The Instigator
devient.genie
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

A-THEIST are also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
Citrakayah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,099 times Debate No: 27192
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (9)

 

devient.genie

Con

If you were to ask pope pius XII Mar. 2, 1939 - Oct. 9, 1958, where he received his information regarding rules and regulations for catholics, or how was this information coming to him, he would have pulled out a King Kong sized syringe of poison and proceeds to spew "god told me" and you would have eaten up. If you still would eat it up, the poison is still affecting you. Please do not reproduce until you wake from the delusion. I would suggest learning biology, embryology, physics, fractal geometry, cosmology, (NOT pseudo scince astrology), and a few other intelligent sciences for fastest and best results :)

Just slow down. Take a breath. Agnostic is putting the probability of a god on par with the improbability.

That is incorrect. There isnt a 50-50 chance here. No human can prove or disprove a god any more than any person can prove or disprove leprechauns at the end of rainbows. However, these things can be considered a statistical improbability.

So a-theist, are also a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows :)

We just need to raise our conciousness. Just a simple small step, and all agree that questioning the origins of human life becasue of our current scientific knowledge is NOT somehow inherintley wrong, or rude, or offensive in any way just because those truths contradict words in a holy book. Once we all agree on that, we will begin to embrace the beautiful truths and explanations for the complexity of life and ultimitley have the conciousness to let go of the dull lazy answers that "god did it", "its gods will", "its gods way of testing us" "It says so in my holy binky" :)

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity because we want to, that doesnt sound too difficult right? :)
Citrakayah

Pro

From Con's argument, I'm forced to conclude that he meant to argue 'Pro'.

As my opening argument, I would like to point out that I am an atheist, but believe in unicorns. Specifically, a unicorn is a horse with a single horn.... except not quite. In reality, a unicorn only resembles a horse. For instance, in the Middle Ages, unicorns were often goatlike (http://upload.wikimedia.org...). Oberon Zell-Ravenheart made a goat with a single horn by binding the horns together (http://www.lair2000.net...). Ergo, unicorns exist.
Debate Round No. 1
devient.genie

Con

Well for an atheist, your not at the top of the food chain. Your down towards the bottom where supernatural beliefs wallow. The only difference between you, and a creationist, is your fairy tale is an unproven animal and their fairy tale is an unproven entity.

I cant put a list of the trillions and trillons of things a genuine atheist is also a-?????.

Imagine my list in the title the start of a long never ending list.

Example. I am a-weightlifitingottterofsixist, a-deerchefist, a-cardrivingupamountainbyitselfandbackdownist, A-turtledovepigeonreunionindecemberofaoddnumberyearsist, a-anythingsupernaituralchildishist.

So in conclusion, you are atheist to some unproven supernatural, just like creationists
You sound confusd, and confusion is a creationist trait, not atheist, go ahead and get back on their team, we dont claim childish beliefs at the top :)
Citrakayah

Pro

If you don't believe cars can drive themselves up mountains by themselves, as well as back down, then you clearly haven't heard about the advances in robotic cars.

In any event. You didn't define unicorn, ergo I get to define unicorn. There is truth in the unicorn legends, as is clearly shown by what I cited. You have no reason to say I am incorrect aside from repeated assertions.

And I am a genuine atheist. I don't believe in a deity of any sort.

Debate Round No. 2
devient.genie

Con

I spoke with Richard Dawkins regarding your unicorn claim, he would like you to stop splitting hairs like a creationist and turn in your atheist badge until you can act right.
Citrakayah

Pro

In otherwords, you have no argument and are attempting to engage in appeal to inappropriate authority and what is quite likely either delusion or outright lying.

Debate Round No. 3
devient.genie

Con

In other words your a hair splitting child full of delusion and fairy tale beliefs and you think using big words proves your intelligence.

You are an embarrassment to non bleieveris in superstition because you pick and choose supernatural beliefs just like a creationist picks and chooses which scripture to quote.

Unicorns are horses with long horns on their heads, split hairs on whatever you want, your not going to convince me you are intelligent by using the word ergo, your a little kid and it shows :)
Citrakayah

Pro

And you are a troll.

And have lost.
Debate Round No. 4
devient.genie

Con

There's no crying in baseball cheetah avatar baby. You know that. Walk It Off :)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

Unicorns, leprechauns at the end of rainbows and personal gods are all supernatural ridiculous ideas that thinking people cannot embrace because thinking people have higher levelS of intuition, intellect and instinct than those who believe in superstition and myths.

Calling me a troll wont wont make unicorns real. You are a silly childish superstition believer and Richard and I ask that you put your atheist badge on the desk and banish yourself from the cool kids of the world until you are cured of your unicorn delusion. Splitting hairs on goats, or other animals wont help you, creatioists are professional hairsplitting sissies. Also we request that you quit being a part time supernatural believer and get yourself a holy binky and suckle malnutrition from it like your closest peer the creationist :)

The following information is brought to you by our faithful sponsors CHECK and MATE :)
Citrakayah

Pro

And you have lost. I have taken your argument, reduced it to its component parts, dropped it off a river, retrieved it, infected it with Ebola, stabbed it repeatedly, dropped it off an orbital platform, dug my teeth in, and shaked it until it was reduced to molecules.

Your argument rests upon two basic ideas:
1. That atheists have to be logical and scientific. They don't. I know atheist pagans--they don't believe in a deity, but they believe in subtle energy.
2. Unicorns don't exist. I've proven the opposite--unicorns do exist; we made them. They aren't attracted to virgins, but they do exist nevertheless. They can't cure toxins; they are ill-tempered and stereotypically eat tin cans. But they exist.

You lose. Because you're right about one thing: The information following your last sentence was brought to you by CHECK and MATE.

Cheers.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
darrkcity, I wouldnt put creating anything ridiculous past the delusional mind of a religious person, because if a human can convince themselves the reason for everything is admittingly jealous, they can convince themselves of anything.

Now back to big kids stuff :)

When it comes to the vile, disgusting, immoral, wicked, and childish scripture in the holy binky, thinking people are far more aware of the poison than the brainwashed clowns who suckle malnutrition from those pages :)

CaptainObvious 5:5--There is a difference between interpreting and ignoring. Youre not fooling anyone but yourself :)
Posted by darkcity 4 years ago
darkcity
I know some pigeons that are very good chess players.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Thats called splitting hairs. The reason you do not understand me is because the poisonious effects of religion have caused atrophy of your intuition, intellect and instinct :)

Duh, Special Ed, that is the weakest most elementary level of intellect, its embarrassing to mankind if the majority of people on the planet are still dragging a ball and chain of outdated ideals that have been "cherry picked" and interpreted thousands of times.

You won because the jury of voters are blind with delusion from an infection caused by some religious dogma inhalation or ingestion.

Whooped de doo. Its like Steven Spielberg being upset that out of 100 votes, all one hundred voters chose SpongeBob over Cujo among 2-3 yr olds :)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

CaptainObvious 10:22--Obviously there is a reason for everything, however defining it with unequivical evidence and proof that you know absolutely, the big reason out of the trillions of possiblitites, the reason for everything, involves ritualistic practices, not limited too, baptism and crucification, and is personal to the point of keeping track of who is naughty or nice. This reason for everything is also responsible for the complex make up of the universe, and the beautiful, complex and extremely efficient sub atomic world of particle physics, and is concerned with your sex life......really? :)

CaptainObvious 5:5--There is a difference between interpreting and ignoring. Youre not fooling anyone but yourself :)

The preceeding scripture is brought to you by our faithful sponsors, CHECK and MATE :)
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
I think that you are a very sore loser...

Look, the fact that we created something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Exactly, in the beginning man created god and unicorns, both created by man, just like the smurfs were created by man, the muppets were created by men, the boogey man under the bed, created by man.

So what that cheetah whiny boy split hairs and says unicorns are real becasue we created them.

Duh, thats where all supernatural comes from geniuses, from delusional minds, minds often posessed by religious people, and little kids :)

TRICKS 6:19--Read and wholeheartedly believe in the teachings from a really old book that has been translated thousands of times, indoctrinate children with that belief that the reason for life, and all the stars and galaxies will send bad kids to hell and thinks its a good idea to stone someone who picks up sticks in Numbers 15:32-36, hammer that disgusting, vile, wicked and immoral rubbish,from a "holy binky" into your children and people can suckle from because we cant be moral without our binky to suckle, were just "widdle kids" and we need our binky to suckle when things are going bad, its our binky to suck when we get scared, when we're unsure we pull knowledge from the holy binky, cuz it "feels good", becasue its a "metaphysical thing" that is the nutritional equivalent to feeding your child a plate of what you scraped from underneath a dumpster at a McDonalds parking lot. All that "gunk-n-stuff" into your childs brain and presto, you figured out how to abuse your childs youth without yelling or hitting them. Way to go :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
zaradi, have you ever seen Pat on SNL? I cant tell wheter you pee standing up or sitting sdown?

What are you, your pick is very neutral.

It doesnt matter who said the quote, I found it and it makes sense.

I understand splitting hairs is the fortay of creationists, so plitting hairs on who said something funny is very creationist of you.

Lets just get right down to business.

You think the reason for everything believes in human sacrifice.

You think the reason gravity and the earths distance form earth is so perfect that the reason for that orders the killing of people.

When you look at your beliefs thru the eyes of a thinking person, the words childish and ridiculous merely scratch the surface. :)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

DUH 16:1---Everything is nature, thats why everything is so beautiful. Apple tree nazis that are petty unjust homophobic sexists dont make beautiful universe :)

BigKids 12:9--We came from something, not nothing. Scientific understandings are as follows: When we say nothing, we are referring to space, empty space. When scientists remove the atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, everything, even gravity and radiation, everything is removed from this empty space, that empty space still has weight after removing everything. So the nothing, is really something that our 5 senses cannot apprehend. We can be lazy and say its a god, put some scripture behind it, get some followers, and infect governments with lunacy or we can roll up our sleeves and keep digging into this Higgs Boson and let kissing girls get married :)

DUH 10:11--Claiming cumulative evolution by natural selection is an unproven theory, is no smarter than claiming water is NOT two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen :)

TRIVIA 9:2--Science or religion, one of them is a fraud or at least a mistake :)

DEFECTS 3:7--In the case of religion, unshakable faith and ignorance are siamese twins :)

BigKids 9:25--Atheists are just A-Santa Claus-ists, who cont
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
devient.genie quotes someone named Scott D.

ScottyDouglas? I laugh at the possibility.

Also, I'm not lost! I have a GPS. If anything I'm right on track to laughing my a** off and having some nice jerky while I'm at it.

Your move.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Eating crow is presumably foul-tasting in the same way that being proved wrong might be emotionally hard to swallow--wikipedia :)

Youre 16yrs old, making you 10 yrs older than a 6 yr old, therefore your childish remarks are as expected as a fish being wet.

Your support for any type of religion or theism, is pure ignorance, much like the smell of excremement is pure disgusting :)
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
What is the meaning of crow?
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
niddy, your confusion stems from some sort of deistic or theistic poison.

I recommend holding off on breeding so the big kids can take control and the religious can go to the fringe of society and suckle malnutrition from the holy binky quietly and go night night :)

zaradi, youre lost, so you definitley have to suckle far to much malnutrition from a holy binky.

Its painfully obvious muze is poisoned as well by a binky because black birds called crows are pretty common knowledge, almost as common knowledge as cumulative evolution by natural selection :)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

QUOTES 5:31--"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock proclaiming victory."--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I second wiploc's interpretation of the debate. Pro cleverly presents himself as a counterargument to Con's claim and that is quite difficult to refute! Con's response to this was not cordial and so loses conduct point. Con, atheists are defined by what they do not believe. There is no well-defined badge, nor club, nor shared beliefs, nor international comraderie. This is more often pointed out in theist vs atheist debates!
Vote Placed by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Not only does this debate not make sense, devient's arguments were unsubstantiated and/or insulting to HIS OWN RELIGION. Thus, conduct and arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con spent the debate in illiterate and rude mumblings and bumblings. I don't like to be hard on new users, but this one is a little...'out there.'
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a mess. I awarded Con arguments, such as they were, because they were in the main ignored by Pro. Pro gets spelling and grammar. Conduct... good lord. Even having an opinion in this matter embarrasses me.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I would like to thank Pro for being an atheist that stands up when another atheist is making a bad claim (we need more people like that on all sides of religion, politics, and argumentation in general). On to the debate, Pro (we'll stick with the labelled sides, even though they should have been flipped) clearly provided an argument against Con and Con did not make any attempts to refute it. Instead Con resorted to personal attacks.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious troll is obvious
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstguy's argument seems to be that if you are right about the existence of god (that is, if you agree with him) then you have to be right (agree with him) about everything else. Secondguy proved that this isn't true. Persuasion: Secondguy. Firstguy didn't like being refuted, so he threw a insult-laden tantrum. Conduct: Secondguy.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: A rather unorthodox argument on the part of Citrakayah, but effective nonetheless. Conduct deduction from Con for substituting insults for argument.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
devient.genieCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Woh, what is this?