The Instigator
End
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
LunaEques
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Monotheism is unjustified

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: 1/20/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 874 times Debate No: 10901
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

End

Pro

My first debate, I intend to keep it short and sweet, although I have this debate many times with many people in person.

I am an atheist, and an atheist is regarded as a person who does not believe in gods. More specifically, I am arguing against monotheism, the belief that a supernatural agent caused, maintains and intervenes in the cosmos.

I maintain that the monotheist, and I think my opponent would agree, has the burden of proof. Although I have the burden of proof when it comes to my thesis, I think it is fairly acceptable that a person who has eliminated polytheism, deism, pantheism and arrived at monotheism, usually at one specific religion and definition of god, must also be burdened with proving his or her case, as it is quite a claim to make.

Thus I ask my opponent to present to us his or her methodology at arriving at any given monotheistic faith.
LunaEques

Con

Essentially, here is my case for a monotheistic religion.

Every human behaves as if there is a God. For what other reasons will humans be "good" and have any motivation to either help others or at least not harm them? If someone truly believes there is no one who will hold them accountable for their actions at the end, that person would simply live for themselves. However, in today's culture, we see most people trying to improve society or help others in some way. Charity organizations do just that--they help others, while no benefit comes back upon themselves.

Now that we know there is some deity, we must define this deity (or deities).

If there is more than one deity, the world would be so chaotic with supernatural forces that polytheism would be evident. Thus, only one deity exists.
Debate Round No. 1
End

Pro

"Every human behaves as if there is a God."

--> Not true / irrelevant even if true

"For what other reasons will humans be "good" and have any motivation to either help others or at least not harm them?"

--> Literally THE argument from ignorance. This kind of thing can really only be uttered by someone who has never heard of its counter-argument: morality isn't morality if it's a dictated-from-above code. You aren't moral if you are being generous only because you feel intimidated by big brother. Further, more than any other animal, our species has developed culture as one of its primary survival tools; in other words we survive better collectively. This is being very general, but there is a very comprehensive explanation for how and why ethics and morality persist, and it is a natural explanation.

Second, if you really want to push on this point, you must account for all the times that god or the advocates of god were sympathetic to insanely evil things. So overall, I think you should rethink your argument. Also, when you talk about charities, you ought to have realized you shot yourself in the foot, as their are atheistic charities. Are you actually going to say that deep down they fear some deity?

To continue, do not be so arrogant as to say "now that we *know* there is some deity", as you did not at all prove this in any stretch of the imagination. I mean even if our species was as barbaric as they would destroy everything the moment we give up on the belief in a divine big brother, it does not make his existence any more plausible. So now that you have not proven a thing, let's continue.

Now, I see from the comments that I should define some of my terms next time I do this. I think my opponent understood was unjustified means, so I'll skip that definition but I ought to do my opponent the favor of defining monotheism. Because monotheism is not the assertion that only one deity exists, it is that this deity exists and his actions are knowable and indeed KNOWN. The monotheistic faiths assert that not only did one deity do X, but that they understand *why* he did X. So your job would only be getting started if you did somehow show that every other god in human history is made up, but this one is the true one and this one isn't just a prime mover but one who intervenes.

So to sum everything up, my opponent did not move the con position forward one bit. My opponent did not give any methodology to know that there can only be one god, let alone how someone could assert to know his intentions.

That was my initial challenge, and my opponent evidently did not answer it.
LunaEques

Con

LunaEques forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
End

Pro

Well, as my opponent gave up on the previous round, I'll just add by stating that monotheism, the belief that there is a single *intervening* god, and that this god is identifiable, is not justified by any stretch of the imagination. Islam, Judaism and Christianity assert that there is one god, and that this god is at least in some sense legible; we are told that we know why god chose an illiterate business man, or why god flooded the earth. These are very very arrogant claims, yet none, and I mean none of the claims that the three big monotheisms make are backed by evidence.

In closing my opponent has not addressed monotheism at all. The morality argument got her nowhere, and the syllogism made thereafter was simply unsound.
LunaEques

Con

LunaEques forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
The argument isn't usually that people won't be good without God. The argument is usually either that objective morality doesn't exist without God, and sometimes that without an objective standard, society is at the top of a slippery slope down into pure subjectivity, where anyone's opinion on morality is as valid as anyone else's.
Posted by End 7 years ago
End
I agree with Vaibanez.

And I did not intend to mean that eliminating those other forms of theism lead to monotheism. I am saying that a monotheist not only asserts that there is one deity, but he asserts that all other deities (polytheism/pantheism/deism) are false deities. Thus a monotheist effectively has found a way to negate all those other forms of theism/deism, but has somehow arrived at the conclusion that ONE is correct. I was adding to his burden of proof, not saying that monotheism is at the end of a logical deduction.
Posted by Vaibanez 7 years ago
Vaibanez
The "without religion people wouldn't be good" argument is insulting. It's time for atheists to stand up against these religious retards and make a change for the better. Adults with imaginary fiends are stupid, grow up.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"The voting period will last indefinitely."

Fix and I will accept.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@mongeese

True, but monotheism is generally associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, not Deism.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Most Deists are also Monotheists.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"I think it is fairly acceptable that a person who has eliminated polytheism, deism, pantheism and arrived at monotheism..." - Pro

Um, I doubt monotheists ever went through the process of eliminating polytheism, deism, and pantheism to logically arrive at the conclusion of monotheism. If they did, they would arrive at deism or pantheism, not monotheism.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I suggest you define "unjustified."
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Sadly, "unjustified" is not avaliable on merriam-webster - only merriam-webster unabridged.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
EndLunaEquesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
EndLunaEquesTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
EndLunaEquesTied
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