The Instigator
aloysious
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Arcanas
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

I don't believe in "atheists." Can anybody prove that "atheists" exist?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Arcanas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 72374
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

aloysious

Con

I've heard about a mythical creature that supposedly doesn't believe in God, called an "atheist."

I don't believe in "atheists."

Can anybody prove "atheists" exist?
Arcanas

Pro

I accept.
For this debate, I'll be proving the existence of atheists.

Definition of atheist: "A person who believes that God does not exist"
Source: http://i.word.com...
Thanks for instigating the debate, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
aloysious

Con

Thank you Arcanas.

I appreciate your kind tone and politeness.

I wish you well too; but I still don't believe in "atheists."
Arcanas

Pro

P1: If I am an atheist, atheists exist
P2: I am an atheist
Conclusion: Atheists exist

Justification for P1: This doesn't really require an explanation. If I am an atheist, then it logically follows that an atheist would exist.

Justification for P2: I can confirm that I do not believe in a God. Therefore, I am an atheist.

The conclusion logically follows. Atheists exist.
Debate Round No. 2
aloysious

Con

Claiming to be an "atheist" doesn't prove to me you don't believe in God...

You could be right, wrong, or lying.

This link to a man who claims he is God http://justonemore.info... should be enough to prove God exists; so you can't possibly be an "atheist:" because I've just given you the same kind of proof you used, to say you're an "atheist."

If that link doesn't convince you God exists, you can't expect me to believe you're an "atheist," right?
Arcanas

Pro

Arcanas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
aloysious

Con

aloysious forfeited this round.
Arcanas

Pro

Arcanas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
aloysious

Con

aloysious forfeited this round.
Arcanas

Pro

1. My claim isn't as unbelievable. people commonly state that they don't believe in God and it does nto contradict with anything we observe in society for people to be atheist. In addition, it's silly to assume that scientists/, professors, and regular people would randomly claim to be atheist when Religious. There's no motive.

2. By definition, a man is not God. Like I said, there is not a contradiction in the definition of atheist that shows that no one coild be one but with God there is. Bye
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, gives two distinct meanings for faith:
"1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.
A nonbeliever is a nonbeliever, no matter what name you give them, and just like you and your god no proof is needed. I will not try to assert that any gods do or do not exist, instead, as an atheist, I asserts that their existence simply does not matter. meaningful ideas should be accepted while those ideas which don't work, aren't meaningful, and are impractical should be rejected. If there's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, then there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods. Therefore, atheism should be adopted for purely pragmatic reasons.
Posted by aloysious 2 years ago
aloysious
Hi missmedic. People who claim there's no God, can't prove it; their position is based on faith and any of them who want to claim I'm wrong are in denial.

People who claim there's no God, don't use reason to make their statements; or they could apply the reasoning they use to deny God, to prove "atheists exist."

But... no matter how many times I run this debate, nobody will ever be able to prove "atheists" exist.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, and belief is theism
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
aloysious
When you say "use the same standard" do you mean Faith?
A god's existence does not require proof, it requires belief, without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it. Most believer's call it faith. Most atheists I know use reason as a standard, because reason explains reality and does not contradict.
Posted by aloysious 2 years ago
aloysious
What's completely idiotic and doesn't make any sense, is the fact that... people who claim that God doesn't exist, can't use the same standard they require to prove the existence God, to prove that "atheists" exist.
Posted by pixelmagic 2 years ago
pixelmagic
Completely idiotic.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
This statement is equally applicable to "theists". One cannot prove someone else's true belief since no one can know what someone else is actually thinking without some sort of telepathy.

@vi-spex
Atheists will always exist as long as there are people, even without the concept of god. Atheism is the lack, or absence, of belief in one or more gods. If there was no concept of a god, the *label* would not exist (no means of comparison), but everyone would be an atheist by definition.
Posted by robertdringus1234 2 years ago
robertdringus1234
Are you a dingus?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? if there's a god there will always be people who don't believe.
Posted by Arcanas 2 years ago
Arcanas
That makes no sense.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
if god cant exist atheists cant exist
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
aloysiousArcanasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provides a logical argument backed up with credible source material. This argument effectively refutes Con's initial argument. Both had equal number of forfeited rounds. Con fails to refute Pro's refutation.
Vote Placed by NateTheFirst 2 years ago
NateTheFirst
aloysiousArcanasTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for forfeit. Con's argument was downright silly, and in this debate pro showed (especially in the last round)nth at logically atheists must exist.