The topic for this debate is "Atheism vs. Theism"

Republican08 will be arguing for Atheism.
Skyfloating will argue for Theism.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

I thank Republican08 for inviting me to this Formal Debate.

In this Debate I will be arguing on behalf of Theism and in opposition to Atheism.

Opening

Unequivocolly theism means to pay respect and appreciation to a Supreme Being as the Creator of All-that-is, to value the sacredness of his Creation (Life), and to follow the virtues of kindness, love, joy, goodwill and relief of suffering to the best of ones ability and resources. Both theist and spiritual doctrine teaches accountability for ones choices, for whether one chooses good or evil. In Christianity this is what is referred to as Gods Judgement. In Hinduism and Buddhism this is referred to as Karma. All religion is based on the concept of higher realities, afterlife and accountability for ones thoughts, words and deeds.

Contrary to the claim of many atheists, belief in a Supreme Being does not require membership in an organized religion, as is evidenced by myself.

Atheism is, in my view, a mere rebellion against religious bigotry and fanaticism. It therefore tends to focus on the very worst of religion, such as Islamic Jihadism or the Catholic Inquisition, in order to denigrate the belief in a Supreme Being. However, devotion to a Supreme Being has nothing to do with vile and barbaric acts, murder, mayhem and brainwashing. These are merely humans abusing the name of God for their own hateful purposes. The atheists tendency to focus on the very worst in religion, ignores the broad majority of religious people who are decent and respectful.

A-theism is inherently an antagonistic positionality rather than a product of "free thought". This is why atheism produces a lot of being "anti-" something or other rather than visionary solutions. A-theism is a by-product of theism, its antithesis. It would not exist without theism. Ive often heard atheists say that "every child is born an atheist". As atheism is a clearly defined position which has spawned hundreds of books, lectures, political-systems and activism this cannot be true. A child is born without any position whatsoever. If anything, the new born child is an agnostic - but even that would be one label too many.

I speak out against atheism because its fruits throughout the last few hundred years have been moral relativism (Where there is no moral accountability it is merely "a matter of perspective" whether cold blooded murder is good or bad) and psychological apathy.

Politically, the fruits of atheism have been extreme forms of communism and anti-spirituality. The best example of this is North Korea which follows an explicitly atheist doctrine called "Juche Ideology", where devotion to a Supreme Being is replaced by devotion to a human leader and a worldview that is bereft of any merit, meaning or moral accountability. The results? Mass-starvation, mass-poverty, blandness, squalor, hopelesness, imprisonment, suppression of media, dehumanization. Nothing else is to be expected when basic spiritual values are taken away and replaced by the atheist view that life is the result of a meaningless chain of coincidences and chemical reactions.

Atheism as an activist movement tends to piggyback on science and infiltrate modern Academia with its agenda. Most of the great names of science however (Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, DaVinci, Max Planck, Freud, C.G.Jung, Niels Bohr, David Bohm, Edison, Tesla etc.) were not atheists. Its difficult to have a creative mind without consideration of higher forces of inspiration.

Both Atheists and the fundamentalist religious attempt to polarize "Evolution vs. Creationism" is based on fallacy, any half-intelligent human being can see that they need not be mutually exclusive. Evolution can easily be a tool of Creation.

The atheist makes conclusive statements about the nature of reality although he himself is merely a tiny body-mind in a vast universe who perceives not even 0,00001% of all-that-is. The sheer arrogance of this stance is awesome and ultimately destructive when presented as a "fact" to impressionable young minds in school and the media.

If the atheist were to be content with his disbelief in God and keep it at that, no social unrest would arise. But many atheists feel compelled to tell others and to force their agenda and opinion down societies throats. When one likes the color red one does not have to decry the color blue. The intolerance of militant-atheists has become so extreme that some would prefer outlawing any references to Supreme Beings (such as removing "In God we Trust" from the 1-Dollar-Bill).

The atheists main line of reasoning is, that there is no "proof" for God and therefore God does not exist.

This is no different than the 17th Century folk saying "There is no proof that manned flight is possible, therefore manned flight does not exist"

The truth of the matter is that humans do not know whether God exists or not. To make an absolute statement saying "God does not exist" has no validity at all.

Not knowing whether a Creator exists or not, it then becomes a matter of choice, until a date in which more is known to mankind. And given the choice of a life that originates from a higher, creative source, or a life that is a pointless coincidence, I certainly choose the former.

In this Debate I intend to use logic and reason, rather than biblical verses, to counter atheism. It is my opinion that atheism cannot be countered with religious rhetoric, because it is of another paradigm entirely. Likewise one cannot use the tool of logic and reason to talk someone out of being in love. Those are two different worlds. So atheism is best countered in the same frame-of-reality it purports to be in.

I look forward to a fun Debate from both sides that is beneficial to all readers.

I would like to thank the TheBorg for creating this thread/debate for me and Skyfloating to

Discuss/Debate Atheism, over Theism.

First

A person born into India would more likely than not, be a member of the Hindu group, as opposing the Muslim,

Christianity or Islam group.

This child will grow up to believe in Reincarnation, that his soul will again possess another body.

He will follow under the false Indoctrination that his/her parents bestowed upon him/her, their own religion.

Vilayanur Ramachandran, has encountered a boy, aged not listed, who developed Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. This boy,

discovered/thought he was god, or a different type of god, a Omnipotent being, he honestly believed that he had

become a deity from a Disease referred to as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

Now would a Human from ancient times be able to comprehend this? I tend to think not. The person thinks

differently, and think on a much larger scale from the seizures! Although the things we must consider are that,

this is a mental disease. I tend to wonder whether or not if he had no idea of a god, if he would still consider a

deity, or just a abstract thinker.

The idea of a Deity, Constructer of the Universe are, images painted on a board, and must be regarded as such.

We do not believe that the Mona Lisa, is a divine being for the extreme feelings it bring us, along with the

watchful eyes. We don’t consider her a deity, although we consider it a wonderful work of art.

Gods’ have been constructed for reasons such as, segregating us from supposed ’sins’, allowing us to live forever,

allowing us to admire the idea of here and now, in a eternal state. I could go on.

This is a debate, we should wonder, what Theism does to us, and how it harms us as a whole.

Theists may have lower blood pressure along with other healthy statistics, but at the basis, does this help

humanity as a whole, would you have higher blood pressure to know you knew more then that of a person who proposed

their beliefs and doubts to be answered by a god.



God does know more good then a bed, some beds allow you to sleep better, and others are a bit uncomfortable,

deities, like most allow humans, to be comfortable, by dismissing their wrong doings (sins). Taking those sins and

forgiving them, or disregarding them till reincarnation, or a Karma, where the person lives in hell for it, till

they achieve heaven and have got through your own tribulation.

Deities, are meaningless, even for agnostics they must assume, at the very least, that there is no god, personal or

not, that it is either not there, or very secretive, which poses no more real, then spilling salt at your local

Pizza Hut.


All In all the ‘Religious’ gods, I think this debate will not be about, I believe this debate will be about whether

there is a God, or is their not a God?

I can easily disprove and counter any attack on a personal god, Yahweh, Brahma, Allah, into oblivion, although I

think you strike the nerve of Agnostics, “the god that is not known”. The infamous, personal god, which is easily

defeated.

I pose few questions then.

!) Is god a Eternal being?

2) Is a Deity, simply something one believes in off no proof, delusion almost.

3) Could we of not come about besides the need of a deity, if a deity needed it to be from him/her strictly, why

the deity, why him/her, to create us?

In a plight, not to corrupt the opening post into the debate, except for debate full post. Is that the

Misunderstanding of atheist.

Atheism, is the same as Sam Harris agrees as Non-Astrologers, Non-cosmologists. So on and so forth.

Atheism, is a belief in no deity, no belief in a higher power. There are a lot of people who don’t believe that

Elvis is Alive, and some may say Elvis is alive, we simply do not accept this, now if this came to be a matter of

jobs or where you live, if booted out by your community, you would stand for what you believe in until a community

agrees Elvis is alive, and you will be accepted into it.

This does not make Elvis a living being, especially at this age!

We are skeptics, we don’t believe in a god, and we refuse the idea of a god that created the Universe. A beautiful

one at that. We can’t be so prone to an idea of a Deity that created the earth out of nothing.

That only God can create something out of nothing. Well (4th) Why can’t something come from nothing without a

Deity/God.

As I understand, The rebuttals, start, only after the opening posts, I will kindly rebuttal many arguments of the

Floater lol, after my opening post, and This is my first debate so hopefully a good one.

I Again thank Skyfloating for permitting me to be a debater.

No thanks. With wording like that you are actually building my case for me, namely that both fanatic religion and activist atheism are destructive forces, hence detrimental to humanity.

The wording, was in poor taste. Disassemble, the roots of religion. Better

I dont believe in destroying other peoples belief-systems but in respecting them. This is based on the spiritual virtues of Love and Tolerance.

Your trespassing on morality. You cannot possibly tell me that Love and Tolerance, are purely and originated from the "Spiritual" nature....

Again, this has nothing to do with religion, and even less to do with belief in a higher purpose of life. It has more to do with insanity. Allow me to remind us what religion is my quoting the Encyclopedia

Reading that, and reading the Bible and Quran, I would hope, the religious leaders filed down the original texts, then pick and chose what they thought was good, and what they chose to ignore. Common trait for the religious.

Insanity, defined by me, would be a delusional person, one who may believe the things like: One day the sun will turn black from a pretty big clothe, a man on a horse will come from the clouds and save us all, one day I will be SUCKED out of my body and pulled directly to heave, (studies show that around 50% of the US believes this will happen sometime in the next 50 years , believing that it's possible to regenerate your body after being dead for three days whilst fighting the good fight in hell, oh, and contrarian like, assuming the earth is 6,000 years old.

Again for this, refer back, to the Elvis, many believe he's alive, although their not completely insane, their just highly delusional. Although they may go and do certain things for a belief in an absurd idea. They may want to convince you that Elvis is alive, perhaps because they wouldn't want to live in a world without Elvis.

It happens, 12 People have already offed themselves, due to the fact, solely that Michael Jackson died...

Atheism, doesn't preach as you said in your open, that we change the belief system from Divine Boogie Monster, to a Human Leader, i'm atheist, and have no devotion nor awe of Obama, heck for any leader, i'm skeptical. No i'm not extremely narccisitic, and believe that I am god, or hold myself that way, i'm not to incredibly fond of myself, I don't think i'd ever think that i'm a divine like being of men.

Is it? Looking at the Universe in the night sky seems more awesome to me than looking at a fleshy brain.

Well, this brain allows you to view that beauty, but of course, it could be possible the brain isn't that good, you need a divine side to see it. I don't know.

Debate Question 1: What could be the purpose of respect or reverence?

1) In what context. I'll give it a shot though.

Respect, should be given to someone who deserves respect. A respectable person.
A person unwarranted of respect, should be given none.

Now don't spin this, and come off with, well then we shall treat all of those without a respect worthy name, and tear them to shreds, no life isn't exactly like the news.

Those who don't deserve respect are withheld from respect and complete bashing.

Debate Question 2: How would you define desecration?

2) Without it, it stays as is, a Dogma. Skeptics and all doubters and wonders are to be caught on quickly, and turned away from desecration.

Why should we not question a sacred item. I'd like to have that rock the muslims cling to so badly, and have it inspected although, that would be desecration, I mean look at the trouble we had to go through, just to get a little snippet of a cloth that looks like jesus, or any hairy man for that matter.

Blood on it was a womans blood from testing, and they concluded that perhaps since he was born of a virgin, that he would only have woman dna or whatever. So Jesus was a girl... Or someone lied about being a virgin...again. Cue Wedding Crashers.

Debate Question 3: What does Santa Clause have to do with peoples sincere study of theology and spirituality?

What does santa claus not have to do with it!

From a small vulnerable age, kids are of course told in a nice, and altruistic being, that will give them presents, on one day, (except for the jewish, they get a bit longer then a day, and no santa!)

Now the child really believes in it, so obedience to be sure they get a present, they straighten up, this means does not justify the end.

You've tricked a child into believing in something we all know is ridiculous, not only does the child believe in it, but the change their lifestyle because of this Child Societal Dogma.

Desecration of Santa Claus in the school system, can be worthy of penalty. See where i'm getting at.

Children see the presents, they feel santa must of sent them, look it's even got his signature! He must of been here.

lol, too funny.

Now the mystery eventually overcomes them when they find out, and a few tears and slammed doors and a new bike to confuse them into not being upset, set in.

Now we know how it works, how the presents got their, our parents put them their, and children slaves made most of them. Now this seems a bit dull, and well it's not a fancy story of reindeer and a fat man flying around in his immortality.

They've even made morality movies off of this 'theory'! So on and so forth.

Debate Question 4: What do you gain from ridiculing and wanting to destroy millions of peaceful (not war-mongering!) and decent spiritual and religious practitioners?

To stop their pacifist support indirectly know by them for terrorists and extremist.

So they don't donate 8 million dollars all at once for a man claiming God will kill him if he doesn't receive 8 million dollars, I'd source but you already know.

So Ted Haggard doesn't get rich off of preaching hypocrisy.

So people don't look for divinity in rocks and cheetos. And focus on real issues in the world.

So the ayatollah no longer thinks, he should bring about the apocalypse along with Ahmadenijad.

So people stop praying and start acting.

If my sister had cancer, I would never pray for her. I would quit my job, quit everything, and make sure that she survived.

So I can stop getting those (selfsnip) letters on my door telling me about hell and a price was paid and hey by the way, you were born evil and must go through a process for some inbred seeming people who started the whole process.

Or so instead of pamphlets describing hell being given to waiters instead of tips to help them eat, and have better quality of life.

So people stop crutching on a belief which holds no ground, and start taking some darn responsibility for their own lives, instead of blaming it on karma, the will of a deity, the darn salt shaker falling over.

Debate Question 5: What could the beneficial purpose of humility be?

Really laying down the questions aren't you!

I do see the game your playing with these questions, and I refuse to fall into it. You ask the questions seemingly innocently but their loaded like a 12 gauge. You want me to answer one way to say aha, why don't you take your own advice. It's easy.

With a synonym of Submissiveness I don't find this to great of a thing.

I see no purpose in the question other then a planned backlash.

To know ones rank, and also known as 'low'. No, you can know your own rank, but not belittle yourself further. I'm a humble person in the universe, although here on this forsaken rock destined for damnation, like everything else in the universe, find myself of little time, to help, and raise awareness, and find myself lucky to be able to hopefully make a difference in the world with my studies.

Korean shamanism: 3,846,000 adherents (16% of population)
Cheondoism: 3,245,000 adherents (13.50% of population)
Buddhism: 1,082,000 adherents (4.50% of population)
Christianity: 406,000 adherents (1.69% of population)

Don't forget these guys there too!

In response to your statistics, where, labeling all I guess seemed to be elusive?

Belief in a Supreme Being has nothing whatsoever to do with hatred of blacks, gays, jews, etc. Where do you get these strange ideas?

Seriously? Seriously?

A mormon, is more likely to be elected president, than a atheist.

Discrimination has to do, we all know blacks, gays, jews, etc. Are all discriminated against by some people, but of all Atheists, are the most discriminated against.

But the idea of all of this...being a product of coincidence rather than creative design...seems a little bit off to me...and a few other people.

Because they see a tree, and never look at the forest.

If you could see on a atomic level, you would flip, its chaotic particles are colliding and shaking, whats going on! Then you get bigger and see organization. Then you get really big, and bam! What's going on everything is clashing into each other and exploding!

I am only saying that agnosticism is of a higher intelligence than atheism.

Ignorance, sheer ignorance, I've researched, and there is no perfect study determining one side over another. Trust me, I would've wanted my side to win, just as how you claim your side a false hit.

I do not see atheism as the "seed of the devil"

See, this would've been a good quote, without all the infantile, and attacking.


There is ultimately, no purpose for mumbling hopes and wishes to something that isn't there.

Except for removing responsibility for your own life.

(selfsnip) Happens. So do good things.

The universe, has a particularly well background, which would be good for a lack of a deity. And we haven't even touched base on Parellel Universes.

Although, that is a very slippery slope.

Well, i've got a few dozens words left, so I'll leave it at this.

Closing

Atheism as a Consequence of Corrupted Religion

A-theism is the rebellion against corrupted religion. Most wars that have been fought, have been fought in the name of Religion. When Corrupted, the all-inclusive nature of the Divine is taken, given the label of one group that opposes or is "superior" to all other groups. The most high is replaced by false idols and personifications one kneels down to worship like a slave.

Considering the stupidity that has been spread in the name of Religion, it is understandable that many people prefer to define themselves as Skeptics-of-the-Supernatural and Atheists.

I meant to point out that there is also another way of believing in God - which really has nothing to do with suppressing blacks (racism) and gays (homophobia), suppressing sexuality ("Puritanism"), nothing to do with cults and indoctrination. I fully agree with the atheist that these are the products of ignorance. The all-inclusive nature of God (Infinity) includes everyone and everything without excluding certain groups or people as worthy of attack or discrimination.

Since my worldview is slightly buddhistic, based on peace, prosperity, and the relief from the suffering inherent within the human condition, I oppose the dualistic nature of religion, but also the dualistic nature of atheism.

What does dualistic in this sense mean?

It means that war is not solved by anti-war but by pro-peace.

Violence is not solved by counter-violence.

Religion is not solved by anti-religion.

The anti-stance only feeds that which it claims to overcome. It only rocks the boat even more. So one week we have fundamentalist nutjobs bombing a homosexual disco. And next week, as retribution, we have "gay-activists" shredding a church.

Thats the natural consequence of creating extreme polarities.

I also mean to point out that, as ignorant and vile as "Religion" has been, it is also directly responsible for some of the greatest mankind has to offer: The building of the United States for example, is based on religion. The building of much of the most beautiful architecture is based on Religion. Amazing acts of heroism and kindness throughout History are based on Religion. Mankinds willingness to work for a higher goal, to have something worth working for is based on religious values. Things such as the Ten Commandments...that tell us not to steal, lie, kill, have elevated us from primitive barbarianism to sophistication. 99% of all people who practice religion are not pedophiles or suicide-bombers but actually very nice people.

The atheist, in his rebellious-mode-of-thinking often lacks discernment, generalizing, claiming that religious people are either complete idiots ("santa clause exists!") or wicked war-mongers.

_______________________________________________

There are other implications of atheism that are more troubling. In its manifestation as "Skepticism", Newtonian-ism, mechanistic reductionism, it becomes anti-spiritual and decries any sort of higher reality. Love is then nothing other than "chemical reactions". Satori is then nothing other than "Temporal Lobe Epilepsy". Many thousands of years of research on spiritual phenomena are arrogantly trashed with questionable "studies".

With demonic behaviours described as "the lower astral realms" by spiritual sages of the ages, such as rape, torture, murder, betrayal, bestiality, deception, conspiracy, dishonesty, rage and fear, etc. it then becomes "a matter of perspective" whether these are bad or not. This type of moral and ethical relativism is widespread in atheists, as can be evidenced right here in my Debate-Opponents posts.

Going from a world dominated by Religion to a world Dominated by atheism = going from the frying pan into the fire. One form of ignorance is replaced by another.

If I were to make a "Scale of Ignorance" from the most ignorant to the least ignorant I would position the various stances in this way:

1. Religious Fanatic ("Kill the Infidels in the name of God!")
2. Atheist ("There is no God!")
3. Agnostic ("I dont know whether there is a God or not")
4. Spiritual Person ("I am karmically accountable for my thoughts and actions")

This scale is based on observable effects of the various thought-systems. The effects of the religious fanatic have been destructive, horrific. The effects of the atheist have been antagonistic and disrespectful. The effects of the agnostic have been neutral. The effects of the spiritual have been positive.

In Summary: Given the choice between slandering Mother Theresa (see sourced Discussion-Thread) and committing random acts of kindness, I choose the latter. This is recommended (not commanded) for all who care about humanities survival and the gift of life.

I politely ask for the 24 hour extension.

Appreciated.

Hopefully it won't take that long.

Closing Statement
Atheism


Atheism, would not be what it was, if it wasn't for religion, there is point in that.

Although, the same argument could be posed, that if Astrology was as big as religion, we may need A-Astrologist.

Or for those who do not believe in Elvis being alive still.

A-Elvis'

Atheist-Agnostic, seems appropriate for some, although, I find, such a lack of 'evidence' for a Supreme Being. Though, the probability is low, it's still just as possible as Pink unicorns.

Out of such a universe we live in, with such, nothingness but extreme collisions, and quite a large amount of blazes going around.

Colliding galaxies, and holes sucking up everything possible.

We found a niche! We amazingly became somewhere.

Now I don't want this to go into a watch being made from a hurricane hitting a trash ground. Because that is very very unlikely. Although with natural selection and our new understandings of evolution. We are starting to understand how things came to be, and getting out of our primitive knowledge.

From our starting grounds, we literally, just walked in and saw a man flip a coin 20 times in a row, and they all landed heads up. Although if we had been around the whole time, we would of seen the many trial and errors, and 19 in a row, until ultimately 20.

We didn't wake up in a utopia, but we woke up, in a fairly comfortable place. We had no real understanding of the vastness of the universe, so it was easy to conjure up the idea of a god, creating such a 'nearly' wonderful place. I say nearly because primitive, man would of been very frightened of things such as germs and etc.

Atheist for Jesus' Our morals are not derived from deities/deity, but we know what is right and wrong. It's common sense.

As Hitchens, put it, the people following moses' didn't go around pillaging and raping, stealing and killing, having sex with animals, only to find moses' with Ten Commandments, saying no guys.... this isn't cool.

Saying that spirituality is needed for morality, is offending the human race. That we are so stupid, that if a deity didn't say it, then we would all be doing it.

Obviously, as Richard Dawkins put it, in Nice Guys Finish last.

If one ape picks ticks off another ape, one ape has no apes, but the other ape is left with ticks if the other ape doesn't return the favor, or if no other ape is helpful but merely selfish.

Now say the other apes helped, but noticed the ones that didn't help, and decided to stop picking ticks off of them for their selfishness. Then that would end quite awful for the selfish ape.

Unless of course a spiritual guiding offered them advice, I suppose that would work too.


Not scaling, just stating.

1. Religious Fanatic ("Kill the Infidels in the name of God!")
2. Agnostics ( I don't believe in religious gods, but am not able to give up the idea of god)
3. Atheist ( There is probably no God, There is probably no pink unicorns)
4. Spiritual Person (I like the idea that there is more to life, than what it is)

We believe that, there is no creator.

Life is beautiful, the Universe in it's destructive nature is beautiful.

But i'll leave it at this.

“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
– Douglas Adams

I will say this for atheists. We do not want to start shredding churches, and blowing ourselves up at our local mosque or HEB. To stop people believing in a deity.

We also believe that Dogma's should no longer exist. Any figure or place, can be opinionated and discussed. I see not what harm was caused by questioning the acts of a woman, that some (including) myself seemed near barbaric. Without it being considered an abomination. And 'Sucking'.

I do not think that Religious people are 'Complete Idiots'. Just a bit delusional. Stuck on Wishful thinking.



Love- For a Atheist, maybe just chemical, although the way it feels, is still just the same. It need not Divinity to account for it.

For me.

Given the choice between wishful thinking, and hoping that a Divine Parent is taking care of my life, and respecting the one life I have, and living it to the fullest, knowing there is nothing more to the garden, whilst still repeatedly donating blood, and willfulling doing not random, but purposeful kind acts.

I would choose the latter.

And it's off to the judges!! Please be patient while the judges do their thing..

TheBorg

Ok all!! We have a sweeping winner!! Congrats go to Skyfloating for this victory!! Both of these guys fought hard for it, and both should be commended for an excellent fight.

Thank you both for participating, and once again, congrats Sky!!

Below you'll find the comments from the judges.

Judge 1's Comments:

Challenge Match: Republican08 vs Skyfloating: "Atheism vs. Theism"

Well this was certainly an interesting debate…

I read Skyfloating’s opening and was suitably impressed as I expected to be with 2 such great members going at it, then I read Republican08’s and what the??? Was my first impression…

The opening should be where the fighter lays out their intentions and what they are going to present to us, the reader. I had no idea after reading Republican08’s post where he was going with this.

Disjointed and all over the place would be putting it mildly, I could only hope that he picked the pace up as the debate progressed, but this was certainly a rocky start.

I did notice that in the first reply, Republican08 exceeded the number of links allowed in the instructions at the beginning of the debate, but he did rally some from his opening statement. The link issue would prove to be a moot point… His answers to Skyfloating’s post were more on spot.

Skyfloating continued on presenting the material to support his case.

One thing that was instantly noticeable about the differences in approach, was that Republican08 gave examples of what “may” happen or used examples to illustrate his position, while Skyfloating attacked the very base of Atheism..

Skyfloating’s comment here:
You´re mixing up cause and effect, imo.
Was very indicative of a vast majority of the debate.

OK, let’s get this done…

This debate was a pure slam dunk…

The entire read felt as if republican08 was trying to convince himself he was an Atheist. Not supporting the position or attacking Theism.. It was actually strange to read for the most part as even the answers to Skyfloating’s questions were ramblings about his personal thoughts and not supportive of the position at all…

Anyway..

Skyfloating by a mile.

Judge 2's comments:

It started off really good, I was seeing it as tied during the intro. Then it looks like Republican08 was running out of a rubuttal. Skyfloating kept a strong defense after their equal ititial posts. So, going to say one vote in Skys favor.

Skyfloating;
Argued the best debate in my opinion, the other side started off great, but failed to keep a solid counter.

And Judge 3's Comments:

"Atheism vs. Theism"
, I think Skyfloating gave a far more coherant and planned debate, therefore I vote for Skyfloating in this Debate.

TheBorg

[edit on 31-8-2009 by TheBorg]