Atheism is Arbitrary, Inconsistent and Borrows from the Bible
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
(Atheism) is illogical because it relies on strict materialism.
(A)theism leads to the path of absurdity.
Atheism is arbitrary...
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
because it is the opinion of man sitting as the absolute authority of any subject.
It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality.
It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality.
Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being true.
Atheism also borrow the laws of logic from the Bible.
I do want to make clear that I am not arguing for theism in general, but for Christian theism. I unashamedly argue for the God of the Bible.
Isaiah 2:22 says, 'Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?' Next to God, the ideas of man are but a breath. God's ways are much higher than man's according to Isaiah 55:9.
(Referring to the above quote) This is logical, as God is all/knowing and man isn't.
When the opinions of man sit as the absolute authority on a subject, then they are arbitrary.
Each person sits in the supposed position of authority, so no one is in authority. This is the case for atheism. There is no God or ultimate authority to appeal to in an atheistic mindset. In the absence of God, man is viewed as the final authority on all matters.
Appealing to man's opinions as the truth is a faulty appeal to authority. Thus, it is illogical.
The entire philosophy of atheism is based on man being the ultimate authority on all matters which is an arbitrary position that can never provide a source of truth.
Materialist views say that, despite appearances to the contrary, mental states are just physical states. Behaviourism, functionalism, mind-brain identity theory and the computational theory of mind are examples of how materialists attempt to explain how this can be so. The most common factor in such theories is the attempt to explicate the nature of mind and consciousness in terms of their ability to directly or indirectly modify behaviour, but there are versions of materialism that try to tie the mental to the physical without explicitly explaining the mental in terms of its behaviour-modifying role. The latter are often grouped together under the label ‘non-reductive physicalism’, though this label is itself rendered elusive because of the controversial nature of the term ‘reduction’.Idealist views say that physical states are really mental. This is because the physical world is an empirical world and, as such, it is the intersubjective product of our collective experience.Dualist views (the subject of this entry) say that the mental and the physical are both real and neither can be assimilated to the other. For the various forms that dualism can take and the associated problems, see below.
Moral psychology, In psychology, study of the development of the moral sense—i.e., of the capacity for forming judgments about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad. The U.S. psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg hypothesized that people’s development of moral standards passes through several levels. At the early level, that of preconventional moral reasoning, the child uses external and physical events (such as pleasure or pain) as the source for moral decisions; his standards are based strictly on what will avoid punishment or bring pleasure. At the intermediate level, that of conventional moral reasoning, the child or adolescent views moral standards as a way of maintaining the approval of authority figures, chiefly his parents, and acts in accordance with their precepts. At the third level, that of postconventional moral reasoning, the adult bases his moral standards on principles that he himself has evaluated and accepts as inherently valid, regardless of society’s opinion. Beginning in the 1970s Kohlberg’s work was criticized by psychologists and philosophers influenced by feminism. According to Carol Gilligan, Kohlberg’s stages are inherently sexist, because they equate moral maturity with an orientation toward moral problems that is socially instilled in males but not in females. Whereas the male “ethic of rights and justice” treats morality in terms of abstract principles and conceives of moral agents as essentially autonomous, acting independently of their social situations according to general rules, the female “ethic of care” treats morality in terms of concrete bonds to particular individuals based on feelings of care and responsibility and conceives of moral agents as connected and interdependent through their feelings of care and responsibility for each other.
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.
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
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Type1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: All 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Pro essentially just made a bunch of arbitrary claims supported by nothing but "God says so" or "the bible says so". This both constitutes a shitty argument and shitty conduct. Also since his only source, not only in this debate but his only source of information in general is the bible, he also has shitty sources. Plus his grammar must be atrocious after reading so much bible bable, I mean seriously, who spells shall as 'shalt" anymore, that's like sooooooooooo 600 BC gurlfriend.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote does not meet the COC standards.
************************************************************************
I've got a lot to do today, but someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote on this...
Type1 How is love and logic material?
Mornism was a typo of Monism, nor Mormonism, just to be clear.
Theism is not based on God, it's based on man's unproven faith based belief that there is a God.
Materialism is logical because everything is material, logic, love, truth, knowledge, and information all have a physical basis.
being "inconsistent with morality" has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. If you need God's "objective" social constructs just to prevent you from going crazy and killing people that speaks well enough for your sanity.
What if God changes his mind and changes the law of nature? You know nothing of science or philosophy and are just regurgitating talking points you heard in bible studies class.
Your remarks on the absurdity of atheism are just retarded baseless assertions with no substance behind them. Are you under the age of 18? Because I don't want to bash you too hard if you're a kid, and judging by your intellect it wouldn't surprise me if you were 10.
@Type1
''Theism is arbitrary because it is the faith and emotion based opinion of man''
Christian Theism is not based on man, it is based on God. Atheism is based on man.
Materialsm is illogical because not everything is material. Logic, love, truth, knowledge, information are not material, but they are real.
It is inconsistent with morality because atheism says we are only a bunch of chemical put together with no purpose. If that is the case then it should be fine to kill atheists since they are no different than animals or chemicals.
We do science based laws of nature that we say will remain the same. In the atheist worldview the laws of nature have not always be the same so there is no reason to do science if the laws could change tomorrow.
Please read my remarks on the absurdity of atheism in my debate.
I can't get over how stupid pro is, it's like super irritating.
"Atheism is arbitrary because it is the opinion of man sitting as the absolute authority of any subject."
lol. Theism is arbitrary because it is the faith and emotion based opinion of man rather than reason sitting as the absolute authority.
"It is illogical because it relies on strict materialism."
Why is that illogical? Are we not made of matter? There is more evidence for matter than there is for magic God juice being the source of existence.
"It is inconsistent in its view of morality and borrows from the Bible for morality."
Why would you assume that? What objective reasoning says I shouldn't feed christians to lions?
"Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being true."
The opposite is true, because science is based on evidence and the bible is based on mindlessly accepting superstitious nonsense with no evidence.
"Atheism also borrow the laws of logic from the Bible."
There is no logic in the bible you stupid piece of shit.
"Lastly, atheism leads to the path of absurdity."
You are just making assertions based on bias, faith, and your own insanely low intelligence levels. You are literally subhuman as there is no other excuse for such baseless drivel being spewed in the fucking information age when so much knowledge is available.
The pro of this debate is particularly novice-like.