The Instigator
NomadJD
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

From the Side of Atheism

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 1/22/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,924 times Debate No: 14463
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (11)

 

NomadJD

Pro

I can't understand why people believe in religion. I mean, literally the best argument for religion is a trick on words (see ontological argument). People say that they believe in religion because they "know" it. There is no logical background behind this. I look at the bible and not only do I see a poorly written fairy tale, but I also see a book with contradictory logic. And even if this book has the truth in it, then why would I want to follow it? Instead of seeing a god that is forgiving, I see a god that had a temper tantrum and killed a bunch of his children. Instead of seeing a god that is peaceful, I instead see a god that is "a warrior". On top of this, there are millions of pieces of scientific evidence. Physical evidence that Christianity doesn't have. Responses should be logical and have evidence in support. I like to keep an open mind, being hostile and illogical will only make me aggravated and unresponsive.
vardas0antras

Con

"I can't understand why people believe in religion." May I be so arrogant and say that I understand you ?

" I mean, literally the best argument for religion is a trick on words (see ontological argument)." How is it a trick on words ? Also, if you're searching for good arguments for theism, I recommend you to check the Bible-Defender account.

"Instead of seeing a god that is forgiving, I see a god that had a temper tantrum and killed a bunch of his children. Instead of seeing a god that is peaceful, I instead see a god that is "a warrior"."
Did you actually read the Bible ? Or, did you read what others wrote about the Bible ?

"Physical evidence that Christianity doesn't have." Most of what is described in the Bible is sown in todays archeological discoveries.

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com...



Debate Round No. 1
NomadJD

Pro

First of all, the ontological argument is the most popular philosophical argument towards theism. It states as forth "
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing. 2.
I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God. 3. Therefore, God exists." This argument is merely a trick on words to make a god become real.
Second of all, I have read half of the bible. In fact, that was what made me realize I was an atheist. I know he saved one family and flooded the earth. I know that he gave people free will, so apparently they could make mistakes like killing people, harming people, and generally causing destruction. I guess you could compare god himself as pandora and released all evil. And if he was an idiot and made a tree of evil in which people can't eat from. Yet in knowing psychology, considering he made it, he would have known telling them to not do something would make them want to do it more. And there is in fact a quote from the bible stating god as a warrior and other quotes stating god as a peace-monger.
Third of all, I was not describing most of the bible but the beginning of genesis. He basically made the Earth solid in one day. In which apparently all of the planets formed, a large object flew into the Earth and made the Moon. Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes. And he had apparently created light before making the suns. And apparently he immediately created all of the creatures, which should have taken millions of years.
vardas0antras

Con

1) You never showed how the ontological argument is a play on words.
2)" Yet in knowing psychology, considering he made it, he would have known telling them to not do something would make them want to do it more." Indeed, where do you see a problem ?
3)" And there is in fact a quote from the bible stating god as a warrior and other quotes stating god as a peace-monger" Indeed, he is both. However you said that he's only a warrior"Instead of seeing a god that is peaceful, I instead see a god that is "a warrior".
4)"Third of all, I was not describing most of the bible but the beginning of genesis. He basically made the Earth solid in one day." This depends on your interpretation.

http://www.nwcreation.net...
http://www.theisticevolution.org...

Debate Round No. 2
NomadJD

Pro

+In Response to the Ontological Argument+
I am merely stating that the argument is flawed from its very premise. The premise states that the best possible thing is a god, but that is a relative perspective. Everyone has a different view of what would be the best god or what would be the best possible thing. The fact that it changes with relative perspective makes the argument invalid for reasons of not having a firm foundation.

+In Response to a God's View of Psychology+
Well, I will just state that if this omniscient god had foreseen all of the pain and suffering that would become out of him being very illogical and deciding to make a tree of evil, why did he make the tree of evil or even evil to begin with? I mean, what is even the point of having an Earth? If there was just heaven, everyone would believe in this god and there would be no suffering. So I guess I just see flaws in what he has made.

+In Response to a Peaceful God+
The point I was trying to make was not that he was a warrior or a peace-monger, but instead a hypocrite that states he is both. It is completely illogical for anyone to be such a way. And assuming he could possible be both at the same time, that would make him defective and , therefore, not a god at all.

+In Response to Interpretation+
I understand that people say that if you look at the bible this way or interpret the bible that way, that it fits in. But, if this was a really all knowing god, why would there have to be any interpretation? Shouldn't a book of this god be perfect and have unsound logic?

+In Conclusion+
All I have seen my opponent do is rebuttle, but I have seen no counterargument for the existence of this god. And without any logical evidence, I have no intention of believing in a god that is the symbol of illogical logic.
vardas0antras

Con

Please, give an RFD for your votes or just an RFD. Thank you.

+In Response to the Ontological Argument+
" Everyone has a different view of what would be the best god or what would be the best possible thing."
Your version (not mine) of the ontological argument states:
"I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God."

Indeed, while everyone has a different idea of what the best God would be like, he has to exist to be the best. Even my opponent implies this "what would be the best god". No offence, but I can't believe that you failed.

+In Response to a God's View of Psychology+
"If there was just heaven, everyone would believe in this god and there would be no suffering"
Satan was in heaven and he was the greatest angel yet he rebelled. This should answer " I mean, what is even the point of having an Earth? "

+In Response to a Peaceful God+
"The point I was trying to make was not that he was a warrior or a peace-monger, but instead a hypocrite that states he is both. It is completely illogical for anyone to be such a way." Can't you be a warrior against criminals ? Can't you fight Nazis and love peace at the same time ?

"And assuming he could possible be both at the same time, that would make him defective" This ought to be explained since I have no idea how anyone could come up with this conclusion.

+In Response to Interpretation+
" But, if this was a really all knowing god, why would there have to be any interpretation?" Why not ? If the person reading the Bible doesn't want to know what God says then even with one interpretation he will manage to twist the words unless you take away free will but thats another topic.

"Shouldn't a book of this god be perfect and have unsound logic?"
1) What evidence do you have that its not perfect ?
2) Actually, no the book should have sound logic and not "unsound". Because:
A perfect God ---> Always being right -----> Sound logic

+In Conclusion+
"All I have seen my opponent do is rebuttle, but I have seen no counterargument for the existence of this god."
I don't have to, we are debating arguments "From the Side of Atheism" not theism. " illogical logic" That makes no sense.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
RFD

You both equally sucked at everything.

I agree with Innomen it was a ridiculous debate. Partially the part of pro for having no direction. Partially the part of con for having weak rebuttals with biased sources.

Lame guys.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
What a terrible debate. This is not an RFD, so don't worry about my vote because i have decided to refrain from voting with the new demand for qualifications. In any case, this debate was so horribly argued at both ends; i only wish i had accepted to debate against either of you. Vardas could have mopped the floor with such an irresponsible assertion. However pro did little to improve his tack -- agghhh just awful.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
I have to go with panda here, unfortunately.(Damn stupid pandas...)
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I encourage users to NOT follow bluesteels example here. Conduct is based on conduct within the debate, not outside it. Following his actions would be borderline vote-bombing.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
@bluesteel

At what point does that definition encompass delusional thinking?
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
RFD: conduct

vardas keeps complaining about RFD's on a debate he clearly lost, so I now award this point to his opponent.

You've had three new votes, all from legitimate members of the site, all against you. And yet you still think you won? I refer you to Albert Einstein's definition of insanity - continuing to believe something in the face of only contradictory evidence.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Indeed, gavin, indeed.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
"Oh okay so you can't give a proper response..." - Because your reply was completely irrelevant and incomprehensible.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"It's laughable you claim to not understand us and turn around and make absolutely no sense whatsoever."
Oh okay so you can't give a proper response...
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
For real. I already explained to him what would be considered a legitimate argument FOR god, but he just does not understand. I used to think he was joking, but I was wrong. Simply a case where there aren't enough sandwiches for the picnic, if you know what I mean.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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: Conduct: No side had superior conduct, both refrained from insults and mud-slinging ;; S & G: I didn't notice a superiority for Pro or Con in terms of Spelling and grammar. ;; Arguments: I do feel both arguments were poor, however pro made assertions while Con did not provide any arguments of his own, and his rebuttals were not enough to counter Pro's assertions. Ergo, arguments to Pro. ;; Sources: While Pro lacked sources and Con had 3, Con did not cite them or use them efficiently. T
Vote Placed by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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 
Vote Placed by interigator123 6 years ago
interigator123
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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 SurvivingAMethodology 6 years ago
SurvivingAMethodology
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrsvonnegut 6 years ago
mrsvonnegut
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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 Dmetal 6 years ago
Dmetal
NomadJDvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00