The Instigator
tvellalott
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
forever2b
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is reasonable to believe that God doesn't exist

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,877 times Debate No: 14505
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

tvellalott

Pro

Obvious resolution is obvious.

In my humble opinion, the God/s of the Monotheistic Abrahamic religions doesn't/don't exist. I will argue that this position is more reasonable than the belief in God.

My opponent, whoever it is, will argue that believing in God is the more reasonable position. They will NOT argue that Agnosticism is more reasonable than Atheism.

My opponent will NOT post any argument in round one, they will simply accept and add any information they think needs to be added. I will begin the debate in round two with my opening argument.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please, if you're going to vote for this debate, please leave your Reason for Decision, detailing why you gave your points the way you did.
REMEMBER: Every time you vote-bomb an Atheist, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens! (This line doesn't constitute me actually believing in God. It is obvious sarcasm. Take a conduct point if you want.)
forever2b

Con

First, I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate and also thank anyone who reads this debate. I will be arguing that it is not reasonable to believe that God from the Bible does not exist. I ask my opponent to provide proof why he thinks it is more reasonable. I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
tvellalott

Pro

I’d like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and welcome him to the site.

ARGUMENTS

Argument from Scripture

The Old Testament
I think it has been well established that the Bible is not a scientific record. The Old Testament is widely regarded as almost complete fiction. The advancement in Science in the last 400 years has disproven the possibility of almost the entire account. A metaphor is simply a relabeling of a fictional story with some supposed moral value. However, given that most of the Old Testament is horrific and at times contradictory to what Jesus later taught, its presence in the modern Bible is confusing.

The New Testament

Again, the gospels are hardly scientific record. When we look back on the scientists and philosophers of history, like Archimedes or Aristotle for example, we can see that a lot of what they believed was completely incorrect.

However, they did make correct observations using the scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Looking back, we can see what they did right and what they did wrong. More importantly, we can see why they were wrong and work to improve on their knowledge.

This is not the case with the Bible. Unchanged for nearly two thousand years, have modern things been added to account for well, modern things? What does the Bible say on the Internet, or Cardiology, or Genetics? The answer is obviously, nothing.
In fact, in terms of functionality the Bible is very lacking. It only serves the purpose of furthering Christianity, not proving that it is factual.


Argument from Morality

The things that are often called ‘morals’ are actually behaviours that are integral to the formation, establishment and betterment of successful societies, both micro and macro. They can be explained with the scientifically accepted theory of Evolution. Guilt can be explained by an understood chemical process in our brain. If every man, women and child felt the same guilt about the same things, we might have a reasonable argument for objective morals from the divine, but they don’t.

The ability to see what is right and wrong doesn’t exist, since a constant example of right and wrong doesn’t exist. Most things that are thought of as wrong might also be ok in a certain context or in a different culture. Besides, the Bible is rather vague about what is specifically right and wrong. Not one single commandment given to Moses is wrong in every context. Killing is generally wrong, but it’s ok if its purpose is to protect your loved ones or if you’re fighting for your country. Stealing is ok, if it saves a child from starvation. Having sex with a child is wrong, but marrying and consummating with a child is ok in certain cultures.

Think of the most abhorrent act you can possibly think of; snuff movies involving the rape and mutilation of children. Now, there are some underground consumer ‘need’ for such a thing, since we know individuals exist that not only desire this but lust for it. Within this underground community, these acts are thought of as ok, because as wrong as the perpetrators may or may not know that these are, the desire to commit them, for whatever reason, is stronger, thus making it ok in that context.

My point is that both the Bible and the existence of a moral God are contradicted by what we see in our environment; massively varied moral codes between cultures made up of almost identical organisms.


Argument from Ignorance


In science, there are two types of unknown.
  • There is the known unknown; we know the question but we don’t know the answer.
  • There is also the unknown unknown; questions about the fabric of nature which we haven’t yet thought of or needed to ask.
Here are two examples of known unknowns:
  • We know that life exists on this planet, but we don’t know exactly how it originated.
  • We know that the universe exists, but we don’t know exactly how it originated.

The fact that we don’t know the answer to these questions doesn’t support the existence of a creator. In regards to these questions, it is better to continue to further the accumulated knowledge of mankind on these subjects and accept your ignorance, rather than make assumptions.

Fortunately science provides many theories to the above two questions and provide reasoning and evidence to support them; they use the proven mathematical formulas of their respective sciences to support them.


CONCLUSION

I have focused on Christianity in this first round, but will branch out into Islam and Judaism if needed. The arguments are essentially the same.

Science explains everything; it is the study of the natural world. In order for something to be accepted as scientific fact, it must go through the rigors of the scientific arena and be scrutinised viciously by the proponents peers before it is accepted by any majority.

Theology explains nothing; it is the study of the supernatural world. In order for something to be accepted as theological fact, it seems to need only come from the mouth of some snake-oil merchant preacher and heard by ignorant people. To the theist, faith must outweigh reason, however insignificantly, otherwise you are agnostic.

The resolution is that it is reasonable to believe that God doesn’t exist.

Given that we have no scientific reason to believe that the Universe was created by a sentient being or that Mankind was created in the image of said sentient being, the Atheists position is reasonable. characters


VOTE PRO
forever2b

Con

I thank my opponent for welcoming me to the site and hope this to be an interesting debate.

Rebuttals for the arguments
The Old Testament
"The Old Testament is widely regarded as almost complete fiction."
I respectfully disagree with my opponent's statement. It is quite evident that most if not all of the Old testament events happened: http://lavistachurchofchrist.org.... I would like to ask my opponent to provide some proof of this.
"The advancement in Science in the last 400 years has disproven the possibility of almost the entire account. "
Again I would like to ask my opponent for some proof of this. I, having read the whole Bible more than three times (now reading it the fourth time around), have not seen any contradiction with the Bible and the development of science. As a matter of fact, I think it supports more than it disproves the Bible.
"However, given that most of the Old Testament is horrific and at times contradictory to what Jesus later taught, its presence in the modern Bible is confusing."
I can see why my opponent thinks the Old Testament is horrific and contradictory to what Jesus later taught however, if one looks ever so closely, it is not contradictory, but rather together in unity on a line so fine that if one takes out or puts in information, it becomes contradictory. Once again I would like to ask my opponent to provide proof of this to me, so that I can see why it is "contradictory".

The New Testament
"Again, the gospels are hardly scientific record."
Whether the gospels have scientific record or not does not matter. The Bible is not a science book nor is it a book that gives one answer to anything and everything they need. The Bible is simply God's words that we can reflect upon and believe.
"This is not the case with the Bible. Unchanged for nearly two thousand years, have modern things been added to account for well, modern things? What does the Bible say on the Internet, or Cardiology, or Genetics? The answer is obviously, nothing.In fact, in terms of functionality the Bible is very lacking. It only serves the purpose of furthering Christianity, not proving that it is factual."
If we look at a book of trees will we find things about the Internet, or Cardiology, or genetics? Or if we look at a book of Genetics, will we find something about the stock market, the history of the presidents, or what the big news is in the celebrity world? Of course not. Every book has a specific subject it touches on. The Bible is there to show from the beginning the relationship with man and God. If one wants to find out more about scientific evidence proving God, there are plenty of modern books out there to prove so.

Argument from Morality
"If every man, women and child felt the same guilt about the same things, we might have a reasonable argument for objective morals from the divine, but they don't."
The Bible never states that morals are objective in the world. In God's eyes there is only one right and wrong. However in people's eyes there are multiple rights and wrongs. It is up to the people whether to see it God's way or their way.
"The ability to see what is right and wrong doesn't exist, since a constant example of right and wrong doesn't exist. Most things that are thought of as wrong might also be ok in a certain context or in a different culture. "
But in God's eyes there is only one right and wrong. Even if others think it is okay to kill for any reason, God considers it a sin even if one kills for their loved ones. Stealing is not okay in any context even for a starving child. If one truly believes the power of God, they do not need to steal to give. Despite whatever the culture says or does, if it is wrong in God's eyes, then it is wrong. The ability to see this right and wrong does exist and it is called the Holy Spirit. Only then can you see the rights and wrongs in God's eyes.
"My point is that both the Bible and the existence of a moral God are contradicted by what we see in our environment; massively varied moral codes between cultures made up of almost identical organisms."
This is not a contradiction at all. God gave humans the freedom to do whatever they like. Whether they follow Him or not is totally up to the person him/herself, but the action they take on earth, they will pay for in the end.

Argument from Ignorance
"The fact that we don't know the answer to these questions doesn't support the existence of a creator. In regards to these questions, it is better to continue to further the accumulated knowledge of mankind on these subjects and accept your ignorance, rather than make assumptions."
Until science can disprove that life and universe did not get created, the argument that God had created the Universe and life on earth remains valid. Believing that there is a creator is not an assumption for there is many evidence to back it up like the evidence of Intelligent design. Evolution is the one that assumes things. Humans have the ability to think beyond any other organisms. We are able to analyze other organisms and also have understanding of the world and why it happens. But why does a chimp who is 99.8% related in genes with us not get the same kind of traits? Evolution simply says that it is by "luck" we got it.
Everyone knows of intelligent design when they see one, like Mount Rushmore. Even a child knows that Mount Rushmore did not just happen by erosion, but rather that there was a creator involved. In the same way we can see that us humans are different from other organisms. We have succeeded in ways no other organisms have. We have languages and technology. Also we analyze and understand other organisms and nature. What other organism can do things like that? We cannot simply assume it is by luck, but conclude that there must have been a creator involved in this. If there wasn't a creator than other organisms should have come to our level for evolution permits adaption. I would like to ask my opponent to prove to me how we got this extensive knowledge and other organisms haven not. If he cannot prove this my argument remains valid.
Also check here: http://www.creationism.org...
There are many things pointing to the evidence of a creator, and therefore it would not be reasonable to believe that God does not exist.

Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
tvellalott

Pro

[7] ---->



Arguments from Scripture

Old Testament

A summary of my opponents arguments and the ridiculous source he linked me to is this: The Bible contains stories which have some historical information. It refers to people, places and events which evidence suggests actually existed/happened, so the rest must be true.

The fact a flood may have occurred thousands of years ago doesn’t mean that a man gathered two of every animal (including the Australian marsupials, unique to that particular continent) and loaded them onto his ark. Add the fact that Hindu and Greek mythology refer to this same flood and you realise that it is completely false.

So when my opponent asks me to prove that none of the Old Testaments events happened, he knows that I can’t. However, any sensible person knows that:
  • God didn’t create the Universe in 6 days, 6000 years ago: By studying the Universe and the expansion of nearby Galaxies, we can deduce that the Universe is around 10 billion years old; By studying the radioactive decay of certain isotopes we can deduce the Earth is around 4 billion years old. [1]
  • The entire Earth wasn’t populated by Adam and Eve: We know the effect inbreeding has. [2]
  • Noah didn’t load 2 of every animal on to a ship: It would take a hundred life-times to find two of every creature on the entire Earth, then you’d have the same inbreeding problem that the Adam and Eve story has.
  • Jonah could have survived inside giant fish/whale: Yeah, he would have been asphyxiated in minutes and dissolved by internal bacteria and stomach acids.
Need I go on?

My opponent’s first source concludes by saying “Apparent inconsistencies fade away whenever the Bible is studied with an open mind.”
Yes, you need an open mind to believe obvious fiction.

The New Testament

“The Bible is there to show from the beginning the relationship with man and God.”
o.O; ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’ is there to show the relationships of the Forrester family. Should people of the future believe it to be true because Los Angeles exists?

“If one wants to find out more about scientific evidence proving God, there are plenty of modern books out there to prove so.”
No, there really aren’t. If one such book existed the world would be very different. The fact remains that Creationists mutilate some scientific theories to suit their knowledge-repressing agendas but generally just completely ignore Science, saying it’s “too one-sided”(SIC).

I’ll address this further under the argument from Ignorance header.


Argument from Morality

“The Bible never states that morals are objective in the world. In God's eyes there is only one right and wrong. “
Yes, that’s what Objective means, friend.

My opponent goes on to say that killing and stealing are always wrong, to quote: “God considers it a sin even if one kills for their loved ones.”
This is EXACTLY why I oppose the validity of your religion. Why should I allow my family to suffer and die because preventing their suffering by killing some maniac might be a sin? Emphasise on the MIGHT, since there is no evidence to support the existence of God (I’ll address this under the next header)

Several times in your rebuttal you talk about “what God wants”, “the power of God”, “the eyes of God” and so on. This leads me back to my Scripture point. You’re getting your information from an ancient source, written before the Dark ages. The Biblical canons vary massively between dominations. You can’t even prove God exists, let alone have any idea of what he wants.


Argument from Ignorance

“Until science can disprove that life and universe did not get created, the argument that God had created the Universe and life on earth remains valid.”

If you allow for varying levels of validity, I suppose this is true.

“Believing that there is a creator is not an assumption for there is many evidence to back it up like the evidence of Intelligent design.“
Oh really? Why was the teaching of “Intelligent Design” banned from schools for being Creationism in disguise? [3]

“Evolution is the one that assumes things.”

Evolution is a proven theory. In 150 years not a single shred of evidence has emerged to disprove it. Here [4] we can see unquestionable proof of micro-evolution. The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time. We know the Earth is billions of years old. What’s the problem?

“But why does a chimp who is 99.8% related in genes with us not get the same kind of traits?”
We aren’t 99.8% ‘related’. We share 99.8% of the same genetic information. Look at a chimp and a man. We have lots of traits in common; we have almost identical body structures.

“Evolution simply says that it is by "luck" we got it.”
No, Evolution says that it is by “natural selection” that we are the way we are. I can’t believe anyone honestly believes Creationism. Next you’ll be telling me there are no transitional fossils. [5]

“Everyone knows of intelligent design when they see one, like Mount Rushmore. Even a child knows that Mount Rushmore did not just happen by erosion.”
*sigh* this is the very definition of an Argument from Ignorance. In order to say something was created one must have a comparison. We know Mount Rushmore was created because we know what a created stone monument looks like. We know what natural mountains look like.

In order to make the assumption that our Universe was created, you must compare it to a created Universe. Take the Universe of the game Spore [6], created by programmers and code. Is our Universe like this Universe in the game Spore? No.
My point is complexity doesn’t equal design.

“I would like to ask my opponent to prove to me how we got this extensive knowledge and other organisms haven not. If he cannot prove this my argument remains valid.”

What is your argument? Intelligent Design? Creationism?
These arguments have been repeatedly proven false. You link to an anti-abiogenesis Creationist page and expect me to read 7,500 words of this nonsense; nonsense which has been BANNED from being taught in schools because of its utterly obviously religious agenda.

No thanks buddy. I’d never get that part of my short life back.

You can’t take what already exists and start making calculations on the odds of it spontaneously generating and say “it’s a kabillion to one, therefore it isn’t true.”

If you are interested (which I highly doubt) you can watch this ten minute video. It’s the best explanation of abiogenesis I’ve ever seen. [7]

The fact remains, I’m not arguing from ignorance and you are. I admit that I don’t know; you claim you know that God did it.


CONCLUSION

So far my opponent has:
  • Argued that the Bible is true
  • Stated that God’s morality is the only one that matters, regardless of circumstances
  • Questioned the validity of Evolution

I have:
  • Argued that there is no reason to believe the Bible to be truthful
  • Argued that “Objective Morality” is contradictory to reality
  • Shown that Science has much better theories about the origins of things supported by evidence and the scientific method

VOTE Pro


SOURCES

[1] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
[2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[4] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[5] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[6] http://www.spore.com...

forever2b

Con

Counter Arguments
Old Testament
"So when my opponent asks me to prove that none of the Old Testaments events happened, he knows that I can't."
My opponent said himself that he cannot prove what he stated, therefore his statement remains invalid.
"God didn't create the Universe in 6 days, 6000 years ago"
In the English version, the Bible dates the creation consecutively from the first day to seventh day all occurring one after another. However if one reads the Hebrews Bible, one can clearly see that there is no such dating. As a matter of fact from the beginning it states the time gap from the creation of Heavens to Earth. The Hebrew Bible starts out by stating "In the begging God created the Heavens a long pause, then the earth" See the difference already? God did not create the Heavens or universe and the earth right after, but rather created the Earth after a long period of time. In God's eyes what is considered a day can be considered a billion year to us, therefore God could have created the earth in six billions years or 4.7 billion years.
"The entire Earth wasn't populated by Adam and Eve: We know the effect inbreeding has."
My opponent is absolutely right, and the Bible does not state that as well. It only states that Adam and Eve were the first not the only ones on earth.
"Noah didn't load 2 of every animal on to a ship: It would take a hundred life-times to find two of every creature on the entire Earth, then you'd have the same inbreeding problem that the Adam and Eve story has."
Noah did not have to search for the animals for they have come to him. Just because one inbreeds that does not mean sudden deaths, it just means more chances of deformities and mutation. According to Evolution we, mammals all came from the same ancestor. That means we are all related, which means we have inbreeded for billions of years.
Jonah could have survived inside giant fish/whale: Yeah, he would have been asphyxiated in minutes and dissolved by internal bacteria and stomach acids.
According to the Bible Jonah was inside the giant fish's mouth not in the stomach. This is an evidence of a miracle that God can perform and completely irrelevant.
"Yes, you need an open mind to believe obvious fiction."
Again I ask my opponent to prove this for me.
The New Testament
""If one wants to find out more about scientific evidence proving God, there are plenty of modern books out there to prove so."
No, there really aren't. If one such book existed the world would be very different. The fact remains that Creationists mutilate some scientific theories to suit their knowledge-repressing agendas but generally just completely ignore Science, saying it's "too one-sided"(SIC). "
It is really ironic how my opponent states that creation science is completely one sided without even daring to read a simple site I have requested that he read. For one thing I believe my opponent is too one sided and request to have an open mind.
Nevertheless whatever his opinions are, it does not change the fact that there are many books out there supporting creationism. If my opponent asks I will site the sources to him.
Argument from Morality
""The Bible never states that morals are objective in the world. In God's eyes there is only one right and wrong. "
Yes, that's what Objective means, friend." No this is not what objective means.
Definition of Objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias (source: Google)

"Why should I allow my family to suffer and die because preventing their suffering by killing some maniac might be a sin? "
That maniac also has a family and also had people who care about him. To kill him would be just lowering one's self down to his level. That is why there is prison and a law system. Violence is always not the answer.

"Several times in your rebuttal you talk about "what God wants", "the power of God", "the eyes of God" and so on. This leads me back to my Scripture point. You're getting your information from an ancient source, written before the Dark ages."
This does not mean it is inaccurate. As I has stated above the Bible supports science and as my opponent states, it is one of the oldest books out there. If that is true then it proves that God does exist since modern science supports the Bible.
"The Biblical canons vary massively between domination's."
I am not sure massively but I agree it varies, but all denominations agree of Jesus' resurrection. That is all that it matters. After that it is just about tastes.
"You can't even prove God exists, let alone have any idea of what he wants."
I can prove that God exists and if my opponent is willing to debate about it I would be happy to. I ask my opponent to look at my TAG argument if he is so interested. We cannot get the whole picture of God because He is too complicated but we can have an idea of what he wants by reading the Bible and later on in prayer.

Argument from Ignorance

" "Until science can disprove that life and universe did not get created, the argument that God had created the Universe and life on earth remains valid."
If you allow for varying levels of validity, I suppose this is true."
I ask my opponent to elaborate on his statement; how does the level of validity vary?

" Why was the teaching of "Intelligent Design" banned from schools for being Creationism in disguise?"
Schools want diversity and do not want to force religion upon the kids. I too agree with this. It should be totally dependent on the kids to decide. This does not prove that Intelligent Design is false, it only proves intelligent design was such compelling evidence for Creationism that the school banned it fearing that more would be converted to an idea of God.

"Evolution is a prove theory."
Evolution is a supported theory.
"In 150 years not a single shred of evidence has emerged to disprove it. Here we can see unquestionable proof of micro-evolution. The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time. We know the Earth is billions of years old. What's the problem?"
http://mall.turnpike.net...
http://www.allaboutcreation.org...
http://www.changinglivesonline.org...
There are just as many evidence against evolution as there is.
"No, Evolution says that it is by "natural selection" that we are the way we are."
Isn't natural just a cooler way of saying luck? Out of the millions of species out there we are the youngest. Yet we have the smartest creatures and rule the planet. If the earth's beginning time to modern day was on a clock, we came in at the last 30seconds. Then how come other species out in the planet, who had much more time than us, not evolve the capacity of this intelligence? It sounds like luck to me. Well creation calls the natural selector or luck God.

" In order to say something was created one must have a comparison."
We cannot say that the Universe of Spores is the same as our universe because it is less complex than our universe for various reasons. When comparing Mount Rushmore to the Mountains they are equally complex so they can see whether it was really nature or created.

"What is your argument? Intelligent Design? Creationism?
These arguments have been repeatedly proven false."
Then I ask my opponent to provide these proofs.

"You can't take what already exists and start making calculations on the odds of it spontaneously generating and say "it's a kabillion to one, therefore it isn't true."
I never stated this theory at all and is irrelevant. However then I would like to ask how they became into existence.

"The fact remains, I'm not arguing from ignorance and you are. I admit that I don't know; you claim you know that God did it."
Since my opponent admits that he does not know, then he should not know whether God did it or not, therefore making it not reasonable to believe that God does not exists, since there is still the possibility.

I am running out of space so this is it for now. Thanks for reading. :)
Debate Round No. 3
tvellalott

Pro

INTRO
I’m sorry to the readers who can clearly see my opponent isn’t even reading my arguments. I will try to sort through his horrendous walls of text and extract something of substance.


REBUTTALS

Argument from Scripture

I'l simply have to leave it up to the voters at thispoint, because I don’t have space to counter each particular rebuttal my opponent made. I will however rebutt two lines.

“My opponent said himself that he cannot prove what he stated, therefore his statement remains invalid.”


Way to take me out of context. You cannot prove what you have stated either. We can only weigh up our arguments on clarity, reason and the credibility of our cited sources and theories.

It is reasoning like this…
“This does not prove that Intelligent Design is false, it only proves intelligent design was such compelling evidence for Creationism that the school banned it fearing that more would be converted to an idea of God.”
…and the way you use the word ‘prove’ that shows how little logic you’re applying to your argument. What you’re saying does not compute.

“It is really ironic how my opponent states that creation science is completely one sided without even daring to read a simple site I have requested that he read. For one thing I believe my opponent is too one sided and request to have an open mind.”

The fact I didn’t rebutt your 7,500 word Creationist source is not a reflection of my failings in this debate. I have an open mind, it just isn’t opened wide enough to accept disproven, illogical nonsense in as fact.

I ask my opponent: if God truly had a hand in the way the Bible has come out, why not put some piece of irrefutable knowledge into it? Why not make some impossibly accurate prediction about the future?


Arguments from Morality


Now you’re just being lazy.

You’re talking about moral absolutism; something is right or wrong and there are no questions about it, right? You’re dancing around my hypothetical because you’re too scared to admit you fear your God’s eternal wrath more than you care for your loved ones.

If someone is there, in front of you, threatening your family, what do you do? Armed attackers have broken in to your house and they’re dragging your wife and daughter away to rape them.
Do you say to yourself: “its ok, God will sort it out, they’ll go to hell when they die in 60 years…” or “the Law will sort it out, these men will go to prison after they’ve busted a nut in my wife’s arse and slit my daughter throat...”?

You know these things happen in the world and that God won’t stop them and the Law can’t undo crimes that have already happened. Where is your God’s perfect morality when you alone can act ‘immorally’ and prevent harm?

I vigorously reject the idea of absolute morality. I reserve the right to kill you if it will prevent harm coming to my loved ones.


Argument from Ignorance: Now Evolution versus Creationism


“I ask my opponent to elaborate on his statement; how does the level of validity vary?”

It’s very simple. The validity varies based on the credibility of the sources you’re citing to support your arguments. I don’t have to debate creationism versus evolution. It’s a moot point. Evolution has nothing to say about how life started or the Big Bang or any of the other straw man arguments that your ridiculous sources make. Evolution explains how life got from one point to another and it does this very, very well.
Abiogenesis is another story, which I have never denied. It is a very accomplished theory, accepted in many academic circles. Of course, with the moving goal post of Creationism, even if it proven by experiment, Creationists can always argue “God made the cells like that” or something.

I know this next line is probably going to be taken out of context, but Creationism is difficult to disprove, due to the magical thinking of its supporters.


ARGUMENTS
Argument from Faith: Science versus Religion

This is the point that I have been moving towards with my previous arguments…
Faith, noun: Belief that is not based on proof.
In other words, trust in God.
There is no faith with science as an essential part of the scientific method is obtaining evidence to support your hypothesis.

My opponent has faith. He trusts that his understanding of the Bible is the correct one; that his choice of Baptist Church is the correct one, over say Roman Catholicism. If God does exist and he is incorrect in his theological choices, well… his fate will match mine.

I have no faith and I couldn’t obtain it even if I tried. Personal anecdote: I was raised by in a secular family in what is essentially a secular country. My parents and all my adult role models growing up were Atheists. My mind has been warped by the ideas of logic and reason. By definition, faith is without these things.

Let me ask my opponent, what has done more for humanity in the past five hundred years: Science or Religion?

I trust in Science as a whole; the scientific community and the methodology practised rigidly by its followers. It isn’t blind trust though. I don’t go around spouting that the Big Bang is fact because it hasn’t been proven yet: it’s a theory built on evidence derived from our extremely limited knowledge of the Universe.


CONCLUSION


It is my burden of proof to show that it is reasonable to believe God doesn’t exist. The most logical reason not to believe in God is the lack of a body of evidence to support his existence. Science doesn’t need God to explain anything. It hypothesises the origins of Life and the Universe not with the supernatural, but with physics, biological, cosmology and the wealth of other credible branches of Science.

And why do I trust Science over Religion?
I reject faith and substitute reason and logic.

I look forward to my opponent’s next round and wish him the best of luck in the final rounds.
forever2b

Con

forever2b forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tvellalott

Pro

CONCLUSION

My opponent has forfeited the forth round and possibly may never return to the site.
This is why I must add now...

IF YOU VOTE BOMB ME SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE A THEIST, IT ONLY PROVES THAT YOU ARE A SIMPLETON.

It's clear that, in this particular case, Atheism wins over Theism.


I'll summorise anyway:

Argument for Scripture:
My main point here was that Scripture can't be looked at as strong evidence. If my opponent had supplied any third-party sources which verified Biblical accounts, I could concede this point, but he didn't.

The basis of his argument was that there is evidence that some parts of the Bible are true, therefore we should assume it's all true. This is obvious fallacious.

Argument from Morality:

My main point here was that Objective Morality (Absolute Morality) would condemn otherwise good people to Hell, simply because they had to act immorally to survive or to protect their loved ones.

My opponent was unable to refute this.

Argument from Ignorance:

My main point here was that we don't NEED God to explain, well, anything. The position of "I don't know" is much more reasonable.
Since I don't know, the obvious default position is to believe that God DOESN'T exist.

Argument from Faith:

Finally, I added this on to the end to try and give my opponent a bit of insight into our respective positions.
I've never believed in God, thus I've never had any faith to then found any speculation about the existence of God on. Since nothing in my life has happened to convince me otherwise, it is reasonable for me to not believe in God.

The resolution has been proven.

VOTE Pro.


PS: If anyone wants to debate this same resolution or any of the individual points I made, send me a PM.

forever2b

Con

forever2b forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Really? o.O;
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
I'll debate you on that
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"Old Testament is horrific and at times contradictory to what Jesus later taught" >.>
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
@USRugbyfan: Here is the paradox. It is claimed that there is evidence for God existence is all around us, Intelligent Design. It is also claimed that God cannot give us obvious proof he exists because it would negate free will. How can they both be true?
Posted by USRugbyfan 6 years ago
USRugbyfan
While I wont go so far to say that I can prove God, I will say that it is more than faith. However the evidence by which I am convinced beyond simple faith is that which a skeptic would dismiss as coincidence.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Dude, it's clear you're not even reading my fvcking arguments.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Lol. There IS only one side, the reality side; the natural side.
Everything else is in the realm of philosophy or worse.
Posted by forever2b 6 years ago
forever2b
Science never talks about the supernatural and is only one sided
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
@USRugbyfan: Because science is how we differentiate between natural and supernatural. I don't care if you believe God exists; but don't try and say it's anything more than faith. I can definately respect that attitude.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Walls of text, my mortal enemy.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
tvellalottforever2bTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Pro really defended his assertions well, while Con danced around the issues, and apparently did not grasp anything Pro said, as he tried to refute them, but did not succeed at all. Pro gets Sources, Arguments, and Conduct. Sources for the many of them he provided, Arguments for, well, his arguments, and Conduct because Con forfeited two rounds. Pro wins hands down.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tvellalottforever2bTied
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:40