text
stringlengths 1
25.8k
| label
int64 0
1
| author
stringlengths 2
25
| original_text
stringlengths 6
26.1k
| category
stringclasses 23
values | round
int64 0
8
| debate_id
stringlengths 7
103
| idx
int64 18
55.3k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I would like to argue against the topic, Kids are more chatty when they are with their friends. Most children will talk most around there parents. Kids generally and typically like to gain their parents approval, and will do just about anything to make their parents proud of them. <URL>... Children will talk about a numerous amount of things while being in the presence of their parents and family, in whom they love and trust often more then their friends. Let's establish that the age group for these children is around 3-6. Of course my argument isn't true for every child, thus cannot be viewed as a general concensus, but the resolution and my opponents opponening argument seem to prove this debate will be based around general concensus rather that statistical proof that every child responds the same behaviourly. SO what we must establish, is the behavioral patterns of most children, in this debate. I look forward to my opponents response. | 0 | TUF |
I would like to argue against the topic, Kids are more chatty when they are with their friends. Most children will talk most around there parents. Kids generally and typically like to gain their parents approval, and will do just about anything to make their parents proud of them. http://www.greatschools.org... Children will talk about a numerous amount of things while being in the presence of their parents and family, in whom they love and trust often more then their friends. Let's establish that the age group for these children is around 3-6. Of course my argument isn't true for every child, thus cannot be viewed as a general concensus, but the resolution and my opponents opponening argument seem to prove this debate will be based around general concensus rather that statistical proof that every child responds the same behaviourly. SO what we must establish, is the behavioral patterns of most children, in this debate. I look forward to my opponents response. | Entertainment | 0 | Are-kids-more-chatty-with-there-friends/1/ | 3,810 |
=====REBUTTALS====== "I think kids are more trustworthy of there friends. Would you go up to your mom and gossip??" I thought these were kid's we are talking about? It's true teenagers would prefer to gossip to their friends than their parents. But as I paraprhases in R1 let's assume the kids are around the age of 3-6. Most kids will share things about their life with their parents, as parents act as role models in this stage of their life. This is where children learn their behvaior, and personal beliefs. Children at this age need to be under direct supervision for their entire life, thus their parents being the ones constantly around them, children will be more inclined to talk about their lives and ask questions to their parents. "Say something dramatic happened wouldn't you talk to your friends before parents??" In a childs life, I can't see something so dramatic happening that would rather tell kids at school about then their parents. Especially if the teacher became sick. The first thing a kid is going to do is run home to their parents and let them know that since the teacher is sick, there will be no school! Again, at this age in a childs life, the inclination for gossip with friends is limited. Most kids have more trust in their parents, in whom they have been around for the majority of their lives. " Why would you take school stuff home?" On the contrary, why wouldn't you? I look forward to my opponents response. | 0 | TUF |
=====REBUTTALS====== "I think kids are more trustworthy of there friends. Would you go up to your mom and gossip??" I thought these were kid's we are talking about? It's true teenagers would prefer to gossip to their friends than their parents. But as I paraprhases in R1 let's assume the kids are around the age of 3-6. Most kids will share things about their life with their parents, as parents act as role models in this stage of their life. This is where children learn their behvaior, and personal beliefs. Children at this age need to be under direct supervision for their entire life, thus their parents being the ones constantly around them, children will be more inclined to talk about their lives and ask questions to their parents. "Say something dramatic happened wouldn't you talk to your friends before parents??" In a childs life, I can't see something so dramatic happening that would rather tell kids at school about then their parents. Especially if the teacher became sick. The first thing a kid is going to do is run home to their parents and let them know that since the teacher is sick, there will be no school! Again, at this age in a childs life, the inclination for gossip with friends is limited. Most kids have more trust in their parents, in whom they have been around for the majority of their lives. " Why would you take school stuff home?" On the contrary, why wouldn't you? I look forward to my opponents response. | Entertainment | 1 | Are-kids-more-chatty-with-there-friends/1/ | 3,811 |
====REBUTTALS==== "You probably talk to friends way more than you talk to your parents. That's natural. Even if you and your parents have a great relationship, you want to find your own path and make your own choices." Again, like I said before, most kids around the age group we are talking about, will find more safety and comfort in talking to the ones they have grown up to be role models as. Their parents are the ones who have raised them and have taught them to be everything they are. I agree that in one point in a child's life, they will find more happiness in consulting with their friends. But as a child, they will definitely consult more with their parents. In fact, a lot of kids are more shy and quiet at school, and some will ONLY talk with their parents. <URL>... "Still, most of us want a parent's help, advice, and support at times. But talking to the adults in your life can seem difficult or intimidating , especially when it comes to certain subjects." I think the 'certain subjects' you are referring to, usually is not an issue until a lot later in a childs life. Again, you must be talking about teenagers. A child generally will ask their parents question after question, and literally bombard their parents with them. <URL>... "A friend called me the other day lamenting how her 7 year old son, who is in the 2nd grade, would not stop talking in class. He always had glowing reports from his teachers in and 1st grade, so she was quite surprised when he came home with a note from his 2nd grade teacher on the 1st day of school that said he talked too much. By the sixth week into the school year, her son was receiving a note almost daily. He just would not stop talking in class!" You are taking one individual student and making him/her the majority. Every class will have that one student who will be explicitly chatty. But what about the rest of the childred? Are they all getting notes in class as well? I wouldn't think so. From my memory of grade school, it was a complete reversal of that. Sure kids would talk to each other, but enough to say that it was more than they would talk in a home life? Not so much. ====CONCLUSION==== I feel that I have properly upheld my burden as Con for this debate. I have succesfully proven that kids are more talkative at home then at school. The age group my opponent should be more focused on, should be teenagers, as they are more likely to be chatty around their friends. However children at this age, will always have more trust and love in the ones that raised them; Their role models. I feel for all of the reasons above, that I have won this debate. Please vote CON. Thankyou. | 0 | TUF |
====REBUTTALS==== "You probably talk to friends way more than you talk to your parents. That's natural. Even if you and your parents have a great relationship, you want to find your own path and make your own choices." Again, like I said before, most kids around the age group we are talking about, will find more safety and comfort in talking to the ones they have grown up to be role models as. Their parents are the ones who have raised them and have taught them to be everything they are. I agree that in one point in a child's life, they will find more happiness in consulting with their friends. But as a child, they will definitely consult more with their parents. In fact, a lot of kids are more shy and quiet at school, and some will ONLY talk with their parents. http://www.greatschools.org... "Still, most of us want a parent's help, advice, and support at times. But talking to the adults in your life can seem difficult or intimidating , especially when it comes to certain subjects." I think the 'certain subjects' you are referring to, usually is not an issue until a lot later in a childs life. Again, you must be talking about teenagers. A child generally will ask their parents question after question, and literally bombard their parents with them. http://www.scottcounseling.com... "A friend called me the other day lamenting how her 7 year old son, who is in the 2nd grade, would not stop talking in class. He always had glowing reports from his teachers in and 1st grade, so she was quite surprised when he came home with a note from his 2nd grade teacher on the 1st day of school that said he talked too much. By the sixth week into the school year, her son was receiving a note almost daily. He just would not stop talking in class!" You are taking one individual student and making him/her the majority. Every class will have that one student who will be explicitly chatty. But what about the rest of the childred? Are they all getting notes in class as well? I wouldn't think so. From my memory of grade school, it was a complete reversal of that. Sure kids would talk to each other, but enough to say that it was more than they would talk in a home life? Not so much. ====CONCLUSION==== I feel that I have properly upheld my burden as Con for this debate. I have succesfully proven that kids are more talkative at home then at school. The age group my opponent should be more focused on, should be teenagers, as they are more likely to be chatty around their friends. However children at this age, will always have more trust and love in the ones that raised them; Their role models. I feel for all of the reasons above, that I have won this debate. Please vote CON. Thankyou. | Entertainment | 2 | Are-kids-more-chatty-with-there-friends/1/ | 3,812 |
Yes I think kids are more chatty with friends because they can talk about there day, gossip, relationship, or just plain talk. | 0 | kyrmahon |
Yes I think kids are more chatty with friends because they can talk about there day, gossip, relationship, or just plain talk. | Entertainment | 0 | Are-kids-more-chatty-with-there-friends/1/ | 3,813 |
I think kids are more trustworthy of there friends. Would you go up to your mom and gossip?? Say something dramatic happened wouldn't you talk to your friends before parents?? My teacher got sick in class today and went to the hospital I had many conversations with my friends, but only one with my mom. Why would you take school stuff home. Are you going to go home and tell your parents everything that happened, No. I look forward to seeing my opponents response. | 0 | kyrmahon |
I think kids are more trustworthy of there friends. Would you go up to your mom and gossip?? Say something dramatic happened wouldn't you talk to your friends before parents?? My teacher got sick in class today and went to the hospital I had many conversations with my friends, but only one with my mom. Why would you take school stuff home. Are you going to go home and tell your parents everything that happened, No.
I look forward to seeing my opponents response. | Entertainment | 1 | Are-kids-more-chatty-with-there-friends/1/ | 3,814 |
<URL>... You probably talk to friends way more than you talk to your parents. That's natural. Even if you and your parents have a great relationship, you want to find your own path and make your own choices. Still, most of us want a parent's help, advice, and support at times. But talking to the adults in your life can seem difficult or intimidating , " especially when it comes to certain subjects. <URL>... A friend called me the other day lamenting how her 7 year old son, who is in the 2nd grade, would not stop talking in class. He always had glowing reports from his teachers in and 1st grade, so she was quite surprised when he came home with a note from his 2nd grade teacher on the 1st day of school that said he talked too much. By the sixth week into the school year, her son was receiving a note almost daily. He just would not stop talking in class! | 0 | kyrmahon |
http://kidshealth.org...
You probably talk to friends way more than you talk to your parents. That's natural. Even if you and your parents have a great relationship, you want to find your own path and make your own choices.
Still, most of us want a parent's help, advice, and support at times. But talking to the adults in your life can seem difficult or intimidating , " especially when it comes to certain subjects.
http://logansgem.hubpages.com...
A friend called me the other day lamenting how her 7 year old son, who is in the 2nd grade, would not stop talking in class. He always had glowing reports from his teachers in and 1st grade, so she was quite surprised when he came home with a note from his 2nd grade teacher on the 1st day of school that said he talked too much. By the sixth week into the school year, her son was receiving a note almost daily. He just would not stop talking in class! | Entertainment | 2 | Are-kids-more-chatty-with-there-friends/1/ | 3,815 |
For the grounds of your debate you use an example of 1 president out of 43. You attack our beliefs. you use no factual examples. You are just talking from emotion, your more like arguing instead of debating. Anywhay George Bush was 1 out of 43 presidents to grace the white house. 1 Republican President does "bad" and suddenly all republicans are bad. All i and my fellow republicans do is support our president. Its what all Americans should be doing. We may not like some of the things he does but we support him. Would you care to look into history at some of the greatest presidents of all time. Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. He was a Republican, Ronald Reagan a true conservative, he maded substantiol tax cuts and made great strides to end the cold war. Do I have to go on? With one president doing "bad" in office shouldn't automatically dub there political party "bad" I would like to know how we are stuck up. And what does Bushes family being wealthy have to do with him being stuck up? I want you to name a president who wasn't wealthy before he came to office. Just name 1. yes, i'm christian. I would also like to ask what being christian has to do with being "stuck up" i grew up learning christian morals from my parents. It was how I was taught. Yes, i disapprove of homosexualism. It is wrong. Nature didn't intend for people of the same sex having relations. Its not how its suppost to be. In life your main job is to reproduce so that your species can live on. If your gay, or lesbian than there is no natural way for you to reproduce. It isn't meant nor is it natural. And abortion really, how can anyone stand up for this. I'm talking from a human standpoint not just a christian. Abortion is murder! just because a fetus isn't fully developed doesn't mean its not living. Its a person and we have no right to take the oppertunity of life from it. Yes ,I support the War it is nessisary for Homeland Security and the downfall of Al-Qeuda and the Taliban. | 0 | RepublicanView333 |
For the grounds of your debate you use an example of 1 president out of 43. You attack our beliefs. you use no factual examples. You are just talking from emotion, your more like arguing instead of debating. Anywhay George Bush was 1 out of 43 presidents to grace the white house. 1 Republican President does "bad" and suddenly all republicans are bad. All i and my fellow republicans do is support our president. Its what all Americans should be doing. We may not like some of the things he does but we support him.
Would you care to look into history at some of the greatest presidents of all time. Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. He was a Republican, Ronald Reagan a true conservative, he maded substantiol tax cuts and made great strides to end the cold war. Do I have to go on? With one president doing "bad" in office shouldn't automatically dub there political party "bad"
I would like to know how we are stuck up. And what does Bushes family being wealthy have to do with him being stuck up? I want you to name a president who wasn't wealthy before he came to office. Just name 1.
yes, i'm christian. I would also like to ask what being christian has to do with being "stuck up" i grew up learning christian morals from my parents. It was how I was taught. Yes, i disapprove of homosexualism. It is wrong. Nature didn't intend for people of the same sex having relations. Its not how its suppost to be. In life your main job is to reproduce so that your species can live on. If your gay, or lesbian than there is no natural way for you to reproduce. It isn't meant nor is it natural. And abortion really, how can anyone stand up for this. I'm talking from a human standpoint not just a christian. Abortion is murder! just because a fetus isn't fully developed doesn't mean its not living. Its a person and we have no right to take the oppertunity of life from it.
Yes ,I support the War it is nessisary for Homeland Security and the downfall of Al-Qeuda and the Taliban. | Politics | 0 | Are-republicans-just-stuck-up-christians-with-too-much-money/1/ | 3,844 |
What are you getting at when you tell about george washington? It doesn't seem very relevent to the debate. And if your trying to say he was a democrate he wasn't he had no political party and if he did it would of been federalist. I'm glad we can both agree Abortion is bad. But yes it should be illegal. It is the same as murder you kill a living being. Its brain might not be developed like yours but it is a living human. Why do we have to take alqeuda down? Do you watch the news. No its not just killing b/c its war. Al-Qeuda planned and did 9/11. They are the reason we are there. Al-Qeuda is a ruthless group of savages. Why did we stop the Nazis? Its the same reason to be in Iraq. To save our peoples lives and to protect the rest of the world. About gays I will say it again. Its not Natural for gays and lesbians to have relations. Its not how its suppost to be. In life your main job is to reproduce so that your species can live on. If your gay, or lesbian than there is no natural way for you to reproduce. When I say "natural I mean by real intercourse. Not testtube babies. Is it bad that we are "hardcore" is it bad to believe something? have you ever thought why us "hardcore" christians are republicans? Because of all the reasons you gave me. Abortion is wrong, homosexuals are wrong. We were taught that when we go to church. If theres a political party like the Republicans that have those values arent we going to side with them? | 0 | RepublicanView333 |
What are you getting at when you tell about george washington? It doesn't seem very relevent to the debate. And if your trying to say he was a democrate he wasn't he had no political party and if he did it would of been federalist.
I'm glad we can both agree Abortion is bad. But yes it should be illegal. It is the same as murder you kill a living being. Its brain might not be developed like yours but it is a living human.
Why do we have to take alqeuda down? Do you watch the news. No its not just killing b/c its war. Al-Qeuda planned and did 9/11. They are the reason we are there. Al-Qeuda is a ruthless group of savages. Why did we stop the Nazis? Its the same reason to be in Iraq. To save our peoples lives and to protect the rest of the world.
About gays I will say it again. Its not Natural for gays and lesbians to have relations. Its not how its suppost to be. In life your main job is to reproduce so that your species can live on. If your gay, or lesbian than there is no natural way for you to reproduce. When I say "natural I mean by real intercourse. Not testtube babies.
Is it bad that we are "hardcore" is it bad to believe something? have you ever thought why us "hardcore" christians are republicans? Because of all the reasons you gave me. Abortion is wrong, homosexuals are wrong. We were taught that when we go to church. If theres a political party like the Republicans that have those values arent we going to side with them? | Politics | 1 | Are-republicans-just-stuck-up-christians-with-too-much-money/1/ | 3,845 |
So, we fight fire w/ fire whats so bad about that. we did the same w/ pearl harbor but no one had a problem w/ that. They attacked us we came back and attacked back. Nothing is wrong w/ testube babies. All thats wrong is that they arent natural and god didn't intend for people of the same sex to mate. If you have intercourse problems such as narrow urethras/utersis. than testtube babies are fine there biologically yours. but for homosexuals there not both of the parents babies. if the abortion situation arises I would support my wife till her final second. I would let my wife die when god intended her to. If god put her in that situation then it was meant for HER to die not the child. the child would be humbled knowing his/her mother died for him to live. Sving everyone else by fighting AlQeuda we just arent saving the world but were covering are arses. If we don't subdue AlQeuda they will be free to plan attack after attack on our innocent citizens. What does making us look good have to do with this. This is WAR not a tea party when one person gets offended and calls there mommy. Looking good has nothing to do with this. We first of all invaded Iraq to stop Saddam who bluffed having WMDs and now Saddams pushing up daisys. we probably should of invaded Iranj now we know but we can't go back. But look what we accomplished. We ended saddams tyranny, we established a Iraqi govermnent and we isolated Bin Laden. We are making strides but all Liberal media is telling is all the bad stuff. My dad works as a security guard with a officer who was in Iraq and saw what was really happening. 9 out of 10 people in Iraq appreciate what we are doing its the Taliban and Al-Qeuda that don't. | 0 | RepublicanView333 |
So, we fight fire w/ fire whats so bad about that. we did the same w/ pearl harbor but no one had a problem w/ that. They attacked us we came back and attacked back. Nothing is wrong w/ testube babies. All thats wrong is that they arent natural and god didn't intend for people of the same sex to mate. If you have intercourse problems such as narrow urethras/utersis. than testtube babies are fine there biologically yours. but for homosexuals there not both of the parents babies.
if the abortion situation arises I would support my wife till her final second. I would let my wife die when god intended her to. If god put her in that situation then it was meant for HER to die not the child. the child would be humbled knowing his/her mother died for him to live.
Sving everyone else by fighting AlQeuda we just arent saving the world but were covering are arses. If we don't subdue AlQeuda they will be free to plan attack after attack on our innocent citizens. What does making us look good have to do with this. This is WAR not a tea party when one person gets offended and calls there mommy. Looking good has nothing to do with this.
We first of all invaded Iraq to stop Saddam who bluffed having WMDs and now Saddams pushing up daisys. we probably should of invaded Iranj now we know but we can't go back. But look what we accomplished. We ended saddams tyranny, we established a Iraqi govermnent and we isolated Bin Laden. We are making strides but all Liberal media is telling is all the bad stuff. My dad works as a security guard with a officer who was in Iraq and saw what was really happening. 9 out of 10 people in Iraq appreciate what we are doing its the Taliban and Al-Qeuda that don't. | Politics | 2 | Are-republicans-just-stuck-up-christians-with-too-much-money/1/ | 3,846 |
Gonovice, What was your dad doing in Iraq? was he a writer for the liberal media trying to put down the War. My family had dinner w/ the army ranger's, my dad worked with, and I heard the truth. We are making Strides in Iraq. Here were our goals in Iraq. 1) Stop Saddam. 2) Establish democracy in Iraq 3) Thwart Bin Laden Now here is what happened. 1) Saddam was thrown into hiding and captured and killed. 2) Iraq recently had its first vote for president and it was successful. 3)Bin Laden was thrown into hiding unable to do his job as AlQeuda leader he has been isolated. To me it seems like we accomplished our goals. The only problem is that there are still rogue terrorists that we are STOPPING! Its not a bad thing. It is not immoral. If my wife was MEANT to die, then for some reason God wanted her in heaven. My son wouldn't feel bad. I would make sure of it. I will explain to him What God wanted and will tell him its not his fault. Its what any good parent would do. I continue to say this. Its not us as humans place to take life away. If a pregnant person is going to die why take the baby with it. We hadn't known better. That is really something. 9/11 they bombed us w/ planes. What was there to see? Its war. We were attacked your don't just stand there and let a group of Terrorists throw bombs at you. You think you can just talk stuff out all the time. Thats something you have to figure out in life. I learned that early. luckily I go to a school which is pretty hostile and you do the wrong thing and you pay for it. its the same in War. We ticked AlQeuda off so they fired back. We can't just talk with Bin Laden. He's a mercyless killer. Besides what was to figure out. He was ticked he bombed us. I'll say it simply.INWARYOUFIGHT you don't sit around and play patty cake and hope they hit you softly. How are Republicans killing the country. Its the democrats that make the US soft. In the earlt 20th century we were a tough country that would put people who messed with us in there place. Now... well apparently the hippies brainwashed enough people to make us a bunch of contiences objecters. just so you know there is no draft but if I was to fight for this great country I would be honored. All citizens should fight. We should adopt the law like in Jerusalum where every one must fight for there country for 4 years. If I get shot and its my time wellthen its my time. Hopefully you realized here that there are poor atheist GOPs and rich christian Dems. | 0 | RepublicanView333 |
Gonovice, What was your dad doing in Iraq? was he a writer for the liberal media trying to put down the War. My family had dinner w/ the army ranger's, my dad worked with, and I heard the truth. We are making Strides in Iraq. Here were our goals in Iraq.
1) Stop Saddam.
2) Establish democracy in Iraq
3) Thwart Bin Laden
Now here is what happened.
1) Saddam was thrown into hiding and captured and killed.
2) Iraq recently had its first vote for president and it was successful.
3)Bin Laden was thrown into hiding unable to do his job as AlQeuda leader he has been isolated.
To me it seems like we accomplished our goals. The only problem is that there are still rogue terrorists that we are STOPPING! Its not a bad thing.
It is not immoral. If my wife was MEANT to die, then for some reason God wanted her in heaven. My son wouldn't feel bad. I would make sure of it. I will explain to him What God wanted and will tell him its not his fault. Its what any good parent would do. I continue to say this. Its not us as humans place to take life away. If a pregnant person is going to die why take the baby with it.
We hadn't known better. That is really something. 9/11 they bombed us w/ planes. What was there to see? Its war. We were attacked your don't just stand there and let a group of Terrorists throw bombs at you. You think you can just talk stuff out all the time. Thats something you have to figure out in life. I learned that early. luckily I go to a school which is pretty hostile and you do the wrong thing and you pay for it. its the same in War. We ticked AlQeuda off so they fired back. We can't just talk with Bin Laden. He's a mercyless killer. Besides what was to figure out. He was ticked he bombed us. I'll say it simply.INWARYOUFIGHT you don't sit around and play patty cake and hope they hit you softly.
How are Republicans killing the country. Its the democrats that make the US soft. In the earlt 20th century we were a tough country that would put people who messed with us in there place. Now... well apparently the hippies brainwashed enough people to make us a bunch of contiences objecters. just so you know there is no draft but if I was to fight for this great country I would be honored. All citizens should fight. We should adopt the law like in Jerusalum where every one must fight for there country for 4 years. If I get shot and its my time wellthen its my time.
Hopefully you realized here that there are poor atheist GOPs and rich christian Dems. | Politics | 3 | Are-republicans-just-stuck-up-christians-with-too-much-money/1/ | 3,847 |
If they need a theme, it just shows that the food itself is not good enough. | 0 | PureLogic |
If they need a theme, it just shows that the food itself is not good enough. | Entertainment | 1 | Are-restaurants-with-a-show-included-such-as-Midieval-Times-good/1/ | 3,848 |
The food itself can suggest a theme. There is a local restraunt in my city with a Caribean theme, but the theme is shown mainly in the food. They have Caribean spices, foods, and they even put cute flowers on some dishes. This restraunt is known as one of the best in my city, and is very expensive. If a restraunt, however, has to have a cheesy theme, and shows it with decorations, they are just covering up for bad food. | 0 | PureLogic |
The food itself can suggest a theme. There is a local restraunt in my city with a Caribean theme, but the theme is shown mainly in the food. They have Caribean spices, foods, and they even put cute flowers on some dishes. This restraunt is known as one of the best in my city, and is very expensive. If a restraunt, however, has to have a cheesy theme, and shows it with decorations, they are just covering up for bad food. | Entertainment | 2 | Are-restaurants-with-a-show-included-such-as-Midieval-Times-good/1/ | 3,849 |
My opponent should be disqualified, as they have not provided a single argument. | 0 | PureLogic |
My opponent should be disqualified, as they have not provided a single argument. | Entertainment | 3 | Are-restaurants-with-a-show-included-such-as-Midieval-Times-good/1/ | 3,850 |
Restraunt themes are unnecessary. | 0 | PureLogic |
Restraunt themes are unnecessary. | Entertainment | 4 | Are-restaurants-with-a-show-included-such-as-Midieval-Times-good/1/ | 3,851 |
1st round is acceptance and last is conclusion. To whoever my opponent may be, good luck and have fun. | 0 | ccvarsityhumorinterp |
1st round is acceptance and last is conclusion.
To whoever my opponent may be, good luck and have fun. | Entertainment | 0 | Are-restaurants-with-a-show-included-such-as-Midieval-Times-good/1/ | 3,852 |
I accept. I await Pro's opening arguments. | 0 | Hardcore.Pwnography |
I accept. I await Pro's opening arguments. | Miscellaneous | 0 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,899 |
First, let me point out that PRO has made several claims and assumptions with nothing to back them up. Therefore, these claims may or may not be accurate. PRO must provide a source. I will refute these claims once a source has been provided. " USA along with the United Kingdom and the Euro zone reacted by saying that it would declare war on Iran if it did so." I find this hard to believe, as Obama just pulled out of the Iraq war. Please provide a source. Secondly, moving on to my arguments . There will not be a World War 3. We live in the 21st century, a time where everyone wants peace. We have seen this several times in the world. We see this when Obama withdrew all US soldiers from Iraq, essentially ending the Iraq War, because he stands for peace. <URL>... We see this again with North Korea. By not attacking North Korea, it shows that we stand for peace. Fifty years ago, we might have invaded North Korea because they are communists, but not in the 21st century. In the 21st century, no one wants war anymore. Things are solved through diplomats and peacekeepers in this new time. We saw evidence of this new form of "warfare" emerging from the suez canal crisis, with Lester Pearson. <URL>... This entire crisis was resolved through talks and working out each others differences. Therefore, in the 21st century, we stand for peace and we solve issues like mature people, talking them out. Let's look at the Libya crisis. War erupted between the rebels and Gadhafi. What did NATO and the UN do? They stepped in to try to resolve this issue, not take sides. Therefore, it is obvious, that in the 21st century, we strive to resolve issues and make peace. Let's look at the groups you pointed out. "So the groups will be: Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia and : Israel, The Euro zone, The USA and The UK" None of these countries want to anger the other. In the 21st century, we are a global village, with countries depending on each other for trade and revenue. When you anger another country, they won't trade with you anymore, therefore, causing you to lose lots of revenue and lowering the quality of life of your citizens because you are not importing foreign goods anymore. Therefore, no one wants to anger each other, because these countries are interdependent for trade. Therefore, no one would want to start a war with each other. | 0 | Hardcore.Pwnography |
First, let me point out that PRO has made several claims and assumptions with nothing to back them up. Therefore, these claims may or may not be accurate. PRO must provide a source. I will refute these claims once a source has been provided. " USA along with the United Kingdom and the Euro zone reacted by saying that it would declare war on Iran if it did so." I find this hard to believe, as Obama just pulled out of the Iraq war. Please provide a source. Secondly, moving on to my arguments . There will not be a World War 3. We live in the 21st century, a time where everyone wants peace. We have seen this several times in the world. We see this when Obama withdrew all US soldiers from Iraq, essentially ending the Iraq War, because he stands for peace. http://content.usatoday.com... We see this again with North Korea. By not attacking North Korea, it shows that we stand for peace. Fifty years ago, we might have invaded North Korea because they are communists, but not in the 21st century. In the 21st century, no one wants war anymore. Things are solved through diplomats and peacekeepers in this new time. We saw evidence of this new form of "warfare" emerging from the suez canal crisis, with Lester Pearson. http://www.suezcrisis.ca... This entire crisis was resolved through talks and working out each others differences. Therefore, in the 21st century, we stand for peace and we solve issues like mature people, talking them out. Let's look at the Libya crisis. War erupted between the rebels and Gadhafi. What did NATO and the UN do? They stepped in to try to resolve this issue, not take sides. Therefore, it is obvious, that in the 21st century, we strive to resolve issues and make peace. Let's look at the groups you pointed out. "So the groups will be: Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia and : Israel, The Euro zone, The USA and The UK" None of these countries want to anger the other. In the 21st century, we are a global village, with countries depending on each other for trade and revenue. When you anger another country, they won't trade with you anymore, therefore, causing you to lose lots of revenue and lowering the quality of life of your citizens because you are not importing foreign goods anymore. Therefore, no one wants to anger each other, because these countries are interdependent for trade. Therefore, no one would want to start a war with each other. | Miscellaneous | 1 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,900 |
This round will be short and concise. PRO drops my argument about peace and how in the 21st century, diplomats would rather talk about the issues instead of fighting each other. In fact, the source he provided: <URL>... clearly proves my stance. In fact, the title of that article is "Why Obama must shut out the warcries and TALK to Iran." This clearly shows that leaders would rather talk than go to war with each other. Please note that PRO admits himself that he is making up his claims when he says, " China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof" Furthermore, PRO seems to be caught up with the past. I agree that there were bad relations in the past, which was the reason for the previous world wars. However, since then, the world has been able to mature and talk things out. PRO continues to leave this point unrefuted. Also, PRO fails to recognize that relations with other countries have improved greatly, reducing the likihood of a third world war. Furthermore, there is good reason that EU and USA have sanctioned trade with Iran. This is because they are trying to convince Iran to stop producing nuclear energy. As a result, the EU and USA are trying to prevent war, as it is obvious that this nuclear energy will develop into nuclear weapons. Therefore, the likihood of us heading into world war 3 is unlikely as both the USA and EU are trying to prevent this war from occuring in the first place. REFUTATION CON is deviating from the topic by driving North Korea, Libya and the Suez Canal Crisis in. Not deviating, simply providing examples to support my claims. PRO leaves these examples unrefuted. These examples prove that in the 21st century, we do not fight with each other as much. We would rather talk. Since the cold war took place, The USA and Russia do not care about each other. This is not true. In the 21st century, relations have become much better, proving the unlikihood of a World War 3. <URL>... If current disputes escalate into a World War, then China would not hesitate to back Iran, according to Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University. Key word, if. As there is no war, China would not back Iran. PRO has not proved his stance on this. I have proven that there will be no World War 3. Conclusion As a result of PRO dropping several arguments, I have won this debate. Furthermore, PRO is unable to logically prove his stance. He jumps to conclusions. For example, he has provided several events around the world. However, he does not explain why these events would lead to a war. He simply assumes this to be so. Therefore, vote CON. | 0 | Hardcore.Pwnography |
This round will be short and concise. PRO drops my argument about peace and how in the 21st century, diplomats would rather talk about the issues instead of fighting each other. In fact, the source he provided: http://www.firstpost.com... clearly proves my stance. In fact, the title of that article is "Why Obama must shut out the warcries and TALK to Iran." This clearly shows that leaders would rather talk than go to war with each other. Please note that PRO admits himself that he is making up his claims when he says, " China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof" Furthermore, PRO seems to be caught up with the past. I agree that there were bad relations in the past, which was the reason for the previous world wars. However, since then, the world has been able to mature and talk things out. PRO continues to leave this point unrefuted. Also, PRO fails to recognize that relations with other countries have improved greatly, reducing the likihood of a third world war. Furthermore, there is good reason that EU and USA have sanctioned trade with Iran. This is because they are trying to convince Iran to stop producing nuclear energy. As a result, the EU and USA are trying to prevent war, as it is obvious that this nuclear energy will develop into nuclear weapons. Therefore, the likihood of us heading into world war 3 is unlikely as both the USA and EU are trying to prevent this war from occuring in the first place. REFUTATION CON is deviating from the topic by driving North Korea, Libya and the Suez Canal Crisis in. Not deviating, simply providing examples to support my claims. PRO leaves these examples unrefuted. These examples prove that in the 21st century, we do not fight with each other as much. We would rather talk. Since the cold war took place, The USA and Russia do not care about each other. This is not true. In the 21st century, relations have become much better, proving the unlikihood of a World War 3. http://rt.com... If current disputes escalate into a World War, then China would not hesitate to back Iran, according to Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University. Key word, if. As there is no war, China would not back Iran. PRO has not proved his stance on this. I have proven that there will be no World War 3. Conclusion As a result of PRO dropping several arguments, I have won this debate. Furthermore, PRO is unable to logically prove his stance. He jumps to conclusions. For example, he has provided several events around the world. However, he does not explain why these events would lead to a war. He simply assumes this to be so. Therefore, vote CON. | Miscellaneous | 2 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,901 |
1. Why Obama MUST shut out war cries and talk to Iran. Yes, MUST is the key word. MUST means that Obama has no other choice, that he must talk to Iran. Must: Be obliged to; should (expressing necessity): "you must show your ID card". <URL>... ; This means that Obama will not go to war, as he must shut it out and talk to Iran. Must conveys the message that Obama will talk to Iran, as he has no other choice. For example, let's look at the sentence: You must eat food to survive. Meaning, you have no other choice. Therefore, sooner or later, you will eat food, as you need it to survive. It is the same here. Sooner or later, Obama will talk to Iran. 2. China/Russia Please note that the source provided by PRO does not prove his earlier claim that "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face." Therefore, this claim is still proofless and invalid. Furthermore, the source that PRO provides that he believes proves his stance, does not prove his stance at all. It talks alot about how China had ordered its troops to prepare for warfare. However, preparing for warfare does not mean that we are heading to a world war 3. It simply means that tensions are high. However, like I said before, in the 21st century, this war will not happen as countries try to talk first before going into war. For example, let's look at an example. You are going camping, and you bring afterbite to prepare for mosquitos. However, it is entirely possible that no mosquitos may bite you. It is the same here. Tensions are high, so China prepares the army. However, it is entirely possible that no war may occur. Preventative action does not mean that we are heading to war. If anything, it discourages war, as other countries become aware of the damage that another war can cause. 3. Relations Yes, relations can be healed over time. In fact, <URL>... , which PRO did not refute last roudn, shows the Russians and US shaking hands. An obvious sign of friendship. 4. Sanctioned Trade PRO says: " This is true but as we all can see, they are failing in this task" in response to my point about sanctioned trades actually preventing war. However, we see that this trade sanction is not failing, as there is no world war as of yet. This task only fails if it erupts into a 3rd world war. There has been no third war. Therefore, they are not failing in this task. In fact, the EU and USA are succeeding in their task, as Iran is becoming more and more pressured to get rid of their nuclear weapons as the trade embargo continues. Sooner or later, Iran will need trade and comply to the terms provided. What the EU and USA are doing is right. 5. Suez Canal PRO says: " CON is saying that he used the Suez Canal Crisis etc as examples, but look in his argument in the second round. All he has done is mentioned these, provided a few sources, and refuted my argument." Pro concedes that his argument was refuted. 6. World War PRO says: " The slightest disturbance at an international level me cause a war, but this is encompassing most of the globe therefore, it could cause another World War". I assume the "me" is a may. Please note that PRO used the word "may" instead of "will". This shows that he is not confident in his arguments, and he himself believes that there may be a chance of a third world war. As the resolution is: Resolved: we are heading to a third world war, PRO concedes the debate to me. He must prove that there will be a world war 3, however, he has just said that there may be a world war 3, which is my burden of proof. As a result, PRO has lost this debate. 7. World War 1 Yes, I know how it happened, and it doesn't prove your case at all. PRO says, " these events are a chain of reactions that are likely to happen in the future because of an event, likely a disagreement between the superpowers". Like I said, we are more inclined to talk things out in the 21st century, not go directly into war. As a result, this will not lead to a world war 3. Dropped arguments by PRO I made these arguments in the 2nd round and they have yet to be refuted: 1. PRO did not refute the argument I made that nations are more inclined to talk in the 21st century 2. PRO did not refute the argument I made that many organizations in nations want peace Third round arguments: 1. The USA and EU sanctioned trade with Iran to get them to get rid of their nuclear weapons, showing that they are trying to prevent war and they don't like war. These are the main reasons there will be no World War 3 and PRO did not touch upon these yet. It seems he is avoiding these on purpose to try to leave these unnoticed. Unsupported claims by PRO 1. A trade sanction will lead to a world war 3 2. China and Russia helped Iran acquire nuclear energy 3. Slightest disturbance will cause a world war 3 Conclusion As you can see, voters, there are many dropped arguments that PRO did not refute. Also, PRO makes several unsupported claims. In fact, PRO also seems to agree with many of my arguments, in essense, conceding the entire debate to me. Therefore, it is obvious that I have won this debate. Vote CON. | 0 | Hardcore.Pwnography |
1. Why Obama MUST shut out war cries and talk to Iran. Yes, MUST is the key word. MUST means that Obama has no other choice, that he must talk to Iran. Must:
Be obliged to; should (expressing necessity): "you must show your ID card".
http://www.google.ca... ; This means that Obama will not go to war, as he must shut it out and talk to Iran. Must conveys the message that Obama will talk to Iran, as he has no other choice. For example, let's look at the sentence: You must eat food to survive. Meaning, you have no other choice. Therefore, sooner or later, you will eat food, as you need it to survive. It is the same here. Sooner or later, Obama will talk to Iran. 2. China/Russia Please note that the source provided by PRO does not prove his earlier claim that "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face." Therefore, this claim is still proofless and invalid. Furthermore, the source that PRO provides that he believes proves his stance, does not prove his stance at all. It talks alot about how China had ordered its troops to prepare for warfare. However, preparing for warfare does not mean that we are heading to a world war 3. It simply means that tensions are high. However, like I said before, in the 21st century, this war will not happen as countries try to talk first before going into war. For example, let's look at an example. You are going camping, and you bring afterbite to prepare for mosquitos. However, it is entirely possible that no mosquitos may bite you. It is the same here. Tensions are high, so China prepares the army. However, it is entirely possible that no war may occur. Preventative action does not mean that we are heading to war. If anything, it discourages war, as other countries become aware of the damage that another war can cause. 3. Relations Yes, relations can be healed over time. In fact, http://rt.com... , which PRO did not refute last roudn, shows the Russians and US shaking hands. An obvious sign of friendship. 4. Sanctioned Trade PRO says: " This is true but as we all can see, they are failing in this task" in response to my point about sanctioned trades actually preventing war. However, we see that this trade sanction is not failing, as there is no world war as of yet. This task only fails if it erupts into a 3rd world war. There has been no third war. Therefore, they are not failing in this task. In fact, the EU and USA are succeeding in their task, as Iran is becoming more and more pressured to get rid of their nuclear weapons as the trade embargo continues. Sooner or later, Iran will need trade and comply to the terms provided. What the EU and USA are doing is right. 5. Suez Canal PRO says: " CON is saying that he used the Suez Canal Crisis etc as examples, but look in his argument in the second round. All he has done is mentioned these, provided a few sources, and refuted my argument." Pro concedes that his argument was refuted. 6. World War PRO says: " The slightest disturbance at an international level me cause a war, but this is encompassing most of the globe therefore, it could cause another World War". I assume the "me" is a may. Please note that PRO used the word "may" instead of "will". This shows that he is not confident in his arguments, and he himself believes that there may be a chance of a third world war. As the resolution is: Resolved: we are heading to a third world war, PRO concedes the debate to me. He must prove that there will be a world war 3, however, he has just said that there may be a world war 3, which is my burden of proof. As a result, PRO has lost this debate. 7. World War 1 Yes, I know how it happened, and it doesn't prove your case at all. PRO says, " these events are a chain of reactions that are likely to happen in the future because of an event, likely a disagreement between the superpowers". Like I said, we are more inclined to talk things out in the 21st century, not go directly into war. As a result, this will not lead to a world war 3. Dropped arguments by PRO I made these arguments in the 2nd round and they have yet to be refuted: 1. PRO did not refute the argument I made that nations are more inclined to talk in the 21st century 2. PRO did not refute the argument I made that many organizations in nations want peace Third round arguments: 1. The USA and EU sanctioned trade with Iran to get them to get rid of their nuclear weapons, showing that they are trying to prevent war and they don't like war. These are the main reasons there will be no World War 3 and PRO did not touch upon these yet. It seems he is avoiding these on purpose to try to leave these unnoticed. Unsupported claims by PRO 1. A trade sanction will lead to a world war 3 2. China and Russia helped Iran acquire nuclear energy 3. Slightest disturbance will cause a world war 3 Conclusion As you can see, voters, there are many dropped arguments that PRO did not refute. Also, PRO makes several unsupported claims. In fact, PRO also seems to agree with many of my arguments, in essense, conceding the entire debate to me. Therefore, it is obvious that I have won this debate. Vote CON. | Miscellaneous | 3 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,902 |
I will go through a point by point refutation of all the major topics in this debate, showing why I have won. 1. Why Obama MUST shut out war cries and talk to Iran. PRO says: "CON gave an example- "You must eat food to survive" In the link I provided, it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran, if he wants to do something, in the above example it does" Clearly this refutation makes no sense. He says that "it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran" when clearly it does. Therefore I have won on this point, proving that Obama does not want to go to war, and instead talk to Iran. This proves that a major crux in my arguments still stands. 2. China/Russia Dropped by PRO, therefore I win on this point. 3. Relations PRO says: "In the link CON gave me, it does not say that once elections are over, the relations WILL improve. It says that they are likely to." No, it clearly shows russian prime minister and the US foreign affairs minister shaking hands. <URL>... Clearly this shows that relations have improved. Therefore, I win on this point. 4. Sanctioned Trade PRO says: " There is no war yet because the agreements between Iran and U.S.A, E.U, and the U.K are not yet expired. Once they do the, strait of Hormuz will be closed and war will follow." Pro makes an absurd claim, saying that once trade is expired, war will follow. He has no proof to back up this claim. Why would war follow? I have proven that war will not follow because in the 21st century, country leaders would rather talk than go to war. Pro does not prove his BOP. Therefore, I have won on this point as well. 5. Suez Canal PRO says: " I agree that my argument was refuted , but only a point that also with the help of something, that is out of the Scenario, it was refuted because there was nothing else, CON could do, he has been refuting me because I have voided his arguments." I win on this point because PRO says himself that this argument was refuted. 6. World War Pro drops this point completely. Therefore, I have won on this point. 7. World War 1 Pro drops this point also. Therefore, I have won on this point also. 8. US vs Iran Pro brings up a new argument: "Now that the U.S.a is sending a ship carrying nuclear missiles, this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War, this is because if U.S.A nukes Iran, Iran is GOING to surrender, because they do not have the power to fight them, after suck a heavy loss." It is terrible conduct to bring in a new argument on the last round. PRO even admits himself: " this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War" He admits himself that there is a chance of a major war but not a third world war. Therefore, PRO concedes this entire debate to me, once again. As a result, I have clearly won this debate. Conclusion: Pro still does not refute the dropped arguments that I have pointed out last round. In fact, this round he has conceded several arguments to me as well as dropping a few more. I have won on all the areas of major clash in this debate. As a result, it is clear that I have won this debate. Furthermore, PRO still does not support his claims that I have pointed out last round. Therefore, CON wins this debate. Vote CON. | 0 | Hardcore.Pwnography |
I will go through a point by point refutation of all the major topics in this debate, showing why I have won.
1. Why Obama MUST shut out war cries and talk to Iran. PRO says: "CON gave an example- "You must eat food to survive" In the link I provided, it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran, if he wants to do something, in the above example it does" Clearly this refutation makes no sense. He says that "it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran" when clearly it does. Therefore I have won on this point, proving that Obama does not want to go to war, and instead talk to Iran. This proves that a major crux in my arguments still stands. 2. China/Russia Dropped by PRO, therefore I win on this point. 3. Relations PRO says: "In the link CON gave me, it does not say that once elections are over, the relations WILL improve. It says that they are likely to." No, it clearly shows russian prime minister and the US foreign affairs minister shaking hands. http://rt.com... Clearly this shows that relations have improved. Therefore, I win on this point. 4. Sanctioned Trade PRO says: " There is no war yet because the agreements between Iran and U.S.A, E.U, and the U.K are not yet expired. Once they do the, strait of Hormuz will be closed and war will follow." Pro makes an absurd claim, saying that once trade is expired, war will follow. He has no proof to back up this claim. Why would war follow? I have proven that war will not follow because in the 21st century, country leaders would rather talk than go to war. Pro does not prove his BOP. Therefore, I have won on this point as well. 5. Suez Canal PRO says: " I agree that my argument was refuted , but only a point that also with the help of something, that is out of the Scenario, it was refuted because there was nothing else, CON could do, he has been refuting me because I have voided his arguments." I win on this point because PRO says himself that this argument was refuted. 6. World War Pro drops this point completely. Therefore, I have won on this point. 7. World War 1 Pro drops this point also. Therefore, I have won on this point also. 8. US vs Iran Pro brings up a new argument: "Now that the U.S.a is sending a ship carrying nuclear missiles, this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War, this is because if U.S.A nukes Iran, Iran is GOING to surrender, because they do not have the power to fight them, after suck a heavy loss." It is terrible conduct to bring in a new argument on the last round. PRO even admits himself: " this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War" He admits himself that there is a chance of a major war but not a third world war. Therefore, PRO concedes this entire debate to me, once again. As a result, I have clearly won this debate. Conclusion: Pro still does not refute the dropped arguments that I have pointed out last round. In fact, this round he has conceded several arguments to me as well as dropping a few more. I have won on all the areas of major clash in this debate. As a result, it is clear that I have won this debate. Furthermore, PRO still does not support his claims that I have pointed out last round. Therefore, CON wins this debate. Vote CON. | Miscellaneous | 4 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,903 |
First Round for acceptance Second and third Round for Argument Fourth Round for Rebuttal Fifth round for The Last Stand | 0 | Kanishk |
First Round for acceptance
Second and third Round for Argument
Fourth Round for Rebuttal
Fifth round for The Last Stand | Miscellaneous | 0 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,904 |
First of all let me explain to you how World War II might happen. Iran as we all know is on the verge of discovering nuclear technology with the help of Russia and Pakistan. When the USA and the UK were briefed on this they made a decision of not by oil from Iran as soon as their contracts ended even though Iran had said that it will use Nuclear Technology only for generating electricity. They did this because Iran and Israel are ancient enemies and Iran has vowed has vowed to destroy Israel and calls it nothing. Iran reacted to this by warning USA and UK that it would close the Strait of Hormuz from which one-fifth of the world's oil comes from. This could lead to oil prices rising highly and the market's rising, and along with this if the Euro zone broke up because of Greece, many commodities including Gold and Silver could go Hay-Wire. USA along with the United Kingdom and the Euro zone reacted by saying that it would declare war on Iran if it did so. It has said that it should change it's decision before the contracts end otherwise war would follow. An Iranian politician reacted by saying that their decision was final, and if they want to resolve the situation peacefully, they should change their terms. The USA,UK and The EU send ships into the strait of Hormuz in reaction to this China and Russia reacted to this by saying that they would not watch the show, but they would join the war by defending Iran. It is likely that Israel will also join the war on America's side and if it does not, it will support America unofficially. Pakistan has remained Neutral till now but is likely to join the war because all Muslim countries especially Iran, Pakistan and Egypt want to wipe out Israel. Iran and Egypt attacked Israel in the past and suffered major losses. They have been hell bent on revenge ever since. So the groups will be: Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia and : Israel, The Euro zone, The USA and The UK | 0 | Kanishk |
First of all let me explain to you how World War II might happen.
Iran as we all know is on the verge of discovering nuclear technology with the help of Russia and Pakistan. When the USA and the UK were briefed on this they made a decision of not by oil from Iran as soon as their contracts ended even though Iran had said that it will use Nuclear Technology only for generating electricity. They did this because Iran and Israel are ancient enemies and Iran has vowed has vowed to destroy Israel and calls it nothing.
Iran reacted to this by warning USA and UK that it would close the Strait of Hormuz from which one-fifth of the world's oil comes from. This could lead to oil prices rising highly and the market's rising, and along with this if the Euro zone broke up because of Greece, many commodities including Gold and Silver could go Hay-Wire.
USA along with the United Kingdom and the Euro zone reacted by saying that it would declare war on Iran if it did so. It has said that it should change it's decision before the contracts end otherwise war would follow.
An Iranian politician reacted by saying that their decision was final, and if they want to resolve the situation peacefully, they should change their terms.
The USA,UK and The EU send ships into the strait of Hormuz in reaction to this
China and Russia reacted to this by saying that they would not watch the show, but they would join the war by defending Iran.
It is likely that Israel will also join the war on America's side and if it does not, it will support America unofficially.
Pakistan has remained Neutral till now but is likely to join the war because all Muslim countries especially Iran, Pakistan and Egypt want to wipe out Israel. Iran and Egypt attacked Israel in the past and suffered major losses. They have been hell bent on revenge ever since.
So the groups will be: Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia
and : Israel, The Euro zone, The USA and The UK | Miscellaneous | 1 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,905 |
Please list the statements of whose source you want. The one you demanded for in the previous round is here <URL>... CON is deviating from the topic by driving North Korea, Libya and the Suez Canal Crisis in. "None of these countries want to anger the other. In the 21st century, we are a global village, with countries depending on each other for trade and revenue. When you anger another country, they won't trade with you anymore, therefore, causing you to lose lots of revenue and lowering the quality of life of your citizens because you are not importing foreign goods anymore." This is what CON said. Since the cold war took place, The USA and Russia do not care about each other. Israel either way does not trade with any of the Countries who might be it's Enemies. The UK and The EU are self-sufficient, hence they trade very less and even if they do, it is with the countries that might become it's allies. China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face. China has a lot of trade with Iran <URL>... If current disputes escalate into a World War, then China would not hesitate to back Iran, according to Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University. Here are a few of my Sources - Essential for you to read the first few lines <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... | 0 | Kanishk |
Please list the statements of whose source you want.
The one you demanded for in the previous round is here
http://www.firstpost.com...
CON is deviating from the topic by driving North Korea, Libya and the Suez Canal Crisis in.
"None of these countries want to anger the other. In the 21st century, we are a global village, with countries depending on each other for trade and revenue. When you anger another country, they won't trade with you anymore, therefore, causing you to lose lots of revenue and lowering the quality of life of your citizens because you are not importing foreign goods anymore."
This is what CON said.
Since the cold war took place, The USA and Russia do not care about each other.
Israel either way does not trade with any of the Countries who might be it's Enemies.
The UK and The EU are self-sufficient, hence they trade very less and even if they do, it is with the countries that might become it's allies.
China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face.
China has a lot of trade with Iran
https://images.angelpub.com...
If current disputes escalate into a World War, then China would not hesitate to back Iran, according to Major General Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor from the Chinese National Defense University.
Here are a few of my Sources - Essential for you to read the first few lines
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.foxnews.com... | Miscellaneous | 2 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,906 |
CON is being completely Irrational, he is just reading the title of the link I provided and not what I wanted him to. I have told him to read the first few lines of the pages. <URL>... The title of this page is " Why Obama must shut out the war cries and talk to Iran. MUST is the key word. Now CON said that I am defying myself by giving him this source, but it says that Obama must shut out the war cries, it does not say that he will do it. CON is cutting my statements into half and acquiring the wrong meaning out of them so that he can use them against me. One such example- WHAT I SAID- "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face." [ Typing error, I meant fact} WHAT CON USED- "Please note that PRO admits himself that he is making up his claims when he says, "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof"" If CON does not want to believe this then let me give him another source with days the same thing but in not related to Nuclear Weapons <URL>... CON is saying that the weak bonds between the countries that were damaged in the past have been healed. it is a well knows fact that revenge dies hard. Once in the past, the Russian Prime Minister mad an offer to the American President to disarm all their nuclear weapons. America Refused. [A little while after the cold War] CON says- "Furthermore, there is good reason that EU and USA have sanctioned trade with Iran. This is because they are trying to convince Iran to stop producing nuclear energy. As a result, the EU and USA are trying to prevent war, as it is obvious that this nuclear energy will develop into nuclear weapons." This is true but as we all can see, they are failing in this task. CON is saying that he used the Suez Canal Crisis etc as examples, but look in his argument in the second round. All he has done is mentioned these, provided a few sources, and refuted my argument. CON demands that I explain how the events that I mentioned may lead to the Third World War. The slightest disturbance at an international level me cause a war, but this is encompassing most of the globe therefore, it could cause another World War. Did you know how World War I happen ? Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo, the capital Bosnia. This was organised by an illegal union of extreme Serbian nationalists who called themselves, "The Black Hand" or "Union of Death". And con may have not noticed that these events are a chain of reactions that are likely to happen in the future because of an event, likely a disagreement between the superpowers. They are all interlinked Dear Voters, CON's argument is very weak and he is deviating from the topic, stating facts that are not in any manner relevant to the topic and just refuting. VOTERS, I URGE YOU TO VOTE FOR PRO | 0 | Kanishk |
CON is being completely Irrational, he is just reading the title of the link I provided and not what I wanted him to. I have told him to read the first few lines of the pages.
http://www.firstpost.com...
The title of this page is " Why Obama must shut out the war cries and talk to Iran.
MUST is the key word.
Now CON said that I am defying myself by giving him this source, but it says that Obama must shut out the war cries, it does not say that he will do it.
CON is cutting my statements into half and acquiring the wrong meaning out of them so that he can use them against me.
One such example-
WHAT I SAID- "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof, but it is a well known face." [ Typing error, I meant fact}
WHAT CON USED- "Please note that PRO admits himself that he is making up his claims when he says, "China and Russia helped Pakistan and Iran acquire nuclear technology. There is no proof""
If CON does not want to believe this then let me give him another source with days the same thing but in not related to Nuclear Weapons
http://beforeitsnews.com...
CON is saying that the weak bonds between the countries that were damaged in the past have been healed. it is a well knows fact that revenge dies hard. Once in the past, the Russian Prime Minister mad an offer to the American President to disarm all their nuclear weapons. America Refused. [A little while after the cold War]
CON says- "Furthermore, there is good reason that EU and USA have sanctioned trade with Iran. This is because they are trying to convince Iran to stop producing nuclear energy. As a result, the EU and USA are trying to prevent war, as it is obvious that this nuclear energy will develop into nuclear weapons."
This is true but as we all can see, they are failing in this task.
CON is saying that he used the Suez Canal Crisis etc as examples, but look in his argument in the second round. All he has done is mentioned these, provided a few sources, and refuted my argument.
CON demands that I explain how the events that I mentioned may lead to the Third World War. The slightest disturbance at an international level me cause a war, but this is encompassing most of the globe therefore, it could cause another World War.
Did you know how World War I happen ?
Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo, the capital Bosnia. This was organised by an illegal union of extreme Serbian nationalists who called themselves, "The Black Hand" or "Union of Death".
And con may have not noticed that these events are a chain of reactions that are likely to happen in the future because of an event, likely a disagreement between the superpowers. They are all interlinked
Dear Voters, CON's argument is very weak and he is deviating from the topic, stating facts that are not in any manner relevant to the topic and just refuting.
VOTERS, I URGE YOU TO VOTE FOR PRO | Miscellaneous | 3 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,907 |
CON gave an example- "You must eat food to survive" In the link I provided, it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran, if he wants to do something, in the above example it does In the link CON gave me, it does not say that once elections are over, the relations WILL improve. It says that they are likely to. There is no war yet because the agreements between Iran and U.S.A, E.U, and the U.K are not yet expired. Once they do the, strait of Hormuz will be closed and war will follow. I agree that my argument was refuted, but only a point that also with the help of something, that is out of the Scenario, it was refuted because there was nothing else, CON could do, he has been refuting me because I have voided his arguments. Now that the U.S.a is sending a ship carrying nuclear missiles, this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War, this is because if U.S.A nukes Iran, Iran is GOING to surrender, because they do not have the power to fight them, after suck a heavy loss. The U.S.a and the E.U sanctioned trade with Iran to convince it to drop Nuclear Technology, but Iran does not seem to be listening to them. We may be more inclined to peace in the 21st century, but superpowers like U.S.a do not take any crap from a country. CON is becoming over confident towards the end of the Debate. I request you all voters not to be partial and vote for the one who YOU think is better. VOTERS, I URGE YOU TO VOTE PRO | 0 | Kanishk |
CON gave an example- "You must eat food to survive"
In the link I provided, it does not say that Obama must talk to Iran, if he wants to do something, in the above example it does
In the link CON gave me, it does not say that once elections are over, the relations WILL improve. It says that they are likely to.
There is no war yet because the agreements between Iran and U.S.A, E.U, and the U.K are not yet expired. Once they do the, strait of Hormuz will be closed and war will follow.
I agree that my argument was refuted, but only a point that also with the help of something, that is out of the Scenario, it was refuted because there was nothing else, CON could do, he has been refuting me because I have voided his arguments.
Now that the U.S.a is sending a ship carrying nuclear missiles, this has a slight chance of being a major war but not the Third World War, this is because if U.S.A nukes Iran, Iran is GOING to surrender, because they do not have the power to fight them, after suck a heavy loss.
The U.S.a and the E.U sanctioned trade with Iran to convince it to drop Nuclear Technology, but Iran does not seem to be listening to them.
We may be more inclined to peace in the 21st century, but superpowers like U.S.a do not take any crap from a country.
CON is becoming over confident towards the end of the Debate.
I request you all voters not to be partial and vote for the one who YOU think is better.
VOTERS, I URGE YOU TO VOTE PRO | Miscellaneous | 4 | Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/1/ | 3,908 |
That something has a discernible point or not is not a necessary characteristic of art. As my preliminary argument, I will simply argue that the term "art" is board enough to cover Modern/Postmodern art and ask you to provide an argument as to why the certain characteristic you find unappealing is enough to exclude those pieces from the definition of "art". | 0 | Kleptin |
That something has a discernible point or not is not a necessary characteristic of art.
As my preliminary argument, I will simply argue that the term "art" is board enough to cover Modern/Postmodern art and ask you to provide an argument as to why the certain characteristic you find unappealing is enough to exclude those pieces from the definition of "art". | Arts | 0 | Art-that-has-no-discernible-point-Modern-or-Postmodern-is-not-art/1/ | 3,979 |
My opponent declares that art must pass certain standards in order to be categorized as art. I have a difficult time following his line of thought, as I have always envisioned art to be an extremely broad term. Going by my opponent's argument, we cannot logically conclude that those things are not art. We can only conclude that these pieces stray from the traditions of past artists and that my opponent dislikes them. I argue that it is impossible to give an objective scale to measure whether something is art or not, so my opponent's declaration that "X is not art" is false. Simply put, everything is art. | 0 | Kleptin |
My opponent declares that art must pass certain standards in order to be categorized as art. I have a difficult time following his line of thought, as I have always envisioned art to be an extremely broad term.
Going by my opponent's argument, we cannot logically conclude that those things are not art. We can only conclude that these pieces stray from the traditions of past artists and that my opponent dislikes them.
I argue that it is impossible to give an objective scale to measure whether something is art or not, so my opponent's declaration that "X is not art" is false.
Simply put, everything is art. | Arts | 1 | Art-that-has-no-discernible-point-Modern-or-Postmodern-is-not-art/1/ | 3,980 |
"Even the broadest terms have definitions, and so it is with art." That's fair. I'll examine the definition of art as provided by my opponent. "According to Wikipedia, "Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas."" This is a fair definition. I agree with it. "My personal definition is that an artwork must possess truth and beauty--whether these are apparent at first glance or only after long study." This is where I must disagree. I can concede the wikipedia definition, but truth and beauty are completely subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we assume infinite opinions. Thus, beauty cannot be a necessary quality. As for truth, I'm not sure how my opponent defines truth. "The pieces I spoke of ARE generally "products of human activity," and they MAY, on a basic level, have the INTENT of "stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind," (although I would hazard that it most of these pieces were made for personal gratification or pure monetary value)" That is a concession. That means I only have to focus on the final requirement. "but they are CERTAINLY not "transmitting emotions and/or ideas." They are not even symbolic. They have no meaning. Art, I'm sure you'll agree, must have meaning." Yes, and those pieces do have meaning. Meaning is not intrinsic, meaning is bestowed upon other things by human beings. A piece of art is a piece of art as long as one person views it as such. Whether it is the artist himself or another admirer. "My opponent says, "We can only conclude that these pieces stray from the traditions of past artists and that my opponent dislikes them." My opponent cannot conclude that these artists have strayed from past traditions. People have been creating NON-art art for centuries. However, it is only in this day and age that it has transcended all other forms of "art." He can logically conclude that I do not like the pieces, but that in itself is irrelevant, and it is fallacious to boil my argument down to that. It would be like me saying, "We can conclude that my opponent DOES like the pieces."" That's fine. When I mentioned these two points, I was conceding them as irrelevant fact. If my opponent chooses to attack a concession, that's fine with me. "My opponent also says, "I argue that it is impossible to give an objective scale to measure whether something is art or not, so my opponent's declaration that 'X is not art' is false." If this were true, then this would be a futile debate for both of us because if there is no standard for art, there is no art, and nothing to judge the debate by. Art, like most everything in this universe, is finite and has standards. It is objective." I retract that statement. I instead offer one objective standard: That someone believe it to be art. As long as one person believes something to be art, it is art. I extend this point by noting that art does not intrinsically exist. Art is a description, not a thing. This description is given by humans. "In conclusion, my opponent says, "Simply put, everything is art." Again, this is fallacious, and would be akin to me saying "Simply put, NOTHING is art," and equally false. The most BASIC definition of art is that it is created by human activity. Since "everything" is not created by human activity, this statement is utterly false." Fair. But I have already accepted the wikipedia definition and offered a rebuttal. "You cannot hang a tree in a frame and call it art. Well, actually you can, and if you have a big name in the art business, you can even sell it to a museum or eager private collector for a large sum of money. But this is not art." I disagree. The fact that my opponent says a tree hanging on a frame is not art does not mean it is not art. For example, I can hang a tree in a frame and interpret it as irony, or a symbol for nature-worship, or for anthropomorphic thinking. So long as one person sees art in something, it is art. "Once again, the "art" that I have described is not true art. It has no truth or beauty, it is merely scratches on paper, etc. Perhaps it does not signify anything, even to the artist. And it is most certainly not created to stimulate the mind and senses, or if it is, it fails and thus fails to be art." Scratches on paper can be interpreted as futility and frustration. Imagine an artist trying to draw something but the lead snapped and he can only scratch on the paper. It becomes a symbol of rebellion and apathy. To me, that is beautiful, meaningful, and true. Even if the artist did not intend that, that is how I interpret it, and thus it is art. "The Modern/Postmodern art craze can be summed up by a comic strip I once saw. I believe it was from Non Sequitur. A man, trying to impress his companion, walked up to a blank piece of wall in an art museum and, with arms outstretched, started to extol its virtues. He believed it was a piece of art, and gave it all sorts of pop-art qualities likes, "shows the artist's soul," etc. While this was going on, a janitor came up and hung an artwork on the blank space on the wall. "Had to clean the dang thing," he said, apologetically. The last panel showed the other people in the room looking at the man in disgust, while he hung his head. It was an excellent, meaningful comic strip, and it's totally true." Argumentum ad populum. Whether or not something is art is not dictated by majority rule. Art is in the mind. If the man felt such an emotional connection to the frame, does that not reflect the purpose of art? Did he not feel an actual connection and was he not uplifted? *************** To sum up, I have offered a contrary definition that I think is more acceptable. Art is art when someone sees it as art. Art is not a thing. It is a description. To call something art is to give it meaning, and meaning is an arbitrary outgrowth of man. Things mean things only to us. Each and every single one of the examples my opponent provides can be seen as art. The Virgin Mary in a container of urine may be a statement on how religion is disregarded in our secular, cynical world. I already gave my interpretations of the tree hanging in the frame, the blank frame, and scratches on paper. My opponent has conceded 2 out of the three requirements. I need only respond to the last one, which is that art must elicit some sort of emotional response. I have done so, and have simplified it to "Art is art when someone sees it as art". Those pieces elicit a response in me, at the very least, so they are must undoubtedly art. | 0 | Kleptin |
"Even the broadest terms have definitions, and so it is with art."
That's fair. I'll examine the definition of art as provided by my opponent.
"According to Wikipedia, "Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas.""
This is a fair definition. I agree with it.
"My personal definition is that an artwork must possess truth and beauty--whether these are apparent at first glance or only after long study."
This is where I must disagree. I can concede the wikipedia definition, but truth and beauty are completely subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we assume infinite opinions. Thus, beauty cannot be a necessary quality. As for truth, I'm not sure how my opponent defines truth.
"The pieces I spoke of ARE generally "products of human activity," and they MAY, on a basic level, have the INTENT of "stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind," (although I would hazard that it most of these pieces were made for personal gratification or pure monetary value)"
That is a concession. That means I only have to focus on the final requirement.
"but they are CERTAINLY not "transmitting emotions and/or ideas." They are not even symbolic. They have no meaning. Art, I'm sure you'll agree, must have meaning."
Yes, and those pieces do have meaning. Meaning is not intrinsic, meaning is bestowed upon other things by human beings. A piece of art is a piece of art as long as one person views it as such. Whether it is the artist himself or another admirer.
"My opponent says, "We can only conclude that these pieces stray from the traditions of past artists and that my opponent dislikes them." My opponent cannot conclude that these artists have strayed from past traditions. People have been creating NON-art art for centuries. However, it is only in this day and age that it has transcended all other forms of "art." He can logically conclude that I do not like the pieces, but that in itself is irrelevant, and it is fallacious to boil my argument down to that. It would be like me saying, "We can conclude that my opponent DOES like the pieces.""
That's fine. When I mentioned these two points, I was conceding them as irrelevant fact. If my opponent chooses to attack a concession, that's fine with me.
"My opponent also says, "I argue that it is impossible to give an objective scale to measure whether something is art or not, so my opponent's declaration that 'X is not art' is false." If this were true, then this would be a futile debate for both of us because if there is no standard for art, there is no art, and nothing to judge the debate by. Art, like most everything in this universe, is finite and has standards. It is objective."
I retract that statement. I instead offer one objective standard: That someone believe it to be art. As long as one person believes something to be art, it is art. I extend this point by noting that art does not intrinsically exist. Art is a description, not a thing. This description is given by humans.
"In conclusion, my opponent says, "Simply put, everything is art." Again, this is fallacious, and would be akin to me saying "Simply put, NOTHING is art," and equally false. The most BASIC definition of art is that it is created by human activity. Since "everything" is not created by human activity, this statement is utterly false."
Fair. But I have already accepted the wikipedia definition and offered a rebuttal.
"You cannot hang a tree in a frame and call it art. Well, actually you can, and if you have a big name in the art business, you can even sell it to a museum or eager private collector for a large sum of money. But this is not art."
I disagree. The fact that my opponent says a tree hanging on a frame is not art does not mean it is not art. For example, I can hang a tree in a frame and interpret it as irony, or a symbol for nature-worship, or for anthropomorphic thinking. So long as one person sees art in something, it is art.
"Once again, the "art" that I have described is not true art. It has no truth or beauty, it is merely scratches on paper, etc. Perhaps it does not signify anything, even to the artist. And it is most certainly not created to stimulate the mind and senses, or if it is, it fails and thus fails to be art."
Scratches on paper can be interpreted as futility and frustration. Imagine an artist trying to draw something but the lead snapped and he can only scratch on the paper. It becomes a symbol of rebellion and apathy. To me, that is beautiful, meaningful, and true. Even if the artist did not intend that, that is how I interpret it, and thus it is art.
"The Modern/Postmodern art craze can be summed up by a comic strip I once saw. I believe it was from Non Sequitur. A man, trying to impress his companion, walked up to a blank piece of wall in an art museum and, with arms outstretched, started to extol its virtues. He believed it was a piece of art, and gave it all sorts of pop-art qualities likes, "shows the artist's soul," etc. While this was going on, a janitor came up and hung an artwork on the blank space on the wall. "Had to clean the dang thing," he said, apologetically. The last panel showed the other people in the room looking at the man in disgust, while he hung his head. It was an excellent, meaningful comic strip, and it's totally true."
Argumentum ad populum. Whether or not something is art is not dictated by majority rule. Art is in the mind. If the man felt such an emotional connection to the frame, does that not reflect the purpose of art? Did he not feel an actual connection and was he not uplifted?
***************
To sum up, I have offered a contrary definition that I think is more acceptable. Art is art when someone sees it as art. Art is not a thing. It is a description. To call something art is to give it meaning, and meaning is an arbitrary outgrowth of man. Things mean things only to us.
Each and every single one of the examples my opponent provides can be seen as art. The Virgin Mary in a container of urine may be a statement on how religion is disregarded in our secular, cynical world. I already gave my interpretations of the tree hanging in the frame, the blank frame, and scratches on paper.
My opponent has conceded 2 out of the three requirements. I need only respond to the last one, which is that art must elicit some sort of emotional response. I have done so, and have simplified it to "Art is art when someone sees it as art". Those pieces elicit a response in me, at the very least, so they are must undoubtedly art. | Arts | 2 | Art-that-has-no-discernible-point-Modern-or-Postmodern-is-not-art/1/ | 3,981 |
Much of the Modern/Postmodern art of today has no discernible point. It is not beautiful, it does not take skill or time. In many cases it is meant to shock. This is not the function of art, and thus these "artworks" are not art at all. | 0 | SolaGratia |
Much of the Modern/Postmodern art of today has no discernible point. It is not beautiful, it does not take skill or time. In many cases it is meant to shock.
This is not the function of art, and thus these "artworks" are not art at all. | Arts | 0 | Art-that-has-no-discernible-point-Modern-or-Postmodern-is-not-art/1/ | 3,982 |
First let me clarify: There are several modern/postmodern artworks that I find appealing. They do take skill, and on some level they make a point. Frank, by Chuck Close, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art is one example I can think of. However, many more so-called works of "art" are everything but. I guess I can only really show you by example. I went to the Hirshorn Modern Art Gallery in D.C., and was amazed at how utterly pointless it all was. A few pieces especially stuck out. <URL>... This is sloppy and pointless. It could have conceivably taken an hour to paint, I'd guess less. Where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art? This is compounded by the fact that the museum has 20 pieces by this artist, most of which follow this theme. No skill, no creativity. Or what about this one, by Lichtenstein, at the Minneapolis Institute, my home turf. <URL>... Once again, we see no point. At this link there is a short blurb, where you can see the museum's laughable attempt to give it a point. "Of Lichtenstein's various recurring motifs, the brushstroke, as depicted in this color screenprint of 1967, is among the most enduring icons of his art. In a parody of the painterly gesture associated with the Abstract Expressionists, he represents the brushstroke--the principal signature of the artist--as an object in its own right, a visual pun frozen in time and space. Placed against a field of colored dots, Lichtenstein's motif mimics the photomechanical printing methods commonly used to produce comic strips, thus reflecting both his Pop art sensibility and preference for the impersonal and machine-made image." So, it's a brushstroke, made to look like a comic strip, which shows us a preference for the impersonal. I'll ask again: where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art? I trust I don't have to give more links. I once saw a painting which was simply a canvas covered in salmon-colored paint, in different textures. Aside from the repulsive color, it had no purpose. It was not art. The Metropolitan Museum in New York is a prime example of this: they exhibited a picture of the Virgin Mary in a jar of urine. Why? Not to improve, art's true purpose, but to degrade. To desecrate. It is meant to shock. Once again, it is not art. Art, to define the term, is truth and beauty. It has aesthetic quality. It appeals. It is aesthetic. This trend in art, from Andy Warhol to Roy Lichtenstein to Pierre Alechinsky, is to move away from real art. Thanks, Sola Gratia | 0 | SolaGratia |
First let me clarify: There are several modern/postmodern artworks that I find appealing. They do take skill, and on some level they make a point. Frank, by Chuck Close, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art is one example I can think of.
However, many more so-called works of "art" are everything but.
I guess I can only really show you by example.
I went to the Hirshorn Modern Art Gallery in D.C., and was amazed at how utterly pointless it all was. A few pieces especially stuck out.
http://hirshhorn.si.edu...
This is sloppy and pointless. It could have conceivably taken an hour to paint, I'd guess less. Where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art?
This is compounded by the fact that the museum has 20 pieces by this artist, most of which follow this theme. No skill, no creativity.
Or what about this one, by Lichtenstein, at the Minneapolis Institute, my home turf.
http://www.artsmia.org...
Once again, we see no point. At this link there is a short blurb, where you can see the museum's laughable attempt to give it a point.
"Of Lichtenstein's various recurring motifs, the brushstroke, as depicted in this color screenprint of 1967, is among the most enduring icons of his art. In a parody of the painterly gesture associated with the Abstract Expressionists, he represents the brushstroke--the principal signature of the artist--as an object in its own right, a visual pun frozen in time and space. Placed against a field of colored dots, Lichtenstein's motif mimics the photomechanical printing methods commonly used to produce comic strips, thus reflecting both his Pop art sensibility and preference for the impersonal and machine-made image."
So, it's a brushstroke, made to look like a comic strip, which shows us a preference for the impersonal. I'll ask again: where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art?
I trust I don't have to give more links. I once saw a painting which was simply a canvas covered in salmon-colored paint, in different textures. Aside from the repulsive color, it had no purpose. It was not art.
The Metropolitan Museum in New York is a prime example of this: they exhibited a picture of the Virgin Mary in a jar of urine. Why? Not to improve, art's true purpose, but to degrade. To desecrate. It is meant to shock. Once again, it is not art.
Art, to define the term, is truth and beauty. It has aesthetic quality. It appeals. It is aesthetic. This trend in art, from Andy Warhol to Roy Lichtenstein to Pierre Alechinsky, is to move away from real art.
Thanks,
Sola Gratia | Arts | 1 | Art-that-has-no-discernible-point-Modern-or-Postmodern-is-not-art/1/ | 3,983 |
My opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of what art really is. He says that he has always thought of art as an "extremely broad term." Even the broadest terms have definitions, and so it is with art. According to Wikipedia, "Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas." ( <URL>... ) This is a wide, basic definition, and Wiki admits that beyond this there is no generally agreed upon definition. My personal definition is that an artwork must possess truth and beauty--whether these are apparent at first glance or only after long study. And no, my bias against the pieces and classes of art I have mentioned is not based on my personal views, but rather on the basic definition of art as provided by Wikipedia. The pieces I spoke of ARE generally "products of human activity," and they MAY, on a basic level, have the INTENT of "stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind," (although I would hazard that it most of these pieces were made for personal gratification or pure monetary value) but they are CERTAINLY not "transmitting emotions and/or ideas." They are not even symbolic. They have no meaning. Art, I'm sure you'll agree, must have meaning. My opponent says, "We can only conclude that these pieces stray from the traditions of past artists and that my opponent dislikes them." My opponent cannot conclude that these artists have strayed from past traditions. People have been creating NON-art art for centuries. However, it is only in this day and age that it has transcended all other forms of "art." He can logically conclude that I do not like the pieces, but that in itself is irrelevant, and it is fallacious to boil my argument down to that. It would be like me saying, "We can conclude that my opponent DOES like the pieces." My opponent also says, "I argue that it is impossible to give an objective scale to measure whether something is art or not, so my opponent's declaration that 'X is not art' is false." If this were true, then this would be a futile debate for both of us because if there is no standard for art, there is no art, and nothing to judge the debate by. Art, like most everything in this universe, is finite and has standards. It is objective. In conclusion, my opponent says, "Simply put, everything is art." Again, this is fallacious, and would be akin to me saying "Simply put, NOTHING is art," and equally false. The most BASIC definition of art is that it is created by human activity. Since "everything" is not created by human activity, this statement is utterly false. You cannot hang a tree in a frame and call it art. Well, actually you can, and if you have a big name in the art business, you can even sell it to a museum or eager private collector for a large sum of money. But this is not art. My opponent basically holds that there is no definition to art. Art, he says, is "everything." This is demonstrably false. Once again, the "art" that I have described is not true art. It has no truth or beauty, it is merely scratches on paper, etc. Perhaps it does not signify anything, even to the artist. And it is most certainly not created to stimulate the mind and senses, or if it is, it fails and thus fails to be art. The Modern/Postmodern art craze can be summed up by a comic strip I once saw. I believe it was from Non Sequitur. A man, trying to impress his companion, walked up to a blank piece of wall in an art museum and, with arms outstretched, started to extol its virtues. He believed it was a piece of art, and gave it all sorts of pop-art qualities likes, "shows the artist's soul," etc. While this was going on, a janitor came up and hung an artwork on the blank space on the wall. "Had to clean the dang thing," he said, apologetically. The last panel showed the other people in the room looking at the man in disgust, while he hung his head. It was an excellent, meaningful comic strip, and it's totally true. When everything is art, nothing is. | 0 | SolaGratia |
My opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of what art really is. He says that he has always thought of art as an "extremely broad term." Even the broadest terms have definitions, and so it is with art.
According to Wikipedia, "Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas." ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) This is a wide, basic definition, and Wiki admits that beyond this there is no generally agreed upon definition. My personal definition is that an artwork must possess truth and beauty--whether these are apparent at first glance or only after long study.
And no, my bias against the pieces and classes of art I have mentioned is not based on my personal views, but rather on the basic definition of art as provided by Wikipedia. The pieces I spoke of ARE generally "products of human activity," and they MAY, on a basic level, have the INTENT of "stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind," (although I would hazard that it most of these pieces were made for personal gratification or pure monetary value) but they are CERTAINLY not "transmitting emotions and/or ideas." They are not even symbolic. They have no meaning. Art, I'm sure you'll agree, must have meaning.
My opponent says, "We can only conclude that these pieces stray from the traditions of past artists and that my opponent dislikes them." My opponent cannot conclude that these artists have strayed from past traditions. People have been creating NON-art art for centuries. However, it is only in this day and age that it has transcended all other forms of "art." He can logically conclude that I do not like the pieces, but that in itself is irrelevant, and it is fallacious to boil my argument down to that. It would be like me saying, "We can conclude that my opponent DOES like the pieces."
My opponent also says, "I argue that it is impossible to give an objective scale to measure whether something is art or not, so my opponent's declaration that 'X is not art' is false." If this were true, then this would be a futile debate for both of us because if there is no standard for art, there is no art, and nothing to judge the debate by. Art, like most everything in this universe, is finite and has standards. It is objective.
In conclusion, my opponent says, "Simply put, everything is art." Again, this is fallacious, and would be akin to me saying "Simply put, NOTHING is art," and equally false. The most BASIC definition of art is that it is created by human activity. Since "everything" is not created by human activity, this statement is utterly false.
You cannot hang a tree in a frame and call it art. Well, actually you can, and if you have a big name in the art business, you can even sell it to a museum or eager private collector for a large sum of money. But this is not art.
My opponent basically holds that there is no definition to art. Art, he says, is "everything." This is demonstrably false.
Once again, the "art" that I have described is not true art. It has no truth or beauty, it is merely scratches on paper, etc. Perhaps it does not signify anything, even to the artist. And it is most certainly not created to stimulate the mind and senses, or if it is, it fails and thus fails to be art.
The Modern/Postmodern art craze can be summed up by a comic strip I once saw. I believe it was from Non Sequitur. A man, trying to impress his companion, walked up to a blank piece of wall in an art museum and, with arms outstretched, started to extol its virtues. He believed it was a piece of art, and gave it all sorts of pop-art qualities likes, "shows the artist's soul," etc. While this was going on, a janitor came up and hung an artwork on the blank space on the wall. "Had to clean the dang thing," he said, apologetically. The last panel showed the other people in the room looking at the man in disgust, while he hung his head. It was an excellent, meaningful comic strip, and it's totally true.
When everything is art, nothing is. | Arts | 2 | Art-that-has-no-discernible-point-Modern-or-Postmodern-is-not-art/1/ | 3,984 |
It is complete bull that people are offended by "Merry Christmas". Maybe Christians should be offended by "Happy Holidays" as then it shows that someone actually believes in the nonsense that it isn't okay to say Merry Christmas. Welcome to America, where freedom of speech, "thrives". Not in schools, workplaces, in the news, on most online sites, near foreigners who might celebrate other holidays, in restaurants, public places, or the like of course, but it "thrives" everywhere else. I think it is anti-christian to say you are offended by Merry Christmas. Someone says "Happy Hanukkah" I won't punch them in the face and say, "That's HOLIDAYS to you buddy." I'll gladly accept and say, "you too.". In my eighth grade english class, my teacher made us write Holiday cards to the troops. She said, "Whatever you do, don't put Merry Christmas." Me and my friend happily put Merry Christmas, along with every other holiday greeting we could think of(hanukkah, etc). I then asked a girl sitting next to me why she wasn't filling out a card. She replied, "I'm Jehovah's witness, and I don't celebrate any holidays, and I don't support the war." "That's complete bull." I replied. "You don't have to support the war, OR celebrate any holidays." She insisted that you must, so I gave up. My teacher, being the politically correct chicken that she is, just ignored it. THIS WAR ON SAYING MERRY CHRISTMAS HAS TO STOP! | 0 | revleader5 |
It is complete bull that people are offended by "Merry Christmas". Maybe Christians should be offended by "Happy Holidays" as then it shows that someone actually believes in the nonsense that it isn't okay to say Merry Christmas. Welcome to America, where freedom of speech, "thrives". Not in schools, workplaces, in the news, on most online sites, near foreigners who might celebrate other holidays, in restaurants, public places, or the like of course, but it "thrives" everywhere else. I think it is anti-christian to say you are offended by Merry Christmas. Someone says "Happy Hanukkah" I won't punch them in the face and say, "That's HOLIDAYS to you buddy." I'll gladly accept and say, "you too.".
In my eighth grade english class, my teacher made us write Holiday cards to the troops. She said, "Whatever you do, don't put Merry Christmas." Me and my friend happily put Merry Christmas, along with every other holiday greeting we could think of(hanukkah, etc). I then asked a girl sitting next to me why she wasn't filling out a card. She replied, "I'm Jehovah's witness, and I don't celebrate any holidays, and I don't support the war." "That's complete bull." I replied. "You don't have to support the war, OR celebrate any holidays." She insisted that you must, so I gave up. My teacher, being the politically correct chicken that she is, just ignored it.
THIS WAR ON SAYING MERRY CHRISTMAS HAS TO STOP! | Politics | 0 | As-Christmas-draws-near-the-War-on-Christmas-gets-harder.-Stop-the-War-on-Christmas/1/ | 3,985 |
Any person who celebrates a holiday would say Merry or Happy -whatever holiday they celebrated. They wouldn't say Merry Christmas. Why can someone tell me that I don't have the right to say Merry Christmas? I always say it. Never Happy Holidays, Happy Holidays is dumb. If you are offended by that then you belong in some dicatorship ruled country. It's even odder that people are offended if they don't celebrate a holiday. You don't, that's fine, but if you don't, you can't expect me to just not say Merry Christmas to anybody because some people will go home and "cry" about it. Why are people trying to brainwash the christians with this "Happy Holidays" crap? | 0 | revleader5 |
Any person who celebrates a holiday would say Merry or Happy -whatever holiday they celebrated. They wouldn't say Merry Christmas. Why can someone tell me that I don't have the right to say Merry Christmas? I always say it. Never Happy Holidays, Happy Holidays is dumb. If you are offended by that then you belong in some dicatorship ruled country. It's even odder that people are offended if they don't celebrate a holiday. You don't, that's fine, but if you don't, you can't expect me to just not say Merry Christmas to anybody because some people will go home and "cry" about it. Why are people trying to brainwash the christians with this "Happy Holidays" crap? | Politics | 1 | As-Christmas-draws-near-the-War-on-Christmas-gets-harder.-Stop-the-War-on-Christmas/1/ | 3,986 |
I agree that it is okay to say Happy Holidays. But if you tell me that I'm not allowed to tell people Merry Christmas, I'll have a constitutional seizure in your home. | 0 | revleader5 |
I agree that it is okay to say Happy Holidays. But if you tell me that I'm not allowed to tell people Merry Christmas, I'll have a constitutional seizure in your home. | Politics | 2 | As-Christmas-draws-near-the-War-on-Christmas-gets-harder.-Stop-the-War-on-Christmas/1/ | 3,987 |
The refutation of this position is quite simple, so I shall be glad to accept. ***************************************** The very notions of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts. For example, if one adopts utilitarianism, "right" becomes that which maximizes probable benefit. If one adopts God's law, "right" becomes that which accords with God's law. Thus, it is very clear that the very conception of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts. Appealing to God's law is simply another moral system, and in order for proponents of this view to state that any other view is incorrect, they open themselves to the exact same criticisms they would use on other systems. Atheism as a whole has no specific moral system. Atheists could be utilitarians, subjectivists, hedonists, or even sadists. Any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong. Thus, it is very clear that atheism as a whole can account for right and wrong, since all the component parts of atheism lead to a conception of right and wrong. ******************************************** It seems that my opponent is confused. He seems to be under the notion that any system that arrives at conceptions of "right" and "wrong" that differ from those found in the Bible is incorrect. To make this position salient, he must provide an account for both why moral relativism is incorrect and why an appeal to God is not simply another form of moral relativism. ******************************************** Specific responses: >> "To begin with God is needed in order for morals to be constant and meaningful." Only to those who appeal to God as their source of morality. All other sources of morality do not need God. >> "without God's rule the morals placed in our society are arbitrary and could very well change from day to day." You must provide an account for why changing morals of society is a bad thing for this to be a salient point. >> "If murder were to be made legal/morally acceptable in the U.S. because everyone agreed that murdering would be a good way to let go of anger and get rid of the people who they considered to be horrible in their life, then should this be considered morally right? I say no, of course not." Only because you are not a conventionalist.... duh... >> "So we can conclude that my opponent must give us the moral method that he will be using in the place of God" Actually, no... I just need to show that atheism on the whole is able to account for right and wrong... which I have done. >> "God is also needed for morals to have any weight or meaning in society." I'm sorry, but this is simply false. God actually commands slavery in Leviticus... but nobody thinks this is moral anymore, which shows that morals can have weight in society BOTH regardless of what God says, AND even contrary to what he says. >> "I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God." If MORALS can be RECOGNIZED, then what on earth do you mean by accounting for right and wrong?!?! You've essentially conceded the debate with this sentence!! >> "there is a KEY DIFFERENCE between a believer in God and a nonbeliever in the way that they get to the conclusion for moral reasoning." Of course there is! But that doesn't mean that one of them is unable to account for right and wrong. ************************************ My opponent has a long road to travel to show his argument has a foot to stand on. NEGATED. | 0 | JustCallMeTarzan |
The refutation of this position is quite simple, so I shall be glad to accept.
*****************************************
The very notions of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts. For example, if one adopts utilitarianism, "right" becomes that which maximizes probable benefit. If one adopts God's law, "right" becomes that which accords with God's law.
Thus, it is very clear that the very conception of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts. Appealing to God's law is simply another moral system, and in order for proponents of this view to state that any other view is incorrect, they open themselves to the exact same criticisms they would use on other systems.
Atheism as a whole has no specific moral system. Atheists could be utilitarians, subjectivists, hedonists, or even sadists. Any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong.
Thus, it is very clear that atheism as a whole can account for right and wrong, since all the component parts of atheism lead to a conception of right and wrong.
********************************************
It seems that my opponent is confused. He seems to be under the notion that any system that arrives at conceptions of "right" and "wrong" that differ from those found in the Bible is incorrect. To make this position salient, he must provide an account for both why moral relativism is incorrect and why an appeal to God is not simply another form of moral relativism.
********************************************
Specific responses:
>> "To begin with God is needed in order for morals to be constant and meaningful."
Only to those who appeal to God as their source of morality. All other sources of morality do not need God.
>> "without God's rule the morals placed in our society are arbitrary and could very well change from day to day."
You must provide an account for why changing morals of society is a bad thing for this to be a salient point.
>> "If murder were to be made legal/morally acceptable in the U.S. because everyone agreed that murdering would be a good way to let go of anger and get rid of the people who they considered to be horrible in their life, then should this be considered morally right? I say no, of course not."
Only because you are not a conventionalist.... duh...
>> "So we can conclude that my opponent must give us the moral method that he will be using in the place of God"
Actually, no... I just need to show that atheism on the whole is able to account for right and wrong... which I have done.
>> "God is also needed for morals to have any weight or meaning in society."
I'm sorry, but this is simply false. God actually commands slavery in Leviticus... but nobody thinks this is moral anymore, which shows that morals can have weight in society BOTH regardless of what God says, AND even contrary to what he says.
>> "I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God."
If MORALS can be RECOGNIZED, then what on earth do you mean by accounting for right and wrong?!?! You've essentially conceded the debate with this sentence!!
>> "there is a KEY DIFFERENCE between a believer in God and a nonbeliever in the way that they get to the conclusion for moral reasoning."
Of course there is! But that doesn't mean that one of them is unable to account for right and wrong.
************************************
My opponent has a long road to travel to show his argument has a foot to stand on.
NEGATED. | Society | 0 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,116 |
Laughably, my opponent has wasted most of his second round discussing utilitarianism. I do not have to show a system to compete with God's moral system, I simply have to negate the resolution: "Atheism can not account for right and wrong." My opponent denies that all moral systems provide an account for right and wrong, but does not give any sort of reasoning for why this is so. His "reason" for why it may be this way is that they do not accord with God's law. This may be compelling if God's law was the only system of morality, but it clearly is not. In fact, this debate ( <URL>... ) and this study ( <URL>... ) clearly show that God is not a necessary part of moral reasoning. My opponent has set the burden of proof at: "You must first refute my argument completely and then explain to the voters HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong." This is only somewhat correct - I have to refute only the RELEVANT parts of your argument, and show how atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong. ************************************************ What charles15 doesn't seem to understand, and what I attempted to explain to him last round (The very notions of right and wrong...) is that "right" and "wrong" are simply words we use to describe how an action conforms to whatever moral system we employ. The ONLY moral system that cannot account for "right" and "wrong" is moral nihilism, or the view that there simply is no such thing as morality. Now, moral nihilism is ONE atheistic system of morality, but it is not THE system of morality of atheism. However, even moral nihilism accounts for right and wrong by stating that they are false notions and improper descriptors. As I stated before, atheism does not have its own moral system any more than Christianity does. Consider that the Christianity's existence is dependent on there being Christians, just as Atheism's existence is dependent on there being Atheists. Thus, the moral system of each can be considered to be an amalgamation of the moral systems of its members. Christians simply use the same moral system, whereas Atheists use a variety. That said, ANY MORAL SYSTEM, except moral nihilism can account for right and wrong. My opponent has yet to show why other systems besides God's law cannot account for right and wrong, when right and wrong are derived directly from the moral systems themselves. ******************************************** Responses: >> "God's morals are not just another form of moral relativism" As soon as you began entertaining notions and arguing about utilitarianism - in short, admitted it exists as a moral system - you conceded this point. If other moral systems exist (which you admit), then appeal to God is just one choice among many, and thus a form of moral relativism. >> "First of all, my opponent did not give any source, what so ever, for the definition of utilitarianism" I assume if you talk intelligibly about utilitarianism (which is questionable in your case), you've read Smart & Bernard's "Utilitarianism, For and Against." >> "Now since not only do I have a website backing up my definition but I have a British philosopher as well" Lol - oh, all bets are off now that he's got a British Philosopher on his side. German would have been much better... >> "both Hitler and Gandhi were executing as what they saw was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people" What you seem to miss is that :maximize probable benefit" should be understood empirically and thus be independent of relativistic challenges. I thought you said you read my other debates... did they confuse you?? >> "On the other hand the Bible is backed up with actual laws given to us by God such as Jesus' teachings and of course, the 10 commandments." You forgot things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder babies, don't eat rabbits, and, of course, burn things each day as a sweet savour to the Lord... >> "So the question here is, since slaves are "that which maximizes probable benefit," should it then be morally acceptable?" Again, I thought you read my other debates... empirical rights-based act utilitarianism completely eliminates this notion... *********************************************** My opponent has not provided adequate response to: 1) Appeal to God is a form of moral relativism. 2) All moral systems can account for right and wrong. 3) There is no (non-circular) reason why appeal to God's law is the "correct" moral system. 4) God is not even required for moral reasoning. 5) He must show that moral relativism is an incorrect framework. In order to give his argument a leg to stand on, he must answer these objections, as well as clarify his statement of apparent concession: "I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God." NEGATED. | 0 | JustCallMeTarzan |
Laughably, my opponent has wasted most of his second round discussing utilitarianism. I do not have to show a system to compete with God's moral system, I simply have to negate the resolution: "Atheism can not account for right and wrong."
My opponent denies that all moral systems provide an account for right and wrong, but does not give any sort of reasoning for why this is so. His "reason" for why it may be this way is that they do not accord with God's law. This may be compelling if God's law was the only system of morality, but it clearly is not.
In fact, this debate ( http://www.debate.org... ) and this study ( http://tigger.uic.edu... ) clearly show that God is not a necessary part of moral reasoning.
My opponent has set the burden of proof at: "You must first refute my argument completely and then explain to the voters HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong."
This is only somewhat correct - I have to refute only the RELEVANT parts of your argument, and show how atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong.
************************************************
What charles15 doesn't seem to understand, and what I attempted to explain to him last round (The very notions of right and wrong...) is that "right" and "wrong" are simply words we use to describe how an action conforms to whatever moral system we employ.
The ONLY moral system that cannot account for "right" and "wrong" is moral nihilism, or the view that there simply is no such thing as morality. Now, moral nihilism is ONE atheistic system of morality, but it is not THE system of morality of atheism. However, even moral nihilism accounts for right and wrong by stating that they are false notions and improper descriptors.
As I stated before, atheism does not have its own moral system any more than Christianity does. Consider that the Christianity's existence is dependent on there being Christians, just as Atheism's existence is dependent on there being Atheists. Thus, the moral system of each can be considered to be an amalgamation of the moral systems of its members. Christians simply use the same moral system, whereas Atheists use a variety.
That said, ANY MORAL SYSTEM, except moral nihilism can account for right and wrong. My opponent has yet to show why other systems besides God's law cannot account for right and wrong, when right and wrong are derived directly from the moral systems themselves.
********************************************
Responses:
>> "God's morals are not just another form of moral relativism"
As soon as you began entertaining notions and arguing about utilitarianism - in short, admitted it exists as a moral system - you conceded this point. If other moral systems exist (which you admit), then appeal to God is just one choice among many, and thus a form of moral relativism.
>> "First of all, my opponent did not give any source, what so ever, for the definition of utilitarianism"
I assume if you talk intelligibly about utilitarianism (which is questionable in your case), you've read Smart & Bernard's "Utilitarianism, For and Against."
>> "Now since not only do I have a website backing up my definition but I have a British philosopher as well"
Lol - oh, all bets are off now that he's got a British Philosopher on his side. German would have been much better...
>> "both Hitler and Gandhi were executing as what they saw was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people"
What you seem to miss is that :maximize probable benefit" should be understood empirically and thus be independent of relativistic challenges. I thought you said you read my other debates... did they confuse you??
>> "On the other hand the Bible is backed up with actual laws given to us by God such as Jesus' teachings and of course, the 10 commandments."
You forgot things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder babies, don't eat rabbits, and, of course, burn things each day as a sweet savour to the Lord...
>> "So the question here is, since slaves are "that which maximizes probable benefit," should it then be morally acceptable?"
Again, I thought you read my other debates... empirical rights-based act utilitarianism completely eliminates this notion...
***********************************************
My opponent has not provided adequate response to:
1) Appeal to God is a form of moral relativism.
2) All moral systems can account for right and wrong.
3) There is no (non-circular) reason why appeal to God's law is the "correct" moral system.
4) God is not even required for moral reasoning.
5) He must show that moral relativism is an incorrect framework.
In order to give his argument a leg to stand on, he must answer these objections, as well as clarify his statement of apparent concession:
"I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God."
NEGATED. | Society | 1 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,117 |
I grow weary of re-explaining the same basic concepts.... *********************************** Because the very terms "right" and "wrong" can only be understood in the context of a moral system, ANY moral system can account for right and wrong. My opponent has not responded to this point yet... and it is growing increasingly obvious that he simply does not understand enough about the resolution he has created to do so. Charles spends most of his space discussing utilitarianism and how Hitler and Ghandi have differing notions of what right and wrong are. Has it occurred to anyone that Hitler and Ghandi were not driven by anything close to the same moral system? My opponent seems to be under the ridiculous impression that whatever moral system I argue for is the one that must apply to everyone. This is obviously nonsense, as there are even differing theistic moral systems within Christianity! For my opponent to expect me to defend the idiotic universal morality he attempts to impose on my via straw man argumentation is simply ludicrous. It becomes immediately obvious that my opponent is simply not thinking with his brain, but rather the bible when one considers this quote: ""then how can morals be accounted for." Well the answer must be God!" He has already admitted that he is not stating that God is required for moral reasoning, but seems to be under the notion that God is required to account for morals. Well, pray tell, how does one morally reason without accounting for right and wrong? Furthermore, my opponent keeps restating that I have not shown how a system can account for morals. Well, we should actually be discussing the resolution, which says "right and wrong," but I assume my addled opponent means these terms interchangeably for some strange reason... In order to account for right and wrong, a system of morality must be able to describe the criteria for judging an action to be right or judging it to be wrong. This is ENTIRELY dependent on the system of morality. Consider the following scenario: Jeff murders Bob in order to save 100 people. Christian morality refers to this action as wrong because of a prohibition on murder. Sadist morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't bring the most harm. Masochistic morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't hurt Jeff. Utilitarianism refers to this action as right because it saves 100 people at the cost of 1. Conventionalist morality refers to the action as whatever the majority of the 102 people involved do. Subjectivist morality refers to the action as whatever the individual reader views it as. Is it really THAT hard to understand how a moral system accounts for right and wrong? The only difference between Appeal to God and other moral systems is the mechanism by which one defines right and wrong. ALL moral systems NECESSARILY contain a mechanism for accounting for right and wrong. Thus, ANY moral system MUST be able to account for right and wrong, thus fulfilling the resolution. ******************************************************* Responses: >> "Also, it's not my job to remember everything you said in a debate I wasn't even in and haven't read in quite some time." It most certainly is if you want to bring it up in a debate... >> "I fear to say that my opponent has not studied theology, I'm not going to debate this point because It is totally irrelevant to the resolution at hand." This is pretty funny, considering my opponent expects me to debate utilitarianism with him... >> "because as far as I know, things like force conquered women to be your wives or murder babies are things that God forbids." You need to re-read Leviticus. >> "[1] Appeal to God is a form of moral relativism. I have already answered this in my argument above." Your argumentation is off-topic and incorrect, as I explained... twice. >> "[2] All moral systems can account for right and wrong. I have already answered this in my argument above." Your argumentation is off-topic and incorrect, as I explained... twice. >> "[3] There is no (non-circular) reason why appeal to God's law is the "correct" moral system." You have not answered this, but rather asserted without any sort of logical reasoning that all other moral systems are circular too. >> "There is NOT a circle with God's moral laws because all the morals are derived form him, thus there is a strict wrong or right answer to every human action." This deals with the conceptualization of right and wrong, not why THIS conceptualization is the correct one. >> "I have never said' God is needed for moral reasoning, only that he is needed for morals to be accounted for" This doesn't even make sense... >> [Moral Relativism] "is incorrect because it can not account for morals." Which you have yet to show... >> "In conclusion my opponent has again, FAILED, to show HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for morality." Simply because you do not understand an explanation does not mean that it is incorrect. >> "those moral systems are not absolute and totally rely on the the way a person applies the moral method to ones life. Thus all Atheistic moral methods can not account for what is right or wrong!" If you wish to use this argument, you must demonstrate that it is only universally applicable moral systems that can account for right and wrong.... which you cannot do. >> "1 Explain why it is wrong for slavery under utilitarianism." Irrelevant to the resolution. >> "3 Explain why these things are wrong... "things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder" Irrelevant to the resolution. >> "2 HOW can Atheism ACCOUNT for morality? EXPLAIN more than just because its derived from the Atheistic moral method!" Already done three times now if you would actually read my arguments. ****************************************** Readers, it is becoming increasingly clear (and frustrating) that my opponent has no idea at all what the implications of his own resolution are. He seems convinced that because he cannot understand my argument, it must be incorrect. I'm sorry, but that's not a valid reason... The debate is clear. Vote CON. My opponent STILL has not clarified his statement of concession: "I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God." Furthermore, my opponent carries himself further and further down the path of "My moral system must be correct because it involves God" without argumentation to back up his ridiculous claims. Ladies and gentlemen, we call this begging the question. NEGATED. | 0 | JustCallMeTarzan |
I grow weary of re-explaining the same basic concepts....
***********************************
Because the very terms "right" and "wrong" can only be understood in the context of a moral system, ANY moral system can account for right and wrong. My opponent has not responded to this point yet... and it is growing increasingly obvious that he simply does not understand enough about the resolution he has created to do so.
Charles spends most of his space discussing utilitarianism and how Hitler and Ghandi have differing notions of what right and wrong are. Has it occurred to anyone that Hitler and Ghandi were not driven by anything close to the same moral system?
My opponent seems to be under the ridiculous impression that whatever moral system I argue for is the one that must apply to everyone. This is obviously nonsense, as there are even differing theistic moral systems within Christianity! For my opponent to expect me to defend the idiotic universal morality he attempts to impose on my via straw man argumentation is simply ludicrous.
It becomes immediately obvious that my opponent is simply not thinking with his brain, but rather the bible when one considers this quote: ""then how can morals be accounted for." Well the answer must be God!" He has already admitted that he is not stating that God is required for moral reasoning, but seems to be under the notion that God is required to account for morals. Well, pray tell, how does one morally reason without accounting for right and wrong?
Furthermore, my opponent keeps restating that I have not shown how a system can account for morals. Well, we should actually be discussing the resolution, which says "right and wrong," but I assume my addled opponent means these terms interchangeably for some strange reason...
In order to account for right and wrong, a system of morality must be able to describe the criteria for judging an action to be right or judging it to be wrong. This is ENTIRELY dependent on the system of morality. Consider the following scenario:
Jeff murders Bob in order to save 100 people.
Christian morality refers to this action as wrong because of a prohibition on murder.
Sadist morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't bring the most harm.
Masochistic morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't hurt Jeff.
Utilitarianism refers to this action as right because it saves 100 people at the cost of 1.
Conventionalist morality refers to the action as whatever the majority of the 102 people involved do.
Subjectivist morality refers to the action as whatever the individual reader views it as.
Is it really THAT hard to understand how a moral system accounts for right and wrong? The only difference between Appeal to God and other moral systems is the mechanism by which one defines right and wrong. ALL moral systems NECESSARILY contain a mechanism for accounting for right and wrong. Thus, ANY moral system MUST be able to account for right and wrong, thus fulfilling the resolution.
*******************************************************
Responses:
>> "Also, it's not my job to remember everything you said in a debate I wasn't even in and haven't read in quite some time."
It most certainly is if you want to bring it up in a debate...
>> "I fear to say that my opponent has not studied theology, I'm not going to debate this point because It is totally irrelevant to the resolution at hand."
This is pretty funny, considering my opponent expects me to debate utilitarianism with him...
>> "because as far as I know, things like force conquered women to be your wives or murder babies are things that God forbids."
You need to re-read Leviticus.
>> "[1] Appeal to God is a form of moral relativism. I have already answered this in my argument above."
Your argumentation is off-topic and incorrect, as I explained... twice.
>> "[2] All moral systems can account for right and wrong. I have already answered this in my argument above."
Your argumentation is off-topic and incorrect, as I explained... twice.
>> "[3] There is no (non-circular) reason why appeal to God's law is the "correct" moral system."
You have not answered this, but rather asserted without any sort of logical reasoning that all other moral systems are circular too.
>> "There is NOT a circle with God's moral laws because all the morals are derived form him, thus there is a strict wrong or right answer to every human action."
This deals with the conceptualization of right and wrong, not why THIS conceptualization is the correct one.
>> "I have never said' God is needed for moral reasoning, only that he is needed for morals to be accounted for"
This doesn't even make sense...
>> [Moral Relativism] "is incorrect because it can not account for morals."
Which you have yet to show...
>> "In conclusion my opponent has again, FAILED, to show HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for morality."
Simply because you do not understand an explanation does not mean that it is incorrect.
>> "those moral systems are not absolute and totally rely on the the way a person applies the moral method to ones life. Thus all Atheistic moral methods can not account for what is right or wrong!"
If you wish to use this argument, you must demonstrate that it is only universally applicable moral systems that can account for right and wrong.... which you cannot do.
>> "1 Explain why it is wrong for slavery under utilitarianism."
Irrelevant to the resolution.
>> "3 Explain why these things are wrong... "things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder"
Irrelevant to the resolution.
>> "2 HOW can Atheism ACCOUNT for morality? EXPLAIN more than just because its derived from the Atheistic moral method!"
Already done three times now if you would actually read my arguments.
******************************************
Readers, it is becoming increasingly clear (and frustrating) that my opponent has no idea at all what the implications of his own resolution are. He seems convinced that because he cannot understand my argument, it must be incorrect. I'm sorry, but that's not a valid reason...
The debate is clear. Vote CON.
My opponent STILL has not clarified his statement of concession: "I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God."
Furthermore, my opponent carries himself further and further down the path of "My moral system must be correct because it involves God" without argumentation to back up his ridiculous claims. Ladies and gentlemen, we call this begging the question.
NEGATED. | Society | 2 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,118 |
Sigh.... yet AGAIN my opponent demonstrates his woeful misunderstanding of both his own resolution and morality writ large. The resolution clearly states "Atheism can not account for RIGHT AND WRONG." The resolution does NOT say "Atheism can not account for MORALITY." And even if it did, this would be of no importance, because any system that can account for right and wrong can account for morality. What my opponent means to say is that atheistic moral systems do not align with Christian moral systems. This should not be a surprise to anyone, and my opponent has spent four rounds as though it should be. ****************************************** Responses: >> Thus we can conclude that there are different VIEWS in which someone could have on this issue, which could both be 'CLASSIFIED' as morally RIGHT!" This statement represents and egregious misunderstanding of morality, and explains why my opponent is so utterly befuddled on this topic. Simply because people have differing opinions of right and wrong does not mean that they are both right. It means they use different methods for determining the concept. If people reasoned with the SAME CONCEPT in the SAME SITUATION, they would arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION. >> "Yes, people can have moral reasoning, but the final choice they make can not be deemed as wrong!" This is entirely false, and again shows how confused my opponent is. In order to morally reason, one must be able to account for right and wrong. How else could one morally reason? It doesn't make sense to say that in a given situation, Bob is morally reasoning, though he cannot understand right and wrong. Yet this is what my opponent seems to endorse. When using a set criteria, there is only one "right" action. My opponent seems to think that the fact that other criteria exist implies that there are multiple right actions under the same criteria. >> "With God, its different, because there is only ONE 'right way' for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are 'absolute' and can be "accounted" for!" Again, this illustrates what I stated above. If you replace "God" with any other criteria, you get: "With utilitarianism... there is only ONE "right way" for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are absolute and can be accounted for." ****************************************** Perhaps if I explain this Socraticly in a way that a third-grader could understand we shall finally get somewhere... Q: What are right and wrong? A: Right and wrong are labels we use to describe an action in moral terms and signify that the content of the action carries moral import. Q: Where do we get these labels? What do they mean? A: The criteria for assigning an action a label as right or wrong is dependent on the system of morality one adopts. For example, in some moral systems, that which violates God's law is categorically "wrong." In other systems, the same action may be described as "right" given the circumstances or carry no moral import at all. However, the action itself is the same. Q: So the content of the action and the judgment are separate? A: Yes, the content of the action is the same in all circumstances. The judgment depends on criteria one uses to evaluate right and wrong. Consider the action of not going to Church on Sunday, but rather working to help clean trash along the roadway. Some moral systems would classify this as "wrong" because it violates one of God's laws (keep holy the Sabbath), but other moral systems would classify it is "right" because they do not have a rule that involves going to Church, and working for the benefit of the community is a good thing to do. Q: What's the difference between Christian and Atheistic moral systems? A: The difference is entirely in the criteria one uses to determine right vs. wrong. Christian moral systems include an appeal to the static nature of God's law, and Atheistic moral systems appeal to the nature of man as a social animal and other characteristics of interaction. Q: Don't we need God to make right and wrong mean something? A: Of course not - if God did not exist, we could still state that something was wrong. For example, God's existence has nothing at all to do with whether or not raping babies is wrong. Furthermore, moral principles are clearly not dependent on God. If God had made an 11th commandment that read "Thou shalt rape thy baby thrice daily," it would not be morally right to do so. Thus, one can see that right and wrong have meaning independent of God. Q: Ok - without God, how do we account for right and wrong? A: We account for right and wrong by assessing an action by a set of moral principles or criteria. The same mechanism applies across all forms of morality. Consider: Example: Action -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of _______ -> Judgment. Christian: Murder -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of God's law -> Wrong. Atheist: Murder -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of XYZ -> Wrong. As one can see, the only difference is what one assesses right and wrong by. Since right and wrong are by their very nature dependent on the characteristics of what one assesses an action by, as long as there is a criteria to fill in the blank above, then one can account for right and wrong. ************************************** My opponent has several glaring holes in his argument that must be addressed in the final round. 1) He has repeatedly stated that God's moral system is the only objective one. He must show both that any non-subjective system of morality is incorrect and that God's objective system is the correct objective one. 2) He has held that there are multiple "right" actions under non-God moral systems. He has not shown how this is possible. He must demonstrate that people using the same criteria and same reasoning in the same situation can arrive at different conclusions for this to be a salient point. 3) He has stated that people can morally reason without including God. He must then show that one can morally reason without accounting for right and wrong, or he has conceded the debate. 4) He has stated that non-God systems of morality do not account for right and wrong, but has not attacked by conceptualization of right and wrong as being dependent on the moral system itself. Rather, he has attacked all my points inside a Christian framework, where they of course do not account for right and wrong. However, he must evaluate the position in its native framework. To evaluate it inside a Christian framework is a begging the question fallacy. 5) He holds that God gives us the criteria for evaluating right and wrong, but does not show how this is any different from other systems that are also dependent on universally applicable criteria. For example, all act-utilitarians use the same criteria, just as all Christians of the same denomination use the same criteria. He must show the difference in the models of the system of morality. ALL of these points MUST be addressed for my opponent to have even the beginnings of a salient argument. ************************************** To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary. Moral systems exist. Therefore, all moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. If there is a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong, one can account for the concepts. All moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. Therefore, all moral systems can account for right and wrong. Thus, for the fourth time, I've shown how ANY moral system can account for right and wrong. NEGATED. | 0 | JustCallMeTarzan |
Sigh.... yet AGAIN my opponent demonstrates his woeful misunderstanding of both his own resolution and morality writ large.
The resolution clearly states "Atheism can not account for RIGHT AND WRONG." The resolution does NOT say "Atheism can not account for MORALITY." And even if it did, this would be of no importance, because any system that can account for right and wrong can account for morality.
What my opponent means to say is that atheistic moral systems do not align with Christian moral systems. This should not be a surprise to anyone, and my opponent has spent four rounds as though it should be.
******************************************
Responses:
>> Thus we can conclude that there are different VIEWS in which someone could have on this issue, which could both be 'CLASSIFIED' as morally RIGHT!"
This statement represents and egregious misunderstanding of morality, and explains why my opponent is so utterly befuddled on this topic. Simply because people have differing opinions of right and wrong does not mean that they are both right. It means they use different methods for determining the concept. If people reasoned with the SAME CONCEPT in the SAME SITUATION, they would arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION.
>> "Yes, people can have moral reasoning, but the final choice they make can not be deemed as wrong!"
This is entirely false, and again shows how confused my opponent is. In order to morally reason, one must be able to account for right and wrong. How else could one morally reason? It doesn't make sense to say that in a given situation, Bob is morally reasoning, though he cannot understand right and wrong. Yet this is what my opponent seems to endorse. When using a set criteria, there is only one "right" action. My opponent seems to think that the fact that other criteria exist implies that there are multiple right actions under the same criteria.
>> "With God, its different, because there is only ONE 'right way' for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are 'absolute' and can be "accounted" for!"
Again, this illustrates what I stated above. If you replace "God" with any other criteria, you get: "With utilitarianism... there is only ONE "right way" for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are absolute and can be accounted for."
******************************************
Perhaps if I explain this Socraticly in a way that a third-grader could understand we shall finally get somewhere...
Q: What are right and wrong?
A: Right and wrong are labels we use to describe an action in moral terms and signify that the content of the action carries moral import.
Q: Where do we get these labels? What do they mean?
A: The criteria for assigning an action a label as right or wrong is dependent on the system of morality one adopts. For example, in some moral systems, that which violates God's law is categorically "wrong." In other systems, the same action may be described as "right" given the circumstances or carry no moral import at all. However, the action itself is the same.
Q: So the content of the action and the judgment are separate?
A: Yes, the content of the action is the same in all circumstances. The judgment depends on criteria one uses to evaluate right and wrong. Consider the action of not going to Church on Sunday, but rather working to help clean trash along the roadway. Some moral systems would classify this as "wrong" because it violates one of God's laws (keep holy the Sabbath), but other moral systems would classify it is "right" because they do not have a rule that involves going to Church, and working for the benefit of the community is a good thing to do.
Q: What's the difference between Christian and Atheistic moral systems?
A: The difference is entirely in the criteria one uses to determine right vs. wrong. Christian moral systems include an appeal to the static nature of God's law, and Atheistic moral systems appeal to the nature of man as a social animal and other characteristics of interaction.
Q: Don't we need God to make right and wrong mean something?
A: Of course not - if God did not exist, we could still state that something was wrong. For example, God's existence has nothing at all to do with whether or not raping babies is wrong. Furthermore, moral principles are clearly not dependent on God. If God had made an 11th commandment that read "Thou shalt rape thy baby thrice daily," it would not be morally right to do so. Thus, one can see that right and wrong have meaning independent of God.
Q: Ok - without God, how do we account for right and wrong?
A: We account for right and wrong by assessing an action by a set of moral principles or criteria. The same mechanism applies across all forms of morality. Consider:
Example: Action -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of _______ -> Judgment.
Christian: Murder -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of God's law -> Wrong.
Atheist: Murder -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of XYZ -> Wrong.
As one can see, the only difference is what one assesses right and wrong by. Since right and wrong are by their very nature dependent on the characteristics of what one assesses an action by, as long as there is a criteria to fill in the blank above, then one can account for right and wrong.
**************************************
My opponent has several glaring holes in his argument that must be addressed in the final round.
1) He has repeatedly stated that God's moral system is the only objective one. He must show both that any non-subjective system of morality is incorrect and that God's objective system is the correct objective one.
2) He has held that there are multiple "right" actions under non-God moral systems. He has not shown how this is possible. He must demonstrate that people using the same criteria and same reasoning in the same situation can arrive at different conclusions for this to be a salient point.
3) He has stated that people can morally reason without including God. He must then show that one can morally reason without accounting for right and wrong, or he has conceded the debate.
4) He has stated that non-God systems of morality do not account for right and wrong, but has not attacked by conceptualization of right and wrong as being dependent on the moral system itself. Rather, he has attacked all my points inside a Christian framework, where they of course do not account for right and wrong. However, he must evaluate the position in its native framework. To evaluate it inside a Christian framework is a begging the question fallacy.
5) He holds that God gives us the criteria for evaluating right and wrong, but does not show how this is any different from other systems that are also dependent on universally applicable criteria. For example, all act-utilitarians use the same criteria, just as all Christians of the same denomination use the same criteria. He must show the difference in the models of the system of morality.
ALL of these points MUST be addressed for my opponent to have even the beginnings of a salient argument.
**************************************
To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary.
Moral systems exist.
Therefore, all moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong.
If there is a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong, one can account for the concepts.
All moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong.
Therefore, all moral systems can account for right and wrong.
Thus, for the fourth time, I've shown how ANY moral system can account for right and wrong.
NEGATED. | Society | 3 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,119 |
It is for the fifth time, and thankfully the last, that I must re-explain the same very simple concept. Perhaps if I quote the children in the study that Charles15 obviously did not read, it will be made clear to him... If it can be shown that one can account for right and wrong without appealing to God, then the resolution is fulfilled. This study ( <URL>... ) proves this exact point. Here's a quote from one of the subjects in the study, which concluded that "even for deeply religious children from fundamentalist or orthodox backgrounds, morality stems from criteria independent of God's word:" I: Suppose god had written in the Torah that Jews should steal, would it then be right for Jews to steal? M: No. Thus, the resolution is immediately fulfilled, as it has been shown that one can account for right and wrong completely absent, and EVEN IN THE FACE OF God's law. However, since my opponent will no doubt lack understanding of this point as well, I suppose I'll address the rest of his flawed argument. ************************************* Responses: >> "I'm not sure how you can say this and at the same time have read my previous argument." Very easily - your previous argument is wrong. >> "Now, my opponent says that ANY Atheistic moral system can account for morals (right and wrong), I say this is false." Again - you are simply wrong, as I have now shown FIVE times. >> [A criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong] "is what I am saying Atheism does not have. Yet AGAIN - wrong. ALL MORAL SYSTEMS have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. >> ""The very notions of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts." He has said this or something like this almost every round but has not told me HOW this works" Perhaps you did not read when I said: "Right and wrong are labels we use to describe an action in moral terms and signify that the content of the action carries moral import. The criteria for assigning an action a label as right or wrong is dependent on the system of morality one adopts. For example, in some moral systems, that which violates God's law is categorically "wrong." In other systems, the same action may be described as "right" given the circumstances or carry no moral import at all. However, the action itself is the same." >> "I have explained, how if there are two views, that are both radically different, but at the same time considered right" In your rebuttal, you held that Bob and Jeff could arrive at different moral conclusions USING DIFFERENT REASONING, which necessitates a DIFFERENT MORAL SYSTEM. Thus, your entire rebuttal is irrelevant. >> ""HOW can my opponent define what the MOST HARM is in this situation? To my opponent it might be killing Bob, to another person it might be letting the 100 people die! So, tell me, HOW do you define what the most harm is?!"" Did you happen to miss where I answered this?? Here it is again: "What you seem to miss is that "maximize probable benefit" should be understood empirically and thus be independent of relativistic challenges." >> "there are many countries through out the world, in which raping little children is morally acceptable." Yet again, my opponents radical misunderstanding of the topic has caused him to concede the debate. If there are other moral systems that can account for this action as "right," then the resolution is fulfilled. Oh... and he gives no example. >> "they view raping little children as beneficial. My opponent may say it's not. But he can't just say that, he must explain what is most beneficial" Perhaps "empirically" was too big of a word for you. It means by an appeal to the natural world. Thus, that which is not beneficial would be that which does not provide for the benefit of humans as a natural organism. And with an empirical understanding, it's quite obvious that raping babies harms them... ************************************************************************* Readers, throughout this debate my opponent has displayed a dogmatic, radical misunderstanding of the concept of morality. He has refused to consider my argumentation (or is simply unable to), forcing me to repeat myself five times. He has yet to give a solid rebuttal to my position in the first round. Furthermore, through several statements which I have pointed out through the debate, he has conceded the debate by stating that conceptualizations of morality are available absent God and that other moral systems that do not rely on God exist. For the last time, the refutation of this position is as follows: To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary. Moral systems exist. Therefore, all moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. If there is a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong, one can account for the concepts. All moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. Therefore, all moral systems can account for right and wrong. Furthermore, here is a counterargument showing the fallacious nature of the resolution: [Atheistic moral systems] can not account for right and wrong. To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary. Atheistic moral systems exist (ADMITTED BY MY OPPONENT). Therefore, atheistic moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. ******************************************************************* Readers, this debate is crystal clear. Vote CON. NEGATED. | 0 | JustCallMeTarzan |
It is for the fifth time, and thankfully the last, that I must re-explain the same very simple concept. Perhaps if I quote the children in the study that Charles15 obviously did not read, it will be made clear to him...
If it can be shown that one can account for right and wrong without appealing to God, then the resolution is fulfilled. This study ( http://tigger.uic.edu... ) proves this exact point. Here's a quote from one of the subjects in the study, which concluded that "even for deeply religious children from fundamentalist or orthodox backgrounds, morality stems from criteria independent of God's word:"
I: Suppose god had written in the Torah that Jews should steal, would it then be right for Jews to steal?
M: No.
Thus, the resolution is immediately fulfilled, as it has been shown that one can account for right and wrong completely absent, and EVEN IN THE FACE OF God's law.
However, since my opponent will no doubt lack understanding of this point as well, I suppose I'll address the rest of his flawed argument.
*************************************
Responses:
>> "I'm not sure how you can say this and at the same time have read my previous argument."
Very easily - your previous argument is wrong.
>> "Now, my opponent says that ANY Atheistic moral system can account for morals (right and wrong), I say this is false."
Again - you are simply wrong, as I have now shown FIVE times.
>> [A criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong] "is what I am saying Atheism does not have.
Yet AGAIN - wrong. ALL MORAL SYSTEMS have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong.
>> ""The very notions of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts." He has said this or something like this almost every round but has not told me HOW this works"
Perhaps you did not read when I said: "Right and wrong are labels we use to describe an action in moral terms and signify that the content of the action carries moral import. The criteria for assigning an action a label as right or wrong is dependent on the system of morality one adopts. For example, in some moral systems, that which violates God's law is categorically "wrong." In other systems, the same action may be described as "right" given the circumstances or carry no moral import at all. However, the action itself is the same."
>> "I have explained, how if there are two views, that are both radically different, but at the same time considered right"
In your rebuttal, you held that Bob and Jeff could arrive at different moral conclusions USING DIFFERENT REASONING, which necessitates a DIFFERENT MORAL SYSTEM. Thus, your entire rebuttal is irrelevant.
>> ""HOW can my opponent define what the MOST HARM is in this situation? To my opponent it might be killing Bob, to another person it might be letting the 100 people die! So, tell me, HOW do you define what the most harm is?!""
Did you happen to miss where I answered this?? Here it is again: "What you seem to miss is that "maximize probable benefit" should be understood empirically and thus be independent of relativistic challenges."
>> "there are many countries through out the world, in which raping little children is morally acceptable."
Yet again, my opponents radical misunderstanding of the topic has caused him to concede the debate. If there are other moral systems that can account for this action as "right," then the resolution is fulfilled. Oh... and he gives no example.
>> "they view raping little children as beneficial. My opponent may say it's not. But he can't just say that, he must explain what is most beneficial"
Perhaps "empirically" was too big of a word for you. It means by an appeal to the natural world. Thus, that which is not beneficial would be that which does not provide for the benefit of humans as a natural organism. And with an empirical understanding, it's quite obvious that raping babies harms them...
*************************************************************************
Readers, throughout this debate my opponent has displayed a dogmatic, radical misunderstanding of the concept of morality. He has refused to consider my argumentation (or is simply unable to), forcing me to repeat myself five times. He has yet to give a solid rebuttal to my position in the first round.
Furthermore, through several statements which I have pointed out through the debate, he has conceded the debate by stating that conceptualizations of morality are available absent God and that other moral systems that do not rely on God exist.
For the last time, the refutation of this position is as follows:
To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary.
Moral systems exist.
Therefore, all moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong.
If there is a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong, one can account for the concepts.
All moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong.
Therefore, all moral systems can account for right and wrong.
Furthermore, here is a counterargument showing the fallacious nature of the resolution:
[Atheistic moral systems] can not account for right and wrong.
To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary.
Atheistic moral systems exist (ADMITTED BY MY OPPONENT).
Therefore, atheistic moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong.
*******************************************************************
Readers, this debate is crystal clear. Vote CON.
NEGATED. | Society | 4 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,120 |
Thank you Tarzan for accepting the challenge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Statement (1) To begin with God is needed in order for morals to be constant and meaningful. First of all God is needed for morals to be constant because without God's rule the morals placed in our society are arbitrary and could very well change from day to day. For instance, in conventionalism which is the view that fundamental principles are validated by definition, agreement, or convention, laws of morals can be changed by a majority agreement on any issue. If murder were to be made legal/morally acceptable in the U.S. because everyone agreed that murdering would be a good way to let go of anger and get rid of the people who they considered to be horrible in their life, then should this be considered morally right? I say no, of course not. My opponent may also say no, in fact I can almost guarantee you that he will. But he says no, not for the same reasons as I. Now, the reason I say know is because God says that I am not to murder someone, "its that simple." To clarify things, if God were not to be real than I am not saying that I would become a murderer either. My opponent says no for reasons I don't know yet because he has not given a response. So we can conclude that my opponent must give us the moral method that he will be using in the place of God, in order to account for morals. He must also give the PROPER DEFINITION of that moral method that is backed up by a reliable source. God is also needed for morals to have any weight or meaning in society. If God did not exist then morals could be decided by the people with the most power or a majority vote. Through this morals could be corrupted and murder, rape, theft ect... could be made morally acceptable among the people, this has happened many times in history. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God. I know many people who think murdering other people is immoral just like me. But what I am saying, is that there is a KEY DIFFERENCE between a believer in God and a nonbeliever in the way that they get to the conclusion for moral reasoning. Good luck to my opponent. charles15 | 0 | charles15 |
Thank you Tarzan for accepting the challenge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement (1)
To begin with God is needed in order for morals to be constant and meaningful.
First of all God is needed for morals to be constant because without God's rule the morals placed in our society are arbitrary and could very well change from day to day. For instance, in conventionalism which is the view that fundamental principles are validated by definition, agreement, or convention, laws of morals can be changed by a majority agreement on any issue. If murder were to be made legal/morally acceptable in the U.S. because everyone agreed that murdering would be a good way to let go of anger and get rid of the people who they considered to be horrible in their life, then should this be considered morally right? I say no, of course not. My opponent may also say no, in fact I can almost guarantee you that he will. But he says no, not for the same reasons as I. Now, the reason I say know is because God says that I am not to murder someone, "its that simple." To clarify things, if God were not to be real than I am not saying that I would become a murderer either. My opponent says no for reasons I don't know yet because he has not given a response. So we can conclude that my opponent must give us the moral method that he will be using in the place of God, in order to account for morals. He must also give the PROPER DEFINITION of that moral method that is backed up by a reliable source.
God is also needed for morals to have any weight or meaning in society. If God did not exist then morals could be decided by the people with the most power or a majority vote. Through this morals could be corrupted and murder, rape, theft ect... could be made morally acceptable among the people, this has happened many times in history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God. I know many people who think murdering other people is immoral just like me. But what I am saying, is that there is a KEY DIFFERENCE between a believer in God and a nonbeliever in the way that they get to the conclusion for moral reasoning.
Good luck to my opponent.
charles15 | Society | 0 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,121 |
Thank you for your response. My opponent has now laid forth a moral system for me to debate against. He uses utilitarianism and defines it as... "right" becomes that which maximizes probable benefit." I also know that this is the moral method he uses because of a previous debate that I had with him and also from reading his other debates relative to the issue at hand. So what is wrong with utilitarianism? And how can it not account for morals? I will explain this shortly, but first let me clear some things up. First of all, my opponent did not give any source, what so ever, for the definition of utilitarianism, for all I know my opponent could have just made the definition of utilitarianism up off the top of his head. I say this because I have a definition of utilitarianism backed up by source... Utilitarianism: "Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, generally operating on the principle... British philosopher Jeremy Bentham described it as "the greatest good for the greatest number." [go to this link for the full definition - <URL>... ] Now since not only do I have a website backing up my definition but I have a British philosopher as well, then it is fair for me to say, that from this point on, we will be using the definition of utilitarianism given above. Now obviously there is a difference between the true meaning of utilitarianism and my opponents. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>"the greatest good for the greatest number."<<< The first question I have for my opponent is how can we determine what is to be considered "good?" Let me explain... Now I'm sure the voters want to know how this moral method can not account for morals. I will explain. First of all, we must look carefully utilitarianism. First of all, 'how can anyone know what the greatest good is for the greatest number.' How do we define what is good or wrong. For instance, Hitler thought the greatest good for the greatest number of people was ethnic cleansing of the Jews. On the other hand Gandhi thought the greatest good for the greatest number of people was peace. Now, there are a lot of people who agreed with Hitler's use of utilitarianism and there were also many who agreed with Gandhi's use of utilitarianism. Whether this is the moral method they lived by or not it is obvious that these two people executed what they thought was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, so regardless of their moral beliefs they used the principals if utilitarianism. So, lets summarize. Gandhi's view= PEACE was good Hitler's view= Ethnic cleansing was good Now, since both Hitler and Gandhi were executing as what they saw was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people then both of these people are following laws of utilitarianism. Since this is true one can say that utilitarianism can not account for what should be truly right or truly wrong, all it can do is give out its basic idea which is "the greatest good for the greatest number," and then have the person receive it either like Hitler or Gandhi. Again, this cannot account for morals because obviously its just Gandhi's view against Hitler's view, and one must choose the view that they believe is right, but no matter which one is chosen by someone, utilitarianism can not ACCOUNT for which view is right or wrong. So in actuality utilitarianism is totally baseless! _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Now my opponent may come back and say, well I define good as "that which maximizes probable benefit." Well lets look at this method. First of al,l this moral method is extremely broad, it has no guidelines or examples to back it up. My opponent simply puts down a phrase and that can be twisted in any which way, (I will Explain later). On the other hand the Bible is backed up with actual laws given to us by God such as Jesus' teachings and of course, the 10 commandments. Secondly, when I say someone could twist my opponents definition of what is to be considered good this is what I mean. Slavery, is obviously something that my opponent is against, but what did it do for the America? It was great for the economy, production on farms was sky rocketing, and "best of all" the majority of the people were benefiting off the backs of slaves. The same goes for Egypt, Rome and any other country that had slaves. Now for America, slaves made up a small minority of the actual population, and by doing the work the majority of the people were benefitting. Plus, most everyone agreed that it was right, until major reforms hit America. So the question here is, since slaves are "that which maximizes probable benefit," should it then be morally acceptable? Now the point is, is that my opponent says that slavery is wrong, but his moral system is so vague that he ends up contradicting himself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the Voters: (1)Expect this from my opponent, he mite tweak his definition of how one is to define good (which is "that which maximizes probable benefit.") in order for his rebuttal to make sense. (2)He mite say something along the lines of "slavery is wrong because it doesn't maximize probable benefits by infringing on human rights." But to say that, my opponent must tell me why freedom is a human right under utilitarianism? And how do human rights fit in with "maximizing probable benefit?" (3) He may claim that the Bible says slavery is not sinful. First off, my opponent has never given a scripture verse to back this up so how do we even know if what he says is true. Secondly, if my opponent claims that then it is completely irrelevant, because we are not debating whether God's morals are right or wrong; I already know my opponent disagrees with with God's morals. But what we are debating, is whether or not morals can be accounted for without a God REGARDLESS of what the morals actually are! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One can see that my opponent has not even begun to scratch the surface of why something is considered right or wrong. His moral system has many loop wholes in it and it can not account for what is right or wrong. In his moral system one must choose either Hitler's view or Gandhi's view (based off my analogy), but matter which one is chosen, either one could be considered right or wrong, thus Atheistic morals can not account for morality at all, since every moral under Atheism has no weight to it in society. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Responses... >>>"Atheism as a whole has no specific moral system... Any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong."<<< Hold on, you cant just say this. You must prove that "any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong." I say they can't and I have shown WHY in my above text. You must first refute my argument completely and then explain to the voters HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong. Again you can't just say things like this and with out even explaining the "how." >>>"...He must provide an account for both why moral relativism is incorrect and why an appeal to God is not simply another form of moral relativism."<<< God's morals are not just another form of moral relativism because he made the laws, thus they are derived from him and automatically perfect, universal, and unquestionable. On the other hand Atheistic morals are baseless, and can not account for morality. But since my morals come from God, they do have a base, thus they | 0 | charles15 |
Thank you for your response.
My opponent has now laid forth a moral system for me to debate against. He uses utilitarianism and defines it as... "right" becomes that which maximizes probable benefit." I also know that this is the moral method he uses because of a previous debate that I had with him and also from reading his other debates relative to the issue at hand.
So what is wrong with utilitarianism? And how can it not account for morals? I will explain this shortly, but first let me clear some things up. First of all, my opponent did not give any source, what so ever, for the definition of utilitarianism, for all I know my opponent could have just made the definition of utilitarianism up off the top of his head. I say this because I have a definition of utilitarianism backed up by source...
Utilitarianism: "Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, generally operating on the principle... British philosopher Jeremy Bentham described it as "the greatest good for the greatest number." [go to this link for the full definition - http://economics.about.com... ]
Now since not only do I have a website backing up my definition but I have a British philosopher as well, then it is fair for me to say, that from this point on, we will be using the definition of utilitarianism given above. Now obviously there is a difference between the true meaning of utilitarianism and my opponents.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>"the greatest good for the greatest number."<<<
The first question I have for my opponent is how can we determine what is to be considered "good?" Let me explain...
Now I'm sure the voters want to know how this moral method can not account for morals. I will explain. First of all, we must look carefully utilitarianism. First of all, 'how can anyone know what the greatest good is for the greatest number.' How do we define what is good or wrong. For instance, Hitler thought the greatest good for the greatest number of people was ethnic cleansing of the Jews. On the other hand Gandhi thought the greatest good for the greatest number of people was peace. Now, there are a lot of people who agreed with Hitler's use of utilitarianism and there were also many who agreed with Gandhi's use of utilitarianism. Whether this is the moral method they lived by or not it is obvious that these two people executed what they thought was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, so regardless of their moral beliefs they used the principals if utilitarianism. So, lets summarize.
Gandhi's view= PEACE was good
Hitler's view= Ethnic cleansing was good
Now, since both Hitler and Gandhi were executing as what they saw was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people then both of these people are following laws of utilitarianism. Since this is true one can say that utilitarianism can not account for what should be truly right or truly wrong, all it can do is give out its basic idea which is "the greatest good for the greatest number," and then have the person receive it either like Hitler or Gandhi. Again, this cannot account for morals because obviously its just Gandhi's view against Hitler's view, and one must choose the view that they believe is right, but no matter which one is chosen by someone, utilitarianism can not ACCOUNT for which view is right or wrong. So in actuality utilitarianism is totally baseless!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now my opponent may come back and say, well I define good as "that which maximizes probable benefit." Well lets look at this method. First of al,l this moral method is extremely broad, it has no guidelines or examples to back it up. My opponent simply puts down a phrase and that can be twisted in any which way, (I will Explain later). On the other hand the Bible is backed up with actual laws given to us by God such as Jesus' teachings and of course, the 10 commandments. Secondly, when I say someone could twist my opponents definition of what is to be considered good this is what I mean. Slavery, is obviously something that my opponent is against, but what did it do for the America? It was great for the economy, production on farms was sky rocketing, and "best of all" the majority of the people were benefiting off the backs of slaves. The same goes for Egypt, Rome and any other country that had slaves. Now for America, slaves made up a small minority of the actual population, and by doing the work the majority of the people were benefitting. Plus, most everyone agreed that it was right, until major reforms hit America. So the question here is, since slaves are "that which maximizes probable benefit," should it then be morally acceptable? Now the point is, is that my opponent says that slavery is wrong, but his moral system is so vague that he ends up contradicting himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Voters:
(1)Expect this from my opponent, he mite tweak his definition of how one is to define good (which is "that which maximizes probable benefit.") in order for his rebuttal to make sense.
(2)He mite say something along the lines of "slavery is wrong because it doesn't maximize probable benefits by infringing on human rights." But to say that, my opponent must tell me why freedom is a human right under utilitarianism? And how do human rights fit in with "maximizing probable benefit?"
(3) He may claim that the Bible says slavery is not sinful. First off, my opponent has never given a scripture verse to back this up so how do we even know if what he says is true. Secondly, if my opponent claims that then it is completely irrelevant, because we are not debating whether God's morals are right or wrong; I already know my opponent disagrees with with God's morals. But what we are debating, is whether or not morals can be accounted for without a God REGARDLESS of what the morals actually are!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can see that my opponent has not even begun to scratch the surface of why something is considered right or wrong. His moral system has many loop wholes in it and it can not account for what is right or wrong. In his moral system one must choose either Hitler's view or Gandhi's view (based off my analogy), but matter which one is chosen, either one could be considered right or wrong, thus Atheistic morals can not account for morality at all, since every moral under Atheism has no weight to it in society.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Responses...
>>>"Atheism as a whole has no specific moral system... Any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong."<<<
Hold on, you cant just say this. You must prove that "any moral system that an atheist adopts can account for right and wrong, since ALL moral systems provide an account of right and wrong." I say they can't and I have shown WHY in my above text. You must first refute my argument completely and then explain to the voters HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for right and wrong. Again you can't just say things like this and with out even explaining the "how."
>>>"...He must provide an account for both why moral relativism is incorrect and why an appeal to God is not simply another form of moral relativism."<<<
God's morals are not just another form of moral relativism because he made the laws, thus they are derived from him and automatically perfect, universal, and unquestionable. On the other hand Atheistic morals are baseless, and can not account for morality. But since my morals come from God, they do have a base, thus they | Society | 1 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,122 |
Thank you for your response. ::Responses:: >>>"My opponent denies that all moral systems provide an account for right and wrong, but does not give any sort of reasoning for why this is so. His "reason" for why it may be this way is that they do not accord with God's law. This may be compelling if God's law was the only system of morality, but it clearly is not."<<< My opponent says I don't give a reason and then states my reasoning in the same paragraph. Just wanted to point that out. For my opponent's sake I will give him another example, besides utilitarianism, that can explain my point. And again, the reason I did use utilitarianism as my main Atheistic moral system in which I was arguing against was because I know from previous debates that this is the moral system is which my opponent lives by. Back to the point, lets say there were a group of people who lived under the moral method of "act the best you can and do good things which benefit the majority of people." Well, I'll use the same illustration that I used before, Gandhi's way in doing this was by spreading peace, Hitler's way in doing this was ethnic cleansing. Now, which one is right? Under an Atheistic world view it would be the person's choice to decide whether they would follow Gandhi or Hitler. The person may choose Gandhi's view or Hitler's view, but no matter which one a person chooses they will both be considered morally right, since both Gandhi and Hitler were appealing to the Atheistic moral system listed above. Thus this moral system can not say what is wrong or what is right, therefor it CAN NOT account for MORALITY at all, because the moral system can not condemn something one has done as good or bad, as long as the person believes that what he/she is doing, is "acting the best he/she can and doing good things which benefit the majority of people." So now we must ask our selves, "then how can morals be accounted for." Well the answer must be God! An ultimate judge who has unquestionable authority and can actually say Hitler your wrong for what you did and Gandhi your right. No matter what the person says back, ONE way is the ONLY morally right way under God. Thus morals can be accounted for. This is why God's law is not just another form of moral relativism, because God is it's basis. >>>"If other moral systems exist (which you admit), then appeal to God is just one choice among many, and thus a form of moral relativism."<<< Other moral systems do exist, yes I do admit that. But, this doesn't mean they can ACCOUNT for morals! Just as I explained in my illustration above. And for my opponents two last arguments he has not even begun to EXPLAIN how morals can be accounted for under an Atheistic world view. I urge my opponent to do this next round! >>>"What you seem to miss is that :maximize probable benefit" should be understood empirically and thus be independent of relativistic challenges."<<< Ok fine, they have to be understood empirically. So? Explain to me why this makes it wrong for slavery to be immoral! Because I "don't understand." What did my opponent do? Exactly what I thought he would do, he added on to his explanation of utilitarianism; notice - I told the voters my opponent would result to this. Please, in order for this debate to be fair my opponent must explain himself completely, not just add little by little on to the explanation of his moral method so that what ever I said about utilitarianism carries no relevance into the next round, although this is not entirely the case. Also, it's not my job to remember everything you said in a debate I wasn't even in and haven't read in quite some time. >>>"You forgot things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder babies, don't eat rabbits, and, of course, burn things each day as a sweet savour to the Lord..."<<< I fear to say that my opponent has not studied theology, I'm not going to debate this point because It is totally irrelevant to the resolution at hand. For this doesn't tell me or the voters why those morals are wrong! All you have done here is taken a cheap shot at the Bible without backing up what you said with any evidence, because as far as I know, things like force conquered women to be your wives or murder babies are things that God forbids. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Adequate Responses: [1] Appeal to God is a form of moral relativism. I have already answered this in my argument above. -------------------------------------------------- [2] All moral systems can account for right and wrong. I have already answered this in my argument above. --------------------------------------------------- [3] There is no (non-circular) reason why appeal to God's law is the "correct" moral system. You want to talk non-circular, just look at morals without God. For instance... 1) Why is stealing wrong? 2) Because its doesn't maximize probable benefit. 3) How does stealing not maximize probable benefit? (starts back at 1) Because your taking something away from someone that isn't yours, thus making it unbeneficial to the person who it is being stolen from, *also known as stealing*. Since this is true, there is a circle to Atheistic moral methods. --------------------------------------------------- There is NOT a circle with God's moral laws because all the morals are derived form him, thus there is a strict wrong or right answer to every human action. For instance... 1) why is stealing wrong? 2) Because God says in the 6 commandment not to. And rite there, is where all questions end. Now, people may ask why should I obey God, but then one is bringing up a whole different issue. --------------------------------------------------- [4] God is not even required for moral reasoning. 'I have never said' God is needed for moral reasoning, only that he is needed for morals to be accounted for. Sure people can make moral decisions, Hitler decided to murder six million Jews, and he believed he was right for doing so. Again, I am not saying God is needed for moral reasoning! ---------------------------------------------------- [5] He must show that moral relativism is an incorrect framework. It is incorrect because it can not account for morals. I have already explained this in the argument above. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Rap Up: In conclusion my opponent has again, FAILED, to show HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for morality. For instance my opponent says "... it is very clear that the every conception of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts." Ok fine, if the moral method that one adopts is "act the best you can and do good things which benefit the majority of people," then yes spreading peace would be the right thing to do, as long as that is the way in which one VIWED that moral method. But, it would also be right for someone to murder 6 million Jews if thats the way one VIEWED that moral method. Thus, this Atheistic moral system can NOT ACCOUNT for what is truly right or wrong. It depends on how one applies the moral method to one's life whether it is 'genocidal' or 'peace.' So my opponent can't just claim that right and wrong are based off the moral system that one chooses, if it is Atheistic, since those moral systems are not absolute and totally rely on the the way a person applies the moral method to ones life. Thus all Atheistic moral methods can not account for what is right or wrong! Requirements for my opponent... 1 Explain why it is wrong for slavery under utilitarianism. 2 HOW can Atheism ACCOUNT for morality? EXPLAIN more than just because its derived from the Atheistic moral method! 3 Explain why these things are wrong... "things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder | 0 | charles15 |
Thank you for your response.
::Responses::
>>>"My opponent denies that all moral systems provide an account for right and wrong, but does not give any sort of reasoning for why this is so. His "reason" for why it may be this way is that they do not accord with God's law. This may be compelling if God's law was the only system of morality, but it clearly is not."<<<
My opponent says I don't give a reason and then states my reasoning in the same paragraph. Just wanted to point that out.
For my opponent's sake I will give him another example, besides utilitarianism, that can explain my point. And again, the reason I did use utilitarianism as my main Atheistic moral system in which I was arguing against was because I know from previous debates that this is the moral system is which my opponent lives by. Back to the point, lets say there were a group of people who lived under the moral method of "act the best you can and do good things which benefit the majority of people." Well, I'll use the same illustration that I used before, Gandhi's way in doing this was by spreading peace, Hitler's way in doing this was ethnic cleansing. Now, which one is right? Under an Atheistic world view it would be the person's choice to decide whether they would follow Gandhi or Hitler. The person may choose Gandhi's view or Hitler's view, but no matter which one a person chooses they will both be considered morally right, since both Gandhi and Hitler were appealing to the Atheistic moral system listed above. Thus this moral system can not say what is wrong or what is right, therefor it CAN NOT account for MORALITY at all, because the moral system can not condemn something one has done as good or bad, as long as the person believes that what he/she is doing, is "acting the best he/she can and doing good things which benefit the majority of people."
So now we must ask our selves, "then how can morals be accounted for." Well the answer must be God! An ultimate judge who has unquestionable authority and can actually say Hitler your wrong for what you did and Gandhi your right. No matter what the person says back, ONE way is the ONLY morally right way under God. Thus morals can be accounted for. This is why God's law is not just another form of moral relativism, because God is it's basis.
>>>"If other moral systems exist (which you admit), then appeal to God is just one choice among many, and thus a form of moral relativism."<<<
Other moral systems do exist, yes I do admit that. But, this doesn't mean they can ACCOUNT for morals! Just as I explained in my illustration above. And for my opponents two last arguments he has not even begun to EXPLAIN how morals can be accounted for under an Atheistic world view. I urge my opponent to do this next round!
>>>"What you seem to miss is that :maximize probable benefit" should be understood empirically and thus be independent of relativistic challenges."<<<
Ok fine, they have to be understood empirically. So? Explain to me why this makes it wrong for slavery to be immoral!
Because I "don't understand."
What did my opponent do? Exactly what I thought he would do, he added on to his explanation of utilitarianism; notice - I told the voters my opponent would result to this. Please, in order for this debate to be fair my opponent must explain himself completely, not just add little by little on to the explanation of his moral method so that what ever I said about utilitarianism carries no relevance into the next round, although this is not entirely the case. Also, it's not my job to remember everything you said in a debate I wasn't even in and haven't read in quite some time.
>>>"You forgot things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder babies, don't eat rabbits, and, of course, burn things each day as a sweet savour to the Lord..."<<<
I fear to say that my opponent has not studied theology, I'm not going to debate this point because It is totally irrelevant to the resolution at hand. For this doesn't tell me or the voters why those morals are wrong! All you have done here is taken a cheap shot at the Bible without backing up what you said with any evidence, because as far as I know, things like force conquered women to be your wives or murder babies are things that God forbids.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Adequate Responses:
[1] Appeal to God is a form of moral relativism.
I have already answered this in my argument above.
--------------------------------------------------
[2] All moral systems can account for right and wrong.
I have already answered this in my argument above.
---------------------------------------------------
[3] There is no (non-circular) reason why appeal to God's law is the "correct" moral system.
You want to talk non-circular, just look at morals without God. For instance...
1) Why is stealing wrong?
2) Because its doesn't maximize probable benefit.
3) How does stealing not maximize probable benefit?
(starts back at 1) Because your taking something away from someone that isn't yours, thus making it unbeneficial to the person who it is being stolen from, *also known as stealing*. Since this is true, there is a circle to Atheistic moral methods.
---------------------------------------------------
There is NOT a circle with God's moral laws because all the morals are derived form him, thus there is a strict wrong or right answer to every human action. For instance...
1) why is stealing wrong?
2) Because God says in the 6 commandment not to. And rite there, is where all questions end. Now, people may ask why should I obey God, but then one is bringing up a whole different issue.
---------------------------------------------------
[4] God is not even required for moral reasoning.
'I have never said' God is needed for moral reasoning, only that he is needed for morals to be accounted for. Sure people can make moral decisions, Hitler decided to murder six million Jews, and he believed he was right for doing so. Again, I am not saying God is needed for moral reasoning!
----------------------------------------------------
[5] He must show that moral relativism is an incorrect framework.
It is incorrect because it can not account for morals. I have already explained this in the argument above.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rap Up:
In conclusion my opponent has again, FAILED, to show HOW Atheistic moral systems can account for morality. For instance my opponent says "... it is very clear that the every conception of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts." Ok fine, if the moral method that one adopts is "act the best you can and do good things which benefit the majority of people," then yes spreading peace would be the right thing to do, as long as that is the way in which one VIWED that moral method. But, it would also be right for someone to murder 6 million Jews if thats the way one VIEWED that moral method. Thus, this Atheistic moral system can NOT ACCOUNT for what is truly right or wrong. It depends on how one applies the moral method to one's life whether it is 'genocidal' or 'peace.' So my opponent can't just claim that right and wrong are based off the moral system that one chooses, if it is Atheistic, since those moral systems are not absolute and totally rely on the the way a person applies the moral method to ones life. Thus all Atheistic moral methods can not account for what is right or wrong!
Requirements for my opponent...
1 Explain why it is wrong for slavery under utilitarianism.
2 HOW can Atheism ACCOUNT for morality? EXPLAIN more than just because its derived from the Atheistic moral method!
3 Explain why these things are wrong... "things like stone homosexuals, take slaves, force conquered women to be your wives, murder | Society | 2 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,123 |
Thank you for your response. Finally, my opponent has given me what I was looking for (it took him a couple rounds but were here), he has given something to actually debate against by giving me an illustration, and then the way in which Atheistic moral systems ACCOUNT for theses morals- Finally my opponent has answered the 'HOW'! Responses --- >>"Jeff murders Bob in order to save 100 people."<< [Situation we are using] >>"Sadist morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't bring the most harm."<< Sadist morality isn't about bringing the most harm, Sadist morality is making one-self feel good or satisfied by causing pain and suffering to another person. It says nothing about the "most" harm. I think my opponent is mistaken in his definition. None the less, I will use my opponents definition for the sake of debate. My opponent claims that the 'right' thing for Jeff to do would be to let Bob go, thus this would result in 100 people dying and cause what my opponent says is the "most harm," under Sadism. But rather, let's say, Jeff thinks the most harm will come by murdering Bob, thus letting the 100 go free. No one can define what the 'most harm' is, it only can be defined by the person who is making the choice. For instance, my opponent clearly thinks that the most harm will be done by letting Bob go thus resulting in the deaths of 100 people. But this view, of my opponent, may or may not be the view for everyone who is faced with this decision. Thus we can conclude that there are different VIEWS in which someone could have on this issue, which could both be 'CLASSIFIED' as morally RIGHT! Because both people's views are doing what they believe is causing the most harm. Since this is true there is not a right or wrong way in the choice one makes under these circumstances. Therefore it is apparent that morality can not be ACCOUNTED for under Sadism. Also, HOW can my opponent define what the MOST HARM is in this situation? To my opponent it might be killing Bob, to another person it might be letting the 100 people die! So, tell me, HOW do you define what the most harm is?! -------- >>"Masochistic morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't hurt Jeff."<< Masochistic morality is finding satisfaction when one is causing them-self pain and suffering. So me and my opponent agree on what Masochistic morality is. Not only would this be a horrible moral system to live under, but it also is the same as Sadism in which it can not account for morality. For instance, what if Jeff found that the most suffering in life was 'life' itself. Well, then the moral thing for Jeff to do would be to do nothing to himself in any way that would cause himself to die or come closer to death. In other words Jeff would not want to 'hurt' himself at all, so he would end up murdering Bob and letting the 100 people go [A] or he would do nothing to Bob and let the 100 people live [B]. So, since Jeff decides to 'not' hurt him-self, and instead execute either option [A] or [B], then has Jeff done something immoral under Masochism. No! he has done what will hurt him the most! Which is 'live' and in result since Jeff has chosen to live, he must either conduct option [A] or [B] under the situation my opponent has set up. Thus, Masochism 'can not' say which view, by Jeff, is wrong or right, just like Sadism. Therefore morals can't be ACCOUNTED for. -------- >>"Utilitarianism refers to this action as right because it saves 100 people at the cost of 1."<< Again the same argument applies. If Jeff decided to let Bob live thus resulting in 100 people dying, then this would also be considered the right thing to do, thus, 'negating' my opponents argument. Because, there can not be two rights to one moral method 'IF' the MORALS are to be ACCOUNTED for. Also, "HOW does one decide what is MOST BENEFICIAL?" To one person, the most beneficial way to deal with this situation, would be to let Bob go and thus let 100 people die. But, to another person the most beneficial way to deal with this situation, would be by murdering Bob and letting the 100 people go free. Since this is true, every one who views this situation, in a certain way, would always be doing the 'RIGHT' thing. You see, it all depends on how one looks at the situation, thus, anything could be 'morally right.' Therefore, this moral system can not account for what is either right or wrong, it all depends on the person. -------- Do to the amount of letters I have left to type I wont respond to Conventionalism, besides I would have just used the same argument since it applies to all Atheistic moral methods. -------- >>"Subjectivist morality refers to the action as whatever the individual reader views it as."<< Subjectivists believe that morality doesn't come from anything transcendent. First of all, if the morals are all determined by oneself then anything could be 'right' just like in every other Atheistic moral system. For instance, Gandhi believed that peace was good, Hitler believed that genocide was good. But how can two totally different views be considered good? The answer is, it's impossible. Since this is true morality must be absolute. Other wise morals become arbitrary and meaningless, because what may be right to one may be wrong to another, which results in 'right' and 'wrong' becoming UNACCOUNTABLE for! --------- Now why is it different with God? Well, Sadism commands that people do the most harm or be cruel in order to make oneself feel pleasure. Utilitarianism commands that people do what causes the most probable benefit. Now, unlike these moral systems God doesn't just tell us - "do what causes the most benefit." If that was true, then God's moral system would be no different from any other Atheistic moral system. But here is the 'key' difference, God TELLS us what IS MOST BENEFICIAL or WHAT IS CRUEL! Thus, no one can have two views to any situation (unlike in an Atheistic moral system), in God's moral system there is ONE right way to look at a situation. Example... Under Sadism one could say that homosexuality brings the most harm to a society, thus, a Sadist would say that homosexuality is right. But, under Sadism one could also say that homosexuality is not harmful in anyway, thus they would be against homosexuality. You see, there are two sides to this view, therefore, either view can not be accounted as moral or immoral! But, under God's morals, homosexuality is wrong because God has deemed it as sinful. Well, what if someone sees homosexuality as beneficial and Ok? The answer is - it doesn't matter, Because thats not how God sees it, since this is true, that person, who is pro-homosexuality, is wrong because it goes against God's moral laws. There is not two different views that any person or persons can have under God's law. Thus, this is the only moral system which can account for morals. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>"I have never said' God is needed for moral reasoning, only that he is needed for morals to be accounted for"<< Let me explain for Tarzan. Anyone can take an Atheistic moral system such as Utilitarianism, Sadism, Masochism, Subjectivism ect. And be faced with the situation that my opponent set up (Jeff and Bob). One will observe the situation and REASON in their mind... "should I murder Bob or not." This is moral reasoning. But, since there is more than ONE right way for the choices one makes after reasoning in their heads over the situation, then the morals can not be accounted for. Yes, people can have moral reasoning, but the final choice they make can not be deemed as wrong! As long as they are doing what they think fits the moral system in the best way. With God, its different, because there is only ONE 'right way' for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are 'absolute' and can be "accounted" for! charles15 | 0 | charles15 |
Thank you for your response.
Finally, my opponent has given me what I was looking for (it took him a couple rounds but were here), he has given something to actually debate against by giving me an illustration, and then the way in which Atheistic moral systems ACCOUNT for theses morals- Finally my opponent has answered the 'HOW'!
Responses ---
>>"Jeff murders Bob in order to save 100 people."<< [Situation we are using]
>>"Sadist morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't bring the most harm."<<
Sadist morality isn't about bringing the most harm, Sadist morality is making one-self feel good or satisfied by causing
pain and suffering to another person. It says nothing about the "most" harm. I think my opponent is mistaken in his definition. None the less, I will use my opponents definition for the sake of debate.
My opponent claims that the 'right' thing for Jeff to do would be to let Bob go, thus this would result in 100 people dying and cause what my opponent says is the "most harm," under Sadism. But rather, let's say, Jeff thinks the most harm will come by murdering Bob, thus letting the 100 go free. No one can define what the 'most harm' is, it only can be defined by the person who is making the choice. For instance, my opponent clearly thinks that the most harm will be done by letting Bob go thus resulting in the deaths of 100 people. But this view, of my opponent, may or may not be the view for everyone who is faced with this decision. Thus we can conclude that there are different VIEWS in which someone could have on this issue, which could both be 'CLASSIFIED' as morally RIGHT! Because both people's views are doing what they believe is causing the most harm. Since this is true there is not a right or wrong way in the choice one makes under these circumstances. Therefore it is apparent that morality can not be ACCOUNTED for under Sadism.
Also, HOW can my opponent define what the MOST HARM is in this situation? To my opponent it might be killing Bob, to another person it might be letting the 100 people die! So, tell me, HOW do you define what the most harm is?!
--------
>>"Masochistic morality refers to the action as wrong because it doesn't hurt Jeff."<<
Masochistic morality is finding satisfaction when one is causing them-self pain and suffering. So me and my opponent agree on what Masochistic morality is. Not only would this be a horrible moral system to live under, but it also is the same as Sadism in which it can not account for morality. For instance, what if Jeff found that the most suffering in life was 'life' itself. Well, then the moral thing for Jeff to do would be to do nothing to himself in any way that would cause himself to die or come closer to death. In other words Jeff would not want to 'hurt' himself at all, so he would end up murdering Bob and letting the 100 people go [A] or he would do nothing to Bob and let the 100 people live [B]. So, since Jeff decides to 'not' hurt him-self, and instead execute either option [A] or [B], then has Jeff done something immoral under Masochism. No! he has done what will hurt him the most! Which is 'live' and in result since Jeff has chosen to live, he must either conduct option [A] or [B] under the situation my opponent has set up. Thus, Masochism 'can not' say which view, by Jeff, is wrong or right, just like Sadism. Therefore morals can't be ACCOUNTED for.
--------
>>"Utilitarianism refers to this action as right because it saves 100 people at the cost of 1."<<
Again the same argument applies. If Jeff decided to let Bob live thus resulting in 100 people dying, then this would also be considered the right thing to do, thus, 'negating' my opponents argument. Because, there can not be two rights to one moral method 'IF' the MORALS are to be ACCOUNTED for.
Also, "HOW does one decide what is MOST BENEFICIAL?" To one person, the most beneficial way to deal with this situation, would be to let Bob go and thus let 100 people die. But, to another person the most beneficial way to deal with this situation, would be by murdering Bob and letting the 100 people go free. Since this is true, every one who views this situation, in a certain way, would always be doing the 'RIGHT' thing. You see, it all depends on how one looks at the situation, thus, anything could be 'morally right.' Therefore, this moral system can not account for what is either right or wrong, it all depends on the person.
--------
Do to the amount of letters I have left to type I wont respond to Conventionalism, besides I would have just used the same argument since it applies to all Atheistic moral methods.
--------
>>"Subjectivist morality refers to the action as whatever the individual reader views it as."<<
Subjectivists believe that morality doesn't come from anything transcendent. First of all, if the morals are all determined by oneself then anything could be 'right' just like in every other Atheistic moral system. For instance, Gandhi believed that peace was good, Hitler believed that genocide was good. But how can two totally different views be considered good? The answer is, it's impossible. Since this is true morality must be absolute. Other wise morals become arbitrary and meaningless, because what may be right to one may be wrong to another, which results in 'right' and 'wrong' becoming UNACCOUNTABLE for!
---------
Now why is it different with God? Well, Sadism commands that people do the most harm or be cruel in order to make oneself feel pleasure. Utilitarianism commands that people do what causes the most probable benefit. Now, unlike these moral systems God doesn't just tell us - "do what causes the most benefit." If that was true, then God's moral system would be no different from any other Atheistic moral system. But here is the 'key' difference, God TELLS us what IS MOST BENEFICIAL or WHAT IS CRUEL! Thus, no one can have two views to any situation (unlike in an Atheistic moral system), in God's moral system there is ONE right way to look at a situation. Example...
Under Sadism one could say that homosexuality brings the most harm to a society, thus, a Sadist would say that homosexuality is right. But, under Sadism one could also say that homosexuality is not harmful in anyway, thus they would be against homosexuality. You see, there are two sides to this view, therefore, either view can not be accounted as moral or immoral!
But, under God's morals, homosexuality is wrong because God has deemed it as sinful. Well, what if someone sees homosexuality as beneficial and Ok? The answer is - it doesn't matter, Because thats not how God sees it, since this is true, that person, who is pro-homosexuality, is wrong because it goes against God's moral laws. There is not two different views that any person or persons can have under God's law. Thus, this is the only moral system which can account for morals.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>"I have never said' God is needed for moral reasoning, only that he is needed for morals to be accounted for"<<
Let me explain for Tarzan. Anyone can take an Atheistic moral system such as Utilitarianism, Sadism, Masochism, Subjectivism ect. And be faced with the situation that my opponent set up (Jeff and Bob). One will observe the situation and REASON in their mind... "should I murder Bob or not." This is moral reasoning. But, since there is more than ONE right way for the choices one makes after reasoning in their heads over the situation, then the morals can not be accounted for. Yes, people can have moral reasoning, but the final choice they make can not be deemed as wrong! As long as they are doing what they think fits the moral system in the best way. With God, its different, because there is only ONE 'right way' for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are 'absolute' and can be "accounted" for!
charles15 | Society | 3 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,124 |
Thanks for the response. Responses: >>"The resolution clearly states "Atheism can not account for RIGHT AND WRONG." The resolution does NOT say "Atheism can not account for MORALITY."<< What? Morality is what ever is right. Immorality is what ever is wrong. So, when I say "Atheistic morals cannot account for morality, I mean, they can't account for what is right. Plus, I would have thought that through the context I was using, this word, morality, would have been easy to tell the meaning of. ---------- >>"Simply because people have differing opinions of right and wrong does not mean that they are both right. It means they use different methods for determining the concept. If people reasoned with the SAME CONCEPT in the SAME SITUATION, they would arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION."<< I'm not sure how you can say this and at the same time have read my previous argument. Look at all my responses to the Jeff and Bob illustration my opponent set up. But, for the my opponents sake I will lay out another illustration. Now, my opponent says that ANY Atheistic moral system can account for morals (right and wrong), I say this is false. Now since my opponent believes that any Atheistic moral system will work, then I choose Utilitarianism to argue against. My opponent defines Utilitarianism as "whatever causes the most probable benefit." Now I would like my opponent to tell me, HOW does one know what the most probable benefit is. Utilitarianism alone does not tell me what is to be considered "beneficial," it just says do what causes the most probable benefit. Well, that could be anything! All depending to whom the person is. For instance the most beneficial thing to a kid would probably be candy raining form the sky. But, to an adult it may be for the government to get the economy up and rolling again. Thus, one can conclude that "what is most beneficial," DEPENDS entirely on the person to whom the moral method is applied. Which leads me to my point/illustration. Let's look back in History. We have two totally different people, one is Hitler and the other is Gandhi. Now I know that both of these men had two radically different views on what was considered right or wrong. but this does not matter since both men were doing as what they thought would "cause the most probable benefit." Thus, in one sense they were both using Utilitarianism to guide the choices that they made in their life. For instance, Gandhi believed that peace would cause the most benefit, thus what he did was considered "right" under Utilitarianism! But, on the other hand we have Hitler, he thought that exterminating the Jews would cause the most probable benefit, therefore he was doing "right" under Utilitarianism. Now which one is right under this Atheistic moral system which is Utilitarianism?Well, they both are right, since both men were following the moral method of Utilitarianism. But, how can two radically different views be 'right' even though they are BOTH USING Utilitarianism as their moral method. The answer is it's impossible. Peace can't be right, along with Violence being right also. Thus, we can conclude, from this illustration, that under Utilitarianism (an Atheistic moral system), right and wrong can not be accounted for. Because, DEPENDING on who's Viewing the moral system, what ever causes the most benefit could be one thing and but to another person it could be totally different, therefore Utilitarianism is not absolute and can not account for what is truly right, or wrong! -------------------- >>"To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary."<< Yes and this is what I am saying Atheism does not have. My opponent has only said, "The very notions of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts." He has said this or something like this almost every round but has not told me HOW this works, in other words he has not backed up his statement alt all. Only one round did he give me an illustration (which is what I asked for) but as soon as I argued against the illustration my opponent never cared to rebuttal. I have explained, how if there are two views, that are both radically different, but at the same time considered right, then that moral method can not account for what is right and wrong, (see above paragraph). My opponent has never tried to argue against this either. Again, my opponent just assumes that Atheism can account for right and wrong but has not yet once proven this and has also avoided answering many of my questions, even one from last round such as, "HOW can my opponent define what the MOST HARM is in this situation? To my opponent it might be killing Bob, to another person it might be letting the 100 people die! So, tell me, HOW do you define what the most harm is?!" ------------------- >>" if God did not exist, we could still state that something was wrong. For example... Thou shalt rape thy baby thrice daily," it would not be morally right to do so. Thus, one can see that right and wrong have meaning independent of God."<< Ya sure, but the reason why you think that is wrong is because of the culture you have grown up in. I mean, there are many countries through out the world, in which raping little children is morally acceptable. So what gives you the right to say they are wrong and you are right? Their moral system allows it, so WHY not? My opponent may say that it is wrong because it doesn't "maximize probable benefit." Well, first of all - maybe to them, they view raping little children as beneficial. My opponent may say it's not. But he can't just say that, he must explain what is most beneficial and why the foreign counties way is not. My opponent has not done this once in his debate. You see my opponent has said that raping little children is wrong, but has not give the reason why it is wrong. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you, Charles15 | 0 | charles15 |
Thanks for the response.
Responses:
>>"The resolution clearly states "Atheism can not account for RIGHT AND WRONG." The resolution does NOT say "Atheism can not account for MORALITY."<<
What? Morality is what ever is right. Immorality is what ever is wrong. So, when I say "Atheistic morals cannot account for morality, I mean, they can't account for what is right. Plus, I would have thought that through the context I was using, this word, morality, would have been easy to tell the meaning of.
----------
>>"Simply because people have differing opinions of right and wrong does not mean that they are both right. It means they use different methods for determining the concept. If people reasoned with the SAME CONCEPT in the SAME SITUATION, they would arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION."<<
I'm not sure how you can say this and at the same time have read my previous argument. Look at all my responses to the Jeff and Bob illustration my opponent set up. But, for the my opponents sake I will lay out another illustration. Now, my opponent says that ANY Atheistic moral system can account for morals (right and wrong), I say this is false. Now since my opponent believes that any Atheistic moral system will work, then I choose Utilitarianism to argue against.
My opponent defines Utilitarianism as "whatever causes the most probable benefit." Now I would like my opponent to tell me, HOW does one know what the most probable benefit is. Utilitarianism alone does not tell me what is to be considered "beneficial," it just says do what causes the most probable benefit. Well, that could be anything! All depending to whom the person is. For instance the most beneficial thing to a kid would probably be candy raining form the sky. But, to an adult it may be for the government to get the economy up and rolling again. Thus, one can conclude that "what is most beneficial," DEPENDS entirely on the person to whom the moral method is applied. Which leads me to my point/illustration.
Let's look back in History. We have two totally different people, one is Hitler and the other is Gandhi. Now I know that both of these men had two radically different views on what was considered right or wrong. but this does not matter since both men were doing as what they thought would "cause the most probable benefit." Thus, in one sense they were both using Utilitarianism to guide the choices that they made in their life. For instance, Gandhi believed that peace would cause the most benefit, thus what he did was considered "right" under Utilitarianism! But, on the other hand we have Hitler, he thought that exterminating the Jews would cause the most probable benefit, therefore he was doing "right" under Utilitarianism. Now which one is right under this Atheistic moral system which is Utilitarianism?Well, they both are right, since both men were following the moral method of Utilitarianism. But, how can two radically different views be 'right' even though they are BOTH USING Utilitarianism as their moral method. The answer is it's impossible. Peace can't be right, along with Violence being right also. Thus, we can conclude, from this illustration, that under Utilitarianism (an Atheistic moral system), right and wrong can not be accounted for. Because, DEPENDING on who's Viewing the moral system, what ever causes the most benefit could be one thing and but to another person it could be totally different, therefore Utilitarianism is not absolute and can not account for what is truly right, or wrong!
--------------------
>>"To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary."<<
Yes and this is what I am saying Atheism does not have. My opponent has only said, "The very notions of right and wrong are entirely dependent upon the moral system one adopts." He has said this or something like this almost every round but has not told me HOW this works, in other words he has not backed up his statement alt all. Only one round did he give me an illustration (which is what I asked for) but as soon as I argued against the illustration my opponent never cared to rebuttal. I have explained, how if there are two views, that are both radically different, but at the same time considered right, then that moral method can not account for what is right and wrong, (see above paragraph). My opponent has never tried to argue against this either. Again, my opponent just assumes that Atheism can account for right and wrong but has not yet once proven this and has also avoided answering many of my questions, even one from last round such as, "HOW can my opponent define what the MOST HARM is in this situation? To my opponent it might be killing Bob, to another person it might be letting the 100 people die! So, tell me, HOW do you define what the most harm is?!"
-------------------
>>" if God did not exist, we could still state that something was wrong. For example... Thou shalt rape thy baby thrice daily," it would not be morally right to do so. Thus, one can see that right and wrong have meaning independent of God."<<
Ya sure, but the reason why you think that is wrong is because of the culture you have grown up in. I mean, there are many countries through out the world, in which raping little children is morally acceptable. So what gives you the right to say they are wrong and you are right? Their moral system allows it, so WHY not? My opponent may say that it is wrong because it doesn't "maximize probable benefit." Well, first of all - maybe to them, they view raping little children as beneficial. My opponent may say it's not. But he can't just say that, he must explain what is most beneficial and why the foreign counties way is not. My opponent has not done this once in his debate.
You see my opponent has said that raping little children is wrong, but has not give the reason why it is wrong.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you,
Charles15 | Society | 4 | Atheism-can-not-account-for-right-and-wrong/1/ | 4,125 |
I want to thank my opponent for this challenge! He is right I recently debated this subject previously and was kind of successful. So lets see if I can do the same here. Resolution: Atheism is more beneficial than Theism. My opponent did not give definitions to his resolution so I offer some here: Beneficial- conferring benefit; helpful in the meeting of needs! More- In greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: an additional quantity, amount, or number. I agree to my opponents definition of Atheism and Theism! My opponent also used the word belief in both definitions. So my opponent asserts that atheism is in fact a belief. So I offer a definition of belief as well: Belief- Doctrine that a person or group accepts as true; an opinion, especially a firm and considered one. I will go forward by these definitions since my opponent did not give any in his RD1. I also give some rules and round structure also. Rules: 1. Must stay on topic. 2. Debate must stay respectful. 3. Pro is required to make the argument and provide reasons why atheism is more beneficial than theism. Con is required to rebuttal Pros argument and provide one of his own. 4. Winner will be who makes the most convincing arguments and evidence. Rounds: 1. Acceptance 2. Arguments 3. Rebuttals 4. Rebuttals 5. Conclusion I thank Pro again and hope this will be a good debate. I send it back to Pro! <URL>... | 0 | ScottyDouglas |
I want to thank my opponent for this challenge! He is right I recently debated this subject previously and was kind of successful. So lets see if I can do the same here.
Resolution: Atheism is more beneficial than Theism.
My opponent did not give definitions to his resolution so I offer some here:
Beneficial- conferring benefit; helpful in the meeting of needs!
More- In greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: an additional quantity, amount, or number.
I agree to my opponents definition of Atheism and Theism!
My opponent also used the word belief in both definitions. So my opponent asserts that atheism is in fact a belief. So I offer a definition of belief as well:
Belief- Doctrine that a person or group accepts as true; an opinion, especially a firm and considered one.
I will go forward by these definitions since my opponent did not give any in his RD1. I also give some rules and round structure also.
Rules:
1. Must stay on topic.
2. Debate must stay respectful.
3. Pro is required to make the argument and provide reasons why atheism is more beneficial than theism. Con is required to rebuttal Pros argument and provide one of his own.
4. Winner will be who makes the most convincing arguments and evidence.
Rounds:
1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals
5. Conclusion
I thank Pro again and hope this will be a good debate.
I send it back to Pro!
http://dictionary.reference.com... | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-More-Beneficial-Than-Theism/1/ | 4,167 |
I thank my opponent for this challenge! I would also let my opponent know his comments are not offensive in the least and I am thankful for your respect. Now before I start I would like to contend against Atheism: I have the belief that arguementation is the standard to be followed. Against such a conclusion, atheists argue that atheism, as a simple lack of the theistic hypothesis is the 'automatic' position in the absence of positive evidence. But relativism abandons the idea of natural fortitude for others instead of yourself(inner-selfly.) It starts the crumbling of the foundations of what is, good and decent. I do take my whole being as a Christian and see this is the massive forming of a Godless society. Then abandoning of all hope for grace. ===Brief Rebuttal against my Opponent=== :Atheists are more compassionate than theists.: I think what this shows is that many atheists don't have a fixed idea of what they consider the correct way to act. Which can be both a positive and a negative thing, depending on the circumstances. It certainly doesnt mean that atheists are more compassionate, just that they can be influenced easier on moral issues. <URL>... :Atheists are more intelligent then Theists.: "Give me an honest, hardworking man or woman over a self-important academic any day. In the end, the important truths of life are accessible to all, not just to the worldly wise." <URL>... :Atheists are healthier than theists.: It all depends on your purpose in life. If you are an atheist without purpose then you will not be happy. The reason for your assumption is because generally Christians have a purpose and that is serving the image of God on earth. I met atheists who seem happy and Christians who are not but i do not know how accurate these surveys really are. Strawman! :Theism causes conflict.: Since we have a massive population of thiest(throughout history), this of course would tilt in the atheist's favor. Though this fails to properly provide proof that theist today are more violent than atheist by whole and whole comparision. This is a strawman comparision. :Theism allows for rationalization.: I will get into this one more in the following rounds. :Theism oppresses positive social/scientific change.: How does it oppress? Thiest are not smart enough to be scientist to oppress discovery. Who opresses discovery>? Are we not continuing to provide sciences? Theism has opressed, though so has Atheist also. "And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist." Theism opiates the masses. Provide proof. Strawman! ===THE CASE AGAINST ATHEISM=== 1. The Atheist's Confidence: When an atheist rejects belief in God, he rejects any source of confidence beyond his own level of reasoning or understanding. The thinking atheist will forever be questioning the origin of the universe, will be perplexed regarding morality, and will be unsure of his own destiny and purpose in life. The atheist uses faith, too. He puts his faith in science or self. He presupposes that science or self are trustworthy places for his confidence, and finds corroboration for this presupposition in the evidences that he can comprehend. He believes in his own testimony. The atheist finds himself in the difficult position of denying all of those things that speak to God's existence and the validity of the Christian faith. He rejects God. He rejects the creation of the world by God. He rejects the deity of Christ. He rejects God's Word. He suppresses the inner testimony that he has concerning the reality of God. All that he is left with his a feeble self-confidence. This is the atheist's confidence. 2. Feeding on Freedom: Research suggests that atheists are more numerous in peaceful nations than they are in turbulent or warlike ones. However, proponents of this view cite examples, such as the Bolsheviks (in Soviet Russia), who, inspired by "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy", "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such". In 1918 "[t]en Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "[c]hildren were deprived of any religious education outside the home."In 1967, Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania; by year's end over two thousand religious buildings were closed or converted to other uses, and religious leaders were imprisoned and executed. Albania was declared to be the world's first atheist country by its leaders, and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza writes that "The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth."He also contends: <URL>... 3. Even Atheist have built in sense of God:=Even if they refuse it! An argument that true atheism exists is the reaction to people in front of a stressful, difficult life event life a critical illness, or death. Even hardcore atheists are quick to fall into prayers to implore a deity to save or help in the situation. ===THE CASE FOR THEISM=== 1. The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things. 2. The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate. ===CONCLUSION=== The Christian's source of confidence--his faith--is an unshakable faith in God, revealed in His Word, manifested in Jesus Christ, and confirmed by His Spirit. This is not only a more defensible belief system than the atheist's; it is a far better way to live. In fact, it is the only way to really live. "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:6). Atheism declares that there is no god. Christianity teaches that there is a God. Both cannot be true. So which one is correct, the atheist or the Christian? How you respond depends upon faith. It depends on the source of your faith. Will you have faith in self? Or in God? <URL>... <URL>... | 0 | ScottyDouglas |
I thank my opponent for this challenge!
I would also let my opponent know his comments are not offensive in the least and I am thankful for your respect.
Now before I start I would like to contend against Atheism: I have the belief that arguementation is the standard to be followed. Against such a conclusion, atheists argue that atheism, as a simple lack of the theistic hypothesis is the 'automatic' position in the absence of positive evidence. But relativism abandons the idea of natural fortitude for others instead of yourself(inner-selfly.) It starts the crumbling of the foundations of what is, good and decent. I do take my whole being as a Christian and see this is the massive forming of a Godless society. Then abandoning of all hope for grace.
===Brief Rebuttal against my Opponent===
:Atheists are more compassionate than theists.:
I think what this shows is that many atheists don't have a fixed idea of what they consider the correct way to act. Which can be both a positive and a negative thing, depending on the circumstances. It certainly doesnt mean that atheists are more compassionate, just that they can be influenced easier on moral issues. http://www.theblaze.com...
:Atheists are more intelligent then Theists.:
"Give me an honest, hardworking man or woman over a self-important academic any day.
In the end, the important truths of life are accessible to all, not just to the worldly wise."
http://www.catholiceducation.org...
:Atheists are healthier than theists.:
It all depends on your purpose in life. If you are an atheist without purpose then you will not be happy.
The reason for your assumption is because generally Christians have a purpose and that is serving the image of God on earth.
I met atheists who seem happy and Christians who are not but i do not know how accurate these surveys really are. Strawman!
:Theism causes conflict.:
Since we have a massive population of thiest(throughout history), this of course would tilt in the atheist's favor. Though this fails to properly provide proof that theist today are more violent than atheist by whole and whole comparision. This is a strawman comparision.
:Theism allows for rationalization.:
I will get into this one more in the following rounds.
:Theism oppresses positive social/scientific change.:
How does it oppress? Thiest are not smart enough to be scientist to oppress discovery. Who opresses discovery>?
Are we not continuing to provide sciences? Theism has opressed, though so has Atheist also.
"And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a 'new man' and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist."
Theism opiates the masses.
Provide proof. Strawman!
===THE CASE AGAINST ATHEISM===
1. The Atheist's Confidence:
When an atheist rejects belief in God, he rejects any source of confidence beyond his own level of reasoning or understanding. The thinking atheist will forever be questioning the origin of the universe, will be perplexed regarding morality, and will be unsure of his own destiny and purpose in life. The atheist uses faith, too. He puts his faith in science or self. He presupposes that science or self are trustworthy places for his confidence, and finds corroboration for this presupposition in the evidences that he can comprehend. He believes in his own testimony. The atheist finds himself in the difficult position of denying all of those things that speak to God's existence and the validity of the Christian faith. He rejects God. He rejects the creation of the world by God. He rejects the deity of Christ. He rejects God's Word. He suppresses the inner testimony that he has concerning the reality of God. All that he is left with his a feeble self-confidence. This is the atheist's confidence.
2. Feeding on Freedom:
Research suggests that atheists are more numerous in peaceful nations than they are in turbulent or warlike ones. However, proponents of this view cite examples, such as the Bolsheviks (in Soviet Russia), who, inspired by "an ideological creed which professed that all religion would atrophy", "resolved to eradicate Christianity as such". In 1918 "[t]en Orthodox hierarchs were summarily shot" and "[c]hildren were deprived of any religious education outside the home."In 1967, Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania; by year's end over two thousand religious buildings were closed or converted to other uses, and religious leaders were imprisoned and executed. Albania was declared to be the world's first atheist country by its leaders, and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people."
Christian writer Dinesh D'Souza writes that "The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth."He also contends:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. Even Atheist have built in sense of God:=Even if they refuse it!
An argument that true atheism exists is the reaction to people in front of a stressful, difficult life event life a critical illness, or death. Even hardcore atheists are quick to fall into prayers to implore a deity to save or help in the situation.
===THE CASE FOR THEISM===
1. The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.
2. The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.
===CONCLUSION===
The Christian's source of confidence--his faith--is an unshakable faith in God, revealed in His Word, manifested in Jesus Christ, and confirmed by His Spirit. This is not only a more defensible belief system than the atheist's; it is a far better way to live. In fact, it is the only way to really live. "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:6).
Atheism declares that there is no god. Christianity teaches that there is a God. Both cannot be true. So which one is correct, the atheist or the Christian? How you respond depends upon faith. It depends on the source of your faith. Will you have faith in self? Or in God?
http://www.faithclipart.com...
http://www.investigatingatheism.info... | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-More-Beneficial-Than-Theism/1/ | 4,168 |
I would like to thank my opponent for his reply. On to my reply: ===My Case and Rebuttal=== --Atheists are not more compassionate than theists-- Pro cites an editorial that agrees with his stance, I would like to point out that I believe his contention and study are false and is in fact a study of atheist own choosing. My opponent believes that if you are capable of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, you are more likely to be "morally swayed". But does this sway come from compassion or the lack of stability and determination in princibles? This boils down to what kind of person you are regardless of religion or lack thereof. My opponents leaves us thinking that to be compassionate you must be atheist and thiest do not care at all. Religionist have for thousands of years provided healthcare, food, shelter, and goodwill to the entire planet. What has atheist done for man-kind on that scale? This is all the study is need to determine which is more compassionate. Is a emotional decision a greater tool than concerned doctrine? When atheist try to invoke compassion in a specific moment, thiest are not as moved by it...they're cooperative, they're generous regardless of whether they have tried to tap into compassion -- whereas people who are low on religion seem to be much more influenced by a moment of compassion from emotion being brought on. The more religious, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or repetitional concerns. It just seems like if people feel that they are religious on a day-to-day basis, their compassion seems to be a little bit more sort of ingrained all the time rather than something that comes on in a specific moment. Then my opponent wants us to believe that athiests are more bound to return money than a thiest. This is assumption and the survey shows this itself. I ask was this survey done with all athiest and thiest? Is my opponent to claim all athiest are generous and giving that no thiest are? This is what is seen in this survey. --Atheists are not more intelligent than theists-- In response to this contention, Pro argues that a hardworking, honest man is not preferred over an intelligent man. My opponent does not deny that thiest are hardworking and honest and athesit are the smart ones. But how much does a survey conclude? Not much at all. Lets look at the overall picture. So-called theist have more a urge to become better and intelligent in thier faith and not man-made knowledge. We can have surveys all day long and if I use mostly thiest in my survey it will conclude the opposite of Pro's. This means nothing. There are intelligence from both sides and any other way to look from that at way shows unintelligence. --Atheists are not healthier than theists-- This again is all assumption on a few studys. This could not and would not be factual in a valid research. Is my opponent saying that on even grounds atheist will be more healthier than theist? I provide natural logic that says both are unhealthy and both are healthy. This simply is the habits of the person not thier beliefs. Nothing more and nothing less. ===THE CASE AGAINST THEISM=== --Theism discourages conflict-- Pro negates this contention by saying that facts remain that the number of lives lost due to atheism and the belief of atheism is zero. I disagree. Many athiest countires have and do kill thiest by the millions to relieve thier country of believers in God. Albania-Russia-China for just a few have killed millions for thier belief and/or lack of belief in God. We should note that in these countries atheist are the majority. We also can see what happens in a atheist ran society(anyone who does not follow thier doctrine will die). Many leaders have done much harm to humans while using religion to back them. This does not speak at all of the real thiest who use thier religion for what it was created for. Which is charity, love, ethics, and concrete faith. My opponent should supply us with proof that theism is primarily used for conflict within societies. --Theism allows for rationalization-- I do not concede at all to my opponent. He gave us nothing to support this view or that rationalization is incorrect(my opponent has given no reason why). Just because someone gives an excuse does not mean thier philosophy is wrong. It just means that it is not viewed by others to be proper. I am not a apologetic at all so this does not apply for me. God set the rules and the guidelines to follow and I will never apologize for it. Nor will I apologize for evil men who use my faith and religion as a way to kill and control others. Theism is not for such acts and any who uses it to do such acts are not following the ethicial boundaries revealed in such religions. --Theism opposes negative social/scientific change-- My opponent concedes that theism does not oppress discovery and this is true. Though then he states that thiest oppresses freedom and the spread of information. I ask my opponent where are the facts for this claim? When are theist opposing and what are thiest opposing? He also denies the fact that science and freedom are reigning today and it is at the cause of theism. Theism does not oppress the freedom and spread of information it supports it. Regardless what my opponent has sayed, atheism does support communionist and marxist propaganda and materials and this is what is opposed. --Atheist's confidence-- My opponent seems to be confused here. I simply stated that atheism is clearly about self means and self assurance and can careless about past beliefs and tradition of others. This in itself shows the lack of compassion amoungst atheist. Feeding on freedom. The contention is that atheist prefer countries where there propaganda will be well consealed. Like today we have many atheist today and alot more than in the past. From living in america they have the best of both worlds. They live free to believe what they want to believe and then also can oppose all that built america. By doing this they come from the inside out destroying what America was built on and in result can claim this nation for themselves. --Built in sense of god-- I have experinced this myself alot. I have alot of friends that all life long claim atheism and no God. But when thier relative dies they talk about them being in heaven with God when they did not believe in God. Thier are many experiences like this. I do not need a straw-pole to verify this, anyone can. Just look at someone who is atheist and then a tragedy happens they will refer to God for help. This happens alot and it is not some wild scheme theory. I bet that many that reads this have had the same experience. ==Close== I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. This has been very good for both sides. I send it back Pro's way. <URL>... <URL>... | 0 | ScottyDouglas |
I would like to thank my opponent for his reply. On to my reply:
===My Case and Rebuttal===
--Atheists are not more compassionate than theists--
Pro cites an editorial that agrees with his stance, I would like to point out that I believe his contention and study are false and is in fact a study of atheist own choosing.
My opponent believes that if you are capable of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, you are more likely to be "morally swayed". But does this sway come from compassion or the lack of stability and determination in princibles?
This boils down to what kind of person you are regardless of religion or lack thereof. My opponents leaves us thinking that to be compassionate you must be atheist and thiest do not care at all. Religionist have for thousands of years provided healthcare, food, shelter, and goodwill to the entire planet. What has atheist done for man-kind on that scale? This is all the study is need to determine which is more compassionate.
Is a emotional decision a greater tool than concerned doctrine?
When atheist try to invoke compassion in a specific moment, thiest are not as moved by it…they're cooperative, they're generous regardless of whether they have tried to tap into compassion — whereas people who are low on religion seem to be much more influenced by a moment of compassion from emotion being brought on.
The more religious, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or repetitional concerns. It just seems like if people feel that they are religious on a day-to-day basis, their compassion seems to be a little bit more sort of ingrained all the time rather than something that comes on in a specific moment.
Then my opponent wants us to believe that athiests are more bound to return money than a thiest. This is assumption and the survey shows this itself. I ask was this survey done with all athiest and thiest? Is my opponent to claim all athiest are generous and giving that no thiest are? This is what is seen in this survey.
--Atheists are not more intelligent than theists--
In response to this contention, Pro argues that a hardworking, honest man is not preferred over an intelligent man. My opponent does not deny that thiest are hardworking and honest and athesit are the smart ones. But how much does a survey conclude? Not much at all. Lets look at the overall picture. So-called theist have more a urge to become better and intelligent in thier faith and not man-made knowledge.
We can have surveys all day long and if I use mostly thiest in my survey it will conclude the opposite of Pro's. This means nothing. There are intelligence from both sides and any other way to look from that at way shows unintelligence.
--Atheists are not healthier than theists--
This again is all assumption on a few studys. This could not and would not be factual in a valid research. Is my opponent saying that on even grounds atheist will be more healthier than theist? I provide natural logic that says both are unhealthy and both are healthy. This simply is the habits of the person not thier beliefs. Nothing more and nothing less.
===THE CASE AGAINST THEISM===
--Theism discourages conflict--
Pro negates this contention by saying that facts remain that the number of lives lost due to atheism and the belief of atheism is zero. I disagree. Many athiest countires have and do kill thiest by the millions to relieve thier country of believers in God. Albania-Russia-China for just a few have killed millions for thier belief and/or lack of belief in God. We should note that in these countries atheist are the majority. We also can see what happens in a atheist ran society(anyone who does not follow thier doctrine will die).
Many leaders have done much harm to humans while using religion to back them. This does not speak at all of the real thiest who use thier religion for what it was created for. Which is charity, love, ethics, and concrete faith. My opponent should supply us with proof that theism is primarily used for conflict within societies.
--Theism allows for rationalization--
I do not concede at all to my opponent. He gave us nothing to support this view or that rationalization is incorrect(my opponent has given no reason why).
Just because someone gives an excuse does not mean thier philosophy is wrong. It just means that it is not viewed by others to be proper. I am not a apologetic at all so this does not apply for me. God set the rules and the guidelines to follow and I will never apologize for it. Nor will I apologize for evil men who use my faith and religion as a way to kill and control others. Theism is not for such acts and any who uses it to do such acts are not following the ethicial boundaries revealed in such religions.
--Theism opposes negative social/scientific change--
My opponent concedes that theism does not oppress discovery and this is true. Though then he states that thiest oppresses freedom and the spread of information. I ask my opponent where are the facts for this claim? When are theist opposing and what are thiest opposing?
He also denies the fact that science and freedom are reigning today and it is at the cause of theism. Theism does not oppress the freedom and spread of information it supports it.
Regardless what my opponent has sayed, atheism does support communionist and marxist propaganda and materials and this is what is opposed.
--Atheist's confidence--
My opponent seems to be confused here. I simply stated that atheism is clearly about self means and self assurance and can careless about past beliefs and tradition of others. This in itself shows the lack of compassion amoungst atheist.
Feeding on freedom.
The contention is that atheist prefer countries where there propaganda will be well consealed. Like today we have many atheist today and alot more than in the past. From living in america they have the best of both worlds. They live free to believe what they want to believe and then also can oppose all that built america. By doing this they come from the inside out destroying what America was built on and in result can claim this nation for themselves.
--Built in sense of god--
I have experinced this myself alot. I have alot of friends that all life long claim atheism and no God. But when thier relative dies they talk about them being in heaven with God when they did not believe in God. Thier are many experiences like this. I do not need a straw-pole to verify this, anyone can. Just look at someone who is atheist and then a tragedy happens they will refer to God for help. This happens alot and it is not some wild scheme theory. I bet that many that reads this have had the same experience.
==Close==
I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. This has been very good for both sides. I send it back Pro's way.
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-More-Beneficial-Than-Theism/1/ | 4,169 |
Thank for reading. I pull all arguments from last round down! I await my opponents response. Thank you! | 0 | ScottyDouglas |
Thank for reading.
I pull all arguments from last round down!
I await my opponents response.
Thank you! | Religion | 3 | Atheism-is-More-Beneficial-Than-Theism/1/ | 4,170 |
Pro FF last round as do I for fairness. Thanls to all. Thanks to my opponent. | 0 | ScottyDouglas |
Pro FF last round as do I for fairness.
Thanls to all. Thanks to my opponent. | Religion | 4 | Atheism-is-More-Beneficial-Than-Theism/1/ | 4,171 |
Accepted. But can I start rebutting in round 2 if I have enough space? | 0 | Billdekel |
Accepted. But can I start rebutting in round 2 if I have enough space? | Philosophy | 0 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./1/ | 4,265 |
First argument Cosmological argument * Something exists. (the universe) * You do not get something from nothing. (1rst law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass) * Therefore a necessary and eternal "something" exists. * The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. * Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. * Therefore, an eternal Creator exists. We can we infer things about Him from what He created * He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). * He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it) * He must be eternal (self-existent). * He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). * He must be timeless (He created time). * He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. * He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. * He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. * He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. * He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. Second Argument TAG How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them? Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes. The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective? Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature. Rebuttals A and C A and C are in a sense the same argument. So I will respond to them both here. The argument is a non-sequiter. The argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you mean, then you are unjustified in believing it." For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was. They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point. They speculate about what it might have been like. But they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about. That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept. It is simply one that is poorly defined. But more importantly, their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not necessarily mean that it did not occur. As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean. That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true. And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false. When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his faith that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source. In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it. Finally, the fact that we do not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false. Thus, while this argument stands as a warning against casually using language without assigning definite meaning to our words, it certainly does not prove that the God about whom these words are spoken does not exist. B Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Will your presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? If someone who plays jokes on you all the time tells you he won the lottery, your presuppositions are to think he is playing a joke on you. But if someone you trust such as your mom tells this to you will probably believe it on face value. What would qualify as extraordinary evidence? What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence? Are criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable? If a claim is extraordinary, then in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. To say its false solely on no evidence given is to commit the argument from ignorance fallacy[1] There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that god exists. This is your opinion. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence. It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism. What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no strong evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it? Sources (1) <URL>... | 0 | Billdekel |
First argument Cosmological argument • Something exists. (the universe) • You do not get something from nothing. (1rst law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass) • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists. • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists. We can we infer things about Him from what He created • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it) • He must be eternal (self-existent). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. Second Argument TAG How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them? Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes. The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective? Thoughts reflect the mind
A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind.
A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts.
A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts.
It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts.
Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.
Rebuttals A and C A and C are in a sense the same argument. So I will respond to them both here. The argument is a non-sequiter. The argument that "because you cannot comprehensively explain what you mean, then you are unjustified in believing it."
For example, atheists cannot comprehensively explain what the "big bang" was. They have a vague concept that the universe began in a single point. They speculate about what it might have been like. But they cannot comprehensively explain what they are talking about. That does not mean that the "big bang" is a meaningless concept. It is simply one that is poorly defined. But more importantly, their inability to comprehensively define it certainly does not necessarily mean that it did not occur.
As another example, children commonly repeat what they are told by their parents without fully understanding what the sentences mean. That does not make them unjustified in believing that what their parents say is true. And it certainly does not make the sentences themselves false. When a theist holds a position he does not fully understand, he does so based on his faith that the statement is true, based on the credibility of his source. In other words, if God in all His glory sat down with the believer and said, "I transcend space and time," without fully explaining it, the believer could reasonably accept the conclusion based on the credibility of God, even without understanding it.
Finally, the fact that we do not fully understand what the phrase meant would certainly not stand as proof that the statement itself was false.
Thus, while this argument stands as a warning against casually using language without assigning definite meaning to our words, it certainly does not prove that the God about whom these words are spoken does not exist.
B Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Will your presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence? If someone who plays jokes on you all the time tells you he won the lottery, your presuppositions are to think he is playing a joke on you. But if someone you trust such as your mom tells this to you will probably believe it on face value.
What would qualify as extraordinary evidence?
What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence?
Are criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?
If a claim is extraordinary, then in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
To say its false solely on no evidence given is to commit the argument from ignorance fallacy[1]
There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that god exists. This is your opinion. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence. It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism. What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no strong evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
Sources (1) http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
| Philosophy | 1 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./1/ | 4,266 |
Defense of Cosmological Argument Something cannot come from nothing is just simplifying the first law. Virtual particles Even though some particles do indeed pop out of quantum vacuums and spacetime, they are not vacuums in the traditional sense of the word. They are ripe with energy, take up space, and are governed by laws[1]. It is not nothing at all, and it's interesting to note that the vacuums very existence comes from the intelligent planning of scientists. Virtual particles are also produced from spacetime. But spacetime is not "nothing"; it is something. And it seems to have the ability to produce and absorb short-lived particles called "virtual particles." If space were really nothing, we would not be able to measure it. When I measure the volume of an "empty" room, I'm really measuring the amount of space within it. Space has three dimensions--width, length, and height. When an object moves, it moves through these three dimensions of space. So no the entire case is has not been destroyed. Even if VP were produced from nothing to say the entire case is dismantled is to commit the fallacy of division (occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts). Paul Tobin's objections Single cause The Kalam nor this argument is about proving a creator. Saying "It doesn't prove that it wasn't multiple creators" doesn't refute the argument at all. Its like refuting Pro's arguments by saying "It doesn't prove any philosophy of atheism (humanism or nihilism)" Besides I did have this in my second part of the argument "* He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites." The objection is a red herring It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God. This is why the argument is in 2 parts. I included both Entropy I am not mistaken on entropy. I described what's called the heat death. All of the usable energy would be used up resulting in a heat death[2] A heat death would still happen if the universe was eternal and open.[3][4] Sub argument "A" (infinite time) has not been touched upon. Defense of TAG Pro presented the TANG (transcendental argument for the nonexistence of God). Pro did attack TAG yet he did not answer the question proposed by TAG (how can an atheist account for the laws of logic). ...assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. God did not invent or create logic. It is correct to say that logic is dependent upon God, since it is a part of his perfect nature. If the person writing this article understood TAG properly, he would not assert as part of the TAG argument that God created logic. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God Incorrect. If logic is a part of God's nature, then it is necessarily existent because it is based on God's existence. In other words, it necessarily must exist because God exists. God's self-existence and necessary attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since the TAG argument ultimately concludes that God exists (God = God), then his attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of his existence, also exist. You cannot separate God's attributes from God himself, since his attributes exist because God exists. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man, and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course height can be altered, but "height" cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence. The objection erringly separates God's nature from logic, as if logic can be a separate thing from God's nature. This is not the TAG argument, and it is not logically necessary as shown above. if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God's nature, but is a reflection of God's nature. Since God's nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change. TANG fails to understand the TAG argument properly. By now we can see that the argument fails in his earlier assumptions. Therefore, his conclusion cannot be trusted and is not valid. "The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, it's the borrowing it from other impossibilities which in turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. "All agents" here include God himself. His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it" you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even though we talk it about God." - C.S. Lewis [5] Sources [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5]Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996, p. 18. | 0 | Billdekel |
Defense of Cosmological Argument Something cannot come from nothing is just simplifying the first law. Virtual particles Even though some particles do indeed pop out of quantum vacuums and spacetime, they are not vacuums in the traditional sense of the word. They are ripe with energy, take up space, and are governed by laws[1]. It is not nothing at all, and it’s interesting to note that the vacuums very existence comes from the intelligent planning of scientists. Virtual particles are also produced from spacetime. But spacetime is not “nothing”; it is something. And it seems to have the ability to produce and absorb short-lived particles called “virtual particles.” If space were really nothing, we would not be able to measure it. When I measure the volume of an “empty” room, I’m really measuring the amount of space within it. Space has three dimensions—width, length, and height. When an object moves, it moves through these three dimensions of space. So no the entire case is has not been destroyed. Even if VP were produced from nothing to say the entire case is dismantled is to commit the fallacy of division (occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts). Paul Tobin's objections Single cause The Kalam nor this argument is about proving a creator. Saying "It doesn't prove that it wasn't multiple creators" doesn't refute the argument at all. Its like refuting Pro's arguments by saying "It doesn't prove any philosophy of atheism (humanism or nihilism)" Besides I did have this in my second part of the argument "• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites." The objection is a red herring It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God. This is why the argument is in 2 parts. I included both Entropy I am not mistaken on entropy. I described what's called the heat death. All of the usable energy would be used up resulting in a heat death[2] A heat death would still happen if the universe was eternal and open.[3][4] Sub argument "A" (infinite time) has not been touched upon. Defense of TAG Pro presented the TANG (transcendental argument for the nonexistence of God). Pro did attack TAG yet he did not answer the question proposed by TAG (how can an atheist account for the laws of logic). ...assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.
God did not invent or create logic. It is correct to say that logic is dependent upon God, since it is a part of his perfect nature. If the person writing this article understood TAG properly, he would not assert as part of the TAG argument that God created logic.
But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God
Incorrect. If logic is a part of God's nature, then it is necessarily existent because it is based on God's existence. In other words, it necessarily must exist because God exists. God's self-existence and necessary attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since the TAG argument ultimately concludes that God exists (God = God), then his attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of his existence, also exist. You cannot separate God's attributes from God himself, since his attributes exist because God exists. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man, and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course height can be altered, but "height" cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence. The objection erringly separates God's nature from logic, as if logic can be a separate thing from God's nature. This is not the TAG argument, and it is not logically necessary as shown above. if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them
This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God's nature, but is a reflection of God's nature. Since God's nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change. TANG fails to understand the TAG argument properly.
By now we can see that the argument fails in his earlier assumptions. Therefore, his conclusion cannot be trusted and is not valid. "The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, it's the borrowing it from other impossibilities which in turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. "All agents" here include God himself. His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it" you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can". It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even though we talk it about God." - C.S. Lewis [5] Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.windows2universe.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996, p. 18.
| Philosophy | 2 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./1/ | 4,267 |
A and C I think you should reform the argument then. Such as C "This still does not tell us what God is. It tells us the secondary attributes, but not the primary attributes which are equal of importance. The above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described?" You have not explained what is incoherent in the attributes of God. You have given the differing views of god. But whether or not something exists does not depend on whether or not it can be described. If something exists, it exists independently of someone's ability to describe it. This is the case of moving the goalpost. You have not given any specific incoherent attributes of God and both talk about the definition and description of God. Pro claims I straw manned the big bang. Yet he proved my point. He said the big bang wasn't the origin of the universe, but this is contrary to what others define the big bang as [1] "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe" B Pro claimed I committed a straw man again. Yet he didn't explain why nor answer any of the questions proposed. Christians do not believe in: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Allah, or any of the other thousands of Gods that have not been proven or disproven yet they do not believe in those gods via the lack of evidence [2]. Not because of the lack of evidence. If the Christian God is proven then logically Ra,Isis,Osiris,ect doesn't exist. Pro down right ignored me in this rebuttal. The conclusion is not "therefore God does not exist" rather the conclusion is therefore "the Claim that God exists may beCONSIDERED false until evidence is provided to the contrary." Yes I understand this. This is why I said if you say its false because of no evidence is to commit the argument from ignorance. I didn't claim that is what you were saying. Cosmological Argument. Pro claims the universe always existed, but in different forms. This has not been proven in fact its just a hypothesis Virtual particles Pro seems to agree that these particles come from something. If quantum fluctuations caused the universe then what caused the quantum fluctuation? This hypothesis is self refuting because it is based (ostensibly) on some interpretations of quantum mechanics--which were derived by observing the universe. But if the universe is illusion then so is quantum mechanics; therefore, there is no reason to believe any conclusions allegedly derived from it. Paul Tobin's objection Pro says the objection is valid then goes on to agree that it doesn't disprove the argument. So its a red herring fallacy. You have not yet proved the fact that you cannot have two infinites If one being is unlimited and infinite in greatness then he can be more great than another unlimited and infinite in greatness. Yet this is a contradiction,since if 2 exist one cannot be unlimited because it cannot limit the other that is unlimited. Moreover, this argument cannot prove: 1. God is omnibenevolent - God could have created the universe to torture people and for his evil deeds. This can be disproven since not everyone is tortured or in pain. So in a sense you have a problem of good. If God wanted the world for evil it would be more evil than it is. 2. God is perfect - God could have Created an imperfect Universe This is ignoring the possibility of sin and man by free will causing the world/universe to be imperfect. If God made something perfect he would be creating something equal to himself 3. God is omnipresent - God could be in only one place at a time as opposed to every place at a time. Since God would be timeless and would have created time, He can be omnipresent TAG I feel that Pro copped out with his genetic fallacy. I copied from a website so that means you can dodge the argument? Pro's genetic fallacy does not permit evasion "The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context"[2] In my conclusion Pro didn't fully refute the Cosmological argument. Pro's genetic fallacy and evasion of the TAG Pro's evasion on my objections on argument "B" Sources [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... | 0 | Billdekel |
A and C I think you should reform the argument then. Such as C "This still does not tell us what God is. It tells us the secondary attributes, but not the primary attributes which are equal of importance. The above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described?" You have not explained what is incoherent in the attributes of God. You have given the differing views of god. But whether or not something exists does not depend on whether or not it can be described. If something exists, it exists independently of someone's ability to describe it. This is the case of moving the goalpost. You have not given any specific incoherent attributes of God and both talk about the definition and description of God. Pro claims I straw manned the big bang. Yet he proved my point. He said the big bang wasn't the origin of the universe, but this is contrary to what others define the big bang as [1] "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe" B Pro claimed I committed a straw man again. Yet he didn't explain why nor answer any of the questions proposed. Christians do not believe in: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Allah, or any of the other thousands of Gods that have not been proven or disproven yet they do not believe in those gods via the lack of evidence [2]. Not because of the lack of evidence. If the Christian God is proven then logically Ra,Isis,Osiris,ect doesn't exist. Pro down right ignored me in this rebuttal. The conclusion is not "therefore God does not exist" rather the conclusion is therefore "the Claim that God exists may beCONSIDERED false until evidence is provided to the contrary." Yes I understand this. This is why I said if you say its false because of no evidence is to commit the argument from ignorance. I didn't claim that is what you were saying. Cosmological Argument. Pro claims the universe always existed, but in different forms. This has not been proven in fact its just a hypothesis Virtual particles Pro seems to agree that these particles come from something. If quantum fluctuations caused the universe then what caused the quantum fluctuation? This hypothesis is self refuting because it is based (ostensibly) on some interpretations of quantum mechanics—which were derived by observing the universe. But if the universe is illusion then so is quantum mechanics; therefore, there is no reason to believe any conclusions allegedly derived from it. Paul Tobin's objection Pro says the objection is valid then goes on to agree that it doesn't disprove the argument. So its a red herring fallacy. You have not yet proved the fact that you cannot have two infinites If one being is unlimited and infinite in greatness then he can be more great than another unlimited and infinite in greatness. Yet this is a contradiction,since if 2 exist one cannot be unlimited because it cannot limit the other that is unlimited. Moreover, this argument cannot prove: 1. God is omnibenevolent - God could have created the universe to torture people and for his evil deeds. This can be disproven since not everyone is tortured or in pain. So in a sense you have a problem of good. If God wanted the world for evil it would be more evil than it is. 2. God is perfect - God could have Created an imperfect Universe This is ignoring the possibility of sin and man by free will causing the world/universe to be imperfect. If God made something perfect he would be creating something equal to himself 3. God is omnipresent - God could be in only one place at a time as opposed to every place at a time. Since God would be timeless and would have created time, He can be omnipresent TAG I feel that Pro copped out with his genetic fallacy. I copied from a website so that means you can dodge the argument? Pro's genetic fallacy does not permit evasion "The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context"[2] In my conclusion
Pro didn't fully refute the Cosmological argument.
Pro's genetic fallacy and evasion of the TAG
Pro's evasion on my objections on argument "B" Sources [1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
| Philosophy | 3 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./1/ | 4,268 |
Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Theism. For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. "More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism). Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate (3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. (5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds : (1) Acceptance (2) Opening Statement (3) Rebuttal (4) Rebuttal Other notes: (1) 72 hours to argue; (2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other; (4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms. | 0 | Microsuck |
Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Theism. For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. "More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism). Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate (3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. (5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds : (1) Acceptance (2) Opening Statement (3) Rebuttal (4) Rebuttal Other notes: (1) 72 hours to argue; (2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other; (4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
| Philosophy | 0 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./1/ | 4,269 |
Yes you can start rebutting if you have enough space. Thank you for accepting this debate. A. What is God? Before we can begin to have a rational discourse on the existence of God, one must first define what God is. Indeed, if we do not know what something is, how can we know whether or not it can exist? Consider the following dialogue: Person 1: A blorb exists. Person 2: Prove it Person 3: Morality could not have arisen except from the blorb. [3] If this dialogue is less than satisfactory, much of the blame falls with person 2. Person 2's demand for proof is premature. Rather, he should have asked to specify what a "blorb" is; until person 1 does so, a "blorb" is nothing but a meaningless sound and he is uttering absolute nonsense. Without some description, the alleged proof is incoherent. When confronted with the claim that God exists, the atheist should immediately respond, "What is it for which you are claiming existence?" In other words, the Theist must present an intelligible and falsifiable description of "god." Until that occurs, "God" makes no more sense than a a"blorb." Both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is logically absurd. As W. T. Blackstone puts it: Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the qeustion of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge. [4] This philosophical position is called ignosticism. I am ignostic as to the Deistic claims because the belief in Deism is incoherent and unjustifiable until the definition of Deism and "God" is made clear. Now, there are multiple views of "God" that should be taken note of before continuing: Pantheism - The view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God. [2] Namely, that nature and God are identical [5]. Monotheism - The view that there is exactly one God and only one God. [6] Polytheism - The view that multiple deities exist. [7] Deism - Simply put, it is "[t]he universal creative force which is the source of laws and designs found through nature." [8] Henotheism: The belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possibility that there exists other deities that may also be worshiped. [10] There are more concepts of God than that. But if Theists themselves cannot agree amongst themselves who God is, how are you going to expect an atheist -- a skeptic in regards to the supernatural, to the claim that a god exists.[11] B. Presumption of Atheism This next argument takes note of the philosophical view that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This argument is formulated as thus: If a claim is extraordinary, then in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. The claim that a god exists is an extraordinary claim. Therefore, in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favour, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that god exists. Therefore, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. [12] An extraordinary claim is defined as any claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, every day experiences of the world. [13] Indeed, as Carl Sagan puts it, "Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence." Extraordinary claims vary in their degree of extraordinariness. Let me give you three statements: I have eaten lunch; I won the lottery; and Last night, God called me to be His final prophet on earth and wants all men to follow my words. The first claim does not contradict accepted physical laws or our commonsense, everyday experience; consequently, my word would be sufficed for one to accept that claim. The second claim that I won the lottery would not contradict accepted physical laws, but it would contradict out commonsense, everyday experience since most people do not win the lottery. Consequently, if I were to present this claim, it may be sufficient to show that I have won by reading the account in the newspaper or reading the number on the lottery ticket. Finally, the claim that God called me to be His final prophet on earth is extraordinary to the highest degree. To believe the latter claim, you would have to change some of your beliefs about how God reveals Himself to man, your religion, and your views about God etc. Indeed, it would be irrational to believe the latter account unless I put forth lots of evidence. The claim that there is a God is the highest claim one can make. Why? Because it is a being that differs from all known organisms with regard to power or intelligence; thus, this being is different in every way we experience. For example, God is all powerful. In this way, God is different from all known organisms because all known organisms are limited in their power. This attitude regarding "god" is quite common. In the words of Stephen Roberts, "I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer gods than you do; when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." For example, by definition of atheist, all Christians are atheistic about all gods except their own. Christians do not believe in the claims of Muhammad, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Brahm, Vishnu, Shiva; or any other God. No-one has been able to prove that other gods do not exist, yet no Christian believes that such gods exist. Why do they disbelieve? Because of the presumption of Atheism. Is there strong evidence for the existence of God? The subsequent arguments will show that there is not. Moreover, I will refute my opponent's arguments and show that there is not. Dr. James Dobson notes that, "faith ranks at the top of God's system of priorities...This determination to believe when the proof is not provided and when questions are not answered is central to our relationship with the Lord. He will never do anything to destroy the need for faith." [14] This approach justifies me rejecting all other gods that may be proposed until extraordinary evidence is available. In other words, the absence of evidence is a strong case for atheism. C. God is Incoherent Going back to the definition of God, we must observe the definition of God given by traditional Theism [15]. According to the National Catholic Almanac (1968) there are a total of 22 attributes of God: almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true. [16] This still does not tell us what God is. It tells us the secondary attributes, but not the primary attributes which are equal of importance. The above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described? _______________ This argument originally appeared in my blog post. All references and foonotes are available in the blog post a thttp://reasonalliance.blogspot.com... .... This post is original and I have written it. I ran out of room to post footnotes and sources. | 0 | Microsuck |
Yes you can start rebutting if you have enough space. Thank you for accepting this debate.
A. What is God?
Before we can begin to have a rational discourse on the existence of God, one must first define what God is. Indeed, if we do not know what something is, how can we know whether or not it can exist? Consider the following dialogue:
Person 1: A blorb exists.
Person 2: Prove it
Person 3: Morality could not have arisen except from the blorb. [3]
If this dialogue is less than satisfactory, much of the blame falls with person 2. Person 2's demand for proof is premature. Rather, he should have asked to specify what a "blorb" is; until person 1 does so, a "blorb" is nothing but a meaningless sound and he is uttering absolute nonsense. Without some description, the alleged proof is incoherent.
When confronted with the claim that God exists, the atheist should immediately respond, "What is it for which you are claiming existence?" In other words, the Theist must present an intelligible and falsifiable description of "god." Until that occurs, "God" makes no more sense than a a"blorb." Both are cognitively empty, and any attempt at proof is logically absurd. As W. T. Blackstone puts it:
Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faith is beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request for the meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the qeustion of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge. [4]
This philosophical position is called ignosticism. I am ignostic as to the Deistic claims because the belief in Deism is incoherent and unjustifiable until the definition of Deism and "God" is made clear. Now, there are multiple views of "God" that should be taken note of before continuing:
Pantheism - The view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God. [2] Namely, that nature and God are identical [5]. Monotheism - The view that there is exactly one God and only one God. [6] Polytheism - The view that multiple deities exist. [7] Deism - Simply put, it is "[t]he universal creative force which is the source of laws and designs found through nature." [8]
Henotheism: The belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possibility that there exists other deities that may also be worshiped. [10]
There are more concepts of God than that. But if Theists themselves cannot agree amongst themselves who God is, how are you going to expect an atheist -- a skeptic in regards to the supernatural, to the claim that a god exists.[11]
B. Presumption of Atheism
This next argument takes note of the philosophical view that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This argument is formulated as thus:
If a claim is extraordinary, then in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
The claim that a god exists is an extraordinary claim.
Therefore, in the abscence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favour, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.
There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that god exists.
Therefore, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. [12]
An extraordinary claim is defined as any claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, every day experiences of the world. [13] Indeed, as Carl Sagan puts it, "Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence."
Extraordinary claims vary in their degree of extraordinariness. Let me give you three statements:
I have eaten lunch;
I won the lottery; and
Last night, God called me to be His final prophet on earth and wants all men to follow my words.
The first claim does not contradict accepted physical laws or our commonsense, everyday experience; consequently, my word would be sufficed for one to accept that claim. The second claim that I won the lottery would not contradict accepted physical laws, but it would contradict out commonsense, everyday experience since most people do not win the lottery. Consequently, if I were to present this claim, it may be sufficient to show that I have won by reading the account in the newspaper or reading the number on the lottery ticket. Finally, the claim that God called me to be His final prophet on earth is extraordinary to the highest degree. To believe the latter claim, you would have to change some of your beliefs about how God reveals Himself to man, your religion, and your views about God etc. Indeed, it would be irrational to believe the latter account unless I put forth lots of evidence.
The claim that there is a God is the highest claim one can make. Why? Because it is a being that differs from all known organisms with regard to power or intelligence; thus, this being is different in every way we experience. For example, God is all powerful. In this way, God is different from all known organisms because all known organisms are limited in their power.
This attitude regarding “god” is quite common. In the words of Stephen Roberts, “I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer gods than you do; when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” For example, by definition of atheist, all Christians are atheistic about all gods except their own. Christians do not believe in the claims of Muhammad, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Brahm, Vishnu, Shiva; or any other God. No-one has been able to prove that other gods do not exist, yet no Christian believes that such gods exist. Why do they disbelieve? Because of the presumption of Atheism.
Is there strong evidence for the existence of God? The subsequent arguments will show that there is not. Moreover, I will refute my opponent’s arguments and show that there is not. Dr. James Dobson notes that, “faith ranks at the top of God’s system of priorities…This determination to believe when the proof is not provided and when questions are not answered is central to our relationship with the Lord. He will never do anything to destroy the need for faith.” [14]
This approach justifies me rejecting all other gods that may be proposed until extraordinary evidence is available. In other words, the absence of evidence is a strong case for atheism.
C. God is Incoherent
Going back to the definition of God, we must observe the definition of God given by traditional Theism [15]. According to the National Catholic Almanac (1968) there are a total of 22 attributes of God:
almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true. [16]
This still does not tell us what God is. It tells us the secondary attributes, but not the primary attributes which are equal of importance. The above definition is incoherent. If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described? _______________ This argument originally appeared in my blog post. All references and foonotes are available in the blog post a thttp://reasonalliance.blogspot.com... .... This post is original and I have written it. I ran out of room to post footnotes and sources.
| Philosophy | 1 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./1/ | 4,270 |
Thank you for your speedy response. I am going to first refute con's opening case and then I will defend my opening statements. It is certainly a great pleasure to be able to debate with you. Con 1: The Cosmological Argument I agree that something exists. However, my opponent mis-understands the 1st law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass. The first Law of Thermodynamics basically states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. [1] Indeed, as Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton points out: "The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. "The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this." [2] So the entire case collapses right then and there. To further refute the point, Paul Tobin has pointed this out: It should first be noted that even if the Kalam argument is successful, it can prove, at most, that the universe is caused. It could not show if the universe had a single cause, or if it was caused by a single (or multiple) personal agent(s) or even that the cause of the universe is the first cause. It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God. Finally, my opponent's understanding of entropy is mistaken. He states, "The Universe cannnot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occured. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old." To quote Richard Carrier on this issue [3]: In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a closed system that is no longer available to effect changes in that system. A system is closed when no energy is being added to or removed from it, and energy becomes unavailable not by leaving the system, but by becoming irretrievably disordered, as a consequence of the laws of statistical mechanics. But even though the total amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered will increase, this does not mean order cannot increase somewhere else in that same system. This is where confusion arises. Of course, entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables, and of course the Second Law then no longer applies. But even when the Second Law applies, it is still possible for a closed system to produce order, even highly elaborate order, so long as there is a greater increase in disorder somewhere else in the system. In summar, my opponent's case has failed . Con 2: TAG To entirely refute TAG, I will present Michael Martin's version of TANG [4]: How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false. Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God . Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false. Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG. References and Footnotes 1. Interestingly, there are exceptions to this Law. In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the Law of Energy Conservation is a cornerstone of classic physics. However, the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. See Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics . London: J. M. Dent & Sons . 2. Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory . January 25, 2006. < <URL>... >. 3. Carrier, R. Entropy Explained . 2005. < <URL>... >. 4. Martin, M. The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God. 1996. < <URL>... ; | 0 | Microsuck |
Thank you for your speedy response. I am going to first refute con's opening case and then I will defend my opening statements. It is certainly a great pleasure to be able to debate with you. Con 1: The Cosmological Argument
I agree that something exists. However, my opponent mis-understands the 1st law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass. The first Law of Thermodynamics basically states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. [1] Indeed, as Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton points out:
"The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. "The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this." [2] So the entire case collapses right then and there. To further refute the point, Paul Tobin has pointed this out: It should first be noted that even if the Kalam argument is successful, it can prove, at most, that the universe is caused. It could not show if the universe had a single cause, or if it was caused by a single (or multiple) personal agent(s) or even that the cause of the universe is the first cause. It certainly does not show that the cause is what we would define as God. Finally, my opponent's understanding of entropy is mistaken. He states, "The Universe cannnot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occured. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old." To quote Richard Carrier on this issue [3]:
In traditional thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a closed system that is no longer available to effect changes in that system. A system is closed when no energy is being added to or removed from it, and energy becomes unavailable not by leaving the system, but by becoming irretrievably disordered, as a consequence of the laws of statistical mechanics. But even though the total amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered will increase, this does not mean order cannot increase somewhere else in that same system. This is where confusion arises. Of course, entropy can be measured in an open system, too, but this introduces additional variables, and of course the Second Law then no longer applies. But even when the Second Law applies, it is still possible for a closed system to produce order, even highly elaborate order, so long as there is a greater increase in disorder somewhere else in the system.
In summar, my opponent's case has failed . Con 2: TAG To entirely refute TAG, I will present Michael Martin's version of TANG [4]:
How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.
Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God . Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.
Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.
References and Footnotes 1. Interestingly, there are exceptions to this Law. In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the Law of Energy Conservation is a cornerstone of classic physics. However, the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. See Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics . London: J. M. Dent & Sons . 2. Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory . January 25, 2006. < http://www.talkorigins.org... >. 3. Carrier, R. Entropy Explained . 2005. < http://www.infidels.org... >. 4. Martin, M. The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God. 1996. < http://www.infidels.org... ; | Philosophy | 2 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./1/ | 4,271 |
Thank you for a fun debate. I wish you the best of luck in the voting period. I am going to first defend my opening statements and then I will defend my rebuttals. -->DEFENSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS<-- 1. A and C. My opponent straw man's my entire case. My point is that God's attributes are incoherent and therefore does not exist. I did not at all say that because we cannot comprehend God, He therefore does not exist. Rather, I am saying that God's attributes forbid him to exist in the same way a square circle does not exist. My opponent also straw man's what the Big Bang theory is. The Big Bang Theory states that "" In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler. " [1] Indeed, the Big Bang theory explains the development as opposed to the origin of the universe. My case stands because my opponent totally misses the point. Indeed, something can be prime facia incomprehensible, but it can still be true. However, something that has incompatible properties such as a square circle or God, does not exist. 2. B Once again, this is a straw man of my case. If I were to tell you that God told me to be the final prophet on earth and that you are to give everything up and follow me, then you would be rational to conclude that I am lying based soely on the fact that I have given no evidence. Indeed, this attitude of Gods is quite common. For example, Christians do not believe in: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Allah, or any of the other thousands of Gods that have not been proven or disproven yet they do not believe in those gods via the lack of evidence [2]. The conclusion is not "therefore God does not exist" rather the conclusion is therefore "the Claim that God exists may be CONSIDERED false until evidence is provided to the contrary." -->DEFENSE OF MY REBUTTALS<-- 1. Cosmological Argument. Something can come from nothing. Moreover, the universe has always existed though it has changed forms. A. Virtual Particles My opponent admits that quantum vacuums do pop out. My opponent, however, misses the point once again. Finally, there is no such thing as a vacuum: In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy [3] [T]he laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction D EDt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. [4] Paul Tobin's objection is quite valid. You have not yet proved the fact that you cannot have two infinites. Finally, my opponent once more straw man's. He stated that it doesn't disprove the argument. True, though it fails to meet the burden of proof set forth in this debate. Missing the point once more. Moreover, this argument cannot prove: 1. God is omnibenevolent - God could have created the universe to torture people and for his evil deeds. 2. God is perfect - God could have Created an imperfect Universe 3. God is omnipresent - God could be in only one place at a time as opposed to every place at a time. 2. TAG My opponent plagarized his arguments from Matthew Slick < <URL>... ;. As such, I will not address any plagarized arguments. I ask that you take conduct away. Conclusion: 1. My opponent straw manned my case 2. My opponent plargarized from CARM including the C. S. Lewis quote. I urge a pro vote. References and Footnotes 1. Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory . January 25, 2006. < <URL>... ; 2. And also, conceviable the fact of presupposition to their God. 3.Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science . New York: Prentice Hall. 4. Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397. 5. Books above were quoted on < <URL>... ; | 0 | Microsuck |
Thank you for a fun debate. I wish you the best of luck in the voting period. I am going to first defend my opening statements and then I will defend my rebuttals. -->DEFENSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS<-- 1. A and C. My opponent straw man's my entire case. My point is that God's attributes are incoherent and therefore does not exist. I did not at all say that because we cannot comprehend God, He therefore does not exist. Rather, I am saying that God's attributes forbid him to exist in the same way a square circle does not exist. My opponent also straw man's what the Big Bang theory is. The Big Bang Theory states that "" In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler. " [1] Indeed, the Big Bang theory explains the development as opposed to the origin of the universe. My case stands because my opponent totally misses the point. Indeed, something can be prime facia incomprehensible, but it can still be true. However, something that has incompatible properties such as a square circle or God, does not exist. 2. B Once again, this is a straw man of my case. If I were to tell you that God told me to be the final prophet on earth and that you are to give everything up and follow me, then you would be rational to conclude that I am lying based soely on the fact that I have given no evidence. Indeed, this attitude of Gods is quite common. For example, Christians do not believe in: Osiris, Isis, Ra, Allah, or any of the other thousands of Gods that have not been proven or disproven yet they do not believe in those gods via the lack of evidence [2]. The conclusion is not "therefore God does not exist" rather the conclusion is therefore "the Claim that God exists may be CONSIDERED false until evidence is provided to the contrary." -->DEFENSE OF MY REBUTTALS<-- 1. Cosmological Argument. Something can come from nothing. Moreover, the universe has always existed though it has changed forms. A. Virtual Particles My opponent admits that quantum vacuums do pop out. My opponent, however, misses the point once again. Finally, there is no such thing as a vacuum: In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy [3] [T]he laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction Δ EΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. [4] Paul Tobin's objection is quite valid. You have not yet proved the fact that you cannot have two infinites. Finally, my opponent once more straw man's. He stated that it doesn't disprove the argument. True, though it fails to meet the burden of proof set forth in this debate. Missing the point once more. Moreover, this argument cannot prove: 1. God is omnibenevolent - God could have created the universe to torture people and for his evil deeds. 2. God is perfect - God could have Created an imperfect Universe 3. God is omnipresent - God could be in only one place at a time as opposed to every place at a time. 2. TAG My opponent plagarized his arguments from Matthew Slick < http://carm.org... ;. As such, I will not address any plagarized arguments. I ask that you take conduct away. Conclusion: 1. My opponent straw manned my case 2. My opponent plargarized from CARM including the C. S. Lewis quote. I urge a pro vote. References and Footnotes 1. Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory . January 25, 2006. < http://www.talkorigins.org... ; 2. And also, conceviable the fact of presupposition to their God. 3.Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science . New York: Prentice Hall. 4. Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397. 5. Books above were quoted on < http://www.infidels.org... ; | Philosophy | 3 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./1/ | 4,272 |
Atheism is not and cannot be a religon, why all religon is based on faith. Atheist have no faith they have no beliefs other than not to believe! I'm not tring to offend nor say that they are wrong. but they cannot be conciderd a religon. | 0 | Gao |
Atheism is not and cannot be a religon, why all religon is based on faith. Atheist have no faith they have no beliefs other than not to believe! I'm not tring to offend nor say that they are wrong. but they cannot be conciderd a religon. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-not-and-cannot-be-a-religon/1/ | 4,289 |
Faith: belief that is not based on proof. key word Belief, atheist do not believe in any thing, and thus have no faith. also to believe not to believe is an oxymoron that is an IDEA not a BELIEF. religion is based upon A belief system more so than an idea. example Christianity belief in Christ, Jesus as the chosen son of God. Pagan belief that spirits are among us. Atheist Idea that we spawned from ooze. | 0 | Gao |
Faith: belief that is not based on proof. key word Belief, atheist do not believe in any thing, and thus have no faith. also to believe not to believe is an oxymoron that is an IDEA not a BELIEF. religion is based upon A belief system more so than an idea. example Christianity belief in Christ, Jesus as the chosen son of God. Pagan belief that spirits are among us. Atheist Idea that we spawned from ooze. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-not-and-cannot-be-a-religon/1/ | 4,290 |
I follow your reasoning and thought. and I recieved my def. from dictionary.com accatually I lied, sorry I miss the point: 'Atheists don't need to PROVE that God does NOT exist. It's irrational and impossible.' what? for anything to be there must be a creator, every religion believes that in some point, that is the general FAITH of all religions. you claim that only theists need prove that a God or Gods exist that atheist are some how void of responsablity in feeble atempts of jusifing their 'Ideas'. I have also been an Atheist and only when I looked at what I thought was my Faith I relized, to belive in nothing is the same as being alredy dead. many claim that they shall be reborn as trees, impossibul, if there is no God then all refrences toward a God are false thus, humans have no souls, and then cannot come back nor reencarnate as dust, let-a-lone a tree. others believe in a mockry of foolish and empty ideals of death. I also cannot fathom how we beings came forth without a God. and don't try the BIG BANG or EVOLUTIONARY theories, they cannot be proven. I conclude: Atheist must prove there is no God, witch you say they don't. Athesim is built on Ideals not Faith, like all other religons. Atheism is not a Religon, but a group of those who cannot fathom a God thus choose to look away from Him/Her/It | 0 | Gao |
I follow your reasoning and thought. and I recieved my def. from dictionary.com
accatually I lied, sorry I miss the point: 'Atheists don't need to PROVE that God does NOT exist. It's irrational and impossible.'
what? for anything to be there must be a creator, every religion believes that in some point, that is the general FAITH of all religions.
you claim that only theists need prove that a God or Gods exist that atheist are some how void of responsablity in feeble atempts of jusifing their 'Ideas'.
I have also been an Atheist and only when I looked at what I thought was my Faith I relized, to belive in nothing is the same as being alredy dead.
many claim that they shall be reborn as trees, impossibul, if there is no God then all refrences toward a God are false thus, humans have no souls, and then cannot come back nor reencarnate as dust, let-a-lone a tree. others believe in a mockry of foolish and empty ideals of death. I also cannot fathom how we beings came forth without a God. and don't try the BIG BANG or EVOLUTIONARY theories, they cannot be proven.
I conclude: Atheist must prove there is no God, witch you say they don't.
Athesim is built on Ideals not Faith, like all other religons.
Atheism is not a Religon, but a group of those who cannot fathom a God thus choose to look away from Him/Her/It | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-not-and-cannot-be-a-religon/1/ | 4,291 |
Atheists still base their opinion on faith. Atheists proclaim that God does not exist, and this is not much different from Theists saying that God DOES exist. They are both claims that have to be validated. The only neutral and unbiased claim would be the following: "There is no evidence for the existence of God" In this case, it would not be based on faith. | 0 | Kleptin |
Atheists still base their opinion on faith. Atheists proclaim that God does not exist, and this is not much different from Theists saying that God DOES exist. They are both claims that have to be validated.
The only neutral and unbiased claim would be the following:
"There is no evidence for the existence of God"
In this case, it would not be based on faith. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-not-and-cannot-be-a-religon/1/ | 4,292 |
"Faith: belief that is not based on proof." I request the source of this definition. If you cannot provide a reasonable source, your argument is void. It seems as if though you are only using this definition because it matches yours. The definition I provided was the entry in Merriam-Webster. "key word Belief, atheist do not believe in any thing, and thus have no faith." No, Atheists believe that deities do not exist. A belief is the stance you take in accordance with an event or thing. "Anna slept with her husband's best friend, can you believe that?" If you say yes, your stance is that it is true. If you say no, your stance is that it is false. Taking a stance means you have a belief. Theism is a belief because the stance on God is "true". Atheism is a belief because the stance on God is "false". I think you are confusing Atheism with Agnosticism. Agnostics do not have beliefs because they don't take a stance. They stand outside the God debate. ************* Let me explain to you why there is such confusion. I used to be an atheist myself and debated a lot with theists. I know all about the burden of proof, but DO NOT confuse it with other things. I know exactly what you mean when you say it is an oxymoron, but that's not the right way to look at it. The burden of proof falls on the theists. The theists are the ones that must PROVE that God exists. Atheists don't need to PROVE that God does NOT exist. It's irrational and impossible. HOWEVER This does not mean that Atheists can sit back and say "Until you can prove God exists, God doesn't exist". That's logically incorrect. That's like saying "Jack, until you find your homework, your homework doesn't exist". If Jack finds his homework under his bed three hours later, does it mean that it only came into existence then? Of course not. It was always there. People have free range to say "Since you cannot prove God, WE DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE YOU" They do not have the logical right to say "Since you cannot prove God, GOD DOES NOT EXIST". Thus, an atheist that declares that god does not exist is not backed by logic. He is making an assertion of belief. Thus, Atheism is religious in nature. | 0 | Kleptin |
"Faith: belief that is not based on proof."
I request the source of this definition. If you cannot provide a reasonable source, your argument is void. It seems as if though you are only using this definition because it matches yours. The definition I provided was the entry in Merriam-Webster.
"key word Belief, atheist do not believe in any thing, and thus have no faith."
No, Atheists believe that deities do not exist. A belief is the stance you take in accordance with an event or thing.
"Anna slept with her husband's best friend, can you believe that?"
If you say yes, your stance is that it is true. If you say no, your stance is that it is false. Taking a stance means you have a belief. Theism is a belief because the stance on God is "true". Atheism is a belief because the stance on God is "false".
I think you are confusing Atheism with Agnosticism. Agnostics do not have beliefs because they don't take a stance. They stand outside the God debate.
*************
Let me explain to you why there is such confusion. I used to be an atheist myself and debated a lot with theists. I know all about the burden of proof, but DO NOT confuse it with other things.
I know exactly what you mean when you say it is an oxymoron, but that's not the right way to look at it.
The burden of proof falls on the theists. The theists are the ones that must PROVE that God exists. Atheists don't need to PROVE that God does NOT exist. It's irrational and impossible.
HOWEVER
This does not mean that Atheists can sit back and say "Until you can prove God exists, God doesn't exist". That's logically incorrect.
That's like saying "Jack, until you find your homework, your homework doesn't exist". If Jack finds his homework under his bed three hours later, does it mean that it only came into existence then? Of course not. It was always there.
People have free range to say "Since you cannot prove God, WE DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE YOU"
They do not have the logical right to say "Since you cannot prove God, GOD DOES NOT EXIST".
Thus, an atheist that declares that god does not exist is not backed by logic. He is making an assertion of belief.
Thus, Atheism is religious in nature. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-not-and-cannot-be-a-religon/1/ | 4,293 |
"'Atheists don't need to PROVE that God does NOT exist. It's irrational and impossible.' what? for anything to be there must be a creator, every religion believes that in some point, that is the general FAITH of all religions." That's not true. Christians don't believe that God has a creator, God just always was. By your logic, that would mean Christianity isn't a religion. Your point is invalid. "you claim that only theists need prove that a God or Gods exist that atheist are some how void of responsablity in feeble atempts of jusifing their 'Ideas'." It's called "The burden of proof". If I were to say a pink, intangible, invisible dragon lives in my den, it would be up to ME to prove it exists, not YOU to prove it does not exist. However, many people get confused by this. They think that they can say "Oh, you can't prove it? Then it doesn't exist". The proper logical conclusion is "You cannot say it exists because there is not enough evidence" "I have also been an Atheist and only when I looked at what I thought was my Faith I relized, to belive in nothing is the same as being alredy dead. many claim that they shall be reborn as trees, impossibul, if there is no God then all refrences toward a God are false thus, humans have no souls, and then cannot come back nor reencarnate as dust, let-a-lone a tree. others believe in a mockry of foolish and empty ideals of death. I also cannot fathom how we beings came forth without a God. and don't try the BIG BANG or EVOLUTIONARY theories, they cannot be proven." I think you're confused. This is a debate, which is a discussion on a particular topic between two people of opposing viewpoints. If you're going to bash atheism, please log on to some creationist site and bash away, but do not waste my time my typing irrelevant garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. However, I will treat your rant like an argument for this debate. You claim that atheists claim they shall be reborn as trees. You claim that atheists believe they believe in a mockery of foolish and empty ideals of death. You claim that atheists believe in big bang and evolution and that these things cannot be proven. Since you claim they believe in all these things that aren't based on objective fact, it must be faith, and Atheism must be a religion. You've just conceded this debate. Thank you. "I conclude: Atheist must prove there is no God, witch you say they don't." You very well may conclude that, but the conclusion would be invalid. Why do I say so? There is an invisible, intangible pink dragon in my room that is always right. According to you, you would have to prove this dragon does not exist. Otherwise, you have lost this point. "Athesim is built on Ideals not Faith, like all other religons." I have no idea what this means and you offer no explanation for it. However, religion delas with many ideals. The concept of perfection, virginity, life after death, being all-knowing, all-powerful, unconditional love. "Atheism is not a Religon, but a group of those who cannot fathom a God thus choose to look away from Him/Her/It" If atheism is a set of beliefs that a person, as you said, CHOOSES to take, then it must be based on faith. Hence, Atheism is a religion. Thank you for the debate. | 0 | Kleptin |
"'Atheists don't need to PROVE that God does NOT exist. It's irrational and impossible.'
what? for anything to be there must be a creator, every religion believes that in some point, that is the general FAITH of all religions."
That's not true. Christians don't believe that God has a creator, God just always was. By your logic, that would mean Christianity isn't a religion. Your point is invalid.
"you claim that only theists need prove that a God or Gods exist that atheist are some how void of responsablity in feeble atempts of jusifing their 'Ideas'."
It's called "The burden of proof". If I were to say a pink, intangible, invisible dragon lives in my den, it would be up to ME to prove it exists, not YOU to prove it does not exist.
However, many people get confused by this. They think that they can say "Oh, you can't prove it? Then it doesn't exist". The proper logical conclusion is "You cannot say it exists because there is not enough evidence"
"I have also been an Atheist and only when I looked at what I thought was my Faith I relized, to belive in nothing is the same as being alredy dead.
many claim that they shall be reborn as trees, impossibul, if there is no God then all refrences toward a God are false thus, humans have no souls, and then cannot come back nor reencarnate as dust, let-a-lone a tree. others believe in a mockry of foolish and empty ideals of death. I also cannot fathom how we beings came forth without a God. and don't try the BIG BANG or EVOLUTIONARY theories, they cannot be proven."
I think you're confused. This is a debate, which is a discussion on a particular topic between two people of opposing viewpoints. If you're going to bash atheism, please log on to some creationist site and bash away, but do not waste my time my typing irrelevant garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
However, I will treat your rant like an argument for this debate. You claim that atheists claim they shall be reborn as trees. You claim that atheists believe they believe in a mockery of foolish and empty ideals of death. You claim that atheists believe in big bang and evolution and that these things cannot be proven.
Since you claim they believe in all these things that aren't based on objective fact, it must be faith, and Atheism must be a religion. You've just conceded this debate. Thank you.
"I conclude: Atheist must prove there is no God, witch you say they don't."
You very well may conclude that, but the conclusion would be invalid. Why do I say so? There is an invisible, intangible pink dragon in my room that is always right. According to you, you would have to prove this dragon does not exist. Otherwise, you have lost this point.
"Athesim is built on Ideals not Faith, like all other religons."
I have no idea what this means and you offer no explanation for it. However, religion delas with many ideals. The concept of perfection, virginity, life after death, being all-knowing, all-powerful, unconditional love.
"Atheism is not a Religon, but a group of those who cannot fathom a God thus choose to look away from Him/Her/It"
If atheism is a set of beliefs that a person, as you said, CHOOSES to take, then it must be based on faith. Hence, Atheism is a religion.
Thank you for the debate. | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-not-and-cannot-be-a-religon/1/ | 4,294 |
Atheism is defined by it's three roots,"a" meaning "no", " theo", meaning "God" (capitalized as a proper noun in this debate, since a lesser god would be irrelevant for any objective discussion) and "ism" meaning " This ROOT-WORD is the Suffix ISM. It means DOCTRINE, SYSTEM, MANNER, CONDITION, ACT & CHARACTERISTIC.". Merriam-Webster's full definition of "ism" is : Full Definition of -ISM 1a : act : practice : process b : manner of action or behavior characteristic of a (specified) person or thing c : prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attribute 2a : state : condition : property b : abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing or marked by resemblance to (such) a person or thing 3a : doctrine : theory : religion b : adherence to a system or a class of principles 4: characteristic or peculiar feature or trait In this debate, I will show how atheism is self-delusional. My opponent will attempt to show how atheism is realistic and rational and not delusional. By accetping this debate, my opponent agrees to abide by the following simple rules: The definitions given here will be accepted and used as the established English definitions. The three root words which form the word "atheism" are agreed to be accurately defined in this challenge opening argument. In this debate, the word "God" will always be captialized as a proper noun. The word god may be used, but it will be agreed to be understood as a god who is lesser than the God referred to by the proper noun, God, who would be the God over all. No cussing. My opponent may simply accept the challenge on pass on giving an opening argument or post his or her opening argument. I say you can't win againt God, maybe you can win this debate against me. The points are not as important as the topic. | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
Atheism is defined by it's three roots,"a" meaning "no", " theo", meaning "God" (capitalized as a proper noun in this debate, since a lesser god would be irrelevant for any objective discussion) and "ism" meaning " This ROOT-WORD is the Suffix ISM. It means DOCTRINE, SYSTEM, MANNER, CONDITION, ACT & CHARACTERISTIC.".
Merriam-Webster's full definition of "ism" is :
Full Definition of -ISM
1a : act : practice : process b : manner of action or behavior characteristic of a (specified) person or thing c : prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attribute
2a : state : condition : property b : abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing or marked by resemblance to (such) a person or thing
3a : doctrine : theory : religion b : adherence to a system or a class of principles
4: characteristic or peculiar feature or trait
In this debate, I will show how atheism is self-delusional. My opponent will attempt to show how atheism is realistic and rational and not delusional. By accetping this debate, my opponent agrees to abide by the following simple rules:
The definitions given here will be accepted and used as the established English definitions. The three root words which form the word "atheism" are agreed to be accurately defined in this challenge opening argument.
In this debate, the word "God" will always be captialized as a proper noun. The word god may be used, but it will be agreed to be understood as a god who is lesser than the God referred to by the proper noun, God, who would be the God over all.
No cussing.
My opponent may simply accept the challenge on pass on giving an opening argument or post his or her opening argument. I say you can't win againt God, maybe you can win this debate against me. The points are not as important as the topic. | Philosophy | 0 | Atheism-is-self-delusional/1/ | 4,305 |
Thank you to my opponent for accepting this challenge. I will be interested to see how you assert that atheism is anything other than self-delusional. First I would like to clarify my opponents attempt toward saying something by claiming to be neither Atheist or atheist. I believe my opponent is trying to say he is not aheistic and is not an Atheist. If this is what he is trying to say, it seems unnecessarily redundant. If he is simply trying to make fun with word-play, the humor would be easier to recognize if he would use proper grammar. So far, my opponents only attempt at making an argument has been to say my position is non-sense. That's not very nice. My position is a position of concern for people who delude themselves into thinking that God does not rule over them. Our society may appear to be concerned about caring for people who are delusional, but when it comes to caring about whether or not God rules over an individual, the inmates are running the asylum and the whole world is a mental hospital. Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value. The atheist's own existence then, in their own deluded thinking, has no objective value. With belief in no God who can love them, the atheist has no hope other than to prove in death that he is correct. The meaning of life then is nothing but confusion, because the atheist exists in a delusion of their own making. I'll close with that and see if my opponent can offer any kind of reasonable and rational response without resorting to simplistic statments such as "my opponents position is non-sense". As in the first round, I againt courteously offer my opponent the opportunity to win this debate against me though I again assert he cannot win against God. This is a challenge, and I hope that any atheist will honestly take this challenge as from God, and address God when he or she tries to argue agaisnt God. That is between the atheist and God. My opponent may win this debate against me, but he can't win agaisnt God. Atheism is self-delusional. | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
Thank you to my opponent for accepting this challenge. I will be interested to see how you assert that atheism is anything other than self-delusional.
First I would like to clarify my opponents attempt toward saying something by claiming to be neither Atheist or atheist. I believe my opponent is trying to say he is not aheistic and is not an Atheist. If this is what he is trying to say, it seems unnecessarily redundant. If he is simply trying to make fun with word-play, the humor would be easier to recognize if he would use proper grammar.
So far, my opponents only attempt at making an argument has been to say my position is non-sense. That's not very nice. My position is a position of concern for people who delude themselves into thinking that God does not rule over them.
Our society may appear to be concerned about caring for people who are delusional, but when it comes to caring about whether or not God rules over an individual, the inmates are running the asylum and the whole world is a mental hospital.
Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value. The atheist's own existence then, in their own deluded thinking, has no objective value. With belief in no God who can love them, the atheist has no hope other than to prove in death that he is correct. The meaning of life then is nothing but confusion, because the atheist exists in a delusion of their own making.
I'll close with that and see if my opponent can offer any kind of reasonable and rational response without resorting to simplistic statments such as "my opponents position is non-sense". As in the first round, I againt courteously offer my opponent the opportunity to win this debate against me though I again assert he cannot win against God. This is a challenge, and I hope that any atheist will honestly take this challenge as from God, and address God when he or she tries to argue agaisnt God. That is between the atheist and God. My opponent may win this debate against me, but he can't win agaisnt God. Atheism is self-delusional. | Philosophy | 1 | Atheism-is-self-delusional/1/ | 4,306 |
Ok, again I want to thank my opponent for engaging in this debate. I still do not see where my opponent is offering any argument against my assertion that atheism is self-delusional. He has clarified the definition of atheism somewhat, but then muddies his own clarification in a way which shows he is deluded. First he claims th have the correct definition of atheism, as if I don't know what the word means, by saying " atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc.) evidence for it." My opponent attempts here to limit the definition of atheism to an irrationally narrow line of thinking, but then goes on to say it is an unlimited line of thinking by claiming " atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc.) evidence for it". He then states "Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually. Again, my opponent offers some kind of explanation of a definition which muddies the definition unexplainably. If atheism is not (a) belief system or way of life, how can it be the basis for a worldview without being a belief system or a way of life? My opponent is not helping to clarify anything with his non-clarifying definitions. This is not a debate about the definition of atheistic, which is a person who holds a worldview or way of life with a mannerism which denies God is there, or as my opponent would say "Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) ". What's the difference in the semantics? You say there is no God, you say you have no belief in a deity, whatever........it's nothing but expansions on the three roots of the word which acurately state the meaning of atheism...."a" meaning "no" , "theos" meaning "God", and "ism" meaning a system of beliefs or philosophies. When my opponent asserts that atheism is "a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually." he is giving a pretty good description of an "ism" which is not limited to a simple statement which says "there is no God". My opponent and I are not disagreeing about the definition of Atheism or Atheist or atheistic or atheist (whaterver he says makes atheist different than Atheist when the captializaion of "A" makes the word a proper noun and somehow he expects googling atheist and Atheist to be an enlightening experience for me...seems like it would be a waste of time more than enlightening) This debate is not about semantice, though I have argued with semantics showing my atheism is self-delusional in that it makes a person think they have special wisdom that cannot be pinned down by simple definitions. Atheism is self-delusional in making a person believe they have the right to exist outside of the everlasting fire of Hell when in fact they have no right but to die. The only problem in that is that the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that living in the comforts of earth proves they have the right to not live in the fire of Hell which is nothing but the continuation of their dying after their time has been counted down to zero in the comforts of earth. This is the focus of the debate, the self-deluding aspect of atheism. The definitions of atheist, atheistic, atheism, Atheist, and similar words is not in dispute other than for my opponent's self-deluding insinutation that his varying and multi-faceted explanations of the word prove that atheism is not self-delusional.....even though my opponent has offered absolutely no arguement against my assertion that atheism is self-delusional. | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
Ok, again I want to thank my opponent for engaging in this debate. I still do not see where my opponent is offering any argument against my assertion that atheism is self-delusional. He has clarified the definition of atheism somewhat, but then muddies his own clarification in a way which shows he is deluded. First he claims th have the correct definition of atheism, as if I don't know what the word means, by saying " atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc.) evidence for it." My opponent attempts here to limit the definition of atheism to an irrationally narrow line of thinking, but then goes on to say it is an unlimited line of thinking by claiming " atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc.) evidence for it". He then states "Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually. Again, my opponent offers some kind of explanation of a definition which muddies the definition unexplainably. If atheism is not (a) belief system or way of life, how can it be the basis for a worldview without being a belief system or a way of life? My opponent is not helping to clarify anything with his non-clarifying definitions. This is not a debate about the definition of atheistic, which is a person who holds a worldview or way of life with a mannerism which denies God is there, or as my opponent would say "Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) ". What's the difference in the semantics? You say there is no God, you say you have no belief in a deity, whatever........it's nothing but expansions on the three roots of the word which acurately state the meaning of atheism...."a" meaning "no" , "theos" meaning "God", and "ism" meaning a system of beliefs or philosophies. When my opponent asserts that atheism is "a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually." he is giving a pretty good description of an "ism" which is not limited to a simple statement which says "there is no God". My opponent and I are not disagreeing about the definition of Atheism or Atheist or atheistic or atheist (whaterver he says makes atheist different than Atheist when the captializaion of "A" makes the word a proper noun and somehow he expects googling atheist and Atheist to be an enlightening experience for me...seems like it would be a waste of time more than enlightening) This debate is not about semantice, though I have argued with semantics showing my atheism is self-delusional in that it makes a person think they have special wisdom that cannot be pinned down by simple definitions.
Atheism is self-delusional in making a person believe they have the right to exist outside of the everlasting fire of Hell when in fact they have no right but to die. The only problem in that is that the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that living in the comforts of earth proves they have the right to not live in the fire of Hell which is nothing but the continuation of their dying after their time has been counted down to zero in the comforts of earth. This is the focus of the debate, the self-deluding aspect of atheism. The definitions of atheist, atheistic, atheism, Atheist, and similar words is not in dispute other than for my opponent's self-deluding insinutation that his varying and multi-faceted explanations of the word prove that atheism is not self-delusional.....even though my opponent has offered absolutely no arguement against my assertion that atheism is self-delusional. | Philosophy | 2 | Atheism-is-self-delusional/1/ | 4,307 |
Keeping the focus on the question of the debate, and my opponents responsibility to post arguments showing how atheism is not self-delusional, has been a difficult task. My opponent is not offering any rational counter to the main points of my argument which are: 1) Nothing but the atheist"s existence while alive has any objective value, and 2)Atheists delude themselves into thinkning they have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. Nobody has the right to be alive, or we would not have to die. If we have the right to be alive, then we die, who do we sue for causing our death? The truth is that we do not have the right to live. The self-deluding aspect of atheism is that they deny their own existence in death thinking God is not there to Judge them and punish them in Hell. There is no need in this debate to prove Hell is real or that God is real. The point of this debate is that atheism is a self-deluding belief system in which a person makes themselves think they have the right to live outside of the fire of Hell. There is no need to claim any special understanding of what an Atheist is, or what Atheism is. My opponents repeated attemtps to derail the discussion by trying to make rulings of semantics is one way he gives evidence of the self-delusional aspect of atheism. He seems to think thay by denying or changing or claiming special understanding of the word Atheist (or atheist, both of which my opponent says he is not, whatever he means by that) he is making an argument that atheism is not self-delusional. Playing semantics is not making an argument in the debate. Also, his attempts to change the debte into proving God and Hell are real rather than proving that belief in the right to exist outisde of Hell shows some self-delusional aspects. Those things are not the topic of the debate. The debate is about my assertion that atheism is a self-deluding belief (or non-belief, whatever semantic approach is preferred). I am having great difficulty finding coherence in my opponents analysis of my assertions. In his Point A, he asserts my arguments are fallacious but does not explain why. The beliefs of Christians, Jews, or Muslims are not part of this debate. If my opponent is aguiing that everybody is delusional, except for atheists, he is not explaining how atheism is not self-delusional, he is not addressing my points of argument. If my opponent is arguing that atheists are self-deluded the same as everybody else, then he is agreeing with me that atheism is self-delusional. I really don't know what my opponent is trying to say. In his Pont B, again my opponent is incoherent. I think he is saying that muons and particles we are made of have no objeciive value, so we as humans have no objective value. This would be in agreement with my assertion that in atheism, a person's exixtence has no objective value and is therefore self-delusional. Every individual has objective and undeniable value which is not given by themselves or by other people. That is why life is worth the living even when it hurts. If we question our own value and our value is not defined by God, then we have no certain value and life is only a time of confusioin ending in death. If my opponent is trying to disagree with me in his Point B, I wish he would be more clear about it. In his Point C, he states " God can love them. And also, you have ho hope other than to prove in death that you are right." Now my opponent is using the name of God after he says you have to prove God is there before you can say atheism is self-delusional. This is more evidence of the confusing nature of Atheism's self delusional belief (or non-belief, or non-observance of evidence, or whatever) The love of God is not the subject of this debate, though i would wholehearedly agree with my opponent that God can, and even more that He does, love them. "Subjective Idealism" is an oxymoron....again, incoherent. | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
Keeping the focus on the question of the debate, and my opponents responsibility to post arguments showing how atheism is not self-delusional, has been a difficult task. My opponent is not offering any rational counter to the main points of my argument which are:
1) Nothing but the atheist"s existence while alive has any objective value, and
2)Atheists delude themselves into thinkning they have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. Nobody has the right to be alive, or we would not have to die. If we have the right to be alive, then we die, who do we sue for causing our death? The truth is that we do not have the right to live. The self-deluding aspect of atheism is that they deny their own existence in death thinking God is not there to Judge them and punish them in Hell. There is no need in this debate to prove Hell is real or that God is real. The point of this debate is that atheism is a self-deluding belief system in which a person makes themselves think they have the right to live outside of the fire of Hell.
There is no need to claim any special understanding of what an Atheist is, or what Atheism is. My opponents repeated attemtps to derail the discussion by trying to make rulings of semantics is one way he gives evidence of the self-delusional aspect of atheism. He seems to think thay by denying or changing or claiming special understanding of the word Atheist (or atheist, both of which my opponent says he is not, whatever he means by that) he is making an argument that atheism is not self-delusional. Playing semantics is not making an argument in the debate. Also, his attempts to change the debte into proving God and Hell are real rather than proving that belief in the right to exist outisde of Hell shows some self-delusional aspects. Those things are not the topic of the debate. The debate is about my assertion that atheism is a self-deluding belief (or non-belief, whatever semantic approach is preferred).
I am having great difficulty finding coherence in my opponents analysis of my assertions. In his Point A, he asserts my arguments are fallacious but does not explain why. The beliefs of Christians, Jews, or Muslims are not part of this debate.
If my opponent is aguiing that everybody is delusional, except for atheists, he is not explaining how atheism is not self-delusional, he is not addressing my points of argument. If my opponent is arguing that atheists are self-deluded the same as everybody else, then he is agreeing with me that atheism is self-delusional. I really don't know what my opponent is trying to say.
In his Pont B, again my opponent is incoherent. I think he is saying that muons and particles we are made of have no objeciive value, so we as humans have no objective value. This would be in agreement with my assertion that in atheism, a person's exixtence has no objective value and is therefore self-delusional. Every individual has objective and undeniable value which is not given by themselves or by other people. That is why life is worth the living even when it hurts. If we question our own value and our value is not defined by God, then we have no certain value and life is only a time of confusioin ending in death. If my opponent is trying to disagree with me in his Point B, I wish he would be more clear about it.
In his Point C, he states " God can love them. And also, you have ho hope other than to prove in death that you are right."
Now my opponent is using the name of God after he says you have to prove God is there before you can say atheism is self-delusional. This is more evidence of the confusing nature of Atheism's self delusional belief (or non-belief, or non-observance of evidence, or whatever) The love of God is not the subject of this debate, though i would wholehearedly agree with my opponent that God can, and even more that He does, love them.
"Subjective Idealism" is an oxymoron....again, incoherent. | Philosophy | 3 | Atheism-is-self-delusional/1/ | 4,308 |
This is supposed to be a debate. My opponent is putting up no argument. Saying my statement is nonsense and is poor English is not making an argument. I did not ask for proof that is atheism is not self delusional, not self-delusional. I asked for an argument trying to show why it is not self-delusional. The statement my opponent seems to want to pick on the most without making any kind of counter arguement is: "Nothing but the atheist's existence while alive has any objective value," The sentence is logical and grammatically correct. It is not me who needs to study English, and it is not me who is failing to put up any arugment in support of my position. I'm asking my opponent to put up a counter arguement or forfeit the debate. s " And why for somebody thinking he/she has the right to exist outside of the ice of Hell is self-delusion?" and then demans "provide an evidence" Again, my opponent is making no argument. This is the basic point of my arguement, saying atheism is self-delusional in believing one has the right to exist outsid of the fire of Hell. In atheism, a person believes they have the right to live outside of Hell now, and if they are wrong and they find there really is a God when they die, they believe they have the right to continue existiing outside of the fire of Hell. An atheist does not have the right to exist outside of Hell any more than he has the right to live forever. This is the basic self-deluding point of atheism, believing things they have no evidence of untill their death is finalized. The debate here is not about proving the existence of Hell, or proving the existence of God. The debate is about the self-deluding aspect of being an atheist or Atheist, whatever my opponent asserts is the difference between the two and can be discovered by Googling. My opponent again avoids showing how atheism is not self-delusional by simply saying my statement about having the right to live is stupid. It is a fact that we do not have the right to live or we would not have to die. The fact that I have to die does not mean I can kill you. If I were to say that because I have to die, I must kill everybody, then that would be psychotic. We all have to die because we do not have the righ to live. If you have the right to live, why can't you sue somebody when you die and your right to live is gone? My opponent did not offer any argument to show why atheism is not self-delusional, he only called my statements stupid. Who is being stupid here? Idealism is objective, not subjective. If you try to make idealism subjective rather than objective, it is nothing more than your own feelings and is not ideal. I don't need to google George Berkeley. My opponent needs to put up an argument showing why atheism is not self-delusional or forfeit the debate. Again, my opponent does not have to prove atheism is not self-delusional, but he could at least put up an argument and do more than sit there and call me stupid. I have made an argument, and am ready to make more if I could get an arguement from the Con position. At ;least he seems to have abandoned trying to play semantics games. | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
This is supposed to be a debate. My opponent is putting up no argument. Saying my statement is nonsense and is poor English is not making an argument. I did not ask for proof that is atheism is not self delusional, not self-delusional. I asked for an argument trying to show why it is not self-delusional. The statement my opponent seems to want to pick on the most without making any kind of counter arguement is: "Nothing but the atheist's existence while alive has any objective value," The sentence is logical and grammatically correct. It is not me who needs to study English, and it is not me who is failing to put up any arugment in support of my position. I'm asking my opponent to put up a counter arguement or forfeit the debate.
s " And why for somebody thinking he/she has the right to exist outside of the ice of Hell is self-delusion?" and then demans "provide an evidence"
Again, my opponent is making no argument. This is the basic point of my arguement, saying atheism is self-delusional in believing one has the right to exist outsid of the fire of Hell. In atheism, a person believes they have the right to live outside of Hell now, and if they are wrong and they find there really is a God when they die, they believe they have the right to continue existiing outside of the fire of Hell. An atheist does not have the right to exist outside of Hell any more than he has the right to live forever. This is the basic self-deluding point of atheism, believing things they have no evidence of untill their death is finalized.
The debate here is not about proving the existence of Hell, or proving the existence of God. The debate is about the self-deluding aspect of being an atheist or Atheist, whatever my opponent asserts is the difference between the two and can be discovered by Googling.
My opponent again avoids showing how atheism is not self-delusional by simply saying my statement about having the right to live is stupid. It is a fact that we do not have the right to live or we would not have to die. The fact that I have to die does not mean I can kill you. If I were to say that because I have to die, I must kill everybody, then that would be psychotic. We all have to die because we do not have the righ to live. If you have the right to live, why can't you sue somebody when you die and your right to live is gone? My opponent did not offer any argument to show why atheism is not self-delusional, he only called my statements stupid. Who is being stupid here?
Idealism is objective, not subjective. If you try to make idealism subjective rather than objective, it is nothing more than your own feelings and is not ideal. I don't need to google George Berkeley. My opponent needs to put up an argument showing why atheism is not self-delusional or forfeit the debate.
Again, my opponent does not have to prove atheism is not self-delusional, but he could at least put up an argument and do more than sit there and call me stupid. I have made an argument, and am ready to make more if I could get an arguement from the Con position. At ;least he seems to have abandoned trying to play semantics games. | Philosophy | 4 | Atheism-is-self-delusional/1/ | 4,309 |
I am going to anticipate that you are referring to the Former Soviet Union and China, with combined deaths of 60-200 million. It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause. | 0 | ILoveCheese |
I am going to anticipate that you are referring to the Former Soviet Union and China, with combined deaths of 60-200 million.
It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/ | 4,310 |
My previous post undermines your first post because it puts into question your basic premise that the cause for atrocities was Atheism when it could be more accurately be Marxism. Your inclusion of Fascist states only continue to undermine the initial error. If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of seperation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god. Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence. | 0 | ILoveCheese |
My previous post undermines your first post because it puts into question your basic premise that the cause for atrocities was Atheism when it could be more accurately be Marxism.
Your inclusion of Fascist states only continue to undermine the initial error.
If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of seperation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god.
Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/ | 4,311 |
"Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being." Atheism does not necessarily mean "promotes individual action without regard for other people. ". There are many different belief systems. Some are atheistic and others are not. Religions span the deistic count from zero to several, such as: Christianity, Islam and Judeaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Hindu etc. These are organized religions. State based belief systems include Monarchies, Faith based nations, Marxism, Radical Secularism as practiced by Europeans and to a lesser extent the US in the form of representational democracies. Someone who is an atheist can be a Buddhist, moral relativist(found in radical secularlits states), utilitarian, etc. Not believing in a god does not mean one is 'against' other people nor 'out only for oneself' nor 'abstain from collective action'. One can be either an atheist or not. Either way one can commit atrocities or one may not. The atrocities were a function of Marxism, not a function of being Buddhist or Utilitarian; meaning the atrocities had no connection to whether or not the people were atheist. | 0 | ILoveCheese |
"Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being."
Atheism does not necessarily mean "promotes individual action without regard for other people. ".
There are many different belief systems. Some are atheistic and others are not. Religions span the deistic count from zero to several, such as: Christianity, Islam and Judeaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Hindu etc. These are organized religions.
State based belief systems include Monarchies, Faith based nations, Marxism, Radical Secularism as practiced by Europeans and to a lesser extent the US in the form of representational democracies.
Someone who is an atheist can be a Buddhist, moral relativist(found in radical secularlits states), utilitarian, etc.
Not believing in a god does not mean one is 'against' other people nor 'out only for oneself' nor 'abstain from collective action'.
One can be either an atheist or not. Either way one can commit atrocities or one may not. The atrocities were a function of Marxism, not a function of being Buddhist or Utilitarian; meaning the atrocities had no connection to whether or not the people were atheist. | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/ | 4,312 |
Ladies and Gentleman, for the first round I will merely use a premise/syllogistic argument, then move to in the following rounds my contentions. Premise 1: According to History, the greatest evils have resulted in the most loss of life. 2: Atheism has caused the greatest amount of death in history. 3: Therefore, Atheism has caused the greatest evils/atrocities in history. Affirmative and Negative Burden: Prove or disprove this syllogism in the following rounds. I thank whoever decides to debate this. | 0 | RedEye |
Ladies and Gentleman, for the first round I will merely use a premise/syllogistic argument, then move to in the following rounds my contentions.
Premise 1: According to History, the greatest evils have resulted in the most loss of life.
2: Atheism has caused the greatest amount of death in history.
3: Therefore, Atheism has caused the greatest evils/atrocities in history.
Affirmative and Negative Burden: Prove or disprove this syllogism in the following rounds.
I thank whoever decides to debate this. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/ | 4,313 |
Thank you for accepting. Rebuttal and Case: ok, my opponent has already claimed that warrants for my case, he has agreed with the following: 1)Soviet Union: 140 million deaths 2)China: 100 million deaths 3)Sub-Communist Nations: 50 million deaths 4)Nazi Germany: 15 million deaths 5)Sub-atheist totalitarian regimes: 5 million deaths Total: 310 million deaths For these reasons I affirm. =============================================================================== My opponent has not undermined the burden, so thats the burden for the round. I have proved the burden, therefore you can affirm right here. =============================================================================== However, he makes his own case, away from the burden, so for the sake of a 3 round debate, I'll refute his case. This is the premise of his case: "It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause." I will respond in numerically. 1) Atheism is the belief in no god, therefore higher judgment on a nation is null and void. Any action can be done because morality does not exist. There is no greater responsibility for ones actions. Therefore, atheism is a root cause. 2) He claims that Marxism is the cause. First off, this can only be applied to Communist Nations, this excludes totalitarian regimes. However, according to Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism. Linking with #1, you can infer that atheism is a cause of the deaths. 3)By claiming that Marxism is the root, then he is automatically saying that atheism is the cause as well. Syllogism: 1) Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism; the government doesn't have a moral authoritative being on top of them 2) Marxism has caused more then 200 million deaths (There is no moral law against killing, because of assertion of #1) 3) Therefore Atheism is the root a cause of the deaths =============================================================================== Thank you ladies and gentleman. | 0 | RedEye |
Thank you for accepting.
Rebuttal and Case:
ok, my opponent has already claimed that warrants for my case, he has agreed with the following:
1)Soviet Union: 140 million deaths
2)China: 100 million deaths
3)Sub-Communist Nations: 50 million deaths
4)Nazi Germany: 15 million deaths
5)Sub-atheist totalitarian regimes: 5 million deaths
Total: 310 million deaths
For these reasons I affirm.
===============================================================================
My opponent has not undermined the burden, so thats the burden for the round. I have proved the burden, therefore you can affirm right here.
===============================================================================
However, he makes his own case, away from the burden, so for the sake of a 3 round debate, I'll refute his case.
This is the premise of his case: "It was not atheism that was the cause, it was Marxism. Atheism is a result of Marxism, not the cause."
I will respond in numerically.
1) Atheism is the belief in no god, therefore higher judgment on a nation is null and void. Any action can be done because morality does not exist. There is no greater responsibility for ones actions. Therefore, atheism is a root cause.
2) He claims that Marxism is the cause. First off, this can only be applied to Communist Nations, this excludes totalitarian regimes. However, according to Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism. Linking with #1, you can infer that atheism is a cause of the deaths.
3)By claiming that Marxism is the root, then he is automatically saying that atheism is the cause as well.
Syllogism:
1) Atheism is a prime doctrine of Marxism; the government doesn't have a moral authoritative being on top of them
2) Marxism has caused more then 200 million deaths (There is no moral law against killing, because of assertion of #1)
3) Therefore Atheism is the root a cause of the deaths
===============================================================================
Thank you ladies and gentleman. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/ | 4,314 |
I'll attack my opponents case then move to defend my own. "If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of separation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god." My Response: This is true and not true. Take the US for example. We have separation of church and state, yet our basic principles are from Judeo-Christian roots. I'm not talking about the state literally, I'm talking about the basic principles in that form of government. "Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence." My Response: Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being. =============================================================================== My opponent has failed to attack, my 3 attack points plus my supporting syllogism. So you can extend this. I urge you to affirm. | 0 | RedEye |
I'll attack my opponents case then move to defend my own.
"If we wanted, we could consider any 'state' as 'atheist'. Assuredly, in practice the notion of separation of church and state has been to err on the side of no god."
My Response: This is true and not true. Take the US for example. We have separation of church and state, yet our basic principles are from Judeo-Christian roots. I'm not talking about the state literally, I'm talking about the basic principles in that form of government.
"Atheism does not necessarily lead to violence. Marxism, by design must lead to violence. The fact, Marxism forces people to be atheist does not mean that it is the 'atheism' that is causing the violence."
My Response: Atheism as a principal promotes individual action without regard for other people. By this idea, atheism promotes/condones violence on the fact no moral authority is in place. Also, I already responded to the Marxist point on the fact that Marxism promotes atheism. Since, Marxism promotes atheism then it promotes the idea of no greater moral being.
===============================================================================
My opponent has failed to attack, my 3 attack points plus my supporting syllogism. So you can extend this.
I urge you to affirm. | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-the-cause-of-histories-greatest-atrocities./1/ | 4,315 |
I thank my opponent for this great topic (and though it was taken from my profile, I had never intended to actually debate this). Also, I intend to keep this from being a stereotypical debate. I accept my opponent's definitions; however, I reject his definition of "god", and propose the following definitions: god- a supernatural being, worshipped as the controller of the universe or some aspect of life or as the personification of some force <URL>... rely- To be dependent for support, help, or supply <URL>... If atheism relies on the fact that nothing is needed to happen, then a causation argument would contradict it. The resolution means that atheist beliefs rely, or depend, on the lack of causation. Causation is the fact that in all properties of the physical world have a cause. For example, we are currently on Earth because the molecules that our bodies stem from have been bound to earth by gravity. This "Problem of Causation" can be held against atheism in that the universe requires some metaphysical force to exist that would cause the beginning of the existence of matter and energy, which has no cause. Atheists usually rely on scientific principles that they then use to disprove the existence of some metaphysical "god". These scientific principles are also defiant of causation: -The Law of Conservation of Mass -The Law of Conservation of Energy -Gravity -Chemistry -etc. There is no cause for gravity. We don't know why mass bends space. We don't know why certain chemicals tend to act a certain way. There is no cause for the great "big bang". So, indeed, atheism defies causation, and is illogical when put to arguments of causation. So, atheism relies on ignorance of causation. I await a rebuttal. | 0 | wjmelements |
I thank my opponent for this great topic (and though it was taken from my profile, I had never intended to actually debate this). Also, I intend to keep this from being a stereotypical debate.
I accept my opponent's definitions; however, I reject his definition of "god", and propose the following definitions:
god- a supernatural being, worshipped as the controller of the universe or some aspect of life or as the personification of some force http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
rely- To be dependent for support, help, or supply http://dictionary.reference.com...
If atheism relies on the fact that nothing is needed to happen, then a causation argument would contradict it.
The resolution means that atheist beliefs rely, or depend, on the lack of causation. Causation is the fact that in all properties of the physical world have a cause. For example, we are currently on Earth because the molecules that our bodies stem from have been bound to earth by gravity.
This "Problem of Causation" can be held against atheism in that the universe requires some metaphysical force to exist that would cause the beginning of the existence of matter and energy, which has no cause.
Atheists usually rely on scientific principles that they then use to disprove the existence of some metaphysical "god". These scientific principles are also defiant of causation:
-The Law of Conservation of Mass
-The Law of Conservation of Energy
-Gravity
-Chemistry
-etc.
There is no cause for gravity. We don't know why mass bends space.
We don't know why certain chemicals tend to act a certain way.
There is no cause for the great "big bang".
So, indeed, atheism defies causation, and is illogical when put to arguments of causation. So, atheism relies on ignorance of causation.
I await a rebuttal. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-relies-on-the-belief-that-nothing-is-needed-to-have-anything-occur./1/ | 4,362 |
First, I would like to ask my opponent whether or not plusses look more optomistic than minusses. Second, I don't have a problem with this new definition of "god". ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MY OPPONENT CONCEDES My opponent dedicates an entire paragraph to concede the debate. Says my opponent: "Some things don't have a reason. For example, according to my opponent, god exists. Why does god exist? Sure, we 'know' that He does in fact exist. But why? The reason is, there is no reason. Some things just don't have a reason." In my opponent's attempt to shape this into a stereotypical religious debate, he conceded. While saying that theism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur, my opponent concedes that he believes that "some things don't have a reason". So, atheism relies on ignorance or arrogance of causation. Atheism cannot logically explain why mass bends space without admitting that it needs no reason. In conclusion, my opponent trying to defend atheism forced him to rely on the argument that nothing is needed to have something occur. We can stop now, and say that I have won the debate. However, that would be boring. For that reason, I am also going to refute a few of my opponent's points: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "JUST FOR FUN" REBUTTALS My opponent claims that the original "singularity rapidly expanded and the universe was filled with matter and energy." However, this argument again relies on the belief that nothing is needed to cause this. In my opponent's rebuttals of the lack of causation in the atheist view of "the beginning", he proposes four theories, all of which agree with the resolution. 1) He proposes that the big bang was the first event. In proposing this, he proposes that nothing caused this. 2) He proposes that there exists a quantum field that can create or destroy matter at will. This contradicts the Law of Conservation of Mass. Further, this proposed field itself has no cause. 3) He proposes that there exists "massive four-dimensional membranes" that "move about" and "smash into each other". This membrane, again, has no cause. 4) He proposes that some big crunch created the big bang. However, such a crunch would require its own bang, which requires its own crunch, etc. He says that the cycle "continues indefinitely", but that there is no cause for matter and energy. All of these atheist explanations rely on arrogance of causation. "Simply because we do not know what causes something doesn't mean the cause has to be God." This is irrelevant. Again, I wish to avoid a stereotypical atheism vs theism debate. I urge my opponent to stay on topic. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SOURCES My opponent's first source links to a broad outline. I would like to know EXACTLY where my opponent recieved this information. ( <URL>... ) My opponent's second source claims that atheists will deny that everything has a cause. It says, "A second line of attack(which happens to be the only logical attack) [for atheists] on the first cause argument is to deny that everything that has a beginning has a cause". So, his source ( <URL>... ) concedes that atheists use the argument that "not everything has a cause" to battle causation. I would also like to point out that my opponent's contentions are based off of the arguments on this website: <URL>... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I await a rebuttal. | 0 | wjmelements |
First, I would like to ask my opponent whether or not plusses look more optomistic than minusses.
Second, I don't have a problem with this new definition of "god".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MY OPPONENT CONCEDES
My opponent dedicates an entire paragraph to concede the debate. Says my opponent:
"Some things don't have a reason. For example, according to my opponent, god exists. Why does god exist? Sure, we 'know' that He does in fact exist. But why? The reason is, there is no reason. Some things just don't have a reason."
In my opponent's attempt to shape this into a stereotypical religious debate, he conceded. While saying that theism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur, my opponent concedes that he believes that "some things don't have a reason".
So, atheism relies on ignorance or arrogance of causation. Atheism cannot logically explain why mass bends space without admitting that it needs no reason.
In conclusion, my opponent trying to defend atheism forced him to rely on the argument that nothing is needed to have something occur. We can stop now, and say that I have won the debate. However, that would be boring. For that reason, I am also going to refute a few of my opponent's points:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"JUST FOR FUN" REBUTTALS
My opponent claims that the original "singularity rapidly expanded and the universe was filled with matter and energy." However, this argument again relies on the belief that nothing is needed to cause this.
In my opponent's rebuttals of the lack of causation in the atheist view of "the beginning", he proposes four theories, all of which agree with the resolution.
1) He proposes that the big bang was the first event. In proposing this, he proposes that nothing caused this.
2) He proposes that there exists a quantum field that can create or destroy matter at will. This contradicts the Law of Conservation of Mass. Further, this proposed field itself has no cause.
3) He proposes that there exists "massive four-dimensional membranes" that "move about" and "smash into each other". This membrane, again, has no cause.
4) He proposes that some big crunch created the big bang. However, such a crunch would require its own bang, which requires its own crunch, etc. He says that the cycle "continues indefinitely", but that there is no cause for matter and energy.
All of these atheist explanations rely on arrogance of causation.
"Simply because we do not know what causes something doesn't mean the cause has to be God."
This is irrelevant. Again, I wish to avoid a stereotypical atheism vs theism debate. I urge my opponent to stay on topic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SOURCES
My opponent's first source links to a broad outline. I would like to know EXACTLY where my opponent recieved this information. ( http://www.superstringtheory.com... )
My opponent's second source claims that atheists will deny that everything has a cause.
It says, "A second line of attack(which happens to be the only logical attack) [for atheists] on the first cause argument is to deny that everything that has a beginning has a cause". So, his source ( http://www.existence-of-god.com... ) concedes that atheists use the argument that "not everything has a cause" to battle causation.
I would also like to point out that my opponent's contentions are based off of the arguments on this website: http://www.existence-of-god.com...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I await a rebuttal. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-relies-on-the-belief-that-nothing-is-needed-to-have-anything-occur./1/ | 4,363 |
I thank my opponent for his response. My opponent claims that my question is irrelevant. Truly, it is. In the end, this doesn't really matter as to whether or not the resolution is proven or disproven. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (minusses) He misunderstood my question. I hope I have made it clear. I personally prefer plusses, but I was simply asking my opponent's perspective. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (plusses) CONCESSIONS My opponent claims that the argument that not everything requires a cause is a concession. However, my opponent's reliance on an argument that some things do not have a cause clearly affirms the resolution. My opponent further concedes: "It is not logically possible for everything to have a cause, as there would be an infinite regress. So at least one thing must not have a cause." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent claims that "to go from 'something' to 'anything' is an unjustified leap". However, because all causes are essentially also effects, these causes must be tracable to some original cause. My opponent's case that there is no original cause effectively denies causation. By removing the second line of the universe's detachment sequence, my opponent effectively argues against everything. I will explain this further at the end of my argument. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent concedes that 1 of his great universal causes requires no reason and indirectly claims that the other relies on no cause as well. Something existing "forever" and then suddenly changing would require a cause. Something existing forever in the first place must have a reason. The claim that no reason is necessary is ignorant of causation. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THE "END" OF MY ARGUMENT (AS SAID ABOVE) If every cause is an effect, then there is an infinite sequence that continues backwards in time for eternity (from an atheist perspective). If atheism relies on the argument that at one point the universe spawned, then this action requires a cause. If atheism denies the existence of a cause, then atheism is denying that at one point the universe spawned. Yet atheism relies on the argument that the universe spawned. (See my opponent's first contention). Therefore, atheism relies on the belief that the universe and essential existence had no cause. If the universe and essential existence had no cause, then no effect should occur. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ P.S. "nothing" is defined as "not anything" ( <URL>... ). CONCLUSION: Because "something" is required to have anything occur, and atheism denies that something was required to have anything occur in the first place (from which everything can occur from through causation). I await a rebuttal. | 0 | wjmelements |
I thank my opponent for his response.
My opponent claims that my question is irrelevant. Truly, it is. In the end, this doesn't really matter as to whether or not the resolution is proven or disproven.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- (minusses)
He misunderstood my question. I hope I have made it clear. I personally prefer plusses, but I was simply asking my opponent's perspective.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (plusses)
CONCESSIONS
My opponent claims that the argument that not everything requires a cause is a concession. However, my opponent's reliance on an argument that some things do not have a cause clearly affirms the resolution.
My opponent further concedes:
"It is not logically possible for everything to have a cause, as there would be an infinite regress. So at least one thing must not have a cause."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My opponent claims that "to go from 'something' to 'anything' is an unjustified leap". However, because all causes are essentially also effects, these causes must be tracable to some original cause. My opponent's case that there is no original cause effectively denies causation. By removing the second line of the universe's detachment sequence, my opponent effectively argues against everything. I will explain this further at the end of my argument.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My opponent concedes that 1 of his great universal causes requires no reason and indirectly claims that the other relies on no cause as well.
Something existing "forever" and then suddenly changing would require a cause. Something existing forever in the first place must have a reason. The claim that no reason is necessary is ignorant of causation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE "END" OF MY ARGUMENT (AS SAID ABOVE)
If every cause is an effect, then there is an infinite sequence that continues backwards in time for eternity (from an atheist perspective).
If atheism relies on the argument that at one point the universe spawned, then this action requires a cause.
If atheism denies the existence of a cause, then atheism is denying that at one point the universe spawned.
Yet atheism relies on the argument that the universe spawned. (See my opponent's first contention).
Therefore, atheism relies on the belief that the universe and essential existence had no cause.
If the universe and essential existence had no cause, then no effect should occur.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.S. "nothing" is defined as "not anything" ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ).
CONCLUSION:
Because "something" is required to have anything occur, and atheism denies that something was required to have anything occur in the first place (from which everything can occur from through causation).
I await a rebuttal. | Religion | 2 | Atheism-relies-on-the-belief-that-nothing-is-needed-to-have-anything-occur./1/ | 4,364 |
I thank my opponent for his opinion on the +/- issue. I still prefer +. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ OF THE RESOLUTION: The resolution is a piece of humour that essentially means that atheist don't believe that there had to be an original cause. This was originally clarified in the first round: "The resolution means that atheist beliefs rely, or depend, on the lack of causation. Causation is the fact that in all properties of the physical world have a cause. For example, we are currently on Earth because the molecules that our bodies stem from have been bound to earth by gravity. This "Problem of Causation" can be held against atheism in that the universe requires some metaphysical force to exist that would cause the beginning of the existence of matter and energy, which has no cause." This early clarification means that the debate is framed upon whether or not atheism relies on ignorance of the fact of causation. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "PRO must show that nothing is needed to have ANYTHING occur." Since when is that my burden? I must simply affirm that atheism relies on ignorance of causation. That burden is an option of CON to disprove the resolution. My opponent claims that all the effects of the universe spawn from some first cause. However, such a cause (in all cases) would require another cause, as I will show. My opponent claims that nothing was needed for anything to happen before the big bang: "big bang did not exist forever; before it existed, there was no time. Its expansion was the first event." According to the principles of cause-and-effect, this "first event" and the mere creation of time would require a cause. My opponent does not give a cause... and his atheism-based arguments rely on there being no cause. My opponent's refutation of my logic relies on the claim that there is no cause without time... However, time is but a dimension of which we perceive to move in one direction at a constant rate. <URL>... Just as other dimensions, time does not have a beginning or an end. Time could not have been created in the beginning, and had it been created in the beginning, this would require causation (contradiction). Atheism relies on the ignorance of this causation. My opponent's second refutation of my logic is two-fold: First he claims that there are effects, hence there is a contradiction. This was exactly my point. Once we input causation into the picture, atheism begins to contradict itself. Second, he claims that the universe could have been originally caused. I have already refuted this (this cause would require its own cause and time could not have been created at the beginning). CONCESSION: "If I claimed that not anything requires a cause, that would be a concession." This is inherently false because the resolution is not that you are arguing that cause-and-effect is possible, but that atheism does not ignore this principle. My opponent clearly has conceded this, as shown in earlier rounds. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent has attempted to redefine the true meaning of the resolution in the last round to what its meaning was established as in the first round. I also thank my opponent for the fun and for the avoidance of the stereotypical theism versus atheism debate. Because the intended and original meaning of the resolution has been affirmed, I urge a PRO vote. | 0 | wjmelements |
I thank my opponent for his opinion on the +/- issue. I still prefer +.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OF THE RESOLUTION:
The resolution is a piece of humour that essentially means that atheist don't believe that there had to be an original cause. This was originally clarified in the first round:
"The resolution means that atheist beliefs rely, or depend, on the lack of causation. Causation is the fact that in all properties of the physical world have a cause. For example, we are currently on Earth because the molecules that our bodies stem from have been bound to earth by gravity.
This "Problem of Causation" can be held against atheism in that the universe requires some metaphysical force to exist that would cause the beginning of the existence of matter and energy, which has no cause."
This early clarification means that the debate is framed upon whether or not atheism relies on ignorance of the fact of causation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"PRO must show that nothing is needed to have ANYTHING occur."
Since when is that my burden? I must simply affirm that atheism relies on ignorance of causation. That burden is an option of CON to disprove the resolution.
My opponent claims that all the effects of the universe spawn from some first cause. However, such a cause (in all cases) would require another cause, as I will show.
My opponent claims that nothing was needed for anything to happen before the big bang:
"big bang did not exist forever; before it existed, there was no time. Its expansion was the first event."
According to the principles of cause-and-effect, this "first event" and the mere creation of time would require a cause. My opponent does not give a cause... and his atheism-based arguments rely on there being no cause.
My opponent's refutation of my logic relies on the claim that there is no cause without time... However, time is but a dimension of which we perceive to move in one direction at a constant rate. http://www.scienceray.com... Just as other dimensions, time does not have a beginning or an end. Time could not have been created in the beginning, and had it been created in the beginning, this would require causation (contradiction). Atheism relies on the ignorance of this causation.
My opponent's second refutation of my logic is two-fold:
First he claims that there are effects, hence there is a contradiction. This was exactly my point. Once we input causation into the picture, atheism begins to contradict itself.
Second, he claims that the universe could have been originally caused. I have already refuted this (this cause would require its own cause and time could not have been created at the beginning).
CONCESSION:
"If I claimed that not anything requires a cause, that would be a concession."
This is inherently false because the resolution is not that you are arguing that cause-and-effect is possible, but that atheism does not ignore this principle. My opponent clearly has conceded this, as shown in earlier rounds.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My opponent has attempted to redefine the true meaning of the resolution in the last round to what its meaning was established as in the first round.
I also thank my opponent for the fun and for the avoidance of the stereotypical theism versus atheism debate.
Because the intended and original meaning of the resolution has been affirmed, I urge a PRO vote. | Religion | 3 | Atheism-relies-on-the-belief-that-nothing-is-needed-to-have-anything-occur./1/ | 4,365 |
Rom_1:20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom_1:21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom_1:22, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom_1:23, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Rom_1:24, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Rom_1:25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. | 0 | telisw37 |
Rom_1:20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom_1:21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom_1:22, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom_1:23, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom_1:24, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom_1:25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. | Religion | 0 | Atheist-are-wrong-There-is-more-proof-that-God-exist-rather-than-evolution-Darwin-is-WRONG/1/ | 4,410 |
<URL>... <URL>... <URL>... My opponent obliviously lives in a self righteous bubble and not here on planet earth! Please examine these links to see that my opponent babbles! Most of God's people deny that He even exist! Joh_1:10, He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Joh_1:11, He came unto his own, and his own received him not. My opponent asked me?: Where am I trying to go? My opponent posted: Second of all quoting the Bible is not getting you anywhere. How do you know that book is true and why should anyone believe in what it says? I willing to bet that you don't even know who wrote. I will take that bet! How much you got? Or are you babbling lying falsehoods out of the side of your neck? Because your mouth is not placed correctly on your head? Post your bet and test me? If I am clueless as who wrote what! Bring it on!!! Or just babble on!!!!!!! | 0 | telisw37 |
https://www.google.com...
https://www.google.com...
https://www.google.com...
My opponent obliviously lives in a self righteous bubble and not here on planet earth!
Please examine these links to see that my opponent babbles!
Most of God's people deny that He even exist!
Joh_1:10, He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh_1:11, He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
My opponent asked me?: Where am I trying to go? My opponent posted: Second of all quoting the Bible is not getting you anywhere. How do you know that book is true and why should anyone believe in what it says? I willing to bet that you don't even know who wrote.
I will take that bet! How much you got? Or are you babbling lying falsehoods out of the side of your neck? Because your mouth is not placed correctly on your head?
Post your bet and test me? If I am clueless as who wrote what! Bring it on!!! Or just babble on!!!!!!! | Religion | 1 | Atheist-are-wrong-There-is-more-proof-that-God-exist-rather-than-evolution-Darwin-is-WRONG/1/ | 4,411 |
You ask for proof of God? I ask the Darwin worshiper why did the Jewish people evolve around God? Unlike the rest of mankind? You ignored the fact that you babbled! Darwin and Evolution are considered today as similar! Why LIE? Why does my opponent lie more babbling about the bible? Hey WAKE UP!!!!!!! This debate is not about the bible. Please read the subject of the debate before babbling bull! I offer proof of God! #1 What is on your money? IN GOD WE TRUST Proof #2 USA=ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH? Proof #3 The Jewish people. Where did they come from? Proof #4 Why did Queen of England = A descendant of Adam&King; David to fulfill the scripture concerning Israel! Jer_31:8, Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. Jer_32:37, Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: Eze_16:37, Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness. Has regathered Israel been seen NAKED? NO! Israel will get whipped, then saved by God! Amo_3:10, For they know not to do right, saith the LORD, who store up violence and robbery in their palaces. Amo_3:11, Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; An adversary there shall be even round about the land; and he shall bring down thy strength from thee, and thy palaces shall be spoiled. Amo_3:12, Thus saith the LORD; As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear; so shall the children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria in the corner of a bed, and in Damascus in a couch. Amo_3:13, Hear ye, and testify in the house of Jacob, saith the Lord GOD, the God of hosts, Read a newspaper concerning Damascus! Or babble on! Isa_17:1, The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. Isa_17:2, The cities of Aroer are forsaken: they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make them afraid. Isa_17:3, The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the LORD of hosts. Isa_17:4, And in that day it shall come to pass, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean. Isa_17:5, And it shall be as when the harvestman gathereth the corn, and reapeth the ears with his arm; and it shall be as he that gathereth ears in the valley of Rephaim. Isa_17:6, Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it, as the shaking of an olive tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost fruitful branches thereof, saith the LORD God of Israel. Try the burden of Egypt? Isa_19:1, The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it. Isa_19:2, And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom. Isa_19:3, And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards. Isa_19:4, And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts. Isa_19:5, And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up. Isa_19:6, And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence shall be emptied and dried up: Nile river mighty low! <URL>... | 0 | telisw37 |
You ask for proof of God?
I ask the Darwin worshiper why did the Jewish people evolve around God? Unlike the rest of mankind?
You ignored the fact that you babbled! Darwin and Evolution are considered today as similar! Why LIE?
Why does my opponent lie more babbling about the bible? Hey WAKE UP!!!!!!! This debate is not about the bible. Please read the subject of the debate before babbling bull!
I offer proof of God! #1 What is on your money? IN GOD WE TRUST
Proof #2 USA=ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH?
Proof #3 The Jewish people. Where did they come from?
Proof #4 Why did Queen of England = A descendant of Adam&King; David to fulfill the scripture concerning Israel!
Jer_31:8, Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
Jer_32:37, Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
Eze_16:37, Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.
Has regathered Israel been seen NAKED? NO!
Israel will get whipped, then saved by God!
Amo_3:10, For they know not to do right, saith the LORD, who store up violence and robbery in their palaces.
Amo_3:11, Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; An adversary there shall be even round about the land; and he shall bring down thy strength from thee, and thy palaces shall be spoiled.
Amo_3:12, Thus saith the LORD; As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear; so shall the children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria in the corner of a bed, and in Damascus in a couch.
Amo_3:13, Hear ye, and testify in the house of Jacob, saith the Lord GOD, the God of hosts,
Read a newspaper concerning Damascus! Or babble on!
Isa_17:1, The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Isa_17:2, The cities of Aroer are forsaken: they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make them afraid.
Isa_17:3, The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the LORD of hosts.
Isa_17:4, And in that day it shall come to pass, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean.
Isa_17:5, And it shall be as when the harvestman gathereth the corn, and reapeth the ears with his arm; and it shall be as he that gathereth ears in the valley of Rephaim.
Isa_17:6, Yet gleaning grapes shall be left in it, as the shaking of an olive tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost fruitful branches thereof, saith the LORD God of Israel.
Try the burden of Egypt?
Isa_19:1, The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
Isa_19:2, And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.
Isa_19:3, And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.
Isa_19:4, And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.
Isa_19:5, And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.
Isa_19:6, And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence shall be emptied and dried up:
Nile river mighty low!
https://www.google.com... | Religion | 2 | Atheist-are-wrong-There-is-more-proof-that-God-exist-rather-than-evolution-Darwin-is-WRONG/1/ | 4,412 |
I refute the lie that I offered no proof. Because it is on your money. And the bible is in every hotel room in America=One Nation Under God! Catch a clue. Or babble on! Facts are there are no Nations with unicorns on the money, Who have the power that USA has = One Nation Under God! Hey guess what USA has turned their back on God, God may and is turning against the people of USA! Can you say immigration reform? Let's give America to illegal immigrates? You should take your head out of your rear end and look around. Or continue to babble on! Or answer the questions on where Jews came from? Because according to YOU they came from Jewish parents!Who say they came from Abraham who came from Adam who.............................you know the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Luk_3:38, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. | 0 | telisw37 |
I refute the lie that I offered no proof. Because it is on your money. And the bible is in every hotel room in America=One Nation Under God! Catch a clue. Or babble on!
Facts are there are no Nations with unicorns on the money, Who have the power that USA has = One Nation Under God!
Hey guess what USA has turned their back on God, God may and is turning against the people of USA! Can you say immigration reform? Let's give America to illegal immigrates? You should take your head out of your rear end and look around.
Or continue to babble on!
Or answer the questions on where Jews came from? Because according to YOU they came from Jewish parents!Who say they came from Abraham who came from Adam who.............................you know the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Luk_3:38, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. | Religion | 3 | Atheist-are-wrong-There-is-more-proof-that-God-exist-rather-than-evolution-Darwin-is-WRONG/1/ | 4,413 |
I refute Darwin's IDEA that maggots grew to monkeys who turned to mathematicians who in turned, decided to started recording history! My clueless speechless opponent has no argument, so he stole mine! Who are you to tell me how to use the internet! My bible is not on the internet! Duh! My opponent did not explain why Jews evolved around God, unlike other people. Why is USA the most powerful nation after only 200+ years! No other nations has done that! Why is Israel regathered in Their Own land? Why is the fight for God's Land and on going battle? Why did not offer an explanation on Who the Root and Offspring of David is? And why Queen Elizabeth claims to fulfill the continuing of David's bloodline! Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rev_22:16, I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. <URL>... | 0 | telisw37 |
I refute Darwin's IDEA that maggots grew to monkeys who turned to mathematicians who in turned, decided to started recording history!
My clueless speechless opponent has no argument, so he stole mine!
Who are you to tell me how to use the internet!
My bible is not on the internet! Duh!
My opponent did not explain why Jews evolved around God, unlike other people.
Why is USA the most powerful nation after only 200+ years! No other nations has done that!
Why is Israel regathered in Their Own land?
Why is the fight for God's Land and on going battle?
Why did not offer an explanation on Who the Root and Offspring of David is? And why Queen Elizabeth claims to fulfill the continuing of David's bloodline!
Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev_22:16, I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
https://www.google.com... | Religion | 4 | Atheist-are-wrong-There-is-more-proof-that-God-exist-rather-than-evolution-Darwin-is-WRONG/1/ | 4,414 |
Atheism is pointless. They believe in a meaningless random universe that was made just because. How did the big bang happen? Where did all those atoms come from? They were just there right? So he universe is also just here? No beginning? If you can counter my arguments that please do so. | 0 | Rayday |
Atheism is pointless. They believe in a meaningless random universe that was made just because. How did the big bang happen? Where did all those atoms come from? They were just there right? So he universe is also just here? No beginning? If you can counter my arguments that please do so. | Religion | 0 | Atheists-are-wrong/3/ | 4,454 |
God exists on your level of faith. Everybody has faith but some people choose to accept it and others don't. Why do you believe Infinity exists even though you will never experiencine it? Why did you believe parallel universes exist even though you will never experience them? Because you have faith. How do I know that you're human you're not an alien? Because I have faith. Say you put a cat in a box of poison and close the Box you have no way of knowing if the cat is dead or alive so until you open the box the cat that is both dead and alive but you have faith that the cat is alive. We will never know how the universe was made since we never experienced it. Yet it says it all in Religion. But you refuse to accpet that because you are blind to acknowledge faith. Instead you choose to accept a random answer even though there is a legitimate ansewr. That is the most unscientific ansewr I have ever heard of. | 0 | Rayday |
God exists on your level of faith. Everybody has faith but some people choose to accept it and others don't. Why do you believe Infinity exists even though you will never experiencine it? Why did you believe parallel universes exist even though you will never experience them? Because you have faith. How do I know that you're human you're not an alien? Because I have faith. Say you put a cat in a box of poison and close the Box you have no way of knowing if the cat is dead or alive so until you open the box the cat that is both dead and alive but you have faith that the cat is alive. We will never know how the universe was made since we never experienced it. Yet it says it all in Religion. But you refuse to accpet that because you are blind to acknowledge faith. Instead you choose to accept a random answer even though there is a legitimate ansewr. That is the most unscientific ansewr I have ever heard of. | Religion | 1 | Atheists-are-wrong/3/ | 4,455 |
Okay let's try again, Most atheist belifs are illogaical and not based on evidance. You believe the universe is random. Would you take random as a valid reason for anything? You are saying matter was a random creation. There is a difference between blind Faith and faith based on data. Science Wich is all about data needs faith. Beliving in a scientific axiom wether it be Infinty or Universes require faith. It is more irrational and unscientific to believe that everything exist out of pure luck than to believe that everything has a cause. So you believe in science and science is faith and there is your physical proof and the theory is faith. | 0 | Rayday |
Okay let's try again, Most atheist belifs are illogaical and not based on evidance. You believe the universe is random. Would you take random as a valid reason for anything? You are saying matter was a random creation. There is a difference between blind Faith and faith based on data. Science Wich is all about data needs faith. Beliving in a scientific axiom wether it be Infinty or Universes require faith. It is more irrational and unscientific to believe that everything exist out of pure luck than to believe that everything has a cause. So you believe in science and science is faith and there is your physical proof and the theory is faith. | Religion | 2 | Atheists-are-wrong/3/ | 4,456 |
According to Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition, [atheism] is Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.* {online: <URL>... } *this is a general description of an atheist Let me briefly describe my belief. I am a Christian and fully(without doubt) believe that Jesus Christ is the messiah who was promised to the Jews and the one to save the gentiles(non Jews). And that the is no other way to heaven(or God) but through Jesus Christ. So, for a long time I have been asking my self why do [other] people deny the existence of God. I couldn't answer this question because I did not fully understand atheism at that time. Since I accepted Jesus Christ as my LORD and saviour, I started to study the holy bible so much and, as a result, discovered a lot of things about God. I am currently studying Physics and Mathematics as my academic disciplines, and also interested in Psychology and Philosophy. Does this matter to mention? Yes. These are my main four points of argument. I will use them (Physics{or science}, Mathematics, Psychology & Philosophy) to show that atheists (in general) have poor logic in their reasoning and conclusion of God. Terms: PLEASE NO CUSSING, OR USING OF GOD'S NAME IN VAIN & and let us stick to the topic without emotional attachments. Breaking this will lead to the debate being forfeited because I take my God seriously. Round #1. accept the topic and Terms | 0 | ProfessorL |
According to Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition, [atheism] is Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.* {online: http://www.infidels.org... }
*this is a general description of an atheist
Let me briefly describe my belief.
I am a Christian and fully(without doubt) believe that Jesus Christ is the messiah who was promised to the Jews and the one to save the gentiles(non Jews). And that the is no other way to heaven(or God) but through Jesus Christ.
So, for a long time I have been asking my self why do [other] people deny the existence of God. I couldn't answer this question because I did not fully understand atheism at that time. Since I accepted Jesus Christ as my LORD and saviour, I started to study the holy bible so much and, as a result, discovered a lot of things about God. I am currently studying Physics and Mathematics as my academic disciplines, and also interested in Psychology and Philosophy. Does this matter to mention?
Yes. These are my main four points of argument. I will use them (Physics{or science}, Mathematics, Psychology & Philosophy) to show that atheists (in general) have poor logic in their reasoning and conclusion of God.
Terms: PLEASE NO CUSSING, OR USING OF GOD'S NAME IN VAIN & and let us stick to the topic without emotional attachments. Breaking this will lead to the debate being forfeited because I take my God seriously.
Round #1. accept the topic and Terms | Philosophy | 0 | Atheists-have-a-poor-logic-that-is-why-they-cant-admire-the-existence-of-God./1/ | 4,473 |
Although, it is widely known that a church is a house of God, I do not believe that it is the only place where you can be connected to God. In fact, I believe that you can be close to God in any location. I think that the rules of the church are often created by the church "officials" and not from the bible. It is also common that interpretations of the bible can alter your understanding of God's word. Isn't it better to read it on your own and understand what it means to you? Many people feel that they are religious because they attend church every Sunday, through illness and different weather conditions. But isn't it possible that some of these people are just going through the motions? Some people who do not attend church on a regular basis might be seen as betraying the church or simply lazy. But these people who stay at home on sunday mornings might be more religious than those sitting in the pues trying to keep their eyes open. In the bible it clearly states that praying can take place anywhere. It does not have to happen in a group, sitting on an uncomfortable pue, in a church. Moses is seen in the bible praying to God in the middle of field. Then, so too can any one of use be religous and pray to God outside of the setting of the church. | 0 | Queen |
Although, it is widely known that a church is a house of God, I do not believe that it is the only place where you can be connected to God. In fact, I believe that you can be close to God in any location. I think that the rules of the church are often created by the church "officials" and not from the bible. It is also common that interpretations of the bible can alter your understanding of God's word. Isn't it better to read it on your own and understand what it means to you? Many people feel that they are religious because they attend church every Sunday, through illness and different weather conditions. But isn't it possible that some of these people are just going through the motions? Some people who do not attend church on a regular basis might be seen as betraying the church or simply lazy. But these people who stay at home on sunday mornings might be more religious than those sitting in the pues trying to keep their eyes open. In the bible it clearly states that praying can take place anywhere. It does not have to happen in a group, sitting on an uncomfortable pue, in a church. Moses is seen in the bible praying to God in the middle of field. Then, so too can any one of use be religous and pray to God outside of the setting of the church. | Religion | 0 | Attending-church-creates-makes-a-person-more-relgious-and-in-effect-brings-you-closer-to-God./1/ | 4,532 |
As you said, church is widely known as the house of God. If you are in his house, praising him, then you will definitely become closer to God. You also said that church is not the only place where you can feel close to God. I believe this also. You can feel close to God any place you want, but that does not change the fact that going to church does make a person feel closer to God. Here is why: 1. By going to church and listening to sermons and scripture readings, you may learn more about your religion. Therefore, making you closer to God. 2. Being surrounded by people who all believe in the same thing can help you believe more. Attending bible studies at the church can also help you learn more, and be surrounded by people who care about you. This will make you feel closer to God. 3. Being in the church, the house of God, can make you feel closer to him because being surrounded by his presence is a wonderful thing. That feeling is enough to make you and me feel more religious and closer to God. Thanks for listening! :-D | 0 | awesome |
As you said, church is widely known as the house of God. If you are in his house, praising him, then you will definitely become closer to God.
You also said that church is not the only place where you can feel close to God. I believe this also. You can feel close to God any place you want, but that does not change the fact that going to church does make a person feel closer to God. Here is why:
1. By going to church and listening to sermons and scripture readings, you may learn more about your religion. Therefore, making you closer to God.
2. Being surrounded by people who all believe in the same thing can help you believe more. Attending bible studies at the church can also help you learn more, and be surrounded by people who care about you. This will make you feel closer to God.
3. Being in the church, the house of God, can make you feel closer to him because being surrounded by his presence is a wonderful thing. That feeling is enough to make you and me feel more religious and closer to God.
Thanks for listening! :-D | Religion | 0 | Attending-church-creates-makes-a-person-more-relgious-and-in-effect-brings-you-closer-to-God./1/ | 4,533 |
Okay, my opponent forfeited, so I really have nothing to say. Actually there is one thing. VOTE PRO!! Thanks for reading :-D | 0 | awesome |
Okay, my opponent forfeited, so I really have nothing to say. Actually there is one thing. VOTE PRO!! Thanks for reading :-D | Religion | 2 | Attending-church-creates-makes-a-person-more-relgious-and-in-effect-brings-you-closer-to-God./1/ | 4,534 |
Throughout the world, we need every energy source we can get - including nuclear. Nuclear has a number of advantages that warrant its use as one of the many methods of supplying an energy-demanding world. Even with conservation efforts, energy demand has been and will continue to increase. Other factors can accelerate that increase, for example the proposed shift to electric cars to meet environmental air quality goals. In using each and every one of these forms of energy production, we need to make sure we conserve as much as we can so we leave sources for future generations. Energy suppliers need to ensure that they do not contribute to short and long-term environmental problems. Governments need to ensure energy is generated safely to that neither people nor the environment are harmed. | 0 | Colebster |
Throughout the world, we need every energy source we can get - including nuclear. Nuclear has a number of advantages that warrant its use as one of the many methods of supplying an energy-demanding world. Even with conservation efforts, energy demand has been and will continue to increase. Other factors can accelerate that increase, for example the proposed shift to electric cars to meet environmental air quality goals. In using each and every one of these forms of energy production, we need to make sure we conserve as much as we can so we leave sources for future generations. Energy suppliers need to ensure that they do not contribute to short and long-term environmental problems. Governments need to ensure energy is generated safely to that neither people nor the environment are harmed. | Politics | 0 | Australia-Should-Go-Nuclear/1/ | 4,563 |
Nuclear power is safe and even though there have been two accidents in Fukushima and Chernobyl, these are but sporadic incidents when compared to the rate of accidents which occur in fossil fuel industries, coal mines and gas pipelines, which have a history of eruption. The precautions taken to prevent a meltdown are very effective. Nuclear power is one the safest methods of producing energy. Each year, 10,000 to 50,000 Americans die from respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal, and 300 are killed in mining and transportation accidents. In contrast, no Americans have died or been seriously injured because of a reactor accident or radiation exposure from American nuclear power plants. There are a number of safety mechanisms that make the chances of reactor accidents very low. A series of barriers separates the radiation and heat of the reactor core from the outside. The reactor core is contained within a 9-inch thick steel pressure vessel. The pressure vessel is surrounded by a thick concrete wall. This is inside a sealed steel containment structure, which itself is inside a steel-reinforced concrete dome four feet thick. The dome is designed to withstand extremes such as earthquakes or a direct hit by a crashing airliner. There is also a large number of sensors that pick up increases in radiation or humidity. An increase in radiation or humidity could mean there is a leak. There are systems that control and stop the chain reaction if necessary. An Emergency Core Cooling System ensures that in the event of an accident there is enough cooling water to cool the reactor. | 0 | Colebster |
Nuclear power is safe and even though there have been two accidents in Fukushima and Chernobyl, these are but sporadic incidents when compared to the rate of accidents which occur in fossil fuel industries, coal mines and gas pipelines, which have a history of eruption. The precautions taken to prevent a meltdown are very effective. Nuclear power is one the safest methods of producing energy. Each year, 10,000 to 50,000 Americans die from respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal, and 300 are killed in mining and transportation accidents. In contrast, no Americans have died or been seriously injured because of a reactor accident or radiation exposure from American nuclear power plants. There are a number of safety mechanisms that make the chances of reactor accidents very low. A series of barriers separates the radiation and heat of the reactor core from the outside. The reactor core is contained within a 9-inch thick steel pressure vessel. The pressure vessel is surrounded by a thick concrete wall. This is inside a sealed steel containment structure, which itself is inside a steel-reinforced concrete dome four feet thick. The dome is designed to withstand extremes such as earthquakes or a direct hit by a crashing airliner. There is also a large number of sensors that pick up increases in radiation or humidity. An increase in radiation or humidity could mean there is a leak. There are systems that control and stop the chain reaction if necessary. An Emergency Core Cooling System ensures that in the event of an accident there is enough cooling water to cool the reactor. | Politics | 1 | Australia-Should-Go-Nuclear/1/ | 4,564 |
My opponent states that "Australia nor any other country should be investing in nuclear power because of the serious danger that these facilities pose if they are to be destroyed by natural disaster". I clearly stated earlier that the reactor can withstand a jet crash, let alone an earthquake. As for the safety implications for the public and environment, in the USA, Nuclear Power operators are charged 0.1 cents per KW-Hr for the disposal of Nuclear Waste. In Sweden this cost is 0.13 US cents per KW-Hr. These Countries have utilized these funds to pursue research into Geologic disposal of waste and both now have mature proposals for the task. In France the cost of waste disposal and decommissioning is estimated to be 10% of the construction cost. Radiation protection is based on the understanding that small increases over natural levels of exposure are not likely to be harmful but should be kept to a minimum. To put this into practice the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) has established recommended standards of protection (both for members of the public and radiation workers) based on three basic principles: Justification. No practice involving exposure to radiation should be adopted unless it produces a net benefit to those exposed or to society generally. Optimisation. Radiation doses and risks should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), economic and social factors being taken into account. Limitation. The exposure of individuals should be subject to dose or risk limits above which the radiation risk would be deemed unacceptable. These principles apply to the potential for accidental exposures as well as predictable normal exposures. Clearly, it is safe to have nuclear power, so long as it is maintained. Chernobyl was caused by neglect, but that is not how things operate in this day and age. We need this if we want to cleanse our planet! | 0 | Colebster |
My opponent states that "Australia nor any other country should be investing in nuclear power because of the serious danger that these facilities pose if they are to be destroyed by natural disaster". I clearly stated earlier that the reactor can withstand a jet crash, let alone an earthquake. As for the safety implications for the public and environment, in the USA, Nuclear Power operators are charged 0.1 cents per KW-Hr for the disposal of Nuclear Waste. In Sweden this cost is 0.13 US cents per KW-Hr. These Countries have utilized these funds to pursue research into Geologic disposal of waste and both now have mature proposals for the task. In France the cost of waste disposal and decommissioning is estimated to be 10% of the construction cost.
Radiation protection is based on the understanding that small increases over natural levels of exposure are not likely to be harmful but should be kept to a minimum. To put this into practice the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) has established recommended standards of protection (both for members of the public and radiation workers) based on three basic principles:
Justification. No practice involving exposure to radiation should be adopted unless it produces a net benefit to those exposed or to society generally.
Optimisation. Radiation doses and risks should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), economic and social factors being taken into account.
Limitation. The exposure of individuals should be subject to dose or risk limits above which the radiation risk would be deemed unacceptable.
These principles apply to the potential for accidental exposures as well as predictable normal exposures.
Clearly, it is safe to have nuclear power, so long as it is maintained. Chernobyl was caused by neglect, but that is not how things operate in this day and age. We need this if we want to cleanse our planet! | Politics | 2 | Australia-Should-Go-Nuclear/1/ | 4,565 |
I don't believe Australia needs to do its fair share in accepting Syrian refugees. | 0 | manige123 |
I don't believe Australia needs to do its fair share in accepting Syrian refugees. | Politics | 0 | Australia-needs-to-do-its-fair-share-in-accepting-Syrian-refugees/1/ | 4,571 |
1st Round-Acceptance 2nd Round- Initial Arguments 3rd Round- Concluding Arguments 4th Round-Rebuttals 5th Round-Conclusion | 0 | ScrinTech |
1st Round-Acceptance 2nd Round- Initial Arguments 3rd Round- Concluding Arguments 4th Round-Rebuttals 5th Round-Conclusion | Politics | 0 | Australia-should-be-wiped-from-the-face-of-the-Earth/1/ | 4,572 |
I accept. I'm not sure what you mean by "round 3-concluding arguments". I guess I'll just follow your lead. | 0 | Wylted |
I accept. I'm not sure what you mean by "round 3-concluding arguments". I guess I'll just follow your lead. | Politics | 0 | Australia-should-be-wiped-from-the-face-of-the-Earth/1/ | 4,573 |
Australia is a Plague on Society History Introduction Anybody that has studied Australia, its inhabitants, or its history. Knows that it should be wiped from the face of the Earth. The only people who really disagree with this are Australians, and they are extremely biased. Let's take a look at the history of the island to see what type of genes are being allowed to survive and plague the world. Prison Island In the 17th and 18th century the British would take the biggest scumbags on the planet and drop them off in Australia. This island served as a huge prison for the worst people on Earth. <URL>... These people were such low class pieces of crap that they weren't even welcome to be a part of the scummy 17th and 18th century British society. Just to give you an ideal of how scummy 17th and 18th century British society, here is a list of things representative of a society Australians were to scummy to be a part of. 1."17th century towns were dirty and unsanitary. People threw dirty water and other rubbish in the streets." 2.The streets of London was infested with flea ridden rats, that carried bubonic plague. Even these rats weren't sent off to a prison island. 3."Among the poor cruel 'sports' like cock fighting and bull and bear baiting were popular. (A bear or bull was chained to a post and dogs were trained to attack it)." <URL>... 4. Practically everyone in this time period was an alcoholic. It's sad when alcoholics can't stand to be around you. <URL>... We're talking about a country of people too savage to be part of a savage society. The Aborigines I know. I showed that the rapists, murderers and thugs that stole the Aborigine's land are genetically inferior and deserve to be wiped off the face of the Earth, but what about the Aborigines? The Aborigines are sick in the head and I wouldn't wish being one on my worst enemy. The world needs to be eradicated of these sick freaks. We can't allow the world to be contaminated by their DNA. Here is a list of facts about these sick freaks. 1. " When a young man becomes of age, his tribal elders lead him into seclusion. The men will lay down surrounding the boy facing away from a fire. An assistant will sit on the boy"s chest, while another elder will pull and twist the boy"s foreskin and proceed to slice it off. The men will take the boy to kneel upon a shield over a low-lit fire and made to eat "good meat." Essentially, the meat is the boy"s own foreskin. He must swallow without chewing it, and once he has succeeded, he as eaten his "own boy," and become a man. When the circumcision heals, the young man will go through a subincision. His penis will be sliced on the underside, sometimes to the scrotum. The man is then made to stand over a fire to allow the blood to drip into it and purify it." <URL>... 2. In many Aborigine tribes a lttle boy is sent out into the wilderness for 6 months. If the boy manages to not die than he is considered a man. <URL>... If this is the type of stuff that the Aborigines put their own children through. Imagine what they'd do to a stranger they have no emotional attatchment to. Make no mistake these are sick freaks that must be eliminated. Conclusion My opponent has agreed that round 2 and 3 would be for argumentation and not rebuttals. I will conclude my arguments in round 3 by listing more reasons Australia should be wiped of the face of the Earth. | 0 | Wylted |
Australia is a Plague on Society
History
Introduction
Anybody that has studied Australia, its inhabitants, or its history. Knows that it should be wiped from the face of the Earth. The only people who really disagree with this are Australians, and they are extremely biased. Let's take a look at the history of the island to see what type of genes are being allowed to survive and plague the world.
Prison Island
In the 17th and 18th century the British would take the biggest scumbags on the planet and drop them off in Australia. This island served as a huge prison for the worst people on Earth.
http://library.thinkquest.org...
These people were such low class pieces of crap that they weren't even welcome to be a part of the scummy 17th and 18th century British society. Just to give you an ideal of how scummy 17th and 18th century British society, here is a list of things representative of a society Australians were to scummy to be a part of.
1."17th century towns were dirty and unsanitary. People threw dirty water and other rubbish in the streets."
2.The streets of London was infested with flea ridden rats, that carried bubonic plague. Even these rats weren't sent off to a prison island.
3."Among the poor cruel 'sports' like cock fighting and bull and bear baiting were popular. (A bear or bull was chained to a post and dogs were trained to attack it)."
http://www.localhistories.org...
4. Practically everyone in this time period was an alcoholic. It's sad when alcoholics can't stand to be around you.
http://www.localhistories.org...
We're talking about a country of people too savage to be part of a savage society.
The Aborigines
I know. I showed that the rapists, murderers and thugs that stole the Aborigine's land are genetically inferior and deserve to be wiped off the face of the Earth, but what about the Aborigines? The Aborigines are sick in the head and I wouldn't wish being one on my worst enemy. The world needs to be eradicated of these sick freaks. We can't allow the world to be contaminated by their DNA. Here is a list of facts about these sick freaks.
1. " When a young man becomes of age, his tribal elders lead him into seclusion. The men will lay down surrounding the boy facing away from a fire. An assistant will sit on the boy"s chest, while another elder will pull and twist the boy"s foreskin and proceed to slice it off. The men will take the boy to kneel upon a shield over a low-lit fire and made to eat "good meat." Essentially, the meat is the boy"s own foreskin. He must swallow without chewing it, and once he has succeeded, he as eaten his "own boy," and become a man. When the circumcision heals, the young man will go through a subincision. His penis will be sliced on the underside, sometimes to the scrotum. The man is then made to stand over a fire to allow the blood to drip into it and purify it."
http://listverse.com...
2. In many Aborigine tribes a lttle boy is sent out into the wilderness for 6 months. If the boy manages to not die than he is considered a man.
http://list25.com...
If this is the type of stuff that the Aborigines put their own children through. Imagine what they'd do to a stranger they have no emotional attatchment to. Make no mistake these are sick freaks that must be eliminated.
Conclusion
My opponent has agreed that round 2 and 3 would be for argumentation and not rebuttals. I will conclude my arguments in round 3 by listing more reasons Australia should be wiped of the face of the Earth. | Politics | 2 | Australia-should-be-wiped-from-the-face-of-the-Earth/1/ | 4,574 |
Given my opponents comments and 2 forfeits, I think he has no intention of debating this. If he does change his mind and do the debate, he is limited to rebuttals only as per his rules. I do want to thank my opponent for hosting this debate. It was fun having to use the more creative side of my brain. | 0 | Wylted |
Given my opponents comments and 2 forfeits, I think he has no intention of debating this. If he does change his mind and do the debate, he is limited to rebuttals only as per his rules.
I do want to thank my opponent for hosting this debate. It was fun having to use the more creative side of my brain. | Politics | 4 | Australia-should-be-wiped-from-the-face-of-the-Earth/1/ | 4,575 |
Australia sux | 0 | Wylted |
Australia sux | Politics | 8 | Australia-should-be-wiped-from-the-face-of-the-Earth/1/ | 4,576 |
I'm not sure what your issue is entirely, but I will give it a shot. It seems to me that you are saying a "black man won't be President" because you believe that white people would hold it back from happening. To counter that with facts, the latest poll today showed Barack Obama in the lead in Iowa, surely Iowa isn't all blacks and winning the Caucass would elevate him to a position where he could become the Democratic Nominee. The problem with Obama is his youth and blatant lack of experience in Governmental affairs. There are many things about him that the public doesn't really know and we aren't going to vote for a candidate whose positions aren't entirely clear. Most educated people vote for the person who they believe is the better fit for the Office in question. Voting for someone just because they are black of just because they are white is ignorant. My beliefs lean towards the Republican Spectrum, but that doesn't mean that automatically cancels Obama out. Infact, I can't stand the likes of Rudi Guilliani and John McCain. Also, I raise the question of any facts you have to prove your theory with Alan Keyes previously being a Republican Contendor and Barack Obama being a Democrat in this election. I also want to ask you why Obama is so popular if he stands no chance of being President? Keep in mind that there are many white supporters as well as black supporters for Obama. | 0 | FiredUpRepublican |
I'm not sure what your issue is entirely, but I will give it a shot.
It seems to me that you are saying a "black man won't be President" because you believe that white people would hold it back from happening. To counter that with facts, the latest poll today showed Barack Obama in the lead in Iowa, surely Iowa isn't all blacks and winning the Caucass would elevate him to a position where he could become the Democratic Nominee.
The problem with Obama is his youth and blatant lack of experience in Governmental affairs. There are many things about him that the public doesn't really know and we aren't going to vote for a candidate whose positions aren't entirely clear.
Most educated people vote for the person who they believe is the better fit for the Office in question. Voting for someone just because they are black of just because they are white is ignorant. My beliefs lean towards the Republican Spectrum, but that doesn't mean that automatically cancels Obama out. Infact, I can't stand the likes of Rudi Guilliani and John McCain.
Also, I raise the question of any facts you have to prove your theory with Alan Keyes previously being a Republican Contendor and Barack Obama being a Democrat in this election. I also want to ask you why Obama is so popular if he stands no chance of being President? Keep in mind that there are many white supporters as well as black supporters for Obama. | Politics | 0 | BLACK-PRESIDENT/1/ | 4,621 |