text stringlengths 1 67.4k | label int64 0 1 | author stringlengths 2 25 | original_text stringlengths 6 75.8k | category stringclasses 23 values | round int64 0 8 | debate_id stringlengths 6 103 | idx int64 10 82.5k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thanks to my opponent for an interesting challenge. 'theism' The belief in god(s) 'a' - Greek meaning without Atheism: Without belief in gods. My opponent commits the fallacy of Begging the Question: attempting to argue that atheists should not define atheism broadly by assuming the truth of the narrow definition which religious theists would prefer. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods, it's not making any claims about the existence of gods, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves. Atheists might assert that some or all gods do not or cannot exist, but that isn't a prerequisite for atheism and it shouldn't be assumed that any particular atheist does so (again my opponent will be an atheist in regards to gods other than those of his/her faith). The idea that this narrow definition is the most appropriate one is, however, precisely the issue being debated. It is not legitimate to argue that something is wrong by assuming that the alternative which you favour is correct. The narrow definition indicates that my opponent probably doesn't have a valid argument to offer and is just grasping at straws in an effort to have some sort of argument. It's true that with the broad definition of atheism, there is little to attack, the burden of proof however, or at least the burden of support if there is nothing to prove, lies with whoever is making the positive claim. In context of atheism and theism, this burden of proof lies primarily or entirely with the theist because this is the person who is claiming that at least one of some sort of being they call a god exists. The minimum, an atheist needs to perform is to examine whatever support is offered for theistic claims and show how and why they might be inadequate. If a theist does or cannot offer any support, there is little more that the atheist can do but ignore them. If there is no rational support for their claims, then they have no interest in engaging in rational discussion on the issues. The justification of atheism, if required, can only proceed from whatever is fundamental and necessary to atheism. Atheism is simply non belief; that means that little or no justification is required. Only after the theist has presented coherent and rational arguments might the atheist need to explain why she does not accept them. At that point, justification of atheism is based upon inadequate justification for theism. Remember the atheist has tools other than religion to explain the natural universe; they do not need a concept of god for everything to be. Therefore, when the claim that a person is an atheist because they, "deny the existence of God," we see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. Firstly, "God" hasn't been defined (which god, which religion), so how an atheist regards it cannot be routinely assumed. You cannot merely assert that whatever you have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that however this god is defined, the atheist must automatically deny it. The idea might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial. It is fair to say then, the entire attempt to deny the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in gods is an attempt by theists to avoid expounding and defending their own theistic position. Claims that atheists are making their own assertions, allow theistic claims to fade into the background and not be subject to the critical examination, and critique they warrant. Theists can therefore quietly remain theists without having to do any of the work necessary to justify it. Proving the negative: Eight is not equal to seven The ancient Aztecs did not watch Seinfeld The tsetse fly is not native to Antarctica Clearly, it's possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is the nature of the positive statement being refuted.Science progresses by proving negatives. More specifically, it is by constructing possible models (a hypothesis), and then testing them (falsification), that we advance and build on the knowledge that we already have. By doing so, we have proven many negatives along the way. We arrived at the conclusion that oxygen is the necessary gas in burning because we were first able to disprove the existence of phlogiston, which was the reigning scientific position at the time. More exactly, we now say that oxygen is a better explanation of burning than phlogiston, because the first fits all the facts while the second does not. The idea of proving negatives by testing is also part of a basic epistemic principle, Occam's Razor. If you have two models explaining the same data, and one is simpler than the other, then the simpler one is true and the complex one is false. Occam's Razor is not just a preference or a probability. Occam's Razor is essentially the fundamental rational standard that, to assert something you must have objective evidence. If there are two competing models, and one is more complex than another, then the complex ones has additional processes which have no evidence to validate their existence. Logic and science indicate that there must be a basis (either in substance or in thought) for a contention or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. Religion cannot define god. Resolving this must take place before any significant discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions, without any beliefs about God; they have no reason to do so. The onus rests upon the theist. The mention of one's belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists. Additionally, rejecting an assertion does not imply burden to justify it. The evidence needs to be provided by whoever makes the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by stating that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply, that what is true for others might not be true for them. But this is folly, this turns its back on productive thinking, it is solipsism, and states that every person lives in their own reality, and what is true in their life might not be true for others. The statement "you cannot prove a negative" is used here simply as a different way of saying "You can't prove me wrong because I don't even know what I'm talking about." "If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless" ~ Carl Sagan. | 0 | Spiral |
Thanks to my opponent for an interesting challenge.
‘theism' The belief in god(s)
‘a' – Greek meaning without
Atheism: Without belief in gods.
My opponent commits the fallacy of Begging the Question: attempting to argue that atheists should not define atheism broadly by assuming the truth of the narrow definition which religious theists would prefer. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods, it's not making any claims about the existence of gods, and therefore the only burden of proof lies with religious theists themselves. Atheists might assert that some or all gods do not or cannot exist, but that isn't a prerequisite for atheism and it shouldn't be assumed that any particular atheist does so (again my opponent will be an atheist in regards to gods other than those of his/her faith).
The idea that this narrow definition is the most appropriate one is, however, precisely the issue being debated. It is not legitimate to argue that something is wrong by assuming that the alternative which you favour is correct. The narrow definition indicates that my opponent probably doesn't have a valid argument to offer and is just grasping at straws in an effort to have some sort of argument. It's true that with the broad definition of atheism, there is little to attack, the burden of proof however, or at least the burden of support if there is nothing to prove, lies with whoever is making the positive claim. In context of atheism and theism, this burden of proof lies primarily or entirely with the theist because this is the person who is claiming that at least one of some sort of being they call a god exists.
The minimum, an atheist needs to perform is to examine whatever support is offered for theistic claims and show how and why they might be inadequate. If a theist does or cannot offer any support, there is little more that the atheist can do but ignore them. If there is no rational support for their claims, then they have no interest in engaging in rational discussion on the issues. The justification of atheism, if required, can only proceed from whatever is fundamental and necessary to atheism. Atheism is simply non belief; that means that little or no justification is required. Only after the theist has presented coherent and rational arguments might the atheist need to explain why she does not accept them. At that point, justification of atheism is based upon inadequate justification for theism. Remember the atheist has tools other than religion to explain the natural universe; they do not need a concept of god for everything to be.
Therefore, when the claim that a person is an atheist because they, "deny the existence of God," we see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. Firstly, "God" hasn't been defined (which god, which religion), so how an atheist regards it cannot be routinely assumed. You cannot merely assert that whatever you have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that however this god is defined, the atheist must automatically deny it. The idea might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.
It is fair to say then, the entire attempt to deny the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in gods is an attempt by theists to avoid expounding and defending their own theistic position. Claims that atheists are making their own assertions, allow theistic claims to fade into the background and not be subject to the critical examination, and critique they warrant. Theists can therefore quietly remain theists without having to do any of the work necessary to justify it.
Proving the negative:
Eight is not equal to seven
The ancient Aztecs did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to Antarctica
Clearly, it's possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is the nature of the positive statement being refuted.Science progresses by proving negatives. More specifically, it is by constructing possible models (a hypothesis), and then testing them (falsification), that we advance and build on the knowledge that we already have. By doing so, we have proven many negatives along the way. We arrived at the conclusion that oxygen is the necessary gas in burning because we were first able to disprove the existence of phlogiston, which was the reigning scientific position at the time. More exactly, we now say that oxygen is a better explanation of burning than phlogiston, because the first fits all the facts while the second does not.
The idea of proving negatives by testing is also part of a basic epistemic principle, Occam's Razor. If you have two models explaining the same data, and one is simpler than the other, then the simpler one is true and the complex one is false. Occam's Razor is not just a preference or a probability. Occam's Razor is essentially the fundamental rational standard that, to assert something you must have objective evidence. If there are two competing models, and one is more complex than another, then the complex ones has additional processes which have no evidence to validate their existence.
Logic and science indicate that there must be a basis (either in substance or in thought) for a contention or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. Religion cannot define god. Resolving this must take place before any significant discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions, without any beliefs about God; they have no reason to do so. The onus rests upon the theist. The mention of one's belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.
Additionally, rejecting an assertion does not imply burden to justify it. The evidence needs to be provided by whoever makes the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by stating that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply, that what is true for others might not be true for them. But this is folly, this turns its back on productive thinking, it is solipsism, and states that every person lives in their own reality, and what is true in their life might not be true for others. The statement "you cannot prove a negative" is used here simply as a different way of saying "You can't prove me wrong because I don't even know what I'm talking about."
"If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless" ~ Carl Sagan. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-a-belief/1/ | 6,482 |
Another theist debate another forfeit, still, thanks to my opponent for conceding his position. I will use this round to expand a bit on the previous points. Atheism's default position is its own stance on the nature of the universe, not that of theistic claims. This is important in understanding why atheism is not a statement of belief but merely a refutation of theist claims. Since it has its own rational basis, its only burden is the negation of any claim purported by those from an opposing position. To be considered, any theistic claim must have a rational basis, otherwise it is simply discarded. No justification of this is necessary, without a logical basis there is no need for rationalisation. How this works: Theist claim: God exists. Atheism: No rational basis -- discarded. Theist: The bible shows us God exists. Atheism: The source fails due to circular logic. The bible tells us God exists, we know the bible is true because God tells us so -- discarded. Theist (persistent): The bible is the infallible word of god! Atheism: There are contradictions in both historicity and how god is defined --therefore it fails. Theist: God is all powerful!! He can exist within contradictions. Atheism: Contradictions can also negate the existence of god, there is no rational basis for the claim -- therefore it fails. Theist: The bible is both truth and metaphor/analogy. Atheism: There are no set criteria for deciding what is truth and what is metaphor -- therefore it fails. And so on it goes. As can be seen, there is no statement of belief needed, no claims of faith are made, just simple rational discrediting of theist claims. Disproving the negative: "The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative." It states, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false." (Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 1) To prove then, that God does not exist, it is necessary only to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. There are many, here is just a couple. God is both merciful and just. God (being perfect) makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's due. If he is perfectly merciful however, he lets everyone off. Clearly he can't do both. The notion of a supreme being appears to be internally inconsistent. The Perfection-vs.-Creation Argument 1. If God exists, then he is perfect. 2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe. 3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants. 4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want. 5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4). 6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). <URL>... Clearly Atheism is not a belief system; it is simply the non belief in deities. There is no positive claim made, no statement of faith, no basis on belief. | 0 | Spiral |
Another theist debate another forfeit, still, thanks to my opponent for conceding his position. I will use this round to expand a bit on the previous points.
Atheism's default position is its own stance on the nature of the universe, not that of theistic claims. This is important in understanding why atheism is not a statement of belief but merely a refutation of theist claims. Since it has its own rational basis, its only burden is the negation of any claim purported by those from an opposing position. To be considered, any theistic claim must have a rational basis, otherwise it is simply discarded. No justification of this is necessary, without a logical basis there is no need for rationalisation.
How this works:
Theist claim: God exists.
Atheism: No rational basis -- discarded.
Theist: The bible shows us God exists.
Atheism: The source fails due to circular logic. The bible tells us God exists, we know the bible is true because God tells us so -- discarded.
Theist (persistent): The bible is the infallible word of god!
Atheism: There are contradictions in both historicity and how god is defined --therefore it fails.
Theist: God is all powerful!! He can exist within contradictions.
Atheism: Contradictions can also negate the existence of god, there is no rational basis for the claim -- therefore it fails.
Theist: The bible is both truth and metaphor/analogy.
Atheism: There are no set criteria for deciding what is truth and what is metaphor -- therefore it fails.
And so on it goes. As can be seen, there is no statement of belief needed, no claims of faith are made, just simple rational discrediting of theist claims.
Disproving the negative:
"The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative." It states, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false." (Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 1)
To prove then, that God does not exist, it is necessary only to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. There are many, here is just a couple.
God is both merciful and just. God (being perfect) makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's due. If he is perfectly merciful however, he lets everyone off. Clearly he can't do both. The notion of a supreme being appears to be internally inconsistent.
The Perfection-vs.-Creation Argument
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
http://www.secularhumanism.org...
Clearly Atheism is not a belief system; it is simply the non belief in deities. There is no positive claim made, no statement of faith, no basis on belief. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-a-belief/1/ | 6,483 |
I accept and wish my opponent the best of luck. I'm fairly new as well, but welcome to the site! ===Definitions=== Atheism: D isbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings [1] Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe [2] ===Sources=== [1] <URL>... ; [2] <URL>... ; | 0 | OneElephant |
I accept and wish my opponent the best of luck. I'm fairly new as well, but welcome to the site! ===Definitions=== Atheism: D isbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings [1] Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe [2] ===Sources=== [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... ; [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... ; | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-a-religion./1/ | 6,517 |
I thank my opponent for his arguments. If I understand correctly, my opponent's argument is thus- 1. Theism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. Atheism shares similarities to Theism. 3. Therefore Atheism is a religion. I think the problem with this argument is that it's basic premise is flawed; Theism is not a religion. Theism is simply belief in one or more supreme dieties [1]. Because of this, while theism may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose, it is not a religion per se. Similarly, the belief that there is no god or supreme diety may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it's not actually a belief per se; atheists may have different beliefs about these topics, as my opponent, himself concedes. For these reasons we can safely conclude that Pro's argument is invalid. The resolution falls until further notice. Thank you. ===Sources=== [1] <URL>... ; | 0 | OneElephant |
I thank my opponent for his arguments. If I understand correctly, my opponent's argument is thus- 1. Theism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. Atheism shares similarities to Theism. 3. Therefore Atheism is a religion. I think the problem with this argument is that it's basic premise is flawed; Theism is not a religion. Theism is simply belief in one or more supreme dieties [1]. Because of this, while theism may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose, it is not a religion per se. Similarly, the belief that there is no god or supreme diety may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it's not actually a belief per se; atheists may have different beliefs about these topics, as my opponent, himself concedes. For these reasons we can safely conclude that Pro's argument is invalid. The resolution falls until further notice. Thank you. ===Sources=== [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... ; | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-a-religion./1/ | 6,518 |
I thank my opponent for his arguments, though I believe that they are self refuting; 1. Atheism has been defined as disbelief in a god/gods. 2. Theism has been defined as belief in a god/gods. 3. My opponent concedes that theism is not a religion. It's a factor of religions involving dieties or gods. 4. My opponent does not explain why atheism, which is simply a factor of religions such as naturalism, is a religion if theism is not. Since BOP is on my opponent for making a positive claim and he has not adequately explained why belief in dieties is not a religion and disbelief in dieties is, I think the vote automatically goes to Con. Additionally; 1. Religion has been defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. Atheism is one belief: gods do not exist. How can one belief be a set of beliefs? To believe that atheism is a religion is simply a non sequitur. I thank my opponent for this debate. I wish him better luck on his following debates. | 0 | OneElephant |
I thank my opponent for his arguments, though I believe that they are self refuting; 1. Atheism has been defined as disbelief in a god/gods. 2. Theism has been defined as belief in a god/gods. 3. My opponent concedes that theism is not a religion. It's a factor of religions involving dieties or gods. 4. My opponent does not explain why atheism, which is simply a factor of religions such as naturalism, is a religion if theism is not. Since BOP is on my opponent for making a positive claim and he has not adequately explained why belief in dieties is not a religion and disbelief in dieties is, I think the vote automatically goes to Con. Additionally; 1. Religion has been defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. Atheism is one belief: gods do not exist. How can one belief be a set of beliefs? To believe that atheism is a religion is simply a non sequitur. I thank my opponent for this debate. I wish him better luck on his following debates. | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-a-religion./1/ | 6,519 |
Well, this will be my first debate on this site, and I just felt having a religious debate to kick it off. I would prefer Con to be someone who takes this debate serious (i.e not forfeting the debate). Also, whoever accepts this feel free to give me suggestions and comments on how I am doing, if you so wish. First round will be for acceptance, obviously. And I don't feel as if any words need to be defined, but Con may do so if he/she wishes, as long as the respective definitions are reasonably true. | 0 | Question_Mark |
Well, this will be my first debate on this site, and I just felt having a religious debate to kick it off. I would prefer Con to be someone who takes this debate serious (i.e not forfeting the debate). Also, whoever accepts this feel free to give me suggestions and comments on how I am doing, if you so wish. First round will be for acceptance, obviously. And I don't feel as if any words need to be defined, but Con may do so if he/she wishes, as long as the respective definitions are reasonably true. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-a-religion./1/ | 6,520 |
Thanks for accepting, OneElephant! My argument will simply be positioned as premises and a conclusion logically made based on those premises. Premise 1: The definition of religion, in this debate as reaosnably decidied by both parties, is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Premise 2: All atheists have decided upon a differ cause, nature, and purpose of the universe then theists have, although this may vary between atheists just as it may vary between theists. Conclusion: Thus, atheism *is* in fact a religion. Good luck to you, OneElephant. | 0 | Question_Mark |
Thanks for accepting, OneElephant! My argument will simply be positioned as premises and a conclusion logically made based on those premises. Premise 1: The definition of religion, in this debate as reaosnably decidied by both parties, is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Premise 2: All atheists have decided upon a differ cause, nature, and purpose of the universe then theists have, although this may vary between atheists just as it may vary between theists. Conclusion: Thus, atheism *is* in fact a religion. Good luck to you, OneElephant. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-a-religion./1/ | 6,521 |
If I understand correctly, my opponent's argument is thus- 1. Theism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. Atheism shares similarities to Theism. 3. Therefore Atheism is a religion. You are incorrectly assuming my argument is bases that atheism is a religion because it holds similarities to theism. However, my argument, as a simplified version, is as follows: 1) Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. 2) Atheism shares the definition of religion, although although atheists have belief that the universe was created scientifically, whist theists belief a deity was the cause of the universe. 3) Thus, atheism is a religion. Your following arguments are based on misinterpeting my arguments, though for the sake of debate, I'll address them, anyway. I think the problem with this argument is that it's basic premise is flawed; Theism is not a religion. Theism consists off *all* religions that regard the cause of the universe to be a deity/deities. Theism is simply belief in one or more supreme dieties [1]. Because of this, while theism may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose, it is not a religion per se. Once again, theism consists of all religions that view the cause of the universe to be that of a deity, so yes, thiesm itself isn't a religion, but being a theist does determine your view of the universe, in that you believe a deity exists. Similarly, the belief that there is no god or supreme diety may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it's not actually a belief per se; Again, being an atheist determines your view of the universe, in that you reject that a deity was the cause of the universe, or that a deity exists at all. atheists may have different beliefs about these topics, as my opponent, himself concedes. Of course atheists have differing opinions of how the universe was actually created, just as how theists, even from the same religious group, have differing opinions on their religion. The bulk of Con's arguments were based on misunderstanding on my arguments, though I have refuted his claims, regardless. As this will be the last argument I, Pro, am able to post, I thank Con for the chance for debating me, and wish him the best of luck in his conclusion argument. ;) | 0 | Question_Mark |
If I understand correctly, my opponent's argument is thus- 1. Theism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. Atheism shares similarities to Theism. 3. Therefore Atheism is a religion. You are incorrectly assuming my argument is bases that atheism is a religion because it holds similarities to theism. However, my argument, as a simplified version, is as follows: 1) Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. 2) Atheism shares the definition of religion, although although atheists have belief that the universe was created scientifically, whist theists belief a deity was the cause of the universe. 3) Thus, atheism is a religion. Your following arguments are based on misinterpeting my arguments, though for the sake of debate, I'll address them, anyway. I think the problem with this argument is that it's basic premise is flawed; Theism is not a religion. Theism consists off *all* religions that regard the cause of the universe to be a deity/deities. Theism is simply belief in one or more supreme dieties [1]. Because of this, while theism may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose, it is not a religion per se. Once again, theism consists of all religions that view the cause of the universe to be that of a deity, so yes, thiesm itself isn't a religion, but being a theist does determine your view of the universe, in that you believe a deity exists. Similarly, the belief that there is no god or supreme diety may affect your beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, it's not actually a belief per se; Again, being an atheist determines your view of the universe, in that you reject that a deity was the cause of the universe, or that a deity exists at all. atheists may have different beliefs about these topics, as my opponent, himself concedes. Of course atheists have differing opinions of how the universe was actually created, just as how theists, even from the same religious group, have differing opinions on their religion. The bulk of Con's arguments were based on misunderstanding on my arguments, though I have refuted his claims, regardless. As this will be the last argument I, Pro, am able to post, I thank Con for the chance for debating me, and wish him the best of luck in his conclusion argument. ;) | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-a-religion./1/ | 6,522 |
From Merriam-Webster: Faith: 1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof None of these definitions apply to atheism. Quite the opposite; atheism is the absence of faith. To say "Prove it" when faced with a fantastical claim is not having faith in the claim not being true. It is simply saying, "I am not going to assume this statement is true until it is proven." Atheism is the result of applying this logic to religion. | 0 | Logos |
From Merriam-Webster:
Faith: 1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
None of these definitions apply to atheism. Quite the opposite; atheism is the absence of faith. To say "Prove it" when faced with a fantastical claim is not having faith in the claim not being true. It is simply saying, "I am not going to assume this statement is true until it is proven." Atheism is the result of applying this logic to religion. | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-based-on-faith/1/ | 6,544 |
"If you can prove there is no God, then this argument will bear weight. There is not enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a God, so it takes faith to believe either way." I have had this debate many times. The burden is not on atheists to offer proof that there is no such thing as God. Take this example: suppose I told you there was a 600-ton invisible elephant sitting behind you. It is not a question of "faith" when you (hopefully) choose not to believe me. You do not believe in the nonexistence of the elephant, you simply chose to await proof before believing that it DOES exist. This is the logic behind atheism. "You firmly believe there is no God, right? Well, that's faith right there. By definition, it takes faith to believe in something there is no scientific evidence for, and there is not enough scientific evidence to disprove God. So you firmly believe there is no God? Then you have faith. You don't firmly believe there is a God, but rather choose not to believe? Then your not an atheist, your an agnostic. Really, it's that simple. Atheism requires faith that there is no God, because you cannot scientifically disprove God. It's simple logic." This is in essence the same argument as the one stated above. Before something is assumed to exist, its existence must be proven. Until then, it is assumed to not exist. For example, most people believe that there are not gigantic turtles that live in space. Not because there is a scientific proof that there are no turtles in space, but because the claim of space turtles carries behind it no evidence whatsoever. This is not faith, it is simply saying "Prove it." "What Atheists fail to see is that their beliefs require more faith than any other religion. Christians need to have faith in a God they cannot see, but that's all! God covers the rest! If we simply have faith in God, He promises to cover the rest so we don't have to worry about anything. Atheists on the other hand have to have faith that there is no God, have to have faith that there is no afterlife in which they will be punished for denying the existence of God, and have to have faith that the universe and the earth came from nothing (something which is entirely impossible scientifically)." Again, no. The same arguments as I have posted above apply to the idea of an afterlife. Prove heaven exists, then we can talk. And a person who does not believe in God does not necessarily believe everything came from nothing, either. Such a person would simply be an atheist who thinks everything comes from something; they simply do not see evidence to suggest that "something" is a creator God. "It even takes an incredible amount of faith to believe the sun will rise every morning, given the fact that there is nobody keeping order in the universe." Not really. Unless you see some signs of Earth suddenly stopping dead in its orbit, you are perfectly justified in thinking the Sun will rise every morning. "Have you ever wanted something from the store, but not been sure if the hours the store was open, but you think the store is still open so you go making an educated guess that you will be able to get into the store one you get there?" Hope is different from faith. In your example, all that is happening is a person thinks a store MIGHT be open. "I don't know if the store is open, so I'll head over and see. Maybe I'll get lucky." This is not faith. If a person were making this decision based on faith, they would consider it a fact that the store WAS open. "I don't know the hours, but I know the store will be open." Faith is taking the unproven as certainty, which is not shown in your analogy. "Why is it so hard to admit that you have faith? What's wrong with having faith?" Nothing is "wrong" with faith, but atheism is not based on it. | 0 | Logos |
"If you can prove there is no God, then this argument will bear weight. There is not enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a God, so it takes faith to believe either way."
I have had this debate many times. The burden is not on atheists to offer proof that there is no such thing as God. Take this example: suppose I told you there was a 600-ton invisible elephant sitting behind you. It is not a question of "faith" when you (hopefully) choose not to believe me. You do not believe in the nonexistence of the elephant, you simply chose to await proof before believing that it DOES exist. This is the logic behind atheism.
"You firmly believe there is no God, right? Well, that's faith right there. By definition, it takes faith to believe in something there is no scientific evidence for, and there is not enough scientific evidence to disprove God. So you firmly believe there is no God? Then you have faith. You don't firmly believe there is a God, but rather choose not to believe? Then your not an atheist, your an agnostic. Really, it's that simple. Atheism requires faith that there is no God, because you cannot scientifically disprove God. It's simple logic."
This is in essence the same argument as the one stated above. Before something is assumed to exist, its existence must be proven. Until then, it is assumed to not exist. For example, most people believe that there are not gigantic turtles that live in space. Not because there is a scientific proof that there are no turtles in space, but because the claim of space turtles carries behind it no evidence whatsoever. This is not faith, it is simply saying "Prove it."
"What Atheists fail to see is that their beliefs require more faith than any other religion. Christians need to have faith in a God they cannot see, but that's all! God covers the rest! If we simply have faith in God, He promises to cover the rest so we don't have to worry about anything. Atheists on the other hand have to have faith that there is no God, have to have faith that there is no afterlife in which they will be punished for denying the existence of God, and have to have faith that the universe and the earth came from nothing (something which is entirely impossible scientifically)."
Again, no. The same arguments as I have posted above apply to the idea of an afterlife. Prove heaven exists, then we can talk. And a person who does not believe in God does not necessarily believe everything came from nothing, either. Such a person would simply be an atheist who thinks everything comes from something; they simply do not see evidence to suggest that "something" is a creator God.
"It even takes an incredible amount of faith to believe the sun will rise every morning, given the fact that there is nobody keeping order in the universe."
Not really. Unless you see some signs of Earth suddenly stopping dead in its orbit, you are perfectly justified in thinking the Sun will rise every morning.
"Have you ever wanted something from the store, but not been sure if the hours the store was open, but you think the store is still open so you go making an educated guess that you will be able to get into the store one you get there?"
Hope is different from faith. In your example, all that is happening is a person thinks a store MIGHT be open. "I don't know if the store is open, so I'll head over and see. Maybe I'll get lucky." This is not faith. If a person were making this decision based on faith, they would consider it a fact that the store WAS open. "I don't know the hours, but I know the store will be open." Faith is taking the unproven as certainty, which is not shown in your analogy.
"Why is it so hard to admit that you have faith? What's wrong with having faith?"
Nothing is "wrong" with faith, but atheism is not based on it. | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-based-on-faith/1/ | 6,545 |
This debate is getting off-track. The topic is not atheism itself, but whether or not it is based on faith. "You say there is no God? Prove it. You claim it, you have to prove it. Saying you are waiting for evidence for God's existence is more Agnosticism than Atheism. An Atheist, by definition, actively claims there is no god, and it is unfair to say that Theists have to prove there is a God, simply because they claim to believe in Him, but Atheists do not have to prove there is no God, when they claim he does not exist. It's a double standard." Waiting for proof of absence is not agnosticism, unless one also thinks that proof is possible. There is no conclusive proof, for example, that there is a monster living in Loch Ness. Many people agree with the conclusion that there is no monster living in Loch Ness, simply because of the lack of evidence. They are not taking the "middle road," saying that there MIGHT be a monster. They simply consider it unrealistic, and therefore untrue. Taking this approach to the question of God's existence is not agnosticism, nor is it based on faith. The prophecies you outlined are not proof of God's existence at all. For one, the Bible cannot be taken as a reliable source, given the OBVIOUS conflict of interest. If someone does not consider the Bible a reliable source, it is not because they have "faith" in the contents being false. Rather, they do not consider anecdotal evidence from a biased party to be logical proof of anything. "Atheists on the other hand have nothing to base there claims on. "I have never seen God, so He must not exist." Well, neither have I, but there is evidence that He is working in the world, so I can deduct from that, and from what I read in his word that he must exist." This is over-simplifying my argument. My argument is that if someone does not see ANY EVIDENCE of God's existence, and they then do not believe he exists, there is no faith involved. You might interpret from what you have read that God exists, but someone who interprets that "evidence" differently is not demonstrating faith. They simply thought through the decision differently, using my above-stated reasoning for not assuming religious texts to be trustworthy. "So if you don't believe the universe came from nothing, what do you think it came from?" The simple answer to this is "I have no idea." I don't know where the universe came from, no do I presume to. I don't think God created everything, nor do I think everything simply happened for no reason. Simply put, neither of those claims have proof to back them up. I don't have an answer to that question that carries proof behind it, but my not knowing where the Universe came from does not mean your answer has to be correct. Just because an atheist does not know where the Universe came from does not mean he has faith in God not having done it. Atheism stems not from faith, but from logic. You might disagree with the logic, but that does not make it faith. Logic is logic. I have demonstrated this logic before, and I will one last time, for posterity. "God does not exist." 1) One cannot prove something does not exist. 2) Therefore, something must be proven to exist before it is considered "real." 3) If there is no proof something exists, then there is no reason to assume it exists. 4) There is no proof God exists. 5) There is no reason to accept God's existence as true. Q.E.D. You might not agree with this logic. However, that does not mean that it is not logic. The question of what constitutes "proof," for example, is debatable. But this debate rests solely on whether or not one can use only logic to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is not fact. I have demonstrated that it is. Therefore, atheism does not require faith. | 0 | Logos |
This debate is getting off-track. The topic is not atheism itself, but whether or not it is based on faith.
"You say there is no God? Prove it. You claim it, you have to prove it. Saying you are waiting for evidence for God's existence is more Agnosticism than Atheism. An Atheist, by definition, actively claims there is no god, and it is unfair to say that Theists have to prove there is a God, simply because they claim to believe in Him, but Atheists do not have to prove there is no God, when they claim he does not exist. It's a double standard."
Waiting for proof of absence is not agnosticism, unless one also thinks that proof is possible. There is no conclusive proof, for example, that there is a monster living in Loch Ness. Many people agree with the conclusion that there is no monster living in Loch Ness, simply because of the lack of evidence. They are not taking the "middle road," saying that there MIGHT be a monster. They simply consider it unrealistic, and therefore untrue. Taking this approach to the question of God's existence is not agnosticism, nor is it based on faith.
The prophecies you outlined are not proof of God's existence at all. For one, the Bible cannot be taken as a reliable source, given the OBVIOUS conflict of interest. If someone does not consider the Bible a reliable source, it is not because they have "faith" in the contents being false. Rather, they do not consider anecdotal evidence from a biased party to be logical proof of anything.
"Atheists on the other hand have nothing to base there claims on. "I have never seen God, so He must not exist." Well, neither have I, but there is evidence that He is working in the world, so I can deduct from that, and from what I read in his word that he must exist."
This is over-simplifying my argument. My argument is that if someone does not see ANY EVIDENCE of God's existence, and they then do not believe he exists, there is no faith involved. You might interpret from what you have read that God exists, but someone who interprets that "evidence" differently is not demonstrating faith. They simply thought through the decision differently, using my above-stated reasoning for not assuming religious texts to be trustworthy.
"So if you don't believe the universe came from nothing, what do you think it came from?"
The simple answer to this is "I have no idea." I don't know where the universe came from, no do I presume to. I don't think God created everything, nor do I think everything simply happened for no reason. Simply put, neither of those claims have proof to back them up. I don't have an answer to that question that carries proof behind it, but my not knowing where the Universe came from does not mean your answer has to be correct. Just because an atheist does not know where the Universe came from does not mean he has faith in God not having done it.
Atheism stems not from faith, but from logic. You might disagree with the logic, but that does not make it faith. Logic is logic. I have demonstrated this logic before, and I will one last time, for posterity.
"God does not exist."
1) One cannot prove something does not exist.
2) Therefore, something must be proven to exist before it is considered "real."
3) If there is no proof something exists, then there is no reason to assume it exists.
4) There is no proof God exists.
5) There is no reason to accept God's existence as true.
Q.E.D.
You might not agree with this logic. However, that does not mean that it is not logic. The question of what constitutes "proof," for example, is debatable. But this debate rests solely on whether or not one can use only logic to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is not fact. I have demonstrated that it is. Therefore, atheism does not require faith. | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-based-on-faith/1/ | 6,546 |
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof" If you can prove there is no God, then this argument will bear weight. There is not enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a God, so it takes faith to believe either way. You firmly believe there is no God, right? Well, that's faith right there. By definition, it takes faith to believe in something there is no scientific evidence for, and there is not enough scientific evidence to disprove God. So you firmly believe there is no God? Then you have faith. You don't firmly believe there is a God, but rather choose not to believe? Then your not an atheist, your an agnostic. Really, it's that simple. Atheism requires faith that there is no God, because you cannot scientifically disprove God. It's simple logic. What Atheists fail to see is that their beliefs require more faith than any other religion. Christians need to have faith in a God they cannot see, but that's all! God covers the rest! If we simply have faith in God, He promises to cover the rest so we don't have to worry about anything. Atheists on the other hand have to have faith that there is no God, have to have faith that there is no afterlife in which they will be punished for denying the existence of God, and have to have faith that the universe and the earth came from nothing (something which is entirely impossible scientifically). It even takes an incredible amount of faith to believe the sun will rise every morning, given the fact that there is nobody keeping order in the universe. You may say "The sun has always risen every morning, so we have no reason to doubt that it will rise tomorrow morning.". Well, anything could happen. Heck, you believe that the universe came from nothing, and if that could happen, why couldn't the sun explode for no reason tonight? You believe there was a big explosion in space (the space that came from nowhere, mind you) that somehow brought into existence earth and all it's inhabitants. Anything could happen if you believe these sorts of things! May I remind you, though, that the only thing Christians have to have faith in is the existence of a God. There is no logic supporting your claims. You say that Atheism require no faith, yet simple, everyday choices depend on faith. Have you ever wanted something from the store, but not been sure if the hours the store was open, but you think the store is still open so you go making an educated guess that you will be able to get into the store one you get there? "That doesn't take faith!" Yes it does. You have faith that the store is still open so you will be able to buy what you want. "But I would just be guessing, because I really don't know if the store is open or not!" Yes you are, but it still takes faith that the store will be open. It costs gas money to get to the store, and if the store is not open, then you will have wasted the money getting there and back. If you had no faith the store was open, then you would not go, because you would be wasting money. If you have faith that the store is open, then you are willing to risk the trip and try to get what you are after. "But that's still not faith, because you are guessing! You could be wrong!" Yes, I know. I'm not saying whether or not you would be wrong in this case, but what I am saying is that the decision to go requires faith in that idea that the store will be open when you get there. You could just as easily decide not to go because you have no faith that the store will be open, and would be wasting money on gas if you went. This is only one example of the many areas that you, and everyone else on this earth, including Atheists, have faith, no matter how small the issue. ATHEISM, ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER FORM OF RELIGION REQUIRES FAITH. Why is it so hard to admit that you have faith? What's wrong with having faith? Thanks! Renzzy | 0 | Renzzy |
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
If you can prove there is no God, then this argument will bear weight. There is not enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a God, so it takes faith to believe either way.
You firmly believe there is no God, right? Well, that's faith right there. By definition, it takes faith to believe in something there is no scientific evidence for, and there is not enough scientific evidence to disprove God. So you firmly believe there is no God? Then you have faith. You don't firmly believe there is a God, but rather choose not to believe? Then your not an atheist, your an agnostic. Really, it's that simple. Atheism requires faith that there is no God, because you cannot scientifically disprove God. It's simple logic.
What Atheists fail to see is that their beliefs require more faith than any other religion. Christians need to have faith in a God they cannot see, but that's all! God covers the rest! If we simply have faith in God, He promises to cover the rest so we don't have to worry about anything. Atheists on the other hand have to have faith that there is no God, have to have faith that there is no afterlife in which they will be punished for denying the existence of God, and have to have faith that the universe and the earth came from nothing (something which is entirely impossible scientifically). It even takes an incredible amount of faith to believe the sun will rise every morning, given the fact that there is nobody keeping order in the universe. You may say "The sun has always risen every morning, so we have no reason to doubt that it will rise tomorrow morning.". Well, anything could happen. Heck, you believe that the universe came from nothing, and if that could happen, why couldn't the sun explode for no reason tonight? You believe there was a big explosion in space (the space that came from nowhere, mind you) that somehow brought into existence earth and all it's inhabitants. Anything could happen if you believe these sorts of things! May I remind you, though, that the only thing Christians have to have faith in is the existence of a God.
There is no logic supporting your claims. You say that Atheism require no faith, yet simple, everyday choices depend on faith. Have you ever wanted something from the store, but not been sure if the hours the store was open, but you think the store is still open so you go making an educated guess that you will be able to get into the store one you get there? "That doesn't take faith!" Yes it does. You have faith that the store is still open so you will be able to buy what you want. "But I would just be guessing, because I really don't know if the store is open or not!" Yes you are, but it still takes faith that the store will be open. It costs gas money to get to the store, and if the store is not open, then you will have wasted the money getting there and back. If you had no faith the store was open, then you would not go, because you would be wasting money. If you have faith that the store is open, then you are willing to risk the trip and try to get what you are after. "But that's still not faith, because you are guessing! You could be wrong!" Yes, I know. I'm not saying whether or not you would be wrong in this case, but what I am saying is that the decision to go requires faith in that idea that the store will be open when you get there. You could just as easily decide not to go because you have no faith that the store will be open, and would be wasting money on gas if you went.
This is only one example of the many areas that you, and everyone else on this earth, including Atheists, have faith, no matter how small the issue. ATHEISM, ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER FORM OF RELIGION REQUIRES FAITH. Why is it so hard to admit that you have faith? What's wrong with having faith?
Thanks!
Renzzy | Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-based-on-faith/1/ | 6,547 |
"The burden is not on atheists to offer proof that there is no such thing as God." Yes it is. It is ludicrous to say you do not have to prove something you openly claim. You claim there is no God. Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God. You say there is no God? Prove it. You claim it, you have to prove it. Saying you are waiting for evidence for God's existence is more Agnosticism than Atheism. An Atheist, by definition, actively claims there is no god, and it is unfair to say that Theists have to prove there is a God, simply because they claim to believe in Him, but Atheists do not have to prove there is no God, when they claim he does not exist. It's a double standard. "suppose I told you there was a 600-ton invisible elephant sitting behind you. It is not a question of "faith" when you (hopefully) choose not to believe me. You do not believe in the nonexistence of the elephant, you simply chose to await proof before believing that it DOES exist. This is the logic behind atheism." This is not a suitable analogy, simply because there is no evidence, has not been any evidence, and will never be any evidence of there being an elephant behind me. Claiming that there is something that you cannot see, with nothing in the world relating to it is entirely ridiculous. There is, however, some proof in the physical world that there is a God. Not enough to prove anything, but enough to base faith on. Here are some examples of prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled. I am going to copy and past them to save myself some typing. Prophecies fulfilled before 1900: 1. Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed In Matthew 24:1-2, Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed. The Temple was destroyed about 40 years after Jesus was crucified by the Romans. In 70 AD, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and killed an estimated 1.1 million Jews. During the destruction, fire was set to the Temple. The fire caused the gold-leaf ornamentation on the Temple ceiling to melt. The melting gold flowed down the walls and settled into crevices within the stones. The Romans pried apart the stones to remove the gold. This fulfilled Jesus' prophecy that not one stone would be left standing on another. 2. The exiled people of Israel would return to Israel In Jeremiah 32:37-41, the prophet said the people of Israel would return to their homeland. Jeremiah lived during a time when the Babylonians were forcing the Jews out of their homeland about 2600 years ago. Many Jews later returned but were forced out again, by the Romans, about 1900 years ago. During the past 200 years, millions of exiled Jews have returned to Israel from countries all over the world. 3. Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple In Daniel 9:26, the prophet said that a future ruler over the land of Israel would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. Daniel said this would happen after an anointed one (messiah) is "cut off," which means "rejected" or "killed." A few centuries later, the Romans had taken control of the land of Israel, Jesus announced himself as the Messiah, and the Romans crucified him. Forty years later, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. 4. The Bible foreshadowed Rome's destruction of Israel The Bible has several prophecies about various destruction of the land of Israel. Here is one from the Bible's book of Deuteronomy that foreshadowed the destruction caused by the Romans in the year 70 AD (about 1900 years ago): "The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand ... They will devour ... until you are ruined. ... They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down." (Deuteronomy 28:49-52 NIV). And, here's what history says about what happened in the year 70 AD: The Roman Empire sent an army, which marched in a formation called the "flying eagle," and destroyed Jerusalem. Members of the Roman army came from many different countries, speaking languages that the Jews did not understand. ( <URL>... I copied them out of order, so number 4 on my page is not necessarily 4 on theirs.) This is pure evidence that the Bible is a reliable source for prophecies coming true, and some of them were made by Jesus Himself. There are far more then 4 prophecies that people in the Bible made that have been, and are being fulfilled. Another notable factor in this equation is the fact that no matter who the prophet speaking was, the prophets were always speaking on behalf of God. Many time they will even say "Thus saith the Lord". God is making prophecies, and they are being fulfilled. That is proof enough to base faith on. Atheists on the other hand have nothing to base there claims on. "I have never seen God, so He must not exist." Well, neither have I, but there is evidence that He is working in the world, so I can deduct from that, and from what I read in his word that he must exist. Even though I cannot see Him, then, I have something to base my faith on. THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD. I guess I have been long winded in saying this: You analogy carries no weight because there is no evidence on earth that there is an elephant behind me. There is, however, evidence for God, so if you were waiting for it, wait no longer. "This is in essence the same argument as the one stated above. Before something is assumed to exist, its existence must be proved. Until then, it is assumed to not exist." Once again, you need to give proof for your claim. I have, now the burden of proof is on you. There is not enough physical evidence to prove or disprove God's existence, but there is enough for a person to base faith off of. Given the fact that there is no proof for God not existing other than the simple "I have never seen Him", you MUST have faith to claim that He does not exist. We have already established that faith is belief in something there is little or no proof for, and you have presented no proof for God not existing. Therefore, since there is really not any proof for you to present, YOU MUST HAVE FAITH. "And a person who does not believe in God does not necessarily believe everything came from nothing, either." Yes he does, he must. This would take a tremendous amount of faith. So if you don't believe the universe came from nothing, what do you think it came from? What you say is a self contradiction. You say it did not come from God, but it did not not come from nothing. What sense does that make? You have yet to say what it came from. If you think it did come from nothing, then I congratulate you, because you have far more faith then I will ever have, because there is no proof it came from nothing. If you don't think it came from nothing, then you have to say what you think it came from. "Not really. Unless you see some signs of Earth suddenly stopping dead in its orbit, you are perfectly justified in thinking the Sun will rise every morning." Well, you still haven't given a reason for the creation of the earth, other than a totally random course of events. If this is the case, then anything could happen. I mean, what if chemicals in the sun suddenly collided causing a massive explosion destroying the sun? You never know... "Hope is different from faith." You're right, and what I gave you was a bit of a flawed analogy, and therefore carries no weight in the rest of my arguments. I know what I was trying to say, but I obviously don't know how to communicate it correctly. Please don't hold this against me, because I have not hurt the rest of my argument in any way. "Nothing is "wrong" with faith, but atheism is not based on it." Is too! :-P Just kidding. Renzzy | 0 | Renzzy |
"The burden is not on atheists to offer proof that there is no such thing as God."
Yes it is. It is ludicrous to say you do not have to prove something you openly claim. You claim there is no God.
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
You say there is no God? Prove it. You claim it, you have to prove it. Saying you are waiting for evidence for God's existence is more Agnosticism than Atheism. An Atheist, by definition, actively claims there is no god, and it is unfair to say that Theists have to prove there is a God, simply because they claim to believe in Him, but Atheists do not have to prove there is no God, when they claim he does not exist. It's a double standard.
"suppose I told you there was a 600-ton invisible elephant sitting behind you. It is not a question of "faith" when you (hopefully) choose not to believe me. You do not believe in the nonexistence of the elephant, you simply chose to await proof before believing that it DOES exist. This is the logic behind atheism."
This is not a suitable analogy, simply because there is no evidence, has not been any evidence, and will never be any evidence of there being an elephant behind me. Claiming that there is something that you cannot see, with nothing in the world relating to it is entirely ridiculous. There is, however, some proof in the physical world that there is a God. Not enough to prove anything, but enough to base faith on. Here are some examples of prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled. I am going to copy and past them to save myself some typing.
Prophecies fulfilled before 1900:
1. Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed
In Matthew 24:1-2, Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed. The Temple was destroyed about 40 years after Jesus was crucified by the Romans. In 70 AD, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and killed an estimated 1.1 million Jews. During the destruction, fire was set to the Temple. The fire caused the gold-leaf ornamentation on the Temple ceiling to melt. The melting gold flowed down the walls and settled into crevices within the stones. The Romans pried apart the stones to remove the gold. This fulfilled Jesus' prophecy that not one stone would be left standing on another.
2. The exiled people of Israel would return to Israel
In Jeremiah 32:37-41, the prophet said the people of Israel would return to their homeland. Jeremiah lived during a time when the Babylonians were forcing the Jews out of their homeland about 2600 years ago. Many Jews later returned but were forced out again, by the Romans, about 1900 years ago. During the past 200 years, millions of exiled Jews have returned to Israel from countries all over the world.
3. Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple
In Daniel 9:26, the prophet said that a future ruler over the land of Israel would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. Daniel said this would happen after an anointed one (messiah) is "cut off," which means "rejected" or "killed." A few centuries later, the Romans had taken control of the land of Israel, Jesus announced himself as the Messiah, and the Romans crucified him. Forty years later, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.
4. The Bible foreshadowed Rome's destruction of Israel
The Bible has several prophecies about various destruction of the land of Israel. Here is one from the Bible's book of Deuteronomy that foreshadowed the destruction caused by the Romans in the year 70 AD (about 1900 years ago):
"The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand … They will devour … until you are ruined. … They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down." (Deuteronomy 28:49-52 NIV).
And, here's what history says about what happened in the year 70 AD: The Roman Empire sent an army, which marched in a formation called the "flying eagle," and destroyed Jerusalem. Members of the Roman army came from many different countries, speaking languages that the Jews did not understand.
( http://www.100prophecies.org... I copied them out of order, so number 4 on my page is not necessarily 4 on theirs.)
This is pure evidence that the Bible is a reliable source for prophecies coming true, and some of them were made by Jesus Himself. There are far more then 4 prophecies that people in the Bible made that have been, and are being fulfilled. Another notable factor in this equation is the fact that no matter who the prophet speaking was, the prophets were always speaking on behalf of God. Many time they will even say "Thus saith the Lord". God is making prophecies, and they are being fulfilled. That is proof enough to base faith on.
Atheists on the other hand have nothing to base there claims on. "I have never seen God, so He must not exist." Well, neither have I, but there is evidence that He is working in the world, so I can deduct from that, and from what I read in his word that he must exist. Even though I cannot see Him, then, I have something to base my faith on. THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD.
I guess I have been long winded in saying this: You analogy carries no weight because there is no evidence on earth that there is an elephant behind me. There is, however, evidence for God, so if you were waiting for it, wait no longer.
"This is in essence the same argument as the one stated above. Before something is assumed to exist, its existence must be proved. Until then, it is assumed to not exist."
Once again, you need to give proof for your claim. I have, now the burden of proof is on you. There is not enough physical evidence to prove or disprove God's existence, but there is enough for a person to base faith off of. Given the fact that there is no proof for God not existing other than the simple "I have never seen Him", you MUST have faith to claim that He does not exist. We have already established that faith is belief in something there is little or no proof for, and you have presented no proof for God not existing. Therefore, since there is really not any proof for you to present, YOU MUST HAVE FAITH.
"And a person who does not believe in God does not necessarily believe everything came from nothing, either."
Yes he does, he must. This would take a tremendous amount of faith. So if you don't believe the universe came from nothing, what do you think it came from? What you say is a self contradiction. You say it did not come from God, but it did not not come from nothing. What sense does that make? You have yet to say what it came from. If you think it did come from nothing, then I congratulate you, because you have far more faith then I will ever have, because there is no proof it came from nothing. If you don't think it came from nothing, then you have to say what you think it came from.
"Not really. Unless you see some signs of Earth suddenly stopping dead in its orbit, you are perfectly justified in thinking the Sun will rise every morning."
Well, you still haven't given a reason for the creation of the earth, other than a totally random course of events. If this is the case, then anything could happen. I mean, what if chemicals in the sun suddenly collided causing a massive explosion destroying the sun? You never know...
"Hope is different from faith."
You're right, and what I gave you was a bit of a flawed analogy, and therefore carries no weight in the rest of my arguments. I know what I was trying to say, but I obviously don't know how to communicate it correctly. Please don't hold this against me, because I have not hurt the rest of my argument in any way.
"Nothing is "wrong" with faith, but atheism is not based on it."
Is too!
:-P Just kidding.
Renzzy | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-based-on-faith/1/ | 6,548 |
"This debate is getting off-track. The topic is not atheism itself, but whether or not it is based on faith." Actually it's not really. I argued that Atheism is not based on faith. Allow me to some up my argument: The Bible is historically accurate, and this is a proven fact.( <URL>... ) The Bible is also proving its accuracy today through fulfilling prophecies. This is all obvious. The Prophecies that are being fulfilled were made by God. This is evidence of Gods existence. The Bible is historically accurate, God historically made prophecies in the Bible, these prophecies are being fulfilled. That was my argument; that there is proof of God. There, now you have the proof you were waiting for. "Waiting for proof of absence is not agnosticism, unless one also thinks that proof is possible." What you simply do not get is that ATHEISM IS DENIAL OF A GOD. Atheism = belief in no God. Atheists do not wait for evidence, they rebut evidence presented by Theists and present their own evidence. I, as a Theist, presented evidence for my position, and the burdon of proof was on your side the whole time. When you say that you're waiting for evidence, and do not present any yourself, you are not acting as an Atheist at all. As I have been telling you the whole time, you sound like an Agnostic. Your argument concerning the Loch Ness monster is flawed, then, because when people conclude that there is no evidence for the loch ness monster, or that the evidence presented is not reliable, and choose not to believe in said creature they have faith. Why? Because there is no solid proof against the monster. If there is little to no evidence on both sides, both side require faith. Why? Because faith is believing something there is little or no evidence for. When it comes to Theism and Atheism, it is the same deal. There is little evidence on both sides, so both sides require faith. It's that simple. "The prophecies you outlined are not proof of God's existence at all." I have already addressed this. "My argument is that if someone does not see ANY EVIDENCE of God's existence, and they then do not believe he exists, there is no faith involved." Yes, there is faith involved. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION, so you are believing in a claim with no evidence supporting it. THAT REQUIRES SERIOUS FAITH. Let us go over the definition of faith one more time... Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof You have provided no proof, and therefore have faith BY DEFINITION. "The simple answer to this is "I have no idea." [where the universes cam from]" Wow. That takes faith. To believe that an all powerful God did not create the universe takes faith. If it did not come from a God for a reason, and it was not the Big Bang, then there is no explanation for where it came from. Thus you have no proof it came from nowhere, thus you have faith. No proof + belief = faith BY DEFINITION. ""God does not exist." 1) One cannot prove something does not exist. 2) Therefore, something must be proved to exist before it is considered "real."" That is actually very confusing, and I have spent way too long trying to understand it. It makes no sense. You can't prove it's not there, so you have to prove it's there before it's real...right? Well, what this is saying is that you cannot prove God isn't there, so you have to prove He IS there in order for Him to be real. THAT"S EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU. You cannot prove God isn't there, therefore it requires faith to believe that He isn't there, because faith is belief without proof. This "Logic behind Atheism" just worked against you. "3) If there is no proof something exists, then there is no reason to assume it exists. 4) There is no proof God exists. 5) There is no reason to accept God's existence as true. Q.E.D." Oh, oh, my turn! 1) If there is no proof that something does not exist, then there is no reason to assume it does not exist. 2) There is no proof that God does not exist. 3) Therefore there is no reason to accept Gods existence as false. The difference between your logical equation and mine is this: I provided proof. You did not. Like I said before, the burden of proof was on you the whole debate, and you provided none. I found that the best way to deal with your "logic" was to break it up. The first portion was a self contradiction, and the second could easily be turned around to work for my side. You "logic" is flawed, and is really not logic at all. our format was premise, conclusion, premise, premise, premise, and makes no sense at all. "But this debate rests solely on whether or not one can use only logic to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is not fact. I have demonstrated that it is. Therefore, atheism does not require faith." Your demonstration was flawed, and I have demonstrated that. Logic does not support Atheism. What you presented as logic proved to be contradictory to what you have argued this whole debate. Therefore Atheism requires faith. READ THE WHOLE DEBATE BEFORE VOTING PLEASE. Thanks, Renzzy | 0 | Renzzy |
"This debate is getting off-track. The topic is not atheism itself, but whether or not it is based on faith."
Actually it's not really. I argued that Atheism is not based on faith. Allow me to some up my argument: The Bible is historically accurate, and this is a proven fact.( http://www.christiancourier.com... )
The Bible is also proving its accuracy today through fulfilling prophecies. This is all obvious. The Prophecies that are being fulfilled were made by God. This is evidence of Gods existence. The Bible is historically accurate, God historically made prophecies in the Bible, these prophecies are being fulfilled. That was my argument; that there is proof of God. There, now you have the proof you were waiting for.
"Waiting for proof of absence is not agnosticism, unless one also thinks that proof is possible."
What you simply do not get is that ATHEISM IS DENIAL OF A GOD. Atheism = belief in no God. Atheists do not wait for evidence, they rebut evidence presented by Theists and present their own evidence. I, as a Theist, presented evidence for my position, and the burdon of proof was on your side the whole time. When you say that you're waiting for evidence, and do not present any yourself, you are not acting as an Atheist at all. As I have been telling you the whole time, you sound like an Agnostic.
Your argument concerning the Loch Ness monster is flawed, then, because when people conclude that there is no evidence for the loch ness monster, or that the evidence presented is not reliable, and choose not to believe in said creature they have faith. Why? Because there is no solid proof against the monster. If there is little to no evidence on both sides, both side require faith. Why? Because faith is believing something there is little or no evidence for. When it comes to Theism and Atheism, it is the same deal. There is little evidence on both sides, so both sides require faith. It's that simple.
"The prophecies you outlined are not proof of God's existence at all."
I have already addressed this.
"My argument is that if someone does not see ANY EVIDENCE of God's existence, and they then do not believe he exists, there is no faith involved."
Yes, there is faith involved. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION, so you are believing in a claim with no evidence supporting it. THAT REQUIRES SERIOUS FAITH. Let us go over the definition of faith one more time...
Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof
You have provided no proof, and therefore have faith BY DEFINITION.
"The simple answer to this is "I have no idea." [where the universes cam from]"
Wow. That takes faith. To believe that an all powerful God did not create the universe takes faith. If it did not come from a God for a reason, and it was not the Big Bang, then there is no explanation for where it came from. Thus you have no proof it came from nowhere, thus you have faith. No proof + belief = faith BY DEFINITION.
""God does not exist."
1) One cannot prove something does not exist.
2) Therefore, something must be proved to exist before it is considered "real.""
That is actually very confusing, and I have spent way too long trying to understand it. It makes no sense. You can't prove it's not there, so you have to prove it's there before it's real...right?
Well, what this is saying is that you cannot prove God isn't there, so you have to prove He IS there in order for Him to be real. THAT"S EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU. You cannot prove God isn't there, therefore it requires faith to believe that He isn't there, because faith is belief without proof. This "Logic behind Atheism" just worked against you.
"3) If there is no proof something exists, then there is no reason to assume it exists.
4) There is no proof God exists.
5) There is no reason to accept God's existence as true.
Q.E.D."
Oh, oh, my turn!
1) If there is no proof that something does not exist, then there is no reason to assume it does not exist.
2) There is no proof that God does not exist.
3) Therefore there is no reason to accept Gods existence as false.
The difference between your logical equation and mine is this: I provided proof. You did not. Like I said before, the burden of proof was on you the whole debate, and you provided none.
I found that the best way to deal with your "logic" was to break it up. The first portion was a self contradiction, and the second could easily be turned around to work for my side. You "logic" is flawed, and is really not logic at all. our format was premise, conclusion, premise, premise, premise, and makes no sense at all.
"But this debate rests solely on whether or not one can use only logic to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is not fact. I have demonstrated that it is. Therefore, atheism does not require faith."
Your demonstration was flawed, and I have demonstrated that. Logic does not support Atheism. What you presented as logic proved to be contradictory to what you have argued this whole debate. Therefore Atheism requires faith.
READ THE WHOLE DEBATE BEFORE VOTING PLEASE.
Thanks,
Renzzy | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-based-on-faith/1/ | 6,549 |
Thank you, Muted, for accepting this debate. 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. Therefore, terms such as the incarnation, Biblical errors, etc. are irrelevant for this debate. "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) Sources may be linked to inside the debate; however, no arguments can be placed in that page. (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 (5) Closing Statements - 1,000 character limit 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 |
Thank you, Muted, for accepting this debate.
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. Therefore, terms such as the incarnation, Biblical errors, etc. are irrelevant for this debate. "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) Sources may be linked to inside the debate; however, no arguments can be placed in that page. (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 (5) Closing Statements - 1,000 character limit 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.
| Religion | 0 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,587 |
A challenge often presented to Atheists from fundamentalist Christians or various Theists is that atheists have no proof there is no God; therefore it is another faith. Although we do not have the Burden of Proof, we can still put forth different types of reasoning to give a philosophical justification for an Atheological worldview. There are two main categories of evidence that can be used. I will divide my arguments up into different sections for these categories. The first is called evidential arguments. These are arguments that some facts about the world are cited as evidence against God's existence; for example, the large amount of suffering in the world or the argument from Biblical defects. These arguments carry the probabilistic conclusion that God does not exist; in other words, on balance of probability, it is more likely than not that God does not exist. Therefore, these arguments do not carry conclusive evidence that there is absolutely no God. The second is called logical evidence against God's existence. These are philosophical evidence which cites that either a) The proposition that God exists is logically incoherent in some way; or b) the concept of God is incoherent in some way. These type of evidence purports to conclusively demonstrate the fact of atheism based on logical incompatibility with the cited contingent facts about the world and the proposition that God exists. Part 1: The Evidential Evidence Against God's Existence Contention 1: Argument from Evil and Suffering The Problem of Evil cites the large number of suffering as evidence against his existence. In syllogism form, we have: If God exists, unjustified evil does not exist Unjustified evil does exist Therefore, God does not exist. The world is indeed full of unnecessary suffering and evil. When I say the word evil, I do not limit myself to just moral evil such as sin. Rather, I am referring to all types of calamity that can befall on humans (i.e., earthquakes, storms, floods) and the existence of mass suffering (i.e., famines, poverty, oppression, etc). I do not believe that Theists have a good answer for the Problem of Suffering and Evil. As Charles Brandlaugh argues [1]: "The existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block for the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. Evil is either caused by God or it exist independently; but it cannot be caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exists hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had a beginning or it must have been eternal, but according to the theist, it cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or outside God; but according to the theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good, and out of all goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the theist, God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity." For examples of disasters may include Hurricane Sandy, which left billions of dollars in damage and hundreds dead, or the Haitian earthquake that has left hundreds of people dead. Thousands of more examples can be noted. William Rowe points out [2]: Lightning strikes a tree in a forest, causing a forest fire. A fawn is caught in this fire, and suffers intense agony for an extended period of time before finally dying. (This has undoubtedly happened many times in the Earth's history.) A five year old girl is, by her mother's boyfriend, severely beaten, raped and strangled to death. [3] In conclusion, "Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to, or he cannot and does not want to, or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent; If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent; If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, how does evil exists?" [4] One final note: This does not disprove the existence of all God's; however, it is strong evidence against a God that is supposedly all loving , all-powerful, and all-knowing. Contention 2: The Argument from Demographics If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism make Atheism more plausible than Theism. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism. Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism. We can begin by making some simple observations: There are many more Muslims than Christians in Saudi Arabia;[5] There are many more Hindus in India than in the rest of the world[6]; and In the ancient world, every culture had its own mythology. In fact, these mythologies often contradicted each other and varied wildly.[7] This pattern is very surprising on the part of Theism. Why would God let such an important matter depend strongly upon the time and place of one's birth? In fact, atheism explains these demographics better. If God does not exist, then religions are but elaborate social constructions. Therefore, we would predict that the demographics would obey the contours of history and geographic similar to other beliefs and ideologies. This is, in fact, what we observe. Part II: Logical Arguments Contention 3: Incoherence of God The standard definition of "God" is largely incoherent. According to the National Catholic Almanac, there are 22 attributes of "God"[8]: "[A]lmighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true. At least two of the above attributes (incomprehensible and ineffable) contradict the others. How can the other attributes of God be known if he can be neither understood nor described? If God has free-will, as some Christians believe that he does, then how can he know everything? These are some of the attributes of God that are logically incompatible; thus making the Theist God impossible. So "[t]hus the characteristics of God as supplied by Christian theologians (and other theologians) are nothing more than meaningless and contradictory concepts wrapped in theological garb."[9] Conclusions The mainstream concept of God is logically impossible; The problem of evil is proof positive for the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God; The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism; and Theism does not have a good explanation for the problems of suffering and the arguments for Atheism. [1] Bradlaugh, Humanity's Gain From Unbelief: p28-29. Quoted in Tobin, P. (2000) " The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Skeptic's Guide to Christianity ." [2] As Presented in a debate between WriterDave and SuburbiaSurvivor <URL>... ... [3] This is taken from an instance in Flint, Michigan in 1986 [4] This is the famous Epicurus Dilemma from Aphorisms of Epicurus (c300BC). [5] 99% of Saudi Arabia are Muslims. <URL>... ... [6] 80% of India are Hindus. <URL>... ... [7] See <URL>... some of the world's myths. [8] Quoted in Smith, G. Atheism: The Case Against God [9] Tobin, P. The Rejection of Pascal's Wager | 0 | Microsuck |
A challenge often presented to Atheists from fundamentalist Christians or various Theists is that atheists have no proof there is no God; therefore it is another faith. Although we do not have the Burden of Proof, we can still put forth different types of reasoning to give a philosophical justification for an Atheological worldview. There are two main categories of evidence that can be used. I will divide my arguments up into different sections for these categories. The first is called evidential arguments. These are arguments that some facts about the world are cited as evidence against God's existence; for example, the large amount of suffering in the world or the argument from Biblical defects. These arguments carry the probabilistic conclusion that God does not exist; in other words, on balance of probability, it is more likely than not that God does not exist. Therefore, these arguments do not carry conclusive evidence that there is absolutely no God. The second is called logical evidence against God's existence. These are philosophical evidence which cites that either a) The proposition that God exists is logically incoherent in some way; or b) the concept of God is incoherent in some way. These type of evidence purports to conclusively demonstrate the fact of atheism based on logical incompatibility with the cited contingent facts about the world and the proposition that God exists.
Part 1: The Evidential Evidence Against God’s Existence Contention 1: Argument from Evil and Suffering
The Problem of Evil cites the large number of suffering as evidence against his existence. In syllogism form, we have:
If God exists, unjustified evil does not exist
Unjustified evil does exist
Therefore, God does not exist.
The world is indeed full of unnecessary suffering and evil. When I say the word evil, I do not limit myself to just moral evil such as sin. Rather, I am referring to all types of calamity that can befall on humans (i.e., earthquakes, storms, floods) and the existence of mass suffering (i.e., famines, poverty, oppression, etc). I do not believe that Theists have a good answer for the Problem of Suffering and Evil. As Charles Brandlaugh argues [1]:
“The existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block for the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. Evil is either caused by God or it exist independently; but it cannot be caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exists hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had a beginning or it must have been eternal, but according to the theist, it cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or outside God; but according to the theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good, and out of all goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the theist, God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity.”
For examples of disasters may include Hurricane Sandy, which left billions of dollars in damage and hundreds dead, or the Haitian earthquake that has left hundreds of people dead. Thousands of more examples can be noted.
William Rowe points out [2]:
Lightning strikes a tree in a forest, causing a forest fire. A fawn is caught in this fire, and suffers intense agony for an extended period of time before finally dying. (This has undoubtedly happened many times in the Earth's history.) A five year old girl is, by her mother's boyfriend, severely beaten, raped and strangled to death. [3]
In conclusion,
“Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to, or he cannot and does not want to, or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent; If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent; If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, how does evil exists?” [4]
One final note: This does not disprove the existence of all God’s; however, it is strong evidence against a God that is supposedly all loving , all-powerful, and all-knowing.
Contention 2: The Argument from Demographics
If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism make Atheism more plausible than Theism.
The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism.
Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism.
We can begin by making some simple observations:
There are many more Muslims than Christians in Saudi Arabia;[5]
There are many more Hindus in India than in the rest of the world[6]; and
In the ancient world, every culture had its own mythology. In fact, these mythologies often contradicted each other and varied wildly.[7]
This pattern is very surprising on the part of Theism. Why would God let such an important matter depend strongly upon the time and place of one’s birth? In fact, atheism explains these demographics better. If God does not exist, then religions are but elaborate social constructions. Therefore, we would predict that the demographics would obey the contours of history and geographic similar to other beliefs and ideologies. This is, in fact, what we observe.
Part II: Logical Arguments Contention 3: Incoherence of God
The standard definition of “God” is largely incoherent. According to the National Catholic Almanac, there are 22 attributes of “God”[8]:
“[A]lmighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true.
At least two of the above attributes (incomprehensible and ineffable) contradict the others. How can the other attributes of God be known if he can be neither understood nor described? If God has free-will, as some Christians believe that he does, then how can he know everything? These are some of the attributes of God that are logically incompatible; thus making the Theist God impossible. So “[t]hus the characteristics of God as supplied by Christian theologians (and other theologians) are nothing more than meaningless and contradictory concepts wrapped in theological garb.”[9]
Conclusions
The mainstream concept of God is logically impossible;
The problem of evil is proof positive for the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God;
The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism; and
Theism does not have a good explanation for the problems of suffering and the arguments for Atheism.
[1] Bradlaugh, Humanity's Gain From Unbelief: p28-29. Quoted in Tobin, P. (2000) “ The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: The Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity .”
[2] As Presented in a debate between WriterDave and SuburbiaSurvivor http://debate.org... ...
[3] This is taken from an instance in Flint, Michigan in 1986
[4] This is the famous Epicurus Dilemma from Aphorisms of Epicurus (c300BC).
[5] 99% of Saudi Arabia are Muslims. http://www.state.gov... ...
[6] 80% of India are Hindus. http://censusindia.gov.in... ...
[7] See http://www.mythweb.com... some of the world’s myths.
[8] Quoted in Smith, G. Atheism: The Case Against God
[9] Tobin, P. The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager
| Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,588 |
Thank you for accepting this debate and I am looking forward to the rest of the debate. I should point out that this past round was for opening statements only and rebuttals should begin in this round. Moreover, the burden of proof is shared, so in the next reply, please present your arguments in favour of God's existence. Part 1: Evidential Arguments Contention 1: Evil and Suffering My opponent's sole response is the argument from free will. However, the argument is lacking and unconvincing. Paul Tobin argues [1]: But the free will explanation cannot even satisfactorily explain moral evil. If God is all powerful, he could have created all man with free will and with a predisposition towards doing good. But according to the same theologians, man is sinful by nature, with a predisposition for doing bad. God's action in giving man free-will and at the same time giving him a predisposition towards doing bad is no different morally from a man who drinks, on purpose, in front of a recently reformed alcoholic! If we describe such a man as irresponsible and immoral, why do we persist in calling such a God good? The abstraction "man" used above is also misleading. All of mankind have free-will; some, a small minority, some men-and women-, chose evil and rob, kill, cheat and maim. Are the more numerous victims to be consoled by saying that this is a consequence of their (the victims) having free will? In other words, are the innocent victims somehow responsible for the crimes on themselves because they have free will? The right to be protected from crimes is basic for all citizens in the world; any government that fails to deliver a reasonable amount of protection from these would be condemned and duly removed from power. Yet somehow it is okay for the all powerful God to give men free will and allow them to suffer the consequences from the minority who misuse it. To say that all will be rectified in the afterlife where the good will be rewarded in heaven and the bad will be punished in hell does not resolve the issue. As George H. Smith observes: [N]o appeal to an afterlife can actually eradicate the problem of evil. An injustice always remains an injustice, regardless of any subsequent effort to comfort the victim. If a father, after beating his child unmercifully, later gives him a lollipop as compensation, this does not eradicate the original act or its evil nature. Nor would we praise the father as just and loving. Yet, this is exactly what the Judeo-Christians claims their God to do. He allows the faithful to suffer (remember Job!) and later rewards them. This God cannot, by any moral yardstick, be called good. My opponent argues because the fall of man affected all of creation, it can therefore explain natural evil. However, that too is unconvincing. Why should we suffer for the sins of Adam? My opponent brings up a Biblical verse to prove that point; namely, Adam's sin affected all of Creation. However, Ezekiel 18:20 states this: The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. If this were to be true, why are so many pepole suffering for Adam's sin? Contention 2: Demographics Please do forgive me, but I cannot make out what you are trying to argue. I do not see what your argument is. Please expand on it in the next rebuttal round. Part II: Logical Arguments Contention 3: Argument from Incoherence My opponent's reply is a non-answer. I never stated God must be defined by one word. By incoherence, I don't mean that the definition of God is incoherent, rather I mean it is impossible: like a square circle. I gave two attributes of God that are contradictory: Free will and Omnipotent; and Incomprehendible versus Indescribable. I await your reply. References 1. Tobin, P. (2000) " The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Skeptic's Guide to Christianity." | 0 | Microsuck |
Thank you for accepting this debate and I am looking forward to the rest of the debate. I should point out that this past round was for opening statements only and rebuttals should begin in this round. Moreover, the burden of proof is shared, so in the next reply, please present your arguments in favour of God's existence. Part 1: Evidential Arguments Contention 1: Evil and Suffering My opponent's sole response is the argument from free will. However, the argument is lacking and unconvincing. Paul Tobin argues [1]:
But the free will explanation cannot even satisfactorily explain moral evil. If God is all powerful, he could have created all man with free will and with a predisposition towards doing good. But according to the same theologians, man is sinful by nature, with a predisposition for doing bad. God's action in giving man free-will and at the same time giving him a predisposition towards doing bad is no different morally from a man who drinks, on purpose, in front of a recently reformed alcoholic! If we describe such a man as irresponsible and immoral, why do we persist in calling such a God good?
The abstraction “man” used above is also misleading. All of mankind have free-will; some, a small minority, some men-and women-, chose evil and rob, kill, cheat and maim. Are the more numerous victims to be consoled by saying that this is a consequence of their (the victims) having free will? In other words, are the innocent victims somehow responsible for the crimes on themselves because they have free will? The right to be protected from crimes is basic for all citizens in the world; any government that fails to deliver a reasonable amount of protection from these would be condemned and duly removed from power. Yet somehow it is okay for the all powerful God to give men free will and allow them to suffer the consequences from the minority who misuse it. To say that all will be rectified in the afterlife where the good will be rewarded in heaven and the bad will be punished in hell does not resolve the issue. As George H. Smith observes:
[N]o appeal to an afterlife can actually eradicate the problem of evil. An injustice always remains an injustice, regardless of any subsequent effort to comfort the victim. If a father, after beating his child unmercifully, later gives him a lollipop as compensation, this does not eradicate the original act or its evil nature. Nor would we praise the father as just and loving.
Yet, this is exactly what the Judeo-Christians claims their God to do. He allows the faithful to suffer (remember Job!) and later rewards them. This God cannot, by any moral yardstick, be called good.
My opponent argues because the fall of man affected all of creation, it can therefore explain natural evil. However, that too is unconvincing. Why should we suffer for the sins of Adam? My opponent brings up a Biblical verse to prove that point; namely, Adam's sin affected all of Creation. However, Ezekiel 18:20 states this: The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. If this were to be true, why are so many pepole suffering for Adam's sin? Contention 2: Demographics Please do forgive me, but I cannot make out what you are trying to argue. I do not see what your argument is. Please expand on it in the next rebuttal round. Part II: Logical Arguments Contention 3: Argument from Incoherence My opponent's reply is a non-answer. I never stated God must be defined by one word. By incoherence, I don't mean that the definition of God is incoherent, rather I mean it is impossible: like a square circle. I gave two attributes of God that are contradictory: Free will and Omnipotent; and Incomprehendible versus Indescribable. I await your reply. References 1. Tobin, P. (2000) " The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Skeptic's Guide to Christianity." | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,589 |
Thank you for your swift response. I have been super busy this weekend with work and school. As such, I may not be able to get all of my arguments in. Therefore, I will focus most on your argument for God's existence. Part I: Response to Opponent's Arguments for God's Existence Rebuttal A: Moral Argument for God's Existence My opponent's sole opening argument for God's existence is the moral argument; namely, if there is evil, then there must be some moral code to live by. In logical syllogism form, we have this: Premise 1: If objective moral facts exists, then God exists. Premise 2: Objective moral facts exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. To refute this, I wish to bring something that has been presented long ago: " Is the holy loved by gods because it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods? " This is called the Euthyphro's Dilemma. We can put the Euthyphro's Dilemma in logical syllogism format: Either: The Good is willed by God because it is the Good. The Good is the Good because it is willed by God. If (1a) is true, then the Good is independent of God's will. If (2) is true, then God did not create the Good, and is not Creator. If (1b) is true, then the Good is contingent and subjective (to God's will). If (4) is true, then there is no objective standard of morality, and the absolute of value-selection is false. The standard response (at least the response I have seen) is that it is a false dichotomy: the third option would be that it is subjected to God's nature . However, this too is subject to the same dilemma, as Michael Martin notes: [A]ppealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? [2] Secondly, this does not automatically follow that God exists. In order for my opponent's argument to be sound, my opponent MUST show: 1) That there are objective moral facts; and 2) These facts must have come from God. It is logically possible for there to be no morality. In this case, it appears that this is an undesirable case; however, we see the wishful thinking in the logical format: If god does not exist, condition A follows. Condition A is undesirable. One should not believe in undesirable conditions. Third, what role does God play in morality? As Grant Petersen notes [4]: Problem of subjectivity : Who is to say that god's perception of right and wrong is superior to anyone else's? With no guarantee that objective morality even exists (philosophers are still arguing about that one) could one be sure that god's opinion is not any less subjective than yours or mine? Problem of displaced subjectivity : The god theory does not effectively refute any of the arguments against objective morality, it simply passes the buck. Humans disagree on moral questions, so why not invoke gods? What if the gods disagree among themselves, would they, in turn, appeal to super-gods? And what about the super-gods? It seems a bit like an infinite pile of turtles. Problem of circular reasoning : Define god as the only possible source of objective morality. Then assume that objective morality exists. Use this as "proof" that god exists. Problem of interpretation : Assume for a moment that god's morals are, in fact, superior to human morals: how is one to determine what those morals or values consist of? Some ancient writings and the somewhat dubious interpretations of priests, etc., are all that we have to go on. Even if god knows what is morally right or wrong, the fact that we do not know what he knows makes the point moot. Problem of numerous gods : Through the ages there have been many different religions with many different gods, all of which seemed to have somewhat differing opinions about morality, ranging from human sacrifice to cannibalism. Which one was right? Sounds pretty subjective to me. Finally, altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice-all of those things that hold society together - can now be confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. Morality evolved ... as a form of social control, conflict resolution and group cohesion. [4] Without such, society as a whole cannot exist. I hope I have managed to, at the very least, cast doubt on the moral argument for God's existence and to convince the reader that God is not necessary for morality. The fact of the matter is that we can explain morality from a natural standpoint (we can debate this next, if you would like); moreover, I feel that with the Euthyphro's Dilemma, the argument is immediately refuted with the fact that the argument is logically fallacious. Once again, I apologize for these short statements and I apologize for not responding sooner. I will allow you in the next round to defend only your opening statements; please do not add anything to it or rebut my opening arguments further. If you would like, we may amend the 5th round to include VERY BRIEF defenses and polishes on our statements. I bounch it back to you. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ References 1. <URL>... ; 2. <URL>... ; 3. Tobin, P. (2000). " The Rejection of Pascal's Wager ." | 0 | Microsuck |
Thank you for your swift response. I have been super busy this weekend with work and school. As such, I may not be able to get all of my arguments in. Therefore, I will focus most on your argument for God's existence. Part I: Response to Opponent's Arguments for God's Existence Rebuttal A: Moral Argument for God's Existence My opponent's sole opening argument for God's existence is the moral argument; namely, if there is evil, then there must be some moral code to live by. In logical syllogism form, we have this: Premise 1: If objective moral facts exists, then God exists. Premise 2: Objective moral facts exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. To refute this, I wish to bring something that has been presented long ago: " Is the holy loved by gods because it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods? " This is called the Euthyphro's Dilemma. We can put the Euthyphro's Dilemma in logical syllogism format:
Either:
The Good is willed by God because it is the Good.
The Good is the Good because it is willed by God.
If (1a) is true, then the Good is independent of God’s will.
If (2) is true, then God did not create the Good, and is not Creator.
If (1b) is true, then the Good is contingent and subjective (to God’s will).
If (4) is true, then there is no objective standard of morality, and the absolute of value-selection is false.
The standard response (at least the response I have seen) is that it is a false dichotomy: the third option would be that it is subjected to God's nature . However, this too is subject to the same dilemma, as Michael Martin notes: [A]ppealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? [2] Secondly, this does not automatically follow that God exists. In order for my opponent's argument to be sound, my opponent MUST show: 1) That there are objective moral facts; and 2) These facts must have come from God. It is logically possible for there to be no morality. In this case, it appears that this is an undesirable case; however, we see the wishful thinking in the logical format:
If god does not exist, condition A follows.
Condition A is undesirable.
One should not believe in undesirable conditions.
Third, what role does God play in morality? As Grant Petersen notes [4]:
Problem of subjectivity : Who is to say that god's perception of right and wrong is superior to anyone else's? With no guarantee that objective morality even exists (philosophers are still arguing about that one) could one be sure that god's opinion is not any less subjective than yours or mine?
Problem of displaced subjectivity : The god theory does not effectively refute any of the arguments against objective morality, it simply passes the buck. Humans disagree on moral questions, so why not invoke gods? What if the gods disagree among themselves, would they, in turn, appeal to super-gods? And what about the super-gods? It seems a bit like an infinite pile of turtles.
Problem of circular reasoning : Define god as the only possible source of objective morality. Then assume that objective morality exists. Use this as "proof" that god exists.
Problem of interpretation : Assume for a moment that god's morals are, in fact, superior to human morals: how is one to determine what those morals or values consist of? Some ancient writings and the somewhat dubious interpretations of priests, etc., are all that we have to go on. Even if god knows what is morally right or wrong, the fact that we do not know what he knows makes the point moot.
Problem of numerous gods : Through the ages there have been many different religions with many different gods, all of which seemed to have somewhat differing opinions about morality, ranging from human sacrifice to cannibalism. Which one was right? Sounds pretty subjective to me.
Finally, altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice-all of those things that hold society together - can now be confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. Morality evolved … as a form of social control, conflict resolution and group cohesion. [4] Without such, society as a whole cannot exist. I hope I have managed to, at the very least, cast doubt on the moral argument for God's existence and to convince the reader that God is not necessary for morality. The fact of the matter is that we can explain morality from a natural standpoint (we can debate this next, if you would like); moreover, I feel that with the Euthyphro's Dilemma, the argument is immediately refuted with the fact that the argument is logically fallacious. Once again, I apologize for these short statements and I apologize for not responding sooner. I will allow you in the next round to defend only your opening statements; please do not add anything to it or rebut my opening arguments further. If you would like, we may amend the 5th round to include VERY BRIEF defenses and polishes on our statements. I bounch it back to you. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ References 1. http://www.strongatheism.net... ; 2. http://www.infidels.org... ; 3. Tobin, P. (2000). " The Rejection of Pascal's Wager ."
| Religion | 3 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,590 |
Thank you for this debate. As per the rules, these are my closing statements. I believe that I have casted doubts on the existence of YHWH God. I do not believe that my opponent adaquetly responded to my arguments and did not adaquetly refute my argument against the moral argument for God's existence. I do not have time for a full closing statements, so I'll leave it at this: Happy thanksgiving to everyone and I thank Muted for this fun debate. Vote pro. | 0 | Microsuck |
Thank you for this debate. As per the rules, these are my closing statements. I believe that I have casted doubts on the existence of YHWH God. I do not believe that my opponent adaquetly responded to my arguments and did not adaquetly refute my argument against the moral argument for God's existence. I do not have time for a full closing statements, so I'll leave it at this: Happy thanksgiving to everyone and I thank Muted for this fun debate. Vote pro. | Religion | 4 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,591 |
Firstly I would like to thank Microsuck for beginning this debate. However, all his arguments only work if it is against the Christian God. As we are not arguing for any specific deity, however, I could chose to advocate the human-blood-thirsting Inca god, or aphrodites, or any of them. However, I would not. Instead I will respond to the arguments. Part 1: Contention 1: Evil and suffering This argument centers around pity for the anecdotes. The problem of evil is actually easily addressed. Plantinga has pointed out that we have a morally significant free will. This accounts for all the unnecessary human suffering caused by other humans. This, however, does not clearly explain natural calamities. But wait, it does. Under the Judeo-Christian theology, man has dominion over all the rest of Creation, this means that when Adam and Eve sinned, the whole of creation would suffer for it (See Romans 8:19ff). Contention 2: Demographics I will copy from the blog post which I assume you know of. "I would point out that the syllogism presented has no logical basis because its premises are false and it is badly structured. So why is it"s premises false? This is because theism is prevalent, which is not what is expected if there was no deity. (I view Islam as a perversion of Judaism) Furthermore, archeology supports the notion that monotheism came before theism. This cannot be explained if atheism is true, because why one god before more? The more gods the merrier eh? "According to Stephen Langdon of Oxford, "the history of the oldest civilization of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits." Arthur C. Custance makes explanation as follows: "When the cuneiform literature first began to reveal its message, scholars of cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics soon found themselves dealing with a tremendous number of gods and goddesses, and demons and other spiritual powers of a lesser sort, which seemed to be always at war with one another and much of the time highly destructive. As earlier and earlier tablets, however, began to be excavated and brought to light, and skill in deciphering them increased, the first picture of gross polytheism began to be replaced by something more nearly approaching a hierarchy of spiritual beings organized into a kind of court with one Supreme Being over all." Langton: "The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of pictographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited." According to historical evidence, the same pattern is found in Egypt, India, China and Greece. Henry C. Thiessen writes: "The first departure from monotheism seems to have been in the direction of nature worship. Sun, moon, and stars, the great representatives of nature, and fire, air, and water, the great representatives of earth, became objects of popular worship. At the first they were merely personified; then men came to believe that personal beings presided over them. Polytheism has a strong affinity for fallen human nature." Custance: "it may safely be said without the slightest hesitation that monotheism never evolved out of polytheism in any part of the world"s earliest history for which we have documentary evidence." [1]" Part II: Contention 3: Incoherence The basic theology behind this is that God cannot be fully defined by one word. God is a concept beyond the descriptive ability of words. Even the list given is not complete, simply because each word is too limiting. It is thus no incoherence at all, but difficult to comprehend theology. 1. <URL>... | 0 | Muted |
Firstly I would like to thank Microsuck for beginning this debate. However, all his arguments only work if it is against the Christian God. As we are not arguing for any specific deity, however, I could chose to advocate the human-blood-thirsting Inca god, or aphrodites, or any of them. However, I would not. Instead I will respond to the arguments.
Part 1:
Contention 1: Evil and suffering
This argument centers around pity for the anecdotes. The problem of evil is actually easily addressed. Plantinga has pointed out that we have a morally significant free will. This accounts for all the unnecessary human suffering caused by other humans. This, however, does not clearly explain natural calamities. But wait, it does. Under the Judeo-Christian theology, man has dominion over all the rest of Creation, this means that when Adam and Eve sinned, the whole of creation would suffer for it (See Romans 8:19ff).
Contention 2: Demographics
I will copy from the blog post which I assume you know of.
"I would point out that the syllogism presented has no logical basis because its premises are false and it is badly structured.
So why is it"s premises false? This is because theism is prevalent, which is not what is expected if there was no deity. (I view Islam as a perversion of Judaism) Furthermore, archeology supports the notion that monotheism came before theism. This cannot be explained if atheism is true, because why one god before more? The more gods the merrier eh?
"According to Stephen Langdon of Oxford, "the history of the oldest civilization of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits."
Arthur C. Custance makes explanation as follows:
"When the cuneiform literature first began to reveal its message, scholars of cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics soon found themselves dealing with a tremendous number of gods and goddesses, and demons and other spiritual powers of a lesser sort, which seemed to be always at war with one another and much of the time highly destructive. As earlier and earlier tablets, however, began to be excavated and brought to light, and skill in deciphering them increased, the first picture of gross polytheism began to be replaced by something more nearly approaching a hierarchy of spiritual beings organized into a kind of court with one Supreme Being over all."
Langton: "The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of pictographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited."
According to historical evidence, the same pattern is found in Egypt, India, China and Greece. Henry C. Thiessen writes: "The first departure from monotheism seems to have been in the direction of nature worship. Sun, moon, and stars, the great representatives of nature, and fire, air, and water, the great representatives of earth, became objects of popular worship. At the first they were merely personified; then men came to believe that personal beings presided over them. Polytheism has a strong affinity for fallen human nature."
Custance: "it may safely be said without the slightest hesitation that monotheism never evolved out of polytheism in any part of the world"s earliest history for which we have documentary evidence." [1]"
Part II:
Contention 3: Incoherence
The basic theology behind this is that God cannot be fully defined by one word. God is a concept beyond the descriptive ability of words. Even the list given is not complete, simply because each word is too limiting. It is thus no incoherence at all, but difficult to comprehend theology.
1. http://creation.com... | Religion | 1 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,592 |
My apologies, Microsuck, I did not realize I had a BoP or that I was not supposed to refute your arguments in the first round. That being said, I will reply to your arguments first, and then add my arguments. Contention 1 I will not reply to your objection to the free will argument until you phrase it in your own words. (Our two quotations differ in intent. Mine was to give evidence, yours is to make an argument) As to your opposition to the fall of man affecting all of creation, I said that it is the result of an ongoing punishment. (Paraphrase) I meant that it is then the CONSEQUENCE visited upon the children of Adam, rather than the punishment itself being dealt out to Adam"s descendents. This is because the punishment upon Adam was so great that the consequence were far-reaching. I acknowledge that my phrasing and wording in the previous round led directly to this seeming contradiction. That was my fault. (See [1]) (Consequences and punishments are different) Contention 2: My apologies for the vagueness. I will expand on them. I gave historical evidence in the above round, but I failed to explain it. I will do so here. From the evidence given, we know that monotheism led to polytheism. This brings us to the question (and this is an argument for theism), How did man get such a concept? Is it the result of a "god spot"? Well, despite years of searching for such, none has been found. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there is no god spot. From this it is easy to see that there is only one other possibility. This other possibility is that there really was a (singular) theo who revealed himself to man. This is actually quite easy to understand. However, what about all the different gods? (This being all the different monotheistic gods) It is clear that there is actually not much difference between Allah and Yahweh. So the question that must be asked is "which is the perversion of which?" (I"m not wanting to offend anyone here) Not, "Can we discard theo because there seems to be a contradiction?" I hope this explains it. Contention 3 I do not understand how incomprehensible and indescribable are contradictory to each other. Neither do I see how omnipotence and free will can contradict. I absolutely do not understand you here. I"m sorry (I searched up the definitions, I don"t find any contradictions). Please revise and give explanations that does not contradict my previous argument, since you don"t dispute that. So now I will go to arguments for God. Besides the one above. I will only use one other argument because you"ll only have one other round to refute me. (My bad.) Therefore I"ll have two arguments. The presence of evil [2] If there is evil, then there must be some sort of moral code by which Theo is being compared to. Now we know that moral codes are not material, and if they were just the result of chemical reactions, you would have no basis on which to raise the argument of the problem of evil. How do we know what is evil and what is not? There is an innate moral rule in each of us. That is an observation. Do we feel guilt when we violate this code? Yes we do. This brings us to the only logical conclusion of a higher morality. The only higher morality that can logically exist is the Judeo-Christian God. Now that I"m running out of time, I"ll pass back to you. 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... | 0 | Muted |
My apologies, Microsuck, I did not realize I had a BoP or that I was not supposed to refute your arguments in the first round. That being said, I will reply to your arguments first, and then add my arguments.
Contention 1
I will not reply to your objection to the free will argument until you phrase it in your own words. (Our two quotations differ in intent. Mine was to give evidence, yours is to make an argument)
As to your opposition to the fall of man affecting all of creation, I said that it is the result of an ongoing punishment. (Paraphrase) I meant that it is then the CONSEQUENCE visited upon the children of Adam, rather than the punishment itself being dealt out to Adam"s descendents. This is because the punishment upon Adam was so great that the consequence were far-reaching. I acknowledge that my phrasing and wording in the previous round led directly to this seeming contradiction. That was my fault. (See [1]) (Consequences and punishments are different)
Contention 2:
My apologies for the vagueness. I will expand on them. I gave historical evidence in the above round, but I failed to explain it. I will do so here.
From the evidence given, we know that monotheism led to polytheism. This brings us to the question (and this is an argument for theism), How did man get such a concept? Is it the result of a "god spot"? Well, despite years of searching for such, none has been found. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there is no god spot.
From this it is easy to see that there is only one other possibility. This other possibility is that there really was a (singular) theo who revealed himself to man. This is actually quite easy to understand. However, what about all the different gods? (This being all the different monotheistic gods) It is clear that there is actually not much difference between Allah and Yahweh. So the question that must be asked is "which is the perversion of which?" (I"m not wanting to offend anyone here) Not, "Can we discard theo because there seems to be a contradiction?"
I hope this explains it.
Contention 3
I do not understand how incomprehensible and indescribable are contradictory to each other. Neither do I see how omnipotence and free will can contradict. I absolutely do not understand you here. I"m sorry (I searched up the definitions, I don"t find any contradictions). Please revise and give explanations that does not contradict my previous argument, since you don"t dispute that.
So now I will go to arguments for God. Besides the one above. I will only use one other argument because you"ll only have one other round to refute me. (My bad.) Therefore I"ll have two arguments.
The presence of evil [2]
If there is evil, then there must be some sort of moral code by which Theo is being compared to. Now we know that moral codes are not material, and if they were just the result of chemical reactions, you would have no basis on which to raise the argument of the problem of evil. How do we know what is evil and what is not? There is an innate moral rule in each of us. That is an observation. Do we feel guilt when we violate this code? Yes we do. This brings us to the only logical conclusion of a higher morality. The only higher morality that can logically exist is the Judeo-Christian God.
Now that I"m running out of time, I"ll pass back to you.
1. http://www.apologeticspress.org...
2. http://www.str.org... | Religion | 2 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,593 |
As my opponent has to drop all of his arguments, I too will focus only on my own arguments. In this, I will point out that my opponent has an incomplete reference 4. So I will defend my arguments here. Firstly, I will put to rest the idea of "genetic basis-hence evolved. Hence no God." 1. We have no evidence that it evolved. A common ancestor is only just as plausible as a common designer, with none of the intelligence. 2. It goes against evolutionary philosophy. This is because survival of the fittest prohibits that which is weak from reproducing more than that of the strong. There is thus no need for, and no selective pressure. 3. Even if morality evolved, the possibility that a God placed it there is actually very great. 4. Finally, all the qualities you have listed are NOT qualities of morality. It is aspects of emotion. Euthyphro's Dilemma: This indeed is a false dichotomy. And because you did not phrase it in such a way as to protect against the "delaying," I still can use it. Since you have already yourself answered the first portion, I will move on to the second portion. The question of God and good. [1] (Since you quoted from Martin, I will quote from Koukl) "Socrates' challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is "good"? It doesn't help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to. If the word "good" means "in accord with the nature and character of God," we have a problem. When the Bible says "God is good," it simply means "God has the nature and character that God has." If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement "God is good" means nothing more than "God is God," a useless tautology. The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another..., there are not two things, but one... According to Christian teaching, God is not good in the same way that a bachelor is an unmarried male. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It's an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology." So the question arises (and I"m taking ideas from 1"s next section), how do we know what is good? Well, there is a simple answer to this, moral intuition. As I mentioned earlier, this is a good argument for the existence of a God, and it cannot be explained naturalistically. Without the Christian God, moral terms are incoherent and our intuition is a nothing. So I have addressed the issue of whether God exist or not. The syllogism regarding conditions and god have nothing to do with my arguments. I will thus not refute it. (My arguments are not based on emotion) I will address each of the points made by Peterson in detail. Points 1, 2, and 5 are only useful against a religion with numerous gods. They fail thoroughly against the Christian God, and I don"t think I need to explain why. Point 3: As I said above, objective morality in some form exist. This is not an assumption. Logical reasoning would make clear that objective morality must have originated from a higher power, even highest. This does not prove the existence of a god. However, it is a strong indicator. Point 4: This assumes that the divine is unable to interact with humans. This point is mute in the case of the Judeo-Christian God. Now that I have answered fully all of Pro"s objections. I would like to agree to the amendment proposed. Say around 3k characters? So in conclusion, my arguments are not logically fallacious, morality is not naturalistically explicable, and some of your counters don"t even fit the God I"m advocating. 1. <URL>... | 0 | Muted |
As my opponent has to drop all of his arguments, I too will focus only on my own arguments. In this, I will point out that my opponent has an incomplete reference 4.
So I will defend my arguments here. Firstly, I will put to rest the idea of "genetic basis-hence evolved. Hence no God."
1. We have no evidence that it evolved. A common ancestor is only just as plausible as a common designer, with none of the intelligence.
2. It goes against evolutionary philosophy. This is because survival of the fittest prohibits that which is weak from reproducing more than that of the strong. There is thus no need for, and no selective pressure.
3. Even if morality evolved, the possibility that a God placed it there is actually very great.
4. Finally, all the qualities you have listed are NOT qualities of morality. It is aspects of emotion.
Euthyphro's Dilemma:
This indeed is a false dichotomy. And because you did not phrase it in such a way as to protect against the "delaying," I still can use it. Since you have already yourself answered the first portion, I will move on to the second portion. The question of God and good.
[1] (Since you quoted from Martin, I will quote from Koukl) "Socrates' challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is "good"? It doesn't help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to.
If the word "good" means "in accord with the nature and character of God," we have a problem. When the Bible says "God is good," it simply means "God has the nature and character that God has." If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement "God is good" means nothing more than "God is God," a useless tautology.
The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another..., there are not two things, but one...
According to Christian teaching, God is not good in the same way that a bachelor is an unmarried male. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It's an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology."
So the question arises (and I"m taking ideas from 1"s next section), how do we know what is good? Well, there is a simple answer to this, moral intuition. As I mentioned earlier, this is a good argument for the existence of a God, and it cannot be explained naturalistically. Without the Christian God, moral terms are incoherent and our intuition is a nothing.
So I have addressed the issue of whether God exist or not. The syllogism regarding conditions and god have nothing to do with my arguments. I will thus not refute it. (My arguments are not based on emotion)
I will address each of the points made by Peterson in detail.
Points 1, 2, and 5 are only useful against a religion with numerous gods. They fail thoroughly against the Christian God, and I don"t think I need to explain why.
Point 3: As I said above, objective morality in some form exist. This is not an assumption. Logical reasoning would make clear that objective morality must have originated from a higher power, even highest. This does not prove the existence of a god. However, it is a strong indicator.
Point 4: This assumes that the divine is unable to interact with humans. This point is mute in the case of the Judeo-Christian God.
Now that I have answered fully all of Pro"s objections. I would like to agree to the amendment proposed. Say around 3k characters?
So in conclusion, my arguments are not logically fallacious, morality is not naturalistically explicable, and some of your counters don"t even fit the God I"m advocating.
1. http://www.str.org... | Religion | 3 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,594 |
I would like to wish everyone happy thanksgiving and leave it now to the voters. | 0 | Muted |
I would like to wish everyone happy thanksgiving and leave it now to the voters. | Religion | 4 | Atheism-is-more-probable-than-Theism./2/ | 6,595 |
If you are a qualifying Theist who wishes to be part of this serious Atheism vs. Theism debate, please except. I wish for this to be a serious debate. If you cannot comply with my rules or commit to this debate, do not accept. Here are some rules: 1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used at all time. 2. All sources, if any, must be cited. 3. Take this debate seriously. Rounds: Round 1: Acceptance only. Round 2: Arguments only. Round 3: First rebuttals Round 4: Second rebuttals and conclusion. I would now like to give some definitions as to what I will be refering to when I say 'Atheism' and 'Theism'. Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to Atheism) I look forward to this debate and hope to only debate someone who is serious about debating this topic. <URL>... ... <URL>... ... | 0 | jamccartney |
If you are a qualifying Theist who wishes to be part of this serious Atheism vs. Theism debate, please except. I wish for this to be a serious debate. If you cannot comply with my rules or commit to this debate, do not accept. Here are some rules: 1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used at all time. 2. All sources, if any, must be cited. 3. Take this debate seriously. Rounds: Round 1: Acceptance only. Round 2: Arguments only. Round 3: First rebuttals Round 4: Second rebuttals and conclusion. I would now like to give some definitions as to what I will be refering to when I say 'Atheism' and 'Theism'. Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to Atheism) I look forward to this debate and hope to only debate someone who is serious about debating this topic. http://dictionary.reference.com... ... http://dictionary.reference.com... ... | Religion | 0 | Atheism-vs.-Theism/1/ | 6,695 |
Introduction I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. As he seems like a highly experienced debater, it seems that this debate is becoming what I wanted it to be. I would also like to thank my opponent for giving a definition for 'God', the topic we will be debating. In this debate, I will be arguing the side of Atheism, saying that there is no God and cannot be a God. My opponent will be arguing that there is in fact a God that created the universe and everything in it. Reasons Against God's Existence Here is a list of points I will cover in the duration of this debate: 1. Evolution disproves Creation 2. The Earth is more than 10,000 years old 3. Theism has lied 4. Theism is corrupt 5. Facts and data always disprove faith and philosophy 6. God is impossible First of all, evolution simply disproves creation. Many Theists do not believe in evolution because "it is just a theory". This is not true. There is more than one definition for 'theory'. I will tell them to you now: 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact As you can see, Theists twist the facts into what they want it to be. They ignore the fact that there is more than one definition to the word 'theory'. Next, I want to show that there is solid evidence to prove evolution. Evolution is a fact. We know more about evolution than we know about the human brain. We know without a doubt that evolution is a fact and I can prove it: 1. The fossil record shows extinct animals that are very close to its successor. 2. By looking at DNA, we can see that many animals are very close to others. These similarities are backed up by looking at the fossil record. 3. Certain structures in living animals that do not have any function but had function in previous creatures show that that particular animal evolved from another animal that used that structure. 4. We have proved natural selection in a lab. We have conducted experiments with bacteria and cells, and we have shown that natural selection does indeed occur. I believe I have now proved that evolution is a fact that that the idea of Adam and Eve is simply a false accusation. Next, I will move on to another aspect of Creation: Most Theists believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. Again, this is wrong and science tells us without a doubt that this is wrong. First of all, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We have proof of this because we have fossils that date back millions of years, and we have rocks that date back billions. Looking at the data, the world is approximately 4,540 million years of age. We have proved this countless times and one cannot simply deny this. Furthermore, we are made up of mostly carbon atoms. Like evolution, we have proved this without a doubt. We also know that carbon atoms are only formed within stars. Looking at this, we can tell that generations of stars had to go by before Earth could form. This means the universe has been around longer than 10,000 years, as well as Earth. Thus, it disproves this quote: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light." Because this debate is 'Atheism vs. Theism' and not simply 'Does God Exist?', I also have the burden of proof to talk about Theism. Theism has lied. This is the truth that governs all religions. In the beginning, people could not explain what lightning was, so they said "A God must be responsible." Now, we know what actually causes lightning, and we no longer say "God did it." The need for a god has shrunk over time. Now, it is not needed, yet people still believe it. Here is what I believe to be the fundamental foundations of Atheism and Theism: Theism: I don't know... A god did it. Atheism: I don't know... Let's find out. These rules govern those beliefs. It is a fact that religion relies on faith and a 2,000 year-old books. It is a fact that Atheism relies on data and factual evidence. It is also a fact that religion only accepts science when they can say, "We knew that all along." Religion has always taken newly proven facts and made it seem like they knew it all along, when in reality, they did not. Theism has always lied and continues to lie today. Next in my debate against Theism, I would like to talk about why Theism is corrupt. Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible talked about rape, slavery, incest, and gender inequality in a positive way. In the Ten Commandments, God never says "All humans are equal", "You shall not rape", or anything that we, today, would think should be law. The Bible also states that not following the Ten Commandments results in death. Imagine the death penalty for a disobedient child. Imagine death for working on Sunday or being raised to believe in another god. To me, it sounds like there is something wrong with Theism. Now, I will go back to disproving God. Facts and data always beat the religious point of view because religion simply does not use evidence. They use assertions, guesses, and delusions to find out how things work. They have never been right. The number of times a Theist's argument has beat an Atheist's argument is zero, however the percentage of time an Atheist's argument has beat a Theist's argument is 100%. Theism never wins, while Atheism always wins. Finally, many great scientists have been able to show that God was not needed for the creation of the universe. Furthermore, God could not have existed before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the universe for him to create it. There was no space nor was there time. The universe's creation can indeed be explained, however, by M-Theory, the idea that states that the universe was able to come into existence without the need for a Creator. Because there was no time before the universe, God could not have existed, making the idea of a God impossible. Conclusion I have stated all the arguments I wish to state for now. I will wait for my opponent to write his arguments next. After that, it will be time for rebuttals. However, I want to talk about what is expected of my opponent in his arguments: My opponent must prove that God exists. In his acceptance message, he stated that we do not have to prove for certain that a god does or does not exist, for that is a matter of opinion. Indeed it is a matter of opinion, but it is also a matter of facts. In my argument, I have made arguments against Creation and the existence of God that are irrefutable. Sources 1. <URL>... =/ 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... | 0 | jamccartney |
Introduction
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. As he seems like a highly experienced debater, it seems that this debate is becoming what I wanted it to be. I would also like to thank my opponent for giving a definition for 'God', the topic we will be debating.
In this debate, I will be arguing the side of Atheism, saying that there is no God and cannot be a God. My opponent will be arguing that there is in fact a God that created the universe and everything in it.
Reasons Against God's Existence
Here is a list of points I will cover in the duration of this debate:
1. Evolution disproves Creation
2. The Earth is more than 10,000 years old
3. Theism has lied
4. Theism is corrupt
5. Facts and data always disprove faith and philosophy
6. God is impossible
First of all, evolution simply disproves creation. Many Theists do not believe in evolution because "it is just a theory". This is not true. There is more than one definition for 'theory'. I will tell them to you now:
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact
As you can see, Theists twist the facts into what they want it to be. They ignore the fact that there is more than one definition to the word 'theory'.
Next, I want to show that there is solid evidence to prove evolution. Evolution is a fact. We know more about evolution than we know about the human brain. We know without a doubt that evolution is a fact and I can prove it:
1. The fossil record shows extinct animals that are very close to its successor.
2. By looking at DNA, we can see that many animals are very close to others. These similarities are backed up by looking at the fossil record.
3. Certain structures in living animals that do not have any function but had function in previous creatures show that that particular animal evolved from another animal that used that structure.
4. We have proved natural selection in a lab. We have conducted experiments with bacteria and cells, and we have shown that natural selection does indeed occur.
I believe I have now proved that evolution is a fact that that the idea of Adam and Eve is simply a false accusation.
Next, I will move on to another aspect of Creation: Most Theists believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. Again, this is wrong and science tells us without a doubt that this is wrong. First of all, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. We have proof of this because we have fossils that date back millions of years, and we have rocks that date back billions. Looking at the data, the world is approximately 4,540 million years of age. We have proved this countless times and one cannot simply deny this.
Furthermore, we are made up of mostly carbon atoms. Like evolution, we have proved this without a doubt. We also know that carbon atoms are only formed within stars. Looking at this, we can tell that generations of stars had to go by before Earth could form. This means the universe has been around longer than 10,000 years, as well as Earth. Thus, it disproves this quote:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light."
Because this debate is 'Atheism vs. Theism' and not simply 'Does God Exist?', I also have the burden of proof to talk about Theism.
Theism has lied. This is the truth that governs all religions. In the beginning, people could not explain what lightning was, so they said "A God must be responsible." Now, we know what actually causes lightning, and we no longer say "God did it." The need for a god has shrunk over time. Now, it is not needed, yet people still believe it. Here is what I believe to be the fundamental foundations of Atheism and Theism:
Theism: I don't know… A god did it.
Atheism: I don't know… Let's find out.
These rules govern those beliefs. It is a fact that religion relies on faith and a 2,000 year-old books. It is a fact that Atheism relies on data and factual evidence. It is also a fact that religion only accepts science when they can say, "We knew that all along." Religion has always taken newly proven facts and made it seem like they knew it all along, when in reality, they did not. Theism has always lied and continues to lie today.
Next in my debate against Theism, I would like to talk about why Theism is corrupt. Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible talked about rape, slavery, incest, and gender inequality in a positive way. In the Ten Commandments, God never says "All humans are equal", "You shall not rape", or anything that we, today, would think should be law. The Bible also states that not following the Ten Commandments results in death. Imagine the death penalty for a disobedient child. Imagine death for working on Sunday or being raised to believe in another god. To me, it sounds like there is something wrong with Theism.
Now, I will go back to disproving God. Facts and data always beat the religious point of view because religion simply does not use evidence. They use assertions, guesses, and delusions to find out how things work. They have never been right. The number of times a Theist's argument has beat an Atheist's argument is zero, however the percentage of time an Atheist's argument has beat a Theist's argument is 100%. Theism never wins, while Atheism always wins.
Finally, many great scientists have been able to show that God was not needed for the creation of the universe. Furthermore, God could not have existed before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the universe for him to create it. There was no space nor was there time. The universe's creation can indeed be explained, however, by M-Theory, the idea that states that the universe was able to come into existence without the need for a Creator. Because there was no time before the universe, God could not have existed, making the idea of a God impossible.
Conclusion
I have stated all the arguments I wish to state for now. I will wait for my opponent to write his arguments next. After that, it will be time for rebuttals. However, I want to talk about what is expected of my opponent in his arguments:
My opponent must prove that God exists. In his acceptance message, he stated that we do not have to prove for certain that a god does or does not exist, for that is a matter of opinion. Indeed it is a matter of opinion, but it is also a matter of facts. In my argument, I have made arguments against Creation and the existence of God that are irrefutable.
Sources
1. http://dictionary.reference.com... =/
2. http://www.discovery.com...
3. http://www.freebase.com...
4. http://science.nasa.gov...
5. http://www.the-ten-commandments.org...
| Religion | 1 | Atheism-vs.-Theism/1/ | 6,696 |
Introduction Again, I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me his arguments towards Theism and the existence of God. He has given me plenty of arguments to refute, so I will start from the beginning. Rebuttals My opponent begins by talking about how God cannot be proven the same way one might prove that carbon and iron are formed within start. This is true, for no evidence exists within the universe to prove or disprove it. However, when one looks at the probability and the amount of evidence towards God's existence, they will see that it is slim and that there is no evidence. Who has seen this Creator? Why has He not shown himself? This is a problem that Theists simply do not see. My opponent says that everyone perceives the world in a different way. This is true; however everyone should perceive the world by using facts, data, and evidence. Faith and guessing does not get very far. A thousand years ago, people guessed that Zeus created lightning. Now, however, we are aware of the fact that lightning simply comes from ionized particles in the air. We forgot the guess and used science to find the true answer. Data wins, faith loses. Then, my opponent went on to create a list of things that prove that such a Creator created the universe, mankind, and everything else. Here is his list: " the law-like nature of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral duties, and freedom of thought. " This is interesting and I hoped my opponent would create a list such as this, for these points are points I wanted to discuss. I will start with the first point: Nature of Logic: Theists assume that because this universe runs using basic laws, there must be an intelligent Creator. They do, however, fail to realize that if there were no basic laws, there would be no universe. If there were no gravity, physics, etc., the universe would have been rendered nonexistent a long time ago. The multiverse theory says that more than one universe exists. If that is true, then there were plenty of big bangs and at least one universe had these basic laws. The Uniformity of Nature Uniformity is perceived. My opponent somewhat made this point when talking about worldviews , hence meaning that what I find nice may not be what my opponent finds nice. We think the world around us is beautiful, but an African Lion may not find the Rocky Mountains to be uniform. The fact of the matter is this: Uniformity is perceived differently by everyone and everything. Moral Duties As I mentioned in my first argument, Theism does not teach morals. What truly drives morality is what is called the Amygdala. The amygdala is the portion of the brain responsible for emotions. What is written in the 2,000 year-old book known as the Bible has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, objective morality is relative. We find what Hitler and the Nazis did during the Holocaust to be immoral, but people fail to realize that the Nazis had "Gott Mit Uns", which is translated as "God With Us", inscribed on their belt buckles. The Nazis thought they were doing God's work and thought they were being moral. Objective morality is relative and is different across everyone. My opponent also says that "God is good". Again, I proved this wrong in round 1 when I talked about the Ten Commandments and what the Bible looks upon in a positive way. "Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible talked about rape, slavery, incest, and gender inequality in a positive way. In the Ten Commandments, God never says "All humans are equal", "You shall not rape", or anything that we, today, would think should be law. The Bible also states that not following the Ten Commandments results in death. Imagine the death penalty for a disobedient child. Imagine death for working on Sunday or being raised to believe in another god. To me, it sounds like there is something wrong with Theism" As you can see, the Bible, Theism, and God do not teach morals. Freedom of Thought Finally, my opponent speaks of freedom of thought as proof for the existence of God. He says that if thought is governed by the laws of physics, it must not be real freedom. This, however, is not entirely correct. Studies are showing that neural processes within the brain function at a quantum level, not the physical level. Because of this, our brain processes are not predetermined, making Con's argument about freedom of thought invalid. Conclusion In conclusion, I believe I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments towards Theism and God, just like every other Atheist in history. As I have already stated, a Theist's reasoning has never disproven an Atheist's reasoning, simply because it cannot happen. Facts, evidence, data, and research always beat faith, guessing, and unfounded opinions. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals and I hope to see how he can refute them. Thank you. Sources 1. <URL>... 's%20mutliverse.html 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... | 0 | jamccartney |
Introduction
Again, I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me his arguments towards Theism and the existence of God. He has given me plenty of arguments to refute, so I will start from the beginning.
Rebuttals
My opponent begins by talking about how God cannot be proven the same way one might prove that carbon and iron are formed within start. This is true, for no evidence exists within the universe to prove or disprove it. However, when one looks at the probability and the amount of evidence towards God’s existence, they will see that it is slim and that there is no evidence. Who has seen this Creator? Why has He not shown himself?
This is a problem that Theists simply do not see. My opponent says that everyone perceives the world in a different way. This is true; however everyone should perceive the world by using facts, data, and evidence. Faith and guessing does not get very far. A thousand years ago, people guessed that Zeus created lightning. Now, however, we are aware of the fact that lightning simply comes from ionized particles in the air. We forgot the guess and used science to find the true answer. Data wins, faith loses.
Then, my opponent went on to create a list of things that prove that such a Creator created the universe, mankind, and everything else. Here is his list:
“ the law-like nature of logic, the uniformity of nature, moral duties, and freedom of thought. ”
This is interesting and I hoped my opponent would create a list such as this, for these points are points I wanted to discuss. I will start with the first point:
Nature of Logic:
Theists assume that because this universe runs using basic laws, there must be an intelligent Creator. They do, however, fail to realize that if there were no basic laws, there would be no universe. If there were no gravity, physics, etc., the universe would have been rendered nonexistent a long time ago. The multiverse theory says that more than one universe exists. If that is true, then there were plenty of big bangs and at least one universe had these basic laws.
The Uniformity of Nature
Uniformity is perceived. My opponent somewhat made this point when talking about worldviews , hence meaning that what I find nice may not be what my opponent finds nice. We think the world around us is beautiful, but an African Lion may not find the Rocky Mountains to be uniform. The fact of the matter is this: Uniformity is perceived differently by everyone and everything.
Moral Duties
As I mentioned in my first argument, Theism does not teach morals. What truly drives morality is what is called the Amygdala. The amygdala is the portion of the brain responsible for emotions. What is written in the 2,000 year-old book known as the Bible has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, objective morality is relative. We find what Hitler and the Nazis did during the Holocaust to be immoral, but people fail to realize that the Nazis had “Gott Mit Uns”, which is translated as “God With Us”, inscribed on their belt buckles. The Nazis thought they were doing God’s work and thought they were being moral. Objective morality is relative and is different across everyone.
My opponent also says that “God is good”. Again, I proved this wrong in round 1 when I talked about the Ten Commandments and what the Bible looks upon in a positive way.
“Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible talked about rape, slavery, incest, and gender inequality in a positive way. In the Ten Commandments, God never says "All humans are equal", "You shall not rape", or anything that we, today, would think should be law. The Bible also states that not following the Ten Commandments results in death. Imagine the death penalty for a disobedient child. Imagine death for working on Sunday or being raised to believe in another god. To me, it sounds like there is something wrong with Theism”
As you can see, the Bible, Theism, and God do not teach morals.
Freedom of Thought
Finally, my opponent speaks of freedom of thought as proof for the existence of God. He says that if thought is governed by the laws of physics, it must not be real freedom. This, however, is not entirely correct. Studies are showing that neural processes within the brain function at a quantum level, not the physical level. Because of this, our brain processes are not predetermined, making Con’s argument about freedom of thought invalid.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe I have refuted all of my opponent’s arguments towards Theism and God, just like every other Atheist in history. As I have already stated, a Theist’s reasoning has never disproven an Atheist’s reasoning, simply because it cannot happen. Facts, evidence, data, and research always beat faith, guessing, and unfounded opinions.
I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttals and I hope to see how he can refute them. Thank you.
Sources 1. http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu... 's%20mutliverse.html 2. http://webspace.ship.edu... 3. http://atheonomy.wordpress.com... 4. http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca...
| Religion | 2 | Atheism-vs.-Theism/1/ | 6,697 |
Introduction With both merriment and aversion, I thank my opponent for giving me his rebuttals to both my arguments and my rebuttals. As this will be my final post for this debate, I will be sure to make my rebuttals long and complex. Rebuttals I would, however, like to talk about what has occurred this debate that could result in a Pro vote by the voters. First of all, in his rebuttals, my opponent has directly denied evolution, when he said, " While there are some theists in support of molecules-to-man evolution, I am not one of them. " Readers, I want to point out that evolution is a proven scientific fact. It had been studied and proven time and time again. It's repeatable. My opponent has denied these facts, even after I gave a genuinely viable list of proof. Unfortunately, I feel I must do this again, for my opponent has done what all theists do: Deny the proof so that it works with their beliefs, which is a point that I covered in my first argument. How does my opponent disprove the 4 million year old remains of evolutionary ancestors to humans? Using DNA testing, we can prove with 99.9% certainty that these fossils are indeed ancestors to modern humans. Here is an improved list of why evolution is a proven fact: 1. Behavior is a genetic trait that is passed on from generation to generation. Our ape ancestors share many of the traits we have today, owing to the fact that modern hominids, such as chimpanzees, have the same traits. 2. Human fossils, which allow for DNA testing, give us solid proof. 3. Again, genetics is the foundation of proof, for it proves, with 99.9% certainty, that Homo sapiens have evolved over an extensive period of time. 4. Vestigial and homologous structures, are again, backed up by DNA 5. Protein sequencing is very similar across certain animals alive today 6. Natural selection is, again, proven. It works because certain genetic mutations occur. "Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements." If my opponent - or any readers - would like to read a long, reputable essay regarding the proof of evolution, use this site: <URL>... The next point I wish to go over is what my opponent said in this quote: " I carefully defined a worldview as a set of one's presuppositions. I cited the epistemological problem of infinite regression to argue that everyone has presuppositions: unjustified beliefs about reality. Assumptions. " First of all, yes, everyone assumes things. However, assumptions are narrowly fact. They are not evidence, they are guesses - Educated guesses, maybe, but still guesses. What Atheists use when arguing is simply fact. That's it. Facts over guessing. The next point I want to discuss is my opponent's argument by using TAG (Transcendental Argument for God's Existence). My opponent claims that God can exist outside of time because He's dimensionally transcendental, which means he can exist outside the realm of physical reality. This argument is all fine and dandy until you say "Wait. God coming into existence without a creator is just as logical as the universe coming into existence without a creator." Why would there be an extra step? There wouldn't. God simply does not exist. Even if a god did exist, he or she would not bother creating a universe. Why would they? The answer I commonly get to this is this: "He was bored." I laugh at this, for an all-powerful being would not simply become bored. If my opponent has another reason for a god creating the universe, I would like to hear it. If not, then a god did not create the universe, proving my opponent incorrect. Another point I would like to talk about is my opponent's question about logic: " if atheism is true, how are the laws of logic universal and unchanging? How are they reliable for acquiring knowledge? " My opponent is asking why logic is universal and exists throughout the universe. I want to begin by saying that I did indeed misinterpret what my opponent said. I apologize for that, and will not do so in this round. By logic, I will assume my opponent is talking about the definitions that go as such: 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions 5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness This is what logic is and it is what I will be discussing. First of all, logic is what is used to describe fact. "Evolution is logical." Yes, it is logical. It is also a fact. "The tide goes in. The tide goes out." Yes, science tells us that the moon's gravity does this. Therefore, the tide is very logical. So to reword my opponent's question, he is asking the following: "If Atheism is true, how do facts remain the same? How are they reliable for acquiring logical facts?" The answer is simple: Logic and facts go together, and the basic fundamental laws of reality in the universe say that logic does not change, for facts to do not change. " I have no problem with the fact that the earth is old. There are many theists that believe likewise. " Indeed. I thank my opponent for agreeing with the fact that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and that the Universe is 13.798+-0.037 billion years old. " My opponent criticizes the Old Testament for condoning evil. Unfortunately, my opponent already stated that there is no objective morality, so his arguments here are just the ranting of one's moral opinion. " First of all, this is a debate. I am clearly stating my opinion on the objective morality of Theism, which is what one does in a debate: They argue their point. I am aware that morality is relative, for I was the one that said so. My opponent is also arguing his opinion. " Facts and data are just that: facts and data. They don't prove or disprove anything other than the event they observed. " Actually, that is incorrect. Evolution is a proven scientific fact. It consists of facts and data which disprove Creationism. Evolution disproves Adam and Eve, which disproves original sin, which disproves most of the Bible. Facts can disprove things. " My opponent engages in pure conjecture about ancient knowledge. He offers no evidence to back up this claim. " Ah, good. My opponent admits that most of Theism is "pure conjecture about ancient knowledge". My opponent refuted my statement that "God is impossible," by saying that I cannot explain why the big bang occurred, so the logical explanation must be 'a god did it.' " Furthermore, my opponent has no warrant to claim he knows what is beyond the Big Bang singularity. " No, I did not claim that. The truth is that I don't know. 'I don't know' is a perfectly reasonable answer, because it's the truth. I don't know what happened before the big bang... My opponent doesn't either. Nobody does. When my opponent says I am making unfounded opinions about God being impossible, he is doing the same. The truth is that neither of us can prove what happened before the big bang. The only thing I do differently is that I use science; I use research; I use data. My opponent is perfectly fine with sticking with "I don't know, God did it." "I don't know, God did it" is not proof at all. It is a struggled attempt to rationalize what is not understood. My opponent mentioned the 'God of the Gaps', which I was happy about, for I wanted to explain this. First of all, God was invented by humanity to explain the unknown. At that time, the God of the Gaps was very large, because we could not explain things. Now, the God of the Gaps is very small and only exists outside the universe. We know how the universe works, so a god is simply not needed. Conclusion Though my opponent claims that I have not, I have indeed provided a strong, viable case for Atheism. Throughout this debate, I have shown twice that Evolution is a proven fact. I have refuted each argument he made. Again, I apologize for misinterpreting some of my opponent's arguments. It is a common mistake. My opponent seems knowledgeable about this topic and this debate may be a close win, however I want to say why the voters should lean to a Pro vote. I have provided the facts. My opponent has not. The Atheist's argument is never proven wrong my the Theist's argument and that is what I have proven in this debate. I have enjoyed this debate and wish to say one more thing: Vote Pro. Works Cited 1. <URL>... 2. <URL>... 3. <URL>... 4. <URL>... 5. <URL>... | 0 | jamccartney |
Introduction
With both merriment and aversion, I thank my opponent for giving me his rebuttals to both my arguments and my rebuttals. As this will be my final post for this debate, I will be sure to make my rebuttals long and complex.
Rebuttals
I would, however, like to talk about what has occurred this debate that could result in a Pro vote by the voters. First of all, in his rebuttals, my opponent has directly denied evolution, when he said, " While there are some theists in support of molecules-to-man evolution, I am not one of them. " Readers, I want to point out that evolution is a proven scientific fact. It had been studied and proven time and time again. It's repeatable. My opponent has denied these facts, even after I gave a genuinely viable list of proof. Unfortunately, I feel I must do this again, for my opponent has done what all theists do: Deny the proof so that it works with their beliefs, which is a point that I covered in my first argument.
How does my opponent disprove the 4 million year old remains of evolutionary ancestors to humans? Using DNA testing, we can prove with 99.9% certainty that these fossils are indeed ancestors to modern humans. Here is an improved list of why evolution is a proven fact:
1. Behavior is a genetic trait that is passed on from generation to generation. Our ape ancestors share many of the traits we have today, owing to the fact that modern hominids, such as chimpanzees, have the same traits.
2. Human fossils, which allow for DNA testing, give us solid proof.
3. Again, genetics is the foundation of proof, for it proves, with 99.9% certainty, that Homo sapiens have evolved over an extensive period of time.
4. Vestigial and homologous structures, are again, backed up by DNA
5. Protein sequencing is very similar across certain animals alive today
6. Natural selection is, again, proven. It works because certain genetic mutations occur. "Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements."
If my opponent - or any readers - would like to read a long, reputable essay regarding the proof of evolution, use this site: http://www.talkorigins.org...
The next point I wish to go over is what my opponent said in this quote: " I carefully defined a worldview as a set of one's presuppositions. I cited the epistemological problem of infinite regression to argue that everyone has presuppositions: unjustified beliefs about reality. Assumptions. "
First of all, yes, everyone assumes things. However, assumptions are narrowly fact. They are not evidence, they are guesses - Educated guesses, maybe, but still guesses. What Atheists use when arguing is simply fact. That's it. Facts over guessing.
The next point I want to discuss is my opponent's argument by using TAG (Transcendental Argument for God's Existence). My opponent claims that God can exist outside of time because He's dimensionally transcendental, which means he can exist outside the realm of physical reality. This argument is all fine and dandy until you say "Wait. God coming into existence without a creator is just as logical as the universe coming into existence without a creator." Why would there be an extra step? There wouldn't. God simply does not exist. Even if a god did exist, he or she would not bother creating a universe. Why would they?
The answer I commonly get to this is this: "He was bored." I laugh at this, for an all-powerful being would not simply become bored. If my opponent has another reason for a god creating the universe, I would like to hear it. If not, then a god did not create the universe, proving my opponent incorrect.
Another point I would like to talk about is my opponent's question about logic: " if atheism is true, how are the laws of logic universal and unchanging? How are they reliable for acquiring knowledge? "
My opponent is asking why logic is universal and exists throughout the universe. I want to begin by saying that I did indeed misinterpret what my opponent said. I apologize for that, and will not do so in this round. By logic, I will assume my opponent is talking about the definitions that go as such:
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness
This is what logic is and it is what I will be discussing. First of all, logic is what is used to describe fact. "Evolution is logical." Yes, it is logical. It is also a fact. "The tide goes in. The tide goes out." Yes, science tells us that the moon's gravity does this. Therefore, the tide is very logical. So to reword my opponent's question, he is asking the following: "If Atheism is true, how do facts remain the same? How are they reliable for acquiring logical facts?" The answer is simple: Logic and facts go together, and the basic fundamental laws of reality in the universe say that logic does not change, for facts to do not change.
" I have no problem with the fact that the earth is old. There are many theists that believe likewise. "
Indeed. I thank my opponent for agreeing with the fact that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and that the Universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years old.
" My opponent criticizes the Old Testament for condoning evil. Unfortunately, my opponent already stated that there is no objective morality, so his arguments here are just the ranting of one's moral opinion. "
First of all, this is a debate. I am clearly stating my opinion on the objective morality of Theism, which is what one does in a debate: They argue their point. I am aware that morality is relative, for I was the one that said so. My opponent is also arguing his opinion.
" Facts and data are just that: facts and data. They don't prove or disprove anything other than the event they observed. "
Actually, that is incorrect. Evolution is a proven scientific fact. It consists of facts and data which disprove Creationism. Evolution disproves Adam and Eve, which disproves original sin, which disproves most of the Bible. Facts can disprove things.
" My opponent engages in pure conjecture about ancient knowledge. He offers no evidence to back up this claim. "
Ah, good. My opponent admits that most of Theism is "pure conjecture about ancient knowledge".
My opponent refuted my statement that "God is impossible," by saying that I cannot explain why the big bang occurred, so the logical explanation must be 'a god did it.' " Furthermore, my opponent has no warrant to claim he knows what is beyond the Big Bang singularity. " No, I did not claim that. The truth is that I don't know. 'I don't know' is a perfectly reasonable answer, because it's the truth. I don't know what happened before the big bang… My opponent doesn't either. Nobody does. When my opponent says I am making unfounded opinions about God being impossible, he is doing the same. The truth is that neither of us can prove what happened before the big bang. The only thing I do differently is that I use science; I use research; I use data. My opponent is perfectly fine with sticking with "I don't know, God did it."
"I don't know, God did it" is not proof at all. It is a struggled attempt to rationalize what is not understood. My opponent mentioned the 'God of the Gaps', which I was happy about, for I wanted to explain this. First of all, God was invented by humanity to explain the unknown. At that time, the God of the Gaps was very large, because we could not explain things. Now, the God of the Gaps is very small and only exists outside the universe. We know how the universe works, so a god is simply not needed.
Conclusion
Though my opponent claims that I have not, I have indeed provided a strong, viable case for Atheism. Throughout this debate, I have shown twice that Evolution is a proven fact. I have refuted each argument he made. Again, I apologize for misinterpreting some of my opponent's arguments. It is a common mistake. My opponent seems knowledgeable about this topic and this debate may be a close win, however I want to say why the voters should lean to a Pro vote. I have provided the facts. My opponent has not. The Atheist's argument is never proven wrong my the Theist's argument and that is what I have proven in this debate. I have enjoyed this debate and wish to say one more thing: Vote Pro.
Works Cited
1. http://humanorigins.si.edu...
2. http://www.talkorigins.org...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... | Religion | 3 | Atheism-vs.-Theism/1/ | 6,698 |
Atheism for many is due to skepticism of the claims made by religious. Personally, my atheism is the result of doubting the claims of my peers of Catholicism (I am decedent of Catholics). Atheism is the doubt of one's own intellect. But, everyone should always have doubts about claims with no evidence to back it up. If you believe in something without evidence, like fairies and unicorns, you should discontinue the belief. That is exactly what I did. I had no evidence, no proof. Is God impossible? No, but unlikely. Reasons why will come in later rounds. But another thing, atheism is the rejection of the claim of an existing dogma. No two atheists have to be alike in any way other than not accepting the "god" claim. | 0 | Ozzyhead |
Atheism for many is due to skepticism of the claims made by religious. Personally, my atheism is the result of doubting the claims of my peers of Catholicism (I am decedent of Catholics). Atheism is the doubt of one's own intellect. But, everyone should always have doubts about claims with no evidence to back it up. If you believe in something without evidence, like fairies and unicorns, you should discontinue the belief. That is exactly what I did. I had no evidence, no proof. Is God impossible? No, but unlikely. Reasons why will come in later rounds. But another thing, atheism is the rejection of the claim of an existing dogma. No two atheists have to be alike in any way other than not accepting the "god" claim. | Religion | 0 | Atheism/12/ | 6,706 |
Come on man you're breaking my balls here. | 0 | Ozzyhead |
Come on man you're breaking my balls here. | Religion | 2 | Atheism/12/ | 6,707 |
Not accepting the existence of god is the natural position. In the absence of evidence, believing anything is absurd. Accepting anything as true without evidence is asinine. | 0 | Ozzyhead |
Not accepting the existence of god is the natural position. In the absence of evidence, believing anything is absurd. Accepting anything as true without evidence is asinine. | Religion | 4 | Atheism/12/ | 6,708 |
The atheists win this debate | 0 | Ozzyhead |
The atheists win this debate | Religion | 6 | Atheism/12/ | 6,709 |
Sad | 0 | Ozzyhead |
Sad | Religion | 8 | Atheism/12/ | 6,710 |
Opening round for acceptance with or without an argument from my opponent. Rules.......No vulgarity or sexually explicit comments. Using the word "Hell" as anything other than a noun which describes a literal place of fiery torment in this debate will be considered vulgarity. Cursing in this debate will be considered vulgarity. Violations of these rules are bad conduct and votes must agree. This is expected to be a heated debate between manly men (unless my opponent is a coward or effeminate, which I don't think he is), and the assertion of the title calling atheists "fools" should not affect conduct points against me since it is the topic of the debate. My opponent by agreeing to accept this challenge agrees to follow these rules and is free to call me a fool without fear of loss of conduct points. He may also call me proud and brave. Name calling outside of these boundaries should be considered for bad conduct and may result in loss of conduct points. Calling my opponent corrupt or a sinner should not be considered bad conduct as long as I call myself corrupt or a sinner at the same time. The only assertion I am arguing in this debate is that atheists are fools. I specified atheistic military men in hope of provoking my opponent to argue. My opponents military service is highly respected and appreciated, no derogatory comments against military service are allowed in this debate or in the comments. I cannot control the comments, but any derogatory comments against military service will be reported as insulting and harassing. If you love your freedom, thank a veteran. "Thus be it ever when free men shall stand, between their loved homes and the war's desolation" I respectfully issue this challenge. Psalm 14:1 | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
Opening round for acceptance with or without an argument from my opponent. Rules.......No vulgarity or sexually explicit comments. Using the word "Hell" as anything other than a noun which describes a literal place of fiery torment in this debate will be considered vulgarity. Cursing in this debate will be considered vulgarity. Violations of these rules are bad conduct and votes must agree. This is expected to be a heated debate between manly men (unless my opponent is a coward or effeminate, which I don't think he is), and the assertion of the title calling atheists "fools" should not affect conduct points against me since it is the topic of the debate. My opponent by agreeing to accept this challenge agrees to follow these rules and is free to call me a fool without fear of loss of conduct points. He may also call me proud and brave. Name calling outside of these boundaries should be considered for bad conduct and may result in loss of conduct points. Calling my opponent corrupt or a sinner should not be considered bad conduct as long as I call myself corrupt or a sinner at the same time.
The only assertion I am arguing in this debate is that atheists are fools. I specified atheistic military men in hope of provoking my opponent to argue. My opponents military service is highly respected and appreciated, no derogatory comments against military service are allowed in this debate or in the comments. I cannot control the comments, but any derogatory comments against military service will be reported as insulting and harassing. If you love your freedom, thank a veteran. "Thus be it ever when free men shall stand, between their loved homes and the war's desolation" I respectfully issue this challenge. Psalm 14:1 | Philosophy | 0 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,771 |
Ok, thank you, sir, for accepting this challenge. To start with, I want to say I'm sure my opponent is wise by all worldly standards. Jesus Himself referred to unbelievers as wiser than the children of light (believers) because unbelievers are adept at survival while those who believe they have eternal life can tend to take survival for granted too much. This causes them to lose their fighting edge and act lazily when time is so short and the battle for men's souls is so fierce. The topic of this debate is about one's heart-attitude toward God, implying a wise man can be a fool. The reason the Bible calls atheists fools (Psalm 14:1) is simple......saying there is no God cannot dispel God, and God can't be happy with people who are trying to dispel them from their thoughts and lives. God will always be against people who are against Him, and it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of The Living God. If I am an enemy combatant, and I walk around in front of my opponent saying my opponent is not there and not even bothering to aim my weapon at him because I am convincing myself that he is not there, my opponent would probably laugh at me, or chuckle a few times, and then eliminate me from any further potential to harm anybody or anything he is protecting. I think it's safe to say God is not different in this. He really does not want to eliminate anybody from life, but if they don't surrender to Him, what choice does He have? The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
Ok, thank you, sir, for accepting this challenge. To start with, I want to say I'm sure my opponent is wise by all worldly standards. Jesus Himself referred to unbelievers as wiser than the children of light (believers) because unbelievers are adept at survival while those who believe they have eternal life can tend to take survival for granted too much. This causes them to lose their fighting edge and act lazily when time is so short and the battle for men's souls is so fierce. The topic of this debate is about one's heart-attitude toward God, implying a wise man can be a fool. The reason the Bible calls atheists fools (Psalm 14:1) is simple......saying there is no God cannot dispel God, and God can't be happy with people who are trying to dispel them from their thoughts and lives. God will always be against people who are against Him, and it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of The Living God. If I am an enemy combatant, and I walk around in front of my opponent saying my opponent is not there and not even bothering to aim my weapon at him because I am convincing myself that he is not there, my opponent would probably laugh at me, or chuckle a few times, and then eliminate me from any further potential to harm anybody or anything he is protecting. I think it's safe to say God is not different in this. He really does not want to eliminate anybody from life, but if they don't surrender to Him, what choice does He have? The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. | Philosophy | 1 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,772 |
Kudos to my opponent for a fine and civil debate. After my opponents long list of definitions for the word "fool", and the lengthy explanations of intelligent behaviour and inventions of very smart people, and his impressive story of personal heroism simply for the principal of doing the right thing in returning a person's valuable belongings, I have to ask if my opponent read the first paragraph of my Round 2 argument. I thought I clearly recognized my opponent's wisdom as well as the wisdom of many others who do not believe in God. The debate is not about wise living or wise behaviour in the world, and I personally do not need the word "fool" defined for me. The debate is about the attitude of one's heart toward God. No matter how intelligent, wise, or well mannered and well behaved a person is, if that person says in his heart "There is no God", that person is a fool. I guess my opponent did not understand my illustration of a fool on the battlefield, so I will use the same illustration with some slight changes which do not change the moral of the story. The slightly edited version of the Round 2 story is this: An enemy combatant is stomping around bragging about how brave, strong, and smart he is, unaware that a Marine is fully camouflaged and invisible in the surroundings even though the marine is close enough to the enemy combatant to quickly and easily disable the enemy combatant. As the unaware man boasts of how brave, strong, and smart he is, the hidden Marine chuckles to himself seeing how foolish this man is behaving. Surely he had been warned that Marines were in the area, but he didn't see any so he felt like blowing off some steam to ease his stress. The Marine could easily take the man out and then disappear, but he chooses to wait....the guy is funny after all, completely unaware that a Marine who he is making fun of and claiming victory over is near enough to take him down in a heartbeat. This is the picture of a fool and a Marine, and it can well be applied to the atheist and God. God really does not want to deny life from the atheist........to God, the atheist is a bit funny though it does make God angry to watch the atheist going around saying God is not there and insulting God. God knows the atheist will have to face Him soon, one way or another, and no matter how smart, wise, well mannered, or honorably behaving the atheist is, in God's sight he is a fool. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of The Living God. This is why the Bible says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom". The combatant in the above story is clearly a fool, but he may also have been extremely intelligent and accomplished by all worldly standards. The debate is about the attitude of the heart toward God, not the degree of intelligence, skill, or accomplishment of an individual. It does not take a lot of Bible verses to show the atheist is a fool.....it only takes common sense. | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
Kudos to my opponent for a fine and civil debate. After my opponents long list of definitions for the word "fool", and the lengthy explanations of intelligent behaviour and inventions of very smart people, and his impressive story of personal heroism simply for the principal of doing the right thing in returning a person's valuable belongings, I have to ask if my opponent read the first paragraph of my Round 2 argument. I thought I clearly recognized my opponent's wisdom as well as the wisdom of many others who do not believe in God. The debate is not about wise living or wise behaviour in the world, and I personally do not need the word "fool" defined for me. The debate is about the attitude of one's heart toward God. No matter how intelligent, wise, or well mannered and well behaved a person is, if that person says in his heart "There is no God", that person is a fool. I guess my opponent did not understand my illustration of a fool on the battlefield, so I will use the same illustration with some slight changes which do not change the moral of the story. The slightly edited version of the Round 2 story is this: An enemy combatant is stomping around bragging about how brave, strong, and smart he is, unaware that a Marine is fully camouflaged and invisible in the surroundings even though the marine is close enough to the enemy combatant to quickly and easily disable the enemy combatant. As the unaware man boasts of how brave, strong, and smart he is, the hidden Marine chuckles to himself seeing how foolish this man is behaving. Surely he had been warned that Marines were in the area, but he didn't see any so he felt like blowing off some steam to ease his stress. The Marine could easily take the man out and then disappear, but he chooses to wait....the guy is funny after all, completely unaware that a Marine who he is making fun of and claiming victory over is near enough to take him down in a heartbeat. This is the picture of a fool and a Marine, and it can well be applied to the atheist and God. God really does not want to deny life from the atheist........to God, the atheist is a bit funny though it does make God angry to watch the atheist going around saying God is not there and insulting God. God knows the atheist will have to face Him soon, one way or another, and no matter how smart, wise, well mannered, or honorably behaving the atheist is, in God's sight he is a fool. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of The Living God. This is why the Bible says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom". The combatant in the above story is clearly a fool, but he may also have been extremely intelligent and accomplished by all worldly standards. The debate is about the attitude of the heart toward God, not the degree of intelligence, skill, or accomplishment of an individual. It does not take a lot of Bible verses to show the atheist is a fool.....it only takes common sense. | Philosophy | 2 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,773 |
Again, kudos to my opponent for a honorable, reasonable, respectful and civil debate. First, I want to point out that my illustration of a proud, brave, enemy combatant parading around boastfully in front of a well camouflaged Marine is entirely relevant to this debate. My opponent seems to be trying to ignore the illustration by calling it irrelevant. The fact that we cannot see God with our eyes does not mean He is not there. It is not wise to parade around in front of God saying how good we are and what great things we have done while we say in our hearts that God is not there only because we cannot see Him with our eyes. How long will it be before His tolerance of the unbeliever or his amusement with the unbelievers ignorance gives way to His anger when all He wants is for the unbeliever to believe and surrender to Him so He can show His mercy and let the former unbeliever have eternal life? In this paragraph, I hinted at my opponents key objection which is his assertion that some or many atheists are not corrupt and their deeds are not vile and they have not done abominable iniquities. This is going to be a hard pill to swallow, and it probably will cost me the debate though it is true and should win the debate for God: There is none that does good, we are all corrupt, and we have all done abominable iniquities.....the best of us, the worst of us, the smartest of us and the dumbest of us......we are all guilty of breaking God's law, and any breaking of God's law is vile, corrupt, abominable, and disqualifies us from goodness because we have all gone bad and the corruption of badness is in our blood. By nature we are no good. The tiniest though of hatred toward another person is murder in God's viewpoint, the tiniest desire to have something that does not belong to us is theft in God's viewpoint, the tiniest lustful look on a woman we are not married to is adultery in God's viewpoint. These are all vile acts if even only in thought, these are all abominations in God's viewpoint, these are all born of the corruption that is in our nature which is against God. No matter how much good a person does, no matter how moral of a life that person lives, no matter how accomplished that person is, in God's judgement that person is corrupt and their record is nothing but one big black mark against their nature For a good, moral, honorable man to say in his heart "There is no God", the man, created by God, is making a fool of himself in front of God and is in danger of God's wrath which He promises to execute with fire of Hell against His adversaries. | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
Again, kudos to my opponent for a honorable, reasonable, respectful and civil debate. First, I want to point out that my illustration of a proud, brave, enemy combatant parading around boastfully in front of a well camouflaged Marine is entirely relevant to this debate. My opponent seems to be trying to ignore the illustration by calling it irrelevant. The fact that we cannot see God with our eyes does not mean He is not there. It is not wise to parade around in front of God saying how good we are and what great things we have done while we say in our hearts that God is not there only because we cannot see Him with our eyes. How long will it be before His tolerance of the unbeliever or his amusement with the unbelievers ignorance gives way to His anger when all He wants is for the unbeliever to believe and surrender to Him so He can show His mercy and let the former unbeliever have eternal life? In this paragraph, I hinted at my opponents key objection which is his assertion that some or many atheists are not corrupt and their deeds are not vile and they have not done abominable iniquities. This is going to be a hard pill to swallow, and it probably will cost me the debate though it is true and should win the debate for God: There is none that does good, we are all corrupt, and we have all done abominable iniquities.....the best of us, the worst of us, the smartest of us and the dumbest of us......we are all guilty of breaking God's law, and any breaking of God's law is vile, corrupt, abominable, and disqualifies us from goodness because we have all gone bad and the corruption of badness is in our blood. By nature we are no good. The tiniest though of hatred toward another person is murder in God's viewpoint, the tiniest desire to have something that does not belong to us is theft in God's viewpoint, the tiniest lustful look on a woman we are not married to is adultery in God's viewpoint. These are all vile acts if even only in thought, these are all abominations in God's viewpoint, these are all born of the corruption that is in our nature which is against God. No matter how much good a person does, no matter how moral of a life that person lives, no matter how accomplished that person is, in God's judgement that person is corrupt and their record is nothing but one big black mark against their nature For a good, moral, honorable man to say in his heart "There is no God", the man, created by God, is making a fool of himself in front of God and is in danger of God's wrath which He promises to execute with fire of Hell against His adversaries. | Philosophy | 3 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,774 |
One last thank you for outstanding good conduct and respectful disagreement. As the following statements of my opponent are not relevant to this debate but would be the subjects of completely different debates, they will not be addressed except by allusion which may or may not be seen in my arguments: 1)"What about the other 68.5% of the world [1]? Are they automatically doomed to the hell fire?" The topic of this debate is "Atheistic Military Men". This debate is not about the other 68.5 percent of the world population. 2) "Christianity is extremely outnumbered as a religion." Again, though this statement is true, it is not relevant to this debate. The debate is not about popularity of any religion. 3 ")I issue a challenge to you PRO. Show me anywhere in the past, backed up with evidence, that God has smiled the non believers" This challenge could be the topic of another debate. I would argue that God executes a death penalty against all unbelievers so all unbelievers are smitten by God, My opponent would probably argue as an atheist that nature or circumstance causes the death and God has nothing to do with it. That is not the argument of this debate, though it is addressed in the illustration I have used throughout this debate. In the illustration, the Marine is not complacent as my opponent implied, but is confidently camouflaged, hidden, and the combatant does not believe the Marine is there because he can't see the Marine. The Marine is poised to take out the combatant at any moment, but for whatever reason chooses to watch the fool parading in front of him rather than to take him out. Now elaborating and embellishing the illustration, let's suppose the Combatant is shouting things like "when I see a Marine, I'm going to kill him!" "I have five kids at home to feed and two elderly parents I care for, I give all I have to keep them safe and healthy and no Marine can be as good of a person as me" "I risk my life to save my friends and family, I volunteer my time caring for orphans and wounded pets, no Marine has the right to tell me what to do" "I'm better, stronger, braver, kinder, and more honorable than any fat cat American Marine who thinks he is better than me because he has big American guns behind him." "Marines are stupid, I'll kill them all". The hidden Marine chuckles to himself with his finger on the trigger and a dagger in his other hand, but then realizes....that guy is so much like me, I don't want to kill him, the poor fool......but as an enemy, he is still vile to the Marine and not innocent.....BOOM! Goodbye, fool. You see, the Marine in this illustration is God. The enemy combatant is my debate opponent. It is not possible for the enemy combatant to shoot the Marine in the face: the Marine will take him out first. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God". | 0 | LifeMeansGodIsGood |
One last thank you for outstanding good conduct and respectful disagreement. As the following statements of my opponent are not relevant to this debate but would be the subjects of completely different debates, they will not be addressed except by allusion which may or may not be seen in my arguments: 1)"What about the other 68.5% of the world [1]? Are they automatically doomed to the hell fire?" The topic of this debate is "Atheistic Military Men". This debate is not about the other 68.5 percent of the world population. 2) "Christianity is extremely outnumbered as a religion." Again, though this statement is true, it is not relevant to this debate. The debate is not about popularity of any religion. 3 ")I issue a challenge to you PRO. Show me anywhere in the past, backed up with evidence, that God has smiled the non believers" This challenge could be the topic of another debate. I would argue that God executes a death penalty against all unbelievers so all unbelievers are smitten by God, My opponent would probably argue as an atheist that nature or circumstance causes the death and God has nothing to do with it. That is not the argument of this debate, though it is addressed in the illustration I have used throughout this debate. In the illustration, the Marine is not complacent as my opponent implied, but is confidently camouflaged, hidden, and the combatant does not believe the Marine is there because he can't see the Marine. The Marine is poised to take out the combatant at any moment, but for whatever reason chooses to watch the fool parading in front of him rather than to take him out. Now elaborating and embellishing the illustration, let's suppose the Combatant is shouting things like "when I see a Marine, I'm going to kill him!" "I have five kids at home to feed and two elderly parents I care for, I give all I have to keep them safe and healthy and no Marine can be as good of a person as me" "I risk my life to save my friends and family, I volunteer my time caring for orphans and wounded pets, no Marine has the right to tell me what to do" "I'm better, stronger, braver, kinder, and more honorable than any fat cat American Marine who thinks he is better than me because he has big American guns behind him." "Marines are stupid, I'll kill them all". The hidden Marine chuckles to himself with his finger on the trigger and a dagger in his other hand, but then realizes....that guy is so much like me, I don't want to kill him, the poor fool......but as an enemy, he is still vile to the Marine and not innocent.....BOOM! Goodbye, fool. You see, the Marine in this illustration is God. The enemy combatant is my debate opponent. It is not possible for the enemy combatant to shoot the Marine in the face: the Marine will take him out first. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God". | Philosophy | 4 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,775 |
I accept your debate and the BOP on this topic eagerly. Best of luck to my opponent. | 0 | Siladheil |
I accept your debate and the BOP on this topic eagerly. Best of luck to my opponent. | Philosophy | 0 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,776 |
To begin, I'd like to post the definiton of fool. "noun 1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense. 2. a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool. 3. a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone. 4. an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool. 5. a weak-minded or idiotic person. " [1] We will ignore the second, third, and fourth definiton, as they do not pertain to the context of this debate, however the first and fifth do. To take a little piece of the Bible Verse wouldn't do said verse justice, therefore I will post the verse in its completeness and discuss the complete verse. "The fool [a] says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." [2] According to the first quote, a foolish person is one who is silly, stupid, or lacks any sort of common sense. And the second quote leads those who read it to believe that fools are immoral or evil in nature. I will discuss as to why atheists in general do not fall into either one of those categories. According to an article written on 20130912 [3] studies began in 1921 where the scientists took a rather large test group of 1,500 children with I.Q. scores of 135 or higher and followed them throughout their lives to determine how many followed a religious path or tended to believe that there were no gods, nor religion that was true. They took the facts, laid them out for themselves and decided that religion wasn't a good choice for them. There are many atheists who are known for amazing works of science and technology [4]. By disproving that all atheists are silly, stupid, or lack common sense, I have fulfilled my BOF for the first type of fool. Onto the second type of fool. The type that lacks morals or is inherently evil in nature. (I'm running out of space, I'll keep this short) Atheists are not inherently immoral or even evil. There are people all across the globe who are of all different religions or lack thereof and backgrounds who have done evil unspeakable things. To complete the BOP all I need to do is show that there are good Atheists in the world. I will show this by directing your attention to link #4 and with a short story. When I was a child of 12 years old I found a purse on the sidewalk of my small little town. I instantly opened up the wallet and saw approximately $400. I searched the rest of the day to return the wallet. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... | 0 | Siladheil |
To begin, I'd like to post the definiton of fool.
"noun
1.
a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2.
a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3.
a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4.
an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5.
a weak-minded or idiotic person. " [1] We will ignore the second, third, and fourth definiton, as they do not pertain to the context of this debate, however the first and fifth do. To take a little piece of the Bible Verse wouldn't do said verse justice, therefore I will post the verse in its completeness and discuss the complete verse. "The fool [a] says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good." [2] According to the first quote, a foolish person is one who is silly, stupid, or lacks any sort of common sense. And the second quote leads those who read it to believe that fools are immoral or evil in nature. I will discuss as to why atheists in general do not fall into either one of those categories. According to an article written on 20130912 [3] studies began in 1921 where the scientists took a rather large test group of 1,500 children with I.Q. scores of 135 or higher and followed them throughout their lives to determine how many followed a religious path or tended to believe that there were no gods, nor religion that was true. They took the facts, laid them out for themselves and decided that religion wasn't a good choice for them. There are many atheists who are known for amazing works of science and technology [4]. By disproving that all atheists are silly, stupid, or lack common sense, I have fulfilled my BOF for the first type of fool. Onto the second type of fool. The type that lacks morals or is inherently evil in nature. (I'm running out of space, I'll keep this short) Atheists are not inherently immoral or even evil. There are people all across the globe who are of all different religions or lack thereof and backgrounds who have done evil unspeakable things. To complete the BOP all I need to do is show that there are good Atheists in the world. I will show this by directing your attention to link #4 and with a short story. When I was a child of 12 years old I found a purse on the sidewalk of my small little town. I instantly opened up the wallet and saw approximately $400. I searched the rest of the day to return the wallet. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] https://www.biblegateway.com... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
| Philosophy | 1 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,777 |
I believe my opponent failed to read that bible verse in its entirety. I will post it again for clarification. "The fool [a] says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good ." You cannot pick and choose what you'd like from the bible to make it work for what you want. Either you follow all of it, or you follow none of it, else you're a hyprocrite. As for me, I choose not to live in a time where if your wife cheats on you, you can take her into your front yard and stone her to death. I have fulfilled my BOP by citing examples of some non-foolish Atheists. I have also fulfilled my BOP on the bible quote by giving examples of Atheists aren't inherently evil or vile, and I've posted links to atheists who have done good things for the world and their individual countries. Although PROs short stories are true, they do not pertain to this debate. | 0 | Siladheil |
I believe my opponent failed to read that bible verse in its entirety. I will post it again for clarification. "The fool [a] says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good ." You cannot pick and choose what you'd like from the bible to make it work for what you want. Either you follow all of it, or you follow none of it, else you're a hyprocrite. As for me, I choose not to live in a time where if your wife cheats on you, you can take her into your front yard and stone her to death. I have fulfilled my BOP by citing examples of some non-foolish Atheists. I have also fulfilled my BOP on the bible quote by giving examples of Atheists aren't inherently evil or vile, and I've posted links to atheists who have done good things for the world and their individual countries. Although PROs short stories are true, they do not pertain to this debate. | Philosophy | 2 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,778 |
Although I have fulfilled my BOP, I will continue this debate thoughout the next round to speed us along to the voting round. You're saying that no matter what we do, we're all vile, evil people? But the only way that we're going to find salvation is if we accept Jesus into our lives and hearts, we can be saved? What about the other 68.5% of the world [1]? Are they automatically doomed to the hell fire? Christianity is extremely outnumbered as a religion. I did not ignore the illustration, I simply wrote it off as not important. Of course an enemy combatant will shoot a complacent Marine in the face if he/she gets too close. Just like a venomous snake will bite a weary hiker as he/she walks on top of it. Those things are known that will most likely happen. I issue a challenge to you PRO. Show me anywhere in the past, backed up with evidence, that God has smited the non believers. There is only one stipulation. You can't use a fictional piece of writing. [1] <URL>... | 0 | Siladheil |
Although I have fulfilled my BOP, I will continue this debate thoughout the next round to speed us along to the voting round. You're saying that no matter what we do, we're all vile, evil people? But the only way that we're going to find salvation is if we accept Jesus into our lives and hearts, we can be saved? What about the other 68.5% of the world [1]? Are they automatically doomed to the hell fire? Christianity is extremely outnumbered as a religion. I did not ignore the illustration, I simply wrote it off as not important. Of course an enemy combatant will shoot a complacent Marine in the face if he/she gets too close. Just like a venomous snake will bite a weary hiker as he/she walks on top of it. Those things are known that will most likely happen. I issue a challenge to you PRO. Show me anywhere in the past, backed up with evidence, that God has smited the non believers. There is only one stipulation. You can't use a fictional piece of writing. [1] http://www.pewforum.org... | Philosophy | 3 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,779 |
Athough Pros stories are vivid and detailed, what pro is descibing is not foolishness, rather arrogance and complacency. "ar*ro*gance noun \: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people" [1] "com*pla*cen*cy : a feeling of being satisfied with how things are and not wanting to try to make them better : a complacent feeling or condition 1 : self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies 2 : an instance of usually unaware or uninformed self-satisfaction" [2] In Conclusion: I have fulfilled my BOP by giving examples of how not all atheists are fools and how not all atheists are vile, evil, creatures. I have refuted all my opponents arguments. Since my opponent didn't bring anything new to the table in the final round, neither will I. Best of luck to my opponent in the voting round. " May the odds be ever in your favor!" [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... | 0 | Siladheil |
Athough Pros stories are vivid and detailed, what pro is descibing is not foolishness, rather arrogance and complacency. "ar·ro·gance noun \: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people" [1] "com·pla·cen·cy : a feeling of being satisfied with how things are and not wanting to try to make them better : a complacent feeling or condition 1 : self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies 2 : an instance of usually unaware or uninformed self-satisfaction" [2] In Conclusion: I have fulfilled my BOP by giving examples of how not all atheists are fools and how not all atheists are vile, evil, creatures. I have refuted all my opponents arguments. Since my opponent didn't bring anything new to the table in the final round, neither will I. Best of luck to my opponent in the voting round. " May the odds be ever in your favor!" [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... | Philosophy | 4 | Atheistic-Military-Men-are-Proud-Brave-Fools-if-not-obedient-cowardlly-fools-and-they-can-be-mean./1/ | 6,780 |
The word atheist comes from privative a and theos(God), therefore "godless". God is good. Atheist is "goodless", ergo atheist is evil. | 0 | cho123 |
The word atheist comes from privative a and theos(God), therefore "godless".
God is good. Atheist is "goodless", ergo atheist is evil. | Philosophy | 0 | Atheists-Are-Evil/1/ | 6,786 |
God is equivalent to good. God is the Holy Trinity. Trees are good. Therefore, God is equivalent to good. | 0 | cho123 |
God is equivalent to good.
God is the Holy Trinity.
Trees are good.
Therefore, God is equivalent to good. | Philosophy | 1 | Atheists-Are-Evil/1/ | 6,787 |
You're right! If you're not God, then you are not good. Therefore, you are evil. Gays are also evil. If gays are evil, that means you're gay. Therefore everything that is not God is evil and gay. But God is everything, so God is equivalent to everything, except evil and gay, because he is good. | 0 | cho123 |
You're right! If you're not God, then you are not good. Therefore, you are evil.
Gays are also evil. If gays are evil, that means you're gay.
Therefore everything that is not God is evil and gay.
But God is everything, so God is equivalent to everything, except evil and gay, because he is good. | Philosophy | 2 | Atheists-Are-Evil/1/ | 6,788 |
Atheism: Lack of belief in God. One who believes God does not exist. Religion: Christianity of any denomination (80%+ Americans are Christian). Respect: Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability ( <URL>... ). Faith protects religion from the tentacles of critical thinking. Although we unknowingly suspend our critical thinking without religious faith everyday, religious faith openly celebrates this suspension. Many Christians actually pay someone to tell them not to critically engage a text. There are certain aspects of the Bible that are questioned but only to a certain extent, the extent to which the main characters are never doubted. This is one of the worst forms of credulity. For instance, we are never to suppose that the miracles within the New Testament were fabricated. Such a position is far more probable than the mutilations of the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry that are attested to in the Bible. The unwillingness to doubt key characters and events, therefore, should make Christianity unrespectable. One of the major problems with the Bible is that we have very little extra-biblical documentation that can either confirm or give us an alternate perspective of the events therein. For example, maybe the Roman officers (in a Roman document) say that Jesus tried to preform a miracle and failed. Without these documents, we are left to blindly choose our beliefs. It may come up that there are extra-biblical texts that confirm Jesus' story; however, these sources only prove that a distinct group existed in the Levant during the first and second century and that they believed Jesus to be the Messiah. These texts, in other words, only prove that Christians existed. For example, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders" ( <URL>... ). Notice, aside from the fact that it is small quote from a larger text, that it says, "At this time...". We know that the author is speaking in past tense as if he was not there. We also know that the people believed that Jesus appeared to his disciples. Finally, we know that if Pilate had Jesus crucified, it does not follow that Jesus was resurrected. Plus, history is not always accurate; it's not as scientific as we would like it to be. Historical accounts must also be backed up with science. If a historical account reports that laws of science are broken, it follows that it probably did not occur the way the account claimed. This predicament leaves us with the option of the "leap of faith." We should just believe it. Not only should you just believe it, you should also respect the beliefs of all who believe this. Credulity in any other instance is a vice, not a virtue. Credulity makes Christianity unrespectable. | 0 | Dmetal |
Atheism: Lack of belief in God. One who believes God does not exist.
Religion: Christianity of any denomination (80%+ Americans are Christian).
Respect: Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ).
Faith protects religion from the tentacles of critical thinking. Although we unknowingly suspend our critical thinking without religious faith everyday, religious faith openly celebrates this suspension. Many Christians actually pay someone to tell them not to critically engage a text. There are certain aspects of the Bible that are questioned but only to a certain extent, the extent to which the main characters are never doubted. This is one of the worst forms of credulity. For instance, we are never to suppose that the miracles within the New Testament were fabricated. Such a position is far more probable than the mutilations of the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry that are attested to in the Bible. The unwillingness to doubt key characters and events, therefore, should make Christianity unrespectable.
One of the major problems with the Bible is that we have very little extra-biblical documentation that can either confirm or give us an alternate perspective of the events therein. For example, maybe the Roman officers (in a Roman document) say that Jesus tried to preform a miracle and failed. Without these documents, we are left to blindly choose our beliefs. It may come up that there are extra-biblical texts that confirm Jesus' story; however, these sources only prove that a distinct group existed in the Levant during the first and second century and that they believed Jesus to be the Messiah. These texts, in other words, only prove that Christians existed. For example, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders" ( http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org... ).
Notice, aside from the fact that it is small quote from a larger text, that it says, "At this time...". We know that the author is speaking in past tense as if he was not there. We also know that the people believed that Jesus appeared to his disciples. Finally, we know that if Pilate had Jesus crucified, it does not follow that Jesus was resurrected. Plus, history is not always accurate; it's not as scientific as we would like it to be. Historical accounts must also be backed up with science. If a historical account reports that laws of science are broken, it follows that it probably did not occur the way the account claimed.
This predicament leaves us with the option of the "leap of faith." We should just believe it. Not only should you just believe it, you should also respect the beliefs of all who believe this. Credulity in any other instance is a vice, not a virtue. Credulity makes Christianity unrespectable. | Religion | 0 | Atheists-should-not-respect-religious-beliefs/1/ | 6,857 |
Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. My opponent says, "Within Christian theology exists the sub-discipline of Christology, the specific study of the nature of Christ consisting both of the critical examination of what he did, what he said, and philosophical debates as to the nature of his divinity." The site , on the other hand, says, "The purpose of modern Christology is to formulate the Christian belief that "God became man and that God-made-man is the individual Jesus Christ"" ( <URL>... ). This is not critical examination or engagement. The main character is not doubted or pressed to account for his extreme claims. This is essentially a rationalization for an irrational argument. We see this frequently in pseudoscience. For example, ufology is the study of ufo reports, and it is synonymous with alien visitation. In order to secure credibility, these individuals attach their work with scientific nomenclatures. Christology strives to do the same with Christ; it is a pseudoscience. "The fact that I can demonstrate Christians who hold to rational self-critical faith shows that in certain instances rational atheists can and should respect Religion and so negates this particular argument." Such an instance is not demonstrated here so far. My opponent is appealing to authority to prove his argument. Scientists and philosophers,like everyone else, can hold irrational beliefs, even ones that have nothing to do with religion. Finally, for this part, we should not base our beliefs upon exceptions but the general rule. Demonstrating one case of rational, logical, and critical belief in Christianity is not enough because there are still far more Christians who have never critically examined Christianity. "Firstly much of our historical knowledge is based on limited documentation." This is an attempt to shift the argument and his responsibility in refuting my claim. Although history is imperfect like I mentioned earlier, we do not contrive extreme beliefs from its accounts. I am not doubting whether Jesus existed but whether he did the things people claimed. The Crucifixion does not necessarily lead to the Resurrection. There are many fanciful stories in history, of which some may have a grain of truth. Troy, for example, may have been a real battle however, the battle does not lead to Achilles being nearly invincible. His image may be that of the heroic, talented Greek warriors. "This prima facie case, when combined with arguments from logic... and arguments from personal experience (which by definition are only subject to critical examination by the recipient) serves to at least partially refute my opponents attack on the validity of a Christian belief system." The survival of Christianity is not self-evidently a case for divine providence. Hinduism has existed much longer (3200-2500 BC. <URL>... ). That, however, does not prove that it has maintained divine providence. Personal experiences can be critically examined by others. For example, detectives can question and cross-examine a suspect to validate his/her story. When we speak about our experiences, we may leave holes or contradictory claims in our story that may cause a listener to disbelieve us. This can be seen in the Bible. Although I will not get into depth on this, the accounts of the Resurrection varies in who was present and how it occurred. This should cause readers to question the validity of the story. (Opponent if you do refute this, keep it brief because it is not the focus of our debate, and I would much dislike posting numerous, extensive Biblical passages). The point is that it's a case where readers should question the validity of the story. The value of Christianity I could just post the crimes that were committed in the name of Jesus, but I will refrain because it has very little to do with the rationality and the amount of respect a belief carries. Many irrational beliefs give people comfort, but this does not warrant our respect. Our respect for a belief should stand on its demonstrable truth, not how much comfort it gives us. All of the points my opponent raises have nothing to do with the validity of Christian beliefs. Sure we should respect the people who give to charity, no matter their religious affiliation; however, we should not immediately respect their personal beliefs, especially if they are founded on credulity. This last point is a very important issue. Groups should always be protected from violence; however, their beliefs should never be protected from scrutiny. Religion should be threatened by mental reason, not physical violence. | 0 | Dmetal |
Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.
My opponent says, "Within Christian theology exists the sub-discipline of Christology, the specific study of the nature of Christ consisting both of the critical examination of what he did, what he said, and philosophical debates as to the nature of his divinity." The site , on the other hand, says, "The purpose of modern Christology is to formulate the Christian belief that "God became man and that God-made-man is the individual Jesus Christ"" ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). This is not critical examination or engagement. The main character is not doubted or pressed to account for his extreme claims. This is essentially a rationalization for an irrational argument. We see this frequently in pseudoscience. For example, ufology is the study of ufo reports, and it is synonymous with alien visitation. In order to secure credibility, these individuals attach their work with scientific nomenclatures. Christology strives to do the same with Christ; it is a pseudoscience.
"The fact that I can demonstrate Christians who hold to rational self-critical faith shows that in certain instances rational atheists can and should respect Religion and so negates this particular argument."
Such an instance is not demonstrated here so far. My opponent is appealing to authority to prove his argument. Scientists and philosophers,like everyone else, can hold irrational beliefs, even ones that have nothing to do with religion. Finally, for this part, we should not base our beliefs upon exceptions but the general rule. Demonstrating one case of rational, logical, and critical belief in Christianity is not enough because there are still far more Christians who have never critically examined Christianity.
"Firstly much of our historical knowledge is based on limited documentation."
This is an attempt to shift the argument and his responsibility in refuting my claim. Although history is imperfect like I mentioned earlier, we do not contrive extreme beliefs from its accounts. I am not doubting whether Jesus existed but whether he did the things people claimed. The Crucifixion does not necessarily lead to the Resurrection. There are many fanciful stories in history, of which some may have a grain of truth. Troy, for example, may have been a real battle however, the battle does not lead to Achilles being nearly invincible. His image may be that of the heroic, talented Greek warriors.
"This prima facie case, when combined with arguments from logic... and arguments from personal experience (which by definition are only subject to critical examination by the recipient) serves to at least partially refute my opponents attack on the validity of a Christian belief system."
The survival of Christianity is not self-evidently a case for divine providence. Hinduism has existed much longer (3200-2500 BC. http://www.indianexcursion.net... ). That, however, does not prove that it has maintained divine providence.
Personal experiences can be critically examined by others. For example, detectives can question and cross-examine a suspect to validate his/her story. When we speak about our experiences, we may leave holes or contradictory claims in our story that may cause a listener to disbelieve us. This can be seen in the Bible. Although I will not get into depth on this, the accounts of the Resurrection varies in who was present and how it occurred. This should cause readers to question the validity of the story. (Opponent if you do refute this, keep it brief because it is not the focus of our debate, and I would much dislike posting numerous, extensive Biblical passages). The point is that it's a case where readers should question the validity of the story.
The value of Christianity
I could just post the crimes that were committed in the name of Jesus, but I will refrain because it has very little to do with the rationality and the amount of respect a belief carries. Many irrational beliefs give people comfort, but this does not warrant our respect. Our respect for a belief should stand on its demonstrable truth, not how much comfort it gives us. All of the points my opponent raises have nothing to do with the validity of Christian beliefs. Sure we should respect the people who give to charity, no matter their religious affiliation; however, we should not immediately respect their personal beliefs, especially if they are founded on credulity. This last point is a very important issue. Groups should always be protected from violence; however, their beliefs should never be protected from scrutiny. Religion should be threatened by mental reason, not physical violence. | Religion | 1 | Atheists-should-not-respect-religious-beliefs/1/ | 6,858 |
Thanks to my opponent for taking this argument and conducting himself in a professional manner. Many Christians, even theologians, have not actually engaged religion critically. Cristology is not critical engagement. That is true there are assumptions in science; however, those assumptions are only made when they must be made. For instance, we assume that we can trust our senses. Although Christology does not proclaim to be scientific ,though it uses historical (social scientific) evidence, scientific methodology should be applied to the claims it produces. This would allow for some sort of critical inquiry. Disrespecting a belief is not the same as disrespecting a person. For instance, if someone believes that the earth is flat, it is not necessary for us to strip him/her of respect as a person; however, we should not respect his/her belief because there is contradictory evidence to it. This argument is not asking anyone to disrespect people but to disrespect beliefs. My opponent has claimed that Christianity deserves respect from atheists because it contains academic inquiry, people value it, and there exists certain economic and social benefits from it. Firstly,this kind of academic inquiry could hardly be called inquiry. When we inquire about something, we put everything on the line. Christology/ theology fail to actually inquire about the true, historical nature of the Bible and Christianity. Secondly, many people value various beliefs, many of of them unsubstantiated. This does not require our respect nor should it assume our respect. Thirdly, economic and social benefits such as helping the poor should be respected on their own terms regardless of a person's belief. Believe it or not, there are many unaffiliated people who improve society. There exist many contradictions within the Bible ( <URL>... ) ( <URL>... ) that should substantiate doubt, but many Christians seem unchanged by these evidences. Christians, in other words, are not willing to doubt their beliefs. I would gladly as would many atheists become Christian if certain criteria for evidence could be fulfilled. Of course, many atheists have problems with the miracles within the Bible and the morality therein, but if it was demonstrably true, that would be enough. The question may arise how we can believe in and respect one's abstract concepts of love and happiness. These things are not demonstrable, but we still believe in them and respect people's feelings towards them; however, they are not in any way similar to the claims that Christianity is making. These claims are historical while abstractions are emotional and attached to an individual. If I say I'm happy, that is something completely different than claiming to be God. Such extreme claims should not be accepted by faith alone; it would be credulous to do so. Because of the lack of evidence and the existence of contradictory evidence, atheists should not respect religious beliefs. | 0 | Dmetal |
Thanks to my opponent for taking this argument and conducting himself in a professional manner.
Many Christians, even theologians, have not actually engaged religion critically. Cristology is not critical engagement. That is true there are assumptions in science; however, those assumptions are only made when they must be made. For instance, we assume that we can trust our senses. Although Christology does not proclaim to be scientific ,though it uses historical (social scientific) evidence, scientific methodology should be applied to the claims it produces. This would allow for some sort of critical inquiry.
Disrespecting a belief is not the same as disrespecting a person. For instance, if someone believes that the earth is flat, it is not necessary for us to strip him/her of respect as a person; however, we should not respect his/her belief because there is contradictory evidence to it. This argument is not asking anyone to disrespect people but to disrespect beliefs. My opponent has claimed that Christianity deserves respect from atheists because it contains academic inquiry, people value it, and there exists certain economic and social benefits from it. Firstly,this kind of academic inquiry could hardly be called inquiry. When we inquire about something, we put everything on the line. Christology/ theology fail to actually inquire about the true, historical nature of the Bible and Christianity. Secondly, many people value various beliefs, many of of them unsubstantiated. This does not require our respect nor should it assume our respect. Thirdly, economic and social benefits such as helping the poor should be respected on their own terms regardless of a person's belief. Believe it or not, there are many unaffiliated people who improve society.
There exist many contradictions within the Bible ( http://www.infidels.org... ) ( http://www.evilbible.com... ) that should substantiate doubt, but many Christians seem unchanged by these evidences. Christians, in other words, are not willing to doubt their beliefs. I would gladly as would many atheists become Christian if certain criteria for evidence could be fulfilled. Of course, many atheists have problems with the miracles within the Bible and the morality therein, but if it was demonstrably true, that would be enough.
The question may arise how we can believe in and respect one's abstract concepts of love and happiness. These things are not demonstrable, but we still believe in them and respect people's feelings towards them; however, they are not in any way similar to the claims that Christianity is making. These claims are historical while abstractions are emotional and attached to an individual. If I say I'm happy, that is something completely different than claiming to be God. Such extreme claims should not be accepted by faith alone; it would be credulous to do so. Because of the lack of evidence and the existence of contradictory evidence, atheists should not respect religious beliefs. | Religion | 2 | Atheists-should-not-respect-religious-beliefs/1/ | 6,859 |
I will argue against (con) private schools competeing athletically against public schools in district tournaments. Pro will argue for private schools competing against public schools in district tournaments. | 0 | rugreater |
I will argue against (con) private schools competeing athletically against public schools in district tournaments. Pro will argue for private schools competing against public schools in district tournaments. | Sports | 0 | Athletic-competition-on-the-Highschool-level/1/ | 6,895 |
I think public schools should not have to compete against private schools in a state sponsored tournament. Private schools have an unfair advantage because they can recruit students who are more developed in athletic areas by offering them scholarships. Also athletes at public schools must live in a certain district so there is likely to be fewer athletes in a small district as posed to all North America. I see no advantages for the athletes' of public schools. In Addition to the other two points I have made as the economy continues to be horrible and spending on education continues to be cut public schools are directly affected. Facilities will not be updated as needed because there is no money to do this with. Private schools are not affected by the funding cuts | 0 | rugreater |
I think public schools should not have to compete against private schools in a state sponsored tournament.
Private schools have an unfair advantage because they can recruit students who are more developed in athletic areas by offering them scholarships. Also athletes at public schools must live in a certain district so there is likely to be fewer athletes in a small district as posed to all North America. I see no advantages for the athletes' of public schools. In Addition to the other two points I have made as the economy continues to be horrible and spending on education continues to be cut public schools are directly affected. Facilities will not be updated as needed because there is no money to do this with. Private schools are not affected by the funding cuts | Sports | 1 | Athletic-competition-on-the-Highschool-level/1/ | 6,896 |
The Falcons are not the best team in the NFL. | 0 | TheBigCock |
The Falcons are not the best team in the NFL. | Sports | 0 | Atlanta-Falcons/1/ | 6,903 |
They do not play a tough schedule, and still do not rank in the top 5 in any offensive category except passing yards (4th) | 0 | TheBigCock |
They do not play a tough schedule, and still do not rank in the top 5 in any offensive category except passing yards (4th) | Sports | 1 | Atlanta-Falcons/1/ | 6,904 |
They are in the 2nd worst division in the NFL | 0 | TheBigCock |
They are in the 2nd worst division in the NFL | Sports | 2 | Atlanta-Falcons/1/ | 6,905 |
But They 11-1 | 0 | TheBiggerCock |
But They 11-1 | Sports | 0 | Atlanta-Falcons/1/ | 6,906 |
They may not be that good but it is enough to win them games and remember brotha they were the first team to clinch the spot in the playoffs and they won there division rember they 11-1 | 0 | TheBiggerCock |
They may not be that good but it is enough to win them games and remember brotha they were the first team to clinch the spot in the playoffs and they won there division rember they 11-1 | Sports | 1 | Atlanta-Falcons/1/ | 6,907 |
superbowl 47 champs atl falcons...remember im the biggercock | 0 | TheBiggerCock |
superbowl 47 champs atl falcons...remember im the biggercock | Sports | 2 | Atlanta-Falcons/1/ | 6,908 |
Austerity, the practice of attempting to limit government spending in order to reign in debt, is a strategy pursued by many countries in the midst of recession. It is Pro's contention that while these policies may seem wise in the short term, they have a demonstrably poor track record at actually helping an economy to recover overall. First round is for acceptance. | 0 | voxprojectus |
Austerity, the practice of attempting to limit government spending in order to reign in debt, is a strategy pursued by many countries in the midst of recession. It is Pro's contention that while these policies may seem wise in the short term, they have a demonstrably poor track record at actually helping an economy to recover overall.
First round is for acceptance. | Economics | 0 | Austerity-is-a-poor-way-to-help-an-economy./1/ | 6,929 |
My thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate. I would like to open, by drawing out attention to the country of Iceland. In 2008, Iceland's recession, --part of string of countries that ended up in hot water due to their reliance on horrendous banking policies-- was not only the worst Iceland had ever seen, but also the deepest in terms of debt versus anywhere else on the planet. Austerity had its advocates there. "Cut our social programs! End our welfare! reign in our universal health care coverage!" they cried. But the Icelandic people wisely chose to reject this 'race-to-the-bottom' style of thinking. Paradoxically, by going into MORE debt briefly in order to stimulate their economy and salvage their social safety net, Iceland has bounced back stronger than ever into a position of economic leadership in the region. <URL>... By contrast, let us look to Greece, who, unlike Iceland, has been dragged kicking and screaming through austerity measures by the IMF (who loaned money Austerity-Anchor free to Iceland) and is still in horrific depression as a result. The complete lack of consumer spending has not magically resulted in the generation of new savings, nor have the deep cuts in social spending somehow translated to a strong and balanced budget. Rather these measures have utterly demolished both the prospects and morale of the Greek people. <URL>... Both these cases underscore the argument I laid out in my opening statement: Trying to focus an economy on being debt-free in the short-term in the hopes of boosting loan-confidence and savings, while it may bring debt down in the short term, does nothing to actually fuel economic growth or end recession. By contrast, a focus on stimulus, while raising debt in the short term, allows for enough financial gain in the long term to reduce or eliminate debt with the extra money that will eventually be generated. To break the whole thing down in very simplistic terms, stimulus can function as the kick-start to get an economic motor running, and once running, that motor will eventually cover its own motion. Austerity generates nothing but moralistic, self-righteous smarm. | 0 | voxprojectus |
My thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate.
I would like to open, by drawing out attention to the country of Iceland. In 2008, Iceland's recession, --part of string of countries that ended up in hot water due to their reliance on horrendous banking policies-- was not only the worst Iceland had ever seen, but also the deepest in terms of debt versus anywhere else on the planet.
Austerity had its advocates there. "Cut our social programs! End our welfare! reign in our universal health care coverage!" they cried.
But the Icelandic people wisely chose to reject this 'race-to-the-bottom' style of thinking. Paradoxically, by going into MORE debt briefly in order to stimulate their economy and salvage their social safety net, Iceland has bounced back stronger than ever into a position of economic leadership in the region.
http://www.bloomberg.com...
By contrast, let us look to Greece, who, unlike Iceland, has been dragged kicking and screaming through austerity measures by the IMF (who loaned money Austerity-Anchor free to Iceland) and is still in horrific depression as a result. The complete lack of consumer spending has not magically resulted in the generation of new savings, nor have the deep cuts in social spending somehow translated to a strong and balanced budget. Rather these measures have utterly demolished both the prospects and morale of the Greek people.
https://www.commondreams.org...
Both these cases underscore the argument I laid out in my opening statement: Trying to focus an economy on being debt-free in the short-term in the hopes of boosting loan-confidence and savings, while it may bring debt down in the short term, does nothing to actually fuel economic growth or end recession.
By contrast, a focus on stimulus, while raising debt in the short term, allows for enough financial gain in the long term to reduce or eliminate debt with the extra money that will eventually be generated.
To break the whole thing down in very simplistic terms, stimulus can function as the kick-start to get an economic motor running, and once running, that motor will eventually cover its own motion. Austerity generates nothing but moralistic, self-righteous smarm. | Economics | 1 | Austerity-is-a-poor-way-to-help-an-economy./1/ | 6,930 |
First to rebut, I think there are a great many gaps and a lack of correlation in many of your arguments. Let's go through it, shall we? 1. You assert that balancing the budget would result in financial institutions having more savings. Rebuttal: A government indulging in Austerity in order to meet the goal of a balanced budget takes away both savings AND spending power from the poorer segments of the population. With less money in food stamps or subsidized housing, the impoverished citizen is forced to withdraw money from Financial institutions in order to make these ends meet. Either that or rely on yet more credit to cover the gaps. On top of that, these individuals would have less money to spend on goods and services, and the providers of those goods and services in turn have less to save. Thus, with less savings from both the upper and lower end of the economy, financial institutions would have less saved and less to invest in production. 2. Savings could be utilized for expensive purchases, such as cars and houses. Rebuttal: Again, how does balancing a budget result in people having more money to save? We're talking about funds that government uses to typically subsidize people's lives so they don't have to spend money. If, in the course of austerity, people suddenly have to live without public transportation, food or housing help, where does their extra money come from? 3. The NBER's statement on the benefits of Capital Accumulation are not partnered with Austerity. In fact a recent article by the same group very much argues the opposite of that: <URL>... "The Austerity Myth: Gain without Pain". 4. Your conclusion rings hollow in the face of both examples I have provided. Please address them. In the meantime, I extend all arguments. And my thanks for your response. | 0 | voxprojectus |
First to rebut, I think there are a great many gaps and a lack of correlation in many of your arguments. Let's go through it, shall we?
1. You assert that balancing the budget would result in financial institutions having more savings.
Rebuttal: A government indulging in Austerity in order to meet the goal of a balanced budget takes away both savings AND spending power from the poorer segments of the population. With less money in food stamps or subsidized housing, the impoverished citizen is forced to withdraw money from Financial institutions in order to make these ends meet. Either that or rely on yet more credit to cover the gaps. On top of that, these individuals would have less money to spend on goods and services, and the providers of those goods and services in turn have less to save.
Thus, with less savings from both the upper and lower end of the economy, financial institutions would have less saved and less to invest in production.
2. Savings could be utilized for expensive purchases, such as cars and houses.
Rebuttal: Again, how does balancing a budget result in people having more money to save? We're talking about funds that government uses to typically subsidize people's lives so they don't have to spend money. If, in the course of austerity, people suddenly have to live without public transportation, food or housing help, where does their extra money come from?
3. The NBER's statement on the benefits of Capital Accumulation are not partnered with Austerity. In fact a recent article by the same group very much argues the opposite of that:
http://www.nber.org... "The Austerity Myth: Gain without Pain".
4. Your conclusion rings hollow in the face of both examples I have provided. Please address them.
In the meantime, I extend all arguments.
And my thanks for your response. | Economics | 2 | Austerity-is-a-poor-way-to-help-an-economy./1/ | 6,931 |
You underestimate earnings of the poor. Most of the earnings of the poor have come from their labor, not transfer payments. Absolutely, but the poor rely on a greater number of subsidies to survive. I never meant to suggest that all or even most of lower-income money came from transfer payments, only that these are the people who are hurt when these things diminish. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is thus the total income earned by a society. Therefore, we should be focusing on how to improve productivity of a society to increase real incomes (output). Increasing marginal productivity will thus improve the incomes and therefore wealth of society. Here in many ways, is the crux of the whole discussion. Using small numbers, if you take ten people, 9 of whom are scraping by on 40,000 a year and 1 of whom makes 40 million, you get to say, "Oh look! Our GDP is 40,000,040,000! We"re winning! If you redistribute income amongst the same ten people so that one is making 20 million and the rest make varying multi-millions, yet the overall total is more like 38 million, the new GDP may be lower, but you"d be hard-pressed to argue that just because of this all the people are suffering more as a result. But that"s a huge and separate argument. For the purposes of this debate, my point is only that GDP is a false metric for the success of a system. The redistribution payments of the type we are talking about usually subsidize the incomes of the poor at the expense of the rich, the latter whom save and invest more of their income, because they have a "higher propensity to save". It"s surprisingly easy to save when you already have enough to live on and some left over, isn"t it? The problem here is a confusion of correlation and cause. Richer individuals and countries DO tend to have greater savings, but the savings are not the cause for their wealth; rather because they have abundance in productivity or income they are able to save, not the other way around. In fact hording larger and larger stockpiles of keep that money out of circulation, and with no circulation, economic stagnation sets in. The federal government pays for its programs through taxation, printing money (inflation), or borrowing (debt). Borrowing puts money in government's hands and ensures that the same money is not available for private investment. Thus investment capital is taken from the private sector to be put in the hands of government. This "crowding out" of private investment and the enlargening of the generally less efficient government thus destroys capital that could be productively put to use (business expansion for example). [4] The misconception in this perspective is rooted in the assumptions about what gets done with money otherwise. If businesses were always constantly re-investing and expanding and hiring, everything you say above would be completely true. The problem is that this is not what businesses typically do. In our current recession for example, more and more money is being pocketed as profit (itself a representation of inefficiency that isn't ending up back in the business or back into the economy as a whole) and not going into hiring or opening more domestic factories or anything else beneficial. In other words, if it's a question of taxation-stimulus-cash flow-recovery VS. Tax cuts-cash flow-recovery the latter option, lasses-faire private-sector wins out. But that isn't the reality of the situation. It is tax cuts-profit-hoarding-outsourcing with no recovery in sight. The bottom line is that Austerity does nothing to encourage or coerce businesses to do anything to hire more people or invest back in the country more in the form of infrastructure or manufacturing. Yes, in theory it gives them the option, but our economic policies have only bent over backwards to give them that option for decades and the end result has not been economic improvement. People would instead expect services such as transportation from the private sector. And as stated earlier, capital accumulation, a result of savings (which occurs when gov't stops borrowing funds) will lead to higher incomes. My above argument covers this as well. Businesses don't invest in infrastructure without short-term gain reasoning. Building or improving a road is something that WILL pay off for a company, but not in the short-term. Beholden to their stockholders who depend on reports of improvement with literally every quarter, the private sector is in no place to do anything that doesn't enhance share value within the next six months. Some things simply take longer than that. Take the depression. Conservatives frequently like to argue that New Deal policies did nothing to help the country get out of the Great Depression and that it was all World War II and the private sector that made recovery possible. But they leave out an important factor: Those businesses would have been in NO position to adroitly and rapidly manufacture tanks and planes and bombs without roads to move them on. That army would not have been in a position to contribute the manpower we did if the previous generation they recruited from had nothing to eat. And those businesses would not have had unadulterated access to foreign markets in post-war reconstruction without a government capable of stepping in and making these things possible. Long-term improvements pay off in the long term and lend greater prosperity. Short-sighted profit-seeking, while amazingly good for a very small handful of individuals who get to reap those profits, is not actually a sustainable model on which to base a national economy. If the government decides to borrow $100 billion from the nation's economy, it is taking out cash wealth and putting it back elsewhere, after administrative costs. It is like a leaky bucket and a pool. A bucket of water is taken out at one end, and poured at the other end of the pool. There is no net growth. You cannot grow an economy this way. If you take $100 billion from the private sector (debt borrowing) and spend it on say stimulus packages, and in the hypothetical scenario that the private sector gains say $90 billion after administrative costs are factored in --- there is no economic benefit. You're leaving out long-term gains. If only 90-billion comes back in the short term, but leads to a gain of 50-billion in the long term, the economy over all has in fact seen great benefit. You can only arrive at the conclusion that the money is wasted if you don't look at the long term. In closing, I would respectfully ask that my opponent address my opening examples. Right now, I feel as though I've given two real-world examples of where the opposite of what my opponent says should happen has happened, and CON has completely ignored these examples. It reminds me of the old Reagan joke (yes, levied against my way of thinking I'll grant) "An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory" Iceland works in practice on my ideas. Greece is failing in practice on my opponent's. All CON has done is discuss theory about what *should* happen, not what does. I look forward to your response. (My time is shorter than I'd like, I will try to do more sourcing in my conclusion) | 0 | voxprojectus |
You underestimate earnings of the poor. Most of the earnings of the poor have come from their labor, not transfer payments.
Absolutely, but the poor rely on a greater number of subsidies to survive. I never meant to suggest that all or even most of lower-income money came from transfer payments, only that these are the people who are hurt when these things diminish.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is thus the total income earned by a society.
Therefore, we should be focusing on how to improve productivity of a society to increase real incomes (output). Increasing marginal productivity will thus improve the incomes and therefore wealth of society.
Here in many ways, is the crux of the whole discussion. Using small numbers, if you take ten people, 9 of whom are scraping by on 40,000 a year and 1 of whom makes 40 million, you get to say, "Oh look! Our GDP is 40,000,040,000! We"re winning! If you redistribute income amongst the same ten people so that one is making 20 million and the rest make varying multi-millions, yet the overall total is more like 38 million, the new GDP may be lower, but you"d be hard-pressed to argue that just because of this all the people are suffering more as a result.
But that"s a huge and separate argument. For the purposes of this debate, my point is only that GDP is a false metric for the success of a system.
The redistribution payments of the type we are talking about usually subsidize the incomes of the poor at the expense of the rich, the latter whom save and invest more of their income, because they have a "higher propensity to save".
It"s surprisingly easy to save when you already have enough to live on and some left over, isn"t it?
The problem here is a confusion of correlation and cause. Richer individuals and countries DO tend to have greater savings, but the savings are not the cause for their wealth; rather because they have abundance in productivity or income they are able to save, not the other way around. In fact hording larger and larger stockpiles of keep that money out of circulation, and with no circulation, economic stagnation sets in.
The federal government pays for its programs through taxation, printing money (inflation), or borrowing (debt). Borrowing puts money in government's hands and ensures that the same money is not available for private investment. Thus investment capital is taken from the private sector to be put in the hands of government. This "crowding out" of private investment and the enlargening of the generally less efficient government thus destroys capital that could be productively put to use (business expansion for example). [4]
The misconception in this perspective is rooted in the assumptions about what gets done with money otherwise. If businesses were always constantly re-investing and expanding and hiring, everything you say above would be completely true. The problem is that this is not what businesses typically do. In our current recession for example, more and more money is being pocketed as profit (itself a representation of inefficiency that isn't ending up back in the business or back into the economy as a whole) and not going into hiring or opening more domestic factories or anything else beneficial.
In other words, if it's a question of taxation-stimulus-cash flow-recovery VS. Tax cuts-cash flow-recovery the latter option, lasses-faire private-sector wins out.
But that isn't the reality of the situation. It is tax cuts-profit-hoarding-outsourcing with no recovery in sight.
The bottom line is that Austerity does nothing to encourage or coerce businesses to do anything to hire more people or invest back in the country more in the form of infrastructure or manufacturing. Yes, in theory it gives them the option, but our economic policies have only bent over backwards to give them that option for decades and the end result has not been economic improvement.
People would instead expect services such as transportation from the private sector. And as stated earlier, capital accumulation, a result of savings (which occurs when gov't stops borrowing funds) will lead to higher incomes.
My above argument covers this as well. Businesses don't invest in infrastructure without short-term gain reasoning. Building or improving a road is something that WILL pay off for a company, but not in the short-term. Beholden to their stockholders who depend on reports of improvement with literally every quarter, the private sector is in no place to do anything that doesn't enhance share value within the next six months. Some things simply take longer than that.
Take the depression. Conservatives frequently like to argue that New Deal policies did nothing to help the country get out of the Great Depression and that it was all World War II and the private sector that made recovery possible.
But they leave out an important factor: Those businesses would have been in NO position to adroitly and rapidly manufacture tanks and planes and bombs without roads to move them on. That army would not have been in a position to contribute the manpower we did if the previous generation they recruited from had nothing to eat. And those businesses would not have had unadulterated access to foreign markets in post-war reconstruction without a government capable of stepping in and making these things possible.
Long-term improvements pay off in the long term and lend greater prosperity. Short-sighted profit-seeking, while amazingly good for a very small handful of individuals who get to reap those profits, is not actually a sustainable model on which to base a national economy.
If the government decides to borrow $100 billion from the nation's economy, it is taking out cash wealth and putting it back elsewhere, after administrative costs.
It is like a leaky bucket and a pool. A bucket of water is taken out at one end, and poured at the other end of the pool. There is no net growth.
You cannot grow an economy this way. If you take $100 billion from the private sector (debt borrowing) and spend it on say stimulus packages, and in the hypothetical scenario that the private sector gains say $90 billion after administrative costs are factored in --- there is no economic benefit.
You're leaving out long-term gains. If only 90-billion comes back in the short term, but leads to a gain of 50-billion in the long term, the economy over all has in fact seen great benefit. You can only arrive at the conclusion that the money is wasted if you don't look at the long term.
In closing, I would respectfully ask that my opponent address my opening examples. Right now, I feel as though I've given two real-world examples of where the opposite of what my opponent says should happen has happened, and CON has completely ignored these examples.
It reminds me of the old Reagan joke (yes, levied against my way of thinking I'll grant) "An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and wonders if it would work in theory"
Iceland works in practice on my ideas. Greece is failing in practice on my opponent's. All CON has done is discuss theory about what *should* happen, not what does.
I look forward to your response.
(My time is shorter than I'd like, I will try to do more sourcing in my conclusion) | Economics | 3 | Austerity-is-a-poor-way-to-help-an-economy./1/ | 6,932 |
I'd like for everyone to pay close attention to what my opponent states here: "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." I completely agree with my opponent in this regard, and when it comes to the context of nuclear energy, it is for this very reason that I must oppose Australia or any country for that matter utilizing nuclear energy. On the surface, nuclear energy seems like a powerful alternative to many mainstream sources of energy (particularly fossil fuels considering their pollution of the environment). However, when looking at the acquisition of resources in order to feed nuclear power plants, this is when the environmental damage seeps in: the mining for uranium in order to acquire resources to power these plants. The mining of uranium (a radioactive metal) has caused numerous instances of cancer and other health complications due to the exposure of radioactivity in communities. The actual process of the mining also destroys the surrounding environment, which is not environmentally friendly either. The disposal of nuclear waste is also a problem, where the amount of places where the uranium can be stored in order to prevent the afflictions of the community are limited and any "good" solutions are only temporary. This is not even to mention the environmental damage that would result in the destruction of a nuclear facility through meltdown or natural disaster, as shown by the instances of Fukishima in Japan after the tsunami or Chernobyl during the 1980s (where radiation from the nuclear plant still remains today and has caused radiation poisoning among many visitors). | 0 | ScarletGhost4396 |
I'd like for everyone to pay close attention to what my opponent states here: "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." I completely agree with my opponent in this regard, and when it comes to the context of nuclear energy, it is for this very reason that I must oppose Australia or any country for that matter utilizing nuclear energy. On the surface, nuclear energy seems like a powerful alternative to many mainstream sources of energy (particularly fossil fuels considering their pollution of the environment). However, when looking at the acquisition of resources in order to feed nuclear power plants, this is when the environmental damage seeps in: the mining for uranium in order to acquire resources to power these plants. The mining of uranium (a radioactive metal) has caused numerous instances of cancer and other health complications due to the exposure of radioactivity in communities. The actual process of the mining also destroys the surrounding environment, which is not environmentally friendly either. The disposal of nuclear waste is also a problem, where the amount of places where the uranium can be stored in order to prevent the afflictions of the community are limited and any "good" solutions are only temporary. This is not even to mention the environmental damage that would result in the destruction of a nuclear facility through meltdown or natural disaster, as shown by the instances of Fukishima in Japan after the tsunami or Chernobyl during the 1980s (where radiation from the nuclear plant still remains today and has caused radiation poisoning among many visitors). | Politics | 0 | Australia-Should-Go-Nuclear/1/ | 6,933 |
No one is saying that fossil fuel industries or the safety thereof are any better an alternative to nuclear plants. What I am trying to prove here is 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 or nuclear meltdown and the indirect dangers they would cause by the fact that uranium must be extracted from the ground and exposed to the public, which will lead to increases in cancer rates, sicknesses, and birth defects. My opponent made no sort of argument against the mining of uranium, so this can be extended across the flow entirely. He has also made no argument about the nuclear waste either, so extend this as well. When it comes down to the safety that nuclear plants put in order to prevent these meltdowns and leakings from occurring--sure, my opponent is correct in the idea that they place a lot of safety in these facilities. My question is, however, what would happen if even all of these precautions were to fail? We all know what happened in Chernobyl and Fukishima, where in Chernobyl, radiation is still existent throughout the region and causing illnesses even after about 30 years since the explosion, or Fukishima, where radiation has seeped into the ocean. The question that it really comes down to is whether or not the people of Australia should take the risk at all of having this occurrence happen to them and forever become the next Chernobyl. | 0 | ScarletGhost4396 |
No one is saying that fossil fuel industries or the safety thereof are any better an alternative to nuclear plants. What I am trying to prove here is 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 or nuclear meltdown and the indirect dangers they would cause by the fact that uranium must be extracted from the ground and exposed to the public, which will lead to increases in cancer rates, sicknesses, and birth defects. My opponent made no sort of argument against the mining of uranium, so this can be extended across the flow entirely. He has also made no argument about the nuclear waste either, so extend this as well. When it comes down to the safety that nuclear plants put in order to prevent these meltdowns and leakings from occurring--sure, my opponent is correct in the idea that they place a lot of safety in these facilities. My question is, however, what would happen if even all of these precautions were to fail? We all know what happened in Chernobyl and Fukishima, where in Chernobyl, radiation is still existent throughout the region and causing illnesses even after about 30 years since the explosion, or Fukishima, where radiation has seeped into the ocean. The question that it really comes down to is whether or not the people of Australia should take the risk at all of having this occurrence happen to them and forever become the next Chernobyl. | Politics | 1 | Australia-Should-Go-Nuclear/1/ | 6,934 |
Since this is the final round of the debate, this is the place where I will provide my sources. Considering that my opponent has provided no real sources, the evidence point in this debate should obviously go to the CON. Now, we move on to the final rebuttal in this debate: The only thing that my opponent has done in order to respond to my arguments about the environment and the public with regard to exposure of uranium radiation, the only thing that my opponent does is provides the iteration of the safety regulations for the disposal of nuclear waste rather than how effective the regulations are, which is what I was explaining throughout the course of my point about nuclear waste. My opponent in no way responds to that point, and at this level, it's clear that this point remains extended along with the point about mining for uranium, which also has remained unargued. Therefore, it is clear that not only that these points are still strong but I have effectively shown already that there are more disadvantages to nuclear energy than advantages, meaning that I am already winning on the argumentation aspect of this debate. My opponent basically capitalizes on the idea that nuclear reactors are created to be super-strong and whatnot. I don't disagree with that at all. The question that my opponent does not respond to in any way is about the effects that would come if somehow this event would occur. My opponent, for one thing, doesn't really defend the idea that nuclear power plants are completely safe when comparing to Chernobyl and Fukishima because does not explain why these events are just sporadic and a result of mistreatment. My opponent states that nuclear power plants have domes that can resist earthquakes, but it was an earthquake that cracked the Fukishima power plant and caused the radiation to leak out. My opponent basically describes power plants as safe when we have seen the negative effects of a total nuclear meltdown from Chernobyl, causing hundreds of deaths due to the radiation. It's clear that accidents can still occur, and when they do, they are disastrous at the very least. Reasons for voting CON: This debate comes down to three things: -The safety of nuclear power plants -The disposal of nuclear waste -The mining of uranium in order to power nuclear plants. The CON is actuality addresses the fact that nuclear power plants can cause catastrophic damage if a meltdown or natural disasters were to occur while my opponent only goes on about how it's really safe and whatnot, and the CON also takes the argument about the disposal of nuclear waste considering that my opponent only emphasizes on the regulations in place rather than the effectiveness thereof. My opponent in no way addresses the mining of uranium, meaning that the CON also takes this point. Resources: Mudd, Gavin M. "Uranium Mining: Australia and Globally." Energyscience, Nov. 2006. Web. < <URL>... ;. "Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining: WNA." World Nuclear Association . Feb. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <URL>... . "Radioactive Waste: What Health Effects or Risks?" 53 (2005). Web. < <URL>... ;. "Uranium Mining Case Studies." EARTHWORKS . Earthworks. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. < <URL>... ; | 0 | ScarletGhost4396 |
Since this is the final round of the debate, this is the place where I will provide my sources. Considering that my opponent has provided no real sources, the evidence point in this debate should obviously go to the CON. Now, we move on to the final rebuttal in this debate: The only thing that my opponent has done in order to respond to my arguments about the environment and the public with regard to exposure of uranium radiation, the only thing that my opponent does is provides the iteration of the safety regulations for the disposal of nuclear waste rather than how effective the regulations are, which is what I was explaining throughout the course of my point about nuclear waste. My opponent in no way responds to that point, and at this level, it's clear that this point remains extended along with the point about mining for uranium, which also has remained unargued. Therefore, it is clear that not only that these points are still strong but I have effectively shown already that there are more disadvantages to nuclear energy than advantages, meaning that I am already winning on the argumentation aspect of this debate. My opponent basically capitalizes on the idea that nuclear reactors are created to be super-strong and whatnot. I don't disagree with that at all. The question that my opponent does not respond to in any way is about the effects that would come if somehow this event would occur. My opponent, for one thing, doesn't really defend the idea that nuclear power plants are completely safe when comparing to Chernobyl and Fukishima because does not explain why these events are just sporadic and a result of mistreatment. My opponent states that nuclear power plants have domes that can resist earthquakes, but it was an earthquake that cracked the Fukishima power plant and caused the radiation to leak out. My opponent basically describes power plants as safe when we have seen the negative effects of a total nuclear meltdown from Chernobyl, causing hundreds of deaths due to the radiation. It's clear that accidents can still occur, and when they do, they are disastrous at the very least. Reasons for voting CON: This debate comes down to three things: -The safety of nuclear power plants -The disposal of nuclear waste -The mining of uranium in order to power nuclear plants. The CON is actuality addresses the fact that nuclear power plants can cause catastrophic damage if a meltdown or natural disasters were to occur while my opponent only goes on about how it's really safe and whatnot, and the CON also takes the argument about the disposal of nuclear waste considering that my opponent only emphasizes on the regulations in place rather than the effectiveness thereof. My opponent in no way addresses the mining of uranium, meaning that the CON also takes this point. Resources: Mudd, Gavin M. "Uranium Mining: Australia and Globally." Energyscience, Nov. 2006. Web. < http://www.energyscience.org.au... ;. "Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining: WNA." World Nuclear Association . Feb. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. http://world-nuclear.org... . "Radioactive Waste: What Health Effects or Risks?" 53 (2005). Web. < http://www.cea.fr... ;. "Uranium Mining Case Studies." EARTHWORKS . Earthworks. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. < http://www.earthworksaction.org... ; | Politics | 2 | Australia-Should-Go-Nuclear/1/ | 6,935 |
Resolved : Austrian economics is superior to Keynesian economics. NOTE: This debate is impossible to accept. If you want to accept it, please message me. Definitions : Austrian Economics : A school of thought that is associated with little government interference in the marketplace, the primacy of property rights and is generally associated with libertarian ideology.[1] Keynesian Economics : An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability. [2] Superior : Better than, of better quality, producing better results. Rules Rounds Acceptance only. Opening arguments only (please don't rebut) Rebuttals and Defense Rebuttals and Defense Closing statements only (1K character maximum). Other rules and clarifications If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow. Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss. References <URL>... ...; <URL>... ...; | 0 | DoubtingDave |
Resolved : Austrian economics is superior to Keynesian economics. NOTE: This debate is impossible to accept. If you want to accept it, please message me.
Definitions :
Austrian Economics : A school of thought that is associated with little government interference in the marketplace, the primacy of property rights and is generally associated with libertarian ideology.[1]
Keynesian Economics : An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability. [2]
Superior : Better than, of better quality, producing better results.
Rules
Rounds
Acceptance only.
Opening arguments only (please don't rebut)
Rebuttals and Defense
Rebuttals and Defense
Closing statements only (1K character maximum).
Other rules and clarifications
If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time.
No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable.
Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow.
Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss.
References
http://economics.about.com... ...;
http://www.investopedia.com... ...;
| Economics | 0 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,958 |
Thank you for accepting this debate. I wish you and all our readers a Happy Holiday's. I will be defending the Austrian Economic Theory thought this debate. Introduction Keynesian Economic Theory (KET hereafter or KT) is built on the principle that productive activity is influenced by aggregated demand (total spending in the economy) and that demand does not necessarily equal aggregated supply. Instead, it is influenced by a host of factors sometimes behaving erratically; including, but not limited to, inflation, employment, and productivity. Advocates of Keynesian Economics favor a mixed economy between the private sector and the public sector and with strong government intervention during a recession. The KET has stood as the policies of FDR and Obama. C1) Economic Stimulus Keynesian Economists believe that there should be a strong government involvement in offsetting the effects of a depression or a recession by stimulating the economy. We saw examples of government stimulation during the Great Depression and the 2008 Great Recession. However, when government attempts to stimulate the economy, it creates economic uncertainty that paralyzes business decisions. During the Great Depression, John Keynes wrote [1]: You are engaged on a double task, Recovery and Reform.... Even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action, before you have had time to put other motives in their place. It may over-task your bureaucratic machine, which the traditional individualism of the United States and the old "spoils system" have left none too strong . And it will confuse the thought and aim of yourself and your administration by giving you too much to think about all at once. These failures are easily manifested in simple graphics[2]: During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending--yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant. In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented. In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen. Now, the most recent $787 billion stimulus bill was intended to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. In November 2009 it topped 10 percent. Conclusion The Keynesian theory that government needs to be involved in stimulating the economy has failed. Throughout the past, we have seen stimulus packages fail and unemployment sky rocket, despite record-setting government spending. C2) Austerity Austerity measures is defined as a state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. These measures refer to the measures taken by government to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their budget deficit. [3] These measures apply to solving debt crisis and are characterized by lower spending via reduction in the amount of benefits and public services. Because spending is lower, times of Austerity are period of low or reduced government spending, they are often at a point of low taxes as well. According to John Keynes, "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury."[4] Contemporary Keynesian economists argue that budget deficits are appropriate when the economy is in recession, to reduce unemployment and help spur GDP growth. However, I believe that Keynes is wrong. I believe in low taxes and low government involvement within the economy. Consumers contribute ~70% of the GDP whilst investors contribute ~10-15%. These consumers and investors feel more secure when both spending and taxes are low. When these groups feel more secure, they spend more and thus stimulating the economy: "Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Alesina points to the reason for these findings: Spending cuts "signal that tax increases will not occur in the future, or that if they do they will be smaller. A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes expectations of future tax liabilities. This, in turn, shifts people's behavior. Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time ."[5] Here is some empirical evidence for this: "I've studied every 3-year peace-time period since the U.S. founding in 1790, and in cases when federal spending declined, real GDP over the same years grew by 11%, on average, not materially different from the average growth rate recorded in periods of rising spending . Government spending cuts have not been bearish for growth. From 1840 to 1843 U.S. federal spending was cut by 51% while real GDP grew by 11%; from 1866 to 1896 spending declined 38% as GDP grew by 9%; from 1874 to 1877 spending fell 20% as GDP advanced by 9%; from 1899 to 1902 spending dropped by 20%, but GDP rose by 13%; finally, between 1921 and 1924 spending decreased 43%, yet GDP climbed by 23%. No 3-year spending cut has occurred since 1949, and since then, GDP growth has slowed ."[6] So, in reality, austerity measures are best all the time - especially in times of economic downturn for at least 3 reasons: first, if you want to stimulate the economy, you need to have consumer confidence (which we see austerity measure bring); second, investors are a huge part of stimulating the economy and helping businesses to grow feel more safe and comfortable when spending and taxes are both low; and third, it helps offset the debt that helps create these crises. For these two contentions, I feel that Keynesian economics is officially dead. I am so busy during the holiday season that I have not been able to write out a full opening statement. In the next round, I will expand on these two contentions and add a few more. Onto con. [1] <URL>... [2] <URL>... [3] <URL>... [4] <URL>... [5] Quoted on <URL>... [6] Ibid. Thank you Ron-Paul for these two quotes from your debate. | 0 | DoubtingDave |
Thank you for accepting this debate. I wish you and all our readers a Happy Holiday’s. I will be defending the Austrian Economic Theory thought this debate.
Introduction
Keynesian Economic Theory (KET hereafter or KT) is built on the principle that productive activity is influenced by aggregated demand (total spending in the economy) and that demand does not necessarily equal aggregated supply. Instead, it is influenced by a host of factors sometimes behaving erratically; including, but not limited to, inflation, employment, and productivity.
Advocates of Keynesian Economics favor a mixed economy between the private sector and the public sector and with strong government intervention during a recession. The KET has stood as the policies of FDR and Obama.
C1) Economic Stimulus
Keynesian Economists believe that there should be a strong government involvement in offsetting the effects of a depression or a recession by stimulating the economy. We saw examples of government stimulation during the Great Depression and the 2008 Great Recession. However, when government attempts to stimulate the economy, it creates economic uncertainty that paralyzes business decisions. During the Great Depression, John Keynes wrote [1]:
You are engaged on a double task, Recovery and Reform…. Even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action, before you have had time to put other motives in their place. It may over-task your bureaucratic machine, which the traditional individualism of the United States and the old "spoils system" have left none too strong . And it will confuse the thought and aim of yourself and your administration by giving you too much to think about all at once.
These failures are easily manifested in simple graphics[2]:
During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending--yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II.
Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant.
In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented.
In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen.
Now, the most recent $787 billion stimulus bill was intended to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. In November 2009 it topped 10 percent.
Conclusion
The Keynesian theory that government needs to be involved in stimulating the economy has failed. Throughout the past, we have seen stimulus packages fail and unemployment sky rocket, despite record-setting government spending.
C2) Austerity
Austerity measures is defined as a state of reduced spending and increased frugality in the financial sector. These measures refer to the measures taken by government to reduce expenditures in an attempt to shrink their budget deficit. [3]
These measures apply to solving debt crisis and are characterized by lower spending via reduction in the amount of benefits and public services. Because spending is lower, times of Austerity are period of low or reduced government spending, they are often at a point of low taxes as well.
According to John Keynes, “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.”[4] Contemporary Keynesian economists argue that budget deficits are appropriate when the economy is in recession, to reduce unemployment and help spur GDP growth.
However, I believe that Keynes is wrong. I believe in low taxes and low government involvement within the economy. Consumers contribute ~70% of the GDP whilst investors contribute ~10-15%. These consumers and investors feel more secure when both spending and taxes are low. When these groups feel more secure, they spend more and thus stimulating the economy:
"Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Alesina points to the reason for these findings: Spending cuts “signal that tax increases will not occur in the future, or that if they do they will be smaller. A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes expectations of future tax liabilities. This, in turn, shifts people’s behavior. Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time ."[5]
Here is some empirical evidence for this:
"I’ve studied every 3-year peace-time period since the U.S. founding in 1790, and in cases when federal spending declined, real GDP over the same years grew by 11%, on average, not materially different from the average growth rate recorded in periods of rising spending . Government spending cuts have not been bearish for growth. From 1840 to 1843 U.S. federal spending was cut by 51% while real GDP grew by 11%; from 1866 to 1896 spending declined 38% as GDP grew by 9%; from 1874 to 1877 spending fell 20% as GDP advanced by 9%; from 1899 to 1902 spending dropped by 20%, but GDP rose by 13%; finally, between 1921 and 1924 spending decreased 43%, yet GDP climbed by 23%. No 3-year spending cut has occurred since 1949, and since then, GDP growth has slowed ."[6]
So, in reality, austerity measures are best all the time – especially in times of economic downturn for at least 3 reasons: first, if you want to stimulate the economy, you need to have consumer confidence (which we see austerity measure bring); second, investors are a huge part of stimulating the economy and helping businesses to grow feel more safe and comfortable when spending and taxes are both low; and third, it helps offset the debt that helps create these crises.
For these two contentions, I feel that Keynesian economics is officially dead. I am so busy during the holiday season that I have not been able to write out a full opening statement. In the next round, I will expand on these two contentions and add a few more.
Onto con.
[1] http://newdeal.feri.org...
[2] http://www.heritage.org...
[3] http://www.investopedia.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] Quoted on http://debate.org...
[6] Ibid. Thank you Ron-Paul for these two quotes from your debate.
| Economics | 1 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,959 |
Extend arguments. As per the rules, all 7 points goes to me. | 0 | DoubtingDave |
Extend arguments. As per the rules, all 7 points goes to me. | Economics | 2 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,960 |
My opponent failed to address my opening statements. As such, I request that you extend those arguments. My opponent makes two analogies in the case for Keynesian economics: First by comparing children to the economy and second by comparing businesses to the economy. They are flawed because you don't raise a child the same way as you run an economy. The entire analogy is a false analogy. The second analogy is slightly more relatvent, but contains two fallacies: The first, my opponent assumes that Austrians are greedy, selfish, haters of poor people who want to deprive their employees of rights and would fire my employees just to make a cent; the second, my opponent assumes that Keynesians are wonderful do-gooders who put work before the economy and before the employees. These are of course, false. To make a case study, all what one has to do is look at nations where there is strong Austrian (or Austrian-like) economic run. The first, we will look at Singapore. Singapore is largely laissez-faire with minimum government regulations and no minimum wage. The results: In spite of the economic collapse, the unemployment rate is less than 3% [1. <URL>... ;] with an overall monthly income of 9,618 - or $115K yearly [2. <URL>... ;]. Now, we will look at Hong Kong. With the most economically free on the Index to Economic Freedom [3. <URL>... ;], it has an unemployment rate of less than 5%. Milton Friedman called it "the world's greatest experiment in laissez-faire capitalism" [4. <URL>... ;], even though in recent years, more regulations has been given on the economy - including a minimum wage. The case study proves that in order to produce prosperity, we need to give the private sector enough breathing room to grow. I will expand more in the next round. | 0 | DoubtingDave |
My opponent failed to address my opening statements. As such, I request that you extend those arguments. My opponent makes two analogies in the case for Keynesian economics: First by comparing children to the economy and second by comparing businesses to the economy. They are flawed because you don't raise a child the same way as you run an economy. The entire analogy is a false analogy. The second analogy is slightly more relatvent, but contains two fallacies: The first, my opponent assumes that Austrians are greedy, selfish, haters of poor people who want to deprive their employees of rights and would fire my employees just to make a cent; the second, my opponent assumes that Keynesians are wonderful do-gooders who put work before the economy and before the employees. These are of course, false. To make a case study, all what one has to do is look at nations where there is strong Austrian (or Austrian-like) economic run. The first, we will look at Singapore. Singapore is largely laissez-faire with minimum government regulations and no minimum wage. The results: In spite of the economic collapse, the unemployment rate is less than 3% [1. http://www.heritage.org... ;] with an overall monthly income of 9,618 - or $115K yearly [2. http://en.wikipedia.org... ;]. Now, we will look at Hong Kong. With the most economically free on the Index to Economic Freedom [3. http://www.heritage.org... ;], it has an unemployment rate of less than 5%. Milton Friedman called it "the world’s greatest experiment in laissez-faire capitalism" [4. http://en.wikipedia.org... ;], even though in recent years, more regulations has been given on the economy - including a minimum wage. The case study proves that in order to produce prosperity, we need to give the private sector enough breathing room to grow. I will expand more in the next round. | Economics | 3 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,961 |
Reminder that this round is for closing statements only. Voting Guide My opponent forfeited round 2 thus violating rule 2-2-2. Thus per 2-2-4, all seven points goes to me. Conduct: The following statements certainly warrant a loss of conduct: " This is totally neglected by my very rude and abrupt opponent." "I'm sure any sane person would be a Keynesian (unless they are a hippy, who quite frankly didn't do much other than allow the punk era to arise)." Grammar : My opponent's spelling and grammar has been horrendous and the format my opponent used is very difficult to follow. For example: "A child to a parents is like an economy to a government.." This should read, "a child to parents are" Arguments: My opponent failed to address my arguments. Sources : My opponent used very little sources throughout this debate and when used, were largely irrelavent to the discussion Vote pro. | 0 | DoubtingDave |
Reminder that this round is for closing statements only. Voting Guide My opponent forfeited round 2 thus violating rule 2-2-2. Thus per 2-2-4, all seven points goes to me. Conduct: The following statements certainly warrant a loss of conduct: " This is totally neglected by my very rude and abrupt opponent." "I'm sure any sane person would be a Keynesian (unless they are a hippy, who quite frankly didn't do much other than allow the punk era to arise)." Grammar : My opponent's spelling and grammar has been horrendous and the format my opponent used is very difficult to follow. For example: "A child to a parents is like an economy to a government.." This should read, "a child to parents are"
Arguments: My opponent failed to address my arguments. Sources : My opponent used very little sources throughout this debate and when used, were largely irrelavent to the discussion Vote pro. | Economics | 4 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,962 |
Definitely accept. | 0 | RationalMadman |
Definitely accept. | Economics | 0 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,963 |
If you have a child, how would you raise it? 1) Be an Austrian and let them do whatever the heck they went assuming that their bad grades do not matter, never ever stepping in. 2) Be a Keynesian, disciplining them when they do wrong, guiding them to a reasonable extent to make sure they stay within guidelines for success I'm sure you chose number 2. If you are the manager of a business how would you run it? 1) Be an Austrian and let the employees do as they please, if the stats are bad you just smoke some marijuana and say "Don't worry, Be Happy" and assume the heads of respective departments will make good decisions despite consistent failure to do so. 2) Be a Keynesian, being very closely influential on the decisions being made, how employees are paid/treated, on the spending and cost-cutting decisions and overall being a very attentive leader of a successful business. I'm sure you chose numbers 2. In fact, in every single context other than economics, I'm sure any sane person would be a Keynesian (unless they are a hippy, who quite frankly didn't do much other than allow the punk era to arise). Suddenly in economics it seems that neglect of duty as a leader, that liberalism (in the economic sense, not the sense of non-conservative) as opposed to socialism, is preferable. | 0 | RationalMadman |
If you have a child, how would you raise it? 1) Be an Austrian and let them do whatever the heck they went assuming that their bad grades do not matter, never ever stepping in. 2) Be a Keynesian, disciplining them when they do wrong, guiding them to a reasonable extent to make sure they stay within guidelines for success I'm sure you chose number 2. If you are the manager of a business how would you run it? 1) Be an Austrian and let the employees do as they please, if the stats are bad you just smoke some marijuana and say "Don't worry, Be Happy" and assume the heads of respective departments will make good decisions despite consistent failure to do so. 2) Be a Keynesian, being very closely influential on the decisions being made, how employees are paid/treated, on the spending and cost-cutting decisions and overall being a very attentive leader of a successful business. I'm sure you chose numbers 2. In fact, in every single context other than economics, I'm sure any sane person would be a Keynesian (unless they are a hippy, who quite frankly didn't do much other than allow the punk era to arise). Suddenly in economics it seems that neglect of duty as a leader, that liberalism (in the economic sense, not the sense of non-conservative) as opposed to socialism, is preferable. | Economics | 2 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,964 |
Well then, Let's go and ask the 95% employed people in Singapore and Honk Kong how many of them earn enough to feed their family sufficiently? How many can have a single holiday per year and still hope to afford decent education for their children. Oh! That's right! Your forgot CHINA! The king of Keynesian! ONLY 4.100000% <URL>... So just shut up you arrogant pig with your "OH LOOK UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN AUSTRIAN NATIONS IS AWEEESOME!" The reason it's awesome in those East Asian Nations is due to there being no minimum wage meaning the exploitation of beggars to work for factories manufacturing goods for Nike and the likes is very apparent, this is more a cultural PROBLEM being misrepresented by my opponent as anything to do with AUSTRIA OH!... 4.3% <URL>... THIS IS HIGHER THAN CHINA'S hahahahahahahaa\ so please give a substantial argument. My analogy to children was perfect. A child to a parents is like an economy to a government, it is their full responsibility to make flourish until their time is up and a new election can replace them perhaps (like when child can go to university). This is totally neglected by my very rude and abrupt opponent. So you can go and be a neglectful lazy government or a Keynesian one it's simple as that. I talk straight not like a coward. | 0 | RationalMadman |
Well then, Let's go and ask the 95% employed people in Singapore and Honk Kong how many of them earn enough to feed their family sufficiently? How many can have a single holiday per year and still hope to afford decent education for their children. Oh! That's right! Your forgot CHINA! The king of Keynesian! ONLY 4.100000% http://www.bloomberg.com... So just shut up you arrogant pig with your "OH LOOK UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN AUSTRIAN NATIONS IS AWEEESOME!" The reason it's awesome in those East Asian Nations is due to there being no minimum wage meaning the exploitation of beggars to work for factories manufacturing goods for Nike and the likes is very apparent, this is more a cultural PROBLEM being misrepresented by my opponent as anything to do with AUSTRIA OH!... 4.3% https://www.google.co.uk... THIS IS HIGHER THAN CHINA'S hahahahahahahaa\ so please give a substantial argument. My analogy to children was perfect. A child to a parents is like an economy to a government, it is their full responsibility to make flourish until their time is up and a new election can replace them perhaps (like when child can go to university). This is totally neglected by my very rude and abrupt opponent. So you can go and be a neglectful lazy government or a Keynesian one it's simple as that. I talk straight not like a coward. | Economics | 3 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,965 |
LOL My sources were all relevant to the debate. They were regarding unemployment rates... What a fool. Look I don't care who you vote for but just realise I won the debate. | 0 | RationalMadman |
LOL My sources were all relevant to the debate. They were regarding unemployment rates... What a fool. Look I don't care who you vote for but just realise I won the debate. | Economics | 4 | Austrian-Economics-vs.-Keynesian-Economics/2/ | 6,966 |
Premise of the argument is to address the Labor Lump Fallacy and show that in our current time the rate of automation has out paces the number of jobs created or displaced by automation and further that this makes the modern market system as we know it obsolete and unmanagable. My opponent will argue to the Opposite that the current Market system will remain Viable for the foreseeable future. The rounds will be structured as follows. Round 1: Acceptance & Introduction. Round 2: Opening Arguments ( no rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals And question to the Opponent Round 4: Counter rebuttal and Question answers. Round 5: Closing argument. | 0 | Jevinigh |
Premise of the argument is to address the Labor Lump Fallacy and show that in our current time the rate of automation has out paces the number of jobs created or displaced by automation and further that this makes the modern market system as we know it obsolete and unmanagable. My opponent will argue to the Opposite that the current Market system will remain Viable for the foreseeable future. The rounds will be structured as follows. Round 1: Acceptance & Introduction. Round 2: Opening Arguments ( no rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals And question to the Opponent Round 4: Counter rebuttal and Question answers. Round 5: Closing argument. | Technology | 0 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,989 |
The point was whether or not the market system is still viable in the face of rapidly expanding technology, expanding in both sophistication and becomes considerably cheaper at the same time. A car factory is an excellent example, The bulk of tasks are completed by machine. (Ex. ) Though Humans are still employed to perform some tasks in the factory, they are not actually required for those tasks. They can be done like most other jobs in the assembly line-better and faster by a machine yet Automotive companies maintain workers largely for the sake of maintaining workers. In recent years Automation has made its way in large scale into Shipping and processing centers. Kiva systems now power Amazon delivery centers, cutting required human labor to a fraction. the residual human labor is not absolutely required, but is simply easier for a human todo. How ever, The Labor lump fallacy contents that these jobs are not actually being destroyed in our economy, only displaced. How ever this very weak logical grounds for this. In truth, only so many programmers are required and the factories that assemble these robots are entirely or nearly entirely automated as well. hence the contention " some one has to make the robots" hits a wall. The labor force is shrinking, especially labour force that involves any tasks that are inherently repetitive and laborious. ( ex. <URL>... ) But Jobs behind the counter of fast food restaurants are already largely automated and a attendant behind the counter these days does a truly minimal amount of work... which again is not actually physically required. As we go, we run into the pioneering end of Robotics, not only are they becoming cheaper and easier to afford and program. ( Hello, Baxter. <URL>... ) But they are becoming more and more sophisticated and autonomous. We have come along way form the ways when automated assembly meant that every movement of the machine had to be precisely programmed, machines these days are becoming intuitive by comparison. So what is left for Humans to really do? Mining Perhaps? Nope- <URL>... Surely we need cashiers and such? Nope- <URL>... Vending machines stores are already highly popular in Asia and increasingly so in Europe, the United states wont be far behind. That is... what's left of physical shops to begin with- the Internet is absolutely destroying brick and motor stores. Some once big name anchor stores have now retreated into entirely digital formats. What's that mean? No more jobs at the local stores. The few jobs at the where house are replacing thousands lost across the country. Surely a vending machine cant age verifying, we still need Attendants at places that sell alcohol! ... No... Age verification technology, while not perfect is rapidly improving, in a short time every vendors that sell alcohol or Tobacco wont need a human attendant, or one human attendant can do the work of many. All of this means that with fewer jobs available, especially fewer low skill jobs... You run into a serious problem. There isn't enough money circling around the consumer economy to maintain sufficient consumer levels that support the modern market. These people in turn are becoming active drags on the system which was set up to demand productivity from its citizens but the system it self is not incapable of facilitation of that. There is no job that is repetitive or laborious that Automation will not soon claim. So, how do you propose that our modern money mechanics, our modern market system will remain viable into the coming decades? | 0 | Jevinigh |
The point was whether or not the market system is still viable in the face of rapidly expanding technology, expanding in both sophistication and becomes considerably cheaper at the same time. A car factory is an excellent example, The bulk of tasks are completed by machine. (Ex. ) Though Humans are still employed to perform some tasks in the factory, they are not actually required for those tasks. They can be done like most other jobs in the assembly line-better and faster by a machine yet Automotive companies maintain workers largely for the sake of maintaining workers. In recent years Automation has made its way in large scale into Shipping and processing centers. Kiva systems now power Amazon delivery centers, cutting required human labor to a fraction. the residual human labor is not absolutely required, but is simply easier for a human todo. How ever, The Labor lump fallacy contents that these jobs are not actually being destroyed in our economy, only displaced. How ever this very weak logical grounds for this. In truth, only so many programmers are required and the factories that assemble these robots are entirely or nearly entirely automated as well. hence the contention " some one has to make the robots" hits a wall. The labor force is shrinking, especially labour force that involves any tasks that are inherently repetitive and laborious. ( ex. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ) But Jobs behind the counter of fast food restaurants are already largely automated and a attendant behind the counter these days does a truly minimal amount of work... which again is not actually physically required. As we go, we run into the pioneering end of Robotics, not only are they becoming cheaper and easier to afford and program. ( Hello, Baxter. http://www.rethinkrobotics.com... ) But they are becoming more and more sophisticated and autonomous. We have come along way form the ways when automated assembly meant that every movement of the machine had to be precisely programmed, machines these days are becoming intuitive by comparison. So what is left for Humans to really do? Mining Perhaps? Nope- http://www.reuters.com... Surely we need cashiers and such? Nope- http://www.shop24global.com... Vending machines stores are already highly popular in Asia and increasingly so in Europe, the United states wont be far behind. That is... what's left of physical shops to begin with- the Internet is absolutely destroying brick and motor stores. Some once big name anchor stores have now retreated into entirely digital formats. What's that mean? No more jobs at the local stores. The few jobs at the where house are replacing thousands lost across the country. Surely a vending machine cant age verifying, we still need Attendants at places that sell alcohol! ... No... Age verification technology, while not perfect is rapidly improving, in a short time every vendors that sell alcohol or Tobacco wont need a human attendant, or one human attendant can do the work of many. All of this means that with fewer jobs available, especially fewer low skill jobs... You run into a serious problem. There isn't enough money circling around the consumer economy to maintain sufficient consumer levels that support the modern market. These people in turn are becoming active drags on the system which was set up to demand productivity from its citizens but the system it self is not incapable of facilitation of that. There is no job that is repetitive or laborious that Automation will not soon claim. So, how do you propose that our modern money mechanics, our modern market system will remain viable into the coming decades? | Technology | 1 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,990 |
Uhg... My first debate gets hijacked by a troll. | 0 | Jevinigh |
Uhg... My first debate gets hijacked by a troll. | Technology | 2 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,991 |
You've been blocked from accepting another one of my debates. I will restaert the debate shortly so a real one can take place. | 0 | Jevinigh |
You've been blocked from accepting another one of my debates. I will restaert the debate shortly so a real one can take place. | Technology | 3 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,992 |
... Oke... | 0 | Jevinigh |
... Oke... | Technology | 4 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,993 |
I don't really like your rules, so I'm going to say what I want, when I want. Automation makes everything run faster, so things can be built faster. Like the boat Carpathia, many other boats were built by automation. | 0 | jamonster |
I don't really like your rules, so I'm going to say what I want, when I want. Automation makes everything run faster, so things can be built faster. Like the boat Carpathia, many other boats were built by automation. | Technology | 0 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,994 |
Thats just what i said. | 0 | jamonster |
Thats just what i said. | Technology | 1 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,995 |
The carpathia was a good boat made by automation. | 0 | jamonster |
The carpathia was a good boat made by automation. | Technology | 2 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,996 |
But the carpathia... | 0 | jamonster |
But the carpathia... | Technology | 3 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,997 |
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo | 0 | jamonster |
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo | Technology | 4 | Automation-has-made-the-existing-market-system-untenable./1/ | 6,998 |
Although the cg of avatar was good, the movie contained within it atrocious logic and realism problems. Let me point out some examples: 1. Floating mountains are completely absurd 2. Runoff was coming off the floating mountains even tough there was clearly no ice or snow on top 3. In the final battle, the humans are retarded enough to fly through a canyon at like 25 mph when they could easily fly over the mountains and not be ambushed. Also the jet could fly a very high altitude and drop the bomb before the na'vi knew what hit them. Better yet, the space ship floating in orbit could drop a bomb or kinetic weapon from orbit. 4. Kevlar doesn't protect from arrows? The arrow is more blunt and is traveling slower than a bullet. Yet the Kevlar does nothing and the soldier is killed instantly. 5. The soldiers had sophisticated radar and could see the na'vi coming through the forest for some distance. If the soldiers had just blind fired into the forest, th Na'vi wouldn't have come close at all. Also what happened to snipers? 6. Machine guns just didn't do anything against larger animals. Those Rhino like creatures at the end of the movie would have gotten annihilated in a second by those huge .50 caliber machine guns the goliaths were carrying. Also the jaguar like creature in the beginning of the film doesn't die by machine guns. 7. It took way to many missiles to destroy that large tree where the Na'vi lived. It would have taken one or two bunker busters to destroy that tree. 8. Nature was supposedly conscious because of the neural network that was formed over the entire planet between trees and thus was able to save the Na'vi in the end. However because of the distances in this neural network, a conscious thought would be impossible because of ohms and signal degeneration. Also the speed at which a neural message would travel would take a long time to activate the targetted neural function. 9. Somehow all the creatures on the planet exist in a symbiotic relationship by connecting their neurons which evolutionarily is impossible. 9. Unubtanium is an unoriginal name. Because of these gaping plot holes, I must disagree with the statement that avatar is an amazing film. It was mediocre at best. | 0 | serp777 |
Although the cg of avatar was good, the movie contained within it atrocious logic and realism problems.
Let me point out some examples:
1. Floating mountains are completely absurd
2. Runoff was coming off the floating mountains even tough there was clearly no ice or snow on top
3. In the final battle, the humans are retarded enough to fly through a canyon at like 25 mph when they could easily fly over the mountains and not be ambushed. Also the jet could fly a very high altitude and drop the bomb before the na'vi knew what hit them. Better yet, the space ship floating in orbit could drop a bomb or kinetic weapon from orbit.
4. Kevlar doesn't protect from arrows? The arrow is more blunt and is traveling slower than a bullet. Yet the Kevlar does nothing and the soldier is killed instantly.
5. The soldiers had sophisticated radar and could see the na'vi coming through the forest for some distance. If the soldiers had just blind fired into the forest, th Na'vi wouldn't have come close at all. Also what happened to snipers?
6. Machine guns just didn't do anything against larger animals. Those Rhino like creatures at the end of the movie would have gotten annihilated in a second by those huge .50 caliber machine guns the goliaths were carrying. Also the jaguar like creature in the beginning of the film doesn't die by machine guns.
7. It took way to many missiles to destroy that large tree where the Na'vi lived. It would have taken one or two bunker busters to destroy that tree.
8. Nature was supposedly conscious because of the neural network that was formed over the entire planet between trees and thus was able to save the Na'vi in the end. However because of the distances in this neural network, a conscious thought would be impossible because of ohms and signal degeneration. Also the speed at which a neural message would travel would take a long time to activate the targetted neural function.
9. Somehow all the creatures on the planet exist in a symbiotic relationship by connecting their neurons which evolutionarily is impossible.
9. Unubtanium is an unoriginal name.
Because of these gaping plot holes, I must disagree with the statement that avatar is an amazing film. It was mediocre at best. | Arts | 0 | Avatar-is-an-amazing-film/1/ | 7,011 |
Rebuttle to pro's arguments- Responding to 1- Although box office can be a good indicator of a good movie, it does not necessarily mean the movie is good. For example, Ice age dawn of the dinosaurs received a box office of $887,773,705 but rotten tomatoes gives it a 45%. Also many of the rated best movies of all time have received a small box office. For example, the Shawshank Redemption, which received a 9.1 rating on Imdb.com, only received a $28,341,469 box office. From this we can conclude that box office is not proportional to how good a movie is because in some cases it isn't. Responding to 2- AS for the ratings, it is easily possible that their ratings were boosted because of the cg in the film. It is likely that audiences would leave the theater thinking about how great the cg in avatar was and decided to go because the cg looked amazing. Although the sophisticated cg could be used by my opponent against me, cg alone cannot prove the quality of the movie. It is more personal taste that i find plot more important than cg. Responding to 3- I will suggest that the theme of environmentalism in the movie is paradoxical. The human race is clearly flourishing and is expanding . The humans are also developing substantial technologies such as the technology which could fix Jake Sully's spinal cord problems and develop the sophisticated avatars. The paradox is that the writers of the film suggest that humanity is flourishing and doing perfectly fine, in fact, better than ever without the environment (Because Jake Sully says that nature was destroyed on Earth) even though the director's intent is clearly to show the importance of environmentalism. Responding to 4- When we find other sentient beings in the galaxy, i will agree that this promotes a xeno cultural understanding. This movie could be considered unpatriotic on the other hand, because it attempts to show humanity as evil, cruel, and bent on destroying everything beautiful. Rebuttal to Rebuttal- 1. Let us remember that this mountain must contain a sizable chunk of iron in the center for the mountain to be affected by the magnetic field, thus adding to the weight of the mountain because iron has a significantly higher g/mol than regular silicates. Think about probability now; The strength of the magnetic field would have to exactly equal the strength of gravity. What are the chances that this has happened? On top of that, if the magnetic field exactly counteracted gravity, gas giants have a powerful magnetic field (of course not powerful enough to lift mountains) and would constantly move and push away the mountains. We never see the mountains move at all. If the movie was realistic, these mountains would be flying around erratically as the magnetic filed changed. On top of this, the magnetic field would have to be super strong. The magnetic field of earth, which is relatively strong, could never float one of those mountains. The internal magnetic fields of Pandora would need to be at least a thousand times stronger because of the vast weight of the mountain. This is why we have no floating mountains on earth. 2. For their to be enough water to form a waterfall coming off the mountains, a large storm would need to constantly be raining on these mountains. However, no such rainstorm is constantly raining on these mountains. 3. The movie says that if the Na'vi stronghold with their god tree thing was destroyed, the Na'vi would become broken and scattered because they would lose faith in their nature god. Thus, a fast, explosive bombing run to annihilate that spot would destroy the na'vi morale and send many of their soldiers fleeing. This would have also have stopped their nature god from sending the animals to finish off the humans. And it would be ridiculous to make a jet that could not travel quickly and at high altitude. THe jet was the thing all of the gunships were trying to protect and did in fact exist. The jet is also the ship which carried the daisy cutter bombs. 4. For starters, we must remember that this movie is done in the future and thus the Kevlar would be more sophisticated and thus stronger. Also, Because the humans knew that the enemy used arrows, humans would have most likely used "multi-threat armor" which protects from piercing attacks and bullets. Plus we have to remember that in the film, the arrow got stuck in the kevlar and clearly did not penetrate far into the human. THe humans would have experienced a flesh wound and survived, not fallen down dead immediately. 5.You're right about the blind firing, it would have been stupid except right in the beginning when hey could have killed a couple of guys. AS for the snipers, the humans had radar and thus could see where the enemy was. You wouldn't have to look around much with a high magnification scope. Plus the scopes could be thermal and they could see the enemy from a long ways away. Plus many Na'vi were mounted and thus would have been much easier to spot. 6. The fact that the animals have carbon fiber bones doesn't matter too much because a significant amount of the animal is not bones. The humans were using machine guns and had an overall high percentage chance to shoot through an area without bone protection. Also, calibur doesn't represent the power of the gun. Its a ratio of m/s to calibur. The large guns the goliaths were holding and shooting with likely were .50 cal machine guns with 3500 m/s, easily enough to kill an animal with thick hide. I bet the goliath's machine guns were also equipped with fmj rounds or armor piercing rounds so that they could deal with animals bothering them at the mining sites. 7. A bunker buster penetrates reinforcement and strikes the foundation of an object. It would have annihilated the foundation of tree and taken it out very quickly. Running out of characters so i won't talk about the other points which aren't too significant. I would also like to point out the plot hole of carbon fiber as bones in this film- carbon fiber is made by pyrolysis of synthetic polyester fibers is used to reinforce plastics to form advanced, lightweight composite materials. THe pyrolysis for carbon fiber is between <PHONE> degrees celsius. For this to occur naturally, the carbon would need to sink below the surface of the planet, form into strands the way industrial machines do it, send the carbon down far under the surface towards in the deep mantle of Pandora and then send it back up as a low percentage graphite compound through some volcanic action. Thus, the carbon fiber would not be found abundantly on Pandora because carbon fiber is made synthetically. This is also why it is not abundant on earth naturally. Ultimately, my opponent tries to defend a scientifically improbable situation. excuse some of my poor grammar as i did not have too much time to write this with school. Finally I would like to thank con for engaging in an interesting and provocative dialogue with me. Sources- <URL>... <URL>... <URL>... logic and reasoning | 0 | serp777 |
Rebuttle to pro's arguments-
Responding to 1-
Although box office can be a good indicator of a good movie, it does not necessarily mean the movie is good. For example, Ice age dawn of the dinosaurs received a box office of $887,773,705 but rotten tomatoes gives it a 45%. Also many of the rated best movies of all time have received a small box office. For example, the Shawshank Redemption, which received a 9.1 rating on Imdb.com, only received a $28,341,469 box office. From this we can conclude that box office is not proportional to how good a movie is because in some cases it isn't.
Responding to 2-
AS for the ratings, it is easily possible that their ratings were boosted because of the cg in the film. It is likely that audiences would leave the theater thinking about how great the cg in avatar was and decided to go because the cg looked amazing. Although the sophisticated cg could be used by my opponent against me, cg alone cannot prove the quality of the movie. It is more personal taste that i find plot more important than cg.
Responding to 3-
I will suggest that the theme of environmentalism in the movie is paradoxical. The human race is clearly flourishing and is expanding . The humans are also developing substantial technologies such as the technology which could fix Jake Sully's spinal cord problems and develop the sophisticated avatars. The paradox is that the writers of the film suggest that humanity is flourishing and doing perfectly fine, in fact, better than ever without the environment (Because Jake Sully says that nature was destroyed on Earth) even though the director's intent is clearly to show the importance of environmentalism.
Responding to 4-
When we find other sentient beings in the galaxy, i will agree that this promotes a xeno cultural understanding. This movie could be considered unpatriotic on the other hand, because it attempts to show humanity as evil, cruel, and bent on destroying everything beautiful.
Rebuttal to Rebuttal-
1. Let us remember that this mountain must contain a sizable chunk of iron in the center for the mountain to be affected by the magnetic field, thus adding to the weight of the mountain because iron has a significantly higher g/mol than regular silicates. Think about probability now; The strength of the magnetic field would have to exactly equal the strength of gravity. What are the chances that this has happened? On top of that, if the magnetic field exactly counteracted gravity, gas giants have a powerful magnetic field (of course not powerful enough to lift mountains) and would constantly move and push away the mountains. We never see the mountains move at all. If the movie was realistic, these mountains would be flying around erratically as the magnetic filed changed. On top of this, the magnetic field would have to be super strong. The magnetic field of earth, which is relatively strong, could never float one of those mountains. The internal magnetic fields of Pandora would need to be at least a thousand times stronger because of the vast weight of the mountain. This is why we have no floating mountains on earth.
2.
For their to be enough water to form a waterfall coming off the mountains, a large storm would need to constantly be raining on these mountains. However, no such rainstorm is constantly raining on these mountains.
3. The movie says that if the Na'vi stronghold with their god tree thing was destroyed, the Na'vi would become broken and scattered because they would lose faith in their nature god. Thus, a fast, explosive bombing run to annihilate that spot would destroy the na'vi morale and send many of their soldiers fleeing. This would have also have stopped their nature god from sending the animals to finish off the humans. And it would be ridiculous to make a jet that could not travel quickly and at high altitude. THe jet was the thing all of the gunships were trying to protect and did in fact exist. The jet is also the ship which carried the daisy cutter bombs.
4. For starters, we must remember that this movie is done in the future and thus the Kevlar would be more sophisticated and thus stronger. Also, Because the humans knew that the enemy used arrows, humans would have most likely used "multi-threat armor" which protects from piercing attacks and bullets. Plus we have to remember that in the film, the arrow got stuck in the kevlar and clearly did not penetrate far into the human. THe humans would have experienced a flesh wound and survived, not fallen down dead immediately.
5.You're right about the blind firing, it would have been stupid except right in the beginning when hey could have killed a couple of guys. AS for the snipers, the humans had radar and thus could see where the enemy was. You wouldn't have to look around much with a high magnification scope. Plus the scopes could be thermal and they could see the enemy from a long ways away. Plus many Na'vi were mounted and thus would have been much easier to spot.
6. The fact that the animals have carbon fiber bones doesn't matter too much because a significant amount of the animal is not bones. The humans were using machine guns and had an overall high percentage chance to shoot through an area without bone protection. Also, calibur doesn't represent the power of the gun. Its a ratio of m/s to calibur. The large guns the goliaths were holding and shooting with likely were .50 cal machine guns with 3500 m/s, easily enough to kill an animal with thick hide. I bet the goliath's machine guns were also equipped with fmj rounds or armor piercing rounds so that they could deal with animals bothering them at the mining sites.
7. A bunker buster penetrates reinforcement and strikes the foundation of an object. It would have annihilated the foundation of tree and taken it out very quickly.
Running out of characters so i won't talk about the other points which aren't too significant.
I would also like to point out the plot hole of carbon fiber as bones in this film-
carbon fiber is made by pyrolysis of synthetic polyester fibers is used to reinforce plastics to form advanced, lightweight composite materials. THe pyrolysis for carbon fiber is between 1500-3000 degrees celsius. For this to occur naturally, the carbon would need to sink below the surface of the planet, form into strands the way industrial machines do it, send the carbon down far under the surface towards in the deep mantle of Pandora and then send it back up as a low percentage graphite compound through some volcanic action. Thus, the carbon fiber would not be found abundantly on Pandora because carbon fiber is made synthetically. This is also why it is not abundant on earth naturally.
Ultimately, my opponent tries to defend a scientifically improbable situation.
excuse some of my poor grammar as i did not have too much time to write this with school. Finally I would like to thank con for engaging in an interesting and provocative dialogue with me.
Sources-
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.imdb.com...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
logic and reasoning | Arts | 1 | Avatar-is-an-amazing-film/1/ | 7,012 |
1. Pro hasn't commented on the fact that the computer generated graphics boost the films rating. I ask the voter to consider whether he/she would go see avatar if it had very poor graphics. I would expect it would ruin the experience of the movie. My point is that you would not go and see the movie for its themes. Finally i will point out a film which has received great box office but poor reviews: Spider man 3. Spider man 3 made almost 900 million in box office (Wikipedia) but received a meta score from critics of 49%. I quote from Rotten Tomatoes avatar is "more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling." Next, As pro states, the film is apart of the science fiction genre. Wikipedia describes science fiction as "different from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature." Furthermore, dictionary.com says that science fiction is "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc." Thus, being apart of the science fiction genre, the film must conform to the rules of the science fiction genre or otherwise be considered poor science fiction which would support my claim. Therefore, Ehwa is postulated to be a group of neural connections between trees as suggested by Dr. Grace Augustine. Since no ability of telekinesis (or any other force controlling ability) has been suggested by the film, ehwa's abilities which involve telekinesis are, within the context of the film, impossible. If telekinesis was postulated by the film, then wouldn't other creatures have that ability since they are evolutionarily liked? (With their neural connections). Also, even if Ehwa did have telekinesis, why would Ehwa spend energy lifting up mountains? THe ultimate conclusion from this is that I am not comparing the movie with real world science, i am analyzing the movie with the relative postulated science of the movie. Therefore, everything which goes against the postulated science of the movie is considered a paradox and thus further degrades the quality of the movie. Finally I would like to say that many of the errors in the film are not just science errors, but logic errors which significantly degrade the quality of the movie. Also anything not otherwise postulated by the film should automatically be considered with regular science. FOr example self evident things such as gravity). Point 3- I will point out that technology is directly proportional to a civilization success because of the rules of Technology and Society which says that "Technology and Society or technology and culture refers to the cyclical co-dependence, co-influence, co-production of technology and society upon the other (technology upon culture, and vice-versa). This synergistic relationship occurred from the dawn of humankind, with the invention of the simple tools; and continues into modern technologies such as the printing press and computers." Since it is not postulated otherwise in the film, we can assume this relationship is true. Thus, we can assme humanity is thriving because of its first rate technology and expansionist attitude. Expansion also equals a strong economy further proving my point of Furthermore to address the concerns about humanity which pro has suggested such as burning Jake Sully's brother's corpse without a considerate military funeral, I will ask the question: Is every civilization perfect? To address all points about supply issues, the space shuttle has clearly made multiple runs to the mining site because of the vast amount of mining equipment, military hardware, and people we see in the film which makes this assertion postulated. As we learn, the humans have already made significant contact (sometimes militarily) with the aliens already and thus would know what they would need in order to protect themselves against the Na'vi and thus would request what they need by the next shipment. Pro also hasn't commented on my point about the kevlar being stronger and more sophisticated than contemporary kevlar. @ Animals Getting Shot I will point out a contradiction in the film further. The Puma in the beginning of the film which chases Jake Sully, takes multiple mg rounds from Jake Sully and does not die which postulates that the animals cannot die from bullets. It contradicts itself because the Puma is killed by the machine gun in the final battle which scientifically doesn't make sense in the context of the film. To address the larger animals, I urge the voter to consider the fact that these guns would be able to take down these larger animals since they would have had to clear man animals from the mining sites. @ Blindfire/Snipers Bullets are easily abundant if air, which the humans use a lot more of, is abundant. @bunker buster- The bunker buster would achieve the same result as the incendiary missiles--bringing down the tree. Starwars is good science fiction because everything that is postulated is consistent throughout the film such as the force unlike avatar which has numerous contradictions between postulations. | 0 | serp777 |
1. Pro hasn't commented on the fact that the computer generated graphics boost the films rating. I ask the voter to consider whether he/she would go see avatar if it had very poor graphics. I would expect it would ruin the experience of the movie. My point is that you would not go and see the movie for its themes. Finally i will point out a film which has received great box office but poor reviews: Spider man 3. Spider man 3 made almost 900 million in box office (Wikipedia) but received a meta score from critics of 49%.
I quote from Rotten Tomatoes avatar is "more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling."
Next, As pro states, the film is apart of the science fiction genre. Wikipedia describes science fiction as "different from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature."
Furthermore, dictionary.com says that science fiction is "a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc."
Thus, being apart of the science fiction genre, the film must conform to the rules of the science fiction genre or otherwise be considered poor science fiction which would support my claim. Therefore, Ehwa is postulated to be a group of neural connections between trees as suggested by Dr. Grace Augustine. Since no ability of telekinesis (or any other force controlling ability) has been suggested by the film, ehwa's abilities which involve telekinesis are, within the context of the film, impossible. If telekinesis was postulated by the film, then wouldn't other creatures have that ability since they are evolutionarily liked? (With their neural connections). Also, even if Ehwa did have telekinesis, why would Ehwa spend energy lifting up mountains?
THe ultimate conclusion from this is that I am not comparing the movie with real world science, i am analyzing the movie with the relative postulated science of the movie. Therefore, everything which goes against the postulated science of the movie is considered a paradox and thus further degrades the quality of the movie. Finally I would like to say that many of the errors in the film are not just science errors, but logic errors which significantly degrade the quality of the movie.
Also anything not otherwise postulated by the film should automatically be considered with regular science. FOr example self evident things such as gravity).
Point 3-
I will point out that technology is directly proportional to a civilization success because of the rules of Technology and Society which says that "Technology and Society or technology and culture refers to the cyclical co-dependence, co-influence, co-production of technology and society upon the other (technology upon culture, and vice-versa). This synergistic relationship occurred from the dawn of humankind, with the invention of the simple tools; and continues into modern technologies such as the printing press and computers." Since it is not postulated otherwise in the film, we can assume this relationship is true. Thus, we can assme humanity is thriving because of its first rate technology and expansionist attitude. Expansion also equals a strong economy further proving my point of Furthermore to address the concerns about humanity which pro has suggested such as burning Jake Sully's brother's corpse without a considerate military funeral, I will ask the question: Is every civilization perfect?
To address all points about supply issues, the space shuttle has clearly made multiple runs to the mining site because of the vast amount of mining equipment, military hardware, and people we see in the film which makes this assertion postulated. As we learn, the humans have already made significant contact (sometimes militarily) with the aliens already and thus would know what they would need in order to protect themselves against the Na'vi and thus would request what they need by the next shipment. Pro also hasn't commented on my point about the kevlar being stronger and more sophisticated than contemporary kevlar.
@ Animals Getting Shot
I will point out a contradiction in the film further. The Puma in the beginning of the film which chases Jake Sully, takes multiple mg rounds from Jake Sully and does not die which postulates that the animals cannot die from bullets. It contradicts itself because the Puma is killed by the machine gun in the final battle which scientifically doesn't make sense in the context of the film. To address the larger animals, I urge the voter to consider the fact that these guns would be able to take down these larger animals since they would have had to clear man animals from the mining sites.
@ Blindfire/Snipers
Bullets are easily abundant if air, which the humans use a lot more of, is abundant.
@bunker buster-
The bunker buster would achieve the same result as the incendiary missiles--bringing down the tree.
Starwars is good science fiction because everything that is postulated is consistent throughout the film such as the force unlike avatar which has numerous contradictions between postulations. | Arts | 3 | Avatar-is-an-amazing-film/1/ | 7,013 |
First off I would like to thank my opponent for starting this interesting debate. I firmly believe that Aang's love interest should not have been Azula. I do however believe that Zutara should have happened. As the resolution states " Zutara and Azulaang should have happened" I just need to prove that one of them need not happen, so I shall begin arguing my case in round 2. | 0 | AnimeFanTony |
First off I would like to thank my opponent for starting this interesting debate. I firmly believe that Aang's love interest should not have been Azula. I do however believe that Zutara should have happened. As the resolution states " Zutara and Azulaang should have happened" I just need to prove that one of them need not happen, so I shall begin arguing my case in round 2. | Entertainment | 0 | Avatar-the-Last-Airbender-Zutara-and-Azulaang-should-have-happened/1/ | 7,014 |
I would like to thank my opponent for what is bound to be an interesting debate. Now I will concede my opponents first contention that Aang should have a love interest. Both Avatars Roku and Kuruk, the only known male Avatars, married. So following precedent Aang of course should have a love interest. Aang however had no one left in his nation to fall in love with and marry. Now following the Avatar cycle it would be better for Aang to marry a water-bender as a opposed to a fire bender like Azula because in the Avatar cycle after Air the Avatar Spirit passes unto Water. Furthermore marriage between people of different nations very rarely occurs. ============================================== CONTENTION 1: Azula is not capable of having any positive relationships| ============================================== Now a relationship between Azula and Aang would almost never work she not only tried to kill him multiple times and she even succeeded once. <URL>... Additionally Aang's previous incarnation Avatar Roku is the maternal great grandfather of Azula and Zuko. This means that spiritually Aang and Azula are related. So not only would it be basically spiritual incest for them to have a romantic relationship but Azula could revert back into her evil ways like Zuko did for a time and try to kill Aang. Whether or not an attempt like this succeeded or not either way a relationship would be ruined. However when determining whether or not she would be able to have a relationship with Aang it is important one looks her failure to have any positive relationships in her life. If you look at the list in the link there are 3 categories: 1)Relatives 2)Enemies 3)Former Allies This shows us that she can't even have a platonic friendship with some one let alone a romantic relationship. <URL>... Among her relatives the only one she and a semi decent one with was her father and even then it was a detached one. Her mother thought that she was a monster and Azula's relationship with Zuko was negative as she made numerous attempts on his life. Additionally Because of her mental instabilities and because of her thirst for power, control, and security she either betrayed or was betrayed by her former allies. As she isn't even capable of maintaining a platonic friendship there is no way she would be able to have a romantic relationship with one of her top enemies. =========================== Refutation 1: Why Azula would not work| =========================== While it is true two of the series main themes are redemption and forgiveness one must never forget that some people are beyond redemption or forgiveness. For example Katara did not forgive her mothers murderer though she did spare his life because he was so pathetic. Aang instead of forgiving Ozai took his bending and had him locked up. Ozai was the only person Azula considered or equal or looked up to and they were considered my many to be extremely similar. For example in Aang's fight with Ozai when Aang refuses to kill him he strikes from behind cheaply. Similarly in Azula's fight she fired lightning at the defenseless Katara since she was losing. Both of them show that they are cheap and cannot be trusted to fight honorably. No one can deny that they were very similar in nature so its not surprising that if one is beyond redemption the other would be as well. Additional she slowly declined mentally throughout book three till she eventually had a mental breakdown and had to be locked up like her father. <URL>... ======================== Refutation 2: Why it would not work| ======================== My opponent claims that her trustlessness barrier would have to be broken down however this would be near impossible after her betrayal as she trusted no one at all after that going far enough to banish many of her subjects. There are many reasons the plan my opponent proposes would not work. For instance like many other Firebenders Azula would probably rather die then accept help from the enemy. Also because Azula has such a one track mind she would continue attacking Aang in the spirit realm not allowing a chance for anyone to explain that she needs Aang to escape. Furthermore they would not have enough time in the spirit world for Azula to open up to Aang. It took Azula many years to open up to her childhood friends and brother so it is irrational to think she would open up to and enemy after a couple hours. So I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to the next rounds. | 0 | AnimeFanTony |
I would like to thank my opponent for what is bound to be an interesting debate.
Now I will concede my opponents first contention that Aang should have a love interest. Both Avatars Roku and Kuruk, the only known male Avatars, married. So following precedent Aang of course should have a love interest. Aang however had no one left in his nation to fall in love with and marry. Now following the Avatar cycle it would be better for Aang to marry a water-bender as a opposed to a fire bender like Azula because in the Avatar cycle after Air the Avatar Spirit passes unto Water. Furthermore marriage between people of different nations very rarely occurs.
==============================================
CONTENTION 1: Azula is not capable of having any positive relationships|
==============================================
Now a relationship between Azula and Aang would almost never work she not only tried to kill him multiple times and she even succeeded once.
http://avatar.wikia.com...
Additionally Aang's previous incarnation Avatar Roku is the maternal great grandfather of Azula and Zuko. This means that spiritually Aang and Azula are related. So not only would it be basically spiritual incest for them to have a romantic relationship but Azula could revert back into her evil ways like Zuko did for a time and try to kill Aang. Whether or not an attempt like this succeeded or not either way a relationship would be ruined.
However when determining whether or not she would be able to have a relationship with Aang it is important one looks her failure to have any positive relationships in her life. If you look at the list in the link there are 3 categories:
1)Relatives
2)Enemies
3)Former Allies
This shows us that she can't even have a platonic friendship with some one let alone a romantic relationship.
http://avatar.wikia.com...
Among her relatives the only one she and a semi decent one with was her father and even then it was a detached one. Her mother thought that she was a monster and Azula's relationship with Zuko was negative as she made numerous attempts on his life. Additionally Because of her mental instabilities and because of her thirst for power, control, and security she either betrayed or was betrayed by her former allies. As she isn't even capable of maintaining a platonic friendship there is no way she would be able to have a romantic relationship with one of her top enemies.
===========================
Refutation 1: Why Azula would not work|
===========================
While it is true two of the series main themes are redemption and forgiveness one must never forget that some people are beyond redemption or forgiveness. For example Katara did not forgive her mothers murderer though she did spare his life because he was so pathetic. Aang instead of forgiving Ozai took his bending and had him locked up. Ozai was the only person Azula considered or equal or looked up to and they were considered my many to be extremely similar. For example in Aang's fight with Ozai when Aang refuses to kill him he strikes from behind cheaply. Similarly in Azula's fight she fired lightning at the defenseless Katara since she was losing. Both of them show that they are cheap and cannot be trusted to fight honorably. No one can deny that they were very similar in nature so its not surprising that if one is beyond redemption the other would be as well. Additional she slowly declined mentally throughout book three till she eventually had a mental breakdown and had to be locked up like her father.
http://avatar.wikia.com...
========================
Refutation 2: Why it would not work|
========================
My opponent claims that her trustlessness barrier would have to be broken down however this would be near impossible after her betrayal as she trusted no one at all after that going far enough to banish many of her subjects. There are many reasons the plan my opponent proposes would not work. For instance like many other Firebenders Azula would probably rather die then accept help from the enemy. Also because Azula has such a one track mind she would continue attacking Aang in the spirit realm not allowing a chance for anyone to explain that she needs Aang to escape. Furthermore they would not have enough time in the spirit world for Azula to open up to Aang. It took Azula many years to open up to her childhood friends and brother so it is irrational to think she would open up to and enemy after a couple hours.
So I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to the next rounds. | Entertainment | 1 | Avatar-the-Last-Airbender-Zutara-and-Azulaang-should-have-happened/1/ | 7,015 |
Two points - #1 Where are you getting your information for the warrants statistic? And where did you get the number that only 2% of farm laborers are illegal? Because the first number seems a bit high and the second number seems a bit low. #2 What proof do you have they don't pay taxes? Or is that just a general statement? Newseek published an article in 2005 where they claimed that illegal immigrants paid almost 9 billion dollars in taxes that year. Do you have any evidence to disprove that? The fence would accomplish approximately 0. We can't fence off the Gulf of Mexico, and we can't lock down nearly 700 miles of border on a whim. The best thing to do is to make Mexico's and other Latin American countries' economies viable in the world market and remove the drug cartels that scare so many people out of those countries. | 0 | Demosthenes |
Two points -
#1 Where are you getting your information for the warrants statistic? And where did you get the number that only 2% of farm laborers are illegal? Because the first number seems a bit high and the second number seems a bit low.
#2 What proof do you have they don't pay taxes? Or is that just a general statement? Newseek published an article in 2005 where they claimed that illegal immigrants paid almost 9 billion dollars in taxes that year. Do you have any evidence to disprove that?
The fence would accomplish approximately 0. We can't fence off the Gulf of Mexico, and we can't lock down nearly 700 miles of border on a whim. The best thing to do is to make Mexico's and other Latin American countries' economies viable in the world market and remove the drug cartels that scare so many people out of those countries. | Politics | 0 | BORDER-FENCING/1/ | 7,066 |
This isn't 1984, this isn't Soviet Russia. Throwing up a fence doesn't work, ask the East Germans. The Berlin Wall worked REAL well. /End sarcasm. The Great Wall was a waste of bricks remember. That was a pretty good size fence too. | 0 | Demosthenes |
This isn't 1984, this isn't Soviet Russia. Throwing up a fence doesn't work, ask the East Germans. The Berlin Wall worked REAL well. /End sarcasm.
The Great Wall was a waste of bricks remember. That was a pretty good size fence too. | Politics | 1 | BORDER-FENCING/1/ | 7,067 |
Ok, can I point out the obvious bigotry at work here? Apparently this isn't about border security, it seems to be about Mexicans do a bad job. My friend, one bad experience doesn't allow you to pass judgement on all Mexicans regardless of whether they are legal or not. And I'll bet my car not all illegal immigrants are mexican. | 0 | Demosthenes |
Ok, can I point out the obvious bigotry at work here?
Apparently this isn't about border security, it seems to be about Mexicans do a bad job.
My friend, one bad experience doesn't allow you to pass judgement on all Mexicans regardless of whether they are legal or not. And I'll bet my car not all illegal immigrants are mexican. | Politics | 2 | BORDER-FENCING/1/ | 7,068 |
watsUpthr has the burden of proof of showing that "Bald is beautiful!" "I think everyone should go bald! All hair does is separate us from each other." 1) No warrants whatsoever 2) No link to the topic whatsoever 3) What he thinks doesn't matter unless he gives an explanation 4) He gives no clarification for what "separates us from each other" means 4b) Assuming that "separates us from each other" is bad, it's really weird that my opponent has an avatar with people that aren't bald. "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries." 1) Non-unique, not everyone buys hair products 2) You still need to wash your head, and I don't think that going bald suddenly means you use a bar of soap on your skull. But maybe that's just me. I think the skin on top of our heads is different. 3) Could =/= Will, therefore he can't claim any impacts from Poverty. CASE: 1) Hair is beautiful. When evaluating what's beautiful in this topic, we need to look to popular culture today. This should be held as true in the round because 1) We need an agent to refer back to, otherwise it would be 2) all esoteric, all "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", and at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org. Since the media holds hair to be a major component of beauty, and there are a lot more haired people than bald people in the entertainment industry, you vote CON. 2) Turn the AFF case's impacts. I already made the argument that he can't claim any impacts from solving world poverty, but I'm going to take it a step further: If he gets any impact at all, if he actually DOES save money: Well, people will just buy more things. This leads to more cars which means more pollution and more food which means more obesity and more video games which means more stupidity... Et Cetera. Vote CON. Because bald aint beautiful. | 0 | Korezaan |
watsUpthr has the burden of proof of showing that "Bald is beautiful!"
"I think everyone should go bald! All hair does is separate us from each other."
1) No warrants whatsoever
2) No link to the topic whatsoever
3) What he thinks doesn't matter unless he gives an explanation
4) He gives no clarification for what "separates us from each other" means
4b) Assuming that "separates us from each other" is bad, it's really weird that my opponent has an avatar with people that aren't bald.
"If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries."
1) Non-unique, not everyone buys hair products
2) You still need to wash your head, and I don't think that going bald suddenly means you use a bar of soap on your skull. But maybe that's just me. I think the skin on top of our heads is different.
3) Could =/= Will, therefore he can't claim any impacts from Poverty.
CASE:
1) Hair is beautiful. When evaluating what's beautiful in this topic, we need to look to popular culture today. This should be held as true in the round because 1) We need an agent to refer back to, otherwise it would be 2) all esoteric, all "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", and at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org. Since the media holds hair to be a major component of beauty, and there are a lot more haired people than bald people in the entertainment industry, you vote CON.
2) Turn the AFF case's impacts. I already made the argument that he can't claim any impacts from solving world poverty, but I'm going to take it a step further: If he gets any impact at all, if he actually DOES save money: Well, people will just buy more things. This leads to more cars which means more pollution and more food which means more obesity and more video games which means more stupidity… Et Cetera.
Vote CON. Because bald aint beautiful. | Entertainment | 0 | Bald-is-beautiful/1/ | 7,128 |
"OK...here is an explanation about my separation statement." 1) That is no reason why bald is suddenly pretty. 2) We don't need to go bald to do that. 3) I would argue that by HAVING HAIR, we're already birds of a feather. By going bald, we'd instead be birds of no feathers.... basically, non-unique impact from baldness. "Uh first of all my avatar has no hair...it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real." This was when you still had Dorothy or whoever in your profile picture. You can actually go to the profile pics section and pick the bald one.... "MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries.[...]Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor." 1) Nontopical; we're talking about if bald is beautiful or not. 2) Campaigns don't solve. As we have experienced very well by efforts to curb global warming, to stop genocide in Darfur, and other awareness movements, they don't work. There isn't any tangible solvency from not using money any more on hair products, as people would just use money on something else. 3) Faith isn't solvency either. 4) Those "some people" are already bald, therefore there would be no net benefits. "I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA!" Alright. Then we look to the argument I provided in R1, 'at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org.' This is true because the topic says "Bald is beautiful", and grammar dictates that he must prove the resolution categorically true, which he ISN'T, since he's conceding that some people The instant that not all people think bald is beautiful, you already negate. If he wishes to advocate that we shouldn't look to the resolution from the point of an actor to which we can all evaluate, then it becomes an impossible case to win, since he needs to prove "bald is beautiful" as a fact. Proving that some people think bald is beautiful won't work. "And a side note about movie stars: BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!" Bruce Willis is not beautiful, therefore your conclusion cannot be reached. Even if he is beautiful, there is no evidence that his beauty is derived from baldness; fallacy of the undistributed middle. "OK either I can't claim impact or I do...which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can"[....]" I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of layered arguments. You already don't get the impacts because I've refuted all your arguments. "and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note....there are a lot of educational video games!!!)" That's fine. I'm not about to go on a brain strain to prove that more cars means more pollution and more video games leads to stupidity. That's fine. The fact of the matter is, however, you can't prove that people will donate to charity: The only justification you have is that 'I have faith in people', but that doesn't prove solvency at all, I could have faith in my brother to stop being a mentally retarded child and have faith that he's going to skip a grade, and I can have faith that Bush will score a 160 on a legit IQ test tomorrow, and I can have faith that my green plastic cup will turn red, and I can have faith that the track at my school is actually a complicated time machine, but IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. FAITH =/= SOLVENCY. While I agree that I have not proved that video games lead to stupidity and cars lead to more pollution, and I have not proved that people will not give it to charity (I CAN prove it by the way, I'm just really heavily loaded with homework), that doesn't meant that suddenly you win the argument and people WILL donate to solve world hunger. YOU have the burden of proof, not me. "I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves!" Well, I choose not to. Where does this argument get us? "One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!!" He's being conditional with the argument. While this statement here can prove the resolution "I think bald is beautiful!" is true, he cannot prove "bald is beautiful" is true due to his burden to prove it true as a categorically true statement. At the point where I can provide even one example to why that's not true, you negate the resolution. 1) Me. I can confidently say that bald women do not turn me on. 2) The media. 3) A lot of other people. I am quite aware that this is a double fallacy. None of his other arguments about world poverty even matter in the round, as they aren't proving how bald is beautiful at all, he's just trying to say that it will lead to good things. But regardless of whether or not it leads to good things, it doesn't prove why bald is beautiful. His justification in this round, as we have seen, is that HE thinks bald is beautiful and HE thinks that everyone else will too. My argument is, among other things, that if people think bald is beautiful, they would've already been bald. But apparently many people don't think is true, as they choose to keep their hair on their respective heads. Since there are so many people that disagree that bald is beautiful, you can already drop his only relevant argument to this topic. | 0 | Korezaan |
"OK…here is an explanation about my separation statement."
1) That is no reason why bald is suddenly pretty.
2) We don't need to go bald to do that.
3) I would argue that by HAVING HAIR, we're already birds of a feather. By going bald, we'd instead be birds of no feathers.... basically, non-unique impact from baldness.
"Uh first of all my avatar has no hair…it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real."
This was when you still had Dorothy or whoever in your profile picture. You can actually go to the profile pics section and pick the bald one....
"MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries.[...]Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor."
1) Nontopical; we're talking about if bald is beautiful or not.
2) Campaigns don't solve. As we have experienced very well by efforts to curb global warming, to stop genocide in Darfur, and other awareness movements, they don't work. There isn't any tangible solvency from not using money any more on hair products, as people would just use money on something else.
3) Faith isn't solvency either.
4) Those "some people" are already bald, therefore there would be no net benefits.
"I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA!"
Alright. Then we look to the argument I provided in R1, 'at that point you always vote CON because there's no way to evaluate "Bald is Beautiful" as a fact if beauty is evaluated in each of our eyes. Or, it leads to people just voting for which side of the topic they agree with rather than who does the better debating. That completely defeats the purpose of this site, as this is not Poll.com, but Debate.org.' This is true because the topic says "Bald is beautiful", and grammar dictates that he must prove the resolution categorically true, which he ISN'T, since he's conceding that some people The instant that not all people think bald is beautiful, you already negate. If he wishes to advocate that we shouldn't look to the resolution from the point of an actor to which we can all evaluate, then it becomes an impossible case to win, since he needs to prove "bald is beautiful" as a fact. Proving that some people think bald is beautiful won't work.
"And a side note about movie stars:
BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD
BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL
THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!"
Bruce Willis is not beautiful, therefore your conclusion cannot be reached. Even if he is beautiful, there is no evidence that his beauty is derived from baldness; fallacy of the undistributed middle.
"OK either I can't claim impact or I do…which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can"[....]"
I'm sorry that you don't understand the concept of layered arguments. You already don't get the impacts because I've refuted all your arguments.
"and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note….there are a lot of educational video games!!!)"
That's fine. I'm not about to go on a brain strain to prove that more cars means more pollution and more video games leads to stupidity. That's fine. The fact of the matter is, however, you can't prove that people will donate to charity: The only justification you have is that 'I have faith in people', but that doesn't prove solvency at all, I could have faith in my brother to stop being a mentally retarded child and have faith that he's going to skip a grade, and I can have faith that Bush will score a 160 on a legit IQ test tomorrow, and I can have faith that my green plastic cup will turn red, and I can have faith that the track at my school is actually a complicated time machine, but IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. FAITH =/= SOLVENCY. While I agree that I have not proved that video games lead to stupidity and cars lead to more pollution, and I have not proved that people will not give it to charity (I CAN prove it by the way, I'm just really heavily loaded with homework), that doesn't meant that suddenly you win the argument and people WILL donate to solve world hunger. YOU have the burden of proof, not me.
"I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves!"
Well, I choose not to. Where does this argument get us?
"One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure
BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!!"
He's being conditional with the argument. While this statement here can prove the resolution "I think bald is beautiful!" is true, he cannot prove "bald is beautiful" is true due to his burden to prove it true as a categorically true statement. At the point where I can provide even one example to why that's not true, you negate the resolution.
1) Me. I can confidently say that bald women do not turn me on.
2) The media.
3) A lot of other people. I am quite aware that this is a double fallacy.
None of his other arguments about world poverty even matter in the round, as they aren't proving how bald is beautiful at all, he's just trying to say that it will lead to good things. But regardless of whether or not it leads to good things, it doesn't prove why bald is beautiful. His justification in this round, as we have seen, is that HE thinks bald is beautiful and HE thinks that everyone else will too. My argument is, among other things, that if people think bald is beautiful, they would've already been bald. But apparently many people don't think is true, as they choose to keep their hair on their respective heads. Since there are so many people that disagree that bald is beautiful, you can already drop his only relevant argument to this topic. | Entertainment | 1 | Bald-is-beautiful/1/ | 7,129 |
I think everyone should go bald! All hair does is separate us from each other. If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries. | 0 | watsUpthr |
I think everyone should go bald! All hair does is separate us from each other. If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries. | Entertainment | 0 | Bald-is-beautiful/1/ | 7,130 |
OK...here is an explanation about my separation statement. "Birds of a feather flock together!" In other words it seems that people with similar hair hang out with each other more. The head bangers, emos, preps, rich Barbie girls, religious people who do not cut their hair at all, and hippies just to name a few seem to take on similar hairstyles. If we all went "bald" then it would be one step closer to unification!! Of course the next step would be to work on clothing, but hair is a start! " Assuming that "separates us from each other" is bad, it's really weird that my opponent has an avatar with people that aren't bald." Uh first of all my avatar has no hair...it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real. And just because I chose him as my avatar does not mean he is me nor represents me. I could have chosen him randomly. BUT even if he did have real hair I would tell him to shave it and to ditch the ridiculous cap and gown as well. MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries." YOUR REPLY " Non-unique, not everyone buys hair products" Duh, not everyone needs to...but most of those with hair do. Look at the hair product industry....save money from making those chemicals (which leads to environmental problems as well!) and use it to fight poverty. "You still need to wash your head, and I don't think that going bald suddenly means you use a bar of soap on your skull. But maybe that's just me. I think the skin on top of our heads is different." Keep using your shampoo if you must...but many bald people think soap is sufficient. We would still save money by eliminating thousands of other products such as conditioner, coloring, spritz, hair spray, gel....not to mention combs, brushes, pony tail holders, headbands....I could go on and on. "Could =/= Will, therefore he can't claim any impacts from Poverty." Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor. "1) Hair is beautiful. When evaluating what's beautiful in this topic, we need to look to popular culture today. .....and there are a lot more haired people than bald people in the entertainment industry, you vote CON." I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA! They are messing up society as it is. Why should they determine what beauty is! And as far as your statement that "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" I agree and these eyes say that Bald is Beautiful...I agree that Hair is Beautiful as well...both are beautiful. For that matter everything is Beautiful in its own way. My last paragraph will clarify this more. But if you insist that I don't have a true right to argue that point then why did you give the last statement "Because bald aint beautiful" And a side note about movie stars: BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!! " Turn the AFF case's impacts. I already made the argument that he can't claim any impacts from solving world poverty, but I'm going to take it a step further: If he gets any impact at all, if he actually DOES save money: Well, people will just buy more things. This leads to more cars which means more pollution and more food which means more obesity and more video games which means more stupidity...." OK either I can't claim impact or I do...which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can" and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note....there are a lot of educational video games!!!) I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves! AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST: One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!! | 0 | watsUpthr |
OK…here is an explanation about my separation statement. "Birds of a feather flock together!" In other words it seems that people with similar hair hang out with each other more. The head bangers, emos, preps, rich Barbie girls, religious people who do not cut their hair at all, and hippies just to name a few seem to take on similar hairstyles. If we all went "bald" then it would be one step closer to unification!! Of course the next step would be to work on clothing, but hair is a start!
" Assuming that "separates us from each other" is bad, it's really weird that my opponent has an avatar with people that aren't bald."
Uh first of all my avatar has no hair…it is a cartoon so any resemblance of hair is not even real. And just because I chose him as my avatar does not mean he is me nor represents me. I could have chosen him randomly. BUT even if he did have real hair I would tell him to shave it and to ditch the ridiculous cap and gown as well.
MY STATEMENT: "If everyone shaved their heads we would save money on shampoos and hair products. We could use that money to help feed the hungry children in other countries."
YOUR REPLY " Non-unique, not everyone buys hair products"
Duh, not everyone needs to…but most of those with hair do. Look at the hair product industry….save money from making those chemicals (which leads to environmental problems as well!) and use it to fight poverty.
"You still need to wash your head, and I don't think that going bald suddenly means you use a bar of soap on your skull. But maybe that's just me. I think the skin on top of our heads is different."
Keep using your shampoo if you must...but many bald people think soap is sufficient. We would still save money by eliminating thousands of other products such as conditioner, coloring, spritz, hair spray, gel….not to mention combs, brushes, pony tail holders, headbands….I could go on and on.
"Could =/= Will, therefore he can't claim any impacts from Poverty."
Could because not everyone would be aware at first as to where the money should gowant to. But if I started campaigns such as "Go Bald for the Broke" or "Go Bald for the Babies" and encouraged the baldies to take that money and send it to the needy we could make a difference when it comes to poverty. But unlike you, I have still have some faith in the human race and think that because the bald people are so beautiful (inside that is) they will cheerfully give the money to the poor.
"1) Hair is beautiful. When evaluating what's beautiful in this topic, we need to look to popular culture today. …..and there are a lot more haired people than bald people in the entertainment industry, you vote CON."
I SAY SCREW THE MEDIA! They are messing up society as it is. Why should they determine what beauty is! And as far as your statement that "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" I agree and these eyes say that Bald is Beautiful…I agree that Hair is Beautiful as well…both are beautiful. For that matter everything is Beautiful in its own way. My last paragraph will clarify this more. But if you insist that I don't have a true right to argue that point then why did you give the last statement "Because bald aint beautiful"
And a side note about movie stars:
BRUCE WILLIS IS BALD
BRUCE WILLIS IS BEAUTIFUL
THEREFORE BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!
" Turn the AFF case's impacts. I already made the argument that he can't claim any impacts from solving world poverty, but I'm going to take it a step further: If he gets any impact at all, if he actually DOES save money: Well, people will just buy more things. This leads to more cars which means more pollution and more food which means more obesity and more video games which means more stupidity…."
OK either I can't claim impact or I do…which is it? I'm going to go with the "I can" and say that YOU can't PROVE that if it DOES save money that people will buy more things such as clothes , cars and video games. AND you can't prove that cars mean more pollution and video games lead to stupidty. (SIDE note….there are a lot of educational video games!!!) I choose to be more optimistic and say that these bald people will prove that beauty is skin deep and focus more on others, and less on themselves!
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST:
One of Webster's definitions of beautiful is this: having qualities of Beauty : exciting aesthetic pleasure
BALD excites aesthetic pleasure in many, although I only have to prove it does this to one, which would be myself of course (and maybe Bruce Willis) therefore BALD IS BEAUTIFUL!!! | Entertainment | 1 | Bald-is-beautiful/1/ | 7,131 |
This will be my very first debate :). I accept and good luck | 0 | Philosophybro |
This will be my very first debate :). I accept and good luck | People | 0 | Ban-Civilians-Ownership-of-Firearms/1/ | 7,143 |
A forfeit........ | 0 | Philosophybro |
A forfeit........ | People | 2 | Ban-Civilians-Ownership-of-Firearms/1/ | 7,144 |
No guns doesn't mean there can be no self defense. We can take less lethal options. I think your argument is begging the question. Youre assuming less guns will make more crime and that guns keep people safe. Assume the position to argue for the position isn't a sound tactic mate. You said "Another thing that the ownership of guns between normal people does is that it increases the amount of people standing up for themselves." This can be a good thing but it looks like its more of a bad thing. More people standing up for themselves will create overconfidence. We don't want people shooting or brandishing weapons over small disputes. You said "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated." You copied and pasted this from one of those conservative chain emails. <URL>... In the soviet union guns were still hard to get. You had to be rich in order to get one. And Hitler made gun laws less strict. <URL>... He disarmed the jews but many didnt wish to fight back anyway and correlation doesn't necessarily mean there's a causation You said:"what would happen if you did not have a firearm? You would have helplessly handed your things over or maybe taken a beating and disrespected" Yes because nobody could ever defend themselves before firearms existed. There no other way to stop violence other than a firearm. Your line of reasoning is silly to the point of absurd followed by blind assertions that guns prevent crime. You said: "In Switzerland everyone is required to own a gun and their crime rate is literally at the bottom of the world and it is ridiculous to hear government officials say that banning guns will stop gun crimes" Haha yeah the swiss military members can have their guns at home but they can't have ammunition and they can only keep their weapons if they have a special license. <URL>... and your Switzerland didn't stop a mass shooter when he stormed Parliament and killed 15. <URL>... Your arguments only take a small sample and you're trying to deduce an argument from that. If we want good results we need a large rigorous study. This is to remove any type of statistical anomalies. We have a study that does this. It is the largest study on guns ever and it found that more guns equal more deaths <URL>... | 0 | Philosophybro |
No guns doesn't mean there can be no self defense. We can take less lethal options. I think your argument is begging the question. Youre assuming less guns will make more crime and that guns keep people safe. Assume the position to argue for the position isn't a sound tactic mate.
You said
"Another thing that the ownership of guns between normal people does is that it increases the amount of people standing up for themselves."
This can be a good thing but it looks like its more of a bad thing. More people standing up for themselves will create overconfidence. We don't want people shooting or brandishing weapons over small disputes.
You said
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated."
You copied and pasted this from one of those conservative chain emails.
http://mediamattersaction.org...
In the soviet union guns were still hard to get. You had to be rich in order to get one. And Hitler made gun laws less strict.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
He disarmed the jews but many didnt wish to fight back anyway and correlation doesn't necessarily mean there's a causation
You said:"what would happen if you did not have a firearm? You would have helplessly handed your things over or maybe taken a beating and disrespected"
Yes because nobody could ever defend themselves before firearms existed. There no other way to stop violence other than a firearm. Your line of reasoning is silly to the point of absurd followed by blind assertions that guns prevent crime.
You said: "In Switzerland everyone is required to own a gun and their crime rate is literally at the bottom of the world and it is ridiculous to hear government officials say that banning guns will stop gun crimes"
Haha yeah the swiss military members can have their guns at home but they can't have ammunition and they can only keep their weapons if they have a special license.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
and your Switzerland didn't stop a mass shooter when he stormed Parliament and killed 15.
http://www.nytimes.com...
Your arguments only take a small sample and you're trying to deduce an argument from that. If we want good results we need a large rigorous study. This is to remove any type of statistical anomalies. We have a study that does this. It is the largest study on guns ever and it found that more guns equal more deaths
http://ajph.aphapublications.org... | People | 3 | Ban-Civilians-Ownership-of-Firearms/1/ | 7,145 |
*sigh* | 0 | Philosophybro |
*sigh* | People | 5 | Ban-Civilians-Ownership-of-Firearms/1/ | 7,146 |
If no one had a gun we wouldn't need them. | 0 | RationalMadman |
If no one had a gun we wouldn't need them. | Miscellaneous | 0 | Ban-Guns-Permanently/1/ | 7,147 |
we should ban all weaponry, starting with the hardest to defend oneself against: guns. We must truly evolve from merciless blood-thirsty tribal chimps. | 0 | RationalMadman |
we should ban all weaponry, starting with the hardest to defend oneself against: guns. We must truly evolve from merciless blood-thirsty tribal chimps. | Miscellaneous | 1 | Ban-Guns-Permanently/1/ | 7,148 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.