The Instigator
jar2187
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
RicheyWentz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I have no reason to believe in a 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
Pro Tied Con
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: 5/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,484 times Debate No: 16408
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

jar2187

Pro

I will not be arguing that a god does not exist. I will argue that I have no reason to believe in a god...

My argument:
There’s a difference between “knowledge” and “belief”. For example: I can know that a black cat has four legs. I can have this knowledge despite any other beliefs I might have. I can believe that 1) This black cat will land on his feet if scooted off the table, and 2) This black cat is bad luck because it is black. And we can have many more beliefs despite the knowledge of it we have.

Does God exist? I don’t know and that makes me an agnostic (a = without, gnostic = belief). No one knows for certain of God’s existence (especially for the way God is defined), which makes us all agnostic. However, you can still have a belief about something, despite the knowledge (or lack thereof) that you have of it. You all believe in the existence of God. I don’t, which makes me an atheist (a = without, theist = god-centered belief). And a true belief may be all that it needs to make it knowledge. But I haven’t come across compelling evidence or a cogent argument to make God’s existence a fact, and thus I don’t have a reason to be in god…
RicheyWentz

Con

Pro contradicts himself in his arguement in a huge fail.

However, you can still have a belief about something, despite the knowledge (or lack thereof) that you have of it.
THEN HE SAYS:
I haven't come across compelling evidence or a cogent argument to make God's existence a fact, and thus I don't have a reason to be in god…

I assume he means believe in god and not residing in his stomach. I don't even know what we're arguing anymore. If it's that he has to belive in God, of course not, there are no laws about it. If it's if God exists then he should have an arugement that doesn't contradict himself and also think of more original debates in the future.
Debate Round No. 1
jar2187

Pro

Thank you and no, I have no reason to believe that I'm in God's stomach...

The argument stands. I written that I don't have any compelling evidence or cogent argument to believe in a god. Compelling evidence or cogent arguments are not in and of themselves knowledge; they lead to it. If they are knowledge, I will ask my opponent to show how. Yet, while you can still have belief in god, that does not mean that you necessarily have to have a reason to believe in one. I don't speak for those that do believe in god for no reason. I don't, because compelling evidence or a cogent argument has not been presented. And at least one of them, preferably both, is what I would need to first have belief...

I suggest my opponent take more care into understanding what he is writing, understanding what I have written and then taking time to actually discern the logical aspect of my argument, than correcting my grammar for a cheap but albeit humorous quip (though I thank him that he did, he was getting a bit dry).
RicheyWentz

Con

Nope you are wrong, sorry. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 2
jar2187

Pro

While I don't believe "Nope you are wrong, sorry" to be a very apt rebuttal, or to be very cordial, I will say that my opponent has refused to show how compelling evidence or cogent argument can indeed be in and of themselves knowledge. He has not shown this; until he does, his resolution has been negated...

My argument stands. I do not have any reason to believe in god, and nor has my opponent provided me with one. I thank my opponent for his rebuttal.
RicheyWentz

Con

God exists. It's in the bible.
Debate Round No. 3
jar2187

Pro

"God exists. It's in the bible."
And Batman exists in the DC Comics universe. So what? Just because a character is described in some book, it doesn't mean that this character exists as an actual entity in our reality. This is nothing but an appeal to antiquity, along with being a non-sequitor.

He is also in danger of being circular. God exists causes it's in the bible. So? What makes the bible true? Because God says so? Let's hope my opponent doesn't go down this downward spiral...

My argument stands. I thank my opponent for the debate.
RicheyWentz

Con

Ok how do you think we got here? You think we're just computer generated? You think we just came out of a mud puddle? I don't think the universe was created on accident or for no reason. God created the universe and did so in order that we learn about him and love him.
Debate Round No. 4
jar2187

Pro

"Ok how do you think we got here? You think we're just computer generated?"
Possibly, but you've given no reason to think that we are.

"You think we just came out of a mud puddle?"
There's no reason to think that, or that we came out of dirt formed by "god's hands" either...

"I don't think the universe was created on accident or for no reason. God created the universe and did so in order that we learn about him and love him."
Empty assertion. My argument stands. I thank my opponent for participating in this debate.
RicheyWentz

Con

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by marcopolo0500 5 years ago
marcopolo0500
dont get me wrong here. i believe in God is real and that people should believe in God, but I gotta vote pro because a nicely made debate ruined by someone.. Sorry you don't get the outcome you wished for Pro.
Posted by ilovedebate 5 years ago
ilovedebate
@OreEle
I doubt it
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@Pro

Gnosis does NOT MEAN "belief."

Gnostic comes from the word "gnosis" which means "to know."

So Agnostic means "without knowledge."

There's a difference between knowledge and belief.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Could have been an easy con victory.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
jar2187RicheyWentzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was obviously a troll. Easy win for Pro.
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 5 years ago
ilovedebate
jar2187RicheyWentzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's rebuttal is that God is in the Bible and therefore, He exists. Also, con's rebuttal in round 4 is very amateur as if he didn't want to debate
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
jar2187RicheyWentzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the worst debator ever
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
jar2187RicheyWentzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This could have been an extremely extremely easy win via semantics. But Con had no intention of putting any effort into it, so, pooh on him.
Vote Placed by Amveller 5 years ago
Amveller
jar2187RicheyWentzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: easy win for pro
Vote Placed by HandsofManos 5 years ago
HandsofManos
jar2187RicheyWentzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: seriously.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
jar2187RicheyWentzTied
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 undermnes pro's case