The Instigator
saiga12boy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is Atheism Real?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 909 times Debate No: 84605
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

saiga12boy

Con

I am asking for any atheist opponent to provide any proof whatsoever that atheism is real.
Hayd

Pro

Con clearly indicated that I must show evidence that atheism is real. Con does not specify whether it must be valid evidence, or good evidence, merely any kind of evidence whatsoever. Thus, if I do provide this, I affirm the resolution and win the debate.

A Gallup poll showed that 3-5% of Americans believe that god(s) do not exist [1]. This proves that atheists do exist, and thus atheism exists, and therefore is real.

I have affirmed the resolution and won the debate.

[1] [http://www.patheos.com...]
Debate Round No. 1
saiga12boy

Con

When asked for evidence, I meant for the evidence that atheism itself is a correct philosophy.I should have been more specific, I apologize. However, this answer does not answer my criteria.
So I will ask it more specifically "Can you provide proof that the philosophy of atheism,that the universe
was not created by an intelligent creator?".
Hayd

Pro

Ah, now I see. Con shows that he actually wants to debate the existence of God. My previous circumstances still stand, as long as I can provide evidence for it, whether or not it is reasonable evidence, I affirm the resolution and win the debate. I will run the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument

1) The nonexistence of God is a logical possibility
2) There is a possible world in which God does not exist
3) If there is a possible world in which God does not exist, God does not exist in all worlds
4) If God is nonexistent in all worlds, he is nonexistent in our world
5) God does not exist.

Logical possibility: it does not break the rules of logic (e.g. squared circles, or married bachelors)

Explanation of 3:
Just reverse it. If God exists in a possible world, he exists in all possible worlds because he is omnipotent. Thus, if there is any possible world in which a god does not exist, the claim is negated. There is, thus, working backwords, he does not exist in any.
Debate Round No. 2
saiga12boy

Con

As I said in my 2nd post,in apparently less clear words,I am asking for absolute proof that no god exists. Not the possibility that a god may not exist.
1).The nonexistence of god is only a possibility if there is a possibility that no god exists, can you provide any evidence that there is even a possibility that god does not exist?
2) There is only a possible world where no god exists if it is possible for no god to exist in such a world, can you provide such evidence?
Hayd

Pro

Con specifically states in the R1 rules, "any proof whatsoever that atheism is real." Con cannot change the rules of R1, thats moving the goalposts. I will now respond to my opponent's rebuttals.

1) Read Con's sentence, its very circular. "The nonexistence of god is only a possibility, provide evidence that there is only a possibility that god is nonexistent."

The impact cancels itself out.

2) The only evidence I have to provide is that the nonexistence of god is a possibility. Anything but logical contradictions such as squared circles or married bachelors is a possibility, thus the nonexistence of god is a possibility.

My response is getting redundant, I suggest Con reads my responses more carefully.
Debate Round No. 3
saiga12boy

Con

Fine, I made a mistake in that sentence, I meant to say "even" instead of "only". I see I have made too many errors, so I concede. You win
Hayd

Pro

I accept the concession. If you want to redo the debate sometime later, just message me. Thank you, Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
saiga12boy

Con

saiga12boy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
That is design. ..
Posted by saiga12boy 1 year ago
saiga12boy
It is possible for there to be a god. Every civilization ever made has been the result of intelligent design. Why wouldn't the complex, organized universe be? No invention has been made without intelligent design.
Considering nothing has been proven to exist without intelligent design, and yet many things have been proven to exist with intelligent design, it's only logical to think the universe is the same way.
Posted by AzHaze 1 year ago
AzHaze
Reformist , you are actually mistaken in your statement about atheism. Atheism is indeed a belief that there is absolutely no god. You defined an Agnostic, who acknowledges no deity, yet still holds the possibility open that there may be "something out there "
Posted by AzHaze 1 year ago
AzHaze
LOL. Of course the belief in no deity whatsoever is real. The real burden of proof rests on anybody who wants to prove the existence of any supernatural power .. or a god or gods
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
"...Is it even posible for there to be no god ?". You could as well ask. Is it even possible for there to be a god ?. The answer would be the "same"...Imagination.. In "Dream world" everything is possible/impossible....
Posted by YexaC 1 year ago
YexaC
Just stop trolling already.
Posted by saiga12boy 1 year ago
saiga12boy
Eh, your desire and words for me to kill myself over this argument makes me not care what you think. Atheists and liberals have a consistent tendency to insult people arguing against them rather then compose a rational counter-argument. You still only chose to dissect my definition of atheism rather then answering my question on how no god could exist because you are incapable of it.
Sometimes I do things in an unorthodox way but I have purposes for them.
Posted by YexaC 1 year ago
YexaC
Your ignorance and dishonesty is on a new level. You're vastly below average compared to the average YouTube user.

The one thing in this world I believe is that you're a troll. I literally don't even believe you're real. I think you're probably an atheist who gets a kick out of acting like someone completely dishonest and retarded. You probably think it's funny people even take your invented character seriously.
Posted by saiga12boy 1 year ago
saiga12boy
I've never known any self-proclaimed atheist that wasn't absolutely sure that no god exists, they have all said no god exists.
It is also ridiculous to use agnosticism, atheism, and agnostic-atheism to describe the exact same thing when you want it to be, and something else when you want it to be. Be reasonable human beings and assign a seperate meaning to "atheism", instead of hiding your beliefs in one circumstance and saying another thing in a different context. If you are agnostic JUST SAY SO, you don't need to be an agnostic-atheist, agnostic, and atheist and use the words differently like I've always seen them used in social contexts. Why do you need 3 words when you mean the same thing even though this is very confusing socially?
Yes, I gave you an example of the mindgames you play on non-atheists with the "lack of belief is absolute certainty" statement (though there is some truth to it, though I exaggerated). In this debate I asked a question, can my opposer provide ANY proof whatsoever that no t is even possible for a god to not exist. Is t th is not even your definition of atheism, the doubt of a god? Because everytime I ask the question to any atheist, they never, ever give a logical answer. They just slither away from the question or say that some other (non-sentient, of course) thing existed before, and when you ask them wherthat came from, they will make another similar answer or say they don't know. As an american I have been fed lies saying atheism is true my whole life, they treat it as if it is an absolutely proven fact, but never justify it. So know that I used a very similar tactic that atheists have always used. Do you know know what it is like to be on the side of logic and truth?
So I ask, and I don't care who answers it, can anyone please answer myquestion, is it even posible for thre to be no God?
Posted by YexaC 1 year ago
YexaC
Lack of belief in "x" isn't the same as believing "x" doesn't exist.. This is first grade stuff. I've literally run into 10 year old children online who fully comprehend this, so are you 9?

Hypothetically even if you somehow change the definition of atheism to only include people who believe a god does not exist, most atheists simply won't be atheists any longer. It's not like agnostic-atheists are bound eternally to the label. We simply fall under it according to our current stance and if you happen to change the label to no longer represent a majority under it those people simply won't be atheists anymore and we'll invent a new label that clearly describes us and what agnostic-atheism is.

There are several different types of theism and atheism. You can either be gnostic or agnostic theist or atheist where as being simply agnostic is like forfeiting yourself from the idea we can even have knowledge or a discussion on the topic, which is almost as dishonest as you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
saiga12boyHaydTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
saiga12boyHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture