The Instigator
Man-is-good
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Life can be lived without god.

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 8 votes the winner is...
ReformedArsenal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,919 times Debate No: 16479
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (54)
Votes (8)

 

Man-is-good

Pro

Today is my first day arguing and posting up debates on this website. I hope it can explore my own interests in religion (despite the fact that I am an atheist) and the sciences. I hope that this debate, in respect to its argument, will be brief.

Contention One: What is good is good. It does not matter to me, or the master, if the cat is black or white, has ears or not, as long it catches its mouse and drinks its milk in good obedience. A life without belief in god exploits much of the same virtues as that in religion: honesty (as in an occupation), fidelity (especially in with marriage or the initiation of the priesthood) as in marriage and wedlock, faith and dedication to one's own morals and so on. A life without God is not entirely to be missed. The Lord Himself is distant, far removed from the common man to pray in the direst of times. Therefore, in the face of many challenges, including the hardships of adulthood, education and attending universities, economic setbacks, self-doubt, we (the people) must strive to help themselves. I do not think that any god would respond to a prayer from a man wanting his sink fixed.
Nor is the fact that the unfaithful are not necessarily immoral. There are many who devote their lives to charity, to care for the sick, read for the poor, and so on--the same, or similar, activities to a well-meaning, religious man. I believe that immorality only comes with the choice of the individual to abuse his freedom of religion and faith to the points of forgetting morality or conscience in his own actions (such as in corruption, bribery, gambling--all lived in a typical lifestyle (without god)). There may be no time for many, in the present world, to regard for the elaborate rituals and prayers to god (though many have done so). However, as I argue again, that a life spent to goodness--even if not in religious truth--is still worth spent. If not, then is it possible to state that a woman who has saved many children from a fire, but does not fully believe in the existence of God, shall go to hell where she must pay penance for her "great sin"?

(The topic is: Life CAN, not must, be lived with god.) I look forward for your counter-argument.
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me with this death. I would like to note a few things prior to the onset of this debate.

1) My opponent's argument assumes that God exists. We see this in his various descriptions of who God is and how he behaves.
2) My opponent is both Pro and Instigator, therefore I need only cast reasonable doubt upon his argument in order to secure victory.
3) My opponent's resolution simply states "Life can be lived without god." Not "Life can be enjoyed without god" or "A person can live a moral life without god." This distinction will be important later in my argument.

As my opponent has not defined which god we are referring to, but consistently refers to god in the singular, I am assuming he means the monotheistic God. For the sake of this debate, the distinction between the God of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism is irrelevant. The primary attribute that my argument rests upon is unanimous between the three. That attribute is that of omnipresence. In all three of these monotheistic religions, it is affirmed that God is omnipresent.

According to dictionary.com, Omnipresent is an adjective that means "present in all places at the same time"

I shall deliver my argument in the form o a syllogism.

1) God exists (Taken from my opponent's clear presupposition in his his opening argument)
2) God is omnipresent (Taken from the definitive attributes of the monotheistic God)
3) A person exists at a place (Common Logical Argument, not refuted by my opponent)
4) Therefore God exists at the place that a person is. (Logical Conclusion of syllogism).

You see, if God is omnipresent then unless one does not exist... God is present or "with" that person. The only way that a person could "live without god" is to cease to exist... so therefore it is impossible for a person to do so.

Might I remind the reader that my opponent did not define anything in his resolution regarding a specific mode of living. We are not debating if it is possible to live morally, enjoyably, or any other qualifying point. We are debating simply if it is impossible to live without God.

Thank you to the readers for reading this debate, I urge you to vote according to the theoretical bounds that Pro established in his argument (namely that the monotheistic God exists).
Debate Round No. 1
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
The resolution of this debate doesn't seem to be fairly or well appropriated. ReformedArsenal approached this issue from an ontological angle as it should have been.

"as it should have been". Read the comments page, please and all of what I discussed with ReformedArsenal. I find it increasingly difficult for me to accept your reasons of votes if you:
a. make mini-arguments (like the other debate, "There are no...")
b. admit that the resolution isn't fairly appropriated (which I admit is true), but then go on to say Reformed Arsenal did the right thing...It seems like a contradiction to me, because in the first clause, you are commenting on the uncertainty of the resolution, but then you are being resolute in the second. It again sounds as if ReformedArsenal created the resolution...I want you to know that neither ReformedArsenal's or my own argument clash or refute each other. They are two different things. My argument discusses communion with god. ReformedArsenal literally decided to use semanatics to attack my RESOLUTION, but not my argument. I wish if the resolution itself could be redone, but I cannot see why you chose to do such a thing.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Jar... this is a quote from Pro's argument...

"The Lord Himself is distant, far removed from the common man to pray in the direst of times."

This quote shows that he is making an attribution to God... which implies existence. The Lord could not distant, if he did not exist...
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Ok, I'll challenge you, you'll get 6 days to write your first argument.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
....Yes...But I will have to actually LOOK at the contradictions in the bible first...
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Would you like to debate me about Contradictions in the Bible?
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Well, as the usual kid I am, I can get very emotional and overreact as well. A few years from now, I'll read this debate page and laugh at my own comments..."Oh what a kid I was. Getting angry even when I was beat down..." I would say.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Well...I do note that, even through there are some inconsistencies with it, I would prefer to do so. I hope this time we would have a much more fair debate.
Please note that I was very idle when I wrote the argument. I was more of a creative than an argumentative writer.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Man-is-good, I would also like to apologize for overreacting. Please add me as a friend, I'd like to carry this conversation on in private.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I was probably typing it as you were typing the other one.

Lets just move past this, I am not opposed to debating you, I just am very careful to chose debates that have defensible positions, and on this site anything that relies on "proving" that God exists is not a defensible position.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Well, once again it is my fault: I did not, as you noted, adequately explain or define ANYTHING.
I will try to do so in the round of the NEXT debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Man-is-goodReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments when it came to the topic of if God is real then life cannot be lived without him.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Man-is-goodReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution of this debate doesn't seem to be fairly or well appropriated. ReformedArsenal approached this issue from an ontological angle as it should have been.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
Man-is-goodReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a Christian....I have voted to counteract the vote bombing. Reformed clearly won with the fact that if the Thiest position is correct life could not possibly exist independent of GOd. Pro needed to show that it could to win this debate.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Man-is-goodReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Atheist
Vote Placed by Ahijah 6 years ago
Ahijah
Man-is-goodReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Jesus said, and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Man-is-goodReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice job, pure semantic on the surface, but fundamental to Christian-like theologies, ones life is with God even if he is not accepted
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
Man-is-goodReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: To cancel out Amveller's vote. Pro's argument wasn't really to the issue. If God exists, then Pro cannot live without God.
Vote Placed by Amveller 6 years ago
Amveller
Man-is-goodReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm an atheist