The Instigator
ClashnBoom
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Questioning beliefs.

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 6 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 76843
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

ClashnBoom

Pro

Objectives:
- Make your opponent's change their beliefs or prove that their belief is wrong.

How it works:
Okay so every round Pro and Con can ask three questions regarding every belief excluding political beliefs and the next round Pro and Con can post some follow up questions and argue that their opponent's belief is invalid or dumb

Rules:
No personal questions like do you believe that I'm your ugly?
No cursing.
No forfeiture.
No personal attacks.
You can only show up to 5 follow up questions.
First round is acceptance.

P.S
I'm not a very good debater so don't expect much from me. I also want to apologize in advance for my arguments will most likely be posted in the last minutes and also for my grammatical errors. Thanks and good luck Con.
tejretics

Con

Thanks, Clash, for challenging me to this debate. I wish you the best of luck. I'm not going to argue that your beliefs are "dumb", etc. since such terms are subjective; rather, I'll merely question your beliefs.

Before that, of course, you'll have to clarify *what* your beliefs are. I'll clarify mine:

Philosophy - existential nihilism, epistemic skepticism, moral relativism, agnostic atheism, eternalism, Sereian biological naturalism

Science - RNA world hypothesis, zero-energy universe, Big Bang cosmology

Note that the character limit is 8,000, so arguments will be shorter than expected.
Debate Round No. 1
ClashnBoom

Pro

Thanks for accepting Tejretics.

Anyway can you show more main stream beliefs cause I don't know half of what those words mean.

My beliefs:

Science:
I believe in the Big Bang Theory, Global Warming, Global Warming being mostly man made, Video Games does not cause violence and Aliens do not exist.


Religion:
God exist, Gay Marriage is immoral, Abortion is immoral, Progressive Creationism is true and Prostitution is immoral.

Questions:

You are an atheist and believe in the big bang and I'm sure you know that the big bang just expanded the universe and not create it, so what created the universe?

tejretics

Con

Note
I would like to remove “RNA World Hypothesis” from the list of beliefs, since I’m becoming increasingly agnostic on the issue of the origin of current life, since some form of autocatalytic origin would also work equally well. Though I can argue for it if Pro objects.


Clarifications
I’ll now define my beliefs. Existential nihilism is the idea that there’s no intrinsic value to life, i.e. a living being and a rock have no fundamental difference that changes there philosophical value. Epistemic skepticism is the position that no knowledge is certain or definite, and that all knowledge is questionable, i.e. there is no knowledge in the sense of “justified true belief”. I think those are the complex ones.


Response
You are an atheist and believe in the big bang and I'm sure you know that the big bang just expanded the universe and not create it, so what created the universe?”


The question has a core assumption sans any justification – the Law of Causality, i.e. the idea that the universe had to be “created”. There are a variety of possible positions (e.g. retro-causality, simultaneous causation, ekpyrotic universe theory), but I lean (somewhat) towards a position that the universe was created ex nihilo, i.e. “from nothing”. Basically, it’s the idea that the universe wasn’t caused.


Any
cosmological position based on the physical laws, including the Law of Causality, has to assume the principle of the uniformity of nature, i.e. the idea that the physical laws are present everywhere. But the question of the universe’s own causation is outside the universe, as such there wouldn’t be any physical constraint. Sans the universe, there wouldn’t be time directionality either, so the causal principle breaks down.[http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...]


I ascribe to a temporal philosophical position called eternalism, viz. the idea that terms such as “past”, “present”, and “future” are incoherent, and the universe is part of a tenseless four-dimensional block. Let me explain this. A standard view of the space-time continuum based on special relativity is that there are three dimensions of space, and a “fourth dimension” of time, which is unclassified. Eternalism classifies time as a spatial dimension, thus making the idea of an “arrow of time” unreal and illusory. What justifies this position? Rietdijk and Putnam (and, later, physicist Roger Penrose) used special relativity and planes of simultaneity to justify time as a spatial dimension, which in turn justifies eternalism.[ http://en.wikipedia.org...] How is this relevant? Eternalism holds that “change” doesn’t ontologically happen, and, as such, neither does causality, especially of time itself, which would mean the universe wasn’t caused.


Thus, the universe probably wasn’t caused via. eternalism, and needn’t have been.


Questions
OK, I’ll present my own questions.

  1. 1. Why do you think gay marriage is “immoral”? I’ll attempt to convince you it isn’t. The concept of “morality” can be considered relative to circumstances, so nothing can definitely be “immoral” except basic undermining actions such as murder and rape. Secondly, there’s no reason to deny people rights to marriage – marriage is an entirely personal affair, and should be privatized, or it would just be over-interference of the government.
  2. 2. Why do you think God exists? And, if I refute all justifications you present, would you genuinely change your beliefs? Note that I’m not attempting to change your beliefs for any reasons other than winning this debate, :P.
  3. 3. Why do you support progressive creationism? While much more rational than other forms of creationism, it still denies evolution. Evolution does occur. Basically, evolution is made of two processes – genetic mutations + selection. We know both occur. More justification below.


Progressive Creationism vs. Evolution
Genetic Mutation
First, we must understand *what* a “genetic mutation” is. Basically, it’s a mistake in transcription of DNA. We know genetic mutations occur since they cause cancer.


Selection
Selection is the process of adapting characteristics to suit the environment. This can perfectly be seen in the case of the Galapagos finches, which have survival modifications in the beak. Sexual characteristics are also modified and observed in nature.


Conclusion
Basically, I’ve justified my agnostic atheism and challenged: (1) progressive creationism, (2) theism, and (2) the supposed “immorality” of gay marriage.

Debate Round No. 2
ClashnBoom

Pro

ClashnBoom forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend all arguments.

Pro has broken their own rule - "No forfeiture" - thus a second forfeit will result in my victory of the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
ClashnBoom

Pro

My beliefs are changing and I no longer no what or why I believe in things so vote for con.
tejretics

Con

OK.

Voters, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
ClashnBoom

Pro

Vote for con.
tejretics

Con

Extend.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
Hopefully when I'm done with my beliefs crisis phase we can re-debate this.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
Sorry. But my beliefs are rapidly changing and I don't know what to believe in anymore. I'm afraid I cannot debate this any longer.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
What do you mean "religiously immoral"? That generally means, whether or not it should be legalized, it is *immoral*. I'm asking you to justify the "immorality" of gay marriage.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
I think you misunderstood the gay marriage one. I am saying religiously it is immoral that is why it is in the religion section and why I didn't say it should be legalized.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
Well now I'll make three arguments.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
No, I just prepared my argument immediately lol ... I can't stand the "debate arguments due" action item, I feel like I'm morally obliged to finish my argument when I see that XD
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
Did you know my beliefs before hand? Cause that was fast.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Yes.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Epistemic skepticism is the idea that no knowledge is certain right?
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
@ClashnBoom
Lol.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
ClashnBoomtejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded the debate to Con. Nice job Tej.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
ClashnBoomtejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession... Outright conceding a debate, it is worth more good conduct than the bad conduct of a single missed round. I am quite aware some people consider admitting defeat to be horrible conduct, but it saves everyone so much time... However, it comes at the obvious expense of being guaranteed to lose arguments. Sources may be a little light, but the two were effective in adding weight to his explanations, and that he's thought about them deeply, rather than just saying something made up on the spot that is likely to avoid contradictions.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ClashnBoomtejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
ClashnBoomtejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As Pro conceded, Con had successfully changed Pro's belief, and thus Con wins arguments.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
ClashnBoomtejreticsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture plus concession
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
ClashnBoomtejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gracefully forfeits.