The Instigator
niles136
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Atheism is true, god is not

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,923 times Debate No: 16133
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

niles136

Pro

I believe, and many stand beside me, that god is fake. This has been questioned by thousands and millions for centuries, ever since the Ancient Greeks. The reason many people believe in god is because that's how they were brought up, and it was how i was brought up, but yet I knew, I knew that it was false. I want to see if someone can try to win this debate. Because I want to see if anyone has any actual proof that he exists. Here are three reasons why he isn't real
1. He hasn't appeared in modern days
2. There is no proof that he exists
3. It would defy our laws of science
socialpinko

Con

I will first define what god actually is before we begin this debate. I will define god in the classical theistic sense. A being who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and is the creator of the universe. If my opponent has any problem with this definition I ask him to clarify in a comment so as to not waste rounds on semantics.

Atheism can be defined as the belief that the phrase, "There is a god" is false. When mentioning atheism we may refer to strong atheism as opposed to weak atheism as my opponent has flat out said "god is fake".

Now I will respond to my opponent's three arguments for why god does not exist.

1. He hasn't appeared in modern days

This does not actually prove that god does not exist. Proving a negative is logically impossible. Rather, one could say that god is simply waiting for something or is acting on the world in ways which we cannot see yet because of the huge gaps in current human knowledge. If no one hears from me or sees me for a couple of years then it would make sense to believe that I was dead. However, this by itself would not definitely prove that I am dead. I may be living as a hermit in the Sahara desert for all you know.

2. There is no proof that he exists

This fact by itself would definitely support weak atheism, the position of simply non-belief in god or gods, but my opponent has made the bold assertion that "god is fake". My opponent is arguing for strong atheism and as so, hard evidence will be needed, not simply lack of evidence. What this arguments is is simply an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

3. It would defy our laws of science

By definition, god is above the laws of science as he is the creator of them. God is expected to defy these and he would not be god if he abided by them.

The resolution has been negated and thus I urge a Con vote.


Debate Round No. 1
niles136

Pro

My opponent has said that god is real, but he hasn't given me the question I've always wondered from people who believe: what proof is there? The only reason people even believe in god is because thousands of years ago someone said that there's a god out there. Then, a new religion started. But, what proof was there? And, even if they did have proof, what's to trust about it? It was told over 2,000 years ago when people thought the Earth was flat, and that the sun was a chariot which flew around us. Also, I have three more reasons why god isn't real:

1. If god is real and if god helped write the bible, then why does he think slavery is right, why does he think we should kill homosexuals, oppress woman?
2. Think about other religions. How is god real and not Allah, or the Greek Gods, or the Egyptian gods.
3. Jesus said that he will answer all of our prayers. But how come this doesn't happen?

I strongly suggest you vote for the pro vote because of this
socialpinko

Con

My opponent has not responded to my refutations of his arguments from last round and thus we may assume that he has conceded these. My opponent has also tried to shift the BOP on to me even as he is instigator and Pro of this debate. It is my responsibility to disprove any arguments which Pro brings, I do not have to necessarily show why god exists. I will not move on to my opponent's next three "proofs" for why there is no god.

1. If god is real and if god helped write the bible, then why does he think slavery is right, why does he think we should kill homosexuals, oppress woman?

Believing that god is real and that god helped write the Bible are two very different things. Also according to my definition of god which my opponent has not disputed, god may be the divinity of any major monotheistic religion or none of them. My definition does not specify any religion.

Also, even if the god I am advocating had helped to write the Bible, if he is real then he is the pillar of moral perfection and thus whatever he believes to be right is objectively right. My opponent has not shown why slavery is wrong, why women should not be oppressed, or why homosexuals should not be killed.

2. Think about other religions. How is god real and not Allah, or the Greek Gods, or the Egyptian gods.

I am not specifically defending the god of Christianity as my opponent thinks I am. I defined the god I would be defending in R1 as a being who is, "all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and is the creator of the universe." I asked my opponent to say something if he had a problem with the definition and he did not.

Now according to my definition, god could be the divinity of Christianity or Islam. The Greek and Egyptian gods do not fit the definition of god and so they cannot be one and the same.

3. Jesus said that he will answer all of our prayers. But how come this doesn't happen?

Again, I am not specifically advocating the existence of Jesus as being divine or that the god that exists is the Christian god. The Muslim god also fits my definition and thus has the same chance of existing if there was a god as the Christian god. I am advocating the existence of a being with the attributes of moral perfection, unlimited power, possessing all knowledge, and being the originator and creator of the universe.

I urge a Con vote and wait for my opponent's response.


Debate Round No. 2
niles136

Pro

I didn't realize what my opponent meant back there as a definition of god, but now I do, so I will give yet another three reasons to prove that any god is not real
1. All the gods were created back over 2,000 years ago because they needed an explanation for things. They still thought the Earth was flat
2. Believing in a god basically means you don't believe in science, that we've gotten nowhere. In religions with a god, he created the earth, but what about the big bang theory. Also, we have no souls, which partly relates to a god, since most religions with god have afterlife. A human is power by chemicals, no soul in the mix.
3. Look at it from another perspective. If I told you Santa Clause was real, you wouldn't believe it. If you questioned me about how his sleigh gets around, I would say by reindeer. I could think of an answer to every question you asked, because there's no proof that he's not real, and there's no proof that he isn't. You could say the same about vampires, trolls, zombies, leprechauns, and yet someone ho believed could give answers to it.
socialpinko

Con

My opponent has again dropped his three arguments from last round and provided three new ones for me to refute.

Gods were created a long time ago by people who believed the earth was flat.

My opponent claims that because the concept of god became popular before the various scientific revolutions of history, the idea cannot be trusted and thus this proves that god does not exist. At best this brings the concept of god into question but by no means supports strong atheism as my opponent must do to win this debate. This is simply an ad hominem argument. All my opponent is doing is attacking the people who believe in god and not the actual idea of god.

To believe in god, you cannot believe in science.

My opponent seems to believe that to believe in god you must believe in a human soul, an afterlife, and disbelieve in the big bang theory. These are all straw man arguments as I have said none of these things. Belief in the god that I am advocating does not necessitate belief in an afterlife or a human soul. These two things can also not be disproven. To say that these two things cannot exist is an argument from ignorance.

Also, many people who believe in god also believe in the big bang theory. God is simply seen as the cause of the big bang. He is the prime mover,

Believing in god is the same as believing in Santa Clause.

My opponent has not proven that belief in Santa Clause is unreasonable or disproven through lack of evidence. This is the same argument from ignorance which my opponent has tried to use to disprove god's existence. At best this supports weak atheism or weak Clausism, not absolute sureness that there is no god or that there is no Santa Clause.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
niles136

Pro

My opponent has said that believing in god is the same as believing in santa clause. Also, it's ok to believe in unicorns, leprechauns and every mythical creature. Plus, if god were real, why would he let the world get into such a terrible state? Global warming, world war 2, world war 1, so many terrible things and yet he's done absolutely nothing. Also, try praying. Has anyone ever answered your prayers? And if so, does he only grant some and not all? How weird! God can't exist because look at the facts. This argument is only here right now because people in the past believed in god, so now you believe in god, because you've heard how great god is. In my opinion, atheists are the ones with the questions. The ones that say, "Hmm, this sounds very weird and stupid." So that is my argument against god.

Vote for pro
socialpinko

Con

My opponent has said that believing in god is the same as believing in santa clause. Also, it's ok to believe in unicorns, leprechauns and every mythical creature.

My opponent is correct in his summarization of my opinion on belief in god. I am not defending belief, rather I am defending weak atheism. My opponent must successfully defend strong atheism(prove beyond a doubt that god does not exist) and he has not.

Plus, if god were real, why would he let the world get into such a terrible state?

My opponent has again brought a new argument. I will respond with the fact that god as defined is of complete moral perfection. If he exists then nothing he can do can be immoral by definition.

Also, try praying. Has anyone ever answered your prayers? And if so, does he only grant some and not all?

My opponent tries to leave out the option that god simply does not want to answer certain prayers or that through tragedy, god may help the world. Try calling anyone on the planet. Look up someone's phone number in the phone book and call them. If they don't pick up does that automatically mean that they don't exist? Of course not. Again my opponent provides grounds for weak atheism but not strong atheism which is what he is advocating.

Vote Con


Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by DAN123 6 years ago
DAN123
Con's arguments are brilliantly constructed and I think it can easily destroy Pro's arguments which are very short
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"If jesus was god why did he scream out "why have you betrayed me father" at the cross"

He was still a newb and was pwned by the jews.
Posted by Lionheart 6 years ago
Lionheart
A.) Cause and effect. Original cause. Original cause came from where? And then that cause came from where? You inevitably come to eternity.

B.) Life is consciousness. Life came from life. So, consciousness came from consciousness, which came from consciousness, all the way back to the original consciousness. Which brings us to (A).

A+B= Eternal Consciousness

Eternal Consciousness = God
Posted by Dawg_Face 6 years ago
Dawg_Face
As I am not allowed to vote yet due to my being a "noob" to debate.org I would like to express my opinions here in the comment sections provided.

As a staunch Atheist, I don't believe in any form of higher power that guides us through life. However, I don't feel that Niles136 or the pro/for aspect has given anything other than four rounds of questions as opposed to actual litigation against the belief in God.

As the instigator has titled his debate, "Atheism is true, god is not." He has done nothing to support his claims other than to ask more questions through each round. This does not, by definition, make this a debate but more of a Q&A period in which he asks the questions and his counterpart, socialpinko, answers them.

I hope that Niles136 learned from this debate and in the future can come up with better stances for his opinions.

My vote would go to the Con.
Posted by wizkid345 6 years ago
wizkid345
If jesus was god why did he scream out "why have you betrayed me father" at the cross
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"It would defy our laws of science"

What are these exactly?

Nice first response Con.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
niles136socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro has sooooo weak arguments
Vote Placed by Lionheart 6 years ago
Lionheart
niles136socialpinkoTied
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: A.) Cause and effect. Original cause. Original cause came from where? And then that cause came from where? You inevitably come to eternity. B.) Life is consciousness. Life came from life. Consciousness came from consciousness, which came from consciousness, to the original consciousness. A+B= Eternal Consciousness Eternal Consciousness = God
Vote Placed by IamZero 6 years ago
IamZero
niles136socialpinkoTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not refute con's arguemens.
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 6 years ago
Lightkeeper
niles136socialpinkoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. Nice try, Pro. I see that you have just joined the website. Welcome and good luck! Con wins because none of the points presented by Pro support the position of Strong Atheism.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
niles136socialpinkoTied
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: This was not a debate as much as it was Con answering a bunch of questions from Pro, nice presentation Con, Pro stick to one point and drive it home, doing a spray and pray only works if you are a halo newb
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
niles136socialpinkoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't appear to actually engage in debate, failing to engage con's arguments while dropping his own and creating new one line arguments each round that con easily rebutted.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
niles136socialpinkoTied
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: You Could See how easily Con Refuted.