Instigator / Pro
7
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1061
Atheism
Status
Finished
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
Club
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Religion
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000
- Required rating
- 1400
Contender / Con
6
1491
rating
10
debates
45.0%
won
Description
~ 87
/
5,000
Atheism, in my POV, the best "religion" out there. The belief in SCIENCE, and NO GODS.
Round 1
I'll waive, I don't wanna troll to ruin this.
Forfeited
Round 2
My opponent has made a very great argument.
My responses below
(nothing)
EXACTLY!!!! There's nothing wrong with Atheism, thanks for the AWESOME concession.
(nothing)
My opponent also says there's nothing good about atheism, well in fact THAT'S WRONG. Do you have to go worship? No. Do you have to spend your time studying a holy book? No... You don't even need an official to certify you being an atheist. Convenience, convenience, convenience...
(nothing)
Thank you too for the debate...
Sorry for missing an argument, I didn't use my computer over the weekend and forgot about my debates.
Atheism is definitely a very good religion. But is it the best?
Well, the parameters of the debate require that I answer no.
However, I could not represent any major religions in my arguments, as they have all done something that makes people disapprove of their values. Christians and Catholics have impeded science and development. Jewish require learning the ancient language of Hebrew. Islamic have bad radicals, etc.
But those religions aren't the only ones in the world. I believe that a good religion, even better than atheism, could be a small, HARMLESS cult.
If this cult had these things, it would be better to follow than atheism.
1.) Teaches science
2.) Doesn't charge money besides donations to charity
3.) Doesn't impede change and accepts all people.
4.) Has a strong following of smart people who follow intentionally, and not because of empty promises.
5.) Teaches and changes to the modern times.
6.) Upholds the law, and teaches other to uphold the law.
7.) Makes other people better people, and punishes those who impede other's enjoyment of life with punishments within the parameters of the law.
8.) Doesn't praise gods, instead praises beauty (In the earth, in people, etc.) and good deeds.
If this religion was taught, I would join it, because it can't cloud judgement and allows people to better themselves for the world to be better. It doesn't speak lies of gods but instead keeps everything modern and true. The "Holy book" would be edited and changed similar to the constitution as needed, and it would co-operate with the US government to preform necessary punishments in a legal way, as understood by the country's law.
Round 3
Atheism is definitely a very good religion.
Thank you for conceding
. But is it the best? Well, the parameters of the debate require that I answer no.
I never said it was the best, I said if it was good or bad. I just said I thought it was the best. Please don't get sidetracked.
But those religions aren't the only ones in the world. I believe that a good religion, even better than atheism, could be a small, HARMLESS cult.
But does this cult exist? No! It doesn't even prove that atheism is bad.
Atheism, in my POV, the best "religion" out there.
Sure you didn’t say it, dude.
The end goal of the debate would logically be to prove atheism is the best religion, as you didn’t specify anything beyond the rules and the title of the debate. One would logically assume atheism being the best religion is the thing we are arguing about. I demonstrated my logical argument against this by saying it is not the best religion, and then my opponent said I got sidetracked.
the cult I argued very likely does exist, as there are 7.5 billion people in the world and you only not need a couple to make a cult,
so, my opponent arguing that atheism is a good religion causes a very one-sided debate that people couldn’t possibly argue against, since it is matter of opinion.
triple oopsie
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WalterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Sorry, Debaticus but you didn't defend the other religions and straight up conceded saying atheism isn't bad. Instead, you chose to create this questionable "cult" idea out of nowhere which doesn't argue against atheism. So sorry mate good luck debating.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Saying that, this does not qualify as a conceded debate, and thus the voter does not sufficiently assess any of the voting points awarded. The voter should review the voting requirements section of the code of conduct
*******************************************************************
If no one has voted on this in a couple days, remind me and I'll vote. ... Also in case no one has said it, atheism isn't a religion (surprised con did not raise this point).
Just because it'll likely doesn't mean it exists
I just think that, the debate isn't about it. It's about if it's good or bad, not the best. So far you haven't proved a single reason why it was bad
We could debate this later, I have a lot of debates to do now.
I would argue that the "Stone Too Heavy to Lift" paradox is not mathematical-- it's actually illogical. It also depends on how one defines "omnipotence", does it not? If you define "omnipotence" to include also having the ability to do the illogical, or the logically impossible, (such as creating a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, a married bachelor, a one-ended stick, etc etc) then I would agree your version of "omnipotence" is impossible. But I would (and I'm willing to guess most Christian theologians wouldn't either) not define "omnipotence" as being able to do the logically impossible (i.e. the illogical).
The "stone too heavy to lift" paradox is often used to "dis-prove" the existence of God, or at least God's Omnipotence. But I would argue that the paradox is illogical and doesn't make sense. The paradox is basically asking "Can a being of Unlimited Power produce something to limit him", but it's Unlimited Power, by definition, rules out that possibility. One can say (argue) that there are some things an Unlimited Being can't do precisely because it's Unlimited (i.e. omnipotent).
I'll admit, the "stone too heavy to lift" scenario is fun thought experiment, much like the "Can an all-powerful God create a square circle? Or a married bachelor? Or a one-ended stick? Or a triangle with 2 sides?" A being with unlimited power would have to create a rock that is infinite in size. But a rock, by definition, is finite. It just "doesn't make sense".
I'll close by adding this. I've heard someone respond to the "stone too heavy to lift" question this way:
An Omnipotent Being could indeed create anything it wants, including a stone of infinite size, and the Omnipotent Being would also be able to lift it.
Proof is mathematical.
Evidence points to a conclusion.
For example, I can prove that omnipotence is impossible because an omnipotent being cannot create an unliftable rock. That's proof, it's mathematical.
If a criminal commits a crime and we find his fingerprints, that's evidence because it points to the conclusion that he did it.
** "But evidence =/= proof". **
If I may dig a little deeper, what exactly is "proof"....or how would you define "proof"?
Yeah, you got me. But evidence =/= proof.
Alright, back from a long weekend. So you admit that some people may not recognize or acknowledge, for whatever reason, any evidence that is presented (regardless of topic). My assumption is that you are not immune from this as well-- in other words, there could be a topic out there, that for whatever reason, you may not acknowledge or recognize any evidence presented, correct?
So let's just say hypothetically I would present some evidence (regardless of topic), there is a very real possibility you could say "Nope, that is not evidence. YOu haven't presented evidence yet", even though the evidence is before you, correct? There is a very real possibility that that could happen, correct?
I'm hoping you're going to post next round...
30 seconds
1 minute!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 MINUTES!!!!!!!!!!
15 minutes left!!!!
I have a nagging feeling that Debaticus is going to win.
I'm kinda lost, you went from sugar in coffee to "you don't have any evidence"
lol how many comments
Break it up you three, I am the person who is arguing here.
You haven’t presented anything which you claim to be evidence. That’s how I know that you have not presented evidence.
But go ahead, do it. Present it.
**Yes, it’s true that when presented evidence some people can be blind. But you haven’t presented any evidence. At all.**
Again, that begs the question- what if you are unable to see the evidence or unable to recognize it. If you are unable to, then how can you make the claim I haven't presented any? I'm playing Devils' Advocate here.
Are you so sure you can recognize the evidence of XYZ's existence if it was presented before you? How can you be so sure you would or can. I could present A, B, and C as evidence, but you could be blind to it and say "nope, that's not evidence. You haven't presented any evidence yet that proves XYZ exists."
XYZ could be anything....God....sugar in coffee...an honest lawyer.
** To determine if the person is able to recognize evidence, you must first provide some evidence. You haven't.**
That begs the question, if you are unable to recognize the evidence, how can you make the claim that I haven't presented any?
Yes, it’s true that when presented evidence some people can be blind. But you haven’t presented any evidence. At all.
** Can you provide a cite for that? Seem like an oddly free-wheeling definition to me- I ascribe supreme importance to my pursuit of respiration- is breathing therefore my religion? **
The definition I added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." was the result of a quick (very quick!) Google search on the word "religion". It's actually the first thing that Google displayed when I searched "religion". I guess it's Google Dictionary, for lack of a better term?
Merriam-Webster offers a very similar definition as well: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
I agree it is oddly free-wheeling, and really underscores how words and definitions can be changed (don't get me started on the whole "gender" definition).