The Instigator
TheMolestacher
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lit.wakefield
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The religious need to prove God, not visa versa.

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...
lit.wakefield
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,117 times Debate No: 29518
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

TheMolestacher

Pro

This debate is centered around the fact that I believe that we atheists should not have to try to disprove a deity, but rather, the religious should try to prove one. They came up with the concept, so I believe that they should prove it, not we disprove.
Example: I can say that Pandas came from Andromeda. As rediculous as this is, by the same logic that we cannot disprove Go, you cannot disprove that.

1st round is acceptance! :)
lit.wakefield

Con

I humbly accept. Prepare to meet your Maker.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMolestacher

Pro

Ok, so my main points today are as follows:


THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Surely when a person proposes a concept, that concept must be backed up with proof for it to be taken seriously. For example, if in the early 20th century, Lemiatre had told the world that the universe was created by a big bang, and left it at that, no one would have believed him. He had to prove his Point. It wasn't the job of Einstein to prove him wrong, it was his job to prove it, like I said before, I could say that Pandas came from Andromeda, and no one would bother disproving it, because I have not proved it.
If the religious community were to give some hard evidence for God rather that "logic" people would be more inclined to disprove God, no scientific research is being put into disproving God, because as there is no conclusive evidence either which way, we just disregard it. The reasons as to why we cannot disprove God are similar.

We have no parameters of existence.
The reasons why we as Atheists cannot disprove God is because we have no parameters for his existence. Essentially all that we know of him is that he is invisible and omnipotent. It is impossible to disprove conclusively a concept on which we have so little information. Again this is where the burden of proof once again falls on the religious. We will not be able to get any more info on a deity because we are atheist and don't really know what we are looking for, even if we did, it still is not up to us. If you are going to come up with such an important concept, at least provide some information! You can't just say, "God is invisible, he is all powerful and he created everything" and expect people to be able to disprove that. We just can't! If however the Pope was to announce that God lived on Mercury and breathed Oxygen, then we would be able to disprove that, because we have something to work with. I am sorry but I am going to use my Panda analogy again. I have not given any information on means of transport, who sent them, why they came here, and when. So it would be impossible to disprove because we have so little knowledge of the subject.
So if we had more info on God, we might be able to disprove him.
However my point remains that that is not our job. Rather the religious must first provide some hard evidence for God and then we can work to disprove it. But at the moment we just can't do that because the area is too uncertain. We have no knowledge of his being and thus cannot have any evidence for or against. Especially against. I would like to stress the following: Evidence against something is based on rebutting evidence for. But we have non for, and so non against.


Side note: The fact that even a man who claims to be Gods missionary (The Pope) and to hear the words of God, cannot prove God and can't explain his existence, seems to point to a universe with no God. After all, surely if there was one, he would want to end all the drama in the middle East and would make his existence clear, maybes by providing the Pope or a Rabbi with a way to Prove a deity.



I look forward to my opponent's arguments and would ask him/her not to try and prove God but to prove that Atheist bear the burden of (Dis)proof.

lit.wakefield

Con

I would like to point out immediately that my opponent has shifted goalposts in this debate and is no longer arguing for his initial statement alone. My main contention is that he holds the burden of proof and has not provided any evidence for his claim thus far.

I will get to this point after I begin my opening statement with some definitions I feel are necessary (needed) for my point to be understood [1]:

Need (vb)-
"To require (something) because it is essential or very important."
"To be under the necessity of or the obligation to."
"To require or be required of necessity (to be or do something); be obliged."
"Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

Prove (vb)-
"To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence."
"Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument."

God (n)-
"(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; Supreme Being."

*"Rediculous" (adj)-
"Rediculous means a bad argument, not valid and actually evidence against god."

*Note that this was defined by my opponent in a different context, and I am not accusing my opponent of his use of it in this debate to mean exactly that. We can take it to mean an argument that actually supports the opponent's position. [2]

The last two are less relevant, and as there are many very different common definitions or ideas as to what constitutes a god, my opponent may redefine "god" if he so desires. The last word you might think silly for me to define, but its relevance will be apparent later.

It is the first word that really matters. As I mentioned previously, it might be said that a definition of "need" is needed (essential and very important) for my argument to be properly understood.

Opening Argument

This is the position I was presented with: "The religious need to prove God, not visa versa."

At first it was confusing what the opponent meant with his vice versa. Was he saying that god did not need to prove the religious?. Fortunately, he clarified in Round 1 (a clarification that was not given for the word "need"), by elaborating further: "Atheists should not have to try to disprove a deity, but rather, the religious should try to prove one."

In this debate, I will hold the position that in order for my opponent to defend his case properly and win he must do these things:

1. He must provide convincing evidence for his statement "The religious need to prove God."
2. He must provide convincing evidence for his statement "not visa versa," which from his Round 1 statement we can take to mean "Atheists do not need to disprove God."

I will start off my argument by granting him the second point. This means that he simply must show that the religious are required or obligated to demonstrate the existence of a god by evidence or argument.

This is no simple task.

In order for there to be any objectivity when it comes to the word "need," additional information must be given. Take this sentence for example: "Water is needed for human survival." This statement can either be supported or refuted by evidence. By omitting or not providing a context, the statement is taken to mean "in general" or "in all contexts." My opponent's initial argument is that it is necessary for the religious to prove God. This is an opinion and a subjective use of the word "need" that he has not been able to defend. Why are the religious required to prove God? Is there some force in the universe that dictates the necessity of the religious to prove God? Without a situation stated, the concept of necessity is mostly useless, especially in formal debate.

The only way the opposition can defend this statement as an absolute or objective statement is to give the origin of its absoluteness. Does this sound familiar? Does my opponent actually believe in God or some sort of metaphysical origin of this absolute? Is this not "rediculous?"

If my opponent does not invoke any sort of transcendent or supernatural basis for this belief, I do not see how he can defend that the religious simply must prove God. Why do the religious need to prove God or strive to? Why is this necessary?

Now some may have qualms about my argument. One might ask, "But can't context be implied?" Yes. For example, a person who is hungry makes the statement "I need food." It is clear that this is not that sort of universal/absolute statement and that the context is "to no longer feel hunger." The difference is that this is a formal debate, and there was no implied specific situation given or even hinted at in which the religious would need to prove God. I hold the position that his argument should be taken as it first appeared and that my opponent should not be allowed to defend a different position. Just read his opening statement in Round 1. If this was not his meaning, then he should have made it clear instead of continuing to argue for these absolutes.

Unless he can give a reason why a theist is obligated to prove god in any context or situation and just in general, his statement should be taken as nothing more than a subjective opinion Without invoking some absolute authority or providing context (for example, an "in order to" statement) there is no absolute "should." Would you argue that people should, for example, quack? That it is simply how the universe works? No, I do not think so. Now maybe one could argue that in order for people to imitate a duck, they should quack, but that is an entirely different statement. I am not trying to create a straw man for my opponent, nor am I attempting to play some sort of semantic game. He is at fault if he meant to argue a different position.

Also from his statement "They came up with the concept, so I believe that they should prove it, not we disprove" it can be determined that the opposition is of the opinion that when people come up with a concept, they should have to defend it. Now why he thinks this, I do not know. The burden of proof is on him to justify this, but I will point out that he immediately contradicts this belief when he says "I can say that Pandas came from Andromeda."

He told us that the creators of concepts must defend their concepts. He then invented a concept and then did not defend it.

His self contradiction is evident. Unless he can display that he did not come up with this concept, the opponent has contradicted his position.

Rebuttal

So far the opponent has hardly defended his position at all. In Round 2, he simply shifted the goalposts, by now adding a context in the form of the statement "for it to be taken seriously."

I would agree with my opponent that in disputes between theists and atheists, theists carry the burden of proof, but this argument is a red herring. Note that he did not initially mention anything about the burden of proof.

He has in some way stuck to his original argument. As we can see, my opponent feels that "it was his job to prove it" in regards to Einstein. But Einstein was not the creator of the mentioned concept, so is my opponent now implying that everyone or certain individuals are obligated to prove concepts invented by other people? Shouldn't he then be trying to prove God?

While I believe that the majority of his following points were valid, he has offered no defense of his initial statement. It seems to me that his argument is as follows:

Those who invent concepts are obligated to prove or attempt to prove them.
The religious came up with the concept of God.
Therefore, the religious are obligated to prove or attempt to prove God.

It falls upon my opponent to provide evidence for his premises. He has supported neither so far, and simply made assertions without evidence.

In conclusion, you can see that I have not tried to prove God, but have argued that my opponent bears the burden of proof to support his statement.

[1] thefreedictionary.com; The Oxford College Dictionary
[2] http://www.debate.org...


Debate Round No. 2
TheMolestacher

Pro

I would first like to point out that "rediculous" was a spelling error in the title and has now been corrected. I would also like to start with a clarification.


It seems that my opponents primary argument last round was that I did not provide enough context for some of my assertions. It was also said that, and I quote:
" One might ask, "But can't context be implied?" Yes. For example, a person who is hungry makes the statement "I need food." It is clear that this is not that sort of universal/absolute statement and that the context is "to no longer feel hunger." The difference is that this is a formal debate, and there was no implied specific situation given or even hinted at in which the religious would need to prove God."
Formal debate or not, the context of the title and primary premises of this debate were in fact implied. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I meant that for the theory of a God to be taken seriously by the scientific community, the Religious NEED to attempt o successfully prove God. And I hold to this statement. Even my opponent admitted:

Those who invent concepts are obligated to prove or attempt to prove them.
The religious came up with the concept of God.
Therefore, the religious are obligated to prove or attempt to prove God.


Evidence was give for these argument throughout my post. However the primary objective of this debate is purely theoretical. Thus no hard evidence can be given. And I will now revert to my Panda analogy.


The purpose of this argument was not for me to prove that Pandas do come from Andromeda, that was made clear, as I purposefully went about explaining how because I did not provide any evidence, the concept would not be taken seriously. Of course pandas did not come from the Andromeda galaxy! Why would I defend that? I never contradicted myself as I never said there was any physical obligation for a person to defend a theory of his! I merely stated that there is an obligation for a person to prove or attempt to prove their theory for it to be taken seriously!


Now, my opponent actually failed to provide any evidence for the topic what so ever. Their whole argument was centered around picking apart my own (which it did so unsuccessfully!) and had no argument for why the burden of proof does not lie with the religious. I appreciate that they may have just been searching for affirmation of the actual subject.
I would ask that they provide some evidence for their side of the debate in the next round.
VOTE PROP!
lit.wakefield

Con

The opponent began his rebuttal by stating this: "It seems that my opponents primary argument last round was that I did not provide enough context for some of my assertions."

This was not my primary argument at all. I clearly stated: "my opponent has shifted goalposts in this debate and is no longer arguing for his initial statement alone. My main contention is that he holds the burden of proof and has not provided any evidence for his claim thus far." I still hold to this.

In regard to context, yes, my point was that such context can be implied but that in this circumstance, no context was implied. Review his initial statement for yourselves. It is clear to me that no such thing is implied. Even if the opponent did mean originally to argue his new point about what would be necessary for the concept of God to be taken seriously in the scientific community, he cannot simply expect to be understood without explicitly stating this. He mentioned nothing about science in Round 1 or in the title. What he instead says is that he "believes" the religious should have to try to prove God. There is no context outside of the debate, and if the opponent actually did mean to make a different statement, I should not be blamed for his fluke. He says his meaning was implied, but I see no indication of this in his actual words. He has provided no support for his assertion that the context was implied. There is no indication whatsoever in his opening statement or in the title that his actual argument was that "in order to be taken seriously, the religious need to prove or attempt to prove god." Therefore, I stand by my claim.

Regardless of what his original intent was, the argument he first put forth is a very different one from the one he puts forth now.

He says: "It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I meant that for the theory of a God to be taken seriously by the scientific community, the Religious NEED to attempt o successfully prove God. And I hold to this statement." This is an assertion that is not backed up. Nothing at all was mentioned about the scientific community in his opening statement or the title. This may even be seen as an ad hominem attack due to the implications about my intellect.

The only implication my opponent has made so far is that I should know what's going on in his head. This does not seem valid to me.

The opponent has not only misunderstood my argument, but he has also created a straw man. He claimed: "Even my opponent admitted:

Those who invent concepts are obligated to prove or attempt to prove them.
The religious came up with the concept of God.
Therefore, the religious are obligated to prove or attempt to prove God."

I did not admit this. My opponent took it entirely out of context, and therefore the meaning is completely different. I will provide the context for the reader: "It seems to me that [the opponent's] argument is as follows: Those who invent concepts . . . "

Is it apparent now how important context is? I must wonder if my opponent actually read my argument or is simply being dishonest.

He then said, "Evidence was give for these argument throughout my post." This is simply not true. My opponent did not provide any evidence that the religious invented the concept of God, nor did he explain why it is necessary for people to prove concepts they come up with. Does my opponent also feel that Tolkein was obligated to prove or attempt to prove Gandalf?

My opponent has completely misunderstood his own argument also it seems. I will remind the reader that he stated that "Evidence was give for these argument throughout my post" in regards to "Those who invent concepts are obligated to prove or attempt to prove them . . ." He then said the following: "The purpose of this argument was not for me to prove that Pandas do come from Andromeda, that was made clear." Well according to the argument that he stated he gave evidence for, yes, he is obligated to prove this. He continued to contradict himself: "I never contradicted myself as I never said there was any physical obligation for a person to defend a theory of his!"

Again to that I say: Well according to the argument you stated you gave evidence for, yes, you are obligated to prove this.

He then, once again, brings up the new argument he never mentioned in his opening statement: "I merely stated that there is an obligation for a person to prove or attempt to prove their theory for it to be taken seriously!"

I remain steadfast in declaring that adding this phrase completely changes its meaning along with what the opponent is actually arguing for. If anything, it is clearer now that the opponent has shifted the goalposts in this debate.

He stated, "I would ask that they provide some evidence for their side of the debate in the next round."
I have pointed out the fallaciousness of his arguments so far, and shown that he carries the burden of proof for such extraordinary claims as "The religious necessarily must and are obligated to prove God," which is what I interpret his original argument to be. Also, this is only one example of my opponent's references to me as "they." Is he implying that I am multiple people? Would he like to share this conspiracy theory of his?

In conclusion, I feel that I have provided sufficient evidence that my opponent has switched to an argument that is nearly impossible to defeat in order to increase his chance of winning. His new argument seems to be that in the scientific community, a concept must be supported by evidence in order to be taken seriously. This seems like a fact to me. I am unsure why he would start a debate to dispute this. Therefore, I still hold to my argument that my opponent has switched his old argument out for a more favorable one.
Debate Round No. 3
TheMolestacher

Pro

Can I please first address the assertion that I have changed goal posts throughout the debate. Not once have I done this. It may seem to my opponent that I first of all argued that the religious simply HAVE to prove the existence of a God, however I never did. That's not what I meant anyway. But what I meant or didn't mean in the first paragraph of my argument, doesn't really matter.

This is because I clarified in my second paragraph! So once you've read that paragraph, you can put the first one into context! So then you can build an argument around that! However my opponent failed to do so once again.

This is what I don't understand: I made it clear in my first post that what I mean was that for the existence of a God to be taken seriously, the Religious have to prove God, not sit back and relax as we try and fail to disprove one. It's not like I waited until after my opponent had posted any arguments to make this pretty clear. They could have built up a decent argument. But instead they managed to spend a whole round complaining about the apparent uncertainties in my argument. Uncertainties which they then referred to as such "In Round 2, he simply shifted the goalposts, by now adding a context in the form of the statement "for it to be taken seriously."" This wasn't at all a shift of goalposts. Firstly, for it to be one, I would have had to have waited for my opponent to post an argument and then change the goal posts as to render my opponent's arguments redundant. I can't see how it is possible to change the goal posts in one post! The whole post was arguing for the same goals. The first and second arguments do not contradict one another, as context was given (granted it should have been in the first paragraph/opening statement, but I thought it was implied) in the second. This allows my opponent to make a decent argument, as context is given before their first argument. But like I said, they failed to do so. instead they actually posted a small argument, revolving around the wrong goal posts, that there is some physical force obligating the religious to prove God. Which I explained there was not. If anyone changed the goal posts, it was you.

Secondly, I would like to further stress the fact that my opponent has provided me with no argument con what so ever. Even after specifically asking them to do so and using a round to clarify what I had already made clear. What they have done is used the smallest things, which aren't even things, like this:

" Also, this is only one example of my opponent's references to me as "they." Is he implying that I am multiple people? Would he like to share this conspiracy theory of his? "
I only referred to you as "they" because A, I was uncertain of your gender, B, it is customary in a debate to talk to the audience not to directly to the opponent, as this seems threatening and rude. Take for example, "Your argument contradicts what you have said!" And "Their argument contradicts what they have said!" And C, if you have ever taken part in a real debate (which I have) you would know that you debate in teams, not one on one.


Finally, context. If my opponent is going to complain about the context of my arguments, may I ask him/her not to post something as misleading as the following:

" He continued to contradict himself: "I never contradicted myself as I never said there was any physical obligation for a person to defend a theory of his!"
Again to that I say: Well according to the argument you stated you gave evidence for, yes, you are obligated to prove this. "

This was taken completely out of context. Now many of you may realise that I am complaining about my opponents argument being based around picking mine apart and not giving any evidence and I appear to be doin the same, however I have given 2 perfectly valid arguments, and I am merely demonstrating that none of what my opponent has said is either valid or an argument.

Why would I make a debate based around a fact, because thousands of theists around the world make no attempt to prove God and expect atheists to disprove one.

I have actually just looked over my opening statement and have found the following: "This debate is centered around the fact that I believe that we atheists should not have to try to disprove a deity, but rather, the religious should try to prove one."

SHOULD TRY! My opponent introduced the physical obligation element themselves!

Could my opponent please give an argument for the Con side this round.
Thank you, VOTE PROP




lit.wakefield

Con

My seven final contentions are as follows:

1. My opponent, in his opening resolution, made the claim that "the religious religious need to prove God" and that "they came up with the concept" and "should prove it."

2. There was no context or indication whatsoever that the opponent was making a claim different from this one. It is clear that based on the definitions I have provided and explanation I have given that we can take his claim to mean that "the religious simply HAVE to prove the existence of a God." Even if there had been some ambiguity, and even if his intended meaning was different, clarification after the fact is not acceptable with regards to debate procedure.

3. The burden of proof lay with my opponent, the instigator and the Pro side, to defend the extraordinary universal statement he originally put forth.

4. In order to have successfully defended this position, my opponent would have had to give evidence that the necessity and obligation of the religious to prove God is a universal truth, either dictated by some higher power or part of natural law for example.

5. Regardless of the opponent's actual intent, he did not originally make the claim that "the religious need to prove God, in order to be taken seriously."

6. This is a new claim and a red herring that is irrelevant to the actual debate.

7. Since my opponent provided no evidence to support his claim that "the religious need to prove God" and actually admitted that he believes this claim is false, he has not argued his case convincingly. I am the victor.

Concluding Statement

To begin my concluding statement, I will quote a few passages from the "DDO Tutorial" thread in order to explain to my opponent why he is in the wrong [1]:

"While writing a debate resolution might seem simple at first, it is very important that the resolution is worded properly. A poorly worded or vague debate resolution can be exploited by an opponent.

A poorly worded debate resolution is open to semantic. Semantics occurs if one uses a word that has multiple meanings, and the opponent twists the meaning around so that the definition favors him or her. An opponent might also take a figure of speech, and argue against the literal meaning."

"So in other words, don't try to get an easy win by debating an easily defendable topic, since it will come back to bite you.

To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate."

"Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definitions . . . However, if the meaning is not clear from context then semantic arguments are valid."

It could be said that either (or both) I have utilized semantics or my opponent has (if he purposely omitted the clause "in order to be taken seriously" to confuse the opponent and then change later). Either way, I am in the right. I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was being intentionally deceptive, but in this case, my semantic argument is valid because the opponent's case was poorly worded and lacked context.

Rebuttal

The first paragraph of my opponent's 4th Round statement is clearly false for reasons I have already given numerous times. In regards to his original claim he said, "That's not what I meant anyway." To this I respond: it matters not what you meant, only what you said. I had no way of knowing what he meant apart from the context he provided, which supports my interpretation of his position. He also argued the following: "But what I meant or didn't mean in the first paragraph of my argument, doesn't really matter. This is because I clarified in my second paragraph! So once you've read that paragraph, you can put the first one into context!"

His Round 2 statement is irrelevant. I quote the DDO Tutorial thread again: "Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean." I had already accepted the debate, and he had already stated his position. In this situation, a change in position is not acceptable.

Once again, he simply asserts that he made a different claim, adding words that I take I was supposed to guess were his actual meaning. This assertion is clearly unwarranted. He may not have waited until after I posted an argument to change his position, but he did wait until after I had accepted. I would not have accepted this debate if his claim was that "the religious must provide evidence for God in order to be taken seriously in the scientific community." My opponent did in fact move his goalposts. In Round 1, I was presented with an argument I felt I could competently argue against. In Round 2 I was presented with a new argument that is, in my opinion, much harder to argue against. Also, I have not complained at all. I have simply pointed out that he has not offered any evidence for the original claim, and I have displayed why the burden of proof is on him to do so.

He states, "The first and second arguments do not contradict one another, as context was given (granted it should have been in the first paragraph/opening statement, but I thought it was implied) in the second . . . there is some physical force obligating the religious to prove God. Which I explained there was not."

Though I do not agree with his first statement, he has agreed with me that he should have provided context in his initial statement with regards to proper debate procedure. He then denies the validity of his initial claim, as defined and interpreted by me in my initial argument. Need I even argue any further? I have not shifted the goal posts. This is an unwarranted assertion. My argument and position remains the same as it was when I accepted the debate.

To quote the DDO Tutorial thread again: "Unless explicitly stated, CON does not have to prove that the resolution is false, just that there is not enough evidence to prove that the resolution is true." [1] Furthermore, I would argue that I do not need to provide any further evidence for my position because my opponent has agreed with me in regards to his initial claim that "the religious need to prove God."

His response to my point about being called "they" is laughingly absurd. This is not a team debate. Also, the opponent could have looked at my profile to see that I am a he or simply referred to me as he/she, but he continued to call me they. I'm not quite sure what he meant about talking to the audience. I was not suggesting that he call me "you" if that's what he meant.

Note that my opponent claims I took his statements out of context but never explains how. This is just another unwarranted assertion.

His reason for making the debate is irrelevant to the claim he actually made in the debate.

"I have actually just . . . 'This debate is . . . prove one.'"

My opponent has seemingly just admitted that his previous arguments about providing implied context in his opening claim are untrue because it seems he did not actually read back over his Round 1 argument until now. It's a bit late. Maybe he meant something else, but that is what it seemed like he meant to me. As for what my opponent calls the "physical obligation element," I did indeed interpret his "should try" statement to mean this in my Round 1 argument, provided his lack of context. While I did not explicitly define "should," I mentioned in great detail what "should try" is taken to mean in this debate. Note that my opponent did not say that "the religious should try to prove God in order to be taken seriously." Should is characterized by obligation just as need is. As the opponent did not define should in his opening argument, my interpretation stands.

In conclusion, I may not have argued my points perfectly, but my opponent has admitted defeat by denying the validity of his original claim.

Exactly 8000

[1] http://debate.org... ; DDO Tutorial; RoyLatham and darkkermit

Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
I understand what you were arguing, and tend to agree with you generally. My point is simply this: this debate should not be answered "Con" or "Pro," because the decision lies in the nature of the debate that is being debated about. It's one of those rare cases where acontextual considerations are irrelevant, which paradoxically flies in the face of philosophical investigation. But it is nonetheless true. And I actively enjoy the O'Reilly Factor. I actively enjoy Sean Hannity. I hate with a passion what they preach, but I find enjoyment in argumentation for itself, and not argumentation for the sake of promoting my own values and beliefs.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
When andrewkletzien says "When Con says 'The burden of proof lay with my opponent, the instigator and the Pro side, to defend the extraordinary universal statement he originally put forth,' he has misunderstood what this debate should be contending" he has clearly misunderstood that I essentially put forth a semantic argument in this debate. Semantics. It doesn't matter what the debate "should be contending." No offense, but I understand burden of proof perfectly, and we have already talked about Russell's teapot.

"This debate is asking who has the burden of proof in questions of god's existence." My entire argument was that this is not what this debate is asking. While I won't say you definitely did not read the entirety of the debate, I will say that your assumptions about my understanding of the burden of proof are unwarranted and not appreciated. I agree with what you have said, but I was hoping the nature of my argument would have been more clear...

On a completely unrelated note, I'm curious to know if you watch the O'Reilly Factor as comedy or if you... actually enjoy the program.
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
When Con says "The burden of proof lay with my opponent, the instigator and the Pro side, to defend the extraordinary universal statement he originally put forth," he has misunderstood what this debate should be contending. In this particular debate, Pro does have the BoP, but this debate is asking who has the burden of proof in questions of god's existence. The BoP simply requires that he or she who makes the first positive statement must be expected to be under much more scrutiny than the other contender. For example, if someone says "Individual A did x, y, z," then he has the burden of proof. Consider the contrafactual hypothesis, in which someone could come up to you on the street and say "There is an imaginary teapot on the other side of the moon," and when you ask "Why should I believe you?" the person preaching could get away with saying "Because you can't disprove it." Thus, it must be recognized that there is a stark difference in the resolutions "God exists" & "God doesn't exist." They are discussing the same thing, but the wording ultimately determines the BoP. As I said, no atheist worth his or her salt would stand by the later resolution. A-theism is a negative philosophy, one not saying that God exists, but that the BoP that the theist has (and admits to in the case of the most educated theists such as William Craig) has not been sufficiently met. In short, The Molestacher, I am agreeing with your resolution, but the arguments put forth in this debate by both sides are not sufficient and clearly derive from a misunderstanding of the purpose and function of the BoP.
Posted by TheMolestacher 4 years ago
TheMolestacher
@andrewkletzien
I understood none of that.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
Let it be noted that I'm not a theist. Just in case anyone thinks I am.
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
Such punitive disputes on the BoP simply show how little those who invoke BoP understand it. It is true that in the debate "God exists," Pro has the burden of proof. Any atheist worth his or her salt, however, should know better than to take on the challenge of "God doesn't exist," for he or she is making a statement of certainty that we atheists admonish the religious for claiming. It simply goes to show that the atheist community must make great strides in wording their resolutions as precisely and comprehensively as possible. And if it is to come to the theist claiming that God is "self-evident" and therefore it is the atheist's responsibility to prove otherwise, that person has truly resorted back so far in the battle that we atheists shouldn't even bother proceeding further.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
I want to debate you now :/ Your sarcasm is so beautifully eloquent in your debate with tala.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Dammit, Con did what I would have done.
Posted by TheMolestacher 4 years ago
TheMolestacher
Cool, but by first round I just meant the first post after my first argument! And I didn't se Russell's teapot because I had no Idea what it is! I'll Google it!
Posted by TheMolestacher 4 years ago
TheMolestacher
Cool, but by first round I just meant the first post after my first argument! And I didn't se Russell's teapot because I had no Idea what it is! I'll Google it!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 4 years ago
kingcripple
TheMolestacherlit.wakefieldTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: there is no reason why pro should win this debate. in his 2nd round he said the religious need to prove there is a God, and atheist bear the burden of disproof. Wouldn't that be the same thing, Atheists need to disprove there is a God as well as the religious needing to prove there is a God? matter of semantics.
Vote Placed by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
TheMolestacherlit.wakefieldTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro kept screaming VOTE PROP which was bad conduct in my opinion. doing it once is okay but constantly bleating it is just poor conduct for debate. S&G - Pro says "opponents primary argument" missing an apostrophe before the 's' after 'opponent'. Sources - the only real sources used were by con... I felt as if all arguments were very well formed...
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
TheMolestacherlit.wakefieldTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro stated the terms of the debate and the resolution. Pro has the BOP to prove the assertion. Pro changed the meaning of the resolution and Con called it out. There were many more arguments that could have been brought up, but Con made enough convincing ones to be awarded the argument point. Argument to Con. I didn't see any sources from either side. Sources are a tie. Conduct is a tie. Pro misspelled several words. Con cleverly used the misspellings as quotes to highlight the error. S&G to Con.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
TheMolestacherlit.wakefieldTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Never have I seen someone get so crushed in a debate before. It wasn't that Pro was necessarily bad at debating, but rather that Con seems to be a master debater. Con correctly pointed out that the burden of proof for the existence of a deity is not the same as the burden of proof for a statement declaring who has the burden of proof.