Atheism Provides the more Rational and Realistic Worldview than Theism

I thank Con for the rational perspective presented in his rebuttal. However, his evidence does not stand up to scrutiny as I will explain on a case by case basis. Con: I will be defending the Christian religion... Con slickly avoids the ad populum fallacy by using the word “likely” but his reasoning has serious consequences. By the same inductive reasoning I can conclude that because 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution, creationism science is not likely (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I am also quite confident that scientists are just more trustworthy and more reliable than a Christian as well. Con: My opponent argues that religion is man-made... I am pleased that you agree with me on this point and would informally assume that you do not believe your Bible was written by God. If this is the case, why believe in the scientifically testable portions of the Bible to be true, when man in that era had not the slightest idea of what was really going on? Con tries to lower down science to the level of religious doctrine by explaining the fact that both are man-made constructs. The plain and simple difference is that science has peer-reviewed rigorously tested evidence. If you have the sufficient equipment, you can test for yourself all the scientific theories (criteria for which are outlined in my round 2 post); evolution by the way is a scientifically testable theory, creationism is not (will extrapolate later on). You also imply that scientists cannot discover truth in a spiritual sense; I would refer you to Neurotheology for the most coherent scientific explanations of spiritual phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Con: My opponent says that not all religions can be true. I also agree... I said quite clearly that “Either all religions are false or one religion is true.” Then I asked why God did not just show up and prove that he exists; I do not demand that one religion cannot be true if God does not do this, rather I was just asking Con if he could answer the question. Furthermore, physicians are not the best people to ask for questions regarding the natural order of the universe. Specifically, the correct group would be physicists and generally the fairest group would be scientists. Although I could not find polls regarding physicists supernatural disbelief I have found that 93% of scientists consider themselves as agnostics or atheists; this is quite a significant statistic (http://www.stephenjaygould.org...). If your Christian religion is true, then we should immediately pull 93% of scientists out of the workforce. I must note that this is only one of the numerous polls that show scientists are overwhelmingly atheistic or agnostic. These polls show evidence that the most intelligent and trustworthy group of people in our world today (scientists) support the notion that the atheistic worldview is more rational and realistic. Con: I agree that every person should meet every religion with skepticism. Just because people are born into one religion, it is quite an injustice to assume that they will never become rational people who will look at their own religion with a logical mind. My opponent fails to realize just how many people convert to faiths different from their childhood. I do not assume that no person will become skeptical of their own religion; I really hope they do so. I do not want to offend you when I say this but I believe you may have a slight bias when it comes down to the evidence because your defense of creationism is reprehensible. And I pity the fact that an intelligent person like you can be drawn into these blatant lies. Con: Evolution is not a scientific theory... Evolution is a scientific theory as it passes all of my previously outlined criterion for one. It should be useful to provide an accurate definition of biological evolution as: “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com... - the same online dictionary I used for all previously agreed to definitions) It is common knowledge that the genetic composition of a population does indeed change with each generation for pretty much every species. It is easily testable by comparing DNA sequences of a mother, a father, and their child in each species. All species use the same biological method of processing genetic information known as DNA. Since all living organisms on this planet have some form of DNA it is highly likely that all organisms developed from a common ancestor. Evolution along with natural selection (The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated. - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) predicts and explains how certain features become prevalent in an organism, and how they developed to be in the context of their environment and function. This can be explained through a completely naturalistic and gradual process. I am well versed on what Creation Science is and offer no bias against it. It has quite a lot of negative hearsay because it has earned that reputation, it is worse than pseudo-science it is a bunch of pretentious bull feces (almost lost that conduct point). Con: The Holy Scriptures do not attest to an Omnipotent God, so the logical paradox breaks down. The Bible attests to an Almighty God, who is complete in power and in control, but there is no reason to assume that His power must exist as a paradox. You directly contradict yourself when you say the Bible attests to a God that is “complete in power” yet you deny that he is omnipotent. Omnipotent – “One having unlimited power or authority.” Unlimited – “Without qualification or exception; absolute.” Complete – “Absolute; total.” You can argue for different definitions, but in a colloquial sense the readers can see that your claim is contradictory. I know that you do not want to assume that omnipotence creates a paradox but it does, as I have shown quite plainly. Please answer the question: Can God create a rock that he cannot lift? Con: My opponent claims that because evil exists... It is observed that various species commit intentional murder to members of other species all the time. In many cases, this leads to an extinction of a species, an effective genocide. The percentage of species that have ever existed on this planet and are now extinct is 90-99% (http://www.sciencedaily.com...). Quite a uselessly eloquent design by God isn’t it? There are many people who call upon God but commit murder instead, what is your point? I am sorry but you cannot simultaneously claim that God is loving and that he created evil. God necessarily created evil when creating man (or creating the universe), as he is omniscient (you agreed to this definition) so he knows exactly each and every evil act a person will choose to commit. Where is your God when an innocent child is being raped? What about the recent case of Ariel Castro (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)? Where was he when Castro decided to keep three women captive in his basement for 10 years? Imagine how much they must have begged, imagined how much they must have prayed, imagine how much they must have suffered, and imagine for how long. THEY GOT NOTHING FOR 10 YEARS and by the sheerest moment of luck a man finally heard and rescued them. You can claim all you want that your God is loving but please spare me your intellectual honesty on this point and stop it. Con: My opponent makes the the fallacious claim that evolution is a fact... The theory of evolution is as close you can get to fact as the theory of gravity. Just the sheer quantity of articles supporting evolutionary theories for one week surpasses all that creationism science has ever published. Again, I am not ignorant of creation science; I know it quite well and I still see that it must be ignored, as it has earned its position in the scientific community as rubbish. Please site your statistical claims with non-creationist based sources. Con: My opponent asserts that the origin of the universe is unknown... My arguments is that there are various possible explanations of the origins of a naturalist universe: 1) an eternal one 2) one with a naturalistic cause or 3) one with an uncaused cause. All three are more likely to be the correct than any God explanation due to Occam’s Razor. Occam’s razor simply states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Since the universe is less complex, the God explanation is not likely. It is irrelevant if the universe itself began as more complex, or less complex, God is always the most complex if he created the universe. You give no reason to believe that your God hypothesis is more likely you simply claim it. Con: My second proposal applies to the origin of language...Animals such as chimpanzees, dolphins, and whales also have their own form of language and communication (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Are you going to say that God granted these animals specifically, their own languages? No, we do not know exactly how it started, but if we said "God did it" for every unknown explanation then we would never progress.I am sorry I could not respond to each one of your arguments as I have reached my character limit. I will respond to the rest of your arguments in the next round. As it stands I believe I have defended each of my arguments quite well, and am therefore justified in stating the resolution stands.