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

ENOUGH with the god exists debate!

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: 5/18/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 91438
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




Just look at the amount of God exists debate this site has had. Come on give it up people! When you die you would know the answer, until stop conjecturing on baseless data. As Sherlock Holmes said "Data, data! I can't make bricks without clay!"


I disagree, the existence of God is one of the great debates of the ages. Even the ancient Greek philosophers debated the existence of God and put forward arguments for God's existence. Moreover, the issue has personal relevance to each of us and the alleged existence of God is the basis for many of the most controversial political proposals of today, like banning abortion and gay marriage.

If anything, we're not debating the existence of God enough.
Debate Round No. 1


Exactly, this has been debated from the Greek era and till now, we have failed to reach a conclusion. What makes you think we will reach one? In the past few centuries, we haven't acquired substantial new evidence to discredit or prove God's existence. The amount of time wasted debating on a mere conjecture could have been used to pursue other productive activities, especially since its hard to convince anyone of changing their opinion because of lack of proof, and it is just an opinion, nothing more. Debating on existence of God is just as useful as debating the existence of Transformers. I could easily say they live in an unexplored part of the universe, and there will be no way to prove otherwise.


What you are missing is that the fact that there is no proof of God's existence or non-existence *does* settle the debate.

We have an obligation to believe nothing without adequate evidence. To quote the mathematician and philosopher William K. Clifford: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence." The reason for this doctrine is evident, namely that our beliefs have an influence on our actions.

As Clifford says in his famous essay "The Ethics of Belief":

"He who truly believes that which prompts him to an action has looked upon the action to lust after it, he has committed it already in his heart. If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever."


This principle, together with the fact, which you acknowledge, that there is no proof of God's existence, settles the debate over God's existence. It proves that no one should believe in God, because there is no evidence of God's existence - everyone must be either an atheist or an agnostic.

However, this is not the case. As things stand, the vast majority of the American population does believe in God. According to the Pew Research Center, atheists and agnostics combined make up only 7% of the American population.


Moreover, the claim that God exists is not merely a theoretical belief that many people hold, it has a direct effect on our personal lives and on American politics, as I said in my opening speech. Many Americans pray and go to church, which they wouldn't do if they didn't believe in God. That time could be better invested if they understood that the concept of God is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.

In politics, most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution in the form scientists hold it, which has a direct effect on science education, and for the most part the reason they are skeptical of evolution is their religious beliefs. In addition, Christians advocate political policies which ban abortion and gay marriage, which negatively affect millions of people living in America. If they understood that Christianity was just an arbitrary assertion, they would be less likely to advocate these policies.

So, to sum up my main points:

1. The fact that there is no evidence for God does settle the debate, because it shows that believing in God is irrational.
2. Widespread acceptance of the fact that believing in God is irrational would have a dramatic effect on our lives and public policy.
3. Therefore, it is critical that we continue to debate the existence of God.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


"1. The fact that there is no evidence for God does settle the debate, because it shows that believing in God is irrational."
Exactly! Shut all the debating already, there isn't more evidence!
"2. Widespread acceptance of the fact that believing in God is irrational would have a dramatic effect on our lives and public policy."
A good widespread effect, such as immense saving of time and no power for the monopolizing of religion.
If we continue to debate the existence of God, we waste valuable time to convince people that God is irrational. Moreover, firm believers aren't swayed by argument of logic when it comes to religion. That why the majority aren't atheists or agnostics.
This was a fun debate. To conclude, stop debating existence of God.


In my previous post, I argued that the existence of God is a settled issue, because the fact that there is no evidence for God (which my opponent concedes) shows that believing in God is irrational.

My opponent conceded this argument, but argued that it only shows that we should stop debating about God's existence, because the debate is settled. This does not address my point that debating the existence of God could help spread the message that the debate is settled.

Perhaps my opponent intended to address this concern when he said that not debating the existence of God could save us valuable time, and that firm believers aren't swayed by logic anyway. With regard to the second point, it simply is not true that Christians never become atheists on the basis of arguments. The internet is full of atheists who were once firm Christians, but considered the arguments and decided to give up their belief in God.

So, the debate comes down to my opponent's first point, that not debating the existence of God would save us valuable time. The question is whether the time it would save outweighs the political ramifications of theism, including the policies of banning abortion and gay marriage that people base on it (and which my opponent has not addressed).

It seems pretty clear that the latter outweighs the former. Banning abortion and gay marriage have substantial concrete effects on millions of people, whereas saving the time we spend debating the existence of God would only save the subset of people who are interested in the issue the hours they spend debating it (personally, I find debating the existence of God enjoyable, not a waste of time).

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by red_x 2 years ago
I am not sure you know how much evidence the scientific community has for evolution. We have quite a bit of evidence for it.
Posted by BenD 2 years ago
The argument that you should not believe anything you cannot prove is self destructing. Because you cannot prove there is not a God, you cannot prove that evolution etc is true. In fact, the trustworthiness of our senses is not absolutely provable. If you take the argument to it's logical conclusion, you must be a relativist, not believing that anything is absolutely true.

However, relativism is similarly self destructing. When you say "there is no truth," the next question is, do you really think that is true? Either way he is trapped into the reality that there must be truth.

Logically, each of you believes things that cannot be proved, and acts upon those beliefs.
Posted by red_x 2 years ago
I'm agnostic... not atheist. Their is a difference. Atheist is hardcore not believing. Agnostic is keeping an open mind but still believing what i believe.

And Damn dude keep an open mind and don't be a dick...
Posted by Debater12345678910 2 years ago
Quiet Atheist Don't start wars with others religion Christanity will overpower atheism
Posted by red_x 2 years ago
the the, "it is critical we continue debate about god". How about we don't and say we did?
Posted by red_x 2 years ago
We are in the comments you don't require a source. But it was wikipedia. which unlike popular belief is very reliable and not just anybody can make changes. But i am done fighting about this. I think what i think and that is that.
Posted by mall 2 years ago
Will have to be of the same mind with the pro's side. Continuing to debate a subject that is found to be inconclusive gets to be trite . It will remain inconclusive due to the subject that is being challenged to be proven logically , empirally and physically of existence is a fallacy. It's like trying to observe a supernatural force or a reading of the future through a microscope / telescope. Cannot test or experiment something supernaturally with the usual scientific method naturally . We can only grasp or conclude things in the realms of logic . Outside of logic is outside of our understandings and interpretations. Especially when it comes to this subject hence it remains controversial.
Posted by Ockham 2 years ago
Atheism is the claim that there is no God.

Your facts are wrong, and you didn't give a source. According to the Pew Research Center the number of atheists and agnostics in America combined was 7% in 2014.

Moreover, the fact that someone is an atheist or agnostic doesn't mean they have a rational epistemology. Lots of atheists and agnostics accept supernatural or pseudoscientific claims.
Posted by god_is_not-real 2 years ago
people that believe in god should all breed far far away from here. I mean come on! there is no proof of him at all, and christians are failures because they are all like "blacks should be punished and women don't deserve rights and abortions are fucked up"
nobody cares about your bible BS.
The world would be a better place if nobody believed in god
Posted by red_x 2 years ago
What do you think atheism is...

and the whole 25% thing, yeah that's a load of bunk. 17% of America is agnostic. 12% is atheist. 29% and still it doesn't matter.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this is quite clear cut, but I'll elaborate: Sources go to Con, as he was the only side that used any. Convincing arguments go to Con, as he was able to disprove Pro's case, and Pro has BoP in this debate. Spelling, grammar, and conduct were not breached to the point where it took away from the debate, so these points are tied. In conclusion, Con did his job: disprove Pro's case. My ballot goes to Con.