argued was creationism and how that was religious in nature; and that science is for the most part inherently atheistic. I could almost guarantee that a religious zealot could give a theological explanation behind most aspects of science.-- However I am not a religious zealot...I am not religious at all in fact...

Then again , Con could argue that god existed but that the word of the bible isn't literal and the meaning of "day" could be much longer than 24 hours, allowing time for evolution.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
This would be a tough topic for any PRO to debate...

The only thing I would have argued was creationism, and how that was religious in nature, and that science is more the most part inherently atheistic, I could almost guarantee that a religious zealot could give a theological explanation behind most aspects of science.-- However I am not a religious zealot..., I am not religious at all in fact...

Then again , Con could argue that god existed but that the word of the bible isn't literal and the meaning of "day" could be much longer than 24 hours, allowing time for evolution.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
The reason we highlighted that portion is to point out how utterly pathetic and wrong it was. See my round two debate post for a good explanation of evolution.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
"Evolution is a theory that life came from atoms that appeared out of nowwhere." -- You pretty much can, If this is the case the theory will lead one nowhere. I would rather have my life full of meaning and purpose than full of dead ends and depression.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
My response is worth a glance or two. Yeah, that was the point where I knew this would be pretty easy.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
>Evolution is a theory that life came from atoms that appeared out of nowwhere.
Stopped reading there
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
And for the record, how life started is abiogenesis, evolution explains the changes over time and how they would happen.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
"Evolution is a theory that life came from atoms that appeared out of nowwhere."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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 
Vote Placed by loudetune 7 years ago
loudetune
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Jesusfreak012095 7 years ago
Jesusfreak012095
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by falafel 8 years ago
falafel
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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 
Vote Placed by pc1114 8 years ago
pc1114
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
TatarizeSniperJake94Tied
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