Instigator / Pro
6
1395
rating
22
debates
20.45%
won
Topic
#584

Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and Borrows from the Bible

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments:

Arbitrary - pro argues that atheism is arbitrary because it relies on man.

That seems nonsensical on its face - as con points out in the definition of arbitrary - con points out that there are limited numbers of types of atheism and they are not changeable on a whim.

Pro in R2 equates illogical with arbitrary - which con points out - and dismisses the argument from illogical as irrelevant.

Pro in R3 that atheism is morality relative, and thus arbitrary. Con separates the morality part from atheism - I didn’t think this was as good as the rest of this portion.

Pro argues that to not be arbitrary, it requires one person setting the standard. This conflicts with definition of arbitrary presented - so I can’t accepted it. Moreover - con points out that atheism is not arbitrary as it is based on objective evidence rather than subjective opinion.

Boom, headshot.

Pro refutes none of cons argument here - con proves atheism is not arbitrary.

Inconsistent/morality

Pro argues that atheism is inconsistent because of its moral approach. Con points out it’s not a moral system. This was dropped by pro.

Pro argues atheists get their morality from the bible. Con asks pro to prove biblical morality was the source of all morality rather than stemming from innante justice - I liked this argument.

Pro argues atheists are inconsistent - but doesn’t seem to tie this to atheism - and as such I don’t feel it’s relevant.

Given the lack of rebuttal: atheism is not inconsistent.

Borrowed from the bible.

Morality - as covered - cannot be said to be borrowed as com pointed out. Pro needs to argue how pro knows the bible is a cause of morality, rather than written as a symptom of innate justice im humans.

With laws of logic - pro again confuses atheism with atheists and while con is a bit laboured in the rebuttal effectively says atheism doesn’t promote the biblical materialism directly, and atheists can believe in other scenarios.

That is the final rebuttal - con nominally disproved all three contentions. Any one of which would have defeated the resolution.

All other points tied.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Highlight of the debate which more debaters should use: "This is something we can agree on for this debate's sake and just move on with as it's totally irrelevant to the Debate Resolution."

Summery of the debate: "...Pro's case was some kind of rant to prove Atheism unimportant as well as wrong. Atheism can be unimportant and wrong and still fail to fit this debate's Title's criteria."

S&G: Pro, I give you props for improving your formatting as the debate progressed. It will be very helpful in winning future debates.
Conduct: Not outright penalizing a point, we all went thought growing pains on this, and it really seemed to be ignorance instead of malice.
Sources: This ends up favoring con by too large a margin to ignore. Put simply, con schooled pro. Pulling sources for ethical concepts pro had never heard of (like teachings from Plato), could not challenge, but still tried to disagree with... It intensified the worry about pro thinking murder is A-okay so long as an invisible friend isn't actively telling you not to.
Arguments: Basically no contest.

...

For arguments, I am only focusing on the barrows from the bible (read the rest, they went as predicted... but if the big claim isn't proven, the resolution has already failed): Pro made some assertions that an invisible friend is the only way people can be moral, to which con countered with the basic human condition, and pro tried to refute this by asking where that comes from... No real contest.

...

Something else worth noting from this debate, was an off topic argument pro brought up near the end, which makes me wonder if he's using Poe's Law on us:
"Con is mostly correct in that religions are man made. There is one exception, Judeo-Christianity is not. The God of the Bible is not made by man. His thoughts are well established in His Word written to man. Judeo-Christianity is not arbitrary for One God makes the rules and His truth is absolute."

That line is best read in the voice of Edward Current: https://youtu.be/pusSNjBd8do