The Instigator
ZBestDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
abc123jendunee
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Theism is more rational than Atheism.

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 1 vote the winner is...
abc123jendunee
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 80922
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

ZBestDebater

Pro

I'm here to prove why believing in a God is more rational than doing the opposite, and I challenge an Atheist to do the disprove my points and make their own. I only have 1 rule that I ask you to follow:

1-No argument from ridicule (AKA don't mock me or bring the (spaghetti Monster here.)

Thank you, please don't make the arguments too big (Although this isn't a rule, you can make them as big as you want. It's just something I ask of you.)
Please don't accept if you're not going to follow the rule. The first round will only be for acceptance, and the rest will be regular Debate. Thank you, and I wish luck to whoever accepts.
abc123jendunee

Con

Accepted. This is my first debate. Ready when you are!
Debate Round No. 1
ZBestDebater

Pro

Well, in that case, Welcome to DDO! It's fun, at least for me. Hope you'll be succesful here.. Now getting to the point, I have 3 points I want to make-

1-Pascal's Wager. It proves it is safer to believe in God. Don't ask "Which God?" because you're just contrasting the safety of believing in God to 100% Safety, when Atheism is 0%. This is also not disproved by reverse Ad Populus- Just because lots of people use it does not mean it's wrong.

2- The Universe, at one point was created. If something can, at one point, be created out of nothing, then God can be created out of nothing as well, Making him possible.

3- If #2 is wrong, then the Universe must be Eternal- Meaning God can be eternal as well, making him possible.

So if Atheism is 0% Safety, since it doesn't really make your chances of burning in hell or any other divine punisment any lower or divine reward any higher, And Theism DOES make your chances of reward higher and punishment lower, then that means that it is logical to believe in something possible that's safer than not doing so. In other words, Theism is more rational than Atheism because you have a better chance with Theism, and Atheism is really not safe at all. You're exposed to any kind of possibility, and have no chance.

I await your response.
abc123jendunee

Con

The topic in which we are debating is if theism is more rational than atheism. I would assume by this you mean that the belief is god/s is more based on logic and reason than the lack of. By the burden of proof, it is up to you to make points, and for me to disprove them, as far as I'm concerned. (I'm not making a claim that atheism is more rational here)

To address your first point:
"1-Pascal's Wager. It proves it is safer to believe in God. Don't ask "Which God?" because you're just contrasting the safety of believing in God to 100% Safety, when Atheism is 0%."

It would appear to be that you're main arguments strictly rely on Pascal's Wager, and I will address it rebutting the second and third points.

You're second point:
"2- The Universe, at one point was created. If something can, at one point, be created out of nothing, then God can be created out of nothing as well, Making him possible."

It is true that the Universe was created at one point, but not actually from nothing. By created from nothing, I would assume you are referring to the big bang. There are many theories addressing this point such as the big bounce (In which the Universe is constantly expanding and then contracting back to singularity) or the theory that the universe was spawned from a large black hole or maybe created by membranes of a higher dimension. If you want to learn more you'll have to search it up, in respects to your 'no too big arguments' rule. But anyhow, if you are this following this notion with this new information, it would mean that god was created from a higher power, and therefore not the ultimate creator. This also rebuts your third point:

"3- If #2 is wrong, then the Universe must be Eternal- Meaning God can be eternal as well, making him possible. "

Back to your main argument,

"So if Atheism is 0% Safety, since it doesn't really make your chances of burning in hell or any other divine punisment any lower or divine reward any higher, And Theism DOES make your chances of reward higher and punishment lower, then that means that it is logical to believe in something possible that's safer than not doing so. In other words, Theism is more rational than Atheism because you have a better chance with Theism, and Atheism is really not safe at all. You're exposed to any kind of possibility, and have no chance."

Generally, you can only believe in one type of religion (Because of contradictions and etc), and there is also an infinite amount of possible 'gods', as well as a chance of no god. A percentage of this infinite amount of gods would have a punishment for non-believers (or as you say it 'divine punishment'). Naturally, any percent of infinity is infinity as well. Any atheist would have a 1/infinity chance of not have some type divine punishment, which is equal to infinity. Any type of theist would have 1/infinity-1 chance (The -1 being atheism), however, this is infinity as well meaning they have equal chances as 1/infinity=1/infinity-1

I await your response...
Debate Round No. 2
ZBestDebater

Pro

"The topic in which we are debating is if theism is more rational than atheism. I would assume by this you mean that the belief is god/s is more based on logic and reason than the lack of. By the burden of proof, it is up to you to make points, and for me to disprove them, as far as I'm concerned. (I'm not making a claim that atheism is more rational here)" I'm not claiming what God is based on, I'm claiming the BELIEF in God is more logical than not believing in God (Or Gods, any kind should do).

"It would appear to be that you're main arguments strictly rely on Pascal's Wager, and I will address it rebutting the second and third points." Not at all. Only 1/3 of my argument is based on the safety of belief, and that's not really my main argument. My main argument is that God/Gods is possible and, since it is safer to believe, it's logical.

"It is true that the Universe was created at one point, but not actually from nothing. By created from nothing, I would assume you are referring to the big bang. There are many theories addressing this point such as the big bounce (In which the Universe is constantly expanding and then contracting back to singularity) or the theory that the universe was spawned from a large black hole or maybe created by membranes of a higher dimension. If you want to learn more you'll have to search it up, in respects to your 'no too big arguments' rule. But anyhow, if you are this following this notion with this new information, it would mean that god was created from a higher power, and therefore not the ultimate creator. This also rebuts your third point:" Why thank you, I see that you're a very polite person. Now, I just want to say that at SOME point, The Universe- Or it's origin, The Big Bang/Bounce/etc.. Whatever caused the first piece of anything to exist, made it out of nothing. Now, it might be a bit hard to wrap our heads around creation without creator/creation device, But there comes my second point, in which the Universe might be Eternal as well- Meaning God can come either of those ways, meaning he is possible.

"Generally, you can only believe in one type of religion (Because of contradictions and etc), and there is also an infinite amount of possible 'gods', as well as a chance of no god. A percentage of this infinite amount of gods would have a punishment for non-believers (or as you say it 'divine punishment'). Naturally, any percent of infinity is infinity as well. Any atheist would have a 1/infinity chance of not have some type divine punishment, which is equal to infinity. Any type of theist would have 1/infinity-1 chance (The -1 being atheism), however, this is infinity as well meaning they have equal chances as 1/infinity=1/infinity-1" A bit confusing, yes, but you need to remember something- Atheists and Theists do not have the same chances. The only chance that Atheists have is a 1/∞ chance of not getting divine punishment. Theists have the same chance, but they also have a 1/∞ chance of getting divine reward. Back to Pascal's Wager, you really have nothing to lose. Being a Theist only adds to your chances of survival. If you're Atheist and right, then you'll just NOT get divine punishment. if you're theist and wrong, it's the same as being Atheist and wrong- Divine Punishment. But, if you're Theist and RIGHT, you get divine reward.

Atheism- Right? (Yes) No Divine punishment
(No)
Divine Punishment

Theism- Right? (Yes) Divine Reward
(No)
God(s) exists? (No) No divine Punishment
(Yes)
Divine Punsishment

As you can see by this (Really poorly made, sorry I didn't have much time) Chart, you can be either right or wrong in both sides- Only, if you're Theist and wrong, your chances of Divine Punishment are about 50% lower than Atheism, meaning even IF you're Theist and wrong, you're belief was still logical.

I await your response.
abc123jendunee

Con

"I'm not claiming what God is based on, I'm claiming the BELIEF in God is more logical than not believing in God (Or Gods, any kind should do)." Very well, then. Just need that to be clear.

To address:

"Not at all. Only 1/3 of my argument is based on the safety of belief, and that's not really my main argument. My main argument is that God/Gods is possible and, since it is safer to believe, it's logical."

Technically, you're last two arguments state that there is possibility that god exists, which is useless because there must also be a possibility that the big bang happened and etc. Unless you apply Pascal's Wager, these arguments are useless and therefore irrelevant.

And for:

"Now, I just want to say that at SOME point, The Universe- Or it's origin, The Big Bang/Bounce/etc.. Whatever caused the first piece of anything to exist, made it out of nothing. Now, it might be a bit hard to wrap our heads around creation without creator/creation device, But there comes my second point, in which the Universe might be Eternal as well- Meaning God can come either of those ways, meaning he is possible."

It is very true that our natural biological process naturally see cause and effect and would deny anything without a beginning. Right there you have just in a way disproved your own second point. But as I have stated before,

"The last two arguments state that there is possibility that god exists, which is useless because there must also be a possibility that the big bang happened and etc. Unless you apply Pascal's Wager, these arguments are useless and therefore irrelevant."

To address your last rebuttal,

"Theists have the same chance, but they also have a 1/W34; chance of getting divine reward. Back to Pascal's Wager, you really have nothing to lose. Being a Theist only adds to your chances of survival. If you're Atheist and right, then you'll just NOT get divine punishment. if you're theist and wrong, it's the same as being Atheist and wrong- Divine Punishment. But, if you're Theist and RIGHT, you get divine reward."

Using the same logic I have used before, I would like to remind you that through the infinite amount of gods, there is an infinite possibility of any type of god. If fact, there might be a chance for many gods to simply hate theists that believed in a false god and gives a harsher punishment, if that makes any sense to you. There might even be gods that reward atheists for all I know. This may seem illogical at first, but this is one of the consequences of infinite possibilities (Which you agreed on in your rebuttal) . Using this logic, any argument relating to Pascal's Wager is flawed due to the Infinite Possibility Argument. I would suggest you present another point. Sticking with this argument won't get you anywhere.

I await your response...
Debate Round No. 3
ZBestDebater

Pro

"Technically, you're last two arguments state that there is possibility that god exists, which is useless because there must also be a possibility that the big bang happened and etc. Unless you apply Pascal's Wager, these arguments are useless and therefore irrelevant." Yes, Pascal's Wager is a very.. Hm.. You're right. Guess it is my main argument, made a bit of a mistake. Oh well, No use it trying to claim otherwise.

"It is very true that our natural biological process naturally see cause and effect and would deny anything without a beginning. Right there you have just in a way disproved your own second point. But as I have stated before," But then again, I said that if this point was incorrect, #3 would have to be the correct one.

"Using the same logic I have used before, I would like to remind you that through the infinite amount of gods, there is an infinite possibility of any type of god. If fact, there might be a chance for many gods to simply hate theists that believed in a false god and gives a harsher punishment, if that makes any sense to you. There might even be gods that reward atheists for all I know. This may seem illogical at first, but this is one of the consequences of infinite possibilities (Which you agreed on in your rebuttal) . Using this logic, any argument relating to Pascal's Wager is flawed due to the Infinite Possibility Argument. I would suggest you present another point. Sticking with this argument won't get you anywhere." True, There IS a possibility that a certain God who punishes Theists and Rewards Atheists exists, but then again- The Bible is an object that slightly raises the chance of the Christian/Catholic/etc. God. I know it might seem like i'm making the fallacy Ad Populus, but what I mean is this- There's an equally possible chance that the Christian/Catholic/etc. God exists and that a God that will punish Theists exist. But, the Bible says otherwise- And the bible is the "Tie breaker" here, because it's more likely that ancient humans documented the existence of a God than the possibility of a God that punishes Theists (That you just came up with now) exists. See, there's a 50-50 chance that the writers of the Bible made it to be taken seriously, and there's another 50-50 chance that they're just a bunch of history trolls. Now, that 50% adds to the chances that God is real, so it's 1/∞ + A small chance that God exists provided by the likeliness of the Bible.
I know you might think, "Well I could just write stuff down and it would raise the chances of that thing existing", but it doesn't- Because you KNOW it's fake- We're not wondering whether or not you made that seriously, because we know you did it. The Bible, on the other hand, has a chance of being fake and a chance of being true, and the chance of being true adds to the chance of the existence of God, is cancelled out by the chance of it being fake, and then the most likely chance that ancient humans simply documented Holy Activity adds to the existence of God. So technically, by an extremely small amount, God is more likely than.. Say, "QOP", The god that Punishes Theists and rewards Atheists.

I await your response..
abc123jendunee

Con

*most of this is quoting, its not actually that long*

The Bible is a self contradicting, factually flawed book written most defiantly by history 'trolls' who wish to influence people. I wish to ask you this: Your arguments obviously show you are a firm believer of the Pascal's Wager and you even admit the possibility of what I have stated above - If you don't truly believe in god, and only 'believe' it because of the divine reward; what makes you think that god would appreciate such type of a believer?

In response to:

"True, There IS a possibility that a certain God who punishes Theists and Rewards Atheists exists, but then again- The Bible is an object that slightly raises the chance of the Christian/Catholic/etc. God. I know it might seem like i'm making the fallacy Ad Populus, but what I mean is this- There's an equally possible chance that the Christian/Catholic/etc."

HA! Admitting you have made the Ad Populus fallacy? I would dismiss your argument, but that would mean that this round was useless, so I might as well do it for the fun of it.

Now for:

"There's an equally possible chance that the Christian/Catholic/etc. God exists and that a God that will punish Theists exist. But, the Bible says otherwise- And the bible is the "Tie breaker" here, because it's more likely that ancient humans documented the existence of a God than the possibility of a God that punishes Theists (That you just came up with now) exists. See, there's a 50-50 chance that the writers of the Bible made it to be taken seriously, and there's another 50-50 chance that they're just a bunch of history trolls. Now, that 50% adds to the chances that God is real, so it's 1/W34; + A small chance that God exists provided by the likeliness of the Bible.
I know you might think, "Well I could just write stuff down and it would raise the chances of that thing existing", but it doesn't- Because you KNOW it's fake- We're not wondering whether or not you made that seriously, because we know you did it. The Bible, on the other hand, has a chance of being fake and a chance of being true, and the chance of being true adds to the chance of the existence of God, is cancelled out by the chance of it being fake, and then the most likely chance that ancient humans simply documented Holy Activity adds to the existence of God. So technically, by an extremely small amount, God is more likely than.. Say, "QOP", The god that Punishes Theists and rewards Atheists."

Not so. It would seen that after 2 rounds of destroying your arguments with the Infinite Possibility Argument, it appears you still don't understand, so I will try to use another argument: (Which I must admit is not too hard)

"there's a 50-50 chance that the writers of the Bible made it to be taken seriously, and there's another 50-50 chance that they're just a bunch of history trolls. Now, that 50% adds to the chances that God is real, so it's 1/W34; + A small chance that God exists provided by the likeliness of the Bible."

In other words, you are saying because we don't know if the writer actually meant for it to be true or not, it is 50% likely to be true. You CAN actually use this, in a way:

"I know you might think, "Well I could just write stuff down and it would raise the chances of that thing existing", but it doesn't- Because you KNOW it's fake- We're not wondering whether or not you made that seriously, because we know you did it. "

If a third party were to write that a theist hating god exist because they've seen one, we would have no way to find out if its true. Using your logic, there is ALSO a 50% chance. Same goes to any other holy book or even articles labeled as 'pseudoscience'. Due to the burden of proof, we cannot 'prove' certain things exist (I would name one, but no FSM, right) and therefore, if it was written and we don't know the truth of the mindset of the author/writer, it would be 50% possibility of truth.

As you should realized now, this is extremely fallacious. (Please just stop with the Pascal's Wager. I believe I have already effectively destroyed that argument and there is no point in trying to rebuild it from the dust)

I await your response
Debate Round No. 4
ZBestDebater

Pro

"The Bible is a self contradicting, factually flawed book written most defiantly by history 'trolls' who wish to influence people. I wish to ask you this: Your arguments obviously show you are a firm believer of the Pascal's Wager and you even admit the possibility of what I have stated above - If you don't truly believe in god, and only 'believe' it because of the divine reward; what makes you think that god would appreciate such type of a believer?" I don't! It's annoying when Atheists assume that I believe in God because of this- Please stop getting personal, we're debating. Not a fight full of Ad Hominem.

"HA! Admitting you have made the Ad Populus fallacy? I would dismiss your argument, but that would mean that this round was useless, so I might as well do it for the fun of it." I see you're starting to get a bit rude.. I didn't say I made the Ad Populus fallacy, I'm just saying that it's more likely for something to exist when it is documented, with a small chance of being real (Since there is no reason for a bunch of people to write a huge book about a giant lie, being ODDLY specific about everything.)

"Not so. It would seen that after 2 rounds of destroying your arguments with the Infinite Possibility Argument, it appears you still don't understand, so I will try to use another argument: (Which I must admit is not too hard) If a third party were to write that a theist hating god exist because they've seen one, we would have no way to find out if its true. Using your logic, there is ALSO a 50% chance. Same goes to any other holy book or even articles labeled as 'pseudoscience'. Due to the burden of proof, we cannot 'prove' certain things exist (I would name one, but no FSM, right) and therefore, if it was written and we don't know the truth of the mindset of the author/writer, it would be 50% possibility of truth." True, it is a 50-50 chance. But, we have to consider the REASON behind the bible. Why would anyone make such a gigantic document and be so oddly specific and so descriptive about.. Well, nothing? It's slightly more likely that they documented real events as they interpreted them, or in other word, Holy activity- Meaning that slightly raises the chances of a God existing, meaning Theist is the way to go. Anyways, you're just saying IF a third party were to write that- They didn't, meaning a Theist hating God isn't more likely than Atheist hating gods.

"As you should realized now, this is extremely fallacious. (Please just stop with the Pascal's Wager. I believe I have already effectively destroyed that argument and there is no point in trying to rebuild it from the dust)" You haven't destroyed it yet, my friend. I'm not really using the Entire wager as it was originally presented- I'm just saying that it's possible for a God to exist, and the Bible slightly raises the Chances of a certain God existing- Meaning that if you're Theist, you have a slightly better chance. If this is the case, then being a Theist is the most Logical Path, as it is the most likely to be correct due to the Bible. Say, if you write a book right now that's as specific and descriptive as the bible, only this time about a Theist hating God, and then 6000 years in the future people find it, It would be equally logical to believe in a Theist hating God as believing in a Atheist hating God, you get me? I'm just using the logic in Pascal's Wager.

I ask of you to not leave any questions, seeing as this is the last argument. What I mean is, don't say something like "Why should you believe in God?" Since I cannot respond to this.

Second, I believe I do need to add to my points, seeing as I originally thought that it was a LOT more likely for God to exist than for him to not, but now I realize it's a very small chance. Although Theism is still more logical than Atheism, it's by a small amount (Because we know how humans work, and we know they might probably make a giant book out of real events rather than just stories they made up.)
My Final point is, that people probably Documented events that are most likely caused by a possible(Due to the irrefutable possibility of creation or eternity), Theist-loving God. If this God has bigger chances than Gods we make up, then this means that it's logical- More than Atheism, the laughing off and disbelief of any kind of Deity- Which have very low chances of survival (Although they are close to a Deists, less than 1%.)

I await your conclusion, thank you for the Debate. I enjoyed it very much.
abc123jendunee

Con

I find it interesting that you would specifically state something about the christian god when the debate is on the topic of is THEISM more rational than atheism. (Just something I would like to point out) I do admit, I was getting tired having to rebut the same point over and over again. (Persistent, aren't you?)

Firstly, I would like comment on:

"Why would anyone make such a gigantic document and be so oddly specific and so descriptive about.. Well, nothing?"

I will admit that the Bible is a gigantic document, however it is vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Another point to make is that the Bible was not created by one person, but a bunch of people. The stories in the Bible, may have started as stories or based on events which people at the time couldn't understand, but through mistranslation and orally passing it down, it was interpreted as reality and distorted. Or maybe the original creator wished to deceive others, but it ended up being something big. No one can say for sure.

You also seemed to miss:

"Same goes to any other holy book or even articles labeled as 'pseudoscience'. Due to the burden of proof, we cannot 'prove' certain things exist (I would name one, but no FSM, right) and therefore, if it was written and we don't know the truth of the mindset of the author/writer, it would be 50% possibility of truth."

Pseudoscience is labeled as such because it lacks evidence. Because we don't know the mindset of the writer and the reason (Why would anyone write a whole document on a fake science?) does NOT mean that is 50% possibility of truth. This is mainly because of burden of proof. The Bible does not actually provide evidence, it is just stories (true or not). Just saying that it is illogical to write something that is not true is flawed logic, and instead you should base it on the facts.

Secondly, it appears you don't understand the Infinite Possibility Argument (Again). It doesn't matter if it is a 9*10^27/W34; or just 1/W34;, it all equals to the same thing. As I said:

"This may seem illogical at first, but this is one of the consequences of infinite possibilities (Which you agreed on in your rebuttal)"

And if a historical, nonscientific book can be used to raise the possibility of theism; scientific, historical (In a way) evidence and proven fact can definitely be used to prove the lack of god. I would have brought this up before, but as you stated so clearly:

" I'm not claiming what God is based on, I'm claiming the BELIEF in God is more logical than not believing in God"

And I'm pretty sure that God is based on the Bible...

The final point is also rebutted by my first point as well. Additionally I would like to state that Atheism is not the laughing off of, but the lack of belief. You also seem to forget that although you are a theist of Christianity, you are sort of an Atheist of all other religions, or as you put it: " the laughing off and disbelief of any kind of Deity".

I still firmly believe that theism is not more rational (In the BELIEF in God manner) atheism. With that out of the way, people can now debate the other question: The basis of theism (Based on ancient books) and atheism (Based on scientific fact). Nonetheless, I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate and await more to come at DDO.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZBestDebater 1 year ago
ZBestDebater
@epicray1 I know, right? It's so nice finally having a normal person in a debate.
Posted by epicray1 1 year ago
epicray1
Finally, a religious debate in which both parties have respect and politeness! You never see any of these on the internet!
Posted by ZBestDebater 1 year ago
ZBestDebater
@Canis Please leave. You're making no kind of productive change here.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Yes. Ignorance is the answer of a person with nothing on his minde.
Posted by abc123jendunee 1 year ago
abc123jendunee
Just going to ignore your stupidity
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
So. You can not read.
Posted by abc123jendunee 1 year ago
abc123jendunee
Somehow i doubt that you are actually 51
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
if you do not know..You can not read...
Posted by abc123jendunee 1 year ago
abc123jendunee
What are you even saying canis
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
...Pascal Wager....Wear garlic and you are safe from wampaires...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by soccerisfun 1 year ago
soccerisfun
ZBestDebaterabc123jendunee
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Great round and both sides made nice arguments, but it seemed to me that all of the aff arguments ended up becoming God is possible, not believing in him/her is rational. After neg's good analysis on ow there are infinite forms of theism, all of the aff arguments weren't logical - they assumed 50-50 ratios between the possibilities without proving why they should be that. The final nail in the coffin was proving that the Bible had many flaws. Aff just has no offense left. Great job by neg.