The Instigator
edibleshrapnel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

If atheism is correct, animals have souls

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...
Ozzyhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 52629
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

edibleshrapnel

Pro

According to most religious texts, animals were created to sustain gods creation, which is us human beings. Now if atheism is correct, there is no god and the universe was created naturally. Wouldn't animals have souls? My platform states the following:
1. According to atheism, we are superior to other creatures because of evolution and natural selection, this means that even though animals are inferior minded, they posses a soul that can communicate with others of the same species, pro-create, and have the natural instinct of survival.
2. Does this mean that animals are aware of a creator?
3. Plants must have souls. otherwise, how can a organism with the ability to absorb nutrients create energy? Or grow? Or even exist? All organism have the ability to be self-aware of what and where they are. Does this mean that micro-organisms posses a conscience as well?
4. we are only superior to every other living organism because of complex means to communicate, an awareness of other species and there problems, and that the universe is to great to just be an accident. Another thing, few species care about the burdens of others, why do we? Why do we have these morals built in to us? If evolution is correct, wouldn't we just be cold-blooded killers with the only instinct to pro-create the species? Why do we care about our origin?
Ozzyhead

Con

How can you measure souls? How do you know souls exist? A soul has never been proven to exist. Why must an animal have a soul in order to communicate and procreate of the others of the same species? They may just have a different way of communicating. Please support the idea that in order to be living a soul must exist. And, when you have finished doing that, then go collect your Nobel Prize for being the first person to give us evidence of souls existing. I will be sitting front row when that happens. Who is to say the universe is a big accident? The universe is the way it is because of how it ended up. If the universe was different, then something else would be here. That's not lucky for what else would be here if the universe was in a different place. Please support you soul hypothesis and go collect your prize, because no one has been able to do that
Debate Round No. 1
edibleshrapnel

Pro

We don't have souls? Do I really need evidence? If us humans are intelligent enough to recognize the possibilities of our origin, we are intelligent enough to create explanations to the our origin. Without a god, or at least some place to go to after death, our lives are meaningless and that's utterly depressing. Our lives, completely pointless, but anyway, I cannot prove we have souls, but you cannot disprove that we have souls.
Ozzyhead

Con

I can't disprove anything that hasn't been proven. That is not how this works. You can't disprove mermaids, sea monsters, goblins, and Big Foot. And how dare you say life is meaningless without god or souls. Life would be meaningless if we were working towards heaven for a god. It is meaning less to live life for any reason other than to be happy. Why must we have incentives to live life? I am not depressed because I find life meaningless. This debate has been changed, and I will go back to the original debate or extend it to include meaning of life and the order in which proving something is done, because telling me that I cannot disprove something does not mean anything. If that's they way life is, then anyone can claim ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING they want, and it's up to others to disprove it. If the claims you are making are facts, or have even a remote chance of being true, then why have you not been rewarded properly? If you can provide even the slightest hint of evidence for any of the claims you make, you will be rewarded. I am not dismissing your claims automatically because I refuse to accept them. I am dismissing your claim because you have provided no evidence for your claim. And not having any other better answer is not evidence for the answer you give.
Debate Round No. 2
edibleshrapnel

Pro

Really? Life's reason is you've to be happy? My point stands, you've offered nothing relative to disprove it. If science has it way, we were all created from some cataclysmic explosion in space, if religion is correct, we have a grand architect who is doing something with us. How dare I say life is meaningless without god? I dare because if what happens after death is just us joining the great black expanse of nothingness, then yes, life is meaningless.
Ozzyhead

Con

The meaning of life for one person is different from another person, and that is something most people can agree upon. However, the meaning of one's life should not be set by a being other than that being itself. I have control over my own life and I set my own goals and no one else has control our influence over how my goals are set. You can set you goals based off of ancient texts all you want, but if that's the case you might as well be a robot. I am going to live my life with my goals. I will not harm others while doing so because it is natural for me to cause little harm to others. It does not take an invisible man with an ancient book that has been lost in translation from languages that don't exist anymore for me to realize that I should be kind to someone else. If your moral standards are not set by you and only you, you have no moral standards because meals come from inside and only inside. My opponent has yet to prove his point. It is not my responsibility to disprove the claim my opponent has made because in order to disprove something, or has to be accepted as proven first. That is how language and communication works. Until my opponent establishes what he believes is irrefutable proof for his claim, supported by evidence and scientific, historical, and/or philosophical journals written by credible people in the respective fields, I have nothing to refute.
Debate Round No. 3
edibleshrapnel

Pro

You' re constantly going off topic. Not once in this ENTIRE argument have I stated that I am religious yet you chastize me for "believing in a ancient text book written by a invisible man" or " setting my morals standards like a robot". Obviously you are an ardent atheist.However, my point over souls stems from the absence of life after death, you claim I struggle to prove my point and that you have nothing to refute. Its been in front of your damn face the entire time. Life is meaningless, because the actions we make serve only to consequence our future. The universe will remain the same. Our memories will become part of the void. Life is meaningless without a heaven, life is meaningless with a higher being then ourselves, I trust you are not to narrow minded to acknowledge that.
Ozzyhead

Con

Even if the claim "life is meaningless without a heaven" is true, then there you go. Life can be meaningless. Life is meaningless without souls or heaven. A reason for a claim to be true is not evidence for that claim. Evidence is measurable in some form, s and my opponent has no evidence. My opponent is trying to say that since there is no other answer, it must be true. Again, eliminating all other possible answers is not evidence for the claim. This has turned in to a debate that seems rather subjective, but I will go with it. Life is not meaningless without an after life consequence. We ought to take everyday as consequences for the day before. Life is as meaningful as you make it because again this is a very subjective idea. But like I said, a good reason for something to be true is not evidence for the claim to be true. Arguing by eliminating other ideas is not providing a hint of evidence towards your claim. There is no evidence, just a claim for a lack of evidence for other claims. When "no other meaning to life" is said, that is a statement that automatically eliminates every other claim about the subject. My arguments stand until statistics and evidence with proper sources are given.
Debate Round No. 4
edibleshrapnel

Pro

Actually, you are completely wrong. Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from multiple premises. Eventually, with process of elimination and elimination of discrepancy's, a logical conclusion is reached.My conclusion(s), Animals have souls and minds like us, and life is meaningless without a haven after death. My premises? If atheism states there is no god, then nothing separates animals, except the obvious. If there is no god, think about the chances there were of a planet being able to sustain complex life, think about how we are the only habitable planet in the observable universe. you think that we are lucky enough to live on the ONE planet in these infinite amount of galaxy's? No, I believe that we were created by something for a purpose, and whether that be unknown to us, faith will be the only thing you take with you after death. It is better to have faith in something then nothing at all.
Ozzyhead

Con

The definition of faith is accepting something without evidence, and I'm sure there are several things that would not be helpful to have faith in like the world blowing up, extra-terrestrials offensively invading the world, and a Hitler 2.0 rising to power and trying to dominate the world. See how good faith is? Oh, it's only good in some areas?
Arguing by deductive reasoning works if you can supply a hint of evidence for your claim. If you have no evidence for something, only deductive reasoning, then you have no claim. You need to show some sort of measurable thing in order to have claim that something exists. Nothing but our communication, walking, and intelligence is the only thing that differs between humans and other animals. OTHER animals. Remember, humans are animals, too. We are the result of the earth being the way it is. If the earth was slightly off the way it is, we would not be here, but something else would be here maybe. So are they lucky, the ones who would have been here? It is unlikely no other planets having living life forms, we just have not discovered others. But even if that claim is right, and this world is the only world that can sustain life, then that means life is a rare thing, and that is actually very easy to understand because there are places on earth that can't even sustain life. I have faith in nothing, and many people do not have faith in anything and they live wonderful, happier lives. Instead of working for something that MIGHT be there, just work for a happy life. In my opinion, the meaning of life is to keep life rolling. According to many biologists, our individual purpose to living is to reproduce and keep our species alive. If you need to come up with a reason other than that, then go for it. But, at the end of the day, do you really believe it, or are you just BSing yourself to keep you happy? My goal in life is to make some sort of impact. Make tomorrow better for the people born tomorrow. That's what my goal is. Get my name in a textbook. Have people remember my name. That's what my goal in life is and that what my meaning in life is. Affecting the world is the meaning of life. Going to heaven and avoiding hell isn't a meaning of life. Even if that was the only thing we were meant to do, then what's the point in that? What's the meaning behind that? If that's the case, then repent your sins, tell Jesus you love him, jump off a cliff, and go to your heavenly mansion waiting for you. The Bible never says suicide is bad. God never touches base on that topic. He never talks about killing yourself. Go to heaven, now if you want. If you think the only reason to live is to go to heaven, then make the process here shorter. No, I don't really want anyone killing themselves because that is just stupid. I'm just wondering why you don't if your only goal is to reach the after life. How about instead of worrying about the future after life, live life now. Make it fun. Don't hurt others, give everyone a fair chance at life. Live life. Don't work on your after life.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
I am merely suggesting that souls have not been proven. However, I do not believe should exist. This is not what the original debate is about though. What I believe and what I came here to defend are not the same things
Posted by TrexieGirl 2 years ago
TrexieGirl
Ozzyhead, by stating your arguement you suggest that we don't have souls either....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 2 years ago
Brendan21
edibleshrapnelOzzyheadTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts this debate immediately with fallacious thought process. Evolution has nothing to do with the possibility of a soul. There is no assumed proof of the soul until it is proven, and as of yet, NOPE.