CreateDebate


Debate Info

49
43
Theists can't use _____ Atheists can't use____
Debate Score:92
Arguments:64
Total Votes:100
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Theists can't use _____ (30)
 
 Atheists can't use____ (28)

Debate Creator

debateleader(1350) pic



What arguments should we all consider useless when it comes to theists vs atheists debates

On both sides which are arguments are debunked?

Theists can't use _____

Side Score: 49
VS.

Atheists can't use____

Side Score: 43
7 points

Pascal's Wager

Cosmological argument

Teleological argument

Ontological argument

Argument from morality

Argument from personal experience

Transcendental argument

Almost all of them.

Side: Theists can't use _____

I don't use any of them they are stupid. Pascal's wager is not proof, it just a reason as to why you should look for God.

Side: Theists can't use _____

"Argument from personal experience"

I use that one for me only not in proving my points.

Side: Theists can't use _____
1 point

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
1 point

Care to say why they're useless?

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____

Are talking to me??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Side: Atheists can't use____
ChuckHades(3198) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
3 points

'The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways.' So Do Gods That Don't Exist!

Side: Theists can't use _____
2 points

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.

Side: Theists can't use _____
2 points

Theists have no argument. There is no evidence of any of their imaginary friends.

Side: Theists can't use _____
2 points

Who gives a ^&$^@# *%#!?! The Atheist vs Theist debate is pointless and neither side can win.

Side: Theists can't use _____
1 point

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.

Side: Theists can't use _____

well, technically if God exists then they would kind of be right, right?

Side: Theists can't use _____
Pito(27) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
1 point

When I ask, who created god, you can't honestly believe your statement of, he created himself

Side: Theists can't use _____
6 points

'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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
Nick91983(269) Disputed
3 points

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.

Side: Theists can't use _____
BenWalters(1513) Clarified
2 points

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.

Side: Theists can't use _____

I agree. But here's a question: would you give the same respect to their musical taste?

Side: Atheists can't use____
2 points

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
1 point

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
Pito(27) Clarified
1 point

Stupid, no. just wrong, maybe. 100% right, no. No problem elsewhere.

Side: Theists can't use _____
2 points

Uhh... I'll get back to you on that one :)

Side: Atheists can't use____
2 points

Science, logic, reason, fact, empirical evidence....

-

We have to even the playing field...

Side: Atheists can't use____
2 points

Don't forget sanity, the most important advantage we have.

Side: Atheists can't use____
1 point

atheists can't use sanity???????????/ What are you saying?

Side: Theists can't use _____
AdolEssence(60) Disputed
1 point

Science? Logic? Reason?!! FACT!?!

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...

Side: Theists can't use _____
Apollo(1606) Disputed
6 points

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
1 point

Who gives a ^&$^@# *%#!?! The Atheist vs Theist debate is pointless and neither side can win.

Side: Atheists can't use____
1 point

I totally agree :)

A person who believes that God doesn't exist, can't discuss it, cuz there is nothing to discuss.

Side: Atheists can't use____
0 points

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.

Side: Atheists can't use____
Pito(27) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Theists can't use _____
2 points

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. :)

Side: Theists can't use _____