Do scientific atheists contradict themselves in their belief? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!





The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Do scientific atheists contradict themselves in their belief?
in Philosophy

By NopeNope 324 Pts
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?

    11 votes
    1. No they don't
      45.45%
    2. Of course
      27.27%
    3. Dependce
        9.09%
    4. I don't know
        9.09%
    5. OK
        9.09%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



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.
    HankDrCerealBaconToesEmeryPearson
  • ViceRegent Um I am not sure you know that much about Atheists.
    HankGhostyBaconToesEmeryPearson
  • Reality is not effected by your level of confidence in your "knowledge."
    MissDMeanorGhostyEmeryPearson
  • 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. : )
    GhostyanonymousdebaterEmeryPearson
  • Science does not speak.  ROFL. Let me guess, you have zero scientific credentials?
    EmeryPearson
  • 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?
    VaulkDrCerealSilverishGoldNovaEmeryPearsonWokeWhale
  • 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. 
    NopeBaconToes
  • 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.
    anonymousdebater
  • 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. 
    anonymousdebater
  • @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
  • @Nope

    They do?  Prove it?   And naturally, he runs away.  This is the "thinking" of the modern pop, ignorant atheist.
  • The real problem is not that these atheists are ignorant, but that they are arrogant.  Their arrogance prevents them from even considering that they have zero idea what they are take about, making it impossible to get them to even consider the truth.
  • ViceRegent I had some things to do. My time should be used for things I see important. What makes you think that atheists are arrogant. (I am not a atheist. My arguments explained why.) Thinking about the fast expanse of the universe often gives you the opposite feeling of arrogance. But we are getting of topic. : )
  • 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.
  • Atheists have no idea what science or science proof even is.  How sad. 
  • Religion will denounce science when it disagrees with its superstitious claims, but then uses science to prove its superstitious claims, you cant have it both ways. Science never uses religion to prove anything. Religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant. Because of it's certainty
     Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn"t provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.
    anonymousdebater
  • I'm pretty sure you have no idea what atheists are. Atheists and Science go hand in hand. Atheists believe in evidence, if something can be recreated/proven with experiments then they have no reason to doubt it. I am not sure where you get the idea that Atheists won't agree with Science. It's the other way around, Science and Religion contradict each other yet the religious ones still refuse to accept when something can be demonstrated via a recreated experiment to prove the theory. Which is mind boggling, that's like me saying "Clouds are made of cotton candy because I believe it. Doesn't matter if we've proven its made of water."
    anonymousdebater
  • Schnuupi Science does contradict theists. But science is based on evidence and if their is no evidence that god is not real wouldn't believing he not real be just jumping to conclusions just like believing in god. I believing scientist if asked does god exists? should answer I don't know. Not no. I hope you can sea where I am going. Because if science has tot us anything it is we non almost nothing. : )
    anonymousdebater
  • You clearly are being brainwashed and I can see that as you've been told "We have to prove there is NO god." No. You are wrong. It is Theists that are proposing there IS a god, we are not proposing there ISN'T. It is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it. I cannot go to you and say. "Panda's are purple and can fly." Then I am automatically considered correct unless YOU prove me wrong. That's not how it works. I've seen this time and time again, religion instils in someones mind that it is the only truth and if anyone else says otherwise then they have to prove it. Yet it is the theists that are proposing hypotheticals, with all their arguments coming from a book of a collection of stories written by a large number of authors over thousands of years. And the first story being written a whole 500 years after jesus so there is NO proof or guarantee that they are from the time of Jesus at all. Athesis do not BELIEVE anything. An Atheist is just the LACK of belief, therefore you have to prove what you believe.@Nope
    anonymousdebater
  • @Schnuupi


    I see atheists all of the time making claims that God does not exist, He is imaginary, a fairy tale, etc.  You have proof of this right?  And prove why I have to prove anything TO YOU for it to be real?
    anonymousdebater
  • @Schnuupi

    And prove this whopper "Atheists and scientists go hand in hand"  Show us how atheist metaphysics and ontology provide a rational justification for science.  Then explain how modern science was invented by Christians while atheists are taking us back to the age of mysticism and witch doctors.
  • Again, you will find most atheists with disagree with you, there are some yes to misunderstand what atheism is. Atheism is a lack of belief, believe it or not atheists do not say there is NO god, because an atheist knows there could be one. Unless either side can prove it then neither side is right or wrong. I personally believe God may well exist, that is where I come from and I see you've had the unfortunate time of dealing with what we refer to as Extreme or Alt Atheists. A general Atheist will just have lack of belief our standpoint is "Because there is no proof, I won't follow the religion but I do not make the claim he doesn't exist." From a general (my type) of atheist, we are not making any claims we are just reserving our lack of belief and asking people who WANT us to believe in god to prove it, otherwise we have no reason to believe. I see your side and where you come from, I just want to make you aware this is not the standard of Atheism, Atheism by definition is A - Theist, Theist: Belief in a God/Deity. Atheist: Lack of belief in God/Deity. So we generally are just those who "Don't see a reason to believe since there's no real information for or against it." I hope I've cleared it up. @ViceRegent
    anonymousdebater
  • Schnuupi I do not claim that god exist because their is nothing to support my claim. (I am not a theist) I apologize but I many have use a different definition then you. I used the definition that atheist believe god does not exist because that is the definition I was tot. I think you use the definition that atheist lack the belief in god. That is my mistake. Lacking belief makes total sense for scientists because their is no proof god exists but believing god does not exists does not because that is believing in something with no evidence. So I apologize for the confusion in the definition of atheist. : )
  • You have been taught in a very modern sense of Atheism which has changed from it's original. If you watch the show The Atheist Experience they go into detail about this. There are many (probably at least 20) types of Atheism. The original term is simply Lack of belief. @Nope
  • Schnuupi It appears we were having what I like to call a ellipse debate (Because ellipse have to focus points and the arguments can get repetitive). Misunderstandings in definitions cause a debate. I should have posted what I thought the difintion is because I was the poster of the debate. So I guess are debating is over. : )
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| 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