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

I Will Lose This Debate In The Eyes of Most Atheists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,133 times Debate No: 69524
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




Here I will argue that Atheism is irrational and foolish. I will also indefinitely lose this debate in the eyes of most Atheists . If you are an Atheist and think that Atheism is rationaland/or wise, accept this.

Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: Arguments only (No rebutalls)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Conclusions only



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Explain why Atheism is rational and/or wise, as the OP says.


I don't have to show that "atheism is rational and/or wise", and the OP never says that I have to show it to be so. It merely states that "if you are an atheist and think that atheism is rational and/or wise, accept this"; it does not present a task that I have to fulfill.

However, the OP does say that Pro [indicated by 'I'] is to "argue that Atheism is irrational and foolish". Pro has not done this. He has not fulfilled his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2


You're right. Round 2 was clearly for arguments, and I didn't fulfil that. I will change the structure of the debate to make it as long as I wanted.

Round 3: Arguments (No rebuttals)
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Rebuttals and Conclusion

Seeing the structure of the debate, Con must make an argument as to why one should have a lack of belief in God, without refuting my arguments in Round 3.

Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God [1]. This is irrational and foolish. I will give simple arguments for this.

This will most likely not work, as Atheists seem to have surpressed their conscience, but whatever. In your conscience, you know that God exists. Just look for the feeling and you'll find it.

The Bible
The Bible said the Earth was circular hundreds of years before it was dicovered - Isaiah 40:22 (There was no Hebrew word for Sphere, thus saying it teaches a flat Earth would be just as accurate as me saying it teaches a Spherical Earth.)

The Bible said the Earth hangs upon nothing thousands of years before it was dicovered - Job 26:7

That wind blows in cyclones - Ecclesiastes 1:6

That blood is the source of life - Leviticus 17:11

That Oceans have springs - Job 38:16

It also prophecied of the founding of the Modern State of Israel in 1948 - Isaiah 66:7-9.

Thus making the Bible true: Thus making, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1), and "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1) and "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20) correct. Therefore meaning Atheism is irrational and foolish.

In Round 4 - For Con to have a valid rebuttal, he would either need to show that their conscience doesn't tell them God exists, and/or that the claims I made about Science in the Bible wrong (And then show scientifically false things in the Bible).


I'd like to participate in this debate, but due to time constraints, I am unable to make an argument as of now.

Pro may take a free win. I apologise for wasting his time :(

If he would like to debate this with me another time, I'd be glad to accept (provided it is when I have a sufficient amount of time).

Debate Round No. 3


Esiar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Esiar 3 years ago

And my opponent's username is "Paradox420". :-P
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 3 years ago
If pro can't convince atheists that atheism is irrational, then he won the debate. So atheists would vote for pro, but since he won the debate he essentially lost. That also means he won. It will be an infinite loop.
Posted by Esiar 3 years ago
I'll explain it:

If you, as an Atheist, do not think I was able to prove that Atheism is irrational and foolish, you vote Pro, since I was right that most Atheist wouldn't think I won.

If I am winning the debate at the time, vote Pro, because it shows that my claim that most Atheists wouldn't think I won is true.
Posted by Esiar 3 years ago

Here it was just a mistake. I forgot the Rules I set for what what going to be said in the Rounds. I noticed it right after I posted it, so I couldn't take it back then.
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
I agree with Envisage.. I do not know how to vote for this when the time comes. If Pro does show atheism is irrational (which I doubt will happen), then doesn't Con win? And if Pro fails to show that atheism is irrational, doesn't Pro win? Confused...
Posted by Mr.Kal 3 years ago
Con has a point, in the OP - Pro clearly stated he was the one who was going to prove Atheism is irrational.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
Must be nice to debate with a ready made excuse for your loss.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
I am confused how to vote for this. It is true that Pro has obviously lost this debate.... But does that mean I should vote for a Pro, because he's affirming that?
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 3 years ago
I laughed to myself a little for this argument. This is the exact same thing he tried to do to me. He put the burden of proof on the atheist rather than on the theist. History tends to repeat itself.
Posted by POPOO5560 3 years ago
pro give up give u r losing!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gracefully concedes, yet I'm not sure that Con lost...