The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
achmed242
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is atheism viable?

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...
achmed242
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,385 times Debate No: 25997
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Anti-atheist

Con

This is a debate if atheism is viable.

Here is why atheism isn't viable it hasn't been proven! In this debate I ask pro without evading or asking me a question

What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct?
achmed242

Pro

Since you didnt give much for your first, neither shall I.
I would just like to give my opening remarks.
I would like to ask, what do you mean by atheism being viable, such as their is no athesim, or that im wrong completely, I can argue it either way.
Thank you and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Con

Viable as in a valid position supported by evidence. Not that there is no such thing as atheism. Since you didn't answer it in the first round, In this round without asking me a question or evading provide some proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.

Thanks
achmed242

Pro

Well, dictionary.com says that an atheist is a "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." In my opinion, and atheist is a person who has broken free of the shackles of religion and sees the truth. When you ask for proof if atheism is correct, I have to say that is a akward wording. By that i assume that you mean atheist are right. And yes, it is a valid position supported by evidence. Before i get to the evidence, I would like to give an analogy. Assume you are a cryptozoologist(someone who studies animals that could exist, but are not proven to, such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster), and you think that Bigfoot lives somewhere in North America. I am a nonbeliever, I say there is no bigfoot, that their is no proof, and that the supposed proof is false. Now replace crytozoologist with religous person and Bigfoot with God. That is why atheism is a valid position. I am currently in a debate with someone else over the existance of the Christian God, and i would like to quote myself, as to save myself, and you good people, the time of retyping all of it, or at least what is relavent.
I would like to note that Jesus and God are refered to several times, but could be replaced with other Deities.

-------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
God's Answering Machine


Think about Mathew 7:7
Jesus says:
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
Try praying, what happens, nothing, and if god in his eternal love, wouldnt he do something, for one of the millions who pray.

What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:

      Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

The answer is nothing.

Physical Evidence
Jesus performed many miracles, Noah built a immense ark, and entire Earth was completely flooded, yet where is the physical evidence. This argument may be overused or evn a sort of crutch, but it is ironclad nonetheless.
IF, and thats a big if, all these things happened, where is the said proof. Think about it:
-God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
-None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.
-God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the --television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
-The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
-The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
-When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
-Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
All of this points to a god who is either fake, or a huge a-hole.

The Law of Thermodynamics
"This commenly used argument by christians states that nothing can from from nothing, it must come from something. So however the universe started it, what started that? The answer, we don't know, but if you try to say god, then i ask you, where did god come from." Taken from my original argument, i wish to expand upon this, since i did not have a lot of room to finish it. This law, states that nothing can come from nothing, everything has something that caused it. So, when an atheist, or other forms of an atheist, state that they believe the Big Bang created the universe, there christian counterpart would say then what started the big bang. They would then state that the Big Bang must ahve had some sort of ignition, E.G. god. They would also say that God is the beggining of everything, and that before he created the universe, there was only him. Well, this law is a two way street. If you would state that everything must have a beginning, then so must god. So, a common christian argumnent debunked.
-------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------

Now I would like to speak about each a little more.
God's Answering Machine
Basically, what I mean is if you pray, nothing happens, and everyday milions pray, but most of those prayers go unaswered. I say most, because the ones that are supposedly answered are mere coincidence, likely to happen, or very unimportant. Such as having a good day or a team winning a game.
Physical Evidence
As said before, Jesus performed many miracles, Noah built an immense Ark, and the entire Earth was flooded, but these occurences left no evidence. Every supposed occurences in any religion were already there before the book was written or the religion created, or never happened.
The Law of Thermodynamics
This law states nothing can come from nothing, everything has a begginning. Now, many Christians would use this to debunk the Big Bang, but it is a two way street. For God to have created the Universe, he must have had a begginning.
There is your evidence good sir.
Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Con

So, cryptozoology,big foot and the Loch Ness Monster prove atheism accurate and correct? LOL No come on. The evidence for cryptozoology,big foot,ect are almost that of atheism, NON EXISTENT. Cyrptozoology has more evidence for atheism and their evidence isn't very good, but better than atheism.

You go after the Christian God. Yet is atheism only disbelief in the Christian God? No of course not, otherwise you can say Pagans are atheists. Did you look at the debate title? Its not "Does the Christian God exist?". NO its "is atheism viable?". Refuting arguments against the existence of God isn't proof and evidence of atheism. Nor is trying to refute the Christian God prove atheism accurate and correct. You claim your arguments can be replaced with other deities. No they cannot. Your first 2 proofs are the argument from silence which is a fallacy[1]. The only valid proof and evidence you gave for atheism is the "Who created God?" argument.

But if God is the maker of everything that includes the law of thermodynamics. So, it wouldn't apply to him. Since God lives outside of space and time he is not subject to them. God would of just always existed.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
achmed242

Pro

First off, I'd like to say your counter argument had no facts in it and seemed uneducated. Also, cryptozoology was an analogy, i used it to describe an atheist, and if you didn't get that, then im sorry I picked this debate up. Second off, I was giving examples of the Christian god, but you could go after any religion, although I might need to brush up on the Quran. They can easily be replaced, you just need to change the facts around. I was using those things as examples, to quote you "Did you look at the" argument. Your whole argument is based on unsolid ground, with no facts, just attacking what I say, looking for weak points in my argument then exploiting them. I'll give a quick redo of my argument, NO GOD EVER ANSWERS PRAYERS, UNLESS BY COINCIDENCE OR LIKELYNESS; THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY GOD EVER, EXCEPT HOAXES AND LIES; AND NOTHING CAN BE CREATED WITHOUT A CREATOR MAKING GOD IMPOSSIBLE, BY THE LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. I bolded it and capitalized it in hopes you would actually read it, instead of just one or two sentences. Your God cannot be outside of The Law of Thermodynamics, even if you claim he is, because once again, you have no credible evidence just opinions and words.
Also, you are very militant, attacking me in your reply to my argument. That is why this one is so angry, I would ask that you tone it down in your next argument, lest you continue to give religous persons a bad name.
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Con

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
achmed242

Pro

I think his argument this round says it all.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by achmed242 4 years ago
achmed242
First off
1. I gave substanial evidence, and while it did oust christianity, you could insert allah or any other god in any of the time i said Jesus. You were to biased to see that.
2. I did go on to say how that evidence could be applied to other religions.
3. The reason i got "mad" is because you were being a total prick, ruing the name of religious people. You and other like you are the reason religion sometimes gets a bad rap, also, way to try to save your self by saying "He will get voted for because of atheist bias". There are just as many religious persons as there is atheists, so you had just as good a chance.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
Pro did fail to give proof and evidence. lol look how mad he got! I didn't even write anything in a load or rude tone.

Poor atheist sad sacks always angry and cannot debate. He will get voted for because of atheist bias
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
So deathbeforedishoner, you posit that before humans were able to perceive atoms, atoms did not exist?
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
You cannot see them!
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
You cannot see them!
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
No, Science has proven that atoms exist and I see the therebuild upin the forms we see everyday. I have yet to see even as much as a speck of concrete evidence for a Theistic god.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
You just assume its made of atoms. You don't actually see the atoms!

Its like saying I see the sky which is made by God.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I see my me and my computer screen. They are matter therefore made of atoms. :) Once again no god.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
Philo

1. Yeah its fine,but someone already accepted.

2. Atheism is not just disbelief in the Christian God but all Gods. So it would be all gods in general

3. I would just have you go head with opening statement in round 1.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
Hey death

I don't see any atoms around? Do you? Nope.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Anti-atheistachmed242Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and had weak arguments anyway lol