The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Atheism is more probable than Theism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,551 times Debate No: 27116
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)




Thank you, Muted, for accepting this debate.

Atheism is more probable than Theism.

For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. Therefore, terms such as the incarnation, Biblical errors, etc. are irrelevant for this debate.

"More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism).


(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Sources may be linked to inside the debate; however, no arguments can be placed in that page.
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss.


(1) Acceptance
(2) Opening Statement
(3) Rebuttal

(4) Rebuttal
(5) Closing Statements - 1,000 character limit

Other notes:

(1) 72 hours to argue;

(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time.
(3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;
(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


A challenge often presented to Atheists from fundamentalist Christians or various Theists is that atheists have no proof there is no God; therefore it is another faith. Although we do not have the Burden of Proof, we can still put forth different types of reasoning to give a philosophical justification for an Atheological worldview. There are two main categories of evidence that can be used. I will divide my arguments up into different sections for these categories. The first is called evidential arguments. These are arguments that some facts about the world are cited as evidence against God's existence; for example, the large amount of suffering in the world or the argument from Biblical defects. These arguments carry the probabilistic conclusion that God does not exist; in other words, on balance of probability, it is more likely than not that God does not exist. Therefore, these arguments do not carry conclusive evidence that there is absolutely no God. The second is called logical evidence against God's existence. These arephilosophical evidence which cites that either a) The proposition that God exists is logically incoherent in some way; or b) the concept of God is incoherent in some way. These type of evidence purports to conclusively demonstrate the fact of atheism based on logical incompatibility with the cited contingent facts about the world and the proposition that God exists.

Part 1: The Evidential Evidence Against God’s Existence

Contention 1: Argument from Evil and Suffering

The Problem of Evil cites the large number of suffering as evidence against his existence. In syllogism form, we have:

  1. If God exists, unjustified evil does not exist
  2. Unjustified evil does exist
  3. Therefore, God does not exist.

The world is indeed full of unnecessary suffering and evil. When I say the word evil, I do not limit myself to just moral evil such as sin. Rather, I am referring to all types of calamity that can befall on humans (i.e., earthquakes, storms, floods) and the existence of mass suffering (i.e., famines, poverty, oppression, etc). I do not believe that Theists have a good answer for the Problem of Suffering and Evil. As Charles Brandlaugh argues [1]:

“The existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block for the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. Evil is either caused by God or it exist independently; but it cannot be caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exists hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had a beginning or it must have been eternal, but according to the theist, it cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or outside God; but according to the theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good, and out of all goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the theist, God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity.”

For examples of disasters may include Hurricane Sandy, which left billions of dollars in damage and hundreds dead, or the Haitian earthquake that has left hundreds of people dead. Thousands of more examples can be noted.

William Rowe points out [2]:

Lightning strikes a tree in a forest, causing a forest fire. A fawn is caught in this fire, and suffers intense agony for an extended period of time before finally dying. (This has undoubtedly happened many times in the Earth's history.)

A five year old girl is, by her mother's boyfriend, severely beaten, raped and strangled to death. [3]

In conclusion,

“Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to, or he cannot and does not want to, or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent; If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent; If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, how does evil exists?” [4]

One final note: This does not disprove the existence of all God’s; however, it is strong evidence against a God that is supposedly all loving , all-powerful, and all-knowing.

Contention 2: The Argument from Demographics

  1. If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism make Atheism more plausible than Theism.
  2. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism.
  3. Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism.

We can begin by making some simple observations:

  1. There are many more Muslims than Christians in Saudi Arabia;[5]
  2. There are many more Hindus in India than in the rest of the world[6]; and
  3. In the ancient world, every culture had its own mythology. In fact, these mythologies often contradicted each other and varied wildly.[7]

This pattern is very surprising on the part of Theism. Why would God let such an important matter depend strongly upon the time and place of one’s birth? In fact, atheism explains these demographics better. If God does not exist, then religions are but elaborate social constructions. Therefore, we would predict that the demographics would obey the contours of history and geographic similar to other beliefs and ideologies. This is, in fact, what we observe.

Part II: Logical Arguments

Contention 3: Incoherence of God

The standard definition of “God” is largely incoherent. According to the National Catholic Almanac, there are 22 attributes of “God”[8]:

“[A]lmighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true.

At least two of the above attributes (incomprehensible and ineffable) contradict the others. How can the other attributes of God be known if he can be neither understood nor described? If God has free-will, as some Christians believe that he does, then how can he know everything? These are some of the attributes of God that are logically incompatible; thus making the Theist God impossible. So “[t]hus the characteristics of God as supplied by Christian theologians (and other theologians) are nothing more than meaningless and contradictory concepts wrapped in theological garb.”[9]


  1. The mainstream concept of God is logically impossible;
  2. The problem of evil is proof positive for the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God;
  3. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism; and
  4. Theism does not have a good explanation for the problems of suffering and the arguments for Atheism.

[1] Bradlaugh, Humanity's Gain From Unbelief: p28-29. Quoted in Tobin, P. (2000) “The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: The Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity.”

[2] As Presented in a debate between WriterDave and SuburbiaSurvivor

[3] This is taken from an instance in Flint, Michigan in 1986

[4] This is the famous Epicurus Dilemma from Aphorisms of Epicurus (c300BC).

[5] 99% of Saudi Arabia are Muslims.

[6] 80% of India are Hindus.

[7] See some of the world’s myths.

[8] Quoted in Smith, G. Atheism: The Case Against God

[9] Tobin, P. The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager



Firstly I would like to thank Microsuck for beginning this debate. However, all his arguments only work if it is against the Christian God. As we are not arguing for any specific deity, however, I could chose to advocate the human-blood-thirsting Inca god, or aphrodites, or any of them. However, I would not. Instead I will respond to the arguments.

Part 1:
Contention 1: Evil and suffering
This argument centers around pity for the anecdotes. The problem of evil is actually easily addressed. Plantinga has pointed out that we have a morally significant free will. This accounts for all the unnecessary human suffering caused by other humans. This, however, does not clearly explain natural calamities. But wait, it does. Under the Judeo-Christian theology, man has dominion over all the rest of Creation, this means that when Adam and Eve sinned, the whole of creation would suffer for it (See Romans 8:19ff).
Contention 2: Demographics
I will copy from the blog post which I assume you know of.
"I would point out that the syllogism presented has no logical basis because its premises are false and it is badly structured.
So why is it"s premises false? This is because theism is prevalent, which is not what is expected if there was no deity. (I view Islam as a perversion of Judaism) Furthermore, archeology supports the notion that monotheism came before theism. This cannot be explained if atheism is true, because why one god before more? The more gods the merrier eh?
"According to Stephen Langdon of Oxford, "the history of the oldest civilization of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits."
Arthur C. Custance makes explanation as follows:
"When the cuneiform literature first began to reveal its message, scholars of cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics soon found themselves dealing with a tremendous number of gods and goddesses, and demons and other spiritual powers of a lesser sort, which seemed to be always at war with one another and much of the time highly destructive. As earlier and earlier tablets, however, began to be excavated and brought to light, and skill in deciphering them increased, the first picture of gross polytheism began to be replaced by something more nearly approaching a hierarchy of spiritual beings organized into a kind of court with one Supreme Being over all."
Langton: "The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of pictographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited."
According to historical evidence, the same pattern is found in Egypt, India, China and Greece. Henry C. Thiessen writes: "The first departure from monotheism seems to have been in the direction of nature worship. Sun, moon, and stars, the great representatives of nature, and fire, air, and water, the great representatives of earth, became objects of popular worship. At the first they were merely personified; then men came to believe that personal beings presided over them. Polytheism has a strong affinity for fallen human nature."
Custance: "it may safely be said without the slightest hesitation that monotheism never evolved out of polytheism in any part of the world"s earliest history for which we have documentary evidence." [1]"

Part II:
Contention 3: Incoherence
The basic theology behind this is that God cannot be fully defined by one word. God is a concept beyond the descriptive ability of words. Even the list given is not complete, simply because each word is too limiting. It is thus no incoherence at all, but difficult to comprehend theology.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for accepting this debate and I am looking forward to the rest of the debate. I should point out that this past round was for opening statements only and rebuttals should begin in this round. Moreover, the burden of proof is shared, so in the next reply, please present your arguments in favour of God's existence.

Part 1: Evidential Arguments

Contention 1: Evil and Suffering

My opponent's sole response is the argument from free will. However, the argument is lacking and unconvincing. Paul Tobin argues [1]:

But the free will explanation cannot even satisfactorily explain moral evil. If God is all powerful, he could have created all man with free will and with a predisposition towards doing good. But according to the same theologians, man is sinful by nature, with a predisposition for doing bad. God's action in giving man free-will and at the same time giving him a predisposition towards doing bad is no different morally from a man who drinks, on purpose, in front of a recently reformed alcoholic! If we describe such a man as irresponsible and immoral, why do we persist in calling such a God good?

The abstraction “man” used above is also misleading. All of mankind have free-will; some, a small minority, some men-and women-, chose evil and rob, kill, cheat and maim. Are the more numerous victims to be consoled by saying that this is a consequence of their (the victims) having free will? In other words, are the innocent victims somehow responsible for the crimes on themselves because they have free will? The right to be protected from crimes is basic for all citizens in the world; any government that fails to deliver a reasonable amount of protection from these would be condemned and duly removed from power. Yet somehow it is okay for the all powerful God to give men free will and allow them to suffer the consequences from the minority who misuse it. To say that all will be rectified in the afterlife where the good will be rewarded in heaven and the bad will be punished in hell does not resolve the issue. As George H. Smith observes:

[N]o appeal to an afterlife can actually eradicate the problem of evil. An injustice always remains an injustice, regardless of any subsequent effort to comfort the victim. If a father, after beating his child unmercifully, later gives him a lollipop as compensation, this does not eradicate the original act or its evil nature. Nor would we praise the father as just and loving.

Yet, this is exactly what the Judeo-Christians claims their God to do. He allows the faithful to suffer (remember Job!) and later rewards them. This God cannot, by any moral yardstick, be called good.

My opponent argues because the fall of man affected all of creation, it can therefore explain natural evil. However, that too is unconvincing. Why should we suffer for the sins of Adam? My opponent brings up a Biblical verse to prove that point; namely, Adam's sin affected all of Creation. However, Ezekiel 18:20 states this:

The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

If this were to be true, why are so many pepole suffering for Adam's sin?

Contention 2: Demographics

Please do forgive me, but I cannot make out what you are trying to argue. I do not see what your argument is. Please expand on it in the next rebuttal round.

Part II: Logical Arguments

Contention 3: Argument from Incoherence

My opponent's reply is a non-answer. I never stated God must be defined by one word. By incoherence, I don't mean that the definition of God is incoherent, rather I mean it is impossible: like a square circle. I gave two attributes of God that are contradictory: Free will and Omnipotent; and Incomprehendible versus Indescribable.

I await your reply.


1. Tobin, P. (2000) "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: The Skeptic's Guide to Christianity."


My apologies, Microsuck, I did not realize I had a BoP or that I was not supposed to refute your arguments in the first round. That being said, I will reply to your arguments first, and then add my arguments.

Contention 1
I will not reply to your objection to the free will argument until you phrase it in your own words. (Our two quotations differ in intent. Mine was to give evidence, yours is to make an argument)

As to your opposition to the fall of man affecting all of creation, I said that it is the result of an ongoing punishment. (Paraphrase) I meant that it is then the CONSEQUENCE visited upon the children of Adam, rather than the punishment itself being dealt out to Adam"s descendents. This is because the punishment upon Adam was so great that the consequence were far-reaching. I acknowledge that my phrasing and wording in the previous round led directly to this seeming contradiction. That was my fault. (See [1]) (Consequences and punishments are different)

Contention 2:
My apologies for the vagueness. I will expand on them. I gave historical evidence in the above round, but I failed to explain it. I will do so here.
From the evidence given, we know that monotheism led to polytheism. This brings us to the question (and this is an argument for theism), How did man get such a concept? Is it the result of a "god spot"? Well, despite years of searching for such, none has been found. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there is no god spot.
From this it is easy to see that there is only one other possibility. This other possibility is that there really was a (singular) theo who revealed himself to man. This is actually quite easy to understand. However, what about all the different gods? (This being all the different monotheistic gods) It is clear that there is actually not much difference between Allah and Yahweh. So the question that must be asked is "which is the perversion of which?" (I"m not wanting to offend anyone here) Not, "Can we discard theo because there seems to be a contradiction?"
I hope this explains it.

Contention 3
I do not understand how incomprehensible and indescribable are contradictory to each other. Neither do I see how omnipotence and free will can contradict. I absolutely do not understand you here. I"m sorry (I searched up the definitions, I don"t find any contradictions). Please revise and give explanations that does not contradict my previous argument, since you don"t dispute that.

So now I will go to arguments for God. Besides the one above. I will only use one other argument because you"ll only have one other round to refute me. (My bad.) Therefore I"ll have two arguments.
The presence of evil [2]
If there is evil, then there must be some sort of moral code by which Theo is being compared to. Now we know that moral codes are not material, and if they were just the result of chemical reactions, you would have no basis on which to raise the argument of the problem of evil. How do we know what is evil and what is not? There is an innate moral rule in each of us. That is an observation. Do we feel guilt when we violate this code? Yes we do. This brings us to the only logical conclusion of a higher morality. The only higher morality that can logically exist is the Judeo-Christian God.

Now that I"m running out of time, I"ll pass back to you.

Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for your swift response. I have been super busy this weekend with work and school. As such, I may not be able to get all of my arguments in. Therefore, I will focus most on your argument for God's existence.

Part I: Response to Opponent's Arguments for God's Existence

Rebuttal A: Moral Argument for God's Existence

My opponent's sole opening argument for God's existence is the moral argument; namely, if there is evil, then there must be some moral code to live by. In logical syllogism form, we have this:

Premise 1: If objective moral facts exists, then God exists.
Premise 2: Objective moral facts exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

To refute this, I wish to bring something that has been presented long ago:

"Is the holy loved by gods because it is holy? Or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?"

This is called the Euthyphro's Dilemma. We can put the Euthyphro's Dilemma in logical syllogism format:

  1. Either:
    1. The Good is willed by God because it is the Good.
    1. The Good is the Good because it is willed by God.
  1. If (1a) is true, then the Good is independent of God’s will.
  2. If (2) is true, then God did not create the Good, and is not Creator.
  3. If (1b) is true, then the Good is contingent and subjective (to God’s will).
  4. If (4) is true, then there is no objective standard of morality, and the absolute of value-selection is false.

The standard response (at least the response I have seen) is that it is a false dichotomy: the third option would be that it is subjected to God's nature. However, this too is subject to the same dilemma, as Michael Martin notes:

[A]ppealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?

Secondly, this does not automatically follow that God exists. In order for my opponent's argument to be sound, my opponent MUST show: 1) That there are objective moral facts; and 2) These facts must have come from God. It is logically possible for there to be no morality. In this case, it appears that this is an undesirable case; however, we see the wishful thinking in the logical format:
  1. If god does not exist, condition A follows.
  2. Condition A is undesirable.
  3. One should not believe in undesirable conditions.
Third, what role does God play in morality? As Grant Petersen notes [4]:

Problem of subjectivity: Who is to say that god's perception of right and wrong is superior to anyone else's? With no guarantee that objective morality even exists (philosophers are still arguing about that one) could one be sure that god's opinion is not any less subjective than yours or mine?

Problem of displaced subjectivity: The god theory does not effectively refute any of the arguments against objective morality, it simply passes the buck. Humans disagree on moral questions, so why not invoke gods? What if the gods disagree among themselves, would they, in turn, appeal to super-gods? And what about the super-gods? It seems a bit like an infinite pile of turtles.

Problem of circular reasoning: Define god as the only possible source of objective morality. Then assume that objective morality exists. Use this as "proof" that god exists.

Problem of interpretation: Assume for a moment that god's morals are, in fact, superior to human morals: how is one to determine what those morals or values consist of? Some ancient writings and the somewhat dubious interpretations of priests, etc., are all that we have to go on. Even if god knows what is morally right or wrong, the fact that we do not know what he knows makes the point moot.

Problem of numerous gods: Through the ages there have been many different religions with many different gods, all of which seemed to have somewhat differing opinions about morality, ranging from human sacrifice to cannibalism. Which one was right? Sounds pretty subjective to me.

Finally, altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice-all of those things that hold society together - can now be confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. Morality evolved … as a form of social control, conflict resolution and group cohesion. [4] Without such, society as a whole cannot exist.

I hope I have managed to, at the very least, cast doubt on the moral argument for God's existence and to convince the reader that God is not necessary for morality. The fact of the matter is that we can explain morality from a natural standpoint (we can debate this next, if you would like); moreover, I feel that with the Euthyphro's Dilemma, the argument is immediately refuted with the fact that the argument is logically fallacious.

Once again, I apologize for these short statements and I apologize for not responding sooner. I will allow you in the next round to defend only your opening statements; please do not add anything to it or rebut my opening arguments further. If you would like, we may amend the 5th round to include VERY BRIEF defenses and polishes on our statements.

I bounch it back to you.




3. Tobin, P. (2000). "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager."



As my opponent has to drop all of his arguments, I too will focus only on my own arguments. In this, I will point out that my opponent has an incomplete reference 4.

So I will defend my arguments here. Firstly, I will put to rest the idea of "genetic basis-hence evolved. Hence no God."
1. We have no evidence that it evolved. A common ancestor is only just as plausible as a common designer, with none of the intelligence.
2. It goes against evolutionary philosophy. This is because survival of the fittest prohibits that which is weak from reproducing more than that of the strong. There is thus no need for, and no selective pressure.
3. Even if morality evolved, the possibility that a God placed it there is actually very great.
4. Finally, all the qualities you have listed are NOT qualities of morality. It is aspects of emotion.

Euthyphro's Dilemma:
This indeed is a false dichotomy. And because you did not phrase it in such a way as to protect against the "delaying," I still can use it. Since you have already yourself answered the first portion, I will move on to the second portion. The question of God and good.
[1] (Since you quoted from Martin, I will quote from Koukl) "Socrates' challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is "good"? It doesn't help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to.
If the word "good" means "in accord with the nature and character of God," we have a problem. When the Bible says "God is good," it simply means "God has the nature and character that God has." If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement "God is good" means nothing more than "God is God," a useless tautology.
The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another..., there are not two things, but one...
According to Christian teaching, God is not good in the same way that a bachelor is an unmarried male. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It's an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology."
So the question arises (and I"m taking ideas from 1"s next section), how do we know what is good? Well, there is a simple answer to this, moral intuition. As I mentioned earlier, this is a good argument for the existence of a God, and it cannot be explained naturalistically. Without the Christian God, moral terms are incoherent and our intuition is a nothing.

So I have addressed the issue of whether God exist or not. The syllogism regarding conditions and god have nothing to do with my arguments. I will thus not refute it. (My arguments are not based on emotion)

I will address each of the points made by Peterson in detail.
Points 1, 2, and 5 are only useful against a religion with numerous gods. They fail thoroughly against the Christian God, and I don"t think I need to explain why.
Point 3: As I said above, objective morality in some form exist. This is not an assumption. Logical reasoning would make clear that objective morality must have originated from a higher power, even highest. This does not prove the existence of a god. However, it is a strong indicator.
Point 4: This assumes that the divine is unable to interact with humans. This point is mute in the case of the Judeo-Christian God.
Now that I have answered fully all of Pro"s objections. I would like to agree to the amendment proposed. Say around 3k characters?

So in conclusion, my arguments are not logically fallacious, morality is not naturalistically explicable, and some of your counters don"t even fit the God I"m advocating.

Debate Round No. 4


Thank you for this debate. As per the rules, these are my closing statements.

I believe that I have casted doubts on the existence of YHWH God. I do not believe that my opponent adaquetly responded to my arguments and did not adaquetly refute my argument against the moral argument for God's existence.

I do not have time for a full closing statements, so I'll leave it at this: Happy thanksgiving to everyone and I thank Muted for this fun debate.

Vote pro.


I would like to wish everyone happy thanksgiving and leave it now to the voters.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 5 years ago
Bigotry 11:14--Atheist is a bogus word. There is No word for someone who does Not believe in astrology or horoscopes, there is Not a name for someone who doesnt believe leprechauns are at the end of rainbows, there is Not a name for a person who does not believe there is a tea pot orbiting the andromeda galaxy. Why is there a name for someone who does Not believe the reason for everything is a homophobe :)

GrowUp 16:1--The best words for "nonbelievers" in leprechauns,horoscopes and tea pots floating, are sane and logical, the same words should be used for those who are nonbelievers that the reason for everything rested on the 7th day and can convict you of thought crimes :)

WAKEUP 12:12--Purpose is not invented by religion. Purpose is invented by each individual. Imagine AND Create purpose. Take responsibility and be accountable for your actions and quit blaming the devil :)

Despicable 9:38--What is a surefire way to slow down the growth of human conciousness. Both in ourselves and family, but also on society as a whole? You admonish scientific, mathematically sound evidence, instead favoring one of thousands of religious texts from thousands of years ago as a better way of viewing reality and you are guaranteed divisiveness which leads to violence :)

EgoManiacs 9:27--The holy binky DOES NOT own the rights to another existance just because they "called it first". The Higgs Boson was just discovered in July 2012. It was thought to be non existant when suggested in 1964 by Peter Higgs. It is going to help science unlock and understand other dimensions of reality. Science will always win because thats what the good guys always do :)

Delusional 9:16--44% of Americans believe god literally gave the land of israel to the jews. Awwww, he's also a real estate broker how cute :)
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Give thanks to humanity.
Posted by bpv1 5 years ago
Microsuck.. Your closing statements, While wishing "Happy thanksgiving to everyone" Whom do you give thanks to finally? :)
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
After going through pro's sources, they all seem to be; either be obvious facts that don't really need sourcing, or philosophic arguments. & in one case he used Smith, G. Atheism: The Case Against God as a source for "The standard definition of "God" is largely incoherent. According to the National Catholic Almanac". Not exactly the best source for that. Much better sources could be brought for that if it were true. On the other hand the primary source is quite reliable. Or is it. What is the "National Catholic Almanac" basing it's definition on? Con really didn't need to agree with this definition. It is one opinion amongst many.

In conclusion, I can't make up my mind. So I'll leave it a tie, for now.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
Im an ex-christian but i really don't think god allowing evil is proof that he does'nt exist... there is a reason he supposedly allows evil witch is stated in the bible.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
Conduct: Con

a)Pro did not define God in round one, which gave con the ability to legitimately choose an alternate definition, as easily 1.

b) If Pro is the instigator, he has BOP, unless stated otherwise in R1. Pro than placed part of BOP on con in round 3, & con graciously accepted. It is for this reason as well, that I don't fault Con for R2.

((perhaps Con should lose conduct, as his actions made it much harder for the voters. Had he not played Mr. Nice Guy, it would be an obvious win. - just kidding. ))

Pro made several (at least 6) spelling errors.

MCA: Undecided
On the one hand Pro should have BOP, which he did not fulfil satisfactorily. On the other hand Con did not contest when the BOP was placed on him, & if it was shared it should be a tie.

Although Pro seems to have more sources, the majority of them were not evidence backing up facts of an argument, but rather the philosophic arguments themselves. As a result "reliability" is not relevant to those.

Con, seemed to have less, but that's because most of his sources were within the argument as opposed to in footnotes. Cons sources were to back up facts. & thus I am tempted to give him the points. I have not yet decided.
Posted by miketheman1200 5 years ago
never seen these arguments made before. (sarcasm explosion)
Posted by Feldmm1 5 years ago
I can't vote, but if I could vote, my RFD would say the following.

I would give conduct to Pro since Muted violated the rules by not presenting an argument in his opening statement, but Pro did not make it clear that Con had to, so I gave them a tie. Honestly, I disliked how both sides used sources. Pro copy and pasted too much text from other works rather than framing the arguments/objections in his own words and quoting only small pieces. Con in his part also did a bad job at developing his sources, with his quote in round 2 being the worst instance by far. Pro does a very bad job developing his incoherence argument, merely stating that certain traits are incoherent without providing much explanation of how that is so. Pro needs to make these alleged contradictions explicit, which he doesn't do, so this argument goes to Con. However, Pro carries the argument from evil and argument from demographics, and Con's answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma doesn't really address what Martin said. Therefore, arguments go to Pro, and with them the debate.
Posted by Nicole8712 5 years ago
In my opinion an omnipotent being and "evil" can exist at the same time. Good and evil are human perceptions, that even vary from culture to culture. Perhaps if we came into contact with another species, their idea of good and evil might be entirely different or non existent. Therefore using the argument that "Bad things happen therefore a benevolent higher being cannot exist" argument is flawed. What WE consider evil, that "being" might not, for IF it exists it's mind would have to be greater than that which it created. Also the idea that evil only exists because humans have free will, and is outside the realm of this being, is preposterous. If God exists, he/she/it is all powerful and therefore ALLOWED the potential of evil THROUGH free will to exist
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
Oh, and you've finally posted a handsome picture of yourself.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by truthseeker613 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Subject to change. See comments.
Vote Placed by emj32 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Nope
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: yes
Vote Placed by Magic8000 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think if a debater copies what someone said and cites it, warrants the opposing side to ignore it. I've actually voted against microsuck for doing that in the past. For this, conduct goes to pro. I don't like the demographics argument, however I don't see how saying monotheism came first refutes it. Pro does need to expand on the incoherence argument. I don't see how con answered the Euthyphro Dilemma, as what he posted didn't address what Martian said.