The Instigator
crazyninja77
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Atheists Do Not Exist

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 6 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,936 times Debate No: 14715
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (6)

 

crazyninja77

Pro

I am going to use the same logic in this argument, as the atheists use, I do not believe in atheists, therefore they do not exist. There are only two rules to this debate, you must use the atheist's logic, and I will not tolerate verbal slamming, or I will report it. Let's get on with this show!
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

Pro argues that he will use the same logic as atheists use in order to prove that they do not exist. In order to do so, he must (a) prove that the atheists' logic is correct (which would be self-defeating for his side), and (b) make it evident that all atheists share the same logic. Notice how Pro didn't say "atheist," i.e., singular, but he said "atheists," which makes my request valid.

On top of that, he assumes that the atheist logic must be perceived as true in this debate. I, being Con, have to use "atheists' logic" in order to prove that my opponent is wrong. The logic he proposes is "I do not believe in something, therefore it does not exist."

That sounds fine, except that I do not believe that my opponent is right, therefore atheists do exist...

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 1
crazyninja77

Pro

crazyninja77 forfeited this round.
Mirza

Con

Self-refutation does not go a long way.
Debate Round No. 2
crazyninja77

Pro

My opponent has commetted an obvious error. Notice how con says beliving in something, then con tries to be humourous with their ending of saying that they don't belive that I am right, there is a difference between believing in something, and beliving that some thing is or isn't.

Touché con!!

Mirza

Con

In the first round, Pro acknowledged the existence of atheists. He attributed something to them which can only be attributed to something that exists, and that is logic. How can logic apply to something nonexistent? Logic encompasses what exists. If you use logic to say that Object X does not exist, but that logic belongs to Object X, then you have refuted yourself.

I the last round, Pro came with ambigous words which make little sense. Who instigated this debate? He did, not I. He told Con to use atheists' logic in order to move on with the debate. What is atheists' logic? Who defined what that is? Did I do that? No, Pro did. He defined it, in this context, as "I do not believe in X, therefore X does not exist." Then he contradicts himself once more by saying, "there is a difference between believing in something, and beliving that some thing is or isn't." Is he not the one who said, " I do not believe in..."? Fortunately, he did.

Whoever refutes himself and blasts his arguments this way has no chance in winning a debate logically. The resolution has been torn apart, thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
"The resolution has been torn apart, thank you very much."

Epic win.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
`In other words, it doesn't have to be 100% provable in order to be worth debating.``

Note most of your assertions seemed empirical in nature, nothing there is 100%, there is always uncertainty, as you noted it is all about what is more likely.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
`Attempting to "prove" either side of our arguments is futile as neither one of us can actually prove either. ``

Why don`t you debate that meta position.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Maninorange, why are you defining divine creation in terms literal interpretation of Genesis? Just curious.
Posted by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
"Attempting to "prove" either side of our arguments is futile as neither one of us can actually prove either."

You don't have to "prove" something to decide that one thing is much more likely than another. For example, you can't prove with 100% certainty that your [hypothetical] girlfriend/wife isn't cheating on you. That doesn't mean that you can't be reasonably sure based on past behaviors, lack of evidence that she is, etc.

In other words, it doesn't have to be 100% provable in order to be worth debating. This would severely restrict the ability to debate anything! For 99% of debates, it isn't about logical proofs, but which is more likely.

I can respect your rejection, but I felt as though I needed to clear that up.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Vote-bombing is a problem on this site, especially on religious debates and while the majority of active members are atheists there are also quite a few intelligent theists. If you want to discuss religion with fellow theists you should seek them out(myself included although I rarely get in involved in purely religious debates).
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I'm not really interested in debating any of those topics. Attempting to "prove" either side of our arguments is futile as neither one of us can actually prove either. However, the people on this website tend to be more hostile toward religion than toward non-religion, so even though neither of us could prove our point... I would lose simply on the fact that I am representing the religious side.
Posted by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
A list of potential topics:
(The winner for any of these would be determined by who presents the most convincing evidence)

The age of the universe:
I would show the evidence that the universe is 13-15 billion years old, and you would show the evidence that it is younger than that.

The age of the earth:
I would show the evidence that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, and you would show the evidence that it is younger than that.

Evolution:
I would show the evidence that evolution is and has been occurring, and you would show evidence that this is not the case.

Common ancestry:
I would show the evidence that life on earth is connected by a family tree (Goats and sequoia trees share a great great great... grandfather), and you would show the evidence that creatures were put into being at the same time in more or less the form they are in today.

Any of these would be legitimate topics. I'd like to stay away from abiogenesis as that requires demonstrating that something [that did happen as far as the scientific community is concerned] could have happened without a God, and that becomes a bit more complicated, and, as I am not a biologist, I do not feel qualified to debate on it. (Evolution is a special case in that I have researched it extensively.)
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I'd consider it, but we'd need to very carefully define the parameters.
Posted by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
@ ReformedArsenal.
Would you consider having a debate over the evidence for and against an instantaneous divine creation?

If not, I would nonetheless be more than willing to give you as much information as I can so that you can be more informed (Not to insinuate that you are uninformed, but merely that it is possible for you to be more informed).
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
crazyninja77MirzaTied
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 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
crazyninja77MirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
crazyninja77MirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was torn apart.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
crazyninja77MirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Obviuos
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
crazyninja77MirzaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "In the first round, Pro acknowledged the existence of atheists. He attributed something to them which can only be attributed to something that exists, and that is logic." - nice
Vote Placed by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
crazyninja77MirzaTied
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