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

Athiest is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 836 times Debate No: 44043
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Athiest false becuse evilution wrong.

Why evilution wrong? Fisrt of all, evilution maded by Evil commnist libral nazi athiestt Charle Darwin. Here is pruf:

Hitler sed that jews are inferior race. Darwin say that inferior race selected out by natral selecshun. Coincidenc? I tink not. I know Darwin meant specie when he saided races, but I ignore that because I want ad hominum argment to work.

Second of all, Evilution saided that wha;e come out of odcean and became cow. That rediculus. I know that because VEnomFangX reliable sourse.
Evilution is thery that nothingness explosion into somthing, and then dust and cloud becumes sun and Earth and sol system. Then lightning strike puddle and creted life. Then fish crawed out of land, and cat eat fish and becomes catfish. Then monkey had reproduction with guy and becume humans. This is totally wat evolution says.

Tird of all, banana have no seed. IF banana evolve, is should have seed. I know that wild banana have seed but domesticated banana dont becuse theuy cultivated, but evidence, logic and truth is for evil libral, so ignore seed in wild banan.

Forth of all, cat don't come from dog, so thery explaining diverseity with natral selecshun is wrong.

Fif of all, there are no transition fossil. All the transitional fossil listed here: are maded up by evil libral satan worshipping communits nazi obama athiest jewish lizard goverment conspiracy shill mind control weapon scientists!

Sixth, ther are many type of evilution
micro evilution: thery of mutation and natral selecshun
macroevilution: thery that dog com from cat
gas evilution: thery that hydrogen crete heavier mater

gas evilutioon is bs becuse sun is not converting hydrogen to helum thrugh nuclear fusion, instead it run on burning fart from chuck noris.

Evidence athiest is wrong:

1. argumen from water
Only earth has water. That is evidence of divine creater. We know only earth has water becuse water on mars ice cap not exist, frozen water on moon maded up lie, and teh comets never exist! Comets not exist, and they are just holograms and part of projec blu bemm.

2. argumen from strawmen
Evilution saty that everthign com frum randomm chance, with no natral selecshun mechanism. That impossible!!!!!1!!!

3. argumen from shill gambitt
All argument for athiest are created by brainwashed shill misinformant agent and evil bioology techer created by mind controlling organizations that are part of projec blue beam, such as CIA, FBI, NSA, NASA, FAP, KFC, IBM, doubtingdave, etc! Everone use foil hat or else barak osama will use mind control hologramic electrolyzing dihydrogen monoxide non-robotonic hors d'evore electro-magnetic spaceholographics to turn evverone into evil socialist communits nazi satan worshippin athiest!!1!!!!1!

As yu can see, athiest false, argment against me are fail, reasinging and logick is fail, adn if u belif in those evil lie u evil 2.


Due to the wording of the resolution I have concluded that the resolution is stating that Atheists do not exist.

False: not according with truth or fact; incorrect.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So therefore, I am put to the daunting task of proving atheists exist.

C1: History of Atheism:
Atheism is the rejection (or absence) of the belief that God, or any other deities, exists. Although the term "atheism" originated in the sixteenth century " based on Ancient Greek O40;_2;^9;_9;`2; "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] " and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history. Over the centuries, atheists have arrived at their point of view through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions. As a percentage of the global human population, public adherents of atheism remain but a small minority. While minority, it has been recorded these individuals have existed through history.

C2: Examples of Atheists
A. J. Ayer asserted the unverifiability and meaninglessness of religious statements, citing his adherence to the empirical sciences. The structuralism of L"vi-Strauss sourced religious language to the human subconscious, denying its transcendental meaning. J. N. Findlay and J. J. C. Smart argued that the existence of God is not logically necessary. Naturalists and materialists such as John Dewey considered the natural world to be the basis of everything, denying the existence of God or immortality. An example nowadays would be the Amazing Atheist on YouTube, contrary to popular belief he actually exists (believe it or not).

I will now address my opponents arguments.

He talks about Charlie Darwin being an Atheist therefore furthering my argument that they exist. Evolution is irrelevant on whether or not Atheists exist despite that they might believe it.

Everything else is gibberish not supporting the Pro position and therefore urge a vote for the Con.
Debate Round No. 1


Con scrared of truth of cretion and that athiestism is lie. That why he play wit word. If he got good argment, he would actully argu correlctly.

I sed athiest is false, not athiest not exist. False: incorrect Athiest: not believe in trut of god, Athiest is false: athiest idology is incorect.

Con is scarred of leving his litle box and facin trut of relgion and is libral evil satan communits nazi baby eatr. He play wit word and trolling, so vot pro.


My opponent attempts to address my observation of the resolution by saying false is different from exist etc. I will restate

False: not according with truth or fact.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore, it states the person who disbelieves that god exists is not existing and we have to recognize this.
Debate Round No. 2


If u luk at argument I making in corect context, u see that I trying to say taht athiesm is wron. Opponen claerly trollin by playng semantic.


Due to no refutation, I extend my arguments
Debate Round No. 3


My oponent has misrepesented my case. My case, despite the tite having a typo, wasclearly "Athist ideology is false", if you luk at contxt of my argument. Con has maded no reevant arguments, and instead decided to play with semantics. For that reason, vote pro. Also, becus con for athism, he suport satan obama libral communits.


I will summarize in three major reasons why the negative has won this debate.

1st. As I explained before due to the incorrect wording of the resolution I have concluded that the pro has to prove atheists do not exist

2nd First contention which talks about Ancient Greeks having this defined and that has still gone not addressed

3rd Second contention which gives examples of many proven atheists in the past that has also gone unaddressed

I urge a vote in the negative.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ChloeMcIverFloyd 2 years ago
Wow, jh1234l's argument is so ridiculous. It would be nice if their arguments didn't look like a six year old tried to type it.
Posted by redcenturion42 2 years ago
Hmm, I wonder what to put down under grammar for jh1234l
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
Naw, s/he's just being silly.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
Agreed, it's an honor debating such a person with high intellect.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
This is one of the funnier things I've read.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't refute pros arguments that atheist ideology is false. Which is the clear meaning of the resolution when taken in context. Pro made several spelling errors and also loses conduct points for accusing his opponent of being an Obama supporter.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 2 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Joke debate, nonetheless Con put's a very good case forward to assume the legitimacy of atheism and therefore negates the resolution.