The Instigator
justanawesomeathiest
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
abyteofbrain
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

atheist are right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
abyteofbrain
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 52366
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

justanawesomeathiest

Pro

Atheists are right because we have all the facts that religion does not.
abyteofbrain

Con

It appears that I only have to convince people that atheists are wrong, this shouldn't a very tough position.
First, I will rebut my opponent's overly simplistic opening statement. That was not an argument in favor of atheism's truthfulness, merely a claim that atheism makes more claims than theism. Atheism is simply about NOT believing in the existence of a god, hence the prefix "a" on the word "theism." All gods have a complex explanation and surrounding ideas. This means that Atheism actually has LESS answers.
I will open with one of my favorite quotes: "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker, but the universe does not prove the existence of a great architect, then I consent to be called a fool." " Voltaire

Think about it, think about our world. Think about the ways our world could become like it is without a creator. There are only two base answers, with variations upon them. These are; 1: the material and nature for our universe have existed for infinity, and formed everything in existence by random changes, and 2: everything and it's nature, including time and space (time probably as a result of space) spontaneously began to exist from nothingness.
#1: This is obviously the likeliest answer. Everything seems to need a beginning, however this is not much of an argument. My main argument against this is essentially what Voltaire said. It is possible, of corse, that the universe and everything in it could form as it is by spontaneity, but this is hardly probable. The chances for this are incredibly small, and as our knowledge grows, become even smaller.
When you see a watch (lets use the spring powered type for consistency), you Immediately recognize it as one. You assume that it was created, not that it was assembled by random acts of weather. Suppose that you had never seen one before, you would certainly still assume that it had been created by man, after brief examination. How is it that you think that the universe, which is much more complex and specific, was not created?
I believe that I can answer that. Suppose that you had never seen a real watch, but were told when you were young that Watches are amazing results of a rare type of volcanic activity. You then saw a watch years later. You would probably say How amazing it is that something so intricate and useful could form without intelligent guidance. You would say this because you have been put into that mode of thinking, then you would look for evidence to show the watch-creeationists. Only until you study the actual watch in detail,might you consider otherwise. It is what we are told when we are young, by those we trust, that we believe. We are then put into that rut of thinking, and rarely exit, because we find the evidence which supports our views, and sometimes even blatantly dismiss opposing evidence without good reason. When we examine the actual thing under debate is when we may change our views.
You may say that you wouldn't believe the person after seeing the watch. I don't believe this for a moment. When people are told they are worthless, they start to believe so. When people are told they are skilled, they also start to believe that regardless of the evidence. We could even do an experiment if you wish. I believe that mushrooms grow out of the ground from a fibrous root-like structure under the ground. I never see this structure, and I never see the mushrooms grow, yet I believe this statement to be true. If someone were to question my belief, I would research to find evidence for it.
The second method is extremely unlikely. I doubt that anyone reading this is actually considering this, but I'll talk about it anyway. The obvious: We have a very well tested scientific law that says that nothing can come from nothing, but only nothing. In other words, all matter and energy may change, but can not come from nothing. It is never created or destroyed. What about the nature of things, what about space, what about time? All of this has to exist. If there was matter, but it had no nature, then it did not exist, for it is by it's nature that it has significance. Can we have matter without space? no. Where would the matter be? No-where, which means that it would again, be nothing.
Thank you for the debate, I am already enjoying it. I believe that I will leave my arguments at that, and wait for you.
Debate Round No. 1
justanawesomeathiest

Pro

Are world was created when one meteor hit another meteor then it hit another meteor and then fell into orbit of the sun but think if we have fossils millions of years old and you say the earth is 6000 years old . We have evidence all you have is a book that I myself have read and I did a lot more research then you.
abyteofbrain

Con

Your challenge was simply to prove that there is a god. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it's what you said. I'll gladly debate you against your meteor idea some other time if you give me you word that you'll take the debate seriously. Also, why start there? how about taking this debate seriously? There is reason for biblical accuracy, but even if I we to go out of the scope of this debate in mentioning that, I doubt that you'd even give it a look.
You have provided nothing worth rebuttal. You made assertions without backing them up. Please take this seriously.
Debate Round No. 2
justanawesomeathiest

Pro

justanawesomeathiest forfeited this round.
abyteofbrain

Con

I must be getting good at people reading. I predicted the last two rounds perfectly.
Debate Round No. 3
justanawesomeathiest

Pro

justanawesomeathiest forfeited this round.
abyteofbrain

Con

I'm not sure if a conclusion is necessary. Life is an excellent example of creation.
For the material for life to assemble, all subatomic particles would need to assemble correctly, we would need the right molecules to for the right amino acids, to form the right protein. Don't let my simplification fool you, these steps are vey complex. right and left hand amino acids are usually created in equal amounts in experiments, they then combine with each other to form a substance which is useless to life. Even after we have a protein, there are many types of proteins. The right combination of proteins and other substances must form into a life form. There are many things that, if wrong, could instantly kill this organism. Even if the material of this organism were to form properly, which is astonishingly unlikely, something already in existence, other than a god would have to give it life. We don't even know if this is possible.
Debate Round No. 4
justanawesomeathiest

Pro

justanawesomeathiest forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by abyteofbrain 2 years ago
abyteofbrain
Challenge me anytime.
Posted by abyteofbrain 2 years ago
abyteofbrain
Sure, after this debate.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
Berend
Con if I may, would you berate this with me if I challenge you in a fresh one also?
Posted by Gwydion777 2 years ago
Gwydion777
The Pro has made a logical fallacy. If you can't hear, touch, see, or taste God that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Can you touch love or hate or any feeling? According to what he said that love hate and any other feeling doesn't exist (false). By the way, were you there when those meteors supposedly hit each other because you say it like you saw it with your own eyes. If you did I might listen to you. If you didn't, clearly the case, then you have lost every chance for me to pay attention and take you seriously you will ever get. Get your facts straight, think about what you are going to say before you say it, and don't be so arrogant. (THIS IS DIRECTED AT PRO)
Posted by justanawesomeathiest 2 years ago
justanawesomeathiest
Can you touch god can you see god can you hear god no you can't so he doesn't exist
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
justanawesomeathiestabyteofbrainTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit gives con the points for conduct.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
justanawesomeathiestabyteofbrainTied
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: Pro failed to meet his/her BoP by merely asserting things, without providing evidence.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
justanawesomeathiestabyteofbrainTied
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: Weekly Stupid Material. ... Oh and pro chose not to respond once things got a little difficult for his supposedly well researched case, making this a no contest debate in cons favor.