The Instigator
dahrb
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Should we believe in God

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 4 votes the winner is...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,201 times Debate No: 10679
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

dahrb

Con

Should we believe in God. A big question to us all. An omnipotent being that lives in heaven who created the world who sits around all day doing good and answering prayers. WRONG

Here is a quote from famous atheist Richard Dawkins.
"the most unpleasant character in all fiction. a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

Can anyone really argue with that.

9/11 did God stop it NO
boxing day tsunami did God stop it NO

to name a couple of the things God didn't stop. People die of hunger everyday in Africa does GOD HELP NO!!!!!!!

Now people could say he was busy and you're looking at the bad points.

Ok the good points......................................?

Jesus the man who walked on water he must have been good he died to save all sin. WRONG

he actually died on a cross because the jews told the Romans to who didn't want to upset the Jews.

Well at least he did good WRONG

he was responsible for the crusades and many other wars which killed thousands upon thousands.

ok,ok the pope

You mean Benedict the 16th who will not let africans have condoms and was A MEMBER OF THE NAZI PARTY enough said.

Adam and eve then who responsible for creating the humans

so you want to believe you created by inbred siblings who slept with each other for generations e.g. adam and eves son slept with his mum now that is not right.

God will at least help us in our time of need

not again ...... he was responsible for the deaths of well read the old testament and find out.

The prophets gave hope to people in need especially Jesus

well that depends if you are a jew or not.
Abraham tried to kill his son because God told him Wrong he was told by voices schizophrenia which i have seen and is the only explanation for why these people would do such things.

Now read Genesis 6-10 not including 10 and tell me if you can honestly believe it.

I have answered alot of questions so try and put a better argument across to me than that.
rougeagent21

Pro

It seems that my opponent already believes in God. He says that God is responsible for many bad events. While I disagree on several points, my opponent has already conceded.

"he [sic] actually died on a cross because the jews [sic] told the Romans to who didn't want to upset the Jews."

You just admitted that Jesus (God) existed.

"he [sic] was responsible for the crusades and many other wars which killed thousands upon thousands."

You did it again.

"You mean Benedict the 16th who will not let africans have condoms and was A MEMBER OF THE NAZI PARTY enough said."

Oh I'm sorry, I did not realize that the Pope was God.

As of now, my opponent has conceded his own defeat. He says that God was responsible for many terrible things. Would you not believe in a person who is REAL and HAS CAUSED MANY TERRIBLE THINGS. (According to my opponent) Why would you not believe in Someone who clearly exists. (My opponent claims that God exists through his claims that God causes strife.) The resolution is affirmed. I will post more reasons to believe in God in the next round if need be.
Debate Round No. 1
dahrb

Con

I do not believe in God one bit lets make that clear I was theoretically saying where's your "god" when you need him to show that there is no reason to believe in him but seems like you have no reasons of your own. One thing is that Jesus did exist but he WASN'T THE SON OF GOD he was a normal man but most likely a rebel against organised church who was seen as a threat so pray to the rebel who destroyed temples before you give your next argument
rougeagent21

Pro

Sorry ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has misspoken.

Well it appears that my opponent does not believe in God after all.

God
-A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Here we go in science lesson 101. I will introduce my opponent to the Law of Conservation of Mass (Matter).
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This is a natural law, as well as a physical law. Well, matter exists. How did this matter come into existence? It could not have been by natural methods, since it is physically impossible to create matter. If it could not have happened naturally, it must have happened supernaturally, since matter does indeed exist. No scientist, not even my opponent's famed atheist Richard Dawkins, has claimed to know how the universe started.
If even the "leading" atheists cannot explain the start of matter, then how is it that a theist can do so in a single paragraph? *cough cough God exists cough cough* You now have reason to believe in God. God explains what Mr. Dawkins cannot. The resolution is affirmed.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
dahrb

Con

First I will say the miracles performed by Jesus in the new testament also break the laws of physics but you still choose to believe this man did them even though it is impossible.

Ok how was god created if matter can not be created then it means that he couldn't have been created to create matter and if matter cannot be created how did he create it so how can he exist.

Also if the universe needs a cause then why doesn't god need a cause

There is no way this being could have been real as it defies everything . Both sides have there floors I will admit but Christianity has a lot more floors but also who would want to believe in a racist ethnic cleanser that according to a service I had at a Catholic school a teenage girl. In real life this person would have been the most wanted leader in the world and would most likely have been put to death, assassinated or put in a mental asylum for being a psychotic killer responsible for more deaths than anyone else ever. Is the a good influence to bring the next generation up on. You could argue that the new testament teaches love and peace through Jesus but not even Dawkins will deny that this illegitimate rebel was most likely a good teacher and I will say that if the world followed his teachings it would be a better place but the debate is should we believe in god his son ( who was a normal person) may have been good but God is a maniac. The God from the old testament was awful.

This video maybe comedy but the quotes at the bottom of the screen like the first one e.g. 1 Samuel 15:1-3 says how ruthless he was.

So get a bible out and watch the video read all the parts that it tells you do at the bottom of the screen and see how many people god killed
rougeagent21

Pro

My opponent has seemed to veer completely off track. Almost all of his last argument was devoted to showing why he thinks God is evil. As much as I would love to debate that, I must adhere to the resolution at hand. Thus far, my opponent has given no solid evidence as to why you should not believe in God. As the instigator, he has completely blown off his burden of proof.

"First I will say the miracles performed by Jesus in the new testament also break the laws of physics but you still choose to believe this man did them even though it is impossible."

You seem to have missed my last point. These things are impossible through natural means. Therefore, a supernatural entity is necessary. Jesus was not an ordinary human bound by the laws of physics.

"Ok how was god created if matter can not be created then it means that he couldn't have been created to create matter and if matter cannot be created how did he create it so how can he exist."

Again, He is not bound by the natural laws of science, since He created them. (And everything else on this Earth for that matter) Much like a cartoonist binds his artwork to the page, so has God bound us with physics. God can (and obviously has) create(d) matter because He is not physically bound.

"Also if the universe needs a cause then why doesn't god need a cause[sic]"

I'll take the hit for an ad-hominum. You really aren't getting the idea here are you?

As your Richard Dawkins will tell you, matter does not spontaneously burst into being. He will also tell you that he knows that he exists, and has matter. We can then deduce that his matter did not spontaneously burst into being because it is physically impossible. Mr. Dawkins will then tell you that he doesn't know how the universe started, but that he knows what kind of event must have taken place. (See previously posted video) When asked if God is a possibility, he says that he cannot prove that God doesn't exist, simply because God is non-falsifiable. This is true. However, he still leaves a gaping unanswered question of how matter came into existence.

Physically, it is impossible. I should not exist, you should not exist, and even the great Richard Dawkins should not exist. Funny story though, he exists. So do you, and so do I. If we exist, and we could not have gotten here by natural means, then we must have arrived by something greater than natural means. Could the answer possibly be a.......
supernatural being? God?

Until my opponent can provide me with a valid alternative answer, he has no case. I therefore rest mine. The resolution remains affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Agree with rouge's RFD.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
B/A: PRO
Conduct: PRO
Spelling/Grammar: PRO
Arguments: PRO (Because CON had none)
Sources: PRO (Because CON had none)
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Admitting Jesus existed =/= admitting God exists.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
At the moment, I'd say both sides have equally appalling arguments, but Pro deserves the conduct, grammar and sources points.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
You are also entitled to your belief.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
You're entitled to that belief. I was just stating how I felt it was a flaw in the whole thing. I am leaning towards voting pro though.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
R2 Arguments for CON are awfully weak. They're just a string of baseless claims. Skimming R1, it seems to be that way throughout with this guy.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Claiming that Jesus is God is not a flaw, but a fact.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
"he [sic] actually died on a cross because the jews [sic] told the Romans to who didn't want to upset the Jews."

You just admitted that Jesus (God) existed."
^
|
|
I see a flaw here already in Rougeagent's arguments, but then again I'm not even going to start this argument over whether Jesus is God or not...
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Con, your whole first round argument can be summed up as the problem of evil.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
dahrbrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
dahrbrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
dahrbrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
dahrbrougeagent21Tied
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