CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Pascal's Wager thrives on people being so blinded by fear of damnation that they act irrationally and choose god because it's "safer." This is a crappy reason to look for god, unless you admit that god is a fear-monger.
It's not even a reason you should "look for" god. There are an infinite number of gods one could be "looking" for. Also, why would you want to worship a being that would happily torture you forever? In addition to this, there is the atheist's wager. What if there is a maltheistic god (Cthulu?) that punishes faith and rewards disbelief. Then you're better off being an atheist, because if you're wrong, you get eternal paradise, and if you're right, nothing happens. However, if such a god exists and you are a theist, and you are right, you will suffer infinite torment. If you are wrong, you have wasted your life praying and stuff.
As well, if it's merely for the purpose of saying "none of them prove that God exists", that would make all debates on God useless... since nothing can either prove or disprove God.
At what point did I say they were useless? I don't agree with the premise of the question, the arguments are not useless. But they are arguments which no longer hold firm in debate. As for the point on debate, I would say it's not about proving or disproving a proposition. I would say it's about learning from another's view and agreeing to some kind of conclusion.
Well, you didn't really say anything. The question was "what arguments should we all consider useless" and you made a list.
And I then went on to say that I don't think that they're useless.
Once again... care to say how?
I'm sure I've already done this before. Whatever, one more time can't hurt.
Pascal's wager: It's more likely that the theist has picked the wrong God, and so would burn in the equivalent hell of the one true religion. So it is better to choose atheism, and know your fate to two options (either nothing happens, or you get tortured forever), rather than theism, and live your life devoted to that which is most probably false.
Cosmological argument: Poor reasoning to go from "the universe needed a creator" to "this creator cares about seafood, masturbation, condoms, etc." And the fact that the science in it does not even imply a creator. You can take anything as a first cause, anything you like, and just manipulate it to fit with the argument. Also, something can come from nothing (kind of).
Teleological argument: Complexity does not imply design. Just because we are too stupid to figure something out, does not make it designed. Once again, does not imply a theistic God. Commits the gamblers fallacy. And, has a strong rebuttal in the form of the ultimate 747 gambit.
Ontological argument: Imagining something does not make it true. I imagined that this piece of toast is the maximally great creator of everything. Therefore it is. This is normally the kind of stuff that has you sent to the asylum.
Argument from morality:
Makes the massive assumption that objective morality exists. Until the theist can prove it does, the argument is impotent.
Argument from personal experience: Unfalsifiable statement, unusable in debate.
Transcendental argument: Just because one is having such an experience, does not mean they can draw conclusions of our existence from it. They can't even be sure whether they are experiencing transcendence.
So most of it does come down to whether they can prove that God exists or not.
However, I can not see these arguments as something Theists can't use just because YOU have a certain view on them that is contrary. As an Atheist, it's natural for me look down on these arguments. However, if someone is to debate the topic with me I would merely debate them back.
So Theists can use it so long as you can debate it.
What Theists CAN'T use, however, is an unfalsifiable argument if they wish to debate an Atheist. Not empirically unfalsifiable (for there is no room for God in science), but philosophically. If they say "God exists", that is not an argument, they can't use that. They need to explain their reasoning and you can respond accordingly.
As well, these arguments that you listed are dependent on who provides them. You can not give the same response that you have given me for every person who makes these arguments, especially if they do it in the onset of a larger argument that has more arguments.
However, I can not see these arguments as something Theists can't use just because YOU have a certain view on them that is contrary.
I don't mean they actually cannot use them. I'm saying that they are arguments that have been rebutted in many different ways, and it is time consuming to go over the same ground over and over again.
So Theists can use it so long as you can debate it.
But when one debates the same arguments they have countered dozens of times before, there should be a point when these arguments are scrapped. Whenever I rebut the arguments I listed, I rarely get a relevant response. It's just not worth the time.
As well, these arguments that you listed are dependent on who provides them. You can not give the same response that you have given me for every person who makes these arguments, especially if they do it in the onset of a larger argument that has more arguments.
actually Pascal's wager can be used in comparing different religions with different punishments. I don't support pascal's wager because it is nothing more than a drive-force.
no special pleading allowed. no publicly debunked arguments allowed. ( arguments with insurmountable criticisms)
no logically fallacious arguments, as logic is the only common ground between theist and atheist. though theism is not logical, theists cant live practical daily lives without acceptance of logic as a useful tool to separate bunk from that which is sound.
The Moral Argument. It is theists (usually Christians) who are claiming access to a supernatural power which enables them to lead better lives than the rest of us, all in the face of the countless horrible deeds committed by Christians since the movement's inception.
They will then say that these individuals weren't genuine Christians, without an inkling of the problematic implications for divine omnibenevolence/veracity these occurrences have.
Additionally, this seems to be implicitly saying, ''prove to me you can have morality without God, then'', when atheists never claimed to be anything but humans who make mistakes just like everyone else, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto the nonbeliever.
Sure, but they have to have valid arguments/evidence in support of their claims, not simply assert them. Also, my point was that the problems noted above put notions such as Spirit-led living/religion as morally and ethically necessary to the lie; rather what we see is that believers are living equal lives to nontheists. On the assumption that these claims are true, we should indeed expect to see differently.
'God's just a stupid idea', 'just use your common sense', 'isn't it obvious'?
I hate atheists imposing that they're absolutely 100% right in an obnoxious manner, and then trying to tell theists that they're a) stupid or b) just wrong. It's a hugely personal matter, and I try not to bring it up unless all parties wish to talk about it, and whilst talking about it, I try not to be offensive.
Although I agree that people should be respectful of other people's right to have their own beliefs, I dont think that it is going too far to say that, insofar as objectively-based assent to the question about the existence or non-existence of an objectively subsistent phenomenon often called god, that theist are dumb - this is because insofar as objectively based assent goes they have no argument, i.e. there is no proof. Don’t get into an argument in which proof is necessary unless you have more than personal feelings. I cant go around saying that quarks are good things because i feel happy about their existence - people would say that I am stupid and they would be right to do so because I am imposing the subjective onto the objective – always unwarranted. The question exists both for an individual and for the world as a whole and insofar as it exists for the world as a whole the personal sentiments of any one person are irrelevant because empirical justification is required. Even the existence of the bible, all the religious writings, and the historical precedent of belief in all the people who do and have believed are insufficient when it comes to the question because none of these are sufficient insofar as the objectivity question is concerned – They are categorically subjective – you must realize that you are admitting this by saying that it is a personal matter.
Also, when you say that it is a personal matter you are denying that many religious people (even if you may not) try to impose their religious beliefs on others in moral and socio-political matters and thus, to the degree that a person imposes their beliefs, it is not a personal matter. If it were truly personal no one would feel the need to share their beliefs at any time or place (except maybe with their family in private forums) and no one would attempt to vote based on their beliefs - If there is any political quality to a person's beliefs insofar as they allow those beliefs to dictate what they assent to in a political forum the quality and nature of the belief is no longer personal by definition.
It is incumbent upon all citizens to recognize the necessary separation of the subjective and objective insofar as what it is they assent to in a political forum – if you are an American it is wrong to vote based on your religious beliefs because this is, in essence, seeking to establish a law or policy that respects religious establishment – not allowed for by the first amendment. Even if there are subtle ways in which you could say that your religious beliefs are not part of a specific established religion such as Catholicism or Judaism, etc… it is the spirit of the amendment to deny religious ideas (personal subjective sentiments) insofar as law and policy are concerned – Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion insofar as one persons religion could impose something one me that is not secularly universalizable, i.e. not universally applicable independent of the assumptions made in a given religious tradition.
Although I agree that people should be respectful of other people's right to have their own beliefs, I dont think that it is going too far to say that, insofar as objectively-based assent to the question about the existence or non-existence of an objectively subsistent phenomenon often called god, that theist are dumb - this is because insofar as objectively based assent goes they have no argument, i.e. there is no proof.
First of all, I would contend that telling theists they are dumb is an argument really, it's not going to change anyones mind. Second, there are definitely arguments for theism, the most obvious to me, being the Cosmological argument. Yes, they are disputable, and I don't agree with them, but I hardly feel that it makes someone dumb to disagree with me.
The question exists both for an individual and for the world as a whole and insofar as it exists for the world as a whole the personal sentiments of any one person are irrelevant because empirical justification is required. Even the existence of the bible, all the religious writings, and the historical precedent of belief in all the people who do and have believed are insufficient when it comes to the question because none of these are sufficient insofar as the objectivity question is concerned – They are categorically subjective – you must realize that you are admitting this by saying that it is a personal matter.
Again, I disagree. I feel that your religious beliefs are a personal choice, and I also feel that empirical justification is not required. Can you absolutely 100% prove that there is no God? All beliefs are personal matters.
Also, when you say that it is a personal matter you are denying that many religious people (even if you may not) try to impose their religious beliefs on others in moral and socio-political matters and thus, to the degree that a person imposes their beliefs, it is not a personal matter.
That is a strawman. I simply said that those arguments are not appropriate for a debate on theism vs atheism. I mentioned nothing about the application of either belief, or about whether or not I agree with the imposition of an individuals beliefs on others.
If there is any political quality to a person's beliefs insofar as they allow those beliefs to dictate what they assent to in a political forum the quality and nature of the belief is no longer personal by definition.
In the same way that no belief is truly personal, our opinions are built off of teaching from other people. Humans, generally, do not produce new knowledge, we learn, we regurgitate, we replicate what we are told. Obviously, all knowledge must be developed originally, but only by one person. Everyone else is just learning the ideas.
if you are an American it is wrong to vote based on your religious beliefs because this is, in essence, seeking to establish a law or policy that respects religious establishment – not allowed for by the first amendment.
So I couldn't vote for a president who best represents me? I think that it is wrong to campaign in such a way that aims to manipulate peoples religious beliefs, but to vote for someone because they are religious is not a problem.
-I dont think that the cosmological argument holds any weight insofar as the objectivity question is concerned and that is all I was saying. For the same reason that the cosmological argument is disputable, the cosmological argument cannot be used as an argument for assent to the objective subsistence of god - insofar as it cannot do this, anyone who assents to objective knowledge as to the existence of god is being dumb, like i said, getting into an arguement in which proof is required without any proof is dumb - like showing up to a gun fight without a gun. The cosmological argument is one that tries to force the plausibility of god with logic, however, it makes too many assumptions and since it relies on no evidence it cannot be used insofar as the assent to objective knowledge of god is concerned, especially insofar as the belief of god relates to social and political discourse.
-On the second point you made, I wasnt arguing that religious beliefs are not personal, I was arguing that insofar as the social and political world are concerned, religious beliefs ought to be categorically invalid - specifically because they are personal and not social and political in nature - i.e. they are not justifiably universalizable.
-On the third point, my argument is not that much of a straw man, one cannot deny the real world effects of religious belief insofar as religious beliefs effect the real world - one does not need to prove that god does not exist in order to deny the right someone has to impose their religious beliefs on another person via social and political imposition - The founding fathers of the United States recognized this as fundamental and this is why the first amendment was written. All belifs are not personal matters, only personal beliefs are personal matters. The fact that france exists or that nuclear fusion is the process behind solar energy output has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about these matters - thus insofar as geopolitics and astronomy is concerned, what i think or feel is of little justifiable relevance. Another example of this is the fact of evolution - it is a process that has been observed in nature and it exists independent of our recognizing that it is happening, once we recognized that it was a fact of our reality we then tried to make generalizations about it and made testable theories about it modern evolutionary theory is the product of these testable generalizations of the observed fact that is evolution. Anyone's personal feelings about the fact of evolution existing or not is inconsequential to its existence - This is why evolution is, by definition, an objectively subsistent phenomenon of nature. Generally speaking, objective subsistence is that which exists independent of our perception of it - No one can say that god is such a phenomenon and this is what is central to the point I am making - we cannot operate our world under assumptions that have no objective basis.
-I wasnt sure what your point was on the 4th part - My point was to emphasize the need for the compartmentalization of a person's personal private sentiments that might order their private life in contrast with their public social and political sentiments which are the opinions one assents to in these public forums. The fact that understanding and beliefs come from the human social and intellectual discourse is irrelevant to how those beliefs are applied to the world insofar as the proper place they hold in the two human spheres - private and personal life and public poltical forum.
-To your last point, I think that people should vote for people who represent them socio-politically, that the religious component is a categorically invalid insofar as the social and political forum are concerned - Thus it is wrong to vote based on religious views - it crosses the line of private/public, subjective/objective, and justifiable/unjustifiable.
I dont think that the cosmological argument holds any weight insofar as the objectivity question is concerned and that is all I was saying.
I don't think any point holds any weight objectively, or else you would be able to prove either way, and there would be no debate. I don't feel you can prove either way beyond reasonable doubt, therefore there is room for debate, therefore I believe that some arguments are somewhat valid.
I was arguing that insofar as the social and political world are concerned, religious beliefs ought to be categorically invalid
&
one cannot deny the real world effects of religious belief insofar as religious beliefs effect the real world
Again, I don't disagree that they shouldn't dictate the worlds that they do, but misconduct on the behalf of a belief does not invalidate that belief, which is what the debate is about.
My point was to emphasize the need for the compartmentalization of a person's personal private sentiments that might order their private life in contrast with their public social and political sentiments which are the opinions one assents to in these public forums
So you're talking about how people act differently in public to private? Again, I don't see how it's relevant.
To your last point, I think that people should vote for people who represent them socio-politically, that the religious component is a categorically invalid insofar as the social and political forum are concerned
First of all, not relevant, and I disagree, but not going to follow it up.
Of course, everyone has the right to their own interests, their own beliefs. It's when they try and assert these opinions as facts, that I believe it is justified to lose respect for them.
OK: OMG I luv bieber!!!
Not OK: OMG bieber's the best singer ever!!!
I apply the same to religion, I have no problem (at an individual level) with people thinking what they want, where it affects nothing but themselves, as long as they can rationally justify it to themselves. When they start asserting their opinions as facts, or where they start denying facts to explain their opinions, I lose respect for them.
BTW, I differ with you in saying that it's perfectly fine in my view for one to both believe and state that another, even all others, are incorrect about a given thing or idea. It's when one disrespects another/their right to differ that things should change.
Yes I would; didn't notice this one, sorry. It makes no difference though, as musical interests are distinct in nature, scope and ramifications from claims about history, the origin and essence of reality, and humankind's duties/responsibilities to(ward) each other.
I don't care if you feel a need to "even the playing field", if one such as yourself suggests that we can't use all of the above for a debate then what's the point of debating? You're making it seem like theists are simple minded people that lack logic and reasoning. So if you really want to even the playing field, how about you actually learn how to think like most atheists can do. Use your brain sir.
But I understand, that might be what seperates theists and atheists in the first place. Theists refuse to look at what's already in front of them, like science(which is real), and they also refuse to think for themselves. Use your logic and reasoning my good sir...Unless of course you lack logic and reasoning...
Wow. Some people can't take a joke. By the way, that was self-deprecating humor in a way. Let's see if you can deduce my religious beliefs from that statement.
Yeah, and some people suck at telling jokes in the first place.
By the by, I could care less what your religious beliefs are, this is a debate site, not just a religious debate site. If I just so happen to read something you post and see it as something debatible, then I'll debate.
I don't voice my opinion on things I could care less about. I have an intangible virtue my good sir.
Just because it's a debate involving religion doesn't mean we touch every spec of religion. It cleary says,"What arguments should we all consider useless when it comes to theists vs atheists debates". What does that have to do with me deducing his personal religous beliefs? Exactly nothing...
What does that have to do with me deducing his personal religous beliefs?
Because his personal beliefs give him a different view on arguments than you. For example, you may find the teleological argument effective. He may find it useless. That's probably down to his beliefs, or lack of them.
Like I said, what does that have to do with ME! deducing his personal religous beliefs. If this is a debate site, then all I need to know to debate is what my own beliefs are, I didn't come here to learn about what other people think, I already know what other people think and I could care less.
This is also a debate site full of seemingly intelligent people, so even though it could be argued that the point of debating is to help others see what you see as true, it becomes that much harder when talking to someone smart. Why, because if you're smart, then you think you're right, and how easily will you accept someone telling you you're wrong. So I gave up on caring what other people think a long time ago, cause in the end it doesn't matter. If I can change your views then that's good, if not, that's on you.
In addition, this is an anti-intellectual stance you're taking. It's subtly implied (to me) that the best way to mitigate against/prevent arrogance is to avoid education or critical examination whenever possible. Is that the path you'd have one take?
First of all, don't downvote someone when you know nothing of what you speak of.
I am an example of someone who is truly indifferent to others' views; I would not try to persuade a homophobe of the error of his ways. Why, because nothing is wrong in this world. That is the point of view of someone who is indifferent, someone like myself.
And when someone says something like that, I know to disregard it. No one, repeat, NO ONE views say, serial murder as ethical to any degree unless one has serious problems oneself.
Well you sir are a close minded child if thats the way you think.
Don't disregard what I have to say, you don't disregard what people have to say in a true debate, it proves your ignorance sir.
Where is your proof that NO ONE veiws say serial murder as ethical. You don't even know WHY I view serial murder as ethical. You have reasons for what you think is right and wrong, why can't I? You my sir are what I like to call regular, just like everyone else, as soon as you see something you don't understand, it's automatically wierd or crazy.
The reason why serial murder is ethical in my eyes is because death is natural. You don't think death is ethical because man has said so since the beginning of man. You my friend need to learn how to think for yourself and maybe then you'd see what I can see.
I will prove to you the justification of murder.
First of all, justice is natural, and man will never be able to obtain true justice because man goes against nature.
Okay but what are the laws of nature? Nature exists onto itself. Nature is the only immortal thing this universe has to offer. Why is it immortal you might ask? Because it takes care of itself. Take the world for example, the Earth is dieing, but nature isn't killing it, man is killing Earth. How? Well for one we are quickly depleting the Earth's resources and this is happening because we are becoming overpopulated. And the truth is we are STILL steadily increasing and no one is doing anything about it, instead we'd rather worry about the next presidential election of some one country when in all honesty we don't just live on one country like the U.S. We live on the entire planet! Without Earth, where is the U.S? Nowhere, but who's stepping up to save Earth, no one. But there will come a day when the world is so populated that the only way to save the planet is to either move to another one, which isn't likely with our population growth rate, or to kill people already on the planet. People WILL have to die, as much as the human race runs from death, people need to die. Why? Because death is natural, death was created by nature to keep the immortal cycle alive. If you don't understand that then you might as well sign your name on the death certificate of the human race. That's why I believe serial murder is ethical, because death is natural.
Oh and whe we come to the point when people need to die, the only justified way of choosing who dies is by letting everyone fight to the death(which is murder technically). And why you might ask? Because then everyone has a fair chance of survival, and if you die, then that is nothing but the result of natural selection, the strong live to reproduce and the weak die off.
If you don't see death as natural then I think you're the one with the problem sir...
There's a logical fallacy for that, and it's called the naturalistic fallacy. One cannot derive an ought from an is. That is, the mere occurrence in nature of a phenomenon tells us nothing of its' morality; our compassion/empathy for our fellow human being aids us in this area. Again, you have a right to your own beliefs, but I am not obligated to respect them, only that right.
Then why should we not rectify its' bad aspects and make further use of its' good ones? It seems to me that your argument remains inadequate. As for debate, disagreement exists everywhere and proves absolutely nothing, in and of itself, about the correctness/incorrectness of any particular stance; it's ironic that you'd say this on a debate website.
We should not rectiy its bad aspects because there is no possible way to rectify them. Its nature, you can't beat it. As much as man goes against nature, we to are a part of nature, if somehow there were a way to change nature, we would have to change ourselves. My argument is not inadequate, it's fact. Nature is both right and wrong, but right and wrong go hand and hand, you can't have one without the other. In nature, right and wrong cancel eachother out because nature accepts both of them (That's true justice sir), yet man thinks about foolish ideas like, "Then why should we not rectify its bad aspects and make further use of its good ones?", when man should just be one with nature and there would be no problems. As long as man opposes what they see as wrong, they will never have true justice, because justice is natural, a combination of both right and wrong.
As for debate, its true that disagreement exists everywhere and proves absolutely nothing, but what you fail to realize is that agreement also exists everywhere and proves absolutely everything. People debate eachother on sides and things like that, people like you sir...but what people like you don't understand is that arguments gets you nowhere, as long as you stay on one side arguing with someone else on their side, you shall be wasting your time sir. What most people don't know is that everyone is right and wrong at the same time, and if you would just come to an agreement (meet eachother in the middle instead of arguing on one side), then you would have the answer.
That is why I say this on a debate site, because people like you don't know how to debate. I see everyone's point of view, I am the middle man. If you debate with someone, argue your point, and walk away from that debate never seeing your opponents side, then all you have done is wasted time in your life sir, everything and everyone is a tool for improving yourself. If everyone could just come together life, would be so much easier, but people would rather argue, thinking that they know it all.
So it is not ironic that I would say this on a debate website, but it is ironic that you wouldn't...try again sir...
And this time, use your imagination and see everyone elses point of view.
Very thought-provoking indeed. And yet, your argument still makes use of fallacious reasoning. You see, while it is never detrimental to explore, debate, study and learn from ideas, there are very rare occasions when all that is necessary for one to reject a position is to be aware of errors and inconsistencies in the arguments of the advocate, considering that the position itself is flawed and at times, is only held because the proponent him/herself is accustomed to reasoning similarly. In my view, this is one of those times.
Ok apparently you have no idea what I'm trying to convey. I'd rather not debate about debating principles because there is nothing left to see in that department.
All I'm saying is, like I previously stated when we first started debating eachother, I am totally indifferent to people's views and there are others just like me. I think I've proven my point sir.
What I see from a lot of atheists (but not all) is the argument that "intelligent people" are not religious because they have something physical, or proven, to know, rather than something unseen to have faith in. That argument is ignorant and biased. There are plenty of intelligent people who believe in God. I respect everyone's choice to believe what they wish, but to those atheists who are disrespectful, I say it takes one who is not shallow and narrow-minded to have faith in the unseen.
It is theists who often claim certainty, even going so far as to pronounce upon the fate or psychological state of the nonbeliever who, for their part, typically request nothing more than GOOD EVIDENCE in support of theism. While I am a strong atheist (I will elaborate on this if you wish), most atheists are, I've heard/seen, merely reacting to the offensive tactics used by the evangelists or apologists themselves.
I agree with a lot of what you said - they probably are just rebutting to theist arguments. But I also think it's due to a severe lack of communication. I have atheist and agnostic friends, I even have Wiccan and pagan friends, and we all know what the other's beliefs are and where we all stand and we RESPECT each other's rights to believe what we choose. We have civil religious conversations and they never speak ill of my beliefs, nor I of theirs.
I guess what I'm saying is I'm not critical of others' beliefs until mine are baselessly attacked, for which I will retaliate. Otherwise, I'm content to leave that discussion at the door. :)