The Instigator
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism is a sound position

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 8 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,702 times Debate No: 26144
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

Zaradi

Pro

Okay, since no one can seem to get it through this guys head that he's wrong, I'll take my shot at disabusing him of his notions.

The resolution is thus: Atheism is a viable position.

Definitions:

Atheism: Disbelief in god(s).

Sound: making logical and rational sense.

Position: a stance or belief.

Ground Rules:

1. 8k arguments. No glitching to get over the limit.
2. 72 hour response time.
3. 2 week voting period.
4. Forfeited round is an automatic loss.
4b. Unless waived by the non-forfeiting debater.
5. Violation of any of the rules is grounds for an automatic loss.

A note before we begin: I would like to state out front that I am not an atheist. My opponent's most common excuse for when he happens to lose a debate is he lost simply because atheists voted for their fellow atheist. This debate cannot be the case since I'm not atheist, but rather agnostic. If anything I'm leaning more toward deism than atheism, so his general cop-out will not apply here. We will sink or swim on our own debating prowress, not on out-of-round biases.
Anti-atheist

Con

Ok. But an atheist will still vote for you because you are non-religious.

I ask since you are defending the position of atheism, what exact proof and evidence do you have that proves atheism accurate and correct?

Atheism is amoral, give me one single logical reason why people should not kill themselves. If emotions are nothing but chemical reactions and there is no afterlife then there really is no reason why someone should not kill themselves over small matters like losing an ipod.

How is belief in a god without proof is any different than denial of a god without proof. Ergo Absence of Evidence is not the same thing as Evidence of Absence.

Atheism isn't sound because, there is no proof of it being accurate and correct and trying to disprove God within the confines of physics is impossible.
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Pro

"Ok. But an atheist will still vote for you because you are non-religious."

False, I point back to when I said if anything I'm more deistic (religious) than atheistic (non-religious). Prepare to rise or fall on your own prowress.

I will defend atheism with three general arguments that will be outlined below:

ARGUMENT ONE: THE PARADOX OF THE STONE

The problem with God existing is simple: God is presumed to be omni-potent, or all-powerful (same thing, just take your pick of wording). If God is omni-potent, then they can supposedly do anything. If that is true, then God would be able to perform the following task:

God would be able to create a stone so large that he could not lift it.

Clever readers would note that this creates a paradox. If God created a stone so large that he could not lift it, then he could not be all-powerful, because something existed that he could not lift. If God could not create a stone so large he could not lift it, then a task existed that he could not do, thus making him not all powerful. Thus, an all-powerful God could not exist.

My opponent may try to respond to this by saying that God is all-powerful and so can limit his power before restoring it, but the problem with this is that saying that an all-powerful God can make himself not all-powerful can't happen because God would still have to be all-powerfull in order to be God.

ARGUMENT TWO: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

The above argument takes the form of the following syllogism:

P1: If God Existed, there would be no suffering in the world.

This is true because an all-powerful, all-loving would want to prevent suffering or end suffering (all-loving part), and has the ability to do it (all-powerful), so if God existed, we can conclude that there would be no suffering or at least very, very little suffering.

P2: Suffering exists.

Case in point: Africa. Kony2012 anyone? But, just for the lulz, I'll also throw out that there's starvation, drought, death, misery, murder, theft, racism, sexism, ethnic clensing, etc. Suffering clearly existed, and such suffering is clearly preventable by an all-powerful god.

C: God can not exist.

If an all-powerful, all-loving God can and would prevent or erase suffering, and suffering still exists, then God could not exist, otherwise there wouldn't be any suffering.

ARGUMENT THREE: EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM

As Carl Sagan once pointed out, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (1). Therefore, the burden of proof has to fall onto the one advocating for the existence of God, as the claims he makes requires evidence. Do not let Con try to win the round simply by trying to refute my arguments and saying "He can't prove atheism is sound, so he can't win". In order to disprove atheism, one would have to prove that theism was true. Otherwise, the default position is closer to atheism and theism, since we aren't born believing in God (agnosticism is the real starting point, otherwise known as weak atheism). So, if my opponent cannot prove God exists, you have to default to the pro, since the default position is atheism.

Thus, atheism is a sound position.

"Atheism is amoral, give me one single logical reason why people should not kill themselves."

This presumes that the only place that we can find a source of morality is from religion. However, the massive amount of philosophical literature that never once mentions the name of God, or only mentions the name of God to point out how silly of a concept God is. Such ideas can be:

Utilitarianism
Deontology
Naturalism
Egoism
Empiricism

And so on. There are other places for moral thought and truth other than religion, and thus can rule out such concepts as suicide.

"Absence of Evidence is not the same thing as Evidence of Absence."

Refer to my third argument.

"Atheism isn't sound because, there is no proof of it being accurate and correct and trying to disprove God within the confines of physics is impossible."

Please explain this. If anything, it's GOD that fails to line up with physics, and not the disbelief in God.

So, I have to conclude that the resolution is affirmed. My opponent has proved nothing, despite getting an additional round from me for argumentation (the first round) and I'm proving how atheism is sound and why God cannot exist, thus the resolution is affirmed.
Anti-atheist

Con

Atheists will still vote for you because you're defending their position.

No evidence for atheism has been given. Even if the arguments given were true I can just say God is not all powerful but still exists.

ARGUMENT ONE: THE PARADOX OF THE STONE

This is limiting your thought. If God is omnipotent he can create a stone so big he cannot life at the same time lifting it. God can be in a state of limiting his power at the same time not limiting his power, since a positive out weighs a negative God can do both without limiting any power whatsoever.

ARGUMENT TWO: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

God allows evil because we need an objective provable standard! Without this standard good would be evil and evil would be good.

ARGUMENT THREE: EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM

Atheism is a negation. Disproving the positive(theistic) arguments doesn't prove a negation. So there is no evidence of atheism being correct since negative =/= positive

Those secular morals only explain why its a good idea not why we should. Besides its not a response because you didn't pick one.

YOu blame God because you cannot prove atheism is correct! God has interacted in physics yet whithen it you cannot reach him
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Pro

Line-by-line refutation is below:

"No evidence for atheism has been given."

Excuse me for the lapse in conduct for a moment:
-facepalm-
Seriously? Did you just slam your face against the wall and blare Gospel music while reading my entire case?

I appologize, let me resume my professionalism.

The three arguments I give in my case ARE evidence for the truth of atheism. Disproving God is the main tenant of Atheism. Disproving central tenants of theism IS evidence for atheism. This is just standard definitions and common sense.

"Even if the arguments given were true I can just say God is not all powerful but still exists."

You could. You definitely could. But wait a second! Isn't God presumed to be all-powerful? I believe in the Bible he's been able to move mountains and part oceans and slaughter the first-born sons of entire nations (although theists don't like to talk about that since it shows how God can be a d*ck to people who don't believe in him). By conceding that God cannot be all-powerful, aren't you admitting that your God cannot exist? Either that or you're calling the Bible, and therefore God, a liar. You can take your pick there.

"This is limiting your thought. If God is omnipotent he can create a stone so big he cannot life at the same time lifting it. God can be in a state of limiting his power at the same time not limiting his power,"

See, there are a number of problems with this response. Firstly, this still bites into the front-lined response that God cannot physically be not all powerful. Even if he limited his power, he would still be all-powerful, which would still bite into the loop. Since he didn't respond to that pre-written response, it's still applicable and refutes this argument. Secondly, God cannot logically be all-powerful and not all-powerfull at the same time. The very nature of the two cannot mix in one being or entity. I cannot be pure-blooded African American while still being Pure-blooded Caucasian. The two cannot mix. Thirdly, even if we presume that it IS possible that God could be all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time, this would suggest that there are multiple realities or dimensions of space-time where God would be all-powerful and not all-powerful. But this assumption is a) unwarranted, b) non-falsifiable as well as non-verifiable since we can only perceive and experience the reality we live in and no others, and c) would cut both ways, presuming it was true and we could prove it. If there are multiple realities where God could be all-powerful and not all-powerful, could we not logically extend that argument out to also say that there could be realities where God could exist and God could not exist?

Thus, his only refutations against the Paradox of the Stone is refuted. You can extend the argument out. This is proof that Atheism can be a sound position, and you can affirm the resolution here. But let's not stop there.

"God allows evil because we need an objective provable standard! Without this standard good would be evil and evil would be good."

There's multiple problems with this. Firstly, this seems to contradict your statement that morality can only come from God. Why would it matter if suffering didn't exist if God already provided us with what it's meant to be right and wrong? Suffering and evil does not factor in. Secondly, suffering doesn't have to exist for us to know that being evil is bad and not being evil is good. Hitler doesn't have to be alive for us to know that the persecution of the Jewish race and massive ethnic cleansing is a generally bad idea. We can still have a standard for judging what is good and what is evil without suffering actually existing. And thirdly, there's no argument to say that if God were not all-powerful, that he could not take away suffering and yet still provide an objective standard of judging right from wrong and good from bad. The fact that you presume it can't be done seems conducive to the fact that the argument is sound.

With this only refutation of the Problem of Evil refuted, you can cleanly extend this across the flow as well. This gives you two places to affirm the resolution. But hold on, folks! We're not done yet!

"Atheism is a negation. Disproving the positive(theistic) arguments doesn't prove a negation."

I'm a little confused by my opponent's logic here. I agree Atheism is a negation of theism. But he has the next part backwards. The flow of logic would look something like this:

If Atheism is a negation of theism, ...

(this is something we both agree on)

... then if theism was false, atheism must be true.

This is because if Atheism is a negation of theism, and theism is being negated, you are proving atheism. That's just the very basic definitions that my opponent and I agreed on.

Moreover, this doesn't even respond to the entire point of the argument, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since my opponent has provided no extraordinary evidence, then we default to atheism. This gives you the third and final place you need in this debate to affirm. But let's go ahead and refute the rest of his claims as well.

"Those secular morals only explain why its a good idea not why we should."

1. They're the same thing.
2. Even if they aren't the same thing, it's an easy, logical jump to make that says if it's good, we ought to do it.
3. Let's return back to your point about how without suffering must exist under God because without it we lose the metric to decide what good and evil is. This is why even if secular theories don't explain why we should do something, you still prefer them because they can still dictate what is good and bad without suffering existing, whereas my opponent's arguments concede that God requires suffering to dictate what is right and what is wrong.

"YOu blame God because you cannot prove atheism is correct!"

I believe I actually have proved Atheism correct in this debate, thank you very much.

"God has interacted in physics yet whithen it you cannot reach him"

This would suggest that you would have to be winning that a) that there IS extraordinary evidence of God's existence, which you have yet to prove, and b) that God DOESN'T actually contradict the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Since you are doing neither and just making bland assumptions and assertions, I can easily ignore this and ask voters to do the same.

The resolution is easily affirmed.
Anti-atheist

Con

See how shaken he got? He knows he didn't prove atheism accurate(otherwise he would be an atheist). He knows he cannot do it so he got mad LOL.

"Either that or you're calling the Bible, and therefore God, a liar. You can take your pick there."

Well is atheism the disbelieving in the God of the bible or all gods? Its all gods.

"Even if he limited his power, he would still be all-powerful, which would still bite into the loop"

No since God can do it both at the same time while a positive outweighs a negative it would mean God can both limit his power and be all powerful without limiting anything. You say its illogical for God to be all powerful and not at the same time (which is not my argument.. But you want to argue that a all powerful being cannot do something which is illogical so If god is all powerful he can limit his power without limiting his power.

"this would suggest that there are multiple realities or dimensions of space-time"

No this assumes God is not all powerful so cannot exist in 1 realm. God made physics not the other way around. If you want to say God needs to do something illogical to limit his power, then using the same math he can without it being a limitation to Him.

This rebuttlol failed. He says God needs to be so all powerful that he limit his power, then he says God cannot do it.
ohhhhh

"this seems to contradict your statement that morality can only come from God. Why would it matter if suffering didn't exist if God already provided us with what it's meant to be right and wrong? "

Because without evil our good and objective provable standard would be incomplete. With it would be a new unimaginable color, which would be like evil, then in turn good would not exist.

", suffering doesn't have to exist for us to know that being evil is bad and not being evil is good."

But of course without the concept of evil the concept of suffering wouldn't exist and vis versa. Hitler had the concept of evil and killing.

"there's no argument to say that if God were not all-powerful, that he could not take away suffering and yet still provide an objective standard of judging right from wrong and good from bad. The fact that you presume it can't be done seems conducive to the fact that the argument is sound."

There's no argument to say that if God were all knowing he would know the best way to provide the standard. Without evil it would mean good is no more than a new unimaginable color. Since God is good without good we wouldn't have any concept whatsoever of God. So evil must of existed in order for us to know God

"then if theism was false, atheism must be true."

No because if 1 theism is false it would mean an unknown theism could be true. We don't default to atheism.

"1. They're the same thing.
2. Even if they aren't the same thing, it's an easy, logical jump to make that says if it's good, we ought to do it.
3. Let's return back to your point about how without suffering must exist under God because without it we lose the metric to decide what good and evil is. This is why even if secular theories don't explain why we should do something, you still prefer them because they can still dictate what is good and bad without suffering existing, whereas my opponent's arguments concede that God requires suffering to dictate what is right and what"

1. No they are very different.
2. Why ought we do good?
3. But without a evil a good wouldn't be in any type of morality system
Multiple morality systems are evidence of a conflict confusion among secularists

"This would suggest that you would have to be winning that a) that there IS extraordinary evidence of God's existence, which you have yet to prove, and b) that God DOESN'T actually contradict the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Since you are doing neither and just making bland assumptions and assertions, I can easily ignore this and ask voters to do the same."

but of course
a) A lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This isnt does god exist debate its is atheism a sound position.
b) If God made everything that means physics. So your argument fails
Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Pro

"See how shaken he got? He knows he didn't prove atheism accurate(otherwise he would be an atheist). He knows he cannot do it so he got mad LOL."

1. Ain't even mad bro.
2. See how shaken he got? He knew he didn't actually have anything of substance to refute what I'm saying so he goes for the long-shot of trying to make me look incompetent and scared. Rookie mistake.

"Well is atheism the disbelieving in the God of the bible or all gods? Its all gods."

Jeeze, sorry for trying to make the debate more specific, and thus more educational and fair for both sides. Sue me. But secondly, wouldn't you RATHER focus down to just Christianity? I mean, you're supposedly a Christian. It should be something you know plenty about, and should be able to do a helluva lot better job then you have been so far. Might even not completely embarrass yourself.

"No since God can do it both at the same time while a positive outweighs a negative it would mean God can both limit his power and be all powerful without limiting anything."

Let me first say that I can say for everyone else reading this debate that no one knows what the f*ck you're talking about. With that being said, let's go to refuting this nonsense.

1. Positives outweighing negatives has literally no link and no impact to God being all-powerful or not. Not even remotely the same topic.
2. No reason given for WHY positives outweigh negatives. This means we have no reason to accept his bland assertion.
3. TURN: Negative actually outweigh positives on terms of scope and magnitude. People take far more notice of negative actions and events than positives. Evidence of this is the news, how much more popular negative news like murders and robberies. Thus, it outweighs on scope. It outweighs on magnitude as more negatives things are happening in the world than positive things. It also outweighs on magnitude since thne positive things, like helping an old lady across the street, hardly have the same impact on society as something like a murder or mass shooting spree. This means that the only thing slightly close to a warrant for his arguments is refuted. God cannot, under the pro's arguments, be all powerful and not all powerful at the same time. This means he still bites into the loop of the paradox of the stone, and thus cannot be all powerful, and thus not exist. This means that Atheism is, in fact, a sound, and correct, position to take.

"You say its illogical for God to be all powerful and not at the same time (which is not my argument.. But you want to argue that a all powerful being cannot do something which is illogical so If god is all powerful he can limit his power without limiting his power."

1. I understand this wasn't your argument. It was my refutation. Thank you for finally acquiring your first brain cell.
2. You don't actually refute my argument, only restate yours. So I'll restate mine: it is entirely illogical to believe a God can be all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time. I cannot be both cold and hot at the same time, as they are polar opposites and cannot exist in the same being or entity. As such, the same thing applies with both being all-powerful and not all-powerful.

"No this assumes God is not all powerful so cannot exist in 1 realm."

False. Your argument is that God can be all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time. I've already disproven multiple times over how it cannot exist in the same entity. This leaves the only other way for this to be true: multiple time-spaces/realms of existence. This means that we still link into my arguments, which disprove it on THAT front as well. So there is, literally, no time or space where God could exist. This means that atheism is true, and is thus a viable position.

"God made physics not the other way around. If you want to say God needs to do something illogical to limit his power, then using the same math he can without it being a limitation to Him."

Okay, sorry, have to take away your brain cell. This was dumber than the stereotypical fat nerd asking out the stereotypical hot cheerleader to prom.

1. Never said physics made God. Nothing made God, as he does not exist. Something can't have made something that doesn't exist.
2. The 'math' you're using is entirely nonsensical. You're trying to add one plus one and getting Batman.

"He says God needs to be so all powerful that he limit his power, then he says God cannot do it."

I would take away another brain cell for this golden piece of idiocy, but sadly you have none left to take :(

If you didn't get the hint, that actually WASN'T what I said. My argument was that God cannot possibly limit his power, as that would disprove his existence. Since God is, by nature, all-powerful, if God was not all-powerful, it would contradict the very nature of him being God, and thus would disprove his existence.

"Because without evil our good and objective provable standard would be incomplete."

Then how can we say that God is all-loving? Why would he give us a standard that HAD to have the suffering of others to allow it to work? Moreover, this also denies the possibility of having an all-powerful, all-loving God because if God were both, he would want and be able to provide us with a metric that did not have to have suffering in order to function. The fact that he has yet to do so (since suffering still exists) proves this. This, for the gazillionth time, proves that God cannot exist.

"But of course without the concept of evil the concept of suffering wouldn't exist and vis versa."

1. There's literally no warrant for this argument.
2. Evil doesn't have to exist for us to know that being evil is bad. Again, Hitler doesn't have to be alive for us to know that ethnic cleansing is a bad thing to do.

"There's no argument to say that if God were all knowing he would know the best way to provide the standard."

Negative two brain cells now. You're on a roll.
Yes, there is an argument that says if God is ALL-KNOWING then he would KNOW THE BEST WAY to provide the standard. That's, y'know, kind of in the nature of all-knowing...

"Without evil it would mean good is no more than a new unimaginable color."

TURN: With evil gone, we would finally truly be able to see what pure goodness actually looks like since good is merely the absense of evil, much like cold is the absense of heat. Taking away evil produces the ultimate good. This solves back for my opponent's argument of without evil, we wouldn't have a concept of God.

"No because if 1 theism is false it would mean an unknown theism could be true. We don't default to atheism."

So you got on my case for being too specific earlier...now you get on my case for being too broad...what CAN I do?
And yes, we do default to Atheism for the unrefuted reasons I've provided.

"1. No they are very different."

In no way are they different.

"2. Why ought we do good?"

Because it's the most societally beneficial way of acting that we know of.

"3. But without a evil a good wouldn't be in any type of morality system"

Refer back to my argument about without evil, we can truly understand what good is.

"a) A lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This isnt does god exist debate its is atheism a sound position."

Refer back to my third argument about how extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, an argument you have yet to successfully refute.

") If God made everything that means physics. So your argument fails"

That's like saying because governments make the laws, they are not bound by the laws. If anything, it would make God MORE bound by the laws than we are because HE MADE THEM. So if there's a single discrepency (i.e. Third Law of Thermodynamics), then his entire existence is refuted.

Short of characters. I'm easily proving how God cannot possibly exist, which makes atheism a confirmed, and thusly sound position. The resolution is easily affirmed.
Anti-atheist

Con

"no one knows what the f*ck you're talking about. "

The atheist swore! Instant win for me!

"Okay, sorry, have to take away your brain cell. This was dumber than the stereotypical fat nerd asking out the stereotypical hot cheerleader to prom."

Atheist has a dirty mind. and called me dumb. Another Instant win.

K atheists I proved ahteims isn't sound. Since you couldn't refute my arguments.here are some new ones

1. Glue. How does it work? R u telling me that this glue just happens to stick things togeather. errr lol that's sillt. Glue is unexplanable under an atheistic worldview.

2. Where'd the moon come from? huh? The tids call to us as proof and evidence o f God

3. In embryo the baby has been proven to know there is something else out there. With babys they aren't atheists, they are believers in Jesus. babys have been proven to pick pictures of Jesus and the Bible out of any other book or picture. This is because when a baby dies it goes to heaven. As said in the Bible!

You cannot refute these.

Vote COn
Debate Round No. 4
Zaradi

Pro

I would like to note before I go to refute my opponent's new arguments that he has dropped literally EVERYTHING from the previous rounds. The only thing he touched from tne last round was the fact that I cussed (f*ck sh*t damm hell a** b*tch. Suck it up princess), and the fact that I called him stupid (which is clearly the truth) and asked for a free win. If cussing and insults were cause for a loss, people's W/L records would be so different. At most, this is worthy of a conduct violation, but let's be frank: he deserves it. A loss because of this is borderline idiotic.

Since he's dropped all three of my arguments, I ask that you extend my three arguments (Paradox of the Stone, Problem off Evil, Extraordinary Evidence). This proves that because atheism is correct and that God cannot exist, that atheism is a viable position. That means that the resolution is automatically affirmed.

With that in mind, let's go to refute my opponent's three new arguments.

"Glue. How does it work?"

Seems like a basic kindergarten question, so I'll just post a few sources that explain how glue works.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

This source explains how glue works and sticks things together on a more basic level. It doesn't go into depth with the forces it uses, but rather goes in depth explaining the process of glue sticking together from start to finish.

http://www.straightdope.com...

This one goes in further to the specific forces that make glue works (such as the Van der Waal forces).

Moreover, this doesn't actually refute atheism. You're basically just saying that because we have no evidence (hypothetically, since I just posted two sources explaining how it works), that God has to be behind it, but absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Just because we don't have an explanation for it scientifically right now doesn't mean that God was behind it. Argument = refuted.

"Where'd the moon come from?"

I'm going to let go that this is another one of those absense of evidence =/= evidence of absense. Even if we don't know how to explain it, it doesn't mean God caused it. But furthermore, scientists already have plausible to slightly-confirmed theories as to where the moon came from.

http://physicsworld.com...

Argument = refuted.

"In embryo the baby has been proven to know there is something else out there. With babys they aren't atheists, they are believers in Jesus. babys have been proven to pick pictures of Jesus and the Bible out of any other book or picture. This is because when a baby dies it goes to heaven. As said in the Bible!"

For one, my opponent doesn't cite the study that he says happened, so we have no reason to believe him. Don't let him come back in the last round and cite it because that's insanely abusive to me since I can't respond to it. But for two, babies pointing to the Bible does not believe that they believe in God. Even if I start pointing at pictures of Jesus and the Bible more often than any other book, that doesn't mean I suddenly believe in God. He's missing the necessary link between the two to explain why pointing at ;pictures mean they suddenly believe in God. Don't let him try to make some random link in the last round since I can't respond to it.

"You cannot refute these. "

1. Lolfail
2. Says the person who was unable to refute my arguments.

The resolution is easily affirmed.
Anti-atheist

Con

This atheist is obviously butthurt,

I solved and refuted your arguments and you couldn't refute mine

1. Oh So the forces that hold glue together just magically evolved that way? Or was it all by chance? And how about everything else? They just act like that because they magically evolved by chance huh? Your rebuttlol fails

2. LOL I guess they know this because they were there. Ha No you weren't there and neither were these guys. God was there.

" evidence =/= evidence of absense."
So you refuted your own argument. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs"

3. In a room full of many books, they point to the bible. In a sea of pics the baby pointed to Jesus. Chance? NO!

The resolution is easily owned,destroyed and kicked in the face.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
AlwaysMoreThanYou, please change all your "Con" to "Pro" in your RFD vote.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Or perhaps it is self-deprecating humor and he is calling himself a troll? In that case his way of taking the loss would ennoble him.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
*facepalm*

I give up. You're just being intentionallly ignorant now.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
TrasguTravieso must be blind or a closet atheist (troll).
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
It was rather frustrating to see the most basic arguments against the existence of God, those treated by apologists since antiquity, met with such an abysmally poor ability. Anti-atheist needs to go back to apologetics 101 and perhaps not shield himself with the "atheists will vote against me" argument. With my vote and Imabench's comment, that makes three Catholics who give the victory to Zaradi.

And in the votes that's two Catholics and two atheists, so that's consensus so far.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
@Anti-Atheist:

Now that religious people have voted in my favor, will you finally accept that you're debating skills are just not that good?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Lol @ AlwaysMoreThanYou's RFD. Da funnehs.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
@ Phantom:

Maybe some other time. I'm bogged down with work as it is for my high school team, and I don't have time for another serious debate. I'll let you know when I have the time to do something like that.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
As a catholic, even I have to say that the level of retardation in the Cons arguments is legendary
Posted by Turi 4 years ago
Turi
Lol, Con completelly dropped everything in the last round. He used an appeal for ignorance and an unsourced claim in which he made up his own conclusion.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
ZaradiAnti-atheistTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: As a catholic I must say that the Pro clearly won this debate. Con's arguments seemed more like excuses for why all the arguments against the existence of God were unfounded. Rather then try to prove that Atheism is not a sound position though the Con seemed more focused on throwing them under the bus. Arguments to the pro, conduct to the pro since con acted like an a** and a bit of a baby as well, pro was the only one who used any sources at all, and grammar was just about even. Massive win by the Pro.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
ZaradiAnti-atheistTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: My vote might look like a 'votebomb,' but it is fully legitimate. Con had no idea what he was doing, and did not even know he had no idea. Pro destroyed him, and Con was incompetent enough to walk away not having realized this. Con's arguments were nonsensical, his spelling and grammar poor, he listed no sources, and he urged a vote for Con, which is an automatic loss of the Conduct point in my book. The only qualm I have about Pro is that he misspelled 'Prowess.'
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
ZaradiAnti-atheistTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con made an obviously false statement of "This atheist." Arguments to Pro for obvious reasons. Con does not refute the easily refuted "too large stone" argument. Pro gets sources for citing, while Con does not. I am voting this way not because I'm an atheist, I'm evidently not, but this is a very bad performance by Con.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
ZaradiAnti-atheistTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm about ready to shoot myself because there's people like Con in the world.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
ZaradiAnti-atheistTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a Catholic. I not only believe that atheism is unsound, I believe it is dangerous and can lead the atheist to eternal damnation. I am obviously not voting for pro because I agree with his statements but rather because his arguments, though faulty, were not refuted by con. This being said, both had conduct that was far from exemplary and no sources were used in either case. Pro's use of English generally better than Con's.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
ZaradiAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ZaradiAnti-atheistTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Atheism is the most unsound position ever. Con destroyed all of Pro's arguments by showing how illogical atheism is and why it is so stupid. Conduct to Con because Pro supported atheism. S/G to Con because Pro used the nonword 'atheism'. Arguments to Con because atheism is stupid. Sources to Con because atheism is wrong.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
ZaradiAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct must be delivered to Pro, due to Con's repeated assertions that the debate win will come from atheist readers agreeing with Pro, and repeated personal statements. I was convinced already, by Pro leveled some classics; his arguments were solid, and time-tested, if basic. "The basics perfectly" could describe his performance here. I always score for command of English, which Pro masterfully demonstrated. His language was clear, easy to understand and concise.