The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Islam has more evidence, makes more sense, and is more rational than Atheism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,683 times Debate No: 27006
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Basically try to convince that Atheism has more proof or backing than Islam. Please if your arguing, argue over islam the religion, NOT the followers. Dont bring up terrorism or anything else stupid.

Islam makes way more sense than Atheism. It has more evidence towards it. Atheism is completely irrational. There are 3 things atheists can NEVER prove without using theories or speculation. How did the universe come to exist, how did life form on earth spontaneously, and how did this life evolve into Humans that have such advanced ingenuity and morale. Islam supports big bang but says God was a catalyst. Islam supports evolution up to the fact that humans came from primates because humans are OBVIOUSLY different. Islam also is scientifically 100% accurate. Mecca is the golden ratio of the world. Many things in the quran are scientifically accurate and there thigns people at the time had no clue of. Such as the shape of the world, the shape of embryos, big bang, estuaries, reflected moonlight, water cycle, ripples. NO ONE at the time of its revalation had these ideas and the quran had them through a single prophet. There is no way Muhammed came up with this it has to be a revelation from god. Also the Quran itself is a proof. How can a book have not a single letter changed, not a single contradiction within itself or with science. Its truly a miracle. The idea of atheism is flawed and has no backing.


Ladies and gentlemen, it's good to be back. Thank you, audience, and thank you, FogFail, for making this debate possible.

In order to win this debate, my opponent must provide sufficient reasons for the audience to fully agree with the resolution outside of their personal biases. That will be his burden of proof from this point forward. And the resolution itself contains three very bold statements:

1) Islam has more evidence than atheism.
2) Islam makes more sense than atheism.
3) Islam is more rational than atheism.

It is mainly the third statement I would like to address. Is it more rational for a thinking person to remain an atheist, or convert to the beliefs of the Qu'ran?

My opponent claims that I, as an atheist, cannot possibly answer three very tough questions of his without resorting to speculation, questions concerning the origins of the universe and of life: How did the universe come to be? How did life on Earth come to be? And how did that life evolve into the sexy individuals we are today?

Nowadays, there are very convincing, very evidentially-supported scientific theories concerning these topics, but I won't bother boring you with them because as far as I'm concerned, they are irrelevant to my opponent's burden of proof (to prove Islam is more rational than atheism) and are therefore irrelevant to this debate entirely. Even if there were no convincing answers to these questions in the fields of science, does that mean atheism itself is not valid? That we should convert to some religion claiming to know the answers, even if they may not be supported by logic or evidence? Should we lay out our prayer mats and turn East five times a day? I should certainly hope not.

Quite simply, this is because no answer at all is better than a bad one. Maybe I don't have all the answers to my opponent's questions. Maybe I don't know where the universe came from or how life evolved. Is that irrational? Is it irrational to say "I don't know the answer to that" when it is true that no one knows the answer and could not possibly know the answer? On the contrary, admitting ignorance when it exists is the perfectly rational thing to do!

So I shall say again: no answer at all is better than a bad one. And that’s really the difference between my opponent and me. While I would be happy telling you we have yet to fully understand the origins and inner-workings of our universe (though our knowledge multiplies dramatically each decade), my opponent would rather you believe a deity was somehow responsible for our existence.

And what warrant does my opponent provide to support this claim? I quote, “Many things in the quran are scientifically accurate and there thigns people at the time had no clue of. […] Its truly a miracle.”

My opponent seems to believe that there had been a profound lack of scientific discovery prior to the Qu’ran’s writing (including the shape of the Earth, the reflection of sunlight off the moon, etc.), as if information regarding these phenomena were only made available to mankind via the Qu’ran, instead of the far more likely scenario that the Qu’ran’s passages were written with the whole of that era’s current scientific knowledge in mind.

My opponent references no specific passages and I don’t feel like doing his homework for him (I’ve been rambling far too long anyway), but I will make a few points before giving him the floor again. The Qu’ran was first written, at the earliest, during Mohammad’s lifetime in the seventh century CE. [1] But the knowledge my opponent claims could have been nothing other than a revelation from God had already been discovered (or at least speculated) far before 600 CE.

The theory that the moon does not emit its own light source, but instead reflects it off of the sun, dates back as far as the Athenian philosopher Anaxagoras (500-428 BCE). Hippolytus wrote about the philosopher in the late second century CE,

[According to Anaxagoras,] the moon is below the sun, closer to us. The sun is larger than the Peloponnesus. The moon does not shine with its own light, but receives its light from the sun…. Eclipses of the moon occur when the earth cuts off the light, and sometimes when the bodies below the moon cut off the light. Eclipses of the sun take place at new moon, when the moon cuts off the light…. Anaxagoras was the first to describe the circumstances under which eclipses occur and the way light is reflected by the moon. [2]

In that same vein, it had been speculated by Greek astronomers and philosophers for hundreds of years before Muhammad was even born that the Earth was spherical. Eratosthenes, who lived in the third century BCE, was one of the first to speculate the Earth must be round and to calculate its circumference (and did so very accurately). He had heard from an account that on the summer solstice, in the city of Swenet, the sun’s rays shined straight down on the city’s pillars, causing them to cast no shadow at all. Meanwhile, Eratosthenes witnessed the shadows of the pillars in his hometown of Alexendria grow long on this very same day. So how could it be that at the same time on the same day the shadow of a pillar in Alexendira is long while the shadow of a pillar in Swenet (about 500 miles away) is nonexistent? The only answer, Eratosthenes predicted, is that the surface of the Earth is curved. [3]

As historical evidence has shown us, no true scientific claim or implication that was written in the Qu’ran was in any way revolutionary to the time period in which it was written, and my opponent has no solid evidence to convince us otherwise or that the god of the Qu’ran truly exists.

In conclusion, when considering those questions my opponent posed (how did the universe and we come into being?), it is much more rational to simply say “I do not know” than to say a deity was responsible. Thus, it is much more rational to be an atheist than a Muslim.





Debate Round No. 1


1. Your saying the answers to these questions are irrelevant and shouldnt cause one to become religious. Im not saying that, im saying it lowers the rationality of the idea of atheism. Which in this debate is related to science as a whole, because just not believing in God without backing is completely irrational. In this debate the backing for atheism shall be science. If i make any wrong statements please correct me since you must be more knowledgable of science and atheism than me. So if you could answer these, they would make Atheism sound more rational that it does right now to me.

2. Your saying claiming ignorance is more rational. Well if you dont know these things you shouldnt have a firm grip on atheism. It should be better to stay an agnostic. And you also said I would rather you believe in a deity to somehow be responsible. I'm just saying it sounds more rational, more probable, and the idea has nothing going against it. I agree other religions contradict science. Such as Christianity contradicts the age of the world, it contradicts the space time continuum through omnipresence etc. Many religions do this. But there is nothing going against islam.

3. You said there had been a profound lack of scientific discovery prior to the Qu"ran"s writing. Not even close to what I said. Quran isnt even a science book. The scientific things in there arent even meant to teach us about science, they were just included through gods words to support other things. Quran is mainly a book about spirituality not science. The science stuff just exists in it, which is why I use it as a basis of my argument because its accurate. And the ideas already being speculated, 1 is not necessarily true i will find examples hold on, and 2 even if you say they were why isnt there a SINGLE unnacurate one. Surely if they were all from speculation something had to be wrong. Alot of the scientific miracles have also been discovered by others near that time but others have not. For example, the Quran cleverly says exactly how much percent of the earth is land and how much is sea. Down to the percent. Also if you take the golden ratio of the world, it points to mecca. Also it says in the quran, . Pharaoh Ramses II was also unusually preserved in a miracle

4. Another argument i would like to bring up is the perfectness of the text. Many words have perfect symmetry with others. Like the word heaven comes up as much as hell. Also the word land comes up 28.8888 percent of the time and the word sea comes up 71.12222 percent which is perfectly the ratio of the worlds land and sea. Also there isnt a single contradiction compared to all the other holy books. Every single letter is preserved, there is only one version not 10000000 thousand versions like the bible. Its just perfect.

In conclusion all im saying is. From an unbiased point of view it seems more rational to go with a belief that is completely logical. It may not be proven but its not illogical. Where on the other-hand atheism has many ideas that cant be explained. Again im taking atheism and science as a whole.


Thank you for your response, FogFail. To respond to your points in order...

1) My opponent has combined the atheist and the scientist into one person in his mind, and has kindly asked me to correct him if he is wrong in doing this. Well, FogFail, you are wrong in doing this. An atheist is, most inclusively, one who does not believe a deity exists. [1]. An atheist is not necessarily someone who believes in the Big Bang theory, or evolution, or anything of the sort. An atheist isn't even necessariy someone who believes deities do not exist. Atheists like myself are simply those who have not been convinced a deity exists.

2) My opponent says, "I'm just saying [Islam] sounds more rational, more probable, and the idea has nothing going against it. [...] Christianity contradicts the age of the world, it contradicts the space time continuum through omnipresence etc. Many religions do this. But there is nothing going against islam."

The thing that Islam has going against it is a lack of evidence in its favor. It's simply not enough for some of the claims in the Qu'ran to be true. The vaidity of those claims do not bleed over to give the claim that God exists validity as well. It is a separate claim on its own and deserving of its own evidence, but so far, we have been given none.

3) My opponent claims there is not a single scientific error in the Qu'ran and this is why we shoud believe God exists. Firstly, as previously mentioned, that is non-sequitor. He will have to provide evidence of God's existence before we should take this claim seriously, regardless of what scientific claims the Qu'ran make, true or not.

And secondly, that's not even true. Let me give you a couple examples:

"And verily, it is We Who give life, and Who give death: it is We Who remain inheritors (after all else passes away). To Us are known those of you who hasten forward, and those who lag behind. Assuredly it is thy Lord Who will gather them together: for He is perfect in Wisdom and Knowledge. We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape; And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind." [15:23-27] [2]

Needless to say, the notion that man was created in its current form from clay instead of having evolved from lower species of apes is a glaring scientific error.

"Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds." [41:9] [3]

According to the Qu'ran, Allah created the entire universe in just six days, the Earth taking two of them. I would like my opponent to expain to us how this is not a scientific error.

4) Before responding to my opponent's theory on the water/land ratio, I'd like for him to provide evidence that what he says is true. I've researched multiple translations of the Qu'ran, searching for the words "sea", "water", "ocean", "land", "ground", and "acre" and couldn't get the perfect ratio he did. So I assume this supposed miracle only applies to the original text and seeing as I can't read Arabic, I'd like my opponent to provide an unbiased source on the matter.

I propose that it is far more likely that the number of times "land" and "water" are mentioned happen to coincide with the ratio of actual land and water on the Earth's surface is nothing more than a coincidence, not a revelation from God, because there is no evidence God exists. Also, I wonder how many other word mentionings have a perfect ratio like that, seeing as how the Qu'ran was apparantly written with such care to detail. Is the word "star" mentioned in the Qu'ran billions of more times than the word "Earth"?

My opponent says, in conclusion, "[Islam] may not be proven but its not illogical." That's the thing, though. The fact that Islam has yet to be proven to be true makes it illogical for one to believe in it. Until then, atheism is the far more rational position.

Debate Round No. 2


1) Well if atheists just dont believe in deities without any reason. Then atheism is the most irrational belief of all. If you are arguing for atheism you should have some sort of backing to your ideas. If an atheist doesnt believe in evolution, then he is agnostic. If he believes the universe wasnt created by a deity, but doesnt know who created it either. Hes agnostic. Im not trying to argue with you on what Atheism is. I just wanted to debate against common science, but i couldnt do that since Islam supports much of it. So i had to use Atheism in my resolution.
2) Well it has more evidence than atheism. Those 3 things i told you are random speculations that cannot be answered. In Islam there is nothing that is improbable. Even if they sound like speculations. Also Islam has a substantial amount of proof for a religion based on faith. If God gave you clear cut evidence you would just have faith out of fear not love. That also contradicts with free will since you wont have a choice if extraordinary evidence is presented to you. Yet there is a substantial amount. The Quran is a perfect book. There is a verse that says, "If you think this is written by a man, surely you will be able to create something like it". The quran is 6000 verses of perfect poetry, talking about everything in life.
3) Gods evidence is the basic idea that something has to create the universe. If the universe had a beginning then it must have a cause of its beginning. Something cannot come from nothing. It is impossible to prove this. If time and space were created, there has to be something not existing in time or space to create it. Its not an easily proven fact, but its more logical than the universe popping out of no where. Or even the M-Theory since that isnt even half complete.

Clay thing is metaphorical. Its referring to how humans were perfectly molded like clay and how we are "earthly". Many other verses speak of us being made differently, like with embryo. Quran explains embryology. And like saying we are from sperm etc. And us evolving from apes isnt proven, so its not a scientific fact. Just a theory.
The word is yowm i think in arabic. It means both day and period in arabic. Its not a literal day OBVIOUSLY. Many Islamic scholars beleive it refers to "heavenly" days, much longer than earthly days. Which is not 24 hours since that is impossible.

4) Its not that ratio to the book. There are 13 times where land comes up and 32 times where sea comes up. Out of 45( the sum) 13 is 28.888%. I remember seeing a source quoting the exact verse numbers, i need to find that but I will try to find it by the end of the debate. Here are the other word things.

You said " Islam has yet to be proven to be true " Islam is going to be proven to be true until maybe The Day of Judgement. Also that doesnt make it illogical. Atheism has also not been proven. There has to be proof against the idea of a deity as well. There is not proof on either end. Im arguing, despite the lack of clear cut proof. Islam is much more logical.


1) Debating the definition of atheism is something I'd rather not do, but it seems my opponent still doesn't quite understand it, so I will clarify again: an atheist is, most inclusively, one who does not believe a deity exists. This does not mean an atheist is someone who believes deities do not exist.

You say, FogFail, that if we don't believe in deities for no reason, then we are illogical, but that's just absurd. No one believes anything without good reason. That is the default concerning belief in anything at all: disbelief, until convinced otherwise. The reason we don't believe is that there is no reason to believe. If you are still confused, please refer to the source I provided in the last round.

2/3) My opponent's evidence for the existence of Allah seems simple now: the universe had a beginning, everything that had a beginning must have had a cause, so the universe must have had a cause, and that cause must have been a deity, and that deity must have been Allah.

Please note that my opponent clearly says "It is impossible to prove this" as a disclaimer that his entire theory is not actually evidence, but mere speculation. He's right: it's impossible to prove the universe needed to have a cause of its existence. He says, though, that it's at least more likely that it did have a cause than didn't, but to this I wholeheartedly disagree.

Nothing at all existed before the universe's beginning, at least as far we know. It's not like there was just a big, black emptiness for a long time and then all of a sudden, the universe popped into existence. No, there was nothing at all before the universe. To say the universe had a cause of its beginning would be to say that something did, in fact, exist before the universe. To prove that would be quite difficult indeed. "Impossible" was the right word, FogFail.

4) Seeing as how my opponent completely ignored the question, I'd wager the word "star" was not mentioned billions of more times than the word "Earth". My opponent also did not respond to the possibility that the "land"/"sea" ratio is nothing more than a convenient coincidence. Extend all arguments regarding these.

My opponent says "Atheism has also not been proven". If he understood the definition of "atheism", he would understand how insane that sentence sounds. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It does not need proof, because it does not make any positive claims. Islam, on the other hand, does. It claims, among other things, that Allah exists. But our opponent has yet to grace us with even a shred of evidence for this deity's existence.

It is irrational to believe in things that do not have supporting evidence. And seeing as how Islam fits that description, it is irrational to be a Muslim.

Debate Round No. 3


1) Well if you have no proof going either way. Then being agnostic is more rational. But if there is more proof against a god existing then you should be an atheist. If there is more proof for a god existing you should be religious. To strongly disbelieve in a deity means you should have strong evidence against it, or your just making irrational decisions.

2) There is no proof there was nothing at all before the universes existence. And if there were something. It wouldnt have time, a beginning; or space, a form. Something that couldnt be known through scientific means in this 3d world. So there is no proof either way. But since the universe was created, why shouldnt there be no cause? Why did it randomly just create out of this infinitely small space(big bang). Dont get me wrong, Islam supports big bang theory but it needs a cause.

Also quoted from Nur-Ab-Sal

1. The Universe"s fine-tuning is either due to necessity, chance, or design
2. The Universe"s fine-tuning is not due to necessity or chance

3. Therefore, the Universe"s fine-tuning is due to design

Premise (1) is uncontroversial, unless my opponent brings forth an alternative theory. Premise (2) is substantiated because (a) reality and physics conforms around the fine-tuning being discussed, so physics could not have caused the fine-tuning, and (b) chance is an absurd hypothesis because of the infinitesimal scale the fundamentals of nature operate on. Thus the conclusion follows the Universe was designed.

3) Well star isnt. it never says in the quran everything possiblle will be mentioned. Its just that certain things come up. And I highly doubt all of these things are coincidences. Its practically impossible. Its literature is perfect. Also islam mentions many many things. Such as the shape of the world, to the water cycle, to the fact that all living things are made of water. If you take the cumulative probability of all these things its like .001%. Its quite rare, you could throw it off as a coincidence. But its much more likely to not be.

This is a little hard now since i presumed Atheism also included the belief of all modern scientific theories. Really what im saying is. To believe that god doesnt exist, is a belief itself. It should have if not evidence, ideas completely supporting it, not contradicting proven science. If your dont have evidence for god its not rational to become an atheist, it would be more rational to be an agnostic on that viewpoint.


1) The definition of atheism is non-debatable, I'm afraid, and though I've only been looking out for your best interest by urging you in each and every round to read up on what it means before you respond, it seems that will never happen. Atheism is not a mutually exclusive position to agnosticism, which deals with epistemology, not ontology. In the most simplest of terms, so that even a layman among laymen may understand, if you are not a theist (one who believes a deity exists), then you are an atheist.

2) It appears the first shred of evidence in support of Islam my opponent graces us with is a version of a teleological argument, which aims to convince us the universe must have been fine-tuned by an intelligent creator. There are two main problems with this argument I'd like to address:

(1) The term "fine-tuning" in the argument's premises is far too vague. Fine-tuned for what? Life? Human life? I certainly hope this is not what is meant, because then we can flatly reject the argument on the basis that the universe exhibits a profound lack of fine-tuning for life. Our planet Earth is like less than a grain of sand on all the world's beaches when compared to the whole of the cosmos and not even our tiny rock can support life on all of its surface year-round.

(2) The argument concludes that the universe must be the result of some kind of design, but even if we graciously accept this, it could still not possibly hope to convince us of the specifics our opponent needs it to: that this "design" is, out of millions of concievable possibilities, the Islamic deity, Allah. Seeing as how my opponent is supposed to be arguing for Islam, and not deism, his argument inevitably falls short.

3) My opponent says this, concerning the notion the land/sea ratio may just be coincidence: "islam mentions many many things. Such as the shape of the world, to the water cycle, to the fact that all living things are made of water. If you take the cumulative probability of all these things its like .001%."

I believe there is sufficient reason to doubt my opponent's claim that the odds of all scientific facts being included in the Qu'ran is "like .001%". That is until he can reveal to us the equation he used to reach such a number. I must first reiterate that the people of the seventh century CE were not as ignorant as my opponent thinks they were, as I have proved in previous rounds. And it is certainly not inconcievable that a single text from that time period would be correct on several scientific facts, including the shape of the Earth, the water cycle, etc.
Debate Round No. 4


FogFail forfeited this round.


Extend all arguments, refutations, and spelling mistakes.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
What did i just read?
Posted by Maikuru 3 years ago
Posting to remind myself to read and vote.
Posted by TheObvious 3 years ago
You don't need proof to see that Islam is more rational than Atheism. Because as you know or don't want to believe, but everything was created by some powerful source. You can't deny that existence because man will always go looking for answers. Human Nature. If you don't go looking for answers, then it proves you are one of the plain ignorant fools. Allah is the ALMIGHTY and the religion of Islam should NOT be DEBATEable you FOOLS. Heck debate about Christianity and Atheism. So many Bibles out there I lost count whereas there is only one Quran, for every different sect of Islam.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
Anyone who honestly believes the reason for all the stars and galaxies is admittingly jealous and supports human sacrifice as the all knowing, all loving thing to do to prove a point , is delusional, there is no gray area here.

It is impossible for a thinking person to be loyal to such a wicked, and childish holy binky :)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

AWESOMENESS 10:56--If nothing else, the true scripture of the Genie, will at least splash the world with a huge cold glass of ice water everytime, hopefully enough to shake the delusion and people dare to educate themselves and see the beauty of nature as it is known in 2012, thru logic, reason, and ultimitely, all evidenced based discoveries :)
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 3 years ago
Pro, you made my day by quoting me.

Only thing is, I wasn't really proving the fine-tuning argument in the debate you took that from, so I didn't get to expand on the points I made. It was just one of three examples of arguments for God's existence, to rebut my opponent's claim that there's no reason involved.
Posted by mr_Debater1993 3 years ago
i agree with con so far
Posted by Ahmed.M 3 years ago
isn't makes more sense the same thing as rational? There's not much difference between the two.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Pro's forfeit. Spelling for Pro's numerous mistakes and errors in punctuation. Sources to Con because he used sources to actually present arguments and refute points, whereas Pro's sources referenced defeated arguments or were meant to do the arguing for him. As for arguments, Pro seemed to reword the resolution throughout. Con was right to narrow the focus to what is explicitly stated in Round 1, for which Pro barely argued. As Con argued, no amount of correct scientific facts in a holy book confirms the existence of a specific deity, which is a different question altogether. The fact that Con presented contradictions in said holy book that went unanswered didn't help. Pro's one God-related argument does not make a case for Islam specifically, but rather the existence of a deity in general, which is non-resolutional. Given the lack of positive evidence, the Con position is the default.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 3 years ago
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF.