The Instigator
nonprophet
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Mhykiel
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Atheism is the default position

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 6 votes the winner is...
Mhykiel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,362 times Debate No: 52407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (63)
Votes (6)

 

nonprophet

Pro



First round is for acceptance only.

For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God".
"Default Position" is the starting point...like an unstretched rubber band. The rubber band will always go back to the default position, when it's not being stretched.

Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Pro




I already had the pleasure of debating you on this topic.
http://www.debate.org...

No need to do it again with you.

Mhykiel

Con

I accept the definition for atheist being "a lack of belief in god or gods"

LACK can be defined as a state of being without. [1]
BELIEF is defined as acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. [2]
GOD is defined as (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. [3]

Clearly you if there is a state of lacking then there is also a state that is NOT lacking. you have burden of proof that the default position is the former (condition = lacking, without) and not the latter (condition = NOT lacking, or being with).

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Pro

Yeah, heh?
Mhykiel

Con

I'll try to clarify the statement I made.

Clearly if there is a state of lacking then there is also a state that is NOT lacking.

You have the burden of proof that the default position is the former (condition = lacking, without).
Because with out evidence the latter (condition = NOT lacking, or being with) is equally valid.

If cold is defined as the lack of heat. Then the statement "The Food is COLD" has to be proven accurate, because the food has the POSSIBILITY of being HOT

Plus you are the instigator and pro, so burden of proof is likely to lie with you anyways.

Seeing how my opponent has made no argument just the statement of a rhetoric. I urge all to vote CON. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
this is what happens when people try to deny God's right to judge them.......all kinds of nonsense.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
Nonprophet generally begins to ignore others as soon as he knows he lost the argument.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
And shame on all the voters that REWARDED Mhykiel for cheating, by debating with himself after being told the debate was not accepted (It was NOT forfeited, It was not accepted).
This is the reason no more votes will be taken on my debates.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
I lost the first time. So you could have asked first before accepting a rematch.
Instead you grabbed a chance to get a free win.
Cheater.

I'm done with you....You'll now be ignored a well.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
If you have confidence in the resolution debating me 20 out of 20 times would not deter you. you could defend it every time against me all the time
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Take the hint, Mhykiel: You selfishly accept a debate you already had the chance to debate and when I didn't agree to accept, you ignored me and kept on debating unfairly....so now you lost your privledge to ever debate me again.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
No I wonder why you won't debate me. Is it you only want to debate a failed a resolution against people you can win against?
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
He accepted, I didn't, he ignored the fact that I didn't accept and kept on going debating himself.
Then he wonders why I don't trust him
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
this is funny stuff.......two atheists debating for no apparent reason other than to debate, exercising themselves in unbelief for no good reason. More and more I'm beginning to understand why the Bible says "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh, the Lord shall have them in derision"
Posted by ZMowlcher 2 years ago
ZMowlcher
@nonprophet It's not complete nonsense. You're clearly fed losing over your poor debating skills and now you wanna cheat.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
nonprophetMhykielTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I choose only to vote conduct points because Con joined this debate while already in the same debate with Pro.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 2 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
nonprophetMhykielTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for childish forfeiture. Arguments for Pro's complete lack arguments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
nonprophetMhykielTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Just seems like a wasted opportunity. Pro, I realize that this is a rehash of your previous debate, but Con was willing to have it again. Seems like that is the perfect chance to improve and retest your argument. Since that doesn't happen, and since Pro essentially forfeits, I award all 7 points to Con.
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
nonprophetMhykielTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Essentially a full forfeit from Pro. If you want to restrict who can debate you, you should do that BEFORE the debate begins - not after.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
nonprophetMhykielTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Going to treat this as a concession from pro, granted it's a curious thing when someone does not want to refine their past arguments... As for con's case, please don't use all caps randomly, click Rich Text and you will have a number of options to work with.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
nonprophetMhykielTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had bad conduct and failed to argue con provided better sources. Con get's spelling because of how pro's settings were.