The Instigator
tomricotta
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
A341
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

God is real

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 1 vote the winner is...
A341
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 48802
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

tomricotta

Pro

I will argue that God does exist and will give rational reasons for believing so. I believe my purpose as a Christian is to show others the love of God. I refuse to be offensive in my arguments.
A341

Con

I accept your debate and look forward to your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
tomricotta

Pro

First, I want to side with you in the fact that I used to be an atheist. I see where you are coming from and understand where it is to be in that position. Since the goal of argument is to find truth, I hope we find truth in this argument.

First there is the argument of causality. If you agree that all things are caused to exist by other things, then there has to be a main causer of it all. The argument of infinite regress, or that is would keep on going back infinitely is irrational, because then everything would be dependent on nothing.

Second, there is the moral argument. It is a fact that there are real moral absolutes and obligations. Either the atheistic view of morality of the religious view is correct. Since the atheistic view of moral obligation is incompatible with atheism, the religious view must be correct. Now you may argue that these absolutes can come from nature, our own individual selves, or society, but really the only rational explanation is God.

Third, there is the argument from desire. I would argue that there is some innate desire in us that cannot be quenched by things such as money, power, sex, etc. Eventually, nothing on Earth can satisfy us, and there must be something outside of Earth and time that must have created this desire. I would argue that this something is God.
A341

Con

Argument from Causality

I don't agree with your initial premise: "If you agree that all things are caused to exist by other things". For the initial cause you must talk about the time before the "big bang" (if the word time even has any meaning in that context) according to the most recent scientific discoveries the word "time is meaningless in that context, essentially there was no time before the "big bang" and therefore no causality.

(this is in anticipation that you will bring free will up and I want to nip this in the bud now) Furthermore this idea of causality completely invalidates the whole idea of free will, if everything has a cause then each though must also have a cause and therefore there is no human free will in the matter.

Argument from Morality

You bring up the idea of "atheistic morality". You must remember that atheism is a position taken on an individual issue (the existence of a divine being) there is no such thing as atheistic morality any more than there is such a thing as theistic morality (remembering that theistic morality would include everything from the seemingly worthless morals of Joseph Kony's lord's resistance army to the jihadist ideology of hezbollah neither of which positions I think you would want to be associated with). Personally my morality is based on empathy for other human beings and a division of actions into the categories of normal behavior and pathological behavior.

Now onto your point about the moral obligations. First I do not think that you have in any way shown that we have moral obligations to each other, I feel that this is actually better demonstrated by my specific brand of morals which in no way require a god, simply stating that "but really the only rational explanation is God." does not make it true. You have made very little argument and not even shown that moral obligations are either inherent or helped by a theistic universe.

Argument From Desire

This in a new one for me and quite and a interesting argument. This desire is much better explained by evolution through natural selection rather than a god. I have too much respect for you to think that you do not accept evolution and am sure you understand the process. You must understand that everything you listed has an evolutionary advantage money and power represent influence which is a very desirable possession amongst social animals such as ourselves and sex is the mechanism by which we reproduce and pass on our genes.

The more powerful this desire the more advantage it will have, this I feel explains this more than a cruel practical joke by a divine being.

The Difference Between Positive and Negative Claims

My chief argument against the existence of god is failure of theists to prove her/his/it's existence, this allows be to use absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the most powerful tool in the atheist’s arsenal and one I will continue to use until someone comes up with an argument that stands up to scrutiny.

Since theism is a positive claim and atheism is a negative claim the negative is assumed until the positive is proven.
Debate Round No. 2
tomricotta

Pro

Argument from Causality
You start by assuming that there was no time before the Big Bang (which I believe that such a thing occurred), which is a statement that has come under question in many years. Some assert that our universe was created out of a parent universe, or that the universe redundantly fluctuates between a Big Bang and a Big Crash, in which all of the universe is crushed into a singularity again. Both theories assume that there was time before the Big Bang that occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
Since each thought is caused from a brain that I believe has free will, free will and causality can exist together. I still wonder whether you do not believe in causality because you are subjectivist or because you believe free will cannot exist with causality.

Argument from Morality
Forgive me for not defining my definition of the atheistic view of morality. An atheistic view of morality would be any view of morality that does not involve a god. A theistic view of morality would be a view of morality that involves a god. What I am pointing to is that there needs to be an ultimate being that gave us the objective moral code we have.
I am assuming you believe in natural selection, or the survival of the fittest or whoever can adapt to their environment the best. But your belief that morality is caused by compassion for others is not compatible with that belief. It would seem that the humans who would put their life at risk for others would not survive very long nor would it be the dominant trait in humans. In a world without objective morality, it would seem as though the strongest and most dominant humans would survive, instead of the humans who cared so much for other humans.
I argue that there is objective morality because nearly universally across human cultures there seems to be the same moral code for all humans. Even saying "survival of the fittest" is an objective moral code in which you say this applies to all animals, except for some unknown reason, humans.

The Difference Between Positive and Negative Claims
Your chief argument is that there is no proof for existence in god, but then again, how is there 100% proof for anything? Everything you see and hear and sense is only what you perceive to be reality. In a world where nothing can be proven, I point to the only thing that can explain knowledge and morality, god.

By the way, I do believe in evolution, and do believe that the universe is older than 10,000 years old, that idea is totally absurd.
A341

Con

Argument from Causality

The current scientific theory is the big bang theory, those others you mention are competing hypothesis which have not archived the standard of evidence or predictive capability of the expanding singularity theory.

Argument from Morality

You make the claim that certain acts are considered immoral across all cultures, this is true to some extent. Some acts are universally considered wrong, for instance every culture has a prohibition on murder, on an evolutionary level you cannot have a society that allows for murder, you cannot have more people die than are born, a god is not required to prohibit murder. A similar comparison can be made for stealing (because it damages social cohesion), rape (because the offspring are much less likely to survive) and a few other acts which are commonly prohibited amongst differing cultures.

I feel morality is better explained by an understanding of evolution than a god.

You do raise an interesting point, that of self sacrifice and evolution. We can recognise that our basic morality comes from evolution but we can move past evolution and come to create a system of morality that treats all humans as equals.

The Difference Between Positive and Negative Claims.

I did not ask for proof, proof is a purely mathematical term. I simply asked for evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

A note on freedom of speech.

If each thought does not have a direct cause then it violates your model of causality.
Debate Round No. 3
tomricotta

Pro

Argument from Morality.

In the examples you give, it still points to a system in which there are moral norms, instead of a subjective system, in which each person somehow decides their own moral values. There exists a nearly universal moral intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong. Even if evolution is the cause (and this a little off topic from our argument), all humans evolved with the same objective morality.
Non-theists also run into the problem of lack of moral accountability. What is to stop a person from acting for pure pleasure, instead of being held accountable by a higher being. Even if there are objective moral values under evolution, it does not make a difference whether one is a saint or whether one dies at 20 from drug overdose. "There is no god, no hereafter, and no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish." "Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, "There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality "pays off" in his social life or makes him "feel good." There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him."
This brings it back to the argument that care for others cannot happen in a world without god. Why would you sacrifice your own self-interest for someone else? Life is too short to jeopardize it with irrational actions like risking your life for others. WHY SHOULD HUMANS RISK THEIR LIFE FOR OTHER HUMANS? Moving past evolution and creating a system of morality as separate human groups does not explain the moral norms that are so predominant in every culture. I spend so much time on morality because it is one of the main clues that point to a god who created the morality code that we live by. The fact is that non-theists have no answer for the fact that we live by an objective system of morality.

I will end my round 4 argument with the ontological argument.

1.It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2."God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
3.Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4.Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5.But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
6.Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

If you would like to address the Christian god specifically, I recommend to do so in the 4th round, as no new arguments may be made in the 5th
A341

Con

A Nail in the Coffin to the Cosmological Argument

I know you dropped this argument but I felt I should add in the recent scientific discoveries using cosmic background radiation helping to confirm the "Big Bang" theory [1].

Argument from Morality

"There exists a nearly universal moral intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong."

This isn't really true, morals change over time for instance in more social animals (especially herd animals) that evolved along side us rape is almost a social norm [2] [3] [4] (this is thought to be because razing children in a more shared way negates certain parental functions).

But this is animals surely this couldn't apply to humans? As a matter of fact it can, the biblical book of Deuteronomy was written between the 6th and 8th centuries B.C [5] and seems to reflect the morals of the time and place.

In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 the laws of rape are recorded as

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

Evolution can also be applied to this, the children that came from the rape would have a higher chance of survival if they had two parents instead of one (this applies much more to bronze age Palestine than to today I used a similar argument before and someone got the wrong end of the stick) and so this system of dealing with rape sprung up because a society which had this law would propagate better than one that didn't. Of course we have now moved past evolution and have constructed more elaborate systems of morals based on universal liberty's and attempting to construct a system from the outside in, pretending that you don't know who you will end up as (this is a mental exercise trying to create a fair society).

Self Sacrifice

"WHY SHOULD HUMANS RISK THEIR LIFE FOR OTHER HUMANS?"

In evolution it is a common misconception that it is about survival of the individual, it is about the survival of the genes. For instance you can see why it would be advantageous for a parent to give up there life that their child might live and so continue their genes for another generation. In our primordial past we would usually live in small groups of close relatives and friends all of whom would have had very similar genes because genes are easier to influence in smaller groups, there would also be an advantage for a person giving up their lives for the lives of others in that environment and that is ingrained in our DNA which is why in this new social setting people are still willing to give up their lives for others.

Ontological Argument

"1.It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone."

This is simply an assertion, I don't see that is's true and it assumes that there is something outside of reality that it could exist in.

"2."God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought.""

No this is an attempt to define something into existence, the definition of god (according to the oxford English dictionary) is "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.".

"3.Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality."

Do you have any evidence that a mind can exist in anything but the physical?

"4.Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5.But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought.""

I don't quite get what you're talking about here.

A Note on the Christian God

You invited my to speak on the Christian god, before I start this section I should say that I was raised as a fundamentalist catholic and have only been an atheist for around a year.

The foundations of Christianity are found in the religion of barbaric bronze age tribe of the Israelites. They seem to come directly from the Canaanites (who they later destroy). The Canaanites even worshiped Yahweh as something like a war god though he seems to be a minor deity. The Christian god Yahweh was really nothing unique in the ancient world. Yahweh seems to have been either the leader of a pantheon of gods (like Zeus) or the god of the Jews among a pantheon (like Athena for the Athenians). Yahweh even had a wife named Asherah [6]. The entire thing reeks of paganism and these foundations show that Christianity is nothing out of the ordinary.

Later Christianity seems a bit stranger, there were many "savior faiths" in Palestine around that time. The most interesting is the Gnostic's who seem to have sprung up shortly after Yahshua is supposed to have died. Many Gnostic religions have very close ties to Christianity and many worship Yashua (though are thought to be heresy by the majority of Christians). The Gnostic faith appeared in full within the lifetime of Yashua's followers and yet they appear to have such diverse views of Yashua (as do the christian gospels but that is beside the point).

Overall it seems more likely that the Gnostic's were the foundation from which Christianity emerged as they seem to have been worshiping Yashua long before the gospels were written.

The character of Yahweh is vile, in the old testament Yahweh routinely used his earthly minions the Jews to commit mass genocide [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] despite claims to the contrary [14] a god of love should not commit genocide.

The bible is very much of its time, in early iron age Palestine iron was considered a very special material and chariots were something the Jews would have though were incredibly powerful so when the bible mentions that Yahweh can be defeated by iron chariots [15] it should cast a doubt as to the bible having heavenly origins as opposed to be earthly ones.

The bible is very much a product of its time, it was written by people who were ignorant of science and thus it contains none, it was written by imperialists and thus it justifies imperialistic genocide [7-13], it was written by racists and thus it denies rights to foreigners [16]. These show the bible to be nothing more than a book of stories from a group of barbaric people from the late bronze age and early iron age and not inspired by a god thus taking down Yahweh.

[1] http://bicepkeck.org...

[2] http://psycnet.apa.org...

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

[4] http://www.askabiologist.org.uk...

[5] Miller Patrick D Deuteronomy 1990 pp.2""3. (this website doesn't support some characters but you can run this through a translator)

[6] http://news.discovery.com...

[7] Joshua 6:20-21

[8] Joshua 8:1-29

[9] Judges 20:48

[10] Exodus 32:26-29

[11] Judges 18:27-29

[12] Jeremiah 50:21-22

[13] 1 Kings 18:36-40

[14] 1 John 4:8

[15] Judges 1:19

[16] Leviticus 25:44
Debate Round No. 4
tomricotta

Pro

"Nail in the Coffin of the Cosmological Argument."
I was not arguing that there was not a Big Bang. This is not really a nail in the coffin because the fact that there was a Big Bang (again which I believe occurred) does not disprove the existence of an ultimate causer. I would argue that this causer exists outside time and creation, and therefore would not need to be created.

Argument from Morality
The argument that humanity moved past evolution to somehow create their own sense of morals does not help your argument at all. You argue that "we have now moved past evolution and have constructed more elaborate systems of morals based on universal liberty's and attempting to construct a system from the outside in...". However, how did we get those universal liberties. In the end, we keep on going back to the fact that there is something universal outside evolution, and you have yet to explain how this happened outside evolution. I feel that god better explains "universal liberties" than an evolutionary process that occurred across many different species and cultures of humans.
You somehow believe in a world where sometimes there are objective morals that better fit your argument and that there are subjective morals that support your argument. I would say you need to choose whether you believe in subjective or universal morality, because you seem to believe in both at the same time.
I suppose since you did not address the problem of moral accountability and as you would say, I think we have a nail in the coffin on that issue.

Self Sacrifice
This social setting works if our conscience declares that we should only care for our family members. However, there seems to be an intuition to care for all humans, instead of just the humans that are passing down our own genes. It does not help the passing of genes to run in a burning house to save a random human. This would dictate that the humans who did that would have less of a chance of passing down their genes because they would die sooner. Once again, this points to a causer who created the system of morals we live by, not that our moral system was created to protect the passing down of our genes. Please do not think that I do not believe in evolution or in the passing down of genes. I just think that certain moral stances are engrained in us, and I believe the best explanation for that is a god.

Ontological Argument
I think you misunderstood this argument completely.
1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
What I am saying is that real beings are greater than imaginary ones because they have one thing that imaginary ones lack: real being. What has more power in the mind: a real god or an imaginary one? This is what I mean by greater.
2. God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
You misunderstood this too. Can you think of a greater thing than "the supreme being" or "the creator and ruler of the universe"?
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
Let me reword this for you: "Suppose God is imaginary but not real."

Since it is greater for something to exist in the mind and in reality, saying God does not exist in the reality implies that something greater than God could be thought. This is impossible, since God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought". It is a little confusing at first, you are failing to see the logic behind it.

The Christian God
You note that there is nothing out of the ordinary about Christianity or the belief in a monotheistic god. However, the belief in a monotheistic god was quite out of place at the time period. You mention the Greeks, who had a system of polytheistic gods. and there is also the Egyptians, and the Canaanites, who had a skewed view of God that is nowhere endorsed in the Bible. In fact, God condemned the Canaanites to die for their sinful ways, so I will take any connection to Yahweh to the Canaanites with a grain of salt.
You point out the cruel God of the Old Testament, and that is a legitimate concern in light of Christianity. God as you know from your former Catholic faith, is a God who detests sin. This God so commonly shown as bad in the Old Testament was simply punishing the people who sinned against him. While the death of Christ later prevents the need for God to punish so harshly for sins, God was trying to establish a land and home for his chosen people. His methods were no different from the other warring peoples at the time. The 1 John verse is different from the rest, because through the death of Jesus, sins are forgiven to those of faith.
Also, as many atheists and theists alike do, you avoid verses that show God's love in the Old Testament. Of course you stay away from the books in Psalms and the Songs of Solomon, because they refute your point. You also declare the Bible as a group of stories written by pagan people, but this is not the case. In the resurrection of Jesus it says in Matthew 16:1, "When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him." This references who Mary is the mother of, so that one might go and find her to hear what happened. This Bible references people who witnessed miracles with their father's name, so that one might to and talk to them and verify what they saw. This does not point to a bunch of crazy stories, but a book biased on real persons experiences.

Thank you so much for this argument. It was nice you hear your opposing viewpoints, and I hope that one day you will come to Christ.
I have some suggested reading for you, if you could list some literature that I might read that influenced your position.

Reason for God: Timothy Keller
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan
A341

Con

Argument from morality

"However, how did we get those universal liberties. In the end, we keep on going back to the fact that there is something universal outside evolution, and you have yet to explain how this happened outside evolution. I feel that god better explains "universal liberties" than an evolutionary process that occurred across many different species and cultures of humans"

We made those universal liberties, we were the ones who decided morals, we work with the foundations laid down by evolution and build a sky scraper above them. We do not want to be subjugated so we agree not to subjugate others and much the same for almost all of our modern morality.

"You somehow believe in a world where sometimes there are objective morals that better fit your argument and that there are subjective morals that support your argument. I would say you need to choose whether you believe in subjective or universal morality, because you seem to believe in both at the same time."

I don't think there are absolute morals in the same way you appear to. There are many ways to produce moral systems. The one I like is: Imagine yourself looking in on society before you enter it, you don't know who you will be, you don't know what race you will be, what your sexuality would be, you don't know what language you will speak. You then have to design a system of morality, you would design a system where everyone is treated fairly (please note that this is only a mental exercise) .

Self Sacrifice

"This social setting works if our conscience declares that we should only care for our family members."

No in our ancestral setting we lived around very close family members and so it would be advantageous to give up our lives for people in these groups. I'm sure you can see how a group of individuals sharing this gene would survive and propagate better than a society that didn't share that gene.

I good example of this is honey bees. A honey bee will sting a person who gets too close to the nest, killing themselves but keeping the colony as a whole alive.

This is a process that takes millions of years, these impulses would have taken millions of years to fully archive.

Ontological Argument

I'll grant you I did completely misunderstand this.

First I don't think that something that is so incredible that something greater than it cannot be imagined means that that it does exist.

I don't think anything greater than the universe can be conceived of, just think of the universe, there are at least 10 to the 78th power atoms in the universe each containing electrons, protons and neutrons, all containing many quarks, there are 500 billion galaxies in the universe each containing hundreds of billions of stars each made up of hundreds of trillions of atoms. I don't think that anything greater that that could possibly be conceived and I don't think we can even conceive the universe we find ourselves in.

The Christian God

"God condemned the Canaanites to die for their sinful ways, so I will take any connection to Yahweh to the Canaanites with a grain of salt."

The Canaanites did worship Yahweh (along with a pantheon) and the Jews came from the Canaanites, there is very little way to get around this. Your statement assumes that a god exists.

"This God so commonly shown as bad in the Old Testament was simply punishing the people who sinned against him."

Isaiah 13:15-18:

"Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children."

Really? This is Yahweh "simply punishing the people who sinned against him."

Joshua 6:20-21:

"When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it"men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."

So when Yahweh orders the killing of an entire city including children he is "simply punishing the people who sinned against him.".

What is Joshua used zyklon b instead of swords? Would that still be justified? How is this kind of genocide ever permissible under your own "absolute morality"?

"Also, as many atheists and theists alike do, you avoid verses that show God's love in the Old Testament. Of course you stay away from the books in Psalms and the Songs of Solomon, because they refute your point."

The song of Solomon reads more like a regular human love poem, allow me to quote from it, Song of Solomon 7:

"How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.

2 Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.

3 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.

4 Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.

5 Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and the hair of thine head like purple; the king is held in the galleries.

6 How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights!

7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.

8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;

9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.

10 I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me.

11 Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in the villages.

12 Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud forth: there will I give thee my loves.

13 The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved."

And there are equally as many horrific chapters in the book of psalms as any other book, Psalm 137:9:

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

"This does not point to a bunch of crazy stories, but a book biased on real persons experiences."

While I'm sure it was unintentional I think the word "biased" really does sum up the bible.

I thank my opponent for his arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
True! Apologetic arguments seem convincing and even rational to an untrained, naive mind.
I was lucky to ignore most of their arguments until I was in my teens with a good knowledge of science and encyclopedic readings on history under my belt.
That is likely why my studying Theology in the Christian college I was sent to because my parents discovered I had a higher than average IQ did not fully indoctrinate me.
I then returned to studying the Bible as if it were a novel instead of the way the Theology instructor wanted me to read it and returned to cross reference what I learned with Encyclopedias and discovered Voltaire, which turned a neutral secular atheist/agnostic into a fully fledged atheist that is not against personal belief in Jesus/God, but totally against established, hierarchical (not really Christian) establishments such as Churches.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
@Sagey I recon that tomricotta didn't really think about his position much and swallowed some apologetical arguments hook line and sinker, then looking back on it realized that he was an atheist before as he didn't have an active belief in a god.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yes, you are right.
He was probably just like any child before being Indoctrinated.
We are all born Atheists/Agnostics, yet children get Indoctrinated into religion.
The highly Intelligent and Critical ones often survive or ignore Indoctrination (like I did) and maintain their Agnosticism where the less intelligent and sensitive (feelings more important than knowledge) ones do not survive Indoctrination and become fundamentalists.
Pro is evidently from the Latter.

I've known critical thinking dudes who did get Indoctrinated into religious nonsense, but later in life their rational minds finally sort it all out and they emerge from a life of religious servitude as extreme hardened Atheists. Some had spent 20 or more years serving as Theologians and priests.
Yet those who put feelings ahead of knowledge,
such as that idiot, William Lane Craig, (whose belief is sourced by his own hallucination/illusion) can easily be seduced by religious indoctrination later in life.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
@Sagey atheism means without theism, (most) agnostics are atheists and I recon tomricotta was, I just don't think he was particularly intellectually fulfilled.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
From Pro's arguments, I doubt very much that Pro ever truly was an Atheist at all, at most, only agnostic.
Since many agnostics wrongly think of themselves as Atheist.
Or if he was an atheist, he was a very philosophically and intellectually naive one.

Most Atheists have already gotten past stupid arguments like Causality and Morality nonsense.
There is no necessity for an Intelligent Cause, ever.
There is also no such thing as objective Morality, because Objective means existing without consciousness.
Since all religions consider God as the ultimate Consciousness, God cannot create objective morality.

If God gave us Morality it would be Subjective Morality, because the God used Consciousness to create the Morality, thus rendering it Subjective, not Objective.

Pro's concepts are too naive for that of any serious Atheist, thus Pro never was such an Atheist and really doesn't understand at all where Con is coming from.
Posted by Badewanne 2 years ago
Badewanne
Glad to hear you believe in God, I personally think that science and god will slowly intertwine until they both begin to prove each other. Science is nothing but a different representation of God's grace. Not fair for people to judge today's church by the sinful catholic church of the past that disagreed with science and did many other bad things
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
tomricottaA341Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was tough for me to vote on because I assume Pro is referring to a specific God. I will be the first to say I dont know if even Thor exists. But God could exists in some form (most likely not how we imagine) But for the sake of this debate I'm going with Con. He had better arguments and backed them up with sources!