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

IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,133 times Debate No: 44455
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




As an atheist, I think this is an important, interesting, and very enthusiastic issue to talk about on both sides of this issue; theism and atheism. I will obviously be taking the side of atheism on this topic. I will simply go over initial claims as to why I believe that God has no credible evidence towards his existence so far that has passed successfully through scientific skepticism and questioning. Not all of them however, because there is so many. I will only go over the main ones. Side note: I will be debating only the christian God. I do not know enough about the other deities of other religions to bring myself to properly debate them, but so far, I do not believe in them either. But that's another argument.

Number 1: The Adam and Eve story.

The Adam and Eve story is absolutely ridiculous and out of touch with reality. And was clearly made in magical thinking. First of all, for an initial argument I just want to go over a couple questions. What if man DID obey God? Wouldn't the end result of that be just a massive overpopulation of the earth, and basically the point of life would be eradicated because we would all be immortal and have nothing worth striving for because we have all life to do it? And not to mention that we probably couldn't do it because the earth would literally be flooded with people. No exaggeration. And secondly, we humans need to die. Our just that happens. If I didn't know any better, I'd say God needs sin in order for his design to work. In which case, why did he even create 'sin' in the first place if it already has to happen in order for it to work? And why would sin count as eating a "forbidden" fruit off a "forbidden" tree. First of all, if its forbidden, why did God put it in such an easy to get to place? And why does it exist at all if he didn't want them eating from it? And since he is all-knowing, he knew they were going to eat it. So he cast all of his own 'creations' to damnation of mortality just because Adam and Eve ate some fruit that he knew they were going to eat anyways? You see how many contradictions and absurd ideas are there in this story yet?

Number 2: The contradictions of God himself.

God himself has a lot of contradictions. A couple God paradox's if you will...
1.) If God doesn't know what lust feels like, he isn't all knowing. If God does know what lust feels like, then he isn't all good. I could say this for many things. If God doesn't know what sin feels like, he isn't all knowing. If he does know what it feels like, he isn't all good. You get it?

2.) If God gave us all free will, then why does he have a plan for all of us?

3.) If the Abrahamic God is real, then He cares more about the rapist's freedom to rape, and the murderer's freedom to murder, than He cares about the lives of their victims. -DarkMatter2525

That's just some of the reasons, I won't go down the whole list because it is late where I am. But you do hopefully understand the position I have. Good luck, good debate, and good night.



I accept the challenge. I hope the resolution is "God does not exist" rather than, "IN MY OPINION, God does not exist" because I would not be able to win the latter unless I was able to change your mind by the end of the debate. I am willing to debate either contention, as the two resolutions are basically the same, only with one being dramatically harder to win. But please make yourself clear in the second round as to what the contention is.

You did not state whether first round is for accepance only or if I could begin my argument. As you have already gave your arguments, I will provide my opening statements and then tackle your arguments, as I would say that the burden of proof is on me, so I should give you some arguments for which you can attempt to refute.

Opening Statements

The Standards of Logic

Logic is reasoning conducted in order to discover objective truth.

However, as Darwin stated, “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (1)

This is to say, if logic is just a human concept; a societal construct, and we are animals that are here by the means of chance and evolution, how can we trust our mind? Why should we trust the way that we perceive reality? How do we know that our minds are rational? What if our perceptions of reality are incorrect, but the incorrect perception serves as a mechanism for our survival?

On the other hand, if a being exists that trancends our universe, one who has a rational and intelligent mind, and then created mankind to be rational, then based on this paradigm, logic is a trustworthy mechanism for understanding truth.

As shown, the preconception that logic is trustworthy and rational only works under a theistic paradigm. Now, one can claim that there is no god, and our perceptions are just us observing reality, but ultimately, we can never have any amount of confidence in anything. Rather, if one concludes that logic is trustworthy, then one must conclude that God does exist.

If my opponent concedes that logic is trustworthy, he must show how he can come to this conclusion under an atheistic paradigm, as I have shown how it is trustworthy in a theistic paradigm.


If the Christian God exists, then it logically follows that miracles exist, as proclaimed by many passages in the Sciptures. So, if we see miracles today, that is consistent with the existence of a personal God, and so it is likely that God does exist.

If there were any place where we could see if miracles happen or not, I would argue that the best place would be in a hospital. 3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles (2). As people who are trained in their field would know when something happens that defies natural human biology, then if we trust the testimonies of the doctors in the survey, we can conclude that miracles do exist and happen today.

The Resurrection of Jesus

There are 12 historical facts that the majority of the skeptic historical scholars (Non-Christian scholars) concede to (3):

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

There are two options that I can see: Either the apostles saw the real resurrection of Christ, or they all hallucinated him at different times. The apostles and disciples of Jesus were martyred for their faith. They were truly convinced that they saw Jesus.

I will argue that it is more rational to believe that Jesus was actually resurrected and appeared to different people at different times than it is to believe in a similar hallucination to different people at different times. However, people will not die for a lie.

John 20: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!

Luke 24: While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

The apostles refuted the idea that they were having a hallucinatory experience. They observed physical evidence of Jesus before believing He was resurrected. Since we know that they were convinced Jesus was resurrected, and people will not die for a lie, then only one option is left: Jesus was really resurrected.


Adam and Eve Story

Both before and after Christ, Jews and Christians alike have interpreted the Genesis account to be allegory and not literal history. However, I feel like that is a cop-out reply, so I will attempt to answer the questions.

God said in Genesis 1 "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

To fill the earth would imply that at some point, sexual reproduction would have ceased.

It wasn't the fruit itself that was the sin. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of it. It was the only Law God gave them- a simple Law they had to obey. If He hadn't given them any Laws at all, we would have been mechanical creatures without any freewill. You cannot have freewill without the possibility of sin.

I don't think God is all knowing in the sense that most Christians believe. Imagine that you make a playlist on your ipod. Before you hit shuffle, you know all of the possible outcomes, but you do not know which song will come on until you hit shuffle. And then with each new song, you have a better understanding of what will be the next one until only one song is left. I think, in the beginning, God had many different plans for humanity, and He let us make our own choices, and He had different plans to compensate for our choices. We chose sin, so His accommodation for our choice was to Give us His Son- Jesus, to pay the penalties for sin.

Contradictions of God

1) Again, I don't think God is all knowing in the sense that most Chrstians think so today. He has all knowledge that a trancendent and eternal being outside of our universe would have. I don't think that his knowledge should have to include the understanding of what sin feels like.

2) Already explained

3) In order there to be freewill, there must be the option for sin. If God intervened every single time, then that wouldn't be freewill. God's original plan was perfection for us, but He had to accommodate to our freewill.


I hope I have provided adequate reasons for believing in God, and have given reasonable answers to your objections. I look forward to the rest of the debate. Cheers!


Debate Round No. 1


To elaborate to my opponent, I wish to point out the title is "IN MY OPINION, God does not exist" because if I flat out say God does not exist, then I would require... Well, in all irony; a godly amount of knowledge. And as an atheist, there is doubt in ALL of my ideas. I am a skeptic and not only do I doubt outside ideas. I even doubt MY ideas. I do admit I might be wrong. But from all the evidence that shows right now, I believe that no, there is no God present in our lives. Anyways, but contention is basically saying "In my opinion, God DOES exist." The exact opposite of mine.

And yes, thank you for giving them. That is what I was looking for.

Refuting 'The Standards of Logic."

"If logic is just a human concept; a societal construct; and we are animals that are here by means of chance and evolution, how can we trust our mind? Why should we trust the way that we perceive reality? How do we know that our minds are rational? What if our perceptions of reality are incorrect, but the incorrect perception serves as a mechanism for survival?"

Well, we cannot really trust our minds at all. Logic is a societal construct created by us, animals. And we can trust our logic and minds because that is our way of thinking. That is the only way of thinking. We can never know if our minds are rational or not, we are human beings. We act upon what we observe in the reality that we occupy. All of our minds are different, and our cognitive functions are heavily varied in each human being that has ever existed. And what if our perceptions of reality are false? Well, that doesn't even make any sense as a question. Because if even reality around us was all a huge mistake of frail human sight, then it still doesn't matter because we see the world as we see it. We see reality as we see it. You can't just ask "What if our perceptions of reality are incorrect, but the incorrect perception serves as a mechanism of our survival?" and assume "Yes, then there must be a God." That's like placing a word in a broken sentence without knowing how to write and calling it truth.

So no, you cannot just assume that our logic and rationality works under a religious paradigm. And I am not saying our logic is one hundred percent trustworthy, I am saying it is all we have to trust upon. Our rationality, critical thinking skills, and use of logic is all we have rely upon to seek truth of the reality that we occupy. It's not always right, and its not always wrong. It is all subjective to being proved wrong. Or, if you want a better term for it... We all use science to think. One way or another. And to finish up, I didn't even have to put logic being trustworthy under an atheistic paradigm, because I don't even think that is true. Because it is not correct. Because we all have different versions of it.

Refuting 'Miracles.'

For your first claim, no. It makes sense to assume "Well, if the christian God exists then he obviously wrote the scriptures, therefore, they are true." But the other way around, that just isn't true.

"If there were any place where we could see if miracles happen or not, I would argue that the best place would be in a hospital. 3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles."

Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true. I mean, look at how many people believed in Zeus why back during the Greek times. You don't believe in him anymore do ya? No, I didn't think so. Its the same with all deities of religion to me, but you wouldn't agree with that so I won't make that comparison.

"As people who are trained in their field would know when something happens that defies natural human biology, then if we trust the testimonies of the doctors in the survey, we can conclude that miracles do exist and happen today."

Okay, well this isn't true. Only an idiot would believe that. Because the field of biology is a field of science. And science is based off skepticism and questioning. Science hasn't figured out everything there is to know about even our own race yet. There is still so much unlearned! Like how to cure cancer or many other various diseases. Whatever biologist claims that a miracle happened just because something happened that was of unknown origin should be criticised heavily!

Refuting 'The Resurrection of Jesus.'

Well first of all, let me start by saying that this all possibly isn't true at all. Because all this information is known is by religious text. The bible. And as we know, the bible has been re-written by several different authors over and over and over again through history, effectively crafting the biggest game of telephone EVER. You see, there is no way that what was initially written is in today's christian texts. Sure, some of it may still be there but most certainly not all of it! A good chunk of it was probably re-written falsely. So that's the first thing.

Second thing, I see actually three options here. OR they had lied. AND the massive game of telephone ever since its origin was based off one massive lie, or it was something completely different and someone lied along the way to fabricate it into something that would make an ideal famous for the time that they lived, liking giving them fortune that was proper for the time! It makes perfect sense, humans are known to lie all the time! It makes A LOT more sense then somebody resurrecting out of nowhere. And for your last argument. Yes, people will die for a lie. Its been done numerous times throughout history and is being done in modern times.

For your next paragraph basically telling me bible stories I am not going to refute it because trying to prove the existence of God through the literature of the faith you are trying to prove to be true is absurd. Because you know that 'I' don't believe in it. But I will however debate this: "The apostles refuted the idea that they were having a hallucinatory experience. They observed physical evidence of Jesus before believing He was resurrected. Since we know that they were convinced Jesus was resurrected, and people will not die for a lie, then only one option is left: Jesus was really resurrected." Oh wait, I already did! And I will not repeat what I said.

My 'Adam and Eve Story' defense.

Sexual reproduction would have ceased? No it wouldn't! We humans love to have sex! Its what we were designed to do! It is in our very biological nature to have sex.

Okay, sure. That can be reasonable. And, quite the opposite. No, if he had not given them any laws, they would not have been machines at all. Because they don't have any orders to follow. They would be as free as can be. And why did he bother giving us said law at all? If the law is so stupid. Also, if he didn't want us to break the law, why did he place a talking snake (yeah, that too. That makes total sense.) to intentionally tempt us into doing so. That's like going "Hey guys, you can do whatever you want and all that, but if you eat from this tree I swear, you will curse your race and grow old and die! Every single one of your species for the rest of existence! Muhahaha!!" Clearly, my God is a bit more of a drama queen. But come now, it is kind of like that. He is a crappy law-maker.

And your next paragraph I am simply going to dismiss. Not out of disrespect for your opinion, but because YOU may believe that. But the majority of your faith does not. The majority of your faith believes God is an all-knowing being.

Defending 'Contradictions of God.'

1.) Already explained.

2.) Already explained.

3.) So wait, just because our free will went outside what he had planned (which already shouldn't have mattered because apparently he gave us free will) he had to adjust his plan? No, you see, the bible says that when you go outside his plan in multiple areas that you are punished severely or killed. God does not sound like a guy who adjusts. Just saying. I can quote these if you want me to.

In conclusion, have a good night.


Standards of Logic

You didn't really refute this argument, you basically conceded that, yes, we ultimately cannot trust logic. However, you borrowed from the non-theist paradigm to try to refute the theistic paradigm. This is inconsistent. If God exists, and created humans in the image of God as rational beings, then yes, we can trust logic. You can't judge this paradigm based on the idea that we are all words put in a broken sentence, because in this paradigm, the world is not equivalent to a broken sentence.

So, the point stands. Non-theists have no basis on which to accept logic. Theists can trust logic.

If you can't trust logic, there is not basis of what to know is logical.

Thus the statement can logically be deduced: Non-theism is illogical.


Pro: For your first claim, no. It makes sense to assume "Well, if the christian God exists then he obviously wrote the scriptures, therefore, they are true." But the other way around, that just isn't true.

You misread my claim. Please, carefully read my arguments.

I said: If the Christian God exists, then it logically follows that miracles exist, as proclaimed by many passages in the Sciptures. So, if we see miracles today, that is consistent with the existence of a personal God, and so it is likely that God does exist.

I did not say, "The bible says miracles exist, so this proves they exist." I argued that because the Bible states that God grants miracles, THEN IF we see miracles today, we can logically induce that God does exist.

Pro: Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true.

I did not argue for this either. Pro, please carefully read my arguments, because you keep misrepresenting my statements with straw-man arguments.

The argument is that we have testimonies from reliable sources who admit to having seen events that defy natural human biology. You bring in Biologists to the argument, which is irrelevant, because they do not spend their time in hospitals were miracles are said to occur.

Pro: "Only an idiot would believe that"

This is an ad hominem, and an automatic forfeit for you conduct point.

My opponent has only straw-manned and ignored my argument. The argument that reliable doctors have witnessed miracles in the hospital remains un-refuted.

Resurrection of Jesus

My opponent makes the argument that, if it's in the bible, then it automatically isn't true. This statement is horrendously false.

This is like saying, a woman gave brith to a child in her home, but it died during birth. No one else ever saw the baby. So if the mother ever says the baby did exist, you cannot trust her, because she is the mother.

I think you can see how this is fallacious reasoning.

My opponent then argues that people will die for a lie. He asserts this without any evidence. Unless ou can provide evidence of people dying for a cause that they know to be untrue, then this argument remains un-refuted.

Adam and Eve

If God could create Adam and Eve, He could easily eliminate the sexual reproductive system whenever He wanted to. The Bible argues that, in the resurrection, sexual reproduction will cease also, so this is consistent with God's plan.

My opponent continues to rant about how he finds the Genesis account absurd. Fine, mock what you will.

My opponent dismisses one of my arguments because it is what I believe, not what the majority of my faith believes. However, my opponent is debating me, not the majority of religion. Earlier, he discredits argument ad populum, but then uses it when it works out to his advantage. This is contradictory reasoning.

Contradictions of God

God doesn't judge those who goes out of His plan, He judges them based on objective morality. I could follow this with the moral argument for God, but you still have my other arguments that you have left un-refuted, so I will not burden you with more than you can handle.


My opponent cares more about straw-manning my arguments and ranting about his distaste for religion than he cares about providing rational responses to my claims. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


Okay, this time around I am much more calm and tame. My apologies. Finals week is an exciting week for me. I tend to get really pumped up. But anyways, now that I am calm I hope I can come with a more respectable way of speaking.

The Standards of Logic:

First of all, I would like to mention that no, I was not trying to borrow from the non-theist paradigm. I am not borrowing from ANY paradigm because our logic and reasoning abilities as human being are not that black and white. I was explaining to you that logic and reason is a part of our cognitive abilities, life experiences, personalities, emotional reliance, and so on and so forth. Every single human on planet earth is so varied in so many different ways that you could not possibly see our logic and reason so simple as that. Because it is not. The analogy I was trying to make was to demonstrate how absurd it is to assume that only a God with a specific agenda could give us the ability to trust our rationality.

And bear in mind, I'm not saying that we should not trust our logic. I am merely saying that it is all we have to trust as human beings for our life-long decisions. And no, of course the world is not equivalent to a broken sentence. That's why it is called an analogy. A persuasive tool used to put thing into simple, understandable perspectives.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if you are religious or not. We all have a logic and sense of rationality to rely upon. Theism does not define a trust in our logic. And neither does non-theism. It is -as human beings- our only way of observing the reality of which we occupy. It is debatable between human to human if something that happens is illogical or logical. It is not as black and white as my opponent seems to believe.


For your first three paragraphs I still see no difference between what I said and what you referred to. So I am going to try to go off this instead:

"The bible says miracles exist, so this proves they exist. I argued that because the Bible states that God grants miracles, THEN IF we see miracles today, we can logically induce that God does exist."

Okay, NOW I sort of see where you are going with your argument. I believe you are saying that God grants miracles, so if miracles do supposedly occur, that that is proof that God exists. Got it. NOW I get it. So, I believe that still doesn't make an automatic direct link to the existence of God because miracles are an interpretation of what we see. And we as humans beings do not know everything about the reality of which we occupy yet. What we defer as miracles usually or any doctor would usually refer to as a miracle is usually just something completely rogue and foreign to us, so we automatically assume a miracle. Or it is just sheer luck. That's all it is. To say that miracles exist just because things happened that we cannot conceive is ridiculous.

Let's say that I am walking down a street in a shady part of a city. Multiple gunman in a vehicle along the road drive by me with their firearms out and open fire on me. I run over in panic to some nearby cover, and every one of their bullets missed me completely. A common religious person would instantly assumed a miracle occurred that I was not harmed at all by anything by the grace of God's protection. Now let's change the scenario a bit. Let's say while I was running for cover that my knee and shoulder was shot and wounded. A common religious person would still assume "Miracle! God saved his life and at least prevented him from such a death so he can still live his life on earth." Now let us change the scenario one last time and say I was killed in the driveby. The religious person would still assume that a miracle took place. Like "It's a miracle that nobody else got hurt at least." You see where I'm going? Miracles can be put in any scenario.

Your next argument: "The argument is that we have testimonies from reliable sources who admit to having seen events that defy natural human biology. You bring in Biologists to the argument, which is irrelevant, because they do not spend their time in hospitals were miracles are said to occur."

You claim to have testimonies from reliable sources. I'm assuming this means from doctors, yes? Well, if so, did you not say that 3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles? Of course your sources would most likely claim to have seen a miracle because 3 out of 4 of doctors believe that. Doctors are people who are meant to save peoples lives, and during those situations where they have to save the life of someone on a seconds notice, they only can think about saving the persons life, and can get flustered, overwhelmed with stress, et cetera. Therefore, of course someone would assume a religious miracle if they had saved the life of someone without even knowing what they did. For two reasons:

1.) You did say yourself that 3 out of 4 doctors believed in miracles.

2.) Like I said before, we humans have not discovered everything even about ourselves. Until we know everything about well, everything. We cannot assume that a religiously inspired miracle occurred and have God take the credit for it.

"Only an idiot would believe that."

Yes, it was a little blunt, and I apologize. But I do believe that if someone automatically goes to the conclusion of a religiously defined miracle because something of unknown origin occurred, then that is a very terrible assumption to make in claiming it as truth.

NOW the argument that "reliable" doctors has been refuted in much better conduct then my last argument.

Resurrection of Jesus:

For your first sentence, that is false. I had never said that. I said that the chances of it being so was incredibly low.

Evidence for people dying for a lying cause? You got it!

1.) World War 2.

2.) The Crusades

3.) Native-American conflicts with Americans (some of them.)

Shall I go on?

Adam and Eve:

Why would God wish to do that to us? I thought he made us PERFECTLY in his image with no flaws at all. That we were his perfect design. If he had to get rid of our sexual reproductive system, then we were not perfect to his design.

And my argument still stands, because I could have debated with anyone. It just so happened to be you. I figure I could be debating with the entire christian population of the world. But let's both be honest, that would be overwhelming to anybody. Which is why debates are done person to person. Not people to people. So I am debating against the christian faith for which YOU represent. And you are debating against the atheist philosophy that 'I' represent.


I came off as blunt, but basically my argument still remains strong. Vote for whoever you agree with by the end of this debate.


Reminder of the Topic of the Debate

Sides of the debate:

Pro- In my mind, God doesn't exist.
Me- In my mind, God does exist.

I am arguing against Pro's conception of nontheism. I am not going after all atheistic claims, I am only going after what he presents.

Likewise, Pro is not arguing against mainstream Christianity. That is not the debate he requested. He is arguing against my own understanding of theism. If he ignores my personal arguments for theism, and they remain un-refuted, then I win the debate. He must refute all of my arguments in order to win.

Standards of Logic

I don't think Pro understands exactly what I was saying here. I'll try to explain it again.

IF non-theism is true, THEN we are here by chance and evolution. We would only be further developed animals. We know that we have consciousness, but we do not know that we can trust our minds for rationality and logic. We can observe reality, and we can create things and use things that work, but we cannot trust that our logical systems are correct. There may or may not be objective truth in the world, and we would never be able to know if we could discover it.

IF theism is true, THEN we would have been created by God to be rational beings. We can trust logic because we were designed to use it. We should be able to discover objective truth in the world, because we know it exists and we know that we can use logic to discover it.

Non-theism is a paradigm that does not account for rational discource between two or more people. The point of debate is the presupposition that truth exists, and by reasoning, we can discover that truth. However, only under a theistic paradigm can we trust that debates and discussion are rational methods for discovering truth.

By my opponent accepting the rules of logic and attempting to debate me, he is already using the presuppositions that only exist in a theistic paradigm, thus demonstrating that I have already won the debate. Should he discredit theism, he is stuck with atheism, and he can not demonstrate that deduction is a sound way to discover truth.

This is by far the strongest argument for theism, and one that my opponent should consider and understand quite carefully. He should not merely shrug this off as a small issue, because if he cannot account for trusting is logical anaylsis, then he shows how absurd atheism is.


I am not saying that miracles are things that we claim have happened because of ignorance. Neither am I saying that a miracle can be equated to that of looking at past events and claiming a low statistical odds that one shoud not have survived. You have straw-manned my argument and ignored my claim.

My opponent then makes an awkward argument saying that doctors lose their sense of rationality right at the last second of saving a person's life, and so they then think it was God that saved the patient and not themselves? I apologize if I'm misunderstanding what you were saying, but it was very hard to follow.

Doctors are professionals of medicine who have gone through years of schooling and testing to arrive at where they are. These are not laymen who don't understand anything. These are very intelligent people- these are people that you trust your life with. These people, more than anyone on the planet, know how the human body works. So, when doctors see patients, who, they know are going to die, they know what the disease and such will do to a person, and then for later sessions the disease will disappear. Tumors will disappear. Things of this nature will happen. The doctors know that these people should have died, yet something intervened to prevent the death. 3 out of 4 doctors are convinced that this intervention is of the divine nature. I trust a doctor with my life, and I trust in their knowledge of human biology. When they say that they see miracles happen in their hospitals, I trust their testimonies.

The only way to refute this argument is to claim that the doctors' testimonies are not trustworthy. I do not think it is logical to assume they are lying or are incapable of understanding human biology.

Resurrection of Jesus

We have two options left for the first disciples of Jesus:

1) Either Jesus was really resurrected by God and the disciples preached and were martyred for their faith in Jesus.

2) The disciples lied about seeing Jesus. It was a conspiracy. They knew it was false yet were jailed, persecuted, and murdered for their testimonies.

Option 2 is absurd for mulitple reasons. There was no motive- why would they continually suffer for this lie? Why not admit that they made it up? They successfully spread this message. If it wasn't true, how did they convince so many people without any evidence? How did no one prove that they were liars?

People will not die for a lie. My opponent disagreed. I asked him to show some examples. Instead, he gave cases for people KILLING for what they believed in

1) World War 2. The Nazis killed the Jews because they thought they were an inferior race.

2) The Crusades. Catholics murdered because they thought they were doing God's work.

3) Native-Americans and the Whites. The Native-Americans fought for their land.

These three are not only NOT examples of people DYING for a lie, rather they were killing, these people were not killing for a lie either. These people really believed in what they were doing. This is not the same as knowing something is a lie and continuing to do it anyway.

We do not see people die for a lie. Let alone be tortured and successfully spread a religion at the same time.

My opponent cannot refute the Resurrection of Jesus.

Adam and Eve

Why are you so obsessed with sex? Many people go without sex and have happy lives. Once the world would have been populated, people would not want to overcrowd the planet.

And as already stated, the Genesis story has been interpreted as an allegorical tale, not literal history by some early Jews and Christians. Either one is possible, either one can be argued for.


I feel that I have given very strong arguments for Logic, Miracles, and the Resurrection that I don't see how my opponent can refute. His only arguments against Christianity goes against the Genesis account, which may have been an allegorical story. There is no reason to hold to a non-theistic paradigm- theism is more rational.

Debate Round No. 3


Yes, that is the correct stances on the matter. And the subject.

Well, on this one I would have to disagree with you. I clearly said the title was debating the existence of God or not. So that basically is covering all of atheism. Likewise, for your stance, it is covering all of Christianity. So in my opinion by default, we are arguing the existence of God by any stances our two beliefs show. Do not treat me like a child con, and tell me what I am really debating. I knew what I was looking for when I made this debate. My opponent clearly did not.

Standards of Logic

I believe that I am understanding his stance quite perfectly, but I will now debate what I exactly interpret from what he said.

"IF non-theism is true, THEN we are here by chance and evolution. We would only be further developed animals. We know that we have consciousness, but we do not know that we can trust our minds for rationality and logic. We can observe reality, and we can create things and use things that work, but we cannot trust that our logical systems are correct. There may or may not be objective truth in the world, and we would never be able to know if we could discover it."

Yeah, this seems all right. What's the problem?

"IF theism is true, THEN we would have been created by God to be rational beings. We can trust logic because we were designed to use it. We should be able to discover objective truth in the world, because we know it exists and we know that we can use logic to discover it."

Okay. So THIS is my interpretation of your argument:

You are saying that if non-religion is true, Then we are here basically by total random coincidence. And that non-religious thinking is that we cannot trust our cognitive functions with absolute perfect logical or rational thinking. Yes, that is a perfect start. Exactly.

Then you say that if religion is true, then we would have been created by a God in his perfect design to be rational beings by default and that we can totally trust our minds. Then you proceed on to say that non-theism is the only rational method for finding truth of the reality that we occupy. That form of thinking is absolutely absurd. And here is why.

For your first part, yes, the view of atheism is that we cannot absolutely trust our cognitive functions for rationality and reason. Which is a very reasonable stance because you have to consider a lot of factors. Like we can only use 10 percent of our brains. And, human beings by their very nature don't use their logic or rationality. We also use our emotional thinking. Or we have mental problems. There is so many factors that contribute to why we will never ever be 100% totally rational. That just will never happen.

To say that through a theistic way of thinking we can trust our brains and logic just because we believe in a deity is foolish because that does not manipulate our cognitive functions at all to be 100% right at all times. Also, do you want to know why Christians tend to think they are the most rational just because they believe in God? Because they make outlandish, comforting claims to the existence of God and just because of the amount of population that agrees with them, and, the close-minded "We have all the answers!" mentality. They make claims that a lot of people agree with, therefore they solidify that into truth. As Richard Dawkins once said: "Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."

In conclusion, all I am saying is no, we cannot fully trust our cognitive functions to be rational and reasonable all the time because that is impossible. We don't have all the answers and we admit that and instead seek to find them. Science makes theories, tests them, makes them into theories. The closest we can get to truth which we always make subjective to change because we admit that we may be wrong. That is how we work scientific advancement. Because at least under a non-religious point of view, we don't make any outlandish claims without any evidence and be satisfied with not knowing the truth. We keep working to find the truth.


Yes, doctors are professionals at what they do and that is debatable for person to person. But do you honestly think, that in a world where religion is supreme, 3 out of 4 doctors believe in miracles, and that scientific advancement in medicine is not fully complete in our process of even knowing about ourselves, that the claim of a doctor saying a miracle occurred is really accurate? Or could it be that something happened that didn't meet with his mind? What is more likely? A simple mistake? Or the divine intervention of an unproven deity? And who's to say its the christian God? What if it was the Muslim God? Or the Jewish God? So in conclusion, no. Doctors testimonies are not always trustworthy. Because the chances of divine intervention are so slim that it is out of reality. My previous argument was indeed stupid.

Resurrection of Jesus:

Let me tell you why option 2 is not as absurd as it sounds. You see, you have it flipped. Sure, at first they were probably jailed and persecuted, but moving along. I will defend my examples.

1. World War 2, well. I suppose it is a matter of how you view the events of World War 2. I view it as Hitler spread forth a lot of propaganda against groups he wanted genocide against that were lies and deceit just so he could start the imprisonment and murder and torture of the groups that were targeted. He said that the Jews were at fault for the financial crash of Germany, which was obviously a lie. And the soldiers following under Hitler did indeed die for the cause of him. Which was the cause of a lie.

2. The Crusades: Catholics murdered because they were claiming they did it under the name of God and were just barbaric people who wanted to gain non-divine rewards out of it, still a lie. Or they honestly thought that God would approve the murdering of non-believers. Both of which were a lie, and the crusades had to be actively stopped. And the crusaders died for the same lie. Both ways.

3. Native Americans. I did not say ALL Native American conflicts. I said some. Take a look at the Sand Creek Massacre for instance.

They may have believed it to be true themselves but in the end of the day they were indeed fighting for or dying for a lie. And this did indeed spread religious faith more. Through fear and power. Claim I cannot refute the resurrection of Jesus all you want, con. It is not for you to decide, it is not for me to decide, it is for our audience to decide.

Adam and Eve:

This first sentence is absolutely absurd, because I think my opponent doesn't know the fact that as humans it is our very nature to be sexual creatures. That is one of our very designs. We are lovers of sex by nature because we are sexual creatures. Our bodies want to reproduce. Naturally. It's no obsession with sex, its just fact. Sure, some people intentionally repress themselves because they feel it is somehow immoral to procreate. But not one human on this planet has ever lived a life without finding a way to satisfy their sexual needs. Ever.

Secondly, Adam and Eve is still a very popular belief in America, and not just America alone. Britain as well, and therefore, I debate against it.


I feel that I made a pretty good argument. I hope the viewers are enjoying this debate.


I'm not treating you like a child, Con. It's just, you cannot put my stance for all of Christianity. There are way too many divisions in it. The majority of Christianity is Catholocism, which I am most certainly not arguing for. Within Protestantism, there are many thousands of different denominations. So, no, you cannot base your arguments against me by covering it with all of Christianity.

Standards of Logic

Okay, you have a common misconception about this argument, which is completely understandable. This isn't an argument as to why faith in God is better than not believing. This argument isn't about proving God's existence (not necessarily, but it will lead to it, as I'll show), it is about showing the difference between two paradigms (two worldviews).

One worldview says this: God created mankind to be rational beings. We can trust logic completely. Logic is absolute, and morals are objective.
Another worldview says: Logic is a societal construct. Metaphsyics isan illusion, and everyone's reality is their own perception. We cannot trust logic. Logic is subjective and so are morals.

Only one of those worldviews can be true. They cannot both be true. What many people want to do is, they want to assume that there is no God, and take the atheistic paradigm. This is fine. But in this paradigm, there is no reason to trust logic. There is no right and wrong. We simply just "exist". So one cannot say "we ought to not believe in God, because in a universe that has no meaning, one cannot tell another what one ought to do. One may say that we can each create our own meaning, but then this meaning is subjective, that is, we each decide for ourselves what to do, and each person is just as right with their personal life as the next. One cannot criticize another person because this would contradict their belief in moral relativsm. We are all just random collocations of atoms.

As long as the atheist stays in this line of thinking (in line with his/her paradigm, this is fine). But if the atheist then wants to argue the existence of God, he/she must invoke logic, (which is untrustworhty in the atheist paradigm) and is invoking morals (you ought not to believe in God is a contradiction to moral relativsm)

So an atheist may say they believe that God does not exist. But once they ask to use logic and moral objective standards, they have just borrowed from the theistic paradigm. They have stepped onto a worldview that needs God to exist. They are in a contradiction. So in order for an atheist to argue against God's existence, they need to invoke it while doing so.

A contradictory paradigm is an incorrect paradigm.


My opponent argues doctors say that miracles happen becaues of ignorance. No, doctors understand natural human biology. So when they see a contradiction to natural human biology, only divine intervention is left, so by process of elimination, they understand it is a miracle.

My opponent argues that the chances of miracles are so slim, they cannot be true. This is cicular reasoning. I showed proof of many miracles happening in hospitals, and he rebuts it by saying that miracles don't happen often, so they couldn't have happened.

No, I showed evidence of miracles happening frequently. It wouldn't matter what God they prove (by the way, the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian God is the same God), I only have to prove that a God exists, as any God existing would disprove atheism.

Resurrection of Jesus

My opponent continues to use the same faulty analogies. Remember, he is arguing that the apostles died to protect something they knew was a lie. He then gives examples of people murdering others for (incorrect) religious reasons.

1. The Nazis were killed for punishment for what they did. They did not die for a lie.

2. The Catholics murdered others. The people being murdered were not dying for lying about what they believe in.

3. This, again, is another war. This is not example of people dying for lying about what they belive in.

I will say it again, in bold, so my opponent can understand what i am saying: People will not die protecting something they know is not true. So, people who die in wars for unjust causes is not the same thing.

Adam and Eve

Yes, sex feels good, but if Adam and Eve had never sinned, they would still be completely obedient to God. Had God wanted sexual reproduction to have stopped, it could have happened.

Again, you are debating something that is a popular belief in America, which for one, does NOT encompass the entirety of Christianity, and second, as I have already stated, you are debating against me. Continuing to debate outside of my arguments should cause the voters to sway from giving you points for arguments. If this matters to you, I suggest you start arguing against me, not a straw-manned version of my arguments, which is a fallacy.
Debate Round No. 4


Before I go on and post my argument, I apoligize to both my opponent and our audience for taking so long to post my argument. In school, a new semester began leaving my extremely busy on re-organizing, adjusting to new classes, et cetera. Actually good I can even post this argument on the last chance I can! So let's get back to my argument. And to con, you should be able to represent every branch of chrisianity at least in some ways. Because all the branches of christianity match the same belief in God. So you should be able to at the very least propose arguments coming from any branch of christianity. I am covering all of atheism, likewise you should have done the same with christianity.

Standards of Logic:

Okay. So since this is the final argument I truly hope that I get what you are saying correctly this time. Being the last chance and all that:

So yes, that second worldview you listed is truth in my eyes.

I have to disagree with you. Not many people like taking the atheistic paradigm because they feel that it would bring a sense of hopelesness and lack of meaning to life. They feel that to live becomes meaningless. Which isn't true, but it is why there are so many religious people on planet Earth. I also disagree with you on your second argument. The atheistic paradigm doesn't say: "Don't trust your logic." It says: "Question your logic." And there is a sense of right and wrong in the atheistic paradigm. Except our sense of right and wrong is not bound by reward of paradise. It is bound by what we feel to do for the sake of good; for the sake of ourselves and our fellow human being. But yes, we do in all reality just exist. For your next couple of words my opponent says from my point of view that: Nobody can believe in God because life has no meaning and we cannot tell eachother what to do. and each person is just as right with their personal lives. One cannot criticisize another person because this would contradict moral beliefs.

If I got this argument right, which I doubt (Sorry, it was awfully confusing the way you worded it), then no. That is not a proper representation of what the atheistic paradigm says. The atheistic paradigm in my eyes would be: "We ought to question the belief in God, because in this universe of so much mystery and enigma, we cannot let a man-made religiously inspired faith tell us what is true and what is falsehood, when in fact during the time period that these same ideas were made and that these same texts were written, we had little to no scientific evidence of the reality of which we occupied. Let alone of the world we dwelled on. And to refute your statement of in the atheistic paradigm, life appears meaningless and contradictory, let me give you a quote:

"We are travelers on a cosmic journey, stardust, swilring and dancing in the eddies and whirlpools of infinity. Life is eternal. We have stopped for a moment to enounter each other, to meet, to love, to share. This is a precious moment. It is a little parenthesis in eternity." -Paulo Coelho

The atheistic paradigm is not as you assume it to be. We have rules. And we have morals. Secondly, you say that an atheist invoking logic is untrustworthy. Already refuted. Not untrustworthy, doubted. And even if it is untrustowrthy, so what? We have our fellow human beings to erode it and smooth it out into its true good ideas. And if the idea just turns to nothing by the waters of skepticism and debate, then it was never meant to be. Create a new idea and improve.

And you say that the second an atheist tries to convince people of the non-existence of God, we enter the theistic paradigm. No. We do not. We give incredible evidence towards the conclusion that God does not exist. We do not make instant claims that must not be questioned. So, no. We do not need to invoke anything. If anything, the theistic paradigm contradicts itself by disproving itself. How I make that daring observation? Well, if we can trust logic completely, then why have people disagreed with eachother? And if morals are objective, why has many rules of christianity and theism entirely changed over the years if they were already perfect? If anything, the theistic paradigm is the incorrect paradigm.


Again, I disagree with this too because doctors, like us, are humans. And humans have not mastered our very own understanding of ourselves. Not one human has, and the average doctor most likely wouldn't either if the top biologists can't. To assume that divine intervention is left when something is seen unknown in science is absurdity at its finest.

Incorrect. You did not show me any proof to any miracles. You showed me proof of how many doctors believe in miracles like you do. And in a world where 84 percent of the population of earth has faith and a third of that are christians. Is it really a surprise to have that statistic? Does it really prove miracles? No, not really.

Ressurection of Jesus: Remember, my opponent asked me to list places where people have died for lies.

1.) The Nazis faught back during the opposition. And died for it. Yes, they were willing to die for their lie. And they did.

2.) The catholics did murder others. Mostly with success. But those who did fight against them, they did not bow down to justice. The catholics died fighting to spread their popular terror and bloodshed. Which sadly did not stop them from knowing what they were doing was wrong.

3.) True, I give you that. Not about what you believed in. But you asked not for a belief, you asked if they were willing to die for a cause. Which the americans clearly did when they took the risk of killing by surprise innocent Native Americans that if a few things were different that the americans would not notice due to them being intoxicated. They would have died for their hate and lie all the same.

I will say it, I do understand what you are saying. I am saying you are wrong.

Adam and Eve:

It seems my opponent has completely ignored my argument here. My previous argument in this segment stands strong.


I will say this. You should have came into this debate knowing full well that the existence of God covers all of your branches. Something that all branches agree on. I see no boundries. I see no borders. All are the same. And if you wish me to have argued against your arguments; I have. It is my fault I misinterpreted it, but audience, do not mistake confusing wording, or mistaken reading on my part, with actively ignoring his arguments. I hope you are all enjoying the debate.

P.S. The belief in God DOES encompass ALL of Christianity.


All Christians agree that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, and that Christ was resurrected and atoned for the sins of the world. These are the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. There are many schools of thought for the rest of it, too many disagreements for me to cover all of those beliefs; to ask for this is impossible, and it only shows poor conduct on Pro's side, as I have continually explained why he needed to drop this ignorant concept. Yes, the belief in God does encompass all of Christianity, but different doctrines about God differ from each denomination.

Standards of Logic

Don't trust your logic, and question your logic, is substantially similar. My argument is that the atheists have no substantial reason to trust their logic. I'm not saying some atheists will not trust their logic, I'm saying they will do so without a valid reason.

If an atheist conceded that they have no justification in trusting logic, and understood that their worldview offers only moral relativism, then these atheists would be consistent. I'm not arguing that this paradigm is inherently wrong. I'm only arguing that, if an atheist argues that there is objective truth, and that it is morally right to spread that truth, they have stepped onto the theistic paradigm,; they have become inconsistent, and have proven that they need to invoke God in order to refute him.

You said that theism is the wrong paradigm. This argument is not saying that either paradigm is correct or incorrect. It is only pointing out how the nontheist must borrow from the thesitic paradigm when they want to debate the existence of God.


I did not claim that I proved miracles exist. I argued that if we trust the testimony of doctors, then we can conclude that miracles exist. You do not trust the testimony of doctors, so I can only convince you that miracles exist if I can persuade you that doctors provide reliable testimonies. I have been unable to provide that to you. But, if you ever are in need of medical attention, and you allow a doctor to examine you and treat you, then you have been inconsistent with your argument that you don't trust doctors.

This is the second argument that exploits the inconsistency of atheism.

The Resurrection

You're still completely missing my argument. You've only given examples of people killing for a lie. The early Christians were not killing others. Other people were killing them for what they believed in. But you are claiming that the early Christians were willing to be slaughetered, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, beaten, and murdered, to protect a lie that they had no way of benefiting from. What you are arguing for is, for lack of a better word, nonsense. You have not refuted this claim; you have only offered corrupt people killing for something that they think is true, not for a lie, or for Nazis getting punished for a crime.

Adam and Eve

Asserting that my refutation does not destroy your argument does not make it so. I have answered all of your objections to this event, and have also even shown why this event does not need to be taken literally.


Only in a theistic paradigm can we trust logic and acknowledge moral objectivity (i.e. it is always wrong to commit murder, no matter what culture says diffrently). We can trust miracles exist if we trust the testimony of doctors (unless you don't trust doctors assessment on human biology, and then you can't ever go to any doctor lest you contradict your argument). We can also trust the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. We can conclude that God exists from these facts.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
Great ending!
Posted by Lupricona 2 years ago
Woah Maria_Magalhaes, there's no need in encouraging my opponent. lol
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
You know what, you are right! Enough proving him wrong. I have to solidify MY points. Thank you!
Posted by Maria_Magalhaes 2 years ago
I completely agree with you! And I have those some distresses and frustrations! :)
Sorry I came out, kinda cocky! But it drives me crazy, when people only focus in some details, forgetting to see the whole picture. Not that the christian picture is all goodness... not at all!
But I believe it has an enormous potential, if well interpreted. Not saying we shouldn't care about the parts we don't agree with, but maybe read them in our own light. And try to focus more in the parts that we agree with and less on those we disagree.

Obviously, for the sake of debate this is not the best approach :p But maybe the debate itself, shouldn't focus so much in proving your opponent wrong and yourself right, but more in finding a common ground and work your way up from there...

And good luck for your reply in the debate! I'm really rooting for you! You're kinda in a disadvantageous position and I'm really hoping you turn this around for the fun of it!
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
Hm. Yes, I know. And in all honesty, I see religion as a beautiful concept that is necessary and not harmful to humankind. The concept is rather interesting and aspiring. But how it is being represented is foolish in my eyes. I have met several people who have tried to convince me all is well and fine in christianity. But the fact is, it isn't. And they were normal, every day people. Some of them are my friends.
Posted by Maria_Magalhaes 2 years ago
Again, I didn't manage to explain my point of view. I'm sorry.
Imagine that religion and science are just two different lines in parallel plans. Science can't and didn't disapprove religion. Religion is not a bunch of history facts. The Bible is not suppose to be a history book, that narrates the origins of the universe and the evolution of life on Earth and the history of the Jewish people. If you want to interpret it like that, I'm sorry. I respect that, but I don't really care! Because that's not the point on neither the Bible or in Christianity. So it doesn't matter, as long as you don't let it keep you away of the real message.
And the real message for me, despite some contradictions in the Bible itself, it's the existence of a God of absolute unconditional love. It's all the teachings about how you should walk your path on earth, so you can enjoy it to the maximum, being the closest to this God. The grace of giving, the grace of friendships, the grace of existing and wake up every day. Is the ceaseless support of the love and example of Jesus. Is the hope of the eternal love, happiness and peace.

So if you want to scientifically disprove any of this claims, please do! But even if you could, I wouldn't care. Not because I'm close minded, not because I don't believe in reasoning or evidencial proofs. But because feelings and faith, after a certain extend, are much more strong than rational thoughts. That's what I was trying to explain, when I gave you the example of your love towards your parents.
It's like trying to argue with someone, whose son died in a car accident, that it doesn't make any sense to suffer for him, because it won't bring him back. And even if the father tried to rationalize it, do you think he could avoid the sorrow?

Faith is not the antagonist of thought. Just like Joker is not the antagonist of Spiderman. Could they be rivals? Yes, but only if you're misreading and confusing the stories.
Posted by Maria_Magalhaes 2 years ago
Guess we're creating some sort of debate here in the comment section :) I don't mind.

That was the daltonism allegory that i was referring to, obviously. A synonym of daltonism is color blindness, though in practice there are many different levels of daltonism and in most cases daltonian people can see colors and they just confuse some... but that's not relevant now.

And I agree with you! It would be a very insulting and prejudiced statement, if the meaning of what I wrote, was that, that you interpreted. Unfortunately you got it completely wrong, but I will try to explain.
Imagine that you're color blind, and you can see only in black and white. And one day you meet someone, that is writing about the color of things. You don't understand any of it, you probably think he's hallucinating, but you're a curious and open minded fellow, so you ask him to explain to you, what are this "colors" he's writing about. He's a wise man and he gives you a beautiful detailed explanation, as much as scientifically accurate, of what colors are.
The point is, are you going to believe the man? Or are you going to just label him as crazy? And even if you believe him, are you really going to understand what colors are?

I'm not saying that atheists are color blind! I just think that they haven't had the chance to see them.. or in most cases, they saw the colors, but due to a huge pile of stereotypes and preconceptions, they don't think they are colors, but visual perceptions.

I will answer to the rest in another comment.
And i completely misspelled proofs before! I hope you understood.
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
"Discussing god with an atheist is like discussing colors with someone that can only see in black and white. Even if you could explain the physical components of light and how your brain processes the information captured by your eyes and creates this colorful images... It wouldn't make much of a difference, because he would not be able to see them."

That is the insult I was referring to. Because it is basically saying that all atheists are so narrow-minded to only their beliefs. Which is a terrible false assumption to make.

You are correct sir, religion is not a science. But that does not protect it from confronting it with science. Because since is the systematic study of the reality of which we occupy. And it is not like science TRIED to prove religion wrong. During its advancement it just happened to do so in the process.
And why can't we confront it through a scientific perspective? To put it simply, you are saying science cannot go against religion through scientific skepticism and evidence because... Science is based off evidence and religion is based off faith? Riiight. Secondly, I do learn my opponents views and knowledge. Based off mutliple people. My family is religious. I lived in Utah for years. Trust me, I know how christianity is handled and displayed.

So basically you are saying that christians are so close minded and "faithful" that they won't believe any evidence or reasoning shown to them? You know, it is ideas like that that prove Richard Dawkins right. Faith is the process of non-thinking.

And to conclude my comment, you seem very self-righteous.
Posted by Maria_Magalhaes 2 years ago
The daltonism allegory wasn't suppose to be an insult, but I apologize if you interpreted it that way.

But you're missing the point. Religion is not a science. If you want to understand religion, you can't confront it through a scientific perspective, because it's not just a matter of facts and cause effect events.
So, what you're doing is challenging a tennis player for a football match, while forcing him to play with his racket, instead of his feet. May he win? Perhaps... will you understand what tennis is? I really doubt it.
And what's the point of debating, if it's not to learn your opponents views and knowledge?

"YOU may feel you cannot but this is not an impossible challenge surely for a devoted christian."
What's the challenge? Making you believe in God? It sure isn't. But the christian faith is suppose to be passed mainly through actions and examples. Through words too, but it's not through this kind of debate.
If you except him, just to defend the possibility of the existence of God, rather than proving it, that's an other case. But that ability doesn't have anything to do with your level of devotion. A devoted christian will believe in Jesus and in God no matter how many scientific, rhetoric or logic proves you give him against them. Because your faith is based in much more than just rational statements...

Just like love. Despite how many proves I may try to give you, that you don't love your parents, you won't give a crap ;) Because they don't matter. Your love for your parents is much more real than any skeptical thought that your brain can formulate.

Hahah I don't mind to talk with you... I'm not sure what you want to debate, but if you present a fun topic I will surely accept it!
Posted by A_Flying_Toaster 2 years ago
Well, I was merely speaking truth. I don't care about what his interpretation is of the christian faith is. I care about what is the most popular and powerful form of christianity that is being spread. And yes, I do. I am aware of them all. And I still keep the contest up. Because yes, someone can do it. YOU may feel you cannot but this is not an impossible challenge surely for a devoted christian. And besides, we are merely talking about the belief of God or not. My opponent need not know everything of the christian faith. Just enough to pose a convincing and challenging argument.

And no, I was not attempting to enchain him with the beliefs and faiths of others. I am not. I am merely telling him that it is not his beliefs I am fighting against. It is the faiths of the christian community most popular right now. He came into this debate and should have known that.

But insult atheism all you want. I'll post another one of these debates if YOU want to take a go at it and prove me wrong?
No votes have been placed for this debate.