It is stupid to be an atheist.
Debate Rounds (3)
I am not telling people to become religious at all. I myself am agnostic myself. I think agnostic is really where you guys should be at. We neither deny nor believe in god. We just don't know the answer, but we also don't ridicule people for believing in god.
Hello people of DDO! In this debate I will argue that it is not stupid to be an atheist. To do this I will rebut my opponents opening statement and present several arguments against the existence of God.
Note that the character limit is set to 2000, because of that I will hold to a minimal structure.
"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."(1)
My opponent argues that people are atheists on the basis that God is unscientific, which I would agree with, but this does not mean that the "God question" cannot be answered otherwise, like the means of natural theology.
However this mindset is not against science. The scientific method works as follows (2):
As long as "God" is not a plausible hypothesis for any phenomenon, it is perfectly valid to say that God is unscientific.
Right now one might think that agnosticism is the go position, because of that I will present an argument in favor of atheism (I originally intended to do two, but the character limit did not allow for that)
The Problem of Evil
1) God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good.
2) If there exists something that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good evil would not exist.
3) Evil exists.
4) Therefore God does not exist
In this first round I have rebutted my opponents arguments and presented a strong case for atheism.
lonelynightm forfeited this round.
I extend all my arguments.
Let's walk it through the scientific method shall we? 1. Make observations. I notice that all around the world people have made all kinds of religions to worship gods.
2. Interesting Questions- Why are all of these places that are all separated by thousands of miles all worshiping gods?
3. Formulate Hypotheses- A god of some kind must exist that influenced these cultures.
4.Develop Testable predictions- if god is real then Atheism must be false.
From #5 onward they cannot be tested. That being said can the Big Bang Theory be tested/proved? It is at the exact same point that religion is in the scientific method.
So I think to say that god is unscientific is an unfair claim.
My definition of "God" seems to be undisputed so I will stick to it. I am going to respond to my opponents remarks on the scientific method backwards so I can deal with the points that don't need much explanation first.
5.Here my opponent defends the "God hypothesis" on the basis that other theories like the BB Theory cannot be tested either, but this is false. Simply put, the BBT states that that our universe is expanding, we can observe this by looking at the red shift of other galaxies. 
4."if god is real then Atheism must be false" This is not a testable prediction, this is an analytic truth. Atheism being the belief that there are no Gods, therefore "if "God exists" is true then "God does not exist" is false" (p > ~~p)
3-1 Pro's main argument is that because there are so many people worshipping God, there must be something to it.
Consider Cargo cults. They are a prime example of literally man made religions.
1.All around those islands people belong to these cults
2.They formed independently
3.There is a perfectly naturalistic explanation for them
why should there not be one for other religions?
N:A naturalistic, psychological reason
...is the best explanation for why there are believers all around the world.
Hypotheses and Assumptions:
God did it:(1)There is a God who has attributes that has(2)attributes (omniX) no other object/being we know has, who is a(3)disembodied,(4)atemporal mind.
Naturalistic reason:(1)Psychology works.
The hypothesis with (a) the least assumptions and (b) highest explanatory power is to be preferred.
(a)Naturalism definitely wins
(b)There is no reason at all why an all-powerful being should create something this way and not that way, as such it is not falsifiable and has no predictive power
Therefore N is to be preferred as the best hypothesis.
I conclude that one is justified in claiming that God is unscientific.
Sources in Comments
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|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:||1||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro completely ignored Con's positive argument, and also forfeited a round. Conduct to Con. Con image hampered readability, so I will include this under Spelling/Grammar, which is granted to Pro. Pro provides unsupported assertions, which are well rebutted by Con. Arguments to Con. Con used the only sources. Sources to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate