The Instigator
anonymous27
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

give me a rational reason to substantiate your basis for being an atheist

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 3 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,496 times Debate No: 25600
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

anonymous27

Con

I am very curios as to why you choose your positioning side as an atheist? Its very interesting to see if you will side with science or philosophy to validate your argument. I have studied debates like this for a while and it seems like people of your faith ( i know you dont, or will never call it that, but that is what it is ) have a certain type of confidnece that you bring to the table, when it comes to arguments like this. I will keep my morality and be respectful, even though i know if I drew the truth out on a etch-a-sketch you would still be skeptical, but what else could you expect from a person with the certain kind of faith that you have. You will read this and pick the word faith out and think that you are an atheist, so how could you have faith, but rather if you realize it or not you do. oh yeah, I am not a christian, its just fun proving its truth!!! Take the debate, people love heariung your typical, repetive arguments.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Greetings, I thank my opponent and the voters for taking the time to participate and follow this debate. I hope it will be very productive . I hope after this my opponent will see that my repetitive arguments are very valid cases against the existence of both a theist and a deist type of god. So on that note, lets begin.

I will be starting out with four contentions and might add more if the moment calls for I just ask that my opponent refrain from posting new arguments in the final round because that would be just plain unfair.

Contention 1: Lack of Extraordinary Evidence

I will begin with a fairly well-known quote by Carl Sagan:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" [1].

With that said, I will now get to the point. There is no real nor extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. If there be any that I am not aware of then my opponent has the burden to present it. My opponent has the Burden of proof because it is always left to those claiming something exists to prove that the thing to which they referring to (in this case God) exists. For example: If I were to come up to my opponent and say to him that had seen a Unicorn and that they do exist, my opponent would have no reason to believe me unless I either show the Unicorn or the evidence that says the Unicorn exists. It would not be my opponent who had to prove that the unicorn didn't exist, it would be all up to me to prove that it does exist. The same that would apply to there, also applies to here.


Contention 2: The Impossibility of an Afterlife

My next contention really just speaks for itself. I will prove the impossibly of an afterlife. For this I will do a syllogism:

P1: Studies have shown that there exists a strong connection between mental events and brain events that neither can exist without the other.

P2: In a afterlife, there would occur mental events without brain events.

C: Therefore, An afterlife is impossible.

Now, I know what your thinking, if there is a soul then it doesn't require a brain to function. However, this is proven false by my first premise. There are certain injuries to the brain that if happened a person would have no mental state (they would be brain dead). While others destroy various mental capabilities. Which capability is destroyed is determined by which part of the brain was effected. So it is clear that we do not have a soul to carry out mental capabilities further then the brain we have now [2].

Contention 3: Omnipotence is Impossible

For my third contention I contend that omnipotence (or the state of being all-powerful) is in fact logically impossible. I will prove this by using a very old and well known method for do this. It is known as the Paradox of the Stone , and it goes like this:

If God is all-powerful, then he could create a stone that is so heavy that he could not lift it. However, if he does then he proves that he is not all-powerful.

Since omnipotence is a key aspect of God, and since omnipotence is a logical impossibly. Then God is impossible.

Contention 4: Argument from Evil

I will begin this with a syllogism:

P1: If God exists, then there would be no suffering in the world.

P2: Suffering exists

C: Therefore, God does not.

The god of the Bible is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and also all-loving. However, an all-loving god would do something to prevent suffering. But we see suffering everyday from the holocaust, to 9/11, to the AIDs epidemic in Haiti, And the fact that he is both all-powerful and all-knowing leaves him without an excuse. Therefore, from what the evidence points to, God does not exist.


I will add another contention in the next round, unless my opponent forfeits (I hope not). But as for now, I will now await my opponent's response.


Thank You.

Sources

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org.........
[2]http://www.infidels.org.........
Debate Round No. 1
anonymous27

Con

I am very curios as to why you choose your positioning side as an atheist? Its very interesting to see if you will side with science or philosophy to validate your argument. I have studied debates like this for a while and it seems like people of your faith ( i know you dont, or will never call it that, but that is what it is ) have a certain type of confidnece that you bring to the table, when it comes to arguments like this. I will keep my morality and be respectful, even though i know if I drew the truth out on a etch-a-sketch you would still be skeptical, but what else could you expect from a person with the certain kind of faith that you have. You will read this and pick the word faith out and think that you are an atheist, so how could you have faith, but rather if you realize it or not you do. oh yeah, I am not a christian, its just fun proving its truth!!! Take the debate, people love heariung your typical, repetive arguments.

I believe you have copied and pasted this response in several of your previous arguments. I will first ask you what type of evidence you are looking for? You use the example of a unicorn, well lets first state that unicorns are a creation of man. I assume that you think a creator is also a creation of man? But if people would not dismiss the bible so much as they do, then the realization of the famous quote, " In the beginninhg was the word, and the word was god, and the word was with god." See this gives evidence of logic, or if you want to go back to the greeks, "logos" Secondly, I would like to ask you how if there is not an intelligent creator,and lets take in the notion that our universe is fnely tuned. Then how do you explain any of our laws of physics, gravity, motion, thermodynamics having the rationale to coincide with how our universe is laid out? Lastly, if you dont believe in a creator then you assume reality, or the universe is a mindless guided process. I surley wouldn't trust my computer if it wasn't created by a mind, which is far more complexer than the computer its self. If you believe this is a mindless guided process then how can you even believe rationally in your own beleief system. I mean you are guided by your mind right? Another thing I want to point out is that your statement on suffering, you blame everything on god, but I dont think you have ever considered the universe, or the world as an mechanasim, but all mechanisms require an agent to operate. Why would God create a stone more powerful than him. I beleive your statement on that is a contradiction of a superiority. You also blame god for major epidemics and catastrophes, but again I will say every mechanism requires an agent. You see, if you wrote a book, on the outside of it, its design is simplistic, but as i skim through pages I realize it is far more complex on the inside, but you the "creator of the book" are far more of an complexity than your writing that you have implemented in your novel. If you agree that nature, or the universe created you, then what created nature or the universe? I will end this by commenting on your evil argument. If this world was just good and happy and we had no will power, and lets say the creator has full control over our every thought and action. then we would be kind of automated, like a machine, we would have to press buttons or ask god to make a emotion or feeling arise. Also How can you know what love is without ever experiencing hate. In the beginning was the "logos" that is logic.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, and I will begin by answering his question with a more straight up answer. I am an atheist because of a two reasons. The first being a lack of faith. This being that just because I see something I do not understand, I will not go ahead and say that a god did it. And the second is that I have reveiwed all or rather most of the arguments and 'evidence' for both the deist and the theist concept of god, and I have not been pursuaded. Furthermore, I have reveiwed the evidential and the logical arguments for the non-existence of a creator and am convinced that a god doesn't exist.

Now on to my opponent's arguments. My first contention is rather self explanitory. My opponent has the burden of proof. Now concerning my the question of what kind of proof, mainly any kind of evidence that one can observed physically or mentally.

R1: As for my opponent's argument on the basis of design, I would say it is really flawed to say that something as complex as the Universe has to have a creator when in fact, that creator being subject unto the same logic would also have to have a creator and also that creator, and the one before that, and so on! It all has to start somewhere. It is more logical to see the universe as how we see the Earth. It started from a worthless lifeless speck in the never ending reaches of space and has constantly evolved (in the space of 15 billion years!) into what we know today. If a creator existed, it is obviously very slow. This also applies to logic and the natural laws. Logic is merely how we see reality, for example, it is illogical to think that the earth is flat. and The natural laws are just that, they are natural not supernatural. If a creator existed he would also have to conform to natural laws.

R2: As to my opponent's response to my argument from evil, he fails to see the real point of the contention. The point is not what causes it (even though by most theistic religions god is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing) in as much as it is what gods if they exist do about the suffering. For example, let's say I know when, where, who is going to rape a woman and I have the full means of stopping this from occurring. Is it ethical for me to do nothing? I would say no it isn't and it isn't by the ethics of most of the worlds religions. Yet we see rapes, murders, starvation, and etc. And yet if a god did exist then he is not doing anything about it. So this rules out the concepts of god that is taught by most of the worlds religions. This argument was not intended to tackle the concept of god as a whole, but rather tackle the theist concept of god that is held by the majority of the religious around the world today.

R3: As for the Paradox of the Stone, my opponent fails to realize that if a creator were to create the universe and space itself, then it itself has to be omnipotent. However, omnipotence is impossible as I have proven through the Paradox of the Stone.

Does the Universe Need an Intelligent Designer?

There is literally tons of evidence to show that the Universe needs a creator to exist. I will start with quantum mechanics. When we talk of the orgins of everything, it is often said "Something can't come from nothing". however, the Laws of Physics have disproven this. A certain phenominon has been observed by scietists where energy and matter has been produced out of nothing [1,2]. This proves that it is possible that the conditions and elements needed to cause the "Big Bang" can come from literally nothing. Further, we ask ourselfs out could all of this could come about on it's own? Yet evolution is a proven scietific theory that shows that through billions of years of constant change complexity can show[3,4]. And then you might think that that a creator would have to get evolution started. However, this was disproven with the discovery of abiogenesis. John D. Sutherland showed in a series of experiments that carbon based life can come from self-replicating RNA [5]. All this evidence proves that the conditions and elements needed for the formation of life do not need divine intervention and can do it itself through random changes.

Now, the paragragh above showed how the Universe doesn't require divine intervention, and now this one will be centered around how unperfect the Universe is, and show that if a god did do it, then it did a somewhat sloppy job. Do note that if a god were to exist, then it would need to be all-powerful and therefore, could not have made as many mistakes as there are in the universe and the countless species that call this planet home.

The Universe is not perfect. It may be complex, but it is in no way perfect. Proof of this is all around us. Every second a star like our Sun explodes and burns out to become non-existence, and brings what ever life that needed it's support with it. We see black holes appearing from no where that suck everything in it's plath into 'who knows where'. You can even look into the night sky and see the Andromeda Galaxy, which our Galaxy (the Milky Way), is sue to make direct collision course with in the future [6]. This impact will most likely be the death of life on Earth. We also have proven through the work of our scientists, that ever since the "Big Bang", the Universe has been expanded outward, and sooner or later our Universe itself, will ciese exist [7]. Now with this evidence presented, is there really a chance that a creator would create something with so many flaws in it? All the evidence supports random causation and random change as the causation of the Universe and life on Earth.

I will now hand it over to my opponent and Thank You.

Sources

[1]http://truthisscary.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://www.nytimes.com...
[6]http://www.space.com...
[7] http://skyserver.sdss.org...
Debate Round No. 2
anonymous27

Con

I first want to start by saying that everyone has faith of some kind. You yourself have faith that god doesn't exist-because if you knew without a doubd that there was no need for an intelligent designer then we would not be having this debate. Secondly, assuming god did sometyhing doesn't stop an individual from looking or studying it deeper into finding out how and why a creator did it. Isaac newton, a firm believer in the creator didn't stop his explorations when he founded the laws of motion and gravity. But he did say that due to the complexitites there most certainly had to be a far more complexer mind behind the universe.

to give some logical sense to you wanting objective evidence, if you look around everything in this reality is interdependent of something else for its existence. For example: a plant cannot exist if there isnt a ground, a seed, water, sunlight, skies, earth, gravity. If you really want to get technical you wouldn't exist if it wasn't for your mother and father. Now you can go really far with my statement and apply it to every individual in your family or every individual in society. We all rely off something outside of ourselves to exist.

I have to say that I totally disagree with you stating that its really flawed to say something as complex as the universe needs a creator. Because if you deny this universe having a creator then you subject yourself to postulating that it happened by chance. Furthermore you cannot prove this. Now to answer you stating that we started from a worthless speck, I have to point out that you use the word "start,' so we agree that the universe was created, basically we agree it had a starting point. Now I know you will say the big bang theory did it all. But lets realize this is a theory and it still doesn't answer what started the big bang, or how by chance all these laws just coincide with this universe so perfectly. I will now adress your statement on the creator needing a creator and that its a endless process. This statement has no relevance to the creator that people believe in because it is eternal. Richard Dawkins sure wouldn't have made any money off his book " the god delusion" If he had titled it " the created god delusion." Because anyone who believes in an created god surely is delusional. I would like to ask if you beleieve in anything being eternal? Because if you believe in matter and energy being all that there is , and cannot be destroyed, an can only change form. Then you do believe in something eternal. But if you dont beleive matter and energy are eternal, therefore, you consider them finite then who or what created matter and energy? Now I would like to call out your flaw on saying if god did exist then it would have to conform to the natural laws. The creator establishing the laws of nature, doesn't justify that it would have to conform to them. If iits intelligent enough to create such laws then it would govern the laws and be far more superior over them. Laws are created. So I would like to know how you think nature came about?

Now I want to adress this evil issue because its looking like you think god is allowing tragedys and disasters to occur left and right.First lets establish that religious structures are man made. Secondly I would like to know how you can form a concept of an eternal creator? Third, I will enlighten you on this confusion you have with evil and suffering. I think you are still confusing god as a mechanism and not an agent. I would also like to add that this is a very touchy subject that I feel has no answer that will satify any atheist or believer. But I would like to give my statement as to why I think there is evil. I will use some text from a book called Conversations with God, written by Neal Donald Walsch and it states, "This discussion here turns esoteric, because no serious explanation of this statement can ignore the word "evil," and the value judgments it invites. In truth , there is nothing evil, only objective phenomena and experience. Yet your very purpose in life requires you to slect from the growing collection of endless phenomena a scattered few in which you call evil-for unless yo do, you cannot call yourself nor anything else,good- and thus cannot know, or create, your Self. By that which you call evil do you define your-self-and by that which you call good. The biggest evil would therefore be to declare nothing evil at all. You exist in this life in the world of the relative, where one thing can exist only insofar as it relates to anotherThis is at one and the same time both the function and the purpose of relationship: to provide a field of experience within which you find yourself, define yourself, and-if you choose-constantly recreate Who You Are." In this life we all have will power to make any descision we want to. The choices we make create who we are. How would we know who we are unless we know who were not. This goes for evil also we all have a choice, but how could you even know the concept good without thus knowing goods adversary. Now to explain a little about suffering, suffering is a unnecessary, and hazardous aspect of our human lifes. God gives us the tools to end suffering, but we are to ignorant to utilize them properly. See suffering has nothing to with events we go through, but more on how we react to them. Whats happeneing is whats happeneing. How we we feel about whats happeneing is another matter. Now why doesnt god stop them? Well events are occurences in time and space which we as humans produce out of choice-and why would god interfere with our choices? This would obviate why we were created. Some events we produce willfully, and some events we draw to us-more or less unconsciousley. Some events-major natural disasters- are written off to a category we call fate. Fate can also be used as an acronym translated into "from all thoughts everywhere." It's more or less part of an collective consciousness.

The paradox of the stone is an old school way to end this god discussion, but it doesnt work anymore. This argument is very illogical because if God is omnipotent, then there is no "size limit" to any stone that he can create, nor is there a "size limit" to his ability to lift stones. Therefore, if God is omnipotent, there is no possible stone that would be too heavy for him to lift. If it is impossible for there to be such a stone, then the fact that God can"t create it certainly can"t count against his omnipotence.

Theists do not claim that God can do anything (except maybe in casual conversation when they are being less precise than they should be). When theists are being precise about what the concept of omnipotence means, they acknowledge that there are some things God cannot do. Specifically, God cannot perform logically impossible tasks. And of course the reason God cannot do them is not because he lacks power or knowledge " rather, the reason he can"t do them is because they are impossible.

Imagine you are in a Geometry class, and after a long semester"s work, you have arrived at the final examination. Item #32 on the exam says, "Draw a square circle." Can you do this? No. Does your inability to draw the square circle reflect some lack of knowledge of geometrical principles on your part? No. Are you unable to do it because you lack some skill in drawing objects? No. The reason you cannot "draw a square circle" is because it is impossible. As soon as you know what the words "square" and "circle" mean, you know that such an object can never be drawn, because it isn"t really an object at all. All we have done here is arrange certain words into a sentence so that it appears to be something that someone could actually do. But it is just a cleverly disguised "pseudo task." It is just impossible.

Asking God to make a stone too heavy for him to lift is much like asking someone to draw a square circle. It is logically impossible. Not even God can draw a square circle.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

My opponent starts out by stating:

I first want to start by saying that everyone has faith of some kind. You yourself have faith that god doesn't exist-because if you knew without a doubd that there was no need for an intelligent designer then we would not be having this debate.

This is false. Just because I know so, doesn't mean the average Christian or Muslim would be totally convinced.


As to Sir Issac Newton, he was living at a time when Science was still in it's infancy, and even believedin Astrology. So, his opinion is no different then those of all other people of the time. It may have been justified at the time, but now evidence has shown that the Universe is in no need of a creator.

Furthermore, I would like to call out my opponent on his claim that I can't prove that the Universe be the result of chance. I have given more then enough unadressed evidence to show that the probability is in my favor. There is proof that particles can come from no where, it is proven that Universe started at a single point (Big Bang), and it took 15 billion years to get where we are now. I am not going to mense words with my opponent, then it is both stupid and incompident. And again my opponent is betraying his own logic. If something as complex as the Universe has to have a cause, then so does something even more complex then the Universe. Yes, I do think that matter and energy have existedn for ever, but they are not complex.

Now let's analyze what my opponent is arguing.He is saying that rather then the simple small building blocks forming up everything gradually and resulting into a explosion, he is saying that there was a very complex thing that has always existed, and then started a big explosion that then started to change constantly for 15 billion years and then eventually become what we see today. According to all our data everything on Earth started from small organisms and then billions years later they had evolved into us and other organic life-forms. So, with the evidence I will conclude that the first is more rational and logical.

I will go on to concede the Problem of Suffering. It has no use as to the fact that it is ment to battle against Theism, and my opponent is clearly a Deist. So I will contend that my other arguments are just fine in proving why Atheism is a rational stance to hold.

Now as for the Paradox of the Stone, my opponent fails to see the point in it. If a god can not perform both the abilities at the same time then it is obviously not all-powerful, and therefore can not possibly create something as complex as the Universe and whatever else may be in the everlasting reaches of space. Since god would have to create logic alonng with time and such, then there would be no logical impossibilies for such a god.

Conclusion

And I will concluse this by saying that I fulfilled my burden of proof. I have stated several good rational reasons to be an Atheist. I have given countless scientific and logical facts that show why it is improbable that it could have been the product of intelligent design, and I have refuted my opponent's argument from design. I thank my opponent for the chance to debate this, and I thank those who have read it.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Df0512 5 years ago
Df0512
I don't see how anybody can be so certain about any of your positions. I hate how scientist say that if you can't prove something it has to be false. Yet it isn't like they can prove it to be false. I mean people thought the earth was flat until someone found a way to prove that false. Maybe we just haven't found a way to prove it right or wrong yet. We just don't know.
Posted by anonymous27 5 years ago
anonymous27
I thank death before dishonor for this debate. I would like to point a couple things out: paradox of the stone is not only illogical, its is mathematically impossible to put a number x up against infinite. Secondly I did respect and address every point of my opponents. I believe there is a very bad misunderstanding of God on this website. This is sad because some of the comment's have came from people that possibly could examine or observe life, and realty a little better before they derive conclusions from it
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
For the record, the argument from evil is "If an omnipotent, omniscient, and good god existed, the world would have less evil than it does." In other words, any reduction in misery whatsoever would have to be shown to upset a divine plan.

Con's arrogant unsupported attacks don't belong in a debate. Ia debate, it is all about the arguments.
Posted by toxicmaniac 5 years ago
toxicmaniac
The amount of ignorance that con spews is astounding. Pro clearly won here.
Posted by Juggler37 5 years ago
Juggler37
Have you ever seen the drops of rain splash against the flat ground? Or a crystal's intricate patterns forged by just the pressure and surrounding stone? The subtle currents of water created by a simple leaf dragged along the surface?

Just because it's complex doesn't mean it needs a designer; lots of things arise from simple systems.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
anonymous27DeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was insulting, had many S&G errors, and did not adequately respond to the argument from evil. Con won the "stone paradox" argument. Accrding to the resolution, Con needed to show the atheist arguments were irrational. he didn't even attempt to do that.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
anonymous27DeathbeforedishonourTied
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 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: Pretty resounding victory for the pro. Plenty of claims went through to the end mostly uncontested, either that or not contested very well, and thus fulfills his BOP. Overall a good padding of the ol' win record.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
anonymous27DeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con said he would be civil, but couldn't even finish that sentence without an insult. S&G: Con's spelling was messed up enough to interfere with comprehension. Arguments: Con challenged Pro to provide his reasons for being an atheist. Pro did so. Victory: Pro. Pro wasn't required to persuade Con, but only to give his reasons. Now, Con could have attacked those reasons, could have challenged their validity, but he didn't do that. He talked about other things.