The Instigator
Prove-Me-Wrong
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
McMichaelSweet
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

God

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,424 times Debate No: 15386
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

Prove-Me-Wrong

Con

With all we know in Science, History, The Law, and The Medical Field, how can you still say there is a God? You can't see us from the moon, so what makes you think that you can be seen from anywhere in the universe? If you say that God knows all, and created all, then you're nuts. I was also told that Santa was real, and the easter bunny, when I was young, I've grown up now and have done my research, and believe in truth, and think that all religion is false and can only cause harm to humans and mankind. Prove me wrong if you can.
McMichaelSweet

Pro

Respectfully, i do not even have to argue with you to win this debate. You have already committed a logical fallacy, the fallacy is called "Ad Hominem." These words translate to "personal attack."

--This type of an ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.
[cited from http://www.logicalfallacies.info...]

Before i even rebuttal, i am considered "nuts." I am deductively reasoning that it does not matter what i say, regardless how cogent my arguments may be, because i am already discredited within your mind; and it is due to opinion and not supported factual information.
Debate Round No. 1
Prove-Me-Wrong

Con

In order to find the truth, you must get rid of all your own beliefs and open your mind to what is real. God is just a word that some human came up with years ago, to try to explain who we are. What we are is more important. We are all made of atoms, (not to be confused with Adam) these are so small that you can only see them with an electron microscope. God the creator of the Universe (whatever that is) is at the time it was created. The universe is so fast that most people can't comprehend how big it really is. 93 billion light years, yes light years old. It takes 8.4 seconds for the suns rays to reach the earth. Thats forever. You'll never know that time. I've heard them say what about free will, well if we had free will, we would be able to convert are atoms into anything we wanted to, therefore no free will. To think that someone that made us in his own image, and is up above the earth watching us and telling us how to behave is crazy, and not realistic. However, science which can prove how we die, what's in our bodies, and the medical field that helps us stay healthy and live longer, because they have mixed atoms together to make medication for us. The law that uses DNA, to convict outlaws, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then we have to believe in science about how we got here. We also have to believe in history, which tells us that people used to think the world was flat, so it's reasonable to think that they didn't have the science of today, and didn't know about atoms, and the solar system, let alone the universe. To think that God put man on this earth, and had a plan for him is so far out there. If I were to say God spoke to me today, you would have me put away for being crazy, but in the time of Jesus they thought that God is how it was. No one know what caused the universe so people want to believe in God as an overseer of the planets. The truth of the matter is, it's all in everyone own head to how they believe, otherwise we would all think the same thing and worship God and the image of God Jesus or Mohammad, depending on who you ask, all this leads me to believe there is no God, and no heaven as most people see it. Heaven is here on earth, and what we do as a human to make it better for all. Don't think so small of what is good for you and your family, but what, with everything we know today, and knowing that not all believe, we are all different. Believe in something until it proves you wrong, and it's all different for everyone. If you can prove me wrong please do. I don't think you can.
McMichaelSweet

Pro

Respectfully, I am going to restate my last argument. I am not entirely sure if you understood what i was saying.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Respectfully, i do not even have to argue with you to win this debate. You have already committed a logical fallacy, the fallacy is called "Ad Hominem." These words translate to "personal attack."

--This type of an ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.
[cited from http://www.logicalfallacies.info......]

Before i even rebuttal, i am considered "nuts." I am deductively reasoning that it does not matter what i say, regardless how cogent my arguments may be, because i am already discredited within your mind; and it is due to opinion and not supported factual information.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

In short: You discredited yourself, and your arguments. Thus, if i merely point out your fallacy, i would win the debate. Consequently, I did point out your fallacy, and the winner is now in the hands of the voter.
Debate Round No. 2
Prove-Me-Wrong

Con

You are right, I just reread how I put this debate into words, and it was an attack. Not on you personally but on principals of debating. Sorry for that....YOU WIN
McMichaelSweet

Pro

McMichaelSweet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Cutting IP, but a massive fail.
Intelligence - If I possess intelligence this authorize me to act in all manner of ways, providing I rationalize them. None necessarily more moral than any other
Introspection - similar to intelligence, but the additional part is irrelevent to morality. Furthermore is an argument from authority - and very subjective
Social contract theory - sheer bollocks to equate with morality (its is about social expediency) and very subjective
Empathy & Golden rule - Very subjective given that worth and desires are not transitive
History - Irrelevent to morality. What is done in the past (assuming there is an objective morality) should not have any bearing on the morality of the future.
So yeah. I clearly am of an inferior intelligence.
Dear boredinclass
I am not a "combatathiest" and I am very open to arguments to god. Just not BS ones about morality. Morality is assumed after the fact, and cannot be proven prior.
Posted by Intellectual_Perplexion 5 years ago
Intellectual_Perplexion
If you say morality is not objective, than you clearly are a human with sub-par E.Q. and I.Q. levels. There is no superior force defining morality, and if you say the Bible does such then shame on you, but to any thinking man morality can be defined within a minuscule margin of error.

Intelligence + Introspection + Social Contract Theory + Empathy + The Golden Rule + History = Morality
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
I love how alot of combat-atheists are like "open your mind" but they're justas close-minded as christians
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
If you knew the first thing about ethics you wouldn't ask that question. How could I be an amoralist and believe the morality is objective? I believe that all forms of morality are subjective and equally valuable, which is to say worthless. I believe we should act in a manner which is socially expedient, and the only thing "wrong" with not doing so is the loss of social expediency which you inflict upon yourself.
Posted by SX23 5 years ago
SX23
Although I admire your convictions, it seems that it haven't occurred to you what would be their full extent and implications. I do believe that you're quite a logical person in suite of your arguments, so I will here try to demonstrate a few points that you mentioned.
You mention that ethics play a huge part in what we consider right or wrong. You're quite right, if you refer at ethics as in the society view on the matter. However, this very precise view has been known to change with time and will most likely be modified again. Here I will save you the abstract argument and I'll quite plainly give a simple example. If you were to be a peasant in the Middle's Age, participating in summary executions or public humiliation would be considered as a funny hobby. Even tough nowadays we would consider anyone enjoying those sort of things as amoral and sadistic. This does demonstrate that morality and ethics evolves through time, and thus are subject to subjectivity and do not have any real and "objective" meaning.

As for you point that it is "nuts" to believe in God with the scientific advancements that have been made nowadays, I might be able to provide a more abstract argument to contradict this. If we do consider that only an intelligent source can create complex information such as semantics and language, (After all, a rock may as well fall on the ground and "write" something that resembles letters, but without anything to decode the letters they do not have any meaning), and if we then consider that one of the simplest forms of life, the E.coli bacteria possess around 4 millions base pairs (Which are 2 molecules per pairs) disposed in a specific order, it is unthinkable and irrational to admit that they can appear "randomly", not to mention that they also require a specific Ribosome to decode them.
As such, we can easily determine that intelligence gave birth to life as we know it.
P.S: Note here that I do not talk about a God, but more about an intelligent so
Posted by Prove-Me-Wrong 5 years ago
Prove-Me-Wrong
As to answer your question, ethics play a huge part of right or wrong. We should all live by: Do what you want you only get one life, and a short one it is, in the big picture.....as long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process. That means mentally or physically!!!! Unless two adults can find an agreement suitable for them both...and if they do everyone else should stay out of it. So trying to be as ethical as I can, I think we should educate ourselves enough to know the truth. If we learn that everyone who is given life, deserves to have the best one they can, and not control how anyone lives their life, after all we don't live in their shoes. So if you want to believe in God, go ahead, but don't make laws that make anyone conform to someone else. Don't lie, steal, or murder this all huts people..look deep into yourself you know the truth, let it out. And if you don't, I'm sorry, I'll try to help you if I can. Lets discuss it not argue over it, and see who has better logic.
Posted by Prove-Me-Wrong 5 years ago
Prove-Me-Wrong
If you look at what we are made of. atoms which can be seen with an electron microscope and they are so small that you can't see them with a naked eye, and the Universe is not the solar system the galaxy or even a black hole is as big as the Universe, and if the Universe is so big 930000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (not correct number, just a point) light years yes light years old. Then what makes you think that God would even know about us and what his laws should be? The sun is not the center of the Universe, it is however center of our solar system, which there are many solar systems, galaxies, black holes. We know this because of the atom which we know everything is made up of them. In history we know that people once thought the world was flat and didn't even know about the land we call America. So when Jesus was born and yes I believe he lived, but I know that they didn't have modern science so that is what they thought in his time. Now that we have science and know what we are, and we know this by putting atoms together to make our meds so that we can live longer and healthier lives. What is healthy to eat, what good to put in our bodies and what's not, and lets not forget that we now have a way of convicting our outlaws by using DNA, so we know what we are and how we die it can be proven. Other cultures don't believe in Jesus as the holy one. God should be excepted as the creator of the Universe but not an all seeing being that watches over us. We are like a virus on a piece of bread, or ants on an ant hill, loved by the ones who love us and if you live far away I don't even know you and we will probably never meet. Free will, if we had free will we would be able to move our atoms around, and be anywhere in the universe we pleased, but so far we can only live on this planet and take little trips into space, where we will never see God, who we learned made us from his own Image....I'm not trying to make people mad, just open your mind
Posted by McMichaelSweet 5 years ago
McMichaelSweet
On what grounds can you define right from wrong? And do you see ethics as subjective or objective?
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Also at McMichealSweet; sometimes I believe in god and sometimes I don't, but when I don't I am amoralist. How could you convince me with an argument from ethics? I believe that the ethical arguments are weakest of all.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Con has the BOP to prove there is no God as the instigator (and as he hasn't tried to pass off the BOP, and has clearly asserted that cannot be a God)
Pro wins as Con can't provide any evidence to support his assertion... (even if he is more likely to be right)
Fail instigator is fail.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
Prove-Me-WrongMcMichaelSweetTied
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: con forfeits
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Prove-Me-WrongMcMichaelSweetTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Forfeit.