The Instigator
tala00131
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
funwiththoughts
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Is atheism true?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 5 votes the winner is...
funwiththoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,910 times Debate No: 37191
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (5)

 

tala00131

Con

I would like to say that there is no reason why atheism is true let me explain why.

According to the dictionary, atheism is the assertion: "there is no God" This is irrational, because, for you to say there is no God, you would have to check every point of the universe in every point in time. And, you would face the possibility of there being other dimensions (such as heaven).
Unless you can prove that God doesn't exist, you should be agnostic. Even Richard Dawkins admits to being agnostic. Atheists may say that if you should be agnostic about God, you should be agnostic about fairies. Fine, if you want to get to that level of maturity, you should be agnostic about fairies. Atheists often say that you can't disprove anything. That's silly, I can prove that there are no Muslims on the senator.

I also believe that there are facts that shows that a God exists, here are some of them:

-God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
-God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.
funwiththoughts

Pro

I accept. BOP is on you.

Now, the question is not "is atheism rational?", but "is atheism true?" And if atheism is the assertion that there is no God, the question must mean "Does God exist?" The opponent has not proven this.

"Atheists often say that you can't disprove anything. That's silly, I can prove that there are no Muslims on the senator."

Assuming you mean no Muslims "in the Senate", no you can't, because there could be secret Muslims. Now, if you do mean "on the senator" then you would have to specify who "the senator" is.

Now, your arguments:

"God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe."

Why does the Universe need to have an origin? If you say "everything must have a beginning", then God cannot exist, because God is eternal (i. e., no beginning).

"God is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe."

The Universe isn't fine tuned to support us, we evolved according to what would allow the Universe to support us. Any Universe would seem fine-tuned to any sentient life that existed in it.
Debate Round No. 1
tala00131

Con

My opponent claims that the universe did not need to have a beginning. This is just false! There is much scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. Such as, the fact that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, it is impossible for the universe to be infant. The universe is running out of usable energy, if the universe were to have been here forever, the universe would have run out of usable energy a long time ago. My opponent says the universe is not finely tuned. Again, this is false! If the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 life would not exist. This is just one of the millions of fine tunings. Look them up! This debate will not be any fun if my opponent does not know of these facts.
funwiththoughts

Pro

"Such as, the fact that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, it is impossible for the universe to be infant."

All this means is that there is a point where the universe started expanding. Up untill then the Universe would have been a singularity. No God is required.

"Again, this is false! If the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 [sic] life would not exist. This is just one of the millions of fine tunings. "

Life AS WE KNOW IT would not be able to exist, but a new life that had adapted to that universe would think that our Universe is incapable of supporting life because they have been fine-tuned to their universe, just as we have been fine-tuned to ours, not the other way around.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
tala00131

Con

The universe came from a singularity which supposedly came from nothing. No scientist ever said that the singularity has been there forever.
funwiththoughts

Pro

"No scientist ever said that the singularity has been there forever."

But it could have been. Simply because "no scientist ever said" something (which I highly doubt) does not make it true.

My opponent has also dropped his argument regarding fine tuning, so extend all arguments in that regard.

BOP has not been met. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
Worship, you are the one worship me following me around...LMAO! You have the most religious mind I've yet to run into in here.....congrats.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
yougothehit, I see you value your worship of Chase over actual discussion. Very well then, I won't hold any.
Posted by yougotthehit666 4 years ago
yougotthehit666
*fix*around from old debates that were not debates either*fix and then
Posted by yougotthehit666 4 years ago
yougotthehit666
So funwiththoughts gets a lesson in what isn't a debate, falls in love and stalks Chase and follows him around. Then he cry's when Chase rejects his advances so now Chase doesn't know how to debate because funwiththoughts the religious fanatic that says he isn't says so and not because of any given rule of logic or debate.....man if I wanted to listen to this kind of bullshirt I would go back to Church!
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
The comment below was a reply to a deleted comment by Chase, in case anyone thought otherwise.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Your inability to say even a single relevant thing is taken as the end of this discussion.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Chase:

"Such as using a point system that rewards and opponent for originally being on his side, and then for giving points for not appearing polite when debating personal beliefs"

What does that even mean?

"I vote one way, one vote. I vote for one side or the other all the way down the board UNLESS boundaries are clearly being crossed."

Well, don't.

"You and the rest may go on playing the morality game, but debate isn"t about what feels good anymore than is it about convincing others because you know how to spread BS around better than your opponent. "

Translation: "I can't accept that I am a terrible debater! It must just be that the debate system is wrong and not me!"

"I subtract points when people don"t correctly use the term satan,"

Neither me or my opponent used the term satan.

"god"s as they were never names carrying capital letters "..most don"t know this and it isn"t yup to me to educate everyone when I vote"

Have you read the Bible. God is referred to as a name with a capital letter many, MANY times, as is any word referring to God.

"The rules are broken"

No they aren't. Just because you can't win doesn't make the rules broken.

"and this is my fix"

Which doesn't fix anything.

"which is legitimate according to those broken rules."

No it isn't.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Way to make me feel old because I've taken a single Astronomy class...
You argued the universe did not have a beginning; this pretty much falls into the realm of variance of the Solid State Theory, or actual clown territory (which is to say things like the earth being on the back of a turtle).
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
"How did you come to believe you were in a debate..."

Because I went to "debates" and found this. Hence, a debate.

Your answer IS completely meaningless.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Ragnar, I looked up "Solid State Theory". It is:

"In cosmology, the Steady State theory is a now-obsolete theory and model developed as an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the universe's origin (the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, thus adhering to perfect cosmological principle."

I fail to see how this is connected to my argument.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
tala00131funwiththoughtsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT (con): This not not by a large margin, but con understood the point of any debate to be fun, and pro pulled the shifting BoP fallacy in his opening statement (changes like that should be requested in the comment section, prior to accepting the challenge). S&G (tied): Leans in pro's favor. Pro made the senator thing pretty funny, but a single notable error isn't enough to claim the point. ARGUMENT (tie): Neither actually advanced their case much, con did not disprove it, nor did pro prove it. While I believe pro had the stronger argument, he comically argued for the Solid State Theory (something atheism used to cling to dogmatically; but was proven not true. Had con caught such, the argument would lean toward him). SOURCES (tied): Come on, evidence is how you make your arguments warranted. Either side could have swept this with a couple well selected Stephen Hawking quotes. Heck the "no scientist ever said" bit could have actually been disproven with a quote from any scientist.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
tala00131funwiththoughtsTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Both had decent enough conduct. Neither of the two had sources. I agree with Con, but Pro had the best argument, while Con kept dropping all arguments. As for S&G, Con had some moments... "there are no Muslims on the senator"
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
tala00131funwiththoughtsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The fine-tuning argument of the universe doesn't prove that God exist, but it does make atheism less likely. Though Con failed to explain this better, Pro argued that biological life could evolve in any universe. Well, not if the universe is absent of matter (and thus chemistry), which is one of the central features of the fine-tuning argument. Ultimately I gave the victory to Con for this important detail.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
tala00131funwiththoughtsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clearly arguments go to Pro. If for no other reason, in round 3 Con ignored the almost the entire past 2 rounds and stated that no scientist said there was an eternal singularity. No source at all. Pro also said he was saying it was only possible and thus God isn't the best explanation.
Vote Placed by LoopsEye 4 years ago
LoopsEye
tala00131funwiththoughtsTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I Believe Atheism to be Ilogical & Irratonal. I felt Con to be politer then pro BOP was on Con he did not presented his argument well nor did he gave BOP & There was noSource used