Is atheism a rational worldview
Debate Rounds (4)
I accept this debate and infer that opening statements are to be in Round 2 and rebuttals in Round 3.
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 .
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.
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.
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?
Templar81 forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.