The Instigator
AliAmer
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Kumquatodor
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

reality of religion on atheism

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 3 votes the winner is...
Kumquatodor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,414 times Debate No: 38067
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (3)

 

AliAmer

Pro

My dear fellow,
I rather wanted to make it clear and lucid that the new modernism so-called thinking of atheism fails to compete or even to stand in the same row of truth. People are nowadays preferring atheism because of the simplicity and no boundaries or regulations on ones inner self. So rather then having a complete knowledge of what is the truth you opt for ease . So my dear if you talk on logics and facts atheism is a failed theory.
Kumquatodor

Con

I accept. Just so you know, I am both a scientist and a Christian. You are ignorant. That is not ad himinim it is a provable fact. You, literally, don't know what you're talking about, and I will prove it.

I will defend atheism in the scientific realm.
Debate Round No. 1
AliAmer

Pro

AliAmer forfeited this round.
Kumquatodor

Con

Do not hold this against my opponent; this can still be a good debate.

Now for rebuttals:
new modernism so-called thinking of atheism
"New"?... Abraham Lincoln... Thomas Jefferson... Albert Einstein... Socrates... Archemides... The Bible's "heathens"... Atheism is mentioned in the Bible...

Atheism is not new...
___________________
People are nowadays preferring atheism because of the simplicity and no boundaries or regulations on ones inner self.
Abraham Lincoln... Thomas Jefferson... Thousands of people have their own moral code...
___________________________________________________________________________
So rather then having a complete knowledge of what is the truth you opt for ease
So... Rather than admitting to believing in an invisible man, who may or may not be his own father, atheist take comfort in knowing that... they're going to Hell? They're... They're... um...
_________________________________________________________________________
So my dear if you talk on logics and facts atheism is a failed theory.
Atheism is less logical than an invisi---you get it---how?
_______________________________________________
Did I just fall victim to a satirist?
Debate Round No. 2
AliAmer

Pro

AliAmer forfeited this round.
Kumquatodor

Con

Kumquatodor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mrsatan 4 years ago
mrsatan
I agree that it's irrational for someone to believe they know specifics about God. God would fall into the category of the supernatural. If God were something we could observe and learn about, it would have to be part of our natural realm, the observable universe. Since we can't observe anything about God, we can't claim any specific knowledge about God.

Admittedly, most religious people take it further than simply believing there is a God. Like you say, belief in the soul is irrational. I agree with this by the reasoning above, but belief in the soul is most certainly not necessary to be religious. Belief in anything beyond Gods existence is unnecessary to be religious.

So l, if by religious people, you're referring only to those who claim to know specifics about the God they believe in, or of that Gods methods/workings (such as giving people souls), then I wholly agree that they are being irrational. If you're including those who have belief, but don't equate it to knowledge or assume beyond that initial belief of Gods existence, then I do not agree.

Consider this:

Is it irrational for a child to believe that which his/her parents say? If they are consistently truthful with him/her, then it is not. If they have been caught telling lies, then it is. So if a child grows up with no reason to doubt their parents truthfulness, while being raised in a religious manner, they have no reason to disbelieve in God. In this case, not believing in God would be irrational, at least at that point in time. In the future, they may find reason to disbelieve, and whether or not it is more rational for them to believe, disbelieve, or deny Gods existence may change.

Whether or not a belief is rational depends on the information one has, whether or not all of that information is considered, and how well they are able to analyze that information. This is all independent of the belief itself.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
Actually: The belief in an everlasting Soul, or personal consciousness is Irrational for starters.
Since neurology now knows that consciousness is an illusion created by the physical structures of the brain working in collaboration.
It is like a concerto and the brain structures are the instruments.
Damage or destroy any of the instruments and the concerto of consciousness alters.
Destroy the conductor or the prefrontal cortex structure and this consciousness concerto or sense of self is entirely destroyed. We can never regain our self once this occurs.
So, essentially, the everlasting Soul does not exist.
Once our brain dies, so does our self consciousness.
Religion relies on the existence of this non-existent Soul.
The Soul is thus Irrational and so must be Religion.
Just something I learned from studying psychology and neurology.
Most Neurologists have been aware of this for decades now.
It's time the average person also became aware of it.
Actually Buddhism was aware of consciousness being an illusion for over 3000 years.
Posted by mrsatan 4 years ago
mrsatan
I must say, very well said. To be honest, this conversation went to a place I never really intended, but I can't really argue with those last posts. Anyways, my initial disagreement kind of got swallowed up by the whole fundamentalist discussion.

I still disagree that the belief in Gods existence is irrational. My original point was just to say that the religious fundamentalists, those who confuse that belief to be actual knowledge, and undeniable truth, are irrational. However, if one does not confuse the belief to be knowledge, they can believe God exists while remaining rational. That is essentially what I meant in saying it's the fundamentalist part rather than the religious part that makes them irrational.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
On Rational Fundamentalism: A term coined by Michael Baurmann.
Which can also be called Scientific Fundamentalism.
He has a .pdf explanation which can be downloaded.
http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de...
Fundamentalism: from dictionary.com
1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. The beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

Thus you can fit Rational Fundamentalists into definition 3.
Strict adherence to Rationalist ideas or principles: The fundamentalism of the Extreme Conservative Rationalists.
So there you have it.
No need to play with semantics.
Rational Fundamentalists are indeed very Rational, actually too Rational.
I like a bit of Irrationality every now and then to break the cold hard rational ice.
LOL :-D~
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
Though: Satan, since you consider Fundamentalism on only the very limited Definition, as Wikipedia and very rudimentary short dictionaries use.
Fundamentalism: Strict adherence to the fundamentals of theological doctrine.
Then, I can only agree with you Completely.
Because Theology and Theological Doctrines are entirely Irrational.

Though Market Fundamentalists, are somewhat more Rational, because Free Market Economies have been shown to work and thus implementation of such a Free Market is quite Rational.
Theology, on the other hand, has no demonstrated, proven benefits to society nor any Rationally verified concepts. Thus Theology is Irrational.
So, anything based on the Fundamentals of Theology, must be Irrational.
So Fundamentalists in the limited sense are definitely the least Rational/Intelligent individuals on the Planet.
It's not the word "Fundamentalist" that makes them Irrational, but the word "Theology".
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
If you take this Definition of Fundamentalism from Wikipedia: "Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy."
Yes, it is totally Irrational, as anything taken on the grounds of Theology is Irrational.

Yet: There are other forms of Fundamentalism, as a Literal Definition of " Fundamentalism" is.
To only consider all knowledge on the basis of the Fundamentals of a specific Discipline or Doctrine.
Thus: A religious Fundamentalist is an individual who considers all knowledge on the basis of Theological doctrines.
A Market Fundamentalist (commonly used) is a person who believes that all Economies can benefit as a result of a Free Market Economy.
Fundamentalism is factually any belief based on FUNDAMENTALS.
A Rationalist Fundamentalist is any person who bases their ideology on the Fundamentals of Rationalism.
No, it is you who is trying to distort a very simple extension of the word, "FUNDAMENTAL".

If I believed in basing my life entirely on the Fundamentals of Astrology, I'd simply be an Astrology Fundamentalist.

It's so very simple, yet you fail to See It!
Posted by mrsatan 4 years ago
mrsatan
The problem here, Sagey, is that you're completely distorting the meaning of fundamentalism. It IS irrational, and the term "rational fundamentalist" is an oxymoron. Fundamentalists believe in absolute truths, regardless of the available evidence. Evidence supporting those beliefs is sought out, while evidence contrary to their beliefs is disregarded, as in their eyes, it must be some sort of mistake. This is what makes fundamentalists irrational. The thought that their beliefs are a fundamental truth, and that's that.

However, I'm sure you'd agree that rational people consider ALL evidence available to them. And if more evidence comes to their attention, evidence contrary to the beliefs they have arrived at, a rational person adapts their beliefs to fit that evidence. This is why they cannot be considered fundamentalists.

"No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe", in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will. " - Richard Dawkins, ( http://old.richarddawkins.net... )
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
Actually, most good scientists are Rational Fundamentalists, because it's their job description.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
Also a Fundamentalist Rationalist is basing his belief in Actual Knowledge.
Thus his decisions will be entirely Rational, not Irrational as you mistakenly believe.
All their decisions are entirely Rationally Based on Actual Knowledge.
Nothing even remotely Irrational there.
These people are amongst the Most Intelligent people on the Planet.
It's the other side of Fundamentalism from Superstitious (Irrational based) Fundamentalism.
In case you missed this in my earlier post.
Not all Fundamentalism is Irrational.
I'm a Rationalist Fundamentalist.
I hate Irrationality and love stirring up Irrational people as a hobby.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
Superstitious people are far more likely to make decisions based on superstitions.
In fact, the deeper into superstition an individual is, the more they will base their decisions on those superstitions.
Superstitious fundamentalists are so deeply into believing their Superstition is absolute TRUTH that they base all their decisions on those superstitions.
Like my Astrology Fundamentalist ex girlfriend who did absolutely everything by her star sign and the Astrologer's predictions and table he drew up for her. She is definitely one of the least intelligent humans on the planet.
Others like Ayatollah Khomeini, who turned the world against his Islam as well as made Iran look like nothing but a nation of complete Idiots is another example of a Nation being led by a sub Intelligent human being.
Both are prime examples of completely Irrational, extremely low Intelligence human beings.
They are evidence that you are entirely WRONG.
Superstition based Fundamentalists are definitely the Least Intelligent people on Earth.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
AliAmerKumquatodorTied
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 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: FF.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 4 years ago
mrsatan
AliAmerKumquatodorTied
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 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: Conduct to Con due to Pros forfeits. Arguments to Con because Con actually made arguments.
Vote Placed by retroman000 4 years ago
retroman000
AliAmerKumquatodorTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made multiple spelling and grammatical errors, while Pro made none. Then again, Pro only made an opening argument, and then proceeded to forfeit all other rounds.