Is atheism 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?
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.
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.
-------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:
The answer is nothing.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
|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:||0||4|