The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Maher
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

It is always up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Maher
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 103628
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery a fake and a fraud.
Indeed it is always up to theists to prove their god. No exceptions. None. How can you prove something that is unproved? How can you prove something that is unknown? How can you prove something that has never been seen by anyone - ever? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those outrageous and absurd claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves.

There’s absolutely no evidence for their god. None. There’s no tests that can prove their god exists. None. There’s nothing that can demonstrate their god exists. None. If there was, those who could prove this cherry picker god would be the only quadrillionaires on the planet. Their god would be the only god worshiped on the planet.

So how do you even know that this god even exists? Through faith? What? What kind of god, especially the god according to the bible with his truly bloated superior ego complex would ever NOT show himself and present evidence instead of leaving his so-called creation of man to rely on faith? Also if this god is truly a god, he would not rely on faith and he could simply come on down here and---talk---to---us. Now that’s evidence. The bible which is in TEXT form, which is clearly not evidence, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none. So this bible is essentially a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything.

If this god of theists is a true god he can simply come on down here and talk to us rather than using faith or text. Talking to man is evidence in which there is none to be proved.. So until this so called god of theirs presents any kind of evidence, he’s a sham, a fake and a fable unless you belong to the club of the truly gullible as many that are religious do rather than being shown something that is tangible in which there’s no proof that this god of theirs has ever done. That shows that those who worship this god with their gullibility, generally have a true lack of intelligence and education. .

In closing for this round... if you have the slightest whimsical doubts within your beliefs in this god in which you cannot prove even exists, then you are an atheist.

So your job as Con is to prove that the god according to the bible exists. Then again, why would you want to?

All creationists will be discarded. Why? Not one creationist is willing to put god on trial again because everything they have is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved.

Maher

Con

First of all, you use Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. 'there's no proof so it's not there.' is a commonly used fallacy by atheists. Well no just because you didn't prove it yet doesn't mean it's not there. And by the way don't get it that I admit there is no proof for God. Actually I believe who says there is no evidence that God exists is somehow blind.

There are many kinds of evidences but it seems you use the scientific one. It isn't experimentally tested so it's not proved so it doesn't exist! Well do you know what people understand when they say God? God is briefly a higher deity, supreme being that has no instance who created the universe. Therefore higher than the universe and it's laws because he created the laws. And definitely anybody with healthy brain will deduce He can't be experimented. How will he be a god or a higher deity when he comes to you and shakes your hand? Illogical and silly thinking.

About the evidence, I need to ask you first whether you consider a design requires a designer or not. Please answer with yes or no. And also if I am not annoying you I would kindly like you to tell me if you have heard about things similar to a fine-tuned universe or dna. Be honest and don't ask google :)

if you -all people who read this- believe and certain with no slightest doubt that the Mona lisa was made by a brilliant painter not by a split of paint, then you are half a theist.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Um no. Wow did you miss the point entirely. That shows that you have not been doing this for very long and that you do not really know what you are talking about as you try to rummage through your head the difference of what is fact from fiction. “First of all, you use Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. 'there's no proof so it's not there.'” 100% false. And do not try to second guess from something in which you obviously know nothing about. Its “There’s no proof, so YOU need to prove it.” BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE. Now that’s what is the theme used by atheists and not your dredged up thoughtless “commonly used fallacy by atheists.”


“Well no just because you didn't prove it yet doesn't mean it's not there.” Again that was never stated. Wow can’t you read and or interpret? I mean you completely fail at interpreting your bible just as all christians and those that read the bible do, so just as you do here? Until YOU prove god and there’s something tangible, he’s not there. YOU can’t just go on and make up stories because you have no answers so “therefore god”. Atheists do NOT do that. Again BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE.


“Actually I believe who says there is no evidence that God exists is somehow blind.” Then go right ahead and prove that your god exists right now because that BOP is always upon you. No exceptions. NONE. Of course you didn't even come close to doing it.


“Well do you know what people understand when they say God? God is briefly a higher deity, supreme being that has no instance who created the universe.” That has got to be one of the belly buster worst excuses of all time.Its right up there with someone actually believing that one of the 10 commandments is overeating and obesity. If you go into the rainforests of Brazil, the peoples there won’t know what red meat hook you are meandering about at all. Now which god are you speaking of? There are over 2,000 different religions in practice right now in the world with different gods worshiped. So no. people will NOT know nor understand what is meant by when YOU mention the word god as to what YOU want them to understand. In every single language YOUR god can be disproved. No exceptions. None. Its so much fun ripping you to shreds because it is so crystal clear that you have no idea what you are squawking about.


And what laws would those be coming from your god who in which in no way can you or anyone possibly prove ever exist? Oh you mean the laws that slavery is idealistic, that gays should be stoned to death, that if you worship other gods you should be killed, that if you work on the sabbath you should be killed, that if you blaspheme you should be killed, that god’s many genocides are perfectly acceptable in which he murdered innocent children and babies, and the fact that he hates children, loves raped women… oh you mean those laws? Oh you mean you haven’t read your bible? It shows.


Sure there may very well have been a designer, could very well be a designer, could be hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, quadrillions. But its NOT the one according to the bible until something tangible shows up on my back door and even then, there’s 0 reason why I or anything should ---ever--- believe in that thing because there’s far too much hate and evil within it. And absolutely not is a designer required. If it is/ was then you have no free will. But then again if you believe in YOUR god, in which you have no proof even exists, you have no free will anyway.

Now as far as a designer or DNA, you know what I and scientists and atheists say? We say “I don’t know.” But you who believe in god can’t. Those are terrorist words unto you as you believe that you have the answers to every single little thing within you god and little blank black book. Oh but wait! No god, according to you, who ranks supreme, would be STUPID enough to ever communicate through text, the worst form of communication possible rather than providing actual evidence.


“If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors… how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can’t distinguish between the law of Israel and god’s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take figuratively. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter how its translated. It doesn’t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well.” Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty


“We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that’s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn’t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?” Matt Dillahunty

“If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We’d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor.” Christopher Hitchens


No you are not annoying me. Trust me kid, you are but an ink blot. I've been doing this for a very long time and have met up and talked with far worse than you. You are just flat out ignorant, uninformed and not caught up with reality at all from your fetal position. Your thus far debate is in fact quite dismal and abysmal even though you most assuredly think you are proud of yourself. But I 100% know that I made that come to a screeching halt. Why? Because I can think, rationalize, reason, use common sense, use logic whereas with god, religion and the bible, there’s not a single ounce of green pepper steak within it.


With a very big stun gun and odor eaters...
Strange isn’t it that you did not use, at all, faith and the bible as evidence for god, which in truth is the only evidence you and others who believe in god have. But both faith and the bible are not evidence to prove god at all because no god would ever use them instead of evidence.

Maher

Con

"There"s no proof, so YOU need to prove it." did you even read about Argument from Ignorance?
Argument from ignorance 'a lack of contrary evidence' : It asserts that a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true (or vice versa).
and that is exactly what you are doing. 100% true.
also it is 100% commonly used fallacy by atheists. As lots of them use it in the funny trending stereotype of 'evolution is true until you prove it wrong and win Nobel prize' like who won Nobel prize on Evolution in the first place? anyway it's not our subject but i just mentioned an example of what i said as an answer to your 'Atheists do NOT do that. Again BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE.'

Also atheists have another habit besides appealing to ignorance that is mentioning religion in everything and anything with no clear reason. We'll see in a moment.
well that's disappointing, i said 'in a moment' then continued reading until the end and found it is all about religion.
Sir, nobody mentions religion. You didn't mention religion in the first text. Now you argue about God's existence and nothing more. Then later in another debate we can discuss religion.

just a note about your 'which god are you speaking of? There are over 2,000 different religions in practice right now in the world with different gods worshiped.'
anybody who has studied and compared religions will know they're not totally different. They all agree in the major point of a great ONE creator to be worshipped. Of course they have all damaged by time and and more things were added or removed but it is agreed by religion comparison scientists like Bruce, Schmitt, Lang, Coopers and others that primitive MONOtheism is the root of religion out of which animism and myth grew.
I can argue more about this but again it's not the subject of the debate. If you did not run out of arguments we may discuss the main subject without running to other subjects.

but I can go on with you. When you believe first in a god/higher deity or whatever you might call we can together filter the 2,000 god :) if you do not believe in a god in the first place what is your problem with 2.000 or 2,000,000 god? :)

'Now as far as a designer or DNA, you know what I and scientists and atheists say? We say "I don"t know.' Now I have a question for your, do you believe that the directed functional complexity can be made my chance/no designer? do you believe there is any possible way at any time that a split of paint can produce the Monalisa? Pleases answer with yes or no.
Also i'm interested to know if you believe that the egg was before the chicken or not :)

Lastly I am not replying to these heaps of arrogance and knowledge-claiming plus out of context stuff of yours. And will wait for your argument over the main subject only.

regards.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

I am so glad that I am a lot smarter than you and that I am a lot more educated than you and I can rightly degrade, belittle and dehumanize a scab of rot like you. Wow. You know nothing about atheists and yet you try to pretend that you do. You do not know how they feel. You do not know how they act. You do not know what they know. You guess. You invent excuses to make your scrappy little invented babble to enlarge your prostate so it seems larger than your cancer that eats away at your brain because your entire debate, only christians who really don’t know what that are talking about and are desperate to show off themselves as doggie doo will make points that you did and expect them to liven up a dead crowd.

“There"s no proof, so YOU need to prove it."” Was already discussed. Its a point that you cannot win. Absolutely 100% correct because the proof is upon you. Duh. You are the one who makes the claims that god exists. Not atheists. Now what part of that don’t you understand? Its not up to atheists to disprove god because god hasn’t been proven in---the---fricken--first---place you jolly old elephantitis noodle brain. Now I am really losing my patience with you because you are so far behind in this game and you are clearly making sad sack attempts, and you know it, and inventing excuses to keep your flat breasted junk up, from utter failure, because you are failing and rather than go down with a sinking ship, you’ve decided to let the sinking ship sink even further to make an even further a$$ of yourself.

“'a lack of contrary evidence'” CHRISTIAN DUNCES LIKE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE: NONE. One more stupid miserable slip-up like that and I will end this debate, I do not have the time, nor the willpower to continue to debate a total imbecile moron like you who sleeps through nuclear wars.

Then you mention “its a common fallacy of atheists” when you do not know of god damned thing about atheists. Now let’s see how badly you trip up because unlike your bible, there’s no book that atheists go by. Oh but wait, you don’t know that, so everything your sugar loaf meat loaf brain states about atheists is a guess.

Oh but gee sparky, you also don’t know that if there is the nth of a degree in doubt in the belief in YOUR neanderthal god, then you are an atheist. So you entire paragraph about your evolution bit seems to catch wind on your reareth endeth as billions of atheists do not believe in evolution. It is so much fun to make you look like a jesus jujitsu hi karate meatball pie warrior.

“Also atheists have another habit besides appealing to ignorance” christians, god ARE ignorance.” that is mentioning religion in everything and anything with no clear reason.” And yet you believe in a god that you cannot prove even exists, who has freely admitted to anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy, evil and is and does and projects that onto man. Has committed atrocities according to you bible such as the approval of slavery which is pure evil, hates gays and orders their stoning to death, if works on the sabbath = death, if blasphemy = death, if cursing at your parents = death, if worshiping other gods = death, has committed countless genocides, hates children, loves raped women, loves war has murdered 2,821,364 in his bible which includes infants suckling on their mother’s nipples etc etc etc. well gosh golly gee I’m proud to be an atheist whereas you are christian scum who absolutely says “yea” to that crap. You are so bright. As bright as a buddhist christmas tree.

Really? According to what battery powered easy bake oven at graduation day to bake you a frozen cupcake does “nobody mentions religion” Well you got tangled within your own wire trappings on that one. Do you even know what in the flying yeast infection purge from your hole in the mouth from which you bark a power lunch you are squawking about?

“anybody who has studied and compared religions will know they're not totally different.” Oh but they absolutely are. One religion may worship bird gods in which there are hundreds if not thousands. Another may worship a volcano. Another may worship the sun.
“They all agree in the major point of a great ONE creator to be worshipped.” OH NO THEY DO NOT. Since you obviously have no idea as to what you are talking about and since you had to invent excuses from something in which you clearly know absolutely nothing about and since you had to flat out lie, and since you are clearly uneducated and malnourished in the religion department, with absolutely no intelligence whatsoever, and since you have proven at all costs that I am far too good for you and no more of my valued time should be spent on a pubic wasteland like you, this debate is now over. Look it up dimwitted dummy snot meat sow. Start with Maya CREATOR GODS. Yes, that’s PLURAL you total loser of spit for a human being.

Maher

Con

Of course as i expected, lots of useless talk and insults with no real argument. A typical atheist.

you use a fallacy to build a point and deduce using it. End of story.
I won't argue fallacious arguments. Anybody reading this debate will see it obviously.

and again all the rest of talk is all about religion once again + empty arrogance and ego covered with insults. Definitely not worthy my time. I can easily debunk all this nonesense but i came here to discuss one subject and you dodged and ran to another subject because you have no argument and only count on fallacies.

lastly as an answer to your last paragraph's 7 sentences of waste of time and knowledge-claiming as usual is already above but seems you were too busy with thinking of insults to read
'it is agreed by religion comparison scientists like Bruce, Schmitt, Lang, Coopers and others that primitive MONOtheism is the root of religion OUT OF WHICH ANIMISM AND MYTH GREW.'
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Didn't read it. You tightened up your nuts so bad in the last round and utterly made a total fool and jackasseth reareth endeth of yourself that you are not worthy of my esteemed time. I am far to enriched and good for you at tea time and anytime. All you are is a punk kid who pretends he knows something about nothing who has to cover for himself by inventing excuses because he has no knowledge upon the subject matter at hand so he has to try to pretend he does. NEWSFLASH: It didn't work as I can smell your kind coming from way back from the big bang and beyond.If this was a game of poker I’d take all of your chips before you’d even sit down to the game. My my my my it must be fun to be friendless and loveless. You had your chance. You blew it. Ta ta.

Maher

Con

'who pretends he knows something about nothing who has to cover for himself by inventing excuses because he has no knowledge upon the subject matter at hand so he has to try to pretend he does' exactly yourself. 100%
you didn't defend your argument whether it's fallacious or not. It IS fallacious.
you didn't argue the main subject instead you switched to another subjects like the dodgy ignorant big-mouthed copy-paster you are.

up to you dear readers to decide.

By the way i didn't and will not drop to your level and reply with your insults although it's too easy. But no you're beneath me. Also it shows only you're such an ignorant.

one last thing

i'm not Christian :)
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con a "scab of rot" in round three. This is poor conduct.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While I understand that this particular voter has cast similar votes on several debates that one of these debaters has participated in, that is not sufficient reason for removal. The vote meets the standards, explaining why he decided to award conduct based on what was stated in the debate. If the debater(s) wish to exclude this voter in the future, they may include a rule stating that he may not vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: passwordstipulationssuck// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's conduct in this debate was abhorrent. He referred to con as a "scab of rot" among other things which is inexcusable. Pro's entire argument was laced with argumentum ad ignorantium fallacies as well as MANY argumentum ad hominem fallacies. No one cited any sources however this sort of debate doesn't really require any.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both debaters. That requires more than just generalizing about Pro"s arguments, and simply inferring that Con didn"t have those problems.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DNehlsen// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Regardless of everything else within this debate, the conduct of debater Pro was inspiring to perhaps a rugrat.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to reference specific conduct violations in order to award this point.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Khons// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro said "CHRISTIAN DUNCES LIKE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE: NONE" which is a statement, that is also bashing Con's beliefs, which is poor conduct.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter does not explain arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con "mentally deranged" in round three. This is poor conduct.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While I understand that this particular voter has cast similar votes on several debates that one of these debaters has participated in, that is not sufficient reason for removal. The vote meets the standards, explaining why he decided to award conduct based on what was stated in the debate. If the debater(s) wish to exclude this voter in the future, they may include a rule stating that he may not vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by shannon83 4 months ago
shannon83
It seems Con did the best job you could in showing the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim. At least that is what this debate was about correct? "It is always up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None." Well that is like saying the person making a claim that a God exist is responsible for the burden of proof correct? Well if you know anything about the burden of proof it always falls on the person making the positive claim. So in a God example the burden of proof falls on the person claiming there is a god. The main reason is because of the default position is something does not exist until proven to exits. It is the same logic you use to determine if aliens and bigfoot are real. If you use the default position then the person claiming these things must present evidence for them. If the evidence is not sufficient then you can conclude they are not real. The same can be applied to God(s). Is there evidence for this being? Does the evidence conclude that there is a God(s)? If not then you can safely conclude it does not exist.
Posted by JimShady 4 months ago
JimShady
@backwardseden: How is that a contradiction.
Posted by dsjpk5 4 months ago
dsjpk5
Shouldn't they have the burden of proof in that scenario?
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
@NDECD1441 - As long as you are skeptical that's a good thing. Now as far as I am concerned, until there's something tangible about this nosepicking god, I ain't gonna believe. Relying on faith is ignorant and stupid especially when this god can provide actual evidence like showing his lard a$$ to us or simply talking to us. But nah since he doesn't and has to communicate through text, the worst form of communication possible, there's 0 way I'm gonna believe until something tangible is shown. And even IF that happens, why should I or anyone believe considering the absolute fact that this so-called god prefers hate, and in his words evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy of all things.
But you are right. There's that "power" thing also which leads to fear. And then that fear leads to control.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
@one2one - Well the other "side" can't win. Because the other "side" has, like you, no proof. Oh I get it, you are just a troll because it took you 4 posts to say the same fricken thing. Classical theism? What on earth are you squawking about? Oh I get it, you just liked every other yodeling grunge country opera nobody who believes in a god and can't even prove that his god exists has to make up things and invent excuses as you go along to make sure that your reareth endeth shines brighter.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 4 months ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenMaherTied
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: Pro called Con a "scab of rot" in round three. This is poor conduct.