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


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 74968
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Dear Atheists, I would like to know what arguments that you have against religion. Ill see if I can argue them if not convert you using my logic. If not, oh well. Lets hear em!


First I'd like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. Should be interesting.

Second I'd like to make it clear that I am actually NOT an Atheist, rather, I do not subscribe to a particular religion and would consider myself to be essentially Agnostic. However, I believe I can argue the case against God and am interested in doing so.

Since my opponent has not set any specific guidelines to this debate, I'll simply give a brief summary of my thoughts on the topic and try to touch on some of the most important aspects, then see where my opponent takes it from there.

I'd like my opponent and any readers to first understand that in reality, the case AGAINST God is really more of a LACK of a case FOR God. Essentially, Atheists see much more plausible and explainable answers to their questions about the Universe in Science than they do in Religion.

A common analogy to explain this idea would be this: Imagine I am at home and all the sudden I hear a noise come from the other room. If I were to handle it Scientifically, I would make observations and conclusions, such as walking into the other room to see what's in there, and deciding what caused the noise based on what I see. If I were to do this and find nothing in the other room, I might assume the noise came from a pipe in the wall or something of that nature.

However, I could ALSO just assume that a magical, invisible elephant was making the noise, and that I just couldn't see or touch him. Even though there is no evidence AGAINST this magical elephant claim (as it is basically impossible to disprove, just like God), there is still no argument for it. The same is true of God. Actually, not even, seeing as Science has disproved much of what is contained in many religions, making it so that they can only be accurate if you operate on faith alone. You basically have to assume that God is tricking us and Science isn't real in order to believe in EVERY aspect of the Bible, or of the Tora, the Qur'An, etc.

While you might claim evidence of God DOES exist, in the Bible or the Qur'An or whatever you might think, Atheists would say that these texts DO NOT provide sufficient evidence, as they are very old and comprised of the writings and beliefs of countless different individuals. They were written over periods of hundreds of years sometimes, and many of these texts have been translated countless times. These truths make religious texts much less reliable in the eyes of Atheists, as there seems to have been a lot of room for changes to be made and for different individuals to make things up or misremember events. You also have to account for the time period these texts were written in--back then humans had access to far less knowledge and were far more likely to think up supernatural explanations for things they couldn't explain (ex: ancient peoples believing rain was caused by some rain god crying, because they did not understand the Rain Cycle yet).

Another reason many Atheists do not believe in God is that the God of the Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) provokes multiple Logical paradoxes. According to these religions God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omni-benevolent (all-loving). However, basic logic will quickly show you that these things can not all be true.

Omnipotence is logically contradictory in general; the commonly presented paradox is this: If God is all-powerful, he should be able to create a rock that is SO heavy, even he himself cannot lift it (based on the definition: if a being is all-powerful, they should be able to do literally anything conceivable). But if God could create this rock, and he was indeed unable to lift it, he would be rendering himself NOT all-powerful; because of this paradox, it seems it is logically impossible for a being to be all powerful.

Another paradox presented by the omni-descriptions of God is this: If God is all-knowing, he knows about all the evil on earth. If he is all powerful, he has the ability to stop these evils. If he is all-loving, he will do anything and everything he can to help whoever he can. These 3 things cannot be true, as if they were there would be no evil on earth. Some Christians argue that God purposefully does not intervene to give us free will, which is an interesting explanation, however the Philosophical rules of logic will tell you that it is still logically conceivable for God to give us free will AND to have never created evil in the first place (something that an omni-benevolent being WOULD do if given opportunity, based on the word's definition), therefore God would still fail to meet the requirements that Monotheistic religions hold him to.

I'll end my first argument here and sum it up again with this: Most Atheists simply don't believe in God because the only evidence that exists for God has very little scientifically testable basis.

Also I'd like to reiterate that I am actually NOT an Atheist, so my opponent should not worry about converting me or anything like that haha, I actually do believe in a higher power, I just am not convinced of the total legitimacy of any existing human religion.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for responding. Excuse my lack of formality, I am new to online debating.

I will try to present you a case for God

"Why can things occur naturally?". Well there really is no answer to that. We don't know why things occur and why they occur. As humans, we point to nature that things can occur "naturally". The only reason for sure, that things are allowed to occur naturally, is because the physical universe allows it to. From sub atomically to macroscopically, everything has to abide by the laws of mathematics of the physical universe to be bound by the physical universe that it is contained in. There is no possible way for humans and all of organisms and the planets to have been magically rearranged to be what they are. Nature does not have a conscience, nature could not have created mathematics, since all of physics abides to mathematics perfectly. Too perfectly. I respect that you believe a higher power. But as Christians, we believe in his rationality and teachings. Kind of the whole purpose of it being called faith and not science. But I do agree with you, all denominations have very scarce legitimacy of God. The whole point of obeying his teachings, is that if we everyone obeyed the commandments (except in a few contradicting cases) we would have a near perfect society. But that imperfectness is just our human nature.

Now lets take this step by step.

God is without bounds. What does this mean? It is bit difficult to wrap our head around because we literally can't think of anything that occurs without abiding to logic. The only way we can think of this and still be logical is to think outside the box. We are in this box. The box represents the universe and everything in it. There are no holes in this box. The box cannot be opened. This box is clear. And God can see everything within the box and is aware of everything that happens inside this box. By saying without bounds, means that God can penetrate the box, without breaking it. But, just because he can, doesn't mean he has to. Mathematics and science cannot explain why this outside the box idea can work. We need to take a very advanced approach at this in order for it to make sense.

Now the omnibenevolent argument

God did not create sin. Sin was an inevitable by-product of free will. There is some logic you have to apply here other than just saying is omnipotent. The purpose of love between God and man is that man chooses to love God or not. It wouldn't make any sense to create man to be by default loving to God. It's like me programming robots to do whatever I say when I say it. Now the robots don't obey because they love me, they obey because they were pre-programmed to exactly what I say without question. That's is the whole purpose of having a meaningful relationship with God. If we didn't have the ability to be disobedient to God, there is no meaning in the relationship. The problem is that people think that free will is not exactly just an algorithm in humans. It's bit more complicated. Sin is not just another bug in the computer that you can you just snap your fingers and it goes poof. If God wanted sin to be totally obliterated, so would our relationship with him. Now why do things happen? This would include earthquakes, famine, crime etc. This was something also inevitable, due to original sin. Original sin had a domino effect on all of mankind. These are natural evils that serve as a punishment to mankind. A common argument for that is "isn't eternity in Hell our punishment"? No, we go to Hell for un-repented sins. The option to repent is completely free. It can be silent at anytime and anywhere. God allows to repent (component of free will) so we avoid eternity in Hell. God looks at all sins the same because all sins are disobedience to his word. This is because there is nothing on the planet that is even comparable to the agony and suffering of Hell. "Wait, if he is all loving, why would allow/send someone to Hell?" God doesn't send people to Hell. They send themselves there by not repenting. God created Hell intended for Satan and his fallen angels. God literally gives us our entire life to take some time and repent. He sticks his hand out, and waits for us to take the opportunity. God loves us by letting us be with him in his eternal kingdom of heaven. Think of this, God cares much more about our eternal fate rather than our finite mishaps on earth. The bad things that happen our earth our incomparable to Hell. Look at how these things are logically irreversible God-------> man---------> free will + sin + repentance--------------> punishment and opportunity. Please feel free to point out if I contradict myself. Because I most likely did.

The omnipotent argument

What you are saying is already false "God creates a rock that he himself cannot lift" #1 God is not bound by physics #2 God can't create something that he is unable to do, because there is nothing that God can't do (sort of confusing). That is what makes him omnipotent.


Alright so I'm gonna make this fairly short because of the way my opponent is arguing.

First off, I wanna make it clear that I respect all your points and agree with a fair few of them. Like I said, I believe in God. I just think that religion restricts our relationship with God--almost all religions seem to contain extraneous and pointless rules and regulations that result in them being more like a cult then a spiritual hub to speak with God. In Christianity, these rules include the intolerance of homosexuality, the fact that the Bible says you cannot wear mixed materials, the fact that the Bible says you must STONE (yes, stone, even though Thou shalt not kill??) a woman who has sex before marriage, and many more ridiculous laws (most of which you can find in Leviticus) that I just don't see an all-loving, all-knowing God being concerned with. To me, the only real "sin" is hatred and intolerance, and I see no reason why something that only affects oneself and no one else (such as the mixed materials rule) should be a sin. It is my personal belief that religion is simply a creation of Man, and that the only way to truly have a relationship with God is to do so personally, between you and Him, with no one else telling you how to do so or what you need to do to maintain this relationship.

But enough about what I believe, because at the end of the day, this is a debate, so it is important to provide testable evidence in order to prove a point. And this fact is exactly why your argument doesn't hold up to me in any way, and probably wouldn't hold up to a single Atheist out there. In order to prove your point, you have to toss facts, science, the laws of physics ("God is not bound by physics"), and logic all out the window. The only way you were able to disprove my points was by essentially saying, "Yeah but none of the methods by which we observe and measure the Universe apply to God." This is where the whole argument for God falls apart. If I can't use logic, science, and reason, what the hell am I left with? Only faith. And while I myself have enough faith to believe in God, many humans do not. Even if they did, faith holds no standing in a debate--because none of what you're saying can be proved or disproved. This is exactly why I brought up the invisible elephant.

So to conclude, I respect your beliefs and even agree with several of them; but the Bible is not sufficient evidence in a debate, nor is faith. Until you provide some measurable evidence for God, your argument is worth about as much as an argument that only cites Harry Potter books as evidence. VOTE CON!

P.S. I'd also like to provide a link that I think you should take a look at, it goes over all the messed up and contradictory stuff that the Bible contains, with specific passages cited and available to read:

I've checked several of these passages to assure that they really do occur in the Bible, and they do. I don't see a "loving" God encouraging any of what this website points out.
Debate Round No. 2


bryanshea forfeited this round.


Since my opponent has forfeited this last round I will simply refer him and any readers back to my previous post. Until my opponent can come up with an argument to prove God's existence without having to completely ignore logic and reason, he has no standing in this debate. VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3


bryanshea forfeited this round.


kingtrip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


bryanshea forfeited this round.


Since it seems my opponent has given up, I'll refer everyone back to my earlier arguments again. VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, gives two distinct meanings for faith:
1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
I know religion does not need a god
Posted by debeneze1270 1 year ago
Science is science, however evolution, big bang theory and all that stuff are in it self a religion. you have to believe in it, put faith into it. so all the schools teaching evolution in science and those people thinking that is science vs religion, its not ok
its just 2 religions fighting to disprove each other
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
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: Forfeit by Pro.