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

God of the Bible (which I am for) vs Atheism

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: 8/9/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 78515
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




My position is that God created the world more or less as we know it and everything in it, approximately 6000 years ago. It is my observation that everything we see in nature shows this, and also - very doubt in Creation proves that God exists.

An agreement to debate proves that God exists. A debate presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God. You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine. Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that? So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God? Until you answer that question, you're borrowing from my worldview, which states that God exists.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1-7 (KJV)


Although I would never support Atheism and is Catholic, I will try my best to debate against Christianity.

I ask God for forgiveness, for I am going against him from my will.

Nonetheless, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


This debate will be extremely pointless if you aren't an atheist. The debate is God vs Athiesm. I'm for God, you're supposed to be for atheism.


I see that. But I am willing to debate nonetheless.
Debate Round No. 2


I fail to see the point in this debate then. But ok, here we go. Simple question for you.

Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?


I am sorry to see that you are not happy to debate against me. Nonetheless I will state my first argument and answer my opponents questions.

"Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" Firstly, this context is very contradicting to my opponents side. There are many answers I could tell you but I will ask you a question that answers your question: Could YOU be wrong about everything YOU think YOU know? I agree, you could be wrong, but that does not prove that you are right. The bible can have false information and context in. What if Noah never built an ark? What if there never was a flood? What if..? and it carries on. But let me reason you into thinking about it for a second. We do not have credible sources of the Bible. The bible has been made centuries, maybe thousands of years ago. Throughout those years, many people can change the context of the real story. [For example, the game called telephone. Lets say the statement you start off with is "Sally is funny" but it ends with "SAT's are fake."] This is like the bible. It has been retold my many people, and you never know what the truth is. Long story short, the bible might be fake.

Basically summed up my argument into this refutation, but I will still show you my argument.

My first argument is on the false information.
As I stated before, the bible can have false and misinterpreted information on it. You can't just say it is real because God is. What if there is no heaven or hell? You do not have source on the fact that Jesus/God is real. It could all be fake. Whereas, scientist have actually studied and tracked down everything, therefore bringing in more reliable sources and evidence that earth might be made in a big bang and that humans were made from evolution. We can't rely on one source, which is the bible in Christian/Catholic stances.

My second argument is on the fact that there might not even be a god.
Just think about it for a second. If you are Christian, you think that Allah isn't real. But vice verse is still the same. We may never know which God is real or not, which also leads me into false information, like my first argument. But atheists don't believe in a God. Maybe Christians are wrong about God, and that there is no God and we don't know if that's real or not. Islam's might be wrong about Allah, that Allah isn't real as well. But Atheists do not believe in any god, therefore narrowing down the reliable sources. It would be better to not believe than believing at all

Again, please do not refute against the fact I am going against my religion, for that is irrelevant to this case.

Nonetheless, I again ask God for forgiveness.

Thank you for letting me debate
Debate Round No. 3


I see what you're saying, but I did ask you a simple question that I'd like a yes or no to - I don't want a tu quoque fallacy from you. :) The question was: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? Please don't waste a round.

If you say "yes", then it logically follows that you know nothing. If I told you"the speed limit outside is 60k/mph, but I could be wrong." then I don't *know* the speed limit. In the same way, if you could be wrong about everything you think you know, it follows that you know nothing - in which case you can't know what I can know, which you started to talk about...

If you say "no", then I would like you to tell me one thing you can know for certain.


I would like some arguments from the other side, as he failed to do so. Unless that only question is the only argument.

Firstly, don't get me wrong but this is not as simple as a yes or no unless my opponents do not understand the depth of this debate. You don't even need to know what the answer is, you already know from reading my paragraph of "fanciness" but because you don't get the simplicity of the answer I'll just say it: No.

What if I said yes? I know nothing according to the instigators logic. My opponents stated I could be wrong in everything I know, but that contradicts his side too. He could be wrong with everything he knows, therefore not making credible reliance. But however, this debate is not focused around that matter.

One thing I know for certain? You really want me to talk about that?
I will if you answer this question: what is one thing you are certain?

I have lost interest in this debate due to my opponents rudeness towards my presence, and he has not given any sufficient arguments, so vote con.
Debate Round No. 4


This simple question is going on for much longer than I expected. Yes, I really would like to know this: "What is one thing you know for certain?" If at all... I'm confused - could you be wrong about everything you think you know, or not?

Now - what's one thing *I* know? That God exists. How do I know that? Because he revealed it to us through his divine revelation.

Please answer the question. Could you be wrong about everything you know - yes, or no.


My opponents have been ignoring my answer all along, I have provided it to you in my last round, so please read again. I said no.

You do not know that God exists, that he revealed it through making this world. The bible could be wrong. Even I could be wrong, but if we weight out a balance, with one side of knowing God exists and another side believing scientific reasoning what weighs it out? We only have the bible for evidence on the left side, and it could be historically inaccurate for telling ancestor by ancestor can change words like the game called Telephone. We cannot trust the bible, it could be altered in many ways yet your side fails to realize that.

However on the right side, we have evidence. They studied non-stop about his, and made diagrams charts etc. They gave us clear reasoning that shows more reliability as the Big Bang
My opponents have not stated any argumentative statements supporting his side other than a question.
He has not refuted my arguments and all of my point and reasoning still stands.

Please vote con.

I ask God for forgiveness

Best wishes to pro.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by hellywon 3 years ago
I am a Christian but tried to argue on atheism. I'm very sorry to hear your disturbance of my debate position
Posted by Theunkown 3 years ago
Pro, challenge me to a new debate on the same topic if you wish.
Posted by Theunkown 3 years ago
*argues for atheism, asks god for forgiveness.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
The Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong: slavery.
Religion retards material and intellectual progress and gives faith value.
Faith required that you believe despite an absence of expected evidence or despite the presence of conflicting evidence.
But how do we detect lies?
Through the absence of expected evidence or the presence of conflicting evidence.
The very things that faith demanded we disregard.
6000 Years old ?...................LOL
Posted by iqpiblog 3 years ago
God is inaccurately described in the bible

To lie is a sin according to religousists and also it is contrary to science to offer any information as anything more than a probability.

whether virgin mary was a virgin and whether jesus arose from the dead are UNVERIFIABLE events, and the description of these events are proof in themselves that God is not the author of the bible. Furthermore, what difference does it make if mary was a virgin or not.

it would only matter to the powerful people who had systematically chosen jesus as a leader and would have jeopordised the pure image of their selection.

the bible is filled with information that only serves the purpose of promoting the elitists' agendas

it is a GRAVE INSULT and unfounded accusation to attribute our own hypotheses' as the word of GOD

god does not punish anyone

god does not have the power to end suffering

god does not eat animals and enslave dogs on leashes

god wants us to be happy

god wants us to indulge in pleasure


we r all a part of god
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very, very weak debate. But I give arguments to Con based on the two simple statements made. Pro's only real "argument" was that he knows God exists, because God revealed it through divine revelation. Pro must prove this, which they didn't, they simply said it happened. Con wins because they mentioned that there are alternate scientific theories that have more credibility than God.