The Instigator
xxx00
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Altilongitude
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

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 4 votes the winner is...
Altilongitude
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 914 times Debate No: 27007
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

xxx00

Pro

first round acceptence, second round arguments, third and fourth round rebuttal and fifth round conclusion.
Altilongitude

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
xxx00

Pro

1. eminent scientists like sir francis bacon, kepler, newton, lord kelvin, descartes, max planck, einstein , newton all believe in god despite open practice of atheism in their time. these scientists shaped the world of science. they must have credibility . therefore god must exist.

2. atheists believe that the world has no meaning or purpose. but how atheists know that? why do atheists think that?

3. atheists actually love to attack the believes of 3 dominant religion of the world: christianity, judaism and islam. all their arguments used to counter the arguments given by these 3 religions. but there are other religions who profess a different kind of god.those religions are: buddhism, taoism, shintaoism, zen, jainism, wicca, shamanism etc. atheists never consider these religions. they never challenged nor tried these religions. therefore their (atheist) investigation is incomplete. their knowledge is incomplete. there must be a god but not necessarily he be a christian god or jewish god or muslim god. may be a different kind of god.

con is requested not to bring arguments that attack only dominant trio : christianity, judaism and islam. rather con is requested to give direct answer to my arguments stated above.
Altilongitude

Con

I will address your round two arguments in the rebuttal rounds.

You say that atheism is a weak understanding of life and nature. How so? There is no good reason to believe that gods exist, so atheism is a valid understanding of life and nature.
Debate Round No. 2
xxx00

Pro

well then answer the points i raised in round two. thats my case.
Altilongitude

Con

1. This is not logical. "therefore god must exist." No. Just because accomplished thinkers believed in God does not make God exist.

2. Atheists know what is presented to them. And what's presented to them is a world void of greater meaning and purpose.

3. Atheists deny the existence of all gods. "there must be a god . . ." Why are you presupposing this?
Debate Round No. 3
xxx00

Pro

con has astonished me.

1. Just because accomplished thinkers believed in God does not make God exist. why do you think so? please give sound reason.

2. you did not give me any solid reason why atheists think that the world has no meaning and purpose. is it the faith of atheists?

3. i am presupposing it because from the way atheists attack theists, it appears to me that atheists are always attacking Christianity, Judaism and Islam. atheists did not attack on the gods of Buddhism, taoism, Zen etc. why it is so? i saw many debates of eminent atheists like richard dawkins, sam harris, christopher hitchens on youtube. there they always attack Christianity, Judaism and Islam. they never mention a word against Buddhism, taoism, Zen etc. from this i think the main basis of atheism is the faults of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. if this is so, then i will request atheists to look into other religions like Buddhism, taoism, Zen etc. before renouncing god completely.
Altilongitude

Con

1. That is sound reasoning. You're the one with the fallacy. You're the one who said that since eminent thinkers were theists, God MUST exist.

2. Why should atheists believe the world has greater meaning and purpose? Until there is evidence that there is, that's what atheists will believe. Burden of proof is on the theists.

3. Atheists deny the gods of all religions.
Debate Round No. 4
xxx00

Pro

no, the world has a meaning. the world is created with many goals. i state them as follows:

1. to entertain man with beauty.

2. to nourish man with foods

3. to enlighten man about his own self.

4. to amaze man with wonder of natural mystery

at least 4 objective of the world can be found. but the ultimate goal is to nourish man throughout his life. if the world is not there, mankind and his civilization will also be not there. so the world has a meaning.

con did not give sufficient reason why atheists deny god of all religion nor did he give any reason why should we not accept god because eminent scientists accept god.

therefore my conclusion is that atheism has no sound reasonable ground. it is illogical, irrational way of spending young age. it is the final fantasy of the youth.
Altilongitude

Con

My opponent contends that the world was created by a supernatural being with the above four goals in mind. I contend that those four things can exist without the intervention of God. As cognizant organisms, we humans can feel beauty, enlightenment and marvel as well as be nourished by foods. I do not see why God is necessary for this. Without likely evidence that God exists, we should assume he does not.

My opponent has failed to show why atheism is a weak understanding of life and nature because he has failed to show why one should believe any gods exist.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
This debate is proof there is no God. There being no point to life is just as absurd as the belief in God/s.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Is no one going to point out that there is no god of Buddhism and Taoism?
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
@Milliarde, Equal opportunity?
Posted by Milliarde 4 years ago
Milliarde
This debate makes me sad =/ Why does it show up on the front page instead of the many other fruitful debates...
Posted by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
Seems like a failed debate right now.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
xxx00AltilongitudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: It is as if this were planned to be disappointing. Pro made painfully stupid arguments, (I'm leaning toward the notion that he's trolling), but Con didn't refute them properly. It was almost a cartoon argument, "No!" "Yes!" "No!" etc. I award conduct to no one, because they were both about equally well-conducted. I award spelling and grammar because Pro started making grammatical errors in the first round. Convincing arguments to Con because, while neither party was particularly convincing, Pro's logic was on vacation today. Reliable sources apparently don't exist, so nobody gets credit for them. How utterly disappointing!
Vote Placed by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
xxx00AltilongitudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't decide which of them debated less poorly than the other.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
xxx00AltilongitudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 said more stupid things than CON by a small amount. So CON wins.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
xxx00AltilongitudeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I want my brain cells back.