The Instigator
lonelynightm
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Fkkize
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

It is stupid to be an atheist.

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...
Fkkize
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,051 times Debate No: 74640
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

lonelynightm

Pro

Atheism is a stupid belief and I will explain why. A lot of people claim that god is unscientific and is definitely fake. However, isn't that kind of mindset a little against science? Isn't the whole point of science to research all kinds of new things and to test and discover new things? Isn't that how we create all kinds of new technology because someone strives to do something different? I think it is pretty shallow to tell someone that god definitely can't exist without any back up. Ironically atheists are basically worse because they provide nothing that substantially goes against gods at least religion provides something to the table.

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.
Fkkize

Con

Introduction
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)

Negative Case
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):



The Scientific Method

As long as "God" is not a plausible hypothesis for any phenomenon, it is perfectly valid to say that God is unscientific.


Positive Case
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

Conclusion
In this first round I have rebutted my opponents arguments and presented a strong case for atheism.

Sources
(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
lonelynightm

Pro

lonelynightm forfeited this round.
Fkkize

Con

I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
lonelynightm

Pro

Well you say that the reason god isn't scientific is because it doesn't follow the scientific method, but is that really true?

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.
Fkkize

Con

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. [1]

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[2]. 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?

Opposing hypotheses:
T:God exists
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.

Occam's Razor:
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
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
canis
Is it stupid not to believe in Santa...Yes for a 3 year old...
Posted by Fkkize 2 years ago
Fkkize
Sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's a shame that I could only scratch on the surface of these things, so I'm sorry if some concepts were explained rather briefly.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
Essentially, by establishing that the Burden of Proof is on the theist, it is your opponent's responsibility to supply enough evidence to demonstrate that it is unreasonable, or "stupid", to view God as unscientific. This is a monumentally difficult task that you would have created for your opponent.

You could refute the "definitely fake" part as a Strawman Fallacy, as the majority of atheists don't say that, or that "a lot of people" doesn't represent atheism. He would then have to prove this point. Either way, it keeps him on the defensive.
Posted by Fkkize 2 years ago
Fkkize
I agree with you on 1 and 3 but I don't get your second point.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
"My opponent always spoke about one god and made the dichotomy of theism/atheism. He did not define what he meant by "god" so I provided a common definition and argued against it."

I understand that, but he could have easily just widened the topic in response to skate around your argument, assuming he was competent. I try to anticipate future arguments when formulating mine.
---------------------------
"Russell equates belief in this teapot with the belief in God on the basis that both are claims that nobody can disprove, he said that strictly speaking he would have to consider himself agnostic, so actually it is his teapot that does not help my case."

But you supplied a definition of atheism in which the Teapot could hold water (see what I did there!). Then, you just have to demonstrate that it is reasonable (not stupid) to be an atheist and reject the claim of the existence of god based on a lack of evidence.
--------------------------
"I tend to go into debates assuming that my opponents know the basics of natural theology (perhaps this was not appropriate here), this means I expect my opponents to actually have a *reason*, my goal is to show that their reasoning is unsound.
Even an argument as bad as the modal ontological argument can be a *reason* for some people to believe, it's just not a justified reason."

I agree, but you can also win by proving the opposite, as per your negative case. I'm just saying that providing more beef for the your negative argument may have been better than providing your positive argument. The character limits hurts.
Posted by Fkkize 2 years ago
Fkkize
"I agree that the Argument from Evil is not really applicable here. Atheism does not pertain to any specific god or gods, so even if you managed to solidly disproved that God, it wouldn't really help your case."
My opponent always spoke about one god and made the dichotomy of theism/atheism. He did not define what he meant by "god" so I provided a common definition and argued against it.

"Russell's Teapot"
Russell equates belief in this teapot with the belief in God on the basis that both are claims that nobody can disprove, he said that strictly speaking he would have to consider himself agnostic, so actually it is his teapot that does not help my case.

"some demonstrations of problems caused by blindly believing something would have been better suited for this debate."
I tend to go into debates assuming that my opponents know the basics of natural theology (perhaps this was not appropriate here), this means I expect my opponents to actually have a *reason*, my goal is to show that their reasoning is unsound.
Even an argument as bad as the modal ontological argument can be a *reason* for some people to believe, it's just not a justified reason.
Posted by Fkkize 2 years ago
Fkkize
And if you answer that this is loving in God's eyes then I would ask you to give me an account of how brain cancer expresses a form of protection/attraction/care.
Posted by Fkkize 2 years ago
Fkkize
"This debate is presumably about the Christian God" right there. Presumably.
My opponent did not define "God", I did. That's his misfortune.
Moreover the "ridiculing religion" part of Pro's opening statement suggests that he is talking about new atheists and christianity.

"If you can show how a perfectly good God can allow for suffering then all power to you." Suffering is good in Gods eyes because he lets it happen. Who said suffering is a bad thing?
First of all, that is extremely nihilistic, secondly the Christian God is supposed to be a loving one and if "love" has any meaning whatsoever in this context, it implies that he wants to protect and care for humans. If you are going to ask me now "why should that be love?" then "love" would be a meaningless concept when aplied to a deity.

"I think you should've presented cases that go against the possibility of God for any God."
Tribal religions sometimes identify some kind of totem as their deity, how am I suposed to make universal argumes that include these kinds of gods?

"Like, "when did God come into existence?" [...] Or you could question what created God."
Any somewhat competent theist would say that God is a necessary being, rendering these questions useless and banking on counterarguments against these in a 2000 char debate is simply not possible.

"Or you could question paradoxes against Gods power."
Sure, but this relies on the assmption that God is all-powerful.
I stated mutliple times that the character limit did not allow for any further arguments.

"But it doesn't look like it matters because the opponent seems to not be interested in the debate anymore."
Indeeed.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
I agree that the Argument from Evil is not really applicable here. Atheism does not pertain to any specific god or gods, so even if you managed to solidly disproved that God, it wouldn't really help your case.

Russell's Teapot and some demonstrations of problems caused by blindly believing something would have been better suited for this debate. I'm only saying this now because it doesn't look like your opponent will be returning.
Posted by drag0vien 2 years ago
drag0vien
"This debate is presumably about the Christian God" right there. Presumably.
"If you can show how a perfectly good God can allow for suffering then all power to you." Suffering is good in Gods eyes because he lets it happen. Who said suffering is a bad thing?
I think you should've presented cases that go against the possibility of God for any God. Like, "when did God come into existence?" Or you could question paradoxes against Gods power. Or you could question what created God. But it doesn't look like it matters because the opponent seems to not be interested in the debate anymore.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
lonelynightmFkkizeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
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.