The Instigator
Logos
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points
The Contender
Renzzy
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points

Atheism is based on "faith"

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,933 times Debate No: 2502
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (22)

 

Logos

Con

From Merriam-Webster:

Faith: 1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

None of these definitions apply to atheism. Quite the opposite; atheism is the absence of faith. To say "Prove it" when faced with a fantastical claim is not having faith in the claim not being true. It is simply saying, "I am not going to assume this statement is true until it is proven." Atheism is the result of applying this logic to religion.
Renzzy

Pro

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

If you can prove there is no God, then this argument will bear weight. There is not enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a God, so it takes faith to believe either way.

You firmly believe there is no God, right? Well, that's faith right there. By definition, it takes faith to believe in something there is no scientific evidence for, and there is not enough scientific evidence to disprove God. So you firmly believe there is no God? Then you have faith. You don't firmly believe there is a God, but rather choose not to believe? Then your not an atheist, your an agnostic. Really, it's that simple. Atheism requires faith that there is no God, because you cannot scientifically disprove God. It's simple logic.

What Atheists fail to see is that their beliefs require more faith than any other religion. Christians need to have faith in a God they cannot see, but that's all! God covers the rest! If we simply have faith in God, He promises to cover the rest so we don't have to worry about anything. Atheists on the other hand have to have faith that there is no God, have to have faith that there is no afterlife in which they will be punished for denying the existence of God, and have to have faith that the universe and the earth came from nothing (something which is entirely impossible scientifically). It even takes an incredible amount of faith to believe the sun will rise every morning, given the fact that there is nobody keeping order in the universe. You may say "The sun has always risen every morning, so we have no reason to doubt that it will rise tomorrow morning.". Well, anything could happen. Heck, you believe that the universe came from nothing, and if that could happen, why couldn't the sun explode for no reason tonight? You believe there was a big explosion in space (the space that came from nowhere, mind you) that somehow brought into existence earth and all it's inhabitants. Anything could happen if you believe these sorts of things! May I remind you, though, that the only thing Christians have to have faith in is the existence of a God.

There is no logic supporting your claims. You say that Atheism require no faith, yet simple, everyday choices depend on faith. Have you ever wanted something from the store, but not been sure if the hours the store was open, but you think the store is still open so you go making an educated guess that you will be able to get into the store one you get there? "That doesn't take faith!" Yes it does. You have faith that the store is still open so you will be able to buy what you want. "But I would just be guessing, because I really don't know if the store is open or not!" Yes you are, but it still takes faith that the store will be open. It costs gas money to get to the store, and if the store is not open, then you will have wasted the money getting there and back. If you had no faith the store was open, then you would not go, because you would be wasting money. If you have faith that the store is open, then you are willing to risk the trip and try to get what you are after. "But that's still not faith, because you are guessing! You could be wrong!" Yes, I know. I'm not saying whether or not you would be wrong in this case, but what I am saying is that the decision to go requires faith in that idea that the store will be open when you get there. You could just as easily decide not to go because you have no faith that the store will be open, and would be wasting money on gas if you went.

This is only one example of the many areas that you, and everyone else on this earth, including Atheists, have faith, no matter how small the issue. ATHEISM, ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER FORM OF RELIGION REQUIRES FAITH. Why is it so hard to admit that you have faith? What's wrong with having faith?

Thanks!

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 1
Logos

Con

"If you can prove there is no God, then this argument will bear weight. There is not enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a God, so it takes faith to believe either way."

I have had this debate many times. The burden is not on atheists to offer proof that there is no such thing as God. Take this example: suppose I told you there was a 600-ton invisible elephant sitting behind you. It is not a question of "faith" when you (hopefully) choose not to believe me. You do not believe in the nonexistence of the elephant, you simply chose to await proof before believing that it DOES exist. This is the logic behind atheism.

"You firmly believe there is no God, right? Well, that's faith right there. By definition, it takes faith to believe in something there is no scientific evidence for, and there is not enough scientific evidence to disprove God. So you firmly believe there is no God? Then you have faith. You don't firmly believe there is a God, but rather choose not to believe? Then your not an atheist, your an agnostic. Really, it's that simple. Atheism requires faith that there is no God, because you cannot scientifically disprove God. It's simple logic."

This is in essence the same argument as the one stated above. Before something is assumed to exist, its existence must be proven. Until then, it is assumed to not exist. For example, most people believe that there are not gigantic turtles that live in space. Not because there is a scientific proof that there are no turtles in space, but because the claim of space turtles carries behind it no evidence whatsoever. This is not faith, it is simply saying "Prove it."

"What Atheists fail to see is that their beliefs require more faith than any other religion. Christians need to have faith in a God they cannot see, but that's all! God covers the rest! If we simply have faith in God, He promises to cover the rest so we don't have to worry about anything. Atheists on the other hand have to have faith that there is no God, have to have faith that there is no afterlife in which they will be punished for denying the existence of God, and have to have faith that the universe and the earth came from nothing (something which is entirely impossible scientifically)."

Again, no. The same arguments as I have posted above apply to the idea of an afterlife. Prove heaven exists, then we can talk. And a person who does not believe in God does not necessarily believe everything came from nothing, either. Such a person would simply be an atheist who thinks everything comes from something; they simply do not see evidence to suggest that "something" is a creator God.

"It even takes an incredible amount of faith to believe the sun will rise every morning, given the fact that there is nobody keeping order in the universe."

Not really. Unless you see some signs of Earth suddenly stopping dead in its orbit, you are perfectly justified in thinking the Sun will rise every morning.

"Have you ever wanted something from the store, but not been sure if the hours the store was open, but you think the store is still open so you go making an educated guess that you will be able to get into the store one you get there?"

Hope is different from faith. In your example, all that is happening is a person thinks a store MIGHT be open. "I don't know if the store is open, so I'll head over and see. Maybe I'll get lucky." This is not faith. If a person were making this decision based on faith, they would consider it a fact that the store WAS open. "I don't know the hours, but I know the store will be open." Faith is taking the unproven as certainty, which is not shown in your analogy.

"Why is it so hard to admit that you have faith? What's wrong with having faith?"

Nothing is "wrong" with faith, but atheism is not based on it.
Renzzy

Pro

"The burden is not on atheists to offer proof that there is no such thing as God."

Yes it is. It is ludicrous to say you do not have to prove something you openly claim. You claim there is no God.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

You say there is no God? Prove it. You claim it, you have to prove it. Saying you are waiting for evidence for God's existence is more Agnosticism than Atheism. An Atheist, by definition, actively claims there is no god, and it is unfair to say that Theists have to prove there is a God, simply because they claim to believe in Him, but Atheists do not have to prove there is no God, when they claim he does not exist. It's a double standard.

"suppose I told you there was a 600-ton invisible elephant sitting behind you. It is not a question of "faith" when you (hopefully) choose not to believe me. You do not believe in the nonexistence of the elephant, you simply chose to await proof before believing that it DOES exist. This is the logic behind atheism."

This is not a suitable analogy, simply because there is no evidence, has not been any evidence, and will never be any evidence of there being an elephant behind me. Claiming that there is something that you cannot see, with nothing in the world relating to it is entirely ridiculous. There is, however, some proof in the physical world that there is a God. Not enough to prove anything, but enough to base faith on. Here are some examples of prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled. I am going to copy and past them to save myself some typing.

Prophecies fulfilled before 1900:

1. Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed

In Matthew 24:1-2, Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed. The Temple was destroyed about 40 years after Jesus was crucified by the Romans. In 70 AD, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and killed an estimated 1.1 million Jews. During the destruction, fire was set to the Temple. The fire caused the gold-leaf ornamentation on the Temple ceiling to melt. The melting gold flowed down the walls and settled into crevices within the stones. The Romans pried apart the stones to remove the gold. This fulfilled Jesus' prophecy that not one stone would be left standing on another.

2. The exiled people of Israel would return to Israel

In Jeremiah 32:37-41, the prophet said the people of Israel would return to their homeland. Jeremiah lived during a time when the Babylonians were forcing the Jews out of their homeland about 2600 years ago. Many Jews later returned but were forced out again, by the Romans, about 1900 years ago. During the past 200 years, millions of exiled Jews have returned to Israel from countries all over the world.

3. Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple

In Daniel 9:26, the prophet said that a future ruler over the land of Israel would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. Daniel said this would happen after an anointed one (messiah) is "cut off," which means "rejected" or "killed." A few centuries later, the Romans had taken control of the land of Israel, Jesus announced himself as the Messiah, and the Romans crucified him. Forty years later, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.

4. The Bible foreshadowed Rome's destruction of Israel

The Bible has several prophecies about various destruction of the land of Israel. Here is one from the Bible's book of Deuteronomy that foreshadowed the destruction caused by the Romans in the year 70 AD (about 1900 years ago):

"The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand … They will devour … until you are ruined. … They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down." (Deuteronomy 28:49-52 NIV).

And, here's what history says about what happened in the year 70 AD: The Roman Empire sent an army, which marched in a formation called the "flying eagle," and destroyed Jerusalem. Members of the Roman army came from many different countries, speaking languages that the Jews did not understand.
(http://www.100prophecies.org... I copied them out of order, so number 4 on my page is not necessarily 4 on theirs.)

This is pure evidence that the Bible is a reliable source for prophecies coming true, and some of them were made by Jesus Himself. There are far more then 4 prophecies that people in the Bible made that have been, and are being fulfilled. Another notable factor in this equation is the fact that no matter who the prophet speaking was, the prophets were always speaking on behalf of God. Many time they will even say "Thus saith the Lord". God is making prophecies, and they are being fulfilled. That is proof enough to base faith on.

Atheists on the other hand have nothing to base there claims on. "I have never seen God, so He must not exist." Well, neither have I, but there is evidence that He is working in the world, so I can deduct from that, and from what I read in his word that he must exist. Even though I cannot see Him, then, I have something to base my faith on. THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

I guess I have been long winded in saying this: You analogy carries no weight because there is no evidence on earth that there is an elephant behind me. There is, however, evidence for God, so if you were waiting for it, wait no longer.

"This is in essence the same argument as the one stated above. Before something is assumed to exist, its existence must be proved. Until then, it is assumed to not exist."

Once again, you need to give proof for your claim. I have, now the burden of proof is on you. There is not enough physical evidence to prove or disprove God's existence, but there is enough for a person to base faith off of. Given the fact that there is no proof for God not existing other than the simple "I have never seen Him", you MUST have faith to claim that He does not exist. We have already established that faith is belief in something there is little or no proof for, and you have presented no proof for God not existing. Therefore, since there is really not any proof for you to present, YOU MUST HAVE FAITH.

"And a person who does not believe in God does not necessarily believe everything came from nothing, either."

Yes he does, he must. This would take a tremendous amount of faith. So if you don't believe the universe came from nothing, what do you think it came from? What you say is a self contradiction. You say it did not come from God, but it did not not come from nothing. What sense does that make? You have yet to say what it came from. If you think it did come from nothing, then I congratulate you, because you have far more faith then I will ever have, because there is no proof it came from nothing. If you don't think it came from nothing, then you have to say what you think it came from.

"Not really. Unless you see some signs of Earth suddenly stopping dead in its orbit, you are perfectly justified in thinking the Sun will rise every morning."

Well, you still haven't given a reason for the creation of the earth, other than a totally random course of events. If this is the case, then anything could happen. I mean, what if chemicals in the sun suddenly collided causing a massive explosion destroying the sun? You never know...

"Hope is different from faith."

You're right, and what I gave you was a bit of a flawed analogy, and therefore carries no weight in the rest of my arguments. I know what I was trying to say, but I obviously don't know how to communicate it correctly. Please don't hold this against me, because I have not hurt the rest of my argument in any way.

"Nothing is "wrong" with faith, but atheism is not based on it."

Is too!
:-P Just kidding.

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 2
Logos

Con

This debate is getting off-track. The topic is not atheism itself, but whether or not it is based on faith.

"You say there is no God? Prove it. You claim it, you have to prove it. Saying you are waiting for evidence for God's existence is more Agnosticism than Atheism. An Atheist, by definition, actively claims there is no god, and it is unfair to say that Theists have to prove there is a God, simply because they claim to believe in Him, but Atheists do not have to prove there is no God, when they claim he does not exist. It's a double standard."

Waiting for proof of absence is not agnosticism, unless one also thinks that proof is possible. There is no conclusive proof, for example, that there is a monster living in Loch Ness. Many people agree with the conclusion that there is no monster living in Loch Ness, simply because of the lack of evidence. They are not taking the "middle road," saying that there MIGHT be a monster. They simply consider it unrealistic, and therefore untrue. Taking this approach to the question of God's existence is not agnosticism, nor is it based on faith.

The prophecies you outlined are not proof of God's existence at all. For one, the Bible cannot be taken as a reliable source, given the OBVIOUS conflict of interest. If someone does not consider the Bible a reliable source, it is not because they have "faith" in the contents being false. Rather, they do not consider anecdotal evidence from a biased party to be logical proof of anything.

"Atheists on the other hand have nothing to base there claims on. "I have never seen God, so He must not exist." Well, neither have I, but there is evidence that He is working in the world, so I can deduct from that, and from what I read in his word that he must exist."

This is over-simplifying my argument. My argument is that if someone does not see ANY EVIDENCE of God's existence, and they then do not believe he exists, there is no faith involved. You might interpret from what you have read that God exists, but someone who interprets that "evidence" differently is not demonstrating faith. They simply thought through the decision differently, using my above-stated reasoning for not assuming religious texts to be trustworthy.

"So if you don't believe the universe came from nothing, what do you think it came from?"

The simple answer to this is "I have no idea." I don't know where the universe came from, no do I presume to. I don't think God created everything, nor do I think everything simply happened for no reason. Simply put, neither of those claims have proof to back them up. I don't have an answer to that question that carries proof behind it, but my not knowing where the Universe came from does not mean your answer has to be correct. Just because an atheist does not know where the Universe came from does not mean he has faith in God not having done it.

Atheism stems not from faith, but from logic. You might disagree with the logic, but that does not make it faith. Logic is logic. I have demonstrated this logic before, and I will one last time, for posterity.

"God does not exist."
1) One cannot prove something does not exist.
2) Therefore, something must be proven to exist before it is considered "real."
3) If there is no proof something exists, then there is no reason to assume it exists.
4) There is no proof God exists.
5) There is no reason to accept God's existence as true.
Q.E.D.

You might not agree with this logic. However, that does not mean that it is not logic. The question of what constitutes "proof," for example, is debatable. But this debate rests solely on whether or not one can use only logic to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is not fact. I have demonstrated that it is. Therefore, atheism does not require faith.
Renzzy

Pro

"This debate is getting off-track. The topic is not atheism itself, but whether or not it is based on faith."

Actually it's not really. I argued that Atheism is not based on faith. Allow me to some up my argument: The Bible is historically accurate, and this is a proven fact.(http://www.christiancourier.com...)
The Bible is also proving its accuracy today through fulfilling prophecies. This is all obvious. The Prophecies that are being fulfilled were made by God. This is evidence of Gods existence. The Bible is historically accurate, God historically made prophecies in the Bible, these prophecies are being fulfilled. That was my argument; that there is proof of God. There, now you have the proof you were waiting for.

"Waiting for proof of absence is not agnosticism, unless one also thinks that proof is possible."

What you simply do not get is that ATHEISM IS DENIAL OF A GOD. Atheism = belief in no God. Atheists do not wait for evidence, they rebut evidence presented by Theists and present their own evidence. I, as a Theist, presented evidence for my position, and the burdon of proof was on your side the whole time. When you say that you're waiting for evidence, and do not present any yourself, you are not acting as an Atheist at all. As I have been telling you the whole time, you sound like an Agnostic.

Your argument concerning the Loch Ness monster is flawed, then, because when people conclude that there is no evidence for the loch ness monster, or that the evidence presented is not reliable, and choose not to believe in said creature they have faith. Why? Because there is no solid proof against the monster. If there is little to no evidence on both sides, both side require faith. Why? Because faith is believing something there is little or no evidence for. When it comes to Theism and Atheism, it is the same deal. There is little evidence on both sides, so both sides require faith. It's that simple.

"The prophecies you outlined are not proof of God's existence at all."

I have already addressed this.

"My argument is that if someone does not see ANY EVIDENCE of God's existence, and they then do not believe he exists, there is no faith involved."

Yes, there is faith involved. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION, so you are believing in a claim with no evidence supporting it. THAT REQUIRES SERIOUS FAITH. Let us go over the definition of faith one more time...

Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof

You have provided no proof, and therefore have faith BY DEFINITION.

"The simple answer to this is "I have no idea." [where the universes cam from]"

Wow. That takes faith. To believe that an all powerful God did not create the universe takes faith. If it did not come from a God for a reason, and it was not the Big Bang, then there is no explanation for where it came from. Thus you have no proof it came from nowhere, thus you have faith. No proof + belief = faith BY DEFINITION.

""God does not exist."
1) One cannot prove something does not exist.
2) Therefore, something must be proved to exist before it is considered "real.""

That is actually very confusing, and I have spent way too long trying to understand it. It makes no sense. You can't prove it's not there, so you have to prove it's there before it's real...right?

Well, what this is saying is that you cannot prove God isn't there, so you have to prove He IS there in order for Him to be real. THAT"S EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU. You cannot prove God isn't there, therefore it requires faith to believe that He isn't there, because faith is belief without proof. This "Logic behind Atheism" just worked against you.

"3) If there is no proof something exists, then there is no reason to assume it exists.
4) There is no proof God exists.
5) There is no reason to accept God's existence as true.
Q.E.D."

Oh, oh, my turn!

1) If there is no proof that something does not exist, then there is no reason to assume it does not exist.
2) There is no proof that God does not exist.
3) Therefore there is no reason to accept Gods existence as false.

The difference between your logical equation and mine is this: I provided proof. You did not. Like I said before, the burden of proof was on you the whole debate, and you provided none.

I found that the best way to deal with your "logic" was to break it up. The first portion was a self contradiction, and the second could easily be turned around to work for my side. You "logic" is flawed, and is really not logic at all. our format was premise, conclusion, premise, premise, premise, and makes no sense at all.

"But this debate rests solely on whether or not one can use only logic to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is not fact. I have demonstrated that it is. Therefore, atheism does not require faith."

Your demonstration was flawed, and I have demonstrated that. Logic does not support Atheism. What you presented as logic proved to be contradictory to what you have argued this whole debate. Therefore Atheism requires faith.

READ THE WHOLE DEBATE BEFORE VOTING PLEASE.

Thanks,

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
Hi I'm new to the site and would not particularly want to get into a debate in the comments here I would like to just post my own opinion on the subject and you can do what you want with it. It is only my opinion.
I am currently an atheist(just saying that I currently do not believe that a god exist). I am also open minded. I do not consider myself an athiest based on having faith that a god does not exist I merely believe that at the moment the evidence I have seen points towards there being no god therefore that is what I currently accept as true. If something were to happen where new actual evidence that a god does exist then I would change my opinion.

Just pointing out that my current beliefs are based on fact and evidence and not faith.
Posted by bizzer10 9 years ago
bizzer10
haha, its funny how many people think of L when it comes to debates

i did too
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Alright, how can anyone vote PRO? The entire argument is based off of a logical fallacy:

"If you can prove there is no God, then this argument will bear weight. There is not enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a God, so it takes faith to believe either way."

Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic. I don't have to disprove something that you don't have any proof for. My denying your claim is not an act of faith, since you have no proof for your claim.

Disbelieving something is not an act of faith, it is an aact of skepticism. And since you have to believe in something for it to be a matter of faith (by definition), PRO should lose everytime.

If you claim a positive, it is up to you to provide evidence. However, a negative does not require evidence. The negative is the default when lacking faith.
Posted by aceofelves 9 years ago
aceofelves
Here is a hypothetical situation. Of course I know there is a war in Iraq and I believe in God, but for an example:

>> I have never seen the War in Iraq. I've seen clips on TV, but they could be computer generated. I don't personally know anyone who's gone to fight in Iraq, but I have friends who have family over there fighting. They certainly believe there is a war in Iraq. But is there? <<

>> I have never seen the God. I've seen and heard about miracles, but they could have been staged. I don't personally know anyone who's a Christian, but I have friend's whose families are Christian. They certainly believe there is a God. But is there? <<

When someone thinks something is true without being able to prove it, they are simples believeing that it is true. They are practicing faith. The Atheist says "There is no God." But he would have to be everywhere at once in order to disprove God's existence. And at this point in time, no one can be everywhere at once, so at this point in human history it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. So Atheists believe something that is at this point in time not provable, therefore they are practicing faith.
Posted by Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
Yes, this is exactly my point.
Posted by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
Sorry, but atheism does not require making a positive claim about anything.

If an atheist chooses to make the positive claim "no gods exist, period", then he should show evidence to back his claim. But this is not necessary to be an atheist. All infants are atheists since they lack belief in any gods. But no infant is required to provide proof for any claims. This is because..... they haven't made any. Ditto for any atheist who has made no positive statements about the existence of gods.

It's about BELIEF.. not EXISTENCE, silly.

If you lack belief in gods, you're an atheist. It matters not whether that god actually exists or not. Philosophical constructs can be employed to argue for and against (in vain, of course, since nothing can be proven or falsified.) But you don't need to present an argument OR provide proof in order to be an atheist.

ALL christians are atheists w/r/t to Vishnu, even though they cannot conclusively prove that Vishnu does not exist.
Posted by Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
While I disagree with his position, I have to vote for The Instigator. The Contender's arguments weren't the best even though his conclusion happened to be correct.

Logic says that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion. God is assumed to be nonexistent until he is proven to exist. This is the sound logical argument. The real argument against atheism lies in problems presented by atheists lack of self-realization.

What atheists don't realize is that, in order to reason in the first place, you depend upon the following:
1. The infallibility of your six senses used to gather empirical data
2. The infallibility of your mind to make reasonable deductions

There is no way to prove or disprove either of these core requirements for reason, since doing so would in turn require these use of these faculties, hence, the core requirement for reason is faith. There is simply no way around the core requirement of faith as a prerequisite for reason. Most people just don't realize this because it's such a natural part of our lives, built into our psyche from birth for very practical reasons.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
"our format was premise, conclusion, premise, premise, premise, and makes no sense at all."

That is supposed to read "Your", not our. Sorry.
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
I am not "waiting" for evidence. Most people who don't believe in Santa Claus are "waiting" for evidence. It is true that, in order to be a pure logician, I must consider the idea of God "possible." However, I don't think someone who considers "God" roughly as plausible an idea as other superstitions like ghosts, aliens, Santa Claus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really agnostic.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Kleptin,

You're right, that's what I think. Logos sounds more like an Agnostic then an Atheist when he claims to be waiting for evidence of God. That fact that he claims to be an Atheist demands faith, because belief in no God demands faith.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
LogosRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
LogosRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
LogosRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
LogosRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
LogosRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Marader 8 years ago
Marader
LogosRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logos 8 years ago
Logos
LogosRenzzyTied
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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
LogosRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
LogosRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by PeaceFinger 9 years ago
PeaceFinger
LogosRenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03