The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The Fact that there are Atheists is Contradictory to the concept of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,349 times Debate No: 5273
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

Now at first, this argument may seem very ridiculous, but let me clarify it, as I feel this is one of the strongest argument against Christianity. Let's call it the argument from atheism, though I am sure people before me have thought/talked of this argument before. Note, when I state "God", I am referring to the Christian god.

So with that nice little intro done, onto the meat of it.

Make it clear that I am NOT saying that Atheist's have the evidence and proof that God doesn't exist, and that everyone else is just disillusioned or biased. What I am saying is the mere fact that there even is a debate (in this case between Christians and Atheists) is contradictory to the concept of Jesus Christ/God.

I will give a brief list of propositions that most if not all Christians believe in, and that is central to their doctrine:

A) God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent.
B) God has created the universe and everything in it.
C) God sent his son Jesus Christ down to Earth so everyone could have the opportunity to have everlasting salvation.
D) God desires for everyone to be saved and to know the truth (1 Timothy 2:4)
E) God exists.

However the problem, and this is the core of the issue, is the debate of whether or not "E" is correct. If one does not believe that "E" is correct, then the whole system of propositions is meaningless.

So for Con, he/she has to show that the mere fact that there is even a debate about God is NOT contradictory to the concept of God. I will expand more as the debate progresses.
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting this important debate, let me start off by disclosing that I am an Atheist, but am taking the con position in an attempt to understand the position of the believer a little better. I believe I can accurately represent the position of a reasoned believer accurately and will do my best to succeed.

My contention begins with the fact that my opponent is missing some key components in his listing of Christian doctrines and belief. Primarily, he forgets to list:

F: God chooses to allow mankind to govern his own mind without forced influence. (Free Will)
G: Benevolence is only obtained through pure freedom, as provided by God.
H: Freedom of thought and belief, always leads to conflict and debate, regardless of reality.
I: Mankind is also influenced by another anti God force called Lucifer, who creates debate about the very existence of God. Therefore, questioning God's existence should be expected.

Given the addition of these theist Christian beliefs, one should not only understand, but actually expect debate on the existence of God. The debate has no bearing on the reality of his existence and only supports the notion that he wishes for mankind to seek him diligently.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

How interesting, an Atheist takes up this debate. I'm sure this will be an exciting one :)

"F: God chooses to allow mankind to govern his own mind without forced influence. (Free Will)
G: Benevolence is only obtained through pure freedom, as provided by God.
H: Freedom of thought and belief, always leads to conflict and debate, regardless of reality.
I: Mankind is also influenced by another anti God force called Lucifer, who creates debate about the very existence of God. Therefore, questioning God's existence should be expected."

The additional key components that my opponent lists are important, but it digresses from the point I am trying to make. I'll make it clear.

As I have stated, to follow propositions A-D, one needs to believe in proposition E.

That is exactly the problem. The mere fact that we QUESTION God's existence, is contradictory to his own concept.

If God does exist, then why are we debating about his existence? Now, it would be easily accountable if one didn't believe in God, but for one who does, how can he explain why God hides? Millions upon millions (if not billions) of people will roast in hell for not getting the right religion correct. Many Christians would state that it is a matter of faith, but if one were to introduce this handy little component, then it makes Christianity no more distinctive from all the other religions that require faith. Why doesn't God just appear to everyone, or make it very clear he exists? Because he doesn't, it is contrary.

Now of course, a common argument is from Christians, is that we have free will, as my opponent has listed in proposition F. However, obtaining knowledge will never negate free will. For example, fall angels. these beings fully well knew God's existence, and were well aware of his consequences and such. So why would they rebel to the opposite side? Obviously free will has nothing to do with this, since they chose the other side anyway.

Atheists don't hate God, they just don't believe he exists. Similarly, I would expect if a Christian were to die, and instead of seeing Jesus, he saw Allah, he would say that he simply did not know Allah existed. Not that he hated him, or knew he existed but rebelled; but simply did not know Allah existed.

This is why the mere fact we are debating about God, disproves he exists altogether. If he were to be all-loving and all-caring, and made it possible for us to be saved, we would expect him to make it clear to us he exists. However, he has not, as is evident with a debate. Faith is not a handy tool at all, since it doesn't distinguish Christianity amongst all other religions. Free will does not factor in, as knowledge does not negate free will such as the example of fallen angels. Either God is evil, or he does not exist.
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

My opponent appears to have taken on the position of a literalist, fundamental Christian, in order to support his position, and while interesting, it does not accurately reflect the views of a majority of Christians. To start I will point out his assumptions about God, that I find to be exaggeratedly or false, based on modern Christian understanding and doctrine.

1. "Millions upon millions (if not billions) of people will roast in hell for not getting the right religion."
- This is actually not what most Christians believe. Most Christians believe only those who make an informed decision to reject God's will and Jesus sacrifice will be submitted to hell. So, humans born into alternative belief, will be given a chance to accepts God's will after death or upon Jesus' return.

2. "fall angels. these beings fully well knew God's existence, and were well aware of his consequences and such."
- Fallen Angels did know God, but were convinced by Lucifer to reject his will. We are not told if they were aware of the ultimate consequence of their actions, but can assume, based on the bible's description of God as Loving, that he provided forgiveness for them, yet they reject it.

3. "obtaining knowledge will never negate free will"
- Most Christians, fully agree. They believe that God intends for humanity to obtain knowledge, but chooses to provide that knowledge through faith and through a diligent search for his will in prayer and exploring his word. The fact that some people require additional knowledge, doesn't mean they will automatically be submitted to hell, simply that their lives on earth, will not be reflective of a life supported with the peace that comes through a knowledge of God's will.

Given these common misconceptions or intentional falsehoods about Christian belief, it quickly becomes clear that my opponents closing statement in round 2 is false. God's allowance of free will is in fact a kindness, that allows mankind to fully explore life and discover for himself, which path holds the most peace, love and value. God is not evil, and does exist.

To bring the argument back to the original assertion, it might be beneficial to utilize metaphor. Instead of the concept of God, lets replace it with any other object. Aliens for example. My opponent would assert that the mere fact we debate about Aliens, disproves they exists altogether.

This slight change, clearly shows the flaw in my opponents position. Debate, in and of itself, never negates reality. Truth is, we simply don't know conclusively, if aliens exist or not. We could debate its likelihood, but ultimately without all the knowledge of the universe, cannot conclusively, prove or disprove their existence. Debating about them does nothing other than express belief. The same can be applied to God, Love, Bigfoot, and all things that we as humans have debated throughout our history on earth.

My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that his non belief is an indication of God's non existence. It isn't, it is simply his position of belief, nothing more. Just as my position that Bigfoot doesn't exist does not prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, only expresses my point of view.

Finally my opponent makes the following claim: "If he were to be all-loving and all-caring, and made it possible for us to be saved, we would expect him to make it clear to us he exists. However, he has not, as is evident with a debate."

Christians would argue that he does provide ample evidence of his existence through his word and through mankind's search for knowledge about life, the universe and everything. It can be equated with teachers at school. Student's might not believe that the teacher has their best interest at heart, and that the subject matter they are teaching is pertinent, but that belief, doesn't indicate that the teacher is wrong, only that they students choose to rebel against the lesson. God is similar to that teacher, knowing the stubborn students are wrong, but choosing to try and teach them regardless of their attitude and belief about the subject matter.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

"My opponent appears to have taken on the position of a literalist, fundamental Christian, in order to support his position, and while interesting, it does not accurately reflect the views of a majority of Christians. To start I will point out his assumptions about God, that I find to be exaggeratedly or false, based on modern Christian understanding and doctrine."

-Not true. The points I have made reflect my Protestant upbringings. In America, Protestantism is the largest Christian denomination, being approximately 54% of the population. Roman Catholicism on the other hand, makes up about only 24% of America, but one billion in the rest of the world and thus is the largest denomination. In relevance to going to Hell, they believe in limbo and purgatory, but those are not relevant to the matter at hand of salvation in this case.

http://www.religionfacts.com...

"This is actually not what most Christians believe. Most Christians believe only those who make an informed decision to reject God's will and Jesus sacrifice will be submitted to hell. So, humans born into alternative belief, will be given a chance to accepts God's will after death or upon Jesus' return."

-As I have shown that my argument aligns with the views of the majority of Christians, Protestants and Catholics, I will show how my opponent's argument is false. The Protestant version of hell is that if a soul does not receive salvation, they will go to hell; a place originally for fallen angels and Lucifer. The majority believe that if one were to be born a baby, a mentally disabled person, or somewhere where one will never have heard of Christianity, then they will be exempt from having salvation, but instead God will judge them by their hearts. But of course, in countries such as Europe or America, Christianity is the biggest and most known religion; most Atheists know of Christianity.

"Most Christians believe only those who make an informed decision to reject God's will and Jesus sacrifice will be submitted to hell."

-If by this, my opponent means those who reject God's will EVEN though they believe he exists, then I will have to disagree. Most Atheists do not hate God or reject his grace, we simply do not believe he exists; it's illogical to hate an entity that we don't believe exists. However, if he meant Christians believe those who do not have faith in God and receive his salvation go to hell, then yes I agree. Essentially, the view of the majority is that faith is required to have salvation, and that is required to go to heaven.

"Fallen Angels did know God, but were convinced by Lucifer to reject his will. We are not told if they were aware of the ultimate consequence of their actions, but can assume, based on the bible's description of God as Loving, that he provided forgiveness for them, yet they reject it."

Deriving from Matthew 25:41, hell was originally made by God for fallen angels and Satan. Interestingly enough, several of the most common reasons of the motivation of the fallen angel's rebellion is lust, pride, and free will. They chose to rebel against God and his glory through their own free will, because either they had pride or doubts in God's plan. This goes to show that even if God appeared before us, or made it blatantly obvious that he existed without faith being involved, then this would NOT negate free will as most would argue and thus he should do such, unless of course he wants more people to suffer eternal torment in hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Most Christians, fully agree. They believe that God intends for humanity to obtain knowledge, but chooses to provide that knowledge through faith and through a diligent search for his will in prayer and exploring his word. The fact that some people require additional knowledge, doesn't mean they will automatically be submitted to hell, simply that their lives on earth, will not be reflective of a life supported with the peace that comes through a knowledge of God's will."

-Christians proudly acknowledge that it takes faith to believe in God. However, as I have argued already before, faith is not a way to find out which religion is true; all have the same component and it makes no single religion distinctive. Of course, the only alternative is knowledge. However, as is my main argument, the mere fact that we are debating about this; that we are atheists because we see a lack of evidence for religion (Christianity in this case), rules out knowledge also. If the doctrines of Christianity were to be true, then God is not doing a good job of showing himself to be real, since his evidence is lacking.

"God's allowance of free will is in fact a kindness, that allows mankind to fully explore life and discover for himself, which path holds the most peace, love and value."

-As is evident, his "allowance of free will" has supposedly to non belief and many different religions. This means millions of people will suffer in hell.

My opponents argument with the analogy of aliens is faulty. For he does not realize that my argument is that the fact that there is a debate about God's existence is contrary to the CONCEPT of the Christian God. Simply, because there is non belief in God, this contradicts his existence as I have shown with the propositions before. The point is that is given the propositions A-D i have stated before, God has not made it clear that E is true, that God exists. Faith is not distinctive, and there fact that there is non belief shows that there is not sufficient (if any) knowledge of his existence. If God wants us to know propositions A-D, and has to power to make us know A-D, he does not exist because we do not know if these propositions are true.

"Christians would argue that he does provide ample evidence of his existence through his word and through mankind's search for knowledge about life, the universe and everything. It can be equated with teachers at school. Student's might not believe that the teacher has their best interest at heart, and that the subject matter they are teaching is pertinent, but that belief, doesn't indicate that the teacher is wrong, only that they students choose to rebel against the lesson. God is similar to that teacher, knowing the stubborn students are wrong, but choosing to try and teach them regardless of their attitude and belief about the subject matter."

-There is this recurring notion that those with non belief in the Christian god are rebelling, or purposely rejecting his will. Once again, this analogy of the teachers is faulty because atheists simply do not believe he exists. If God were to be real, then as 1 Timothy 2:4 states, he wishes for all of us to go heaven and be saved. However, we simply do not have enough evidence and thus this debate. Faith doesn't work and we don't have sufficient evidence, so what do we have?

I have shown how faith is useless when searching for the truth. I have shown that God has not provided enough knowledge for man to know he exists, since we have this debate of non belief to begin with. I have shown that obtainment of knowledge does not negate free will. God desires for us to be saved and go to heaven, but has not shown to us that he exists. My arguments stand as they are relevant with mainstream views as my opponent objects.

An important notion I want to note is my opponent's faulty analogy. True, the fact that there is a debate about aliens does not disprove that aliens exist. However, what differs is that God has prescribed notions to him already; being derived from the Bible. Thus, as I have shown, a debate about his existence is contradictory to his existence, and thus disproves that the Christian God exists.

My argument stands and my opponent's analogies are faulty; these are major reasons to vote Pro!
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

Let us examine the original position as layed out by my opponent. It is important to remain focused on the original intent of his position as the debate progresses, because I believe we are entering ground which my opponent negated in his original statement.

Remember: "Make it clear that I am NOT saying that Atheist's have the evidence and proof that God doesn't exist, and that everyone else is just disillusioned or biased. What I am saying is the mere fact that there even is a debate (in this case between Christians and Atheists) is contradictory to the concept of Jesus Christ/God."

My opponents arguments in round three appear to be an attempt to do exactly what he specifically negates with his opening statement. I submit the reason for this, is that his position of debate negating the existence of the Christian flavor of God is too weak to stand on its own.

Summary of pro's third round clearly indicates this point.

1. Protestantism and Catholicism adopt doctrines of Hell
2. Christians believe faith is required for salvation
3. Faith is unreliable, due to the existence of other religions
4. Fallen Angels prove that freewill can be maintained with God's direct revelation of his existence.
5. God isn't doing a good enough job of revealing himself, because Atheist don't believe he exists, based in a lack of evidence.
6. Debate is contrary to the vary concept of God.
7. Atheists aren't rebelling, simply disbelieving.
8. God has prescribed notions, negated by debate about his existence.

I submit that my opponent has failed to provide any proof that debate about the existence of God, is contrary to that existence. While he is accurate in stating that God has prescribed attributes of Omniscience, Benevolence and Omnipresence, he makes the assumption that those attributes would negate debate about his very existence. It is clear that humans have the ability to debate any subject, as proof, I submit Debate.org. It is also clear that humans debate the existence of things that have prescribed attributes, irregardless of the reality of their existence. As an example, I submit, every single Scientific hypothesis proposed by mankind in history.

Take for instance, the Big Bang. Scientists like Hoyle have debated the existence of the big bang, and all its prescribed attributes since it was proposed by Hubble. The BB seems to be supported by observable evidence, but is still debated, by Robert Gentry and several other physicists. That debate, neither negates or promotes the existence of BB, it simply expresses human belief regarding it.

The only thing that can conclusively prove or disprove existence is measurable data and empirical evidence. The fact that humans debate things will never serve to prove anything other than the fact that humans love to debate and learn and question all things.

I submit that debate about the existence of God, doesn't negate his proposed attributes of omniscient, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence whatso ever. It does open debate about accepted Christian doctrines of Hell and Salvation, but DOESN'T negate or support the proposed existence of God, which was the original position.

I would like to thank both my opponent and the reader for thinking about this debate and ask each to think about all the beliefs that we debate about and whether that debate, in and of itself, supports or negates reality.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Thanks Matryoshka,

Notice I prefaced that statement with "most Christians believe" I did that intentionally, thinking specifically of Catholics, and a good proportion of Protestants. I do understand that most Baptists and many evangelicals reject the notion, that Muslims and Buddhists and Pacific Islanders not exposed to the Good news will be be submitted to hell, but a majority of Christianity rejects that doctrine as unjust, and believe that each human will have an informed choice during judgment.

I guess I would ask how God could remain just, if willing to expose an ill informed, indoctrinated Hindu to eternal torture? But that is a doctrinal dispute for another debate. Feel free to fire it up and challenge me, it might be fun for both of us, and I may learn from it.

But in terms of this debate, I was taking the position of a majority of those who call Christ their savior.
Posted by my.matryoshka 9 years ago
my.matryoshka
Blessed, "Most Christians believe only those who make an informed decision to reject God's will and Jesus sacrifice will be submitted to hell. So, humans born into alternative belief, will be given a chance to accepts God's will after death or upon Jesus' return." I agree with your first statement, but I have to disagree with the latter. Are you saying a person born into Islam or Buddhism will have a chance to go to Heaven? If this is true, then the Great Commission is of no importance to a Christian and probably does more harm than good. Doesn't the Bible say we humans are full of sin and live in a fallen world and that the only way into Heaven is to believe in Christ?
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
PoeJoe - I don't intend on losing, and my experiences as a lifelong Christian and study of the Christian bible, will be reflected in my answers. Just because I am now an Atheist, doesn't mean I have forgotten what it was like to be a Christian. ;-) I think this will become evident as the debate unfolds. Also, the Christians on this website, have proven themselves to be largely reflective in nature, so I don't expect accusations of intentionally weak positioning on this debate. I chose it because, I don't believe the assertion made by pro is strong enough to utilize in the debate against the existence of God, as my Goodkind friend Ragnar Rahl pointed out.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Make it clear that I am NOT saying that Atheist's have the evidence and proof that God doesn't exist, and that everyone else is just disillusioned or biased. What I am saying is the mere fact that there even is a debate (in this case between Christians and Atheists) is contradictory to the concept of Jesus Christ/God."

Since you are arguing there is a contradiction, and the Law of Non-contradiction is clearly valid, if you are correct, then the proposition "At least one atheist has the evidence and proof that God doesn't exist" would follow- a proof by contradiction. :D

And cogito, give it time. God is a very strange concept, as such, though debate on a thing does not normally in and of itself prove itself uncertain, it is possible that Pro has found a chink in the described nature of God that would mean that, with that PLUS debate on a thing, there would be such proof. I don't see this specific chink- my own disproof of God relies on other chinks :D.

a
Posted by CogitoErgoCogitoSum 9 years ago
CogitoErgoCogitoSum
I disagree. Failure to believe unicorns or apple pie exists doesnt necessarily mean that it doesnt exist. According to Christian doctrine, Gods existence isnt dependent on our belief that he is. You are assuming that his existence is dependent on belief. But that is not the case. Lack of faith in God only proves that lack of faith exists. Atheism only proves that atheism exists. Just as theism proves that theism exists. Neither proves the validity of either nor the invalidity of the other. Lack of faith in God only proves that atheism is a philosophy believed in by some, but it doesnt disprove God.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
"I would like to thank my opponent for posting this important debate, let me start off by disclosing that I am an Atheist, but am taking the con position in an attempt to understand the position of the believer a little better. I believe I can accurately represent the position of a reasoned believer accurately and will do my best to succeed."

You are going to be flamed by the Christians if you lose this. you know.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by EnLi 9 years ago
EnLi
TheSkepticBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by my.matryoshka 9 years ago
my.matryoshka
TheSkepticBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 
Vote Placed by monkeyyxxsun 9 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
TheSkepticBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 
Vote Placed by BruceDoh 9 years ago
BruceDoh
TheSkepticBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 TheSkeptic 9 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 
Vote Placed by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
TheSkepticBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15