Atheism is bizzare
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
“…We said, ‘Go down, all of you, from here [Paradise]. Then when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance, there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.’”
“Therein (on Earth) you will live, and therein you will die, and from it you will be brought forth.”
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter.1
“Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them…” (Qur’an 21:30)
- This matches the idea that the universe began from a single point.
- It is the same as treason laws in most countries — even atheistic ones.
- Qur’an elsewhere says:“There is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256)“If they incline to peace, incline to it also.” (8:61)
- Contingent existence — things that could either exist or not exist (like stars, planets, living beings) and depend on external causes.
- Necessary existence — something that must exist by its very nature and cannot not exist (God is defined this way in theism).
For example, evolution has also favored deception, aggression, and domination in certain contexts. Without an external moral standard, it’s difficult to argue why some evolved behaviors (like helping) are “good” and others (like exploitation) are “bad” beyond personal or cultural preference. Secular systems can build moral frameworks (humanism, utilitarianism), but they still rely on foundational moral assumptions that are, at their core, unprovable axioms — just like religious moral systems. Do you speak any other language other than English ?
Sources are the spine of an argument, especially in tis instance. Without them, the argument has no legs to stand on.
That said, pro backs practically all his arguments with idolatry, making his argument fragile and nonsensical.
Despite pro's failure to use proper sources, con actually provides decent rhetoric to oppose pro's fairytale fantasies.
I'm not an atheist, but the verdict? I'm sorry pal, Muhammad can't save you on this one.....
The fact that there aren't multiple parameters makes me mad but ok, the Con's attestations just bases it on the 'fairy tale' of religious books and also it's basically sourceless, even when talking about the Big Bang Theory, what happened before that is not our business and I think we shouldn't even ask ourselves about this, it's purely metaphysical stuff that distracts us from the real argument.
Pro on the other hand provided only Qur'an based arguments which I think is pretty good also as informations because he didn't use them as an excuse to justify misinterpretations of the Qur'an itself, the exact opposite of what has been done by Con just the prove his point.
You both provided really good argument which I think they incorporate good concepts for you both, but as an overall I think Pro had the best.
Hey let's start the debate, I don't know how to do it, but I think we have to debate here in comment section, so answer me, why do you think that atheism is bizzare