The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

Does God Exist?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 49966
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I'm looking for a theist to debate me. I'm an atheist. Here are my first 3 arguments:

1) There is no proof of God - saying God exists is like stating Zeus exists. I mean.. yea... maybe... but the chance of that is very very very near zero. Thousands of years ago people believed in the Greek Mythology, a lot of people... but it doesn't make it true!

2) Many theists, almost all of them, choose to waste their lives worshiping God. If you say there is a 50-50 chance for god to exist, which is not true at all, but lets say that it is ( i think the chance of god not existing is bigger) according to every religion if you worship god in another religion then you go to hell. if every religion in the world has the same chance to be right, then the chance of YOU to be right is like 0.0083%, which means that there's a 50% chance that you just wasted your life, and a 49.9927% chance that you go to hell. GREAT!

3) many theists laugh at the big bang theory, because they see it as 'too weird to be true' - how can something just exist without a creator? and why did the universe expand from.. practically nothing. well... to say the truth it's hard to believe for me as well. but I trust scientists and physicists that they know better than me. but let me tell you something - even if in 50 years, scientists will find out the big bang theory is wrong, and have another theory, it will be quite exciting, but it won't really literally change my life. I don't worship the universe. I will live exactly the same with another theory. So it really doesn't matter if the theory is wrong, if I dedicated my life to that theory, I promise you I would do some really serious research, but for now, I'll hear what the scientists have to say. and another thing - if you think the big bang theory makes no sense, why do you think the creationist 'theory' is pure logic? Let's see... There's God. He doesn't have a creator. He's always been around... forever... and one day he was kinda bored, so he poofed a world into existence, and he created light and darkness, but not the stars. he created the plants before the stars, actually. And that makes A LOT of sense. and he created all this big universe for two naked people with useless wisdom teeth and tail bones. OK... How can God just exist without a creator or birth day? Why did he create men? Why does he want people to worship him? Why does he send them to hell if they don't worship him and believe in him? What, is he some kind of sadist? And if he cares so much about that worshiping thing, why isn't he clear about what he wants? why did he 'invent' us with a conscience but wants us to ignore it and worship him without doubt?

Your turn :)


Thanks Con for opening the debate. I will commence with rebuttals.

1) “There is no proof of God.” Con is somewhat correct but gives a problematic example. Saying God (I assume we’re talking about the Judeo-Christian God) exists is not the same as saying Zeus exists. Zeus and the Greek gods were said to live on Mt. Olympus, yet people can climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and prove this is not true. The Judeo-Christian God is said to exist outside time and space, which people cannot traverse or observe. Therefore, Con's comparisons are dissimilar.

Since we have no ability to travel outside time and space, we cannot observe and measure such a God in the same way we can look for Zeus on top of Mt. Olympus. Therefore, we cannot prove if God exists or not which means either conclusion is made on some degree of faith.

2) Something about probability and wasting your life...? Aside from some very questionable math, I’m not sure what the point of this argument is but I’ll try to respond to it. Con falsely assumes that if you are religious then you likely wasted your life. If someone is religiously motivated to make the world a better place and receives deep fulfillment and joy from their religion, then that is hardly a wasted existence, even if god turns out to be fake. In order for this to even be a valid argument, Con must define what an un-wasted life is and explain their implication that only theists can waste their lives. Otherwise, if it is also possible for an atheist to waste their life, then we must conclude that something other than religion is the deciding factor in life-wasting.

Another false assumption is “every religion in the world has the same chance to be right.” First, by explaining truth in the form of raw chance, Con defeats their own argument because you cannot disprove something that is simply a matter of chance. This is the same as rolling dice and saying “lots of people believe this will roll as a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, but they’re wrong because I know it will be a 6.” This is a fallacy because you don’t know it will roll as a 6 - it’s up to chance, and chance is not proof.

Second, Con makes the invalid assumption that atheism is not included in their chance equation. If we are arguing that all worldviews have the same chance of being right, then Con must also include their own. Therefore, just like adding another side to a die, adding another worldview into this equation decreases the chances even more that you will “roll” the correct one, and therefore they decrease the chance that their worldview is correct. Unless of course Con does not believe atheism has a chance of being wrong, in which case they have failed provide any evidence to support such a claim.

Finally, Con incorrectly assumes every religion has an equal chance of being right (again, assuming it is only a matter of chance). A religion that some of the smartest people in history have accepted through rigorous logical, philosophical, and scientific testing has a much greater chance of being correct, or at least more correct, than a random person deciding without any critical thought to believe a pink unicorn living in a spaceship controls the earth.

3) “Big Bang.” Once again, Con doesn’t really make an argument here. Con criticizes people who laugh at the Big Bang theory, but then says, “it really doesn't matter if the theory is wrong.” So if it really doesn’t matter than it’s really not an argument.

Nevertheless, perhaps some theists laugh at the big bang, but many do not. Many theists see the big bang theory – that everything in the universe expanded almost instantaneously from an incomprehensibly finite and dense starting point triggered by an unknown stimulus – as evidence for creation. That out of nothing God created everything. One does not have to reject the big bang theory in order to believe in a God. Scientists so far cannot answer many of the questions associated with the big bang such as: what caused the “bang,” how all the matter that expanded came to exist in the first place, and whether our natural and physical laws existed then as they do now. Anyway, this is not a debate about the Big Bang Theory, so I will move on.

Con’s remaining questions seem to refer specifically to the Bible. In the interest of brevity I will simply respond that Con only needs to read it in order to find the answers to those questions.
I concede that we cannot prove God exists. However, I contend that we equally cannot prove He doesn't and that reaching either conclusion requires a degree of faith. I submit that Con has failed to coherently or convincingly make a case in favor of the former, and I look forward to their response in Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1


1) You can't state that atheism is a worldview that has the same chance of being right as the other religions. If we're counting worldviews, than we must as well should include ALL the types of worldviews, which many of them do not have a God.

2) I was Jewish before I became an atheist (I lived in Israel and moved to the states recently) that's almost all of my religious knowledge, and I know that Christians are less like that, but being a religious person, at least a Jewish one, means not eating pork and non kosher stuff, not eating and drinking on certain days of the year, the even more religious go the synagogue a few times a day, their kids study lots of hours (bible) and they can't wear what they want, etc. I see that as life-wasting.
And I know that even Christians, or at least a lot of them, go to church on Sundays, pray (sometimes instead of doing something that will actually help you) all that, if God doesn't exist are just wasted time. The more you get religious, the more you waste your time (=if God doesn't exist)

3) Well, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure the bible or the new testament ever said that God is above space and time, that's an explanation people gave according to what they knew. The thing is religious people can explain everything! If there was a man who really believed in Zeus he would probably say the Mt. Olympus thing is just metaphoric or that the naked human eye can't see it, only the Gods can. It's not really an argument, saying that because we know there's no God House in Mt. Olympus it's not fair to compare God and Zeus. There were many many Gods who were believed over the history, not all of them were claimed to live on Mount Olympus, and not all of them can be disproved like that. We know that they are wrong because they don't make sense, and that it seems perfectly reasonable for people in that time to make them up, just like today. The Catholic Church is so rich... you can't even imagine. Throughout the history the religious leaders were always the most powerful and the richest people around, I could see why someone would make a God up.

4) You said something about making the world a better place because of faith. Yes, many people do good things inspired by their faith, but let's face it - if they're good people, they would do good things regardless to their beliefs. And I'm not saying ALL of the religious peoples' lives are wasted, just the things like praying, going to church etc, spending time pleasing their God that doesn't exist. And I was not trying to disprove God by the matter of chance. I was trying to show that though some people think you better believe in God because you have nothing to lose are wrong.
Maybe the math is really not that precise, but if you think about it leaving your beliefs aside for a minute, I think you'll see it makes a lot of sense.

5) Your last paragraph just made me laugh. As I grew up in Israel, I studied the Bible from 2nd grade. I can assure you that I have read numerous parts of it, and I would very much like you to answer those questions, because a man with logic cannot answer them. The whole point of bringing up the big bang theory is to make the creationist theory just as illogical and even more illogical, from my point of view, so you didn't answer the real argument.

6) Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist, just like you can't prove there are invisible unicorns on the planet Mars.

7) I don't see how the big bang theory is proof of creationism. The whole making the universe thing is not the big issue, but the fact that there was NOTHING except GOD in the world, until he created the universe, and there are still a lot of differences. In the Bible, the universe was created for men, it was created FIRST of all stars and etc. You can't take one little bit of evidence that is somewhat identical to your theory and say that because there is proof that something can create from nothing, in simple words, God Exists, and the universe was created just like the bible says.

a new argument:

I hear all the time that my existence is proof of God, because a creature so complicated must be the result of an intelligence design. According to that, GOD's existence is proof of another force, even bigger than God, that created him, which brings us to an endless loop that contradicts a lot of the religious belief.

Now personally to Pro -
*I would like you to put on an argument of your own
*I am a native Hebrew speaker, and I had a little trouble understanding some of what you said, due to the fact I'm living in the US not a very long time. It would be very helpful if you would write your comments in simpler words. Thanks!
*It would be great if you could write exactly what's your religious belief (catholic? Orthodox? etc. and more)

Your turn :)


Thanks for your response.

To answer your last three questions:

1) I did not know you were a native Hebrew speaker – your English is very good! I will try to use simpler words.

2) I am a Protestant Christian

Now I will respond to your points in order:

1) I did not say all worldviews have the same chance of being right – you did. I was quoting you. You said that any one religion only has a .0083% chance of being right, but this also hurts your position. If you include the atheism “religion”/worldview in this equation, that means you only have a .0083% chance of being right too. This point only helps you if you don’t count atheism in your equation, but you give no reason why it shouldn't count. If we include ALL worldviews, like you suggest, your chances are even worse.

2) "The more you get religious, the more you waste your time." This is a wrong statement. Yes, religious people don’t eat certain foods or wear certain clothes, but if this gives them a deeper joy or sense of purpose then that is not a waste! Is a Christian going to church for an hour wasting time more than a person sitting on the couch watching TV for an hour? What if someone did drugs for an hour instead? Non-religious people can waste time just as much as religious ones, so your argument here is very weak. Even if God is not real, religious people “wasting time” by improving their self-discipline or feeding poor people is still very helpful.

3) "The bible (n)ever said that God is above space and time." I think you meant to say “never” instead of “ever.” Actually, the Bible DOES say that. Jesus says in John, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (outside space), and in Psalms we read “for you, a thousand years are as a passing day, as brief as a few night hours” (outside time). These are just two of many, many examples. God is always described in the Bible as “eternal” meaning he is outside time.

You are right that people can make up whatever they want, but that doesn’t make every theory equal. Just like in science or history, when a theory becomes unlikely people throw it out. Most other religions over the years have been thrown out – no one really believes in Zeus or Odin anymore. But Judaism and Christianity are still widely accepted 1000’s of years later. Why were these religions not thrown out with all the others if they were just as silly?

4) "Good people would do good things regardless of their beliefs." To this I ask you some questions – What defines good? Who decides what is good and what is bad? What makes your standard of good better than someone else’s? My answer is God, but I have never met an atheist who can solidly answer these questions. Unless you can give a better answer, this argument is weak.

5) A man with logic cannot answer Biblical questions. I am sorry that you could not find answers to your questions after reading parts of the Bible, because I assure you they are in there. Hundreds of books have been written by very logical people about each of your questions, so I don’t have room to talk about each one. As a starting point, you can type each one into this website and find short biblical answers:

I agree with your point about logic, because the Bible tells us human logic is too weak to understand God: “For the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God...The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are futile.” (1 Cor 3:19-20). And again, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts.” (1 Cor 1:19). It only makes sense that it is impossible to use limited human logic to fully understand an all-powerful, all knowing god. By definition, someone with limited wisdom cannot fully understand someone with unlimited wisdom.

6) Your point #6 is an unrealistic comparison. Zero people believe there are invisible unicorns on Mars. Billions of people believe in the Biblical God. Not all faiths are equally reasonable and you cannot dismiss them like they are.

7) I did not say the big bang is proof of creationism, I said it can be seen as possible evidence. It is untrue that most theists reject the concept of the big bang. The big bang really doesn’t prove anything except that the universe somehow exploded into existence from a single starting point, which theists also basically believe.

You are wrong that the universe was created for men in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches that. I encourage you to do more research for your arguments.

Your final argument that God’s existence would be proof of another bigger force that created God is nonsense. You are applying human understanding and natural laws to a God who, if he existed, would have unlimited power and be outside of the natural laws. He wouldn’t need anyone to create him because he is eternal, he never had a beginning and never has an end. This is impossible for us to understand because we are limited by a human understanding of time, which God is outside of. This is very easy for a religious person to accept and it is what the Bible teaches.

My argument is this: I admit I cannot 100% prove god exists, that is why religion is called "faith." But atheists also cannot 100% prove he does not. Therefore, atheism is also "faith" to a degree. Since there is no solid proof either way, we must decide which "faith" makes more sense. I submit that morality, life's formation, life's meaning, and death are explained much better by theism than atheism, which is why I am a theist. I look forward to Con's reply.

Debate Round No. 2


1) This argument is based on things I've heard from other religious people, but I understand now that you do not have those certain opinions that I based my agreement on. Moving on.

2) From my experience, very religious people do SUFFER because of these things, and if not them, their kids. If you want, I can give you numerous of personal experiences. I am not saying ALL things atheists and non-religious people do are not wasteful, but from my point of view going to church and learning things that are not true are a bit of a waste. I think dedicating your life to your God IS wasting your life. You are probably not one of those people, but I know many religious people who have 10 kids, spend like 3 hours a day in a holy building praying, their kids learn 5 hours a day bible, and more. These are not very happy people. They believe that if they will suffer more in this life they will live better in the afterlife. According to that, if there is no God, the life you have now and you spend it on God, is wasted. And I already said - the good things religious people do were probably done anyway even if they weren't religious.

-I want to add that there are many problems in the world caused by religion. For example, the Israeli- Philistine problem. The problem is that what the world the other side sees is the very religious people who hate. I know the Protestants are not really like that, but the more hardcore religious groups don't always teach the kids good values, and instead of peace, love and respect teach them racism and hate. You NEVER see an atheist group behave like that, and that's because the Bible and maybe the holy testament teaches those things. examples:
-In the Bible, God commands Saul to battle against the 'Amalekites', because about 250 years before that they robbed them in the desert on their way to Canaan. Yes, God commands the first king to kill the sons of the sons of the sons of the people who did that thing, and not only that, he commands him to kill ALL men, ALL women, ALL children, ALL sheep and cows... everyone. It seems like the work of a man who lived there and hated those Amalekites, and not like a God, who is supposed to love and care about all people.
-Another story is of David, who wants to marry Saul's daughter, Michal, and Saul wanted in exchange 100 foreskins of 'Plishtim', and David, to please him even more, gave him 200. I think it's reasonable to say that to get those body parts he killed the people first. David killed 200 people for his wife, and God is not angry, he doesn't even care.
These are not very good values. Maybe great literature, but not a moral book.

- Jesus was a Jew, so actually what he said about God is his explanation to those things he read in the Bible probably.
I want to remind you that many religions were believed for hundreds and thousands of years, and there are many religions (Judaism,Buddhism and more) that have been around as long as Christianity. it doesn't make them true.
Religions disappear over the years, it's not a matter of days. a 1000 years ago, there were almost no atheists, and now? In Japan atheists are the major population. That's exactly what happened to the roman religion, for example. Christianity started to spread and over the years the old religion disappeared.

-What defines good? Morals. Killing is bad. Helping the weak is good. Even animals know those basics, and they don't believe in God. And there are many tribes and cultures who don't believe in God and they still have morals and good and bad.

-The fact that the bible is unclear and illogical only makes it more illogical. If to God it's very important for everyone to understand him in the future (God is out of time, so he's supposed to know how it works here now) why was he so unclear??
Back then, people were a lot less smart, and they accepted everything. Referring to the last paragraph, back then, even in the times of the bible, people did horrible things and still believed in God. There are many horrible people who believe in God. And you can explain everything, really. But if I need other people to explain what is supposed to be a book that I should believe in, isn't there something wrong here?

-It's the easiest thing to say that we cannot understand God's logic, because we have a weak logic. GREAT, so we should just believe anyone who says that? I cannot even argue against that (doesn't mean it's true) because the foundations of this sentence, to my opinion, are really really wrong. Returning to the invisible unicorns, I can tell you all sorts of weird impossible stories about them and when you'll have questions I'll just say: 'Hey, I know, but... your logic is limited, so all your questions have answers, but you cannot understand them, so the stories are true.' ?!?

-OK, God created earth before the other stars and planets, and he created the other planets for earth,
'And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years'
so in fact the plants and stars were created to divide day from night, and to be signs for seasons, days and years, for whom?
plants and water don't need signs and time symbols.
I think that's evidence that according to the bible the universe was created for men.

-again, you are basing your argument on something that I deeply disagree on. And if our logic is limited and God's logic isn't, why is the world not in our logic, why is the bible not like that, so we could understand? Wouldn't it be better for God to create a world that runs based on our logic ? and isn't that weird that EVERYTHING in nature is perfectly logical to men, but only GOD and his actions aren't ?

-You can't prove something DOESN'T exist. try. you can't. That's why atheism is not really a faith. I KNOW that God doesn't exist, just as I know that gravity exists. Yes, maybe, it doesn't, but... all the evidence points in that direction. The fact that you can't see solid proof in atheism doesn't mean I don't. I see solid proof in atheism, I really do.

morality, life's formation, life's meaning, and death are not explained BETTER by God, but they are explained EASIER. It's easier to believe that your sole is going to live forever, and that someone is taking care of you. That's something some atheists are struggling with, because it's hard to accept that we get to live once, and there's nothing after. The faith in which after this life there's heaven (and hell) forever, I don't see it as BETTER, but EASIER to accept.


* Thank you ! This entry was much more understandable to me.
*Thanks for this debate, I am learning a lot. In my past, I only debated Jewish religious people, so I am lacking a bit of education, and that's why my arguments are probably not as good as the ones I make in Hebrew according to the Jewish religion.

Waiting for your response.


Thank you Con for your quick response. I admire your courage for debating in your second language, I know that is not easy.

It seems that we both agree the .0083% argument is silly, so I will leave it alone.

I understand Con's point that some religious people are unhappy, and I agree. But Con must understand that this argument applies to EVERY group of people, including atheists. You say that you can give numerous personal examples of unhappy religious people. For every story you tell, I can also tell a story of an unhappy and wasteful non-religious person. This makes Con's argument useless then as religion cannot logically be the direct cause of life wasting and unhappiness.

Con mentions people who waste time going to church and studying about a God who doesn’t exist. I could also mention non-believers who spend hours reading about fantasy cartoons or who play lots of video games. This is equally wasting time on something that doesn’t exist. The deeper point Con is missing is that people pursue what gives them purpose and joy. If you find joy in your life – whether through religion or video games – then that is not wasting your life. Who are you to judge if a religious person is truly happy or not? This whole argument is useless, because you cannot prove religion is a waste of time unless you can 100% prove God does not exist, which is impossible.

When discussing problems in the world, Con says: “you NEVER see an atheist group behave like that.” This is totally false. To name just a few, there’s Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and so on.... I did not include Hitler because it’s unclear if he was a true atheist, but many of the highest ranking Nazi leaders such as Martin Bormann were confirmed atheists. These leaders killed millions and millions of people. I agree that religion has caused many problems in the world... but so has science, technology, money, fame, and so on. Anything that is good can also be used for bad. Just because people sometimes use good things for bad reasons does not make the thing itself bad. Religion has also done a LOT of good for the world.

Defining good as “morals” is not an answer. Every culture on earth has a different set of morals – how do we know which one is right? Why should we trust that your moral code is better than someone else’s? Con says killing is bad – is all killing bad? If not, when can you kill and why? Who decides when it’s ok? Con says helping the weak is good – is it always? What if helping the weak puts others in danger, or takes important resources away from the healthy? What Con suggests is that morals are behaviors that simply "make sense." This is a scary thought, because what makes sense to terrorists is very different than what makes sense to me. I challenge Con to demonstrate how it is possible to define morals objectively without a higher power who gives the moral law.

Con also claims that animals know killing is bad and helping the weak is good. This is ridiculous. You only need to watch a nature video so see that animals kill each other and abandon their weak if they need to. Nature is survival of the fittest.

To answer Con’s questions about logically understanding God, I can only offer what Christians believe. God wants to have a relationship with us - he wants us to seek Him, study Him, grow to learn about Him, trust Him, and ask Him for wisdom. If He simply put all the answers in our heads like a computer, we wouldn’t need to seek Him anymore. A God who can be fully understood by limited human logic would not be a God worth worshipping. This is not really an argument, I’m just explaining what Christians believe. However, scientists use this same reasoning all the time - they admit they don't fully understand quantum physics or the big bang, but they still accept them as real. So, Christians applying this logic toward God is really not that unusual.

The Bible clearly states that God made Earth for His own glory, not man’s. Colossians 1:16 says, “All things were created by Him, and for Him.” The huge majority of Biblical scholars agree that God created the universe to bring Himself glory.

Con believes “you can’t prove something DOESN’T exist.” You actually can. If I claimed there were no spoons in my kitchen, you could look through my kitchen and confirm this as true. Because it is impossible for atheists to conduct a similar experiment on God, their position involves a degree of faith. Con says they KNOW God doesn’t exist and that they see solid proof in atheism, but that statement is simply an opinion. I could equally respond that I KNOW God exists and that I see solid proof of theism, but that would get us nowhere. I challenge Con to present solid proof (rather than simple probability) to back up their opinion.

Finally, Con says it is EASIER but not BETTER to explain questions about life and morality with God. However, Con did not give an explanation for why the atheist viewpoint is better. Instead, they admit “that’s something some atheists are struggling with.” Con cannot argue this point without giving an alternate explanation. I challenge Con to state how atheism gives a better explanation for these questions.

Looking forward to your answers in Round 4.

Debate Round No. 3


1) First, for the protocol, the argument is not silly, it's just based on religious thinking which you don't have. If I was debating a rabbi, this would be a good argument. But I agree, we'll leave it alone.

2) You're missing a big point. Many religious people think that SUFFERING is GOOD because it will get them to heaven, and if there is no heaven, then their suffering is an action not worth doing (suffering = living in a crowded place, having lots of kids, things that make your life harder and are commanded by the holy books).
I could accept your last paragraph, but you contradicted it with the last sentence : because you cannot prove religion is a waste of time unless you can 100% prove God does not exist. You actually say that if there is no god, religion IS a waste of time. I agree that people should do what makes them happy (as long as they don't hurt anyone) and I do not have a problem with those people, but read the first part of the paragraph, that's what I'm talking about, which, I agree, is not right about anyone.
I opened this debate to learn more, and to have more experience in debating (not just religious), and this is just my opinion. And talking about judging - religion itself judges everyone!! according to many religions, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are many things that are called sins, that if you do you are sent to hell:
and a lot of them are things that make people happy, but they are not according to Christianity, so the person must be punished. How is that fair??
if you tempt a persons to follow a false religion you are sinning. If you believe in, Hinduism, for example, and make your brother join in, because you truly believe this is the right religion, according to Christianity you are a sinner and you should go to hell. Is that a fair?
If a woman gets raped and gets pregnant and does an abortion she is a sinner and she should go to hell. WHY? I don't see that as nothing but judging other people. And let's say she just didn't use protection, but she doesn't have enough money to raise another child and she gets an abortion, who is even GOD to judge her?
If someone is a homosexual, he should go to hell. How is that not judging, if the two persons love each other and do things that are accepted by them both?
If two people love each other, but they don't want to marry each other, for every reason there is and there are plenty, and they have a sexual romantic relationship, they are sinners. This is also judging another person's way of life, which doesn't hurt anybody.
39- It basically says that you can be judged for your thoughts!!
These are all 'sins', that you can be judged upon. I'm hoping to see your way of looking at it ..

3) All those people were atheists, but the bad things they did have nothing to do with their non believing. I agree I phrased the sentence a bit open, but this is not what I have meant. I didn't mean that atheist people cannot do bad things, I said that there are many things in religion that are bad. You don't see someone say: I don't believe in God, therefore you should die, but you do see religious groups and people say that, for example kkk, american vision an anti gay group and more. THAT'S MY POINT. and referring to the last paragraph, these aspects of religion, who are its roots (written in bible and testament) are the ones I dislike. and you didn't respond to my examples from the bible (saul and david)

4) How can you say which one is right? Let me start with this:
First, saying animals only act for survival is wrong. The video you put in is very nice, but it doesn't prove your point. I am not a vegetarian, but humans kill animals for food too. Why is this right and the animals' wrong? Animals kill for food, they don't kill for fun, that's the point. They know it's not OK killing a bird just because they want to. They don't want to. That's why you hear all the time about a dog adopting a pair of cats, and about a tiger who befriended a deer and more. They have morals inside of them. Killing other animals for food, it's just the food chain, it's 'cruel', but it's survival. That's how the world works.
And they abandon their weak so they could survive, but it doesn't mean they enjoy it.. In the titanic, the only lifeboats couldn't help the drowning people or they would all die - is it immoral? I don't think so.
You said that 'is all killing bad', and I agree, but the funny thing is.. how do YOU know the answer? for example:
a man who is attacked in the street by a man with a gun, and he manages to kill him before HE gets to kill him, is he a criminal? The bible doesn't tell you. You can ask yourself, you can ask the priest, or a 'holy man'. You can't ask God. The basic values we all know, they were known before religion. We judge through our inside morals, basing them on the basic international morals (which most are written in the bible), in which killing a person is bad, but we know that if a man tries to kill you and you kill him to survive, this was the right thing for you to do. And maybe the bible does say in this particular case, but I hope you see my point.

4) I don't see how can we go further from here. You think that, I think otherwise. OK

5) This is not what I've meant, my writing was unclear. I meant in the world, not in a certain place. Like you can't prove there are no fish-apes in the world, you can't prove God doesn't exist. And I agree it's an opinion, but again, it's not the same as saying you know god exists. Why do you belive in the christian god? why don't you believe in any other religion? Don't you think it's amazing that you were born, from all religions, to the right one? Why can you say clearly you know that Shiva one of the hindu gods doesn't exist but I can't say I know yours doesn't? Shiva was and is still believed by many people. It doesn't make it real.

6) Well, each one has his own theory, sometimes you don't have to know anything, and it's better to say that you don't know than make something up. Let's say that all major science theories are true (evolution, big bang etc). a 1000 years ago people didn't know about those theories, so they couldn't possibly have the 'right' explanation. Is that a good reasons to make something up just to have a viewpoint ? I can say that I don't have a world viewpoint yet, referring to a viewpoint about how the world was created etc. Maybe in 2000 years we will find out solid proof of a theory we cannot even think about today. You see my point? Let's say we lived in the ancient times in Egypt, where the only explanation to the world is the egyptian mythology. I could hear about it and reject it, and say: I think this is incorrect. and you could ask me: but do you have a better explanation? and I would say: I don't have an explanation. It's the most reasonable thing to do. Believing in a religion that tells you answers is easier than saying ; I don't know, and that's why the word BETTER in your paragraph should be replaced with EASIER. And you said earlier that our logic is limited, but yet death, life, meaning etc according to religion is logical to you, and for you it is the best explanation. to me it seems like a good way of blocking yourself from the truth, and just picking when to use it, and when to reject it.

'...The huge majority of Biblical scholars agree that God created the universe to bring Himself glory.'
First, it's from the holy testament. The Bible is believed to be the 'true word of God' and the testament is about people's explanation of things. You did not give an explanation on WHY all things were created 'for him' and that still doesn't contradicts what I said.. he can create earth for men, and create men for himself. Your point is very weak unless you explain yourself. It's not enough to quote.

Looking forward to your response. Please respond to everything. :)


I will respond to your points in order:

1) Left alone

2) This is not an argument that disproves God. You assume all religious people suffer to get into heaven. This is not a an accurate understanding of Christianity. Christians believe it is impossible to earn your way into heaven, and for the most part we don’t have to follow any strict diet or clothing rules. Christians believe Salvation is gained through faith and belief. As such, we do not need to make ourselves suffer in order to earn God’s favor. If other religions believe they must suffer, that is fine, but this is not the belief of Christianity.

You bring up the question of fairness. Each one of your questions (rape/abortion, homosexuality, etc...) could be the topic of an entire new debate, so there is not room to address them here. However, I will say this. First, you are using your own subjective view of what you think is a correct moral code to judge these beliefs as unfair. Again I challenge you to answer the question: what makes your interpretation of morals more correct than another person’s? What gives you the authority to declare something as unfair? Second, this argument is useless for proving God’s existence. Just because we don’t like God’s rules does not mean he doesn’t exist. I think my boss is very unfair and cruel, but that does not make him an imaginary person just because I don’t like him. The topics of God’s fairness and God’s existence are two separate, non-related issues.

3) It doesn’t matter why bad people do bad things. It is equally bad for a Christian to kill for religious reasons as it is for Stalin to murder for non-religious reasons. Atheists do not get an excuse for doing bad things as long as they didn’t do it because of belief in God, which is what you seem to suggest – “but the bad things they did have nothing to do with their non-believing.” Yes, people do bad things in the name of religion, but they also do many good things. Similarly, atheists do bad things for various reasons, and they also do many good things. People’s motives have no reflection on whether God exists or not, it just shows what they are motivated by.

4) Morality. First, my video (and all of nature) DOES prove my point. Animals kill each other, which violates your claim that animals know instinctively that it is wrong to kill. You have absolutely no proof that animals have a concept of morality. You excuse animals from breaking their own moral code because they have to survive. So you are basically saying animals must break their “moral code” for their entire lives, because animals are always in a state of pure survival (as long as they are in the wild). So if an animal must live contrary to its moral code its entire life, how can it be considered a true code? There is no proof whatsoever that wild animals are subject to a concept of morality.

You asked me how I know the answer to moral questions. I already gave my answer in Round 2 – God. If someone believes in God, it is logical to assume that god has a higher power and authority over humanity which allows him to define right from wrong. This is similar to a higher powered government having the right to define laws for its citizens. If you take away that higher authority however, like atheism cuts God out of the moral equation, then the ability to define right and wrong is given to each individual to decide for themselves. To go back to the government example, this is called a “State of Anarchy.” Without an objective judge with the power to define right and wrong for humanity, you are left with moral anarchy. I challenge you to prove otherwise. I have given you my answer, but you are avoiding giving yours. Once again I ask you to answer – by what or who’s authority are you declaring right from wrong, and how do you know that authority is true?

You say most international morals are written in the Bible. This is totally wrong. Billions of people on earth do not believe in the Bible, so you can’t say international morals are based on it. Also, there are no international morals. Every culture has a different code by which they live.

You claim we all instinctively know morals before religion. This is wrong too. An Afghan Pashtun tribesman “instinctively” knows different morals than a person from Japan. Some morals may be the same, but many are also very different. You have no proof for showing that morals are instinctual or assumed across cultures.

5) You make wrong assumptions about why I am a Christian. I was not “born” into Christianity. I converted when I was a teenager after a personal journey of logically examining different belief systems. Christianity is what I decided was most logical. We are not all just blind and ignorant conformists.

6) I will stop asking how you think atheism gives a better explanation of life, death, and morals, because it appears you do not have one. You say, “I don't have an explanation. It's the most reasonable thing to do” but you never explain why it’s reasonable. Claiming “Even though I have no answer, your viewpoint is still wrong” does nothing to prove your point.

Finally, you say it’s not enough to quote the Bible in order to prove what it says. Actually, it is. Quoting books is the best way to find out what they are trying to say. I will leave it at that.

I once again thank you for a fun and good debate. Looking forward to the final round.

Debate Round No. 4


1) I would very much like to know what were you before you were Christian. (Non believer Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc)
2) This debate is and was very good and I think it contributed both of us. If you want, I would very much like to continue this debate by opening another one, which would be the continuation of this one.

2) If 'salvation is gained through faith and believe' then it's enough just to believe in God? I think that it's more reasonable, if God exists, that he will demand people to just be good people, if your faith in him and not your actions are what matters to him he is a very narcissistic. You talked about moral anarchy - this is the moral anarchy!! what happened to all the morals you said that are thanks to God ?

If you don't like God's rules, and think that they are unfair and injustice, how can you believe in 'his morals', isn't it wrong that, according to your belief, God gave you a mind and a conscious, but your mind and conscious tell you that his rules are unfair and injustice? To me it doesn't make sense. Believing blindly in someone/something is the perfect way for anarchy and crime.
You boss argument is irrelevant, because religion suggests that God is somewhat perfect, and is loving and caring and he is all good. You can't compare a God that you believe in him to a man that you know that exists.

3) I didn't understand what you were trying to say, but it seems to me that we both have different opinions regarding this, and I don't think there is much to continue on this topic.

4) People who have to live in very hard conditions, compared to nature, for example war, poverty etc people do things that we can't imagine even doing (for example fighting and killing each other to get more food, leaving the weak behind to survive etc). It doesn't mean that they don't have morals. In our society we don't have to live for survival, but if we were to live in such hard conditions, we would have to do harsh things to survive. You can see that pets such as dogs and cats, don't kill each other for fun, and you know what, even if we leave the animal thing behind - there are many cultures who believe in, numerous gods, or spirits in south America and Africa, that have morals just as we do. They ask for mercy for every animal they kill for food, they help each other, etc. Why do you think that cultures who don't believe in the Christian God don't have morals? and morals change over the years. In the bible times, marrying two or more women was absolutely acceptable, even more - marrying a half brother was also acceptable. They killed many many people, and believed in God. These 'morals' disappeared over the years, because these are bad habits, not real morals.

I don't need an authority to define between good and bad. you are suggesting atheists don't have morals, even more - you are suggesting EVERYONE except Christians don't have the 'true' moral code. This is absurd. The fact is that most people in the world have morals, so your question is irrelevant. Evolution wise, our morals are to make sure we were to survive, and for we to survive better, and live in a better society. Our morals changed over the years, through the years people believed in God, so your argument is actually very weak. If God were to exist, and were to have the 'true moral code' then we would all live according to the bible morals, which we don't.

I'm saying the international morals, who DEVELOPED THROUGH THE YEARS, are written in the bible, they are not based in the bible! Those basic morals were known to men before Abraham.

Again, morals change over the years, and have very much to do with intelligence. For example, a Muslim extremist who bombs people and thinks that will get him to heaven, is surely not an intelligent man, but there are people who use that to brainwash him and make him think that. If he were to live in another country, and could think about what he learned, he would see that killing is not the solution.

5) What were you before you were Christian? What made you believe in Christianity? Have you learned about atheism as well?

6) Each persons can choose his own explanation. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand. and your quotes from what I wrote are not in context.

7) The fact is that it still doesn't make sense. You have to at least explain why this is right (the quote)

If you would like to continue this debate, I will call it 'Does God Exist?2', and I would like you to begin it. Because I didn't really know exactly what you believe in, I think it will be better for you to present arguments on the question of the title.
If you don't want to continue this debate, I would like to thank you. You are a very good debater. This is my first debate (ever), and I think I learned a lot. I would also like to to respond to what you said could be its own argument. I think it's one of the key arguments in this debate. I want you to write if there are some things in Christianity that you DON'T agree with. This would be very helpful.


I will keep my conclusion very short.

1) before i was a christian i was a non believer. Not really an atheist, i just didnt care about religion one way or another.

2) you misunderstand my point about faith. Christians are not free to act however they want. It is hardly moral anarchy. We just believe it is impossible to earn our way to heaven by actions. That is why we require saving. We do act in accordance with a moral code because it is a form of worship. This is a complex theological concept, but basically we are saved only by true faith. However, faith without actions is not true faith. If your heart is truly changed, your actions will change too. This is not a debate specifically about christianity though, so this is all beside the point.

You also misunderstand the point about "liking" god. The point is that liking god is not a proof of his existence. Just because you dont like something doesnt make it less real. This argument cannot prove your position at all.

3) the point of this argument is that people doing bad things in the name of religion does not prove god is fake. It just proves people can abuse things. Anything that is good can also be used for bad, so this point proves nothing.

4) you say morals change over the years. That proves my point exactly. That is not objective morality, it is simply popular consensus as to what is right. That is why changing morality is so scary, because it only depends on what people agree on at the time. At one point people agreed that slavery was ok and that beating women was acceptable. Morality cannot simply be left to what people agree on. There must be an objective foundation.

You say we evolved to value things that help us survive. If that was the case we would have no need to help the week or keep handicapped children. We would not tell the truth if it put us at a disadvantage. Doing what you need to survive is not morality.

Your comments about muslim extremists are incorrect. Actually, a lot of them are very intelligent. In fact, some of the founders of extremism, like Sayeed Qatub, went to universities in America and England. Once again, your points are just opinions, not actual facts backed by research.

I will be happy to continue this debate with you. I will invite you to one some time. For now, i submit con has failed to demonstrate any real proof god doesnt exist. Con offers a lot of opinions and critiques of christianity specifically, but they do not show proof for god's non existence in general nor do they provide any explanation for how atheism offers realistic answers to life's deepest questions. Therefore, i believe con has failed to properly establish their position and i ask the vote goes for pro.

I admire your courage for debating in your second language, thanks for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Atheist73 2 years ago
thank you for your comments. This debate has a 2nd and 3rd part, which I think are better, and if you'd like you can read them, I hope you do :) (Does God Exist? Part 2/3)
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
As for God being beyond our understanding, Con had this to say: "A God who can be fully understood by limited human logic would not be a God worth worshipping. This is not really an argument, I"m just explaining what Christians believe. However, scientists use this same reasoning all the time - they admit they don't fully understand quantum physics or the big bang, but they still accept them as real. So, Christians applying this logic toward God is really not that unusual."

Pro's somewhat relevant response was: "Like you can't prove there are no fish-apes in the world, you can't prove God doesn't exist. And I agree it's an opinion, but again, it's not the same as saying you know god exists."

I've highlighted all the relevant material in this debate -- the rest doesn't touch the resolution. Based on the relevant material, I don't think either side came close to fulfilling their BoP. Pro asked a lot of questions, rarely stringing together any to make an argument. Con often dodged the question, and never got into concrete material as to why God existed, overall. I don't think either side deserves points for arguments.

S&G to Con because Pro was often difficult to understand. Sources were relatively even; not a whole lot given from either side.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
There is a lot in this debate, and a lot of it is irrelevant and difficult to read. I think that because the answer to the resolution is either yes or no, that the BoP should be shared. The debate is over whether God exists, not what Christians do, not whether it is a waste of time to worship him, not whether something is right wrong etc. Pro's initial example of Zeus was refuted by Con, in saying that people could simply visit Mt. Olympus. I understand the sentiment of your example, but your example was incorrect.

The Big Bang remains as possible evidence, either way. I don't think either side used this point to prove their his/her side.

Con later hinted that many of the smartest people in history have accepted God through rigorous testing, yet failed to provide how the conclusions were specifically met, so it's just an appeal to popularity.

Con also dodged Pro's questions, saying that the answers could be found elsewhere. The questions challenged the existence of God, and should have been answered.

Con also claimed that, "morality, life's formation, life's meaning, and death are explained much better by theism than atheism", and explained them a fair bit. However, a lot of the explanations begged the question, as they assumed God existed, rather than proved God.

This argument from Pro was pretty solid and on point: "I hear all the time that my existence is proof of God, because a creature so complicated must be the result of an intelligence design. According to that, GOD's existence is proof of another force, even bigger than God, that created him, which brings us to an endless loop that contradicts a lot of the religious belief."
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
I'm going to try to post my response, but my work has been crazy this week and I might not have time. If I run out of time, please don't count it as a complete forfeit, I will post my conclusions in the last round.
Posted by bman77 2 years ago
I've honestly never seen an atheist this poorly. I feel like I have lost 50 IQ
Posted by Dwint 2 years ago
There is a fifty-fifty chance a god exists. Every single god that was worshiped at any time in history has equal chances of existing. The Christian God has a very small chance to exist, that is not even near 50%. An atheist will always have a 50% chance to be right, but the existence of the Christian God is just as likely as the existence of Zeus, Horus or The Spaghetti Monster.
Posted by demonlord343 2 years ago
There is constantly a fifty-fifty chance of God's existence. Your second point is based off of mostly Christian theology.

God has a fifty-fifty chance of existing, because there is no evidence against or for him. At least, no literal and trustworthy evidence exists of God. Thus, his existence remains at fifty-fifty. A claim such as that his existence is unlikely, you forget that it would be God. He would not be bound by our laws of nature and/or physics.
An argument that makes him even more unlikely is you still thinking by your own bounds of imagination. You are limiting his existence when God would be simply unlimited. That is like limiting the amount of numbers you can count to. This is impossible, since numbers can go on infinitely forever. Just like God. He is infinite, and the possibility of his existence will always remain constant.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments