The Instigator
Dale.G
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Luggs
Con (against)
Winning
90 Points

Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 13 votes the winner is...
Luggs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,974 times Debate No: 29169
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (13)

 

Dale.G

Pro

Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct
Luggs

Con

I accept. For those who do not know, this was a debate challenge from Dale.G to me. I will have to make the best of the difficult hand I have been dealt.
As no rules have been put forth, I will do such.

Breaking a rule results in conduct point going to opponent.
No semantics.
All sources should be cited, use quotations if quoting.
Arguments begin in R2, no new arguments in R5, only refutations and closing statements.

Definitions
Atheism - lack of belief in gods.
Proof - evidence that is conclusive
Evidence - information that supports one's position

Burden of Proof
BoP is on me, and Pro must refute my arguments.

Let the debate begin. I wish the best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Dale.G

Pro

Here we go I would like to ask Luggs what proof and Evidence do you have that say's Atheism is accurate and correct.
Luggs

Con

I would like to thank Pro for challenging me to this debate. Let us begin.

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?
In probability, yes [1]. An unsubstantiated claim has no basis with which to be believed, and therefore is more unlikely to be true. When evidence is presented, probability increases.

Let me give you a rational basis for being an atheist, which is information that supports my definition, therefore evidence. As soon as irrefutable evidence is given, the resolution is immediately negated because the resolution is that atheism has no proof and evidence (meaning it has neither).

You are on trial for murder, but you didn't do it. The prosecution fails to make any arguments that haven't been refuted, and you have absolutely no way of proving your innocence. After all, the jury may be thinking that you are just playing dumb. By the end of the trial, neither the prosecution, nor the defendant have either supported their side of the argument. So, what does the jury do? Here are two answers, both end up denying the claim.

1. Innocent until proven guilty
In most legal systems, the defendant is held to be found innocent until proven guilty [2]. In this case, you (the defendant) have had no evidence put against yourself, so the jury, if not biased, should vote "not guilty".

2. Not proven
"Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty")" [3]. When the jury has decided that the prosecution has not met their burden of proof, this verdict will be reached by the jury.

In both cases, you, the defendant, are safe from being seen as guilty.

Now, let's just substitute a few parts of this example so that it becomes relevant to this debate:

"God" is on trial for the arbitrary crime of existence. The theists have failed to make any arguments that haven't been refuted, and the atheists have absolutely no way of proving his innocence of this arbitrary crime. After all, the jury may be thinking that the atheists are simply hiding information. By the end of the trial, neither the theists, nor the atheists have either supported their side of the argument. So, what does the jury do?

Now, instead of using "Innocent until proven guilty", we substitute for "the burden of proof", where the prosecution (claimant) still has to prove their point, but the opposition does not, until after the prosecution does.

The concept is the exact same, so why is belief in gods an exception to this? That is a question I leave for my opponent.

-=Sources=-
[1] http://lesswrong.com...
[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Dale.G

Pro

Luggs you said this to me atheism has no proof and evidence

/ Me Quote so if Atheism has no proof and evidence then no one can be a atheist right

So if Atheism cannot be proven and has no evidence then Luggs you cannot be a atheist you need prove to be a atheist and Luggs you have just proven your not a atheist this is what you said atheism has no proof and evidence

/ Me Quote atheism has never being proven to be accurate and correct thus atheism is not real then for atheism to be real then atheism needs proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct because Luggs you would not put your belief into something that cannot be accurate or correct right
Luggs

Con

Several things to say.

1. Neither of us said either of those things. Nobody here said "so if Atheism has no proof and evidence then no one can be a atheist right", nor did either of us say " atheism has never being proven to be accurate and correct thus atheism is not real then for atheism to be real then atheism needs proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct because Luggs you would not put your belief into something that cannot be accurate or correct right".

2. I never said that "atheism has no proof and evidence". I was restating the resolution, and as I am Con, I deny the resolution.

3. Atheism is about what you believe, not about if you're right. Even if atheism had no proof or evidence (which I have clearly given, negating the resolution), that doesn't automatically mean someone can't be an atheist.

4. Atheism is the lack of belief in god. It doesn't need to be correct in order to be thought. Atheism is real, because people are atheists.

5. Pro completely ignored my first round, and did not address anything I said (he quoted me out of context). He pretty much conceded all of this debate to me.

Your move, Pro. You pretty much need to address my entire first round, as well as this one.
Debate Round No. 3
Dale.G

Pro

Luggs you said this to me atheism has no proof and evidence

/ Me Quote that is right Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct

I have already won this debate

so Atheism doesn't need to be correct in order to be thought.
so that means atheism is madness I cannot see how anyone can be a atheist

luggs what u said dose not give any reason why someone can be a atheist this is what u said Atheism is real, because people are atheists.
/ Me Quote how can u be a Atheist if you cannot provide for me proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct that is complete madness if u cannot provide for me e proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct then I can so Atheism is not real why because people who try to say they are atheist they cannot defend their so called atheism checkmate
Luggs

Con

If you, readers, are smart enough to look through this debate, you will see that I have not said what Pro claims I have said. When I have, it is out of context. For example, when I said "Atheism has no proof and evidence", it was in reference to the resolution. At no point have I said "so if Atheism has no proof and evidence then no one can be a atheist right", nor have either of us said "atheism has never being proven to be accurate and correct thus atheism is not real then for atheism to be real then atheism needs proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct because Luggs you would not put your belief into something that cannot be accurate or correct right", nor have I said " that is right Atheism has no proof and Evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct". Nobody here has said "how can u be a Atheist if you cannot provide for me proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct that is complete madness if u cannot provide for me e proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct then I can so Atheism is not real why because people who try to say they are atheist they cannot defend their so called atheism checkmate".

All of the quotes I have mentioned above are quotes nobody here has said (apart from me referencing the resolution or his other quotes).

Essentially, Pro is giving false quotes to make it seem like I agree with him. If you cared to look through this debate, you would see that neither of us have said his quotes before he said them, meaning he has not actually quoted anything.

Pro still has not addressed any of my points in R2, and has pretty much screwed himself over with the fact that this is R4, and he hasn't addressed any of my points.
Debate Round No. 4
Dale.G

Pro

Luggs I Will ask you again what proof and evidence do you have that says atheism is accurate and correct.
Luggs

Con

Well, this is the end of the debate. Before I finish, I will repeat that I have answered the question Pro has just asked me in R5.

This was already answered in R2. I will not copy and paste it, so I simply urge the voters and audience to look back on the second round about my whole courtroom analogy, and the rest of my argument.

Now, it is not proof "and" evidence, but the resolution is proven false because the resolution claims that atheism has neither.

Now, I urge the voters to vote Con, for several reasons:

Conduct: Pro has misquoted me, and making it seem like I somehow agree with him.
Arguments: Pro never refuted any of my points, and never even made a valid case.
Sources: I provided sources, Con's quotes were faked.
S/G: I quote from his R3:"you have just proven your not a atheist". It is "you're", nor "your", and "an", not "a"

Please, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
If Dale is a troll, he's embraced the troll nature as a lifestyle, and/or is going for a troll of grand and immense proportions of which this is a small fraction.
Posted by rowsdower 3 years ago
rowsdower
Sadly Elmakai he is not a troll. He maintains a facebook group.
http://www.facebook.com...
and he has a youtube channel.
http://www.youtube.com...
Calling these subpar would be rating them too highly.
Posted by mecap 3 years ago
mecap
"Dale's behavior (in this debate and others) not only gives Christians a bad name, but may go as far as to make Christians not want to be Christians anymore."
-- Then I support him 100%!!! :)
Posted by Elmakai 3 years ago
Elmakai
I hate to say it, but I'm really starting to think that dale.g is a troll account. How does someone consistently fail at the most basic standards of debate (such as responding to Luggs' arguments at all) and think he is doing any good?

Dale's behavior (in this debate and others) not only gives Christians a bad name, but may go as far as to make Christians not want to be Christians anymore.
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
Yep.
Posted by mecap 3 years ago
mecap
Has anybody noticed that Dale's avatar says "FBI: Firm Believer in Christ," so shouldn't that be FBC then? Or FBiC? TROLOLOL
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Aned
Why even think about a "God"? Do other beings (animals) care about a God? No. Who has been forcing the idea of a God? Of course, other humans. God was created long time ago as a tool to oppress people and keep them subjugated.

What about those generations that existed before the bible was written? Do animals need a bible?

Everything we know about the world has been due to science. Science showed us that the Earth was round, and so on.

Maybe Jesus existed, but just as an ordinary citizens. No human being has proved to have an extra power.
Posted by THEVIRUS 3 years ago
THEVIRUS
Good it let me change my votes. I gave dale the 7 points because luggs was the only professional here, but I fixed it
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
Wow. 10 hours of voting, and we already have 8 votes (55 points) submitted. Oh, would you look at that! All 55 points belong to me! :3
Posted by Aceviper2011 3 years ago
Aceviper2011
masterjared if you really wanna see then look at his profile and all his history debates. then you will change your mind about that.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
Dale.GLuggsTied
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: The CARM question is asinine, and it is logically invalid. Con did everything s/he could have without making the mistake of acknowledging that the misleading question was valid to ask.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Dale.GLuggsTied
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 gave perfectly good reasons for us to vote for him in the fifth round.
Vote Placed by KnowItAll 3 years ago
KnowItAll
Dale.GLuggsTied
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: Atheism is simply a non belief in God. As such it does not have to be accurate or correct. Terrible conduct by Pro.
Vote Placed by derkcloud 3 years ago
derkcloud
Dale.GLuggsTied
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: Conduct goes to Con for not saying "checkmate" like an insolent child. S&G, as usual, goes to whoever isn't Dale.G, who manages to turn everything he attempts to type into some sort of half-formed, english language abortion. Con answered all questions asked by Pro, though Pro continued to ask the same questions in effort to shift focus away from his own intellectual shortcomings.
Vote Placed by THEVIRUS 3 years ago
THEVIRUS
Dale.GLuggsTied
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: Con crushed it, and he was challenged. OOPS! sorry dale you shouldn't have votes I messed up. Said lugs was pro because he did way better than you. a lucky error in your favor
Vote Placed by corey561 3 years ago
corey561
Dale.GLuggsTied
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: Con had actual reasoning.
Vote Placed by minstrel 3 years ago
minstrel
Dale.GLuggsTied
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: Dale.G does his thing.
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 3 years ago
Aceviper2011
Dale.GLuggsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Once again I thought Dale will show a different style of debating. but failed to do so.
Vote Placed by rowsdower 3 years ago
rowsdower
Dale.GLuggsTied
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: Pro thinks that repeatedly asking the same poorly worded question is debating. It's not. Pro thinks that attacking strawman versions of his opponent is debating. It's not. Pro never even attempted to make an argument or present any sources. pro would greatly help himself by using spell check, attempting to use punctuation, and by never writing 'me quote' again.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
Dale.GLuggsTied
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: "Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? In probability, yes [1]." - Whether this argument is right or wrong, Pro never contested it, but rather kept claiming Con stated something that there is no evidence he stated. The above counts as evidence and a source, and S&G also to Con for obvious reasons.