CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
26
Atheism Theism
Debate Score:60
Arguments:41
Total Votes:65
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Atheism (20)
 
 Theism (17)

Debate Creator

RightWing11(39) pic



Atheism or theism. Which is right?

Atheism

Side Score: 34
VS.

Theism

Side Score: 26
2 points

In short: Zero objective evidence for theism. Growing body of research indicating that theism is an evolutionary byproduct, the disposition for which is identifiable in particular genetic sequencing.

Side: Atheism
14giraffes(87) Disputed
1 point

Zero objective evidence for theism.

That's "science vs. religion" while in actuality religion and science are two sides of the same coin. When arguments are used against religion or visa versa, both sides cancel each other out anywhere you look. For example, there is also zero objective evidence for the material world or the fact that we have bodies.

Albert Einstein. Out of My Later Years. pg. 24

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Side: Theism
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

Both sides cancel each other out anywhere you look.

Religion doesn't cancel out science since the religion can't be verified.

Side: Atheism
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

That's science vs. religion.

No it isn't. Religion is a full collection of beliefs, and Theism is a single belief. It is observational vs. faith.

Religion and science are actually two sides of the same coin.

Fiction being important doesn't make the topic of the fiction actually exist.

Side: Atheism

Neither is technically "right". However Atheism is more right. Atleast that's my opinion anyway.

Side: Atheism
RightWing11(39) Disputed
3 points

I disagree, but I applaud you for being nice about it, and saying that it is your opinion in a polite way. Some people just get really aggressive... I like your method. :)

Side: Theism
1 point

Thanks man, its not often I get a compliment like that. Anyways how about we have a friendly debate as to why you and I disagree with each other.

Side: Atheism
byb263(9) Clarified
1 point

Saying that atheism is more right implies the existence of relative truths. For example, christians might say that whatever religion says about evolution is true to them but as an atheist aligned with more scientific perspectives, you should refute the existence of such relative truths. Thus you must say atheism is right (in regards to what is another to what is another matter) and theism is wrong, or you cannot use the word "right" as you risk being philosophically inconsistent.

Side: Atheism

First of all there is no evidence for God and as it is the theist who makes the claim the burden of proof lies on them. Furthermore the idea of an omnipotent being is impossible. If God can do anything then can he make a rock that is so heavy even he cannot lift? Either way he cannot be all powerful. Theism is essentially just having an imaginary friend. Also even if God does exist he is worthy of no reverence for allowing so much suffering to exist.

The fact that Theists are statistically less intelligent says it all really.

Side: Atheism
3 points

Theism must be correct because Naturalism is incorrect. So, this debate will simply disprove Naturalism.

Under Naturalism, one of three things is true.

1. Nature is past-eternal.

2. Nature came from nothing.

3. Nature created itself.

In order for nature to be eternal, this implies that the present is dependent on a literal infinite number of past events. We can mathematically disprove the existence of all infinite quantities by pointing to contradictions well-known within mathematics, such as Hilbert's Hotel and the Infinite Dartboard.

Nature coming from nothing is also a contradiction because the moment you state what created nature, you immediately assign that thing a property, and thus the "nothing" that created nature must have not been literally nothing.

Nature creating itself poses yet another contradiction, this time with identity. If nature created itself, then nature must have preexisted itself. If nature preexisted nature, then there must have been a time when nature existed before nature existed. You therefore end up with the awkward situation where nature both existed and didn't exist at one point. Since something cannot both have and lack existence at the same time, we end with a contradiction and thus an impossible scenario.

Thus, disproving naturalism, which means that the metaphysical must exist independent of the laws of nature.

Side: Theism
Jace(5187) Disputed
2 points

Identical objections may be raised against the proposition of God, rendering your points against naturalism non-unique. Your "proof" is that because we remain ignorant about the origins of the universe your utterly unsubstantiated assumptive faith in God must be the true answer; this does not follow.

Side: Atheism
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

Your criticisms are predominantly founded on the problem of treating infinity as a quantity, rather than as a concept. Infinity itself is beyond the scope of our mathematics, generally speaking.

In order for nature to be eternal, this implies that the present is dependent on a literal infinite number of past events.

Not as such. Recall that the universe is overwhelmingly large- possibly not infinite, but far larger than we are able to measure, much less base calculations on. The current state of everything is based on a cycle of cause and effect. In a universe of sufficient size, with an infinite amount of time to work with, conditions that will eventually lead to the formation of a star system with at least one planet capable of supporting life as we know it and eventually generating said life are bound to arise occasionally- possibly even regularly.

We can mathematically disprove the existence of all infinite quantities by pointing to contradictions well-known within mathematics, such as Hilbert's Hotel and the Infinite Dartboard.

Emphasis on 'infinite quantities.' The term infinity itself is a concept that transcends all notion of quantity. Trying to treat infinity as a numerical quantity is non-sensical, and as such it is not surprising that mathematical constructs that attempt to do so create very strange results.

Thus, disproving naturalism, which means that the metaphysical must exist independent of the laws of nature.

Naturalism is not 'disproved' in this manner any more than 1=2 is 'proved' via a mathematical proof that hides division by zero with variables.

Side: Atheism
2 points

Why would there NOT be a God? This universe is so wonderful. You say it happened by CHANCE? Weird.

Side: Theism
2 points

Why would there NOT be a God? This universe is so wonderful. You say it happened by CHANCE? Weird.

You could make that argument about any universe that exists. You think that just because something is complicated, and has things that can be interpreted as being beneficial, it must be created by a God you read about in some book that has only been around for approximately 0.000000142% of the existence of the universe?

You could make the same argument for an infinite number of universes. How does the fact that the one we are in happens to be one that can be interpreted as favorable prove the existence of a being that created the universe?

And if you knew anything about your opposition's argument, we don't argue that the world we are in now developed by CHANCE. As you would know if you studied evolutionary biology, whenever a new generation of a species is born, there will be natural changes (i.e., you are not the same person as your parents) and there will also be various mutations. Species that have mutations and features that are favorable will survive, keeping those traits alive, ultimately creating a species that is, as you say, 'wonderful.' That is the opposite of chance.

This argument you are making is fallacious. You claim that because the world we are in is (subjectively) 'wonderful,' then your explanation for said world must be correct. However, I could just as easily make up my own story of why the universe is so wonderful using the same evidence. This argument is incredibly flawed.

Side: Atheism
Jace(5187) Disputed
1 point

Casual speculation and naive endorsement of the entire universe do not even remotely constitute evidence in support of theism. Neither does an overly-simplistic and inaccurate reduction of one alternative non-theist viewpoint. Finally, just because something falls outside your realm of comprehension does not make it incorrect.

Side: Atheism
RightWing11(39) Disputed
2 points

I think YOU saying that something you believe "falls outside my realm of comprehension" is a bit OTT, since I have done better than quite a few 16 year olds on a science test... and that was when I was NINE.

Side: Theism
Nomoturtle(856) Disputed
1 point

you would have called a different universe equally beautiful if its laws gave you the opportunity to survive in it

Side: Atheism
RightWing11(39) Disputed
2 points

How does that disprove theism?! XD I find your attempt to humiliate me hilarious...

Side: Theism

Both entities are right.....it just depends on the mind of the beholder.

Side: Theism