The Instigator
lord_starscream
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
usernamesareannoying
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

can the majority of people become atheist in today's time?

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 2 votes the winner is...
usernamesareannoying
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 442 times Debate No: 75620
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

lord_starscream

Con

No, there is a low chance that in today's time the world's majority (more than 50 percent) for there is not much information about God and hence would become agnostics, not atheists.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

It is possible for more than 50 percent of the global population to become Atheists... Con's argument is a strawman of the resolution, as he is arguing that it is not likely for it to occur. As this does not pertain to the resolution, the argument is a red herring.

It is possible viz. everyone could if they wanted to, become an atheist. Albeit, it is unlikely, but likeliness is an irrelevant variable in this debate. Hence, I affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_starscream

Con

Yes, the world could become atheist if they want to, but not in today's time, considering the factors about information on God, religious organizations and society. Pro has stated that everyone could become atheist if they want to, but what will cause that desire to suddenly come in their heads? I could simply say the world can commit suicide if they want to, but everyone knows that it is irrational and can only be possible in the far-off future.
That being said, I shall proceed with my argument.
Less information- Although the Big Bang theory has explained the creation of the universe, we still don't know what created the Big Bang, and therefore as there is no scientific answer to it the invention is credited to God. Whatever phenomenon can't be answered by science is usually said to be caused by God. To shake the belief of God, there would need to be an alternate explanation on what created the Big Bang and how is luck determined if not by God.

Devotion and evidence- Although there is no proof and only some evidence for God, most religions have first made sure that their believers are loyal and said that God would reward them for their loyalty. And God is talked of in astral form, invisible and undetected by the human eye, so that is the reason for no concrete proof. So, if an atheist says there is no proof for God, a believer can say that it is impossible to find proof for God.

Society- I am an atheist myself, and due to most of society being religious, there is a certain distance placed if an atheist tells someone that he is an atheist. Furthermore, if the believer is an elderly person, there is a certain 'non-debatable' stance made, and so atheist are unable to express their viewpoint and convert more people to their side.
usernamesareannoying

Pro

"Yes, the world could become atheist if they want to, but not in today's time, considering the factors about information on God, religious organizations and society".

Con thinks that information about God, somehow eradicates the possibility of people becoming Atheists... But why? How does this stop them from becoming Atheists? What if they come to the conclusion that the current information regarding God is not enough? It is Con's job to prove that this can never be the case.


"Pro has stated that everyone could become atheist if they want to, but what will cause that desire to suddenly come in their heads?"

Con is confusing "possibility" with "likelihood". They are two completely different variables and Con is using likelihood to strawman the resolution. It is possible for everyone to become Atheists, as they can make the change if they want to. However, is it likely that would be the rendition? Probably not.

The definition of "possibility" is as follows: "a thing that may be chosen or done out of several possible alternatives." (1)
There are two possibilities: a person chooses to be an Atheist, or a person chooses not to be an Atheist. As the definition states, the first possibility listed "may be chosen". It does not have to be chosen, however, that option existing in the first place allows that rendition to be possible. Hence, this successfully defends the resolution.


"I could simply say the world can commit suicide if they want to, but everyone knows that it is irrational and can only be possible in the far-off future."

Ergo, it is not likely; not impossible.


Then my opponent tries toturn this into a God vs no God argument:

"Although the Big Bang theory has explained the creation of the universe"

In fact, the Big Bang does not explain the creation of the universe. All the Big Bang Theory postulates, is that the universe was once at a hot, dense singularity, then expanded:




"we still don't know what created the Big Bang, and therefore as there is no scientific answer to it the invention is credited to God."

That's known as a God of the Gaps argument, and it is invalid, as it makes an unwarranted assumption fallacy.

"Although there is no proof and only some evidence for God, most religions have first made sure that their believers are loyal and said that God would reward them for their loyalty. And God is talked of in astral form, invisible and undetected by the human eye, so that is the reason for no concrete proof. So, if an atheist says there is no proof for God, a believer can say that it is impossible to find proof for God."

Then Occam's Razor dictates that a hypothesis with the least amount of ad hoc assumptions is more likely:

Since Occam's Razor favours simplicity, a person would be inclined not to believe in God.


"I am an atheist myself, and due to most of society being religious, there is a certain distance placed if an atheist tells someone that he is an atheist. Furthermore, if the believer is an elderly person, there is a certain 'non-debatable' stance made, and so atheist are unable to express their viewpoint and convert more people to their side."

No evidence of these assertions are presented, hence they do not have credibility.


(1) Google: "Define 'possibility'"

Debate Round No. 2
lord_starscream

Con

Vote for me, vote for me!
usernamesareannoying

Pro

Con drops all arguments and simply states "vote for me, vote for me!" This is not a valid refutation.

Arguments extended.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by usernamesareannoying 1 year ago
usernamesareannoying
Still playing the likelihood game Con :P
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
What if 100 % are theist in one country. 100% are atheist in another. They have no interaction...What would be the "real" different be ?
Posted by Kozu 1 year ago
Kozu
As Pro said though likelihood is irrelevant. Just because people currently wouldn't switch to atheism doesn't mean they can't.
Posted by blackkid 1 year ago
blackkid
I like the way pro went about this but "can" infers likelihood relative to "possibility" so ironically pro is wrong. But good thinking and wordplay.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
lord_starscreamusernamesareannoyingTied
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: Con forfeited the final round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate. Since forfeits are considered misconducted, I award conduct to Pro for graciously extending their arguments. Con's negative constructive case was based on the *probability* of the majority of people becoming atheistic, but, as Pro pointed out, the resolution implies *possibility*, and Pro showed that it is obviously possible, and Con had no refutation for this, instead forfeiting the final round by saying "vote for me! vote for me!" Thus, I award arguments and conduct to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
lord_starscreamusernamesareannoyingTied
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: Con dropped all points in the last round. This is poor conduct