frame

Do scientific atheists contradict themselves in their belief?

Opening Argument

If you believe in everything science and you are an atheists do your scientific beliefs contradict that of an atheists beliefs? Just some thought for food.
  1. Do scientific atheists contradict themselves in their belief?

    7 votes
    1. No they don't
      57.14%
    2. Of course
      42.86%
    3. Dependce
        0.00%
    4. I don't know
        0.00%
    5. OK
        0.00%
«1

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Atheism is the worldview of the ignorant, irrational, mentally ill child who thinks by denying his daddy's existence, his daddy's punishments will have no effect.  Of course, they contradict themselves.  Indeed, their metaphysic and ontology is at war with their epistemology.
    HankDrCerealBaconToes
  • ViceRegent Um I am not sure you know that much about Atheists.
    HankGhostyBaconToes
  • Reality is not effected by your level of confidence in your "knowledge."
    MissDMeanorGhosty
  • ViceRegent What a random comment. Or maybe it is not random. Science says don't believe things unless their is evidence. I see know evidence that god exist. But the lack of evidence does not prove something. I see no evidence that suggest god does not exits. Therefor from a scientific stand point to say god exist would be jumping to a conclusion with no evidence. : )
    Ghosty
  • Science does not speak.  ROFL. Let me guess, you have zero scientific credentials?
  • ViceRegent said: Science does not speak.
    That is a random statement.
    And I don't really have scientific credentials because I am 15. What do you expect?
  • Your excuse for your ignorance if science is that you are young?  Wow!  Maybe you should shut up until you learn something?
    VaulkDrCerealSilverishGoldNova
  • ViceRegent OK I know a lot about science. I spend a lot of my time learning astrophysics. I thought you were taking about evidence like a degree or something. Sorry : )
  • When a dud says science speaks, he shows he knows nothing about it.
  • ViceRegent When did is say science speaks?
  • Nope said:
    ViceRegent What a random comment. Or maybe it is not random. Science says don't believe things unless their is evidence. I see know evidence that god exist. But the lack of evidence does not prove something. I see no evidence that suggest god does not exits. Therefor from a scientific stand point to say god exist would be jumping to a conclusion with no evidence. : )
    Read your quote carefully.
  • ViceRegent  Do you mean when I said say? If so I apologize for that. I mean if you believe in science then science ideas mean don't believe things unless their is evidence. I could not think of a better word. : )
  • Given your ignorance, that does not surprise me.
  • ViceRegent  Every one is ignorant. And yes I am kinda ignorant when it comes to vocabulary.
  • Of course you think that.  Moving on.
  • Nope said: ViceRegent What a random comment. Or maybe it is not random. Science says don't believe things unless their is evidence. I see know evidence that god exist. But the lack of evidence does not prove something. I see no evidence that suggest god does not exits. Therefor from a scientific stand point to say god exist would be jumping to a conclusion with no evidence. : )

    @Nope It is not the athiests who are trying to make such extraordinary claims, though. If you're going to insist in a divine creator and supervisor you need to be able to present some kind of evidence to show so. The very foundation of Christianity that is the Bible has been proven wrong in its answers to the most fundamental principals of the universe. It seems that with time the Bible loses legitimacy and people turn to it not for an accurate description of true events, but for morality - that's a whole different can of worms though. 

    After 2,600 years no one has been able to provide any real, testable evidence to support the existence of a god - that does it for me. 
    Nope
  • Hank The lack of evince can prove something. I have trouble seeing how someone who believes in science would say god does not exist. If science has tat us anything it is that nothing is for certain. With out good proof why would some one believe god does not exist. That would be jumping to conclusions. For me one I think about things scientifically the only conclusion i can draw is that I can't conclude god is real or not. So why bother with something I don't know and that is unlikely I will know any time soon. This is why scientist that are atheist confuse me. : )
  • Normally I'd never toss in my two cents unless it was relevant to the debate topic but just a PSA for everyone here.  This is a Debate Forum, let's keep things civil.  Telling people that they should shut up while appealing to authority as a logical fallacy is not only grossly hypocritical but it's the plain wrong answer.  Everyone here has the right to post an opinion and it doesn't matter how wrong it is, just like everyone else has the right to explain to them why they are wrong.  This isn't facebook and it's not the comment section on youtube...let's not drag this forum down to that level Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Thanks in advance for respecting the debating method and keeping it alive.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Hank

    Prove the Bible has been proven wrong and prove there is no evidence.  Good luck.
  • Nope said:
    Hank The lack of evince can prove something. I have trouble seeing how someone who believes in science would say god does not exist. If science has tat us anything it is that nothing is for certain. With out good proof why would some one believe god does not exist. That would be jumping to conclusions. For me one I think about things scientifically the only conclusion i can draw is that I can't conclude god is real or not. So why bother with something I don't know and that is unlikely I will know any time soon. This is why scientist that are atheist confuse me. : )
    @Nope I think what is significantly more confusing is when a scientist claims to be a theist; for then his beliefs are completely contradictory. To believe in the Bible which tells you the universe is no more then 10,000 years old, which refuses evolution in all its glory, but then practice science as a profession is completely baffling to me. I can appreciate those that don't take such a rudimentary approach to God - that is not believing in the more popular Christian or Islamic God. Most athiests know very well that nothing in science is for certain, and that is the beauty of it. Every day new discoveries are made. There was once a time when we thought the Earth was flat, there was once a time when we thought we were the centre of the universe - that it revolved around us; and all the while we never dreamt of making such a discovery as to found out that we are a tiny globe in a vast, vast universe. No athiest in his right mind believes that what science can answer now is the end, that there is no more to learn. 
  • @ViceRegent Does the Bible claim or does it not claim that the Earth is no older then a few thousand years? 

    There is so much real, physical evidence that blatantly disproves such a thing. Take the Grand Canyon as an example. The lines you see are sedimentation lines that form 40 major layers spanning 2 billion years of deposition. 


  • @Hank

    Good.  Then you shall have no problem providing the proof I ask for and yet you are.

    Note, I did not ask you to make more assertions, but to prove your claims that the Bible has been disproved and that there is no evidence.  I await your doing so.
  • @ViceRegent I just did. If the Bible made the claim that the Earth was no older then 10,000 years, and we now know that the Earth is in fact much, much older then 10,000 years, then it has been disproved on that basis. 
  • No, you made an assertion that the earth is older than 10K years.  I understand that you think something is true for no other reason than you say it is, but thinking people need more.  And you continue to ignore my demand for proof of your second claim.I will ask you one more time to prove your claims or infer you have none and dismiss them.
  • ViceRegent Ice layer, widmanstatten patterns, Lack of DNA fossils, fission track dating, permafrost, oxidized carbon dating, thermoluminescence dating, dendrochronology, rock varnish, petrified wood, iron-manganese nodule growth, erosion, stalacites, amino acid racemization, geomagnetic revesals, sedimentary varves, seabed plankton layering, coral growth, continental drift, rotation of the earth, impact craters, nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds, radioactive decay, Recesion of the moon. Look in to the things mentioned above because there is a lot of evidence in them that suggest the earth is older then a couple thousand years. And I don't have time to go in to detail. : )
    Hank
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch