The Instigator
Templar81
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
JacobAnderson
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is atheism a rational worldview

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Templar81
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 49873
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Templar81

Con

In today's overwhelming scientific evidence is atheism a rational worldview?
JacobAnderson

Pro

Atheism- Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I accept this debate and infer that opening statements are to be in Round 2 and rebuttals in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 1
Templar81

Con

I am waiting for the evidence for atheism as of yet I am waiting for my opponents reasons for his atheism. Does he have any? Not of yet, we will wait and see the reasons why my opponent holds to his atheistic views, whether they are based on sound logic and then we can see if they are rational under closer scrutiny...
JacobAnderson

Pro

You should have established that my opening argument should have been in round 1. Had you done so, there would have been an argument waiting for you to refute where there is instead another wasted round.

Rational- Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Atheism is logical due to the laws and theories of science.
Throughout history, there has unarguably been advances in science that have helped people understand the world and nature. Take for example Newton's Three Laws [1].
First Law- Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Also known as Law of Interia.
Second Law- The relationship between an object's mass, m, its acceleration, a, and the applied force F is F=ma.
Third Law- For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
These three laws have been tested and proven to be true multiple times, probably hundreds in a single AP Physics classroom (as I speak from experience). How would following this logic without a deity to follow be an irrational view of the world?
You can also argue theories and laws given by Galileo, Bernoulli, Bohr, or any other well-known scientist.

Such things such as economy and trade are often headed by secular governments, further proving that from a global network standpoint, it is rational to look at it either as a religious being or as an atheist.

Because you limited the argument in round 1 by stating "in today's overwhelming scientific evidence," I will stay with scientific evidence until another point is brought up. I conclude this segment of my argument until another topic is mentioned.

Sources:
[1] http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...;
Debate Round No. 2
Templar81

Con

Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Whichever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.

In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a negative regarding the existence of God. Of course, that isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there was proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying the existence of God. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth, and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.

Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.

There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible, and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, the atheist would have to propose that it may be possible that there is no God.1 But stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality, or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is a possibility? Not at all. Simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter, and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.

At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence, such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental Argument, the entropy problem, etc.

There is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for the existence of God does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven, and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say there are no convincing evidences for God that have been presented so far. They cannot say there are no evidences for God, because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence presented so far has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has been undiscovered, and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.

This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence, which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.

I do not believe it is possible that God does not exist, and I think such a claim by an atheist is ultimately illogical.
JacobAnderson

Pro

Majority of my opponent's argument has to deal with the validity of atheism where they state I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. With this I ask, what proof is there for Christianity? But wait, they "answered" that. First though, I would like to point out the ignorance of my opponent as they stated there is no valid proof that god isn't real (again, there is no valid point that he is). However, with my opponent stating that they have never heard any proof for atheism, I restate that they are ignorant in this manner- ignorant to the arguments of the big band theory and the theory of evolution. (Might I point out that creation is also a theory as there is no proof for either theories)

Now onto their "answer" to my bolded question. They answer with fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection... Let me argue this simply- Give us the proof that this all happened. I sense extreme biased arguments and a phenomena that allows people to notice more often something they study or believe in. Have you ever realized why you hear something you never knew and start to notice little things that go along with what you heard? That is the phenomena. There is no physical proof that anything from the Bible happened unless you want to say that you poured part of Lot's wife over your popcorn. Where is the garden of Eden? Where is the cross that Jesus was crucified on? (Don't tell me there is proof because there is a cross. I can put a cross in the same area and everyone will think it was Jesus.)

My opponent's arguments are extremely biased and can be the same arguments from an atheist to a Christian.

HOWEVER, NONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS PROVE THAT ATHEISM IS AN IRRATIONAL OUTLOOK ON THE WORLD. YOU FAILED TO MENTION ANY SORT OF FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS SUCH AS TRADE, REVOLT, ETC. IN AN INCREASINGLYL SECULAR WORLD, HOW IS ATHEISM IRRATIONAL?
Debate Round No. 3
Templar81

Con

Templar81 forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson

Pro

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
I also extend an offer to debate this same resolution in case Subutai's insane debating skills freaks you out :-p
Posted by JacobAnderson 2 years ago
JacobAnderson
I think my link broke, so here it is again: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
Isn't BOP on Pro?
Posted by Templar81 2 years ago
Templar81
I was thinking on a debate on the transmission of the Christian scriptures as being accurate if you wanted to challenge me? Suite Bart Erhman fan or supporter...
Posted by Templar81 2 years ago
Templar81
I'll do one at a time as I have other debates as well. Ill repost it after as people will have different reasons why they hold to atheism. I want to know why atheists believe what they believe and allow a theist to challenge those beliefs...
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
Ok, can I challenge you to the debate since one, I have the BoP, and two, someone accepted (assuming you want to do two debates on the same topic at the same time)?
Posted by Templar81 2 years ago
Templar81
The BoP falls on the atheist to argue why atheism is a rational worldview. Give reasons for his atheism and allow a theist to challenge them
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
How do you want to argue this? Do you want to negate that atheism is a rational worldview, or do you want to argue that atheism is not a rational worldview? They're essentially the same thing, it just changes who the BoP falls upon.
Posted by Templar81 2 years ago
Templar81
I want to argue that atheism is not a rational worldview...
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
Can I challenge you to this debate since I have the BoP? I also want to establish some definitions. If not, at the very least, make the resolution in a form that is not a question.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Templar81JacobAndersonTied
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: It was a fallacious contention for debate, which was loading the cards in Con's favor. But in either case Con gave stronger and more convincing arguments and the tantrum by Pro at the end didn't help his case. Pro needed to talk about BoP (of theism) and some of the science to make a sound argument. He did not, and he needed to as the resolution set the BoP on him.