The Instigator
potatopotatopotato
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
fuzala
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

God is an atheist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
fuzala
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 619 times Debate No: 40688
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

potatopotatopotato

Pro

According to my understanding of Christianity they believe that nothing created or controls God. Also they believe that God is omniscient and would therefore know that no one created or controls him. Therefore he would not believe in a creating or controlling force. And religion is defined as the belief and worship of a supernatural controlling power. And since God doesn't believe in a controlling power he has no religion. And one without religion is an atheist that means God is an atheist.
fuzala

Con

It is widely accepted that an atheist is a person. God is God. A person is a person. God is not a person. God is God.
Debate Round No. 1
potatopotatopotato

Pro

Unless I'm mistaken, I thought God was everywhere and everything. If this is the case then God would be considered a person since a person falls in the category of everything.
fuzala

Con

There's a way to explain. "He not only created time and space, but He is transcendentally beyond them, such that He cannot be 'in' a place, He cannot be 'everywhere,'and He cannot be 'nowhere.'
http://www.onislam.net...



Debate Round No. 2
potatopotatopotato

Pro

Taking the article into consideration I must say that it is entirely contradictory. To create absolutely everything would be to create creation, which is impossible. To not be anywhere and to not be nowhere is impossible. To not be in a place and exist in that place is impossible. I'm sorry to say but to me the article seemed to imply more that God doesn't exist, than anything else. Though I suppose if God doesn't exist he couldn't be an atheist.

On a different note why does one have to be a person to be an atheist. Hypothetically is let's say that an intelligent alien from another planet came to earth and let's say that this alien believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Would this alien not be considered a Christian even though it is not a person. Since a person is defined as any human individual.
fuzala

Con

If we acknowledge that God is Transcendent and Immanent, then it is understandable. Nevertheless, we are not focusing on the article. I took a quote out of that article to explain what you said.

For the sake of argument, let us take the person definition out. An atheist is one who denies the existence of God. Does God acknowledge the existence of Himself? If so, then He does not fit the definition of an atheist even when taking the person factor out.
Debate Round No. 3
potatopotatopotato

Pro

But the definition of an atheist is not one who doesn't believe in God, that would imply that an atheist believes in religions that that don't include God (such as Hinduism). This however is not the case. The actual definition of an atheist is one that doesn't believe in religion. Also the definition of religion is the belief and worship of a supernatural controlling power. If nothing controls God that means that God doesn't believe in a controlling power and therefore does not believe in a religion. Thus making him an atheist.
fuzala

Con

I'll provide the definition of atheist: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


"...that would imply that an atheist believes in religions that that don't include God (such as Hinduism). This however is not the case. The actual definition of an atheist is one that doesn't believe in religion."

This is a mistake many people make. They think all atheists are irreligious. That is, in fact, not true. Buddhism does not necessarily include the worship of deities, but it is still a religion. Buddhists can be religious atheists.

Here is an About article that discusses atheism in relation to certain religions: http://atheism.about.com...


"If nothing controls God that means that God doesn't believe in a controlling power and therefore does not believe in a religion. Thus making him an atheist."

In reference to the part of your quote that I bolded, does God not believe in Himself?


Let us look at it another way.
There are some people who claim to be god. That doesn't mean they are atheist simply because they believe themselves to be god. In order to be atheist, you have "disbelieve in the existence of God or gods." Since these people claim to be god, they do not deny the existence and are therefore, not atheists.
Debate Round No. 4
potatopotatopotato

Pro

I suppose what it comes down to is what you consider as the definition of atheism. Using that definition would indicate that God is not an atheist. But if we look at other definitions like this one
http://www.britannica.com...
which defines atheism as the denial of metaphysical beliefs. Metaphysical being of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
http://i.word.com... (The mobile Merriam Webster site)
this definition would make God considered an atheist. As nothing would be beyond what is perceptible to God therefore making him incapable of believing in the metaphysical.

And also I would like to add that Buddhism would not be considered atheist by any definition. As Buddhism does not deny the existence of God. Buddhism is an agnostic religion. But I will grant that by the Oxford definition you supplied there are atheistic religions.
fuzala

Con

Still, the Britannica link you gave states "atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings." http://www.britannica.com...

I bolded the keywords. It's not just about denying metaphysical beliefs but "metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings"

Even if God is incapable of believing in the metaphysical (I'm not saying I agree with this by the way), that doesn't fit the definition of atheist because an atheist has to deny the very existence as well.

It's not enough to disbelieve in metaphysical beliefs. An atheist has to disbelieve existence as well.


Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by fuzala 3 years ago
fuzala
"CON get's points for sources for his use of Britannica."

But you gave Pro the points for sources.
Posted by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
I give the benefit of the points from the votes for these reason, I agreed with CON before the debate because thinking of any god or gods as an atheist seemed unusual.

I agreed with PRO after the debate not because PRO had a good argument but because CON raised a point, that " There are some people who claim to be god. That doesn't mean they are atheist simply because they believe themselves to be god. In order to be atheist, you have "disbelieve in the existence of God or gods." This made me think even more that if a God does exist then religion does not exist as religion would be the belief in a supernatural power and so if God exists it no longer is a belief but a fact, so by virtue of that, God and his believers are not religious, but atheists as the belief would be validated.

CON get's points for sources for his use of Britannica.
Posted by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
@robert676767

Why?
Posted by robert676767 3 years ago
robert676767
God is God but we must gain access thru his son Jesus in order to know him.
John 14:6-14 Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!" Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don"t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you? Don"t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me. Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do. "I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father. You can ask for anything in my name, and I will do it, so that the Son can bring glory to the Father. Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it!
Posted by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
"Unless I'm mistaken, I thought God was everywhere and everything. If this is the case then God would be considered a person since a person falls in the category of everything."

A flower is also contained in the set of everything, but a tree does not hold beliefs, so according to you God believes in nothing and also blooms every spring and hydrates himself with osmosis.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
potatopotatopotatofuzalaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, I explain my reasoning for voting in the comment section.
Vote Placed by bballboy9876 3 years ago
bballboy9876
potatopotatopotatofuzalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources were even. Con's arguments were more convincing, and it seemed like Pro didn't understand what an atheist truly is. Overall, Con's arguments were better.