CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
19
agree disagree
Debate Score:34
Arguments:25
Total Votes:44
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 agree (11)
 
 disagree (13)

Debate Creator

Canibus(77) pic



There is no scientific or philosophical reason to believe in a creator

Theism is literally based on nothing but blind faith and the irrational emotional needs of the subjective human psyche to bypass death and follow a code of behaviour.

agree

Side Score: 15
VS.

disagree

Side Score: 19
2 points

Is there no theist smart enough to produce an actual argument?

Side: agree

The problem with there being a creator is, who created the creator? ;)

Side: agree
GhostOfNom(166) Disputed
1 point

The problem with there being a creator is, who created the creator?

In fairness that isn't a problem because you're implying an infinite regression must necessarily exist in order for anything to be created. It works against atheists too if you think about it. For example: the problem with computers having a creator is who created the creator?

Side: disagree

It's turtles all the way down ;)

Side: disagree
5 points

There is no scientific or philosophical reason to believe in a creator

An objectively false statement, and a rather stupid statement of intellectual midgetry.

Side: disagree
Canibus(77) Disputed
1 point

An objectively false statement, and a rather stupid statement of intellectual midgetry.

You're literally subhuman, that's how cognitively impaired you are. That was a nice little assertion paired with ad-hominem but I'm afraid you are too stupid to have a real debate so I'm going to have to slap you in the face with my ban-stick.

Side: agree
TheNotorious(14) Disputed
1 point

An objectively false statement

It is your responsibility to prove it is objectively false, retard. This is a debate. When you just make random claims of fact and support them with absolutely nothing it proves that you're an idiot.

Side: agree

The chemical Darwinian definition of life: ‘Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.’

The problem with this definition is...Why would a self-sustained chemical system (capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution) acquire consciousness (the ability to modify its environment)? ;)

Side: disagree
GhostOfNom(166) Clarified
1 point

The problem with this definition is...Why would a self-sustained chemical system (capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution) acquire consciousness (the ability to modify its environment)? ;)

Well, no. It isn't a problem with the definition because the definition doesn't mention consciousness. You added that part yourself. It is however, a very good question. The scientific answer of course is that consciousness is a genetic mutation which greatly assisted the survival of our species.

BUT...

It leads onto some far more interesting questions. For example: why is life self-sustaining? What explains the survival of life before it became conscious and hence decided it wanted to survive? Physics bends towards chaos, not order, so why did life continue to survive and grow?

Side: agree

Consciousness is a genetic mutation? What kind of conspiracy theories do you subscribe to? That's just crazy talk ;)

Side: disagree
JoliesGoblin(6) Disputed
1 point

Darwin couldn't get his pecker hard ;-)

Side: agree

Did you try to get his pecker hard ;)

Side: agree
0 points

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Do your Muslims agree with you NOM ???????????????

Side: disagree
Mopac(73) Banned
-1 points

"There is no scientific or philosophical reason to believe in a creator"says the creator of this thread of debate.

Side: disagree