The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
purplenight
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points

Without God life has no meaning or value

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,172 times Debate No: 14328
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (9)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

It is often claimed that "Without God life has no meaning or value".
I as the Con will seek to show that this claim is not justified
My opponent as the Pro will seek to show that this claim is justified
Definitions
God = Classic Theism, All good, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, uncreated.
Opening Argument........
Common arguments given to support the claim that "Without God life has no meaning or value" include......
Claim 1) "A problem is that if God does not exist then there is no immortality"
But what is the argument here, that meaning and value are contingent on duration ? How so ? No justification is given for this link, it just asserts it then moves on.
Claim 2) "If God does not exist, then evil doers can get away from being punished"
Again, what is the argument here ?
1) If God does not exist then evil doers can go unpunished. 2) I don't like the idea of evil doers not getting punished. 3) Therefore God exists. This is just an appeal to emotion http://en.wikipedia.org...
Consider this argument.......
1) If I die, then I won't be able to enjoy all I have worked for. 2) I don't like the idea of not being able to enjoy all that I have worked for. 3) Therefore I wont die. Claim 3) "Only God can given meaning to life, if a person or humans make up meaning to life, its just made up and not real"
This is just a double standard. If a personal being such as a human gives purpose to something its fake, if a personal being such as God gives purpose to something its real.
I look forward to Pros response.
purplenight

Pro


with out god life has no meaning. god creates mystery, the unknown, something worth living for. god creates faith. without all that then why live. many people have faith in god and because of that it gives the extra strength to push on, gives them hope, to allow miracles to happen. you see it happen all the time in sports. it not about winning or losing but about reaching your maximum potential. and the believe in something higher then yourself allows you to trust yourself so you can be your best possible. and to live without reaching your maximum potential is meaningless. it is not really about whether god is or isn't. it's about living your life to the fullest. and the belief in god is the key that opens the door to your potential.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro says "with out god life has no meaning", please present justification for this claim, just making an assertion doesn't count for much.
Pro says " god creates mystery, the unknown" justified ignorance anyone ?
Pro says "many people have faith in god and because of that it gives the extra strength to push on" believing in Scientology gives some people strength too, maybe we should all become members of Scientology.
Pro says "it's about living your life to the fullest." that would make a good slogan for Nike, or Adidas.
I would ask Pro to show how absent God life has no value and meaning, and with Gods' existence life does have value and meaning.

















purplenight

Pro

first i would like to write that i agree that " it's about living your life to the fullest" would create a beautiful slogan for nike, adidas, even beer. then your telling me to show how the absents of god has no value and meaning. this is not show and tell. it is like asking me to show you the wind. the wind has to be felt not shown. you are confusing an internal experience with an external one. if you were to have faith in something higher than yourself then you would feel it. even if it was scientology. your definition of a god is all power, all knowing, eternal. if someone were to believe that about scientology then even scientology can be made a god. all you need to do is have faith in something higher than yourself then meaning would be felt. this has to be experienced for yourself not shown to the world for proof. and if you go on asking the world ' does god have meaning in your life?' i bet over 80% of the world would say yes but they won't be able to prove it. the reason why is because it is beyond mind. it comes from within not without. as far as saying 'assertions don't count for much' i'm debating to debate not to win or achieve something.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

The debate resolution was "Without God life has no meaning or value" as the Pro you were to argue for this position. If Pro is of the view this can't be proved or at least argued for against its negation, then why did Pro accept the debate ?
Pro says "if you go on asking the world ' does god have meaning in your life?' I bet over 80% of the world would say yes",
What is the argument here ? People say God gives meaning to their life, therefore without God life has no meaning ?
Pro then goes on to say "but they won't be able to prove it. the reason why is because it is beyond mind", so if they are not using the mind to understand this meaning, then what are they using to understand it ?
Pro says " I'm debating to debate not to win or achieve something" I appreciate you not trying to win at all costs attitude, but it would be nice if you could give reason in support of the resolution, and defend them against counter arguments.


purplenight

Pro

this is a debate not a court trial. nothing needs to be proved. all we are trying to do is develope an understanding for different points of view. to expand our knowledge and incite. the reason why you are asking for proof is because you too believe without god life has no meaning or value. you may or may not be aware of it but it is true. god is all knowing, all power, eternal. you want proof because it will give you knowledge and with that comes power. without knowledge how can you feel powerful? the more knowledge you have the more powerful you feel and the more powerful you feel the more you feel godlike, invincible, eternal. you are searching for god through mind, intellect because without that feeling of all power, all knowing, and eternity life has no meaning. without that feeling you will always be asking, searching, and questioning. this is why people are always searching for god whether its from the mind, church, or walt disney. it is because without this feeling of all power, all knowing, and eternity life has no meaning. you ask for proof and the proof is in you asking for proof. You also stated " so if they are not using the mind to understand this meaning, then what are they using to understand it?" Nothing has to be understood. It is either you feel it or you don't. It is like when a person sits by you in a train and your gut feeling tells you to get away fast. You don't understand it. If you ignore the feeling and get robbed or assaulted then you will regret not listening to your feelings. you can't explain the feeling or why it was there, you just know you felt it.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

It seems to me Pro launched into some strange psychoanalysis in an attempted to prove their side of the argument.
Pro says " you want proof because it will give you knowledge and with that comes power. without knowledge how can you feel powerful? the more knowledge you have the more powerful you feel and the more powerful you feel the more you feel godlike, invincible, eternal. "
I know that 2 + 2 = 4, oh wow, how invincible I feel, Also power means the ability to make something happen, even if you are all knowing, this doesn't mean you have power to do anything.
Now Pro says " you ask for proof and the proof is in you asking for proof."
So lets look at Pros argument here, if some one tests the claim that without God life has no meaning, then this proves the claim that without God life has no meaning. Ummm no it doesn't. Consider this argument.....
"Without Cookies life has no meaning"
ahhh, you see, the fact that your testing this claim only PROVES the claim that without cookies life has no meaning.
At the start of this debate I argued against some common reasons given to support the claim that "without God life has no meaning", Pro has not defended these claims, nor has Pro given good reason in support of the claim that "without God life has no meaning"
Vote Con.

purplenight

Pro

Once again I would like to agree with you. Without cookies life would have no meaning. Especially oreos. They really unlock the magic. Cookies are delicious and because of that they make people happy. What would be the point in living without happiness? Then you said that " I know that 2+2=4." You don't know that, you were taught that. You are confused between knowing and being taught. If you don't even know the difference between that then what do you know. 2+2=4 is something that you were taught, you didn't discover that out for yourself. Knowledge comes from your personal experience and being taught comes from someone else. And yes if you are all knowing you have the power to do something. If you knew how to make a light pulp then you have the power to make it happen. Then again you are still asking for proof. I did that the last round even though I wrote nothing needs to be proven. But I'll prove it again by example. Have you ever seen the movie Men Of Honor. Based on a true story. I was just watching that movie a few hours ago. It is a movie about the first African American master deep sea diver. He over came the most impossible obstacles you could ever imagine. The odds were heavily stacked against him but it is what his father told him that kept him strong. He told him "never give up, keep fighting, and don't come back home." What the father said stood with him throughout his hardship. It was his God. It gave him all knowing, he knew his potential. All power, he had the power to carry out his actions. Eternity because his courage will live on and be remembered forever. It was his faith in what his father said that gave him the will to push on. Every time he felt discouraged he look over at the picture of his father and that gave him the will to keep going and because of that he achieved the impossible. That is no different then a man praying to God in difficult times for the strength to make it through his hardship. Without God he would have never became a master diver because he wouldn't have any faith therefore not realizing his potential. He would have lived a meaningless life because his heart was in diving not anything else. Overall, I don't need to prove my point but I did it anyway. But what have you proved? Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Says says"if you could tell the difference between a reasonable argument and an argument based on "well the bible says " or "insert religion dogma here" arguments, that would just be super."
People who believe in god can obviously not do what you ask so by default they are mental ill.

Oh contrary, I think most can, whether the environment they are in supports such use of "reason" is another question, and whether they want to reason on their own views is also another question.

As far as your comment about they are mentally Ill, you will have to forgive me if I don't take your diagnosis of what is or isn't a mental illness.

Sad says "You wanna explain that votebomb mp3 ?"
Exactly why I don't vote anymore. Point proven here

Oh please, I asked a question, plus I have noticed a certain way in which mp3 votes in debates I have been in, so I asked the question. Oh I asked the question for Mp3, not for their buddy Godsands, unless they are the same person ?
Posted by theorusso 6 years ago
theorusso
@sadolite
not putting words in your mouth, merely stating I understood, "Non believers in my opinion, tend to discuss this subject in the most sterile and clinical terms they can think of," to be a bit of a generalization and therefore a logical fallacy. Also, I didn't say whether you believe atheists are immoral or not, just said not to believe in any statements like that.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
I actually am with Godsands on this one. Huh?
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
GodSands Join the club, I wish i KNEW WHAT MY REAL RECORD WAS. cAPS LOCK
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
"You wanna explain that votebomb mp3 ?"

I'm always vote bombed in my debates. Even in ones which I should obviously win.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
"if you could tell the difference between a reasonable argument and an argument based on "well the bible says " or "insert religion dogma here" arguments, that would just be super."
People who believe in god can obviously not do what you ask so by default they are mental ill.

"You wanna explain that votebomb mp3 ?"
Exactly why I don't vote anymore. Point proven here

"Don't misunderstand atheists to be immoral and heartless people."
Never implied or suggested any such thing. Putting words in my mouth

"The problem inherent in your first comment is that it has nothing to do with this debate."
Semantics followed with the classical beaker and petri dish proof approach. You can't prove a feeling.
Posted by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
@sadolite:
The problem inherent in your first comment is that it has nothing to do with this debate. This was not a debate about whether or not God exists. This was a debate about whether or not a human being can find meaning in his/her life without God. Clearly, even Pro admitted as much when he said that belief in something higher than yourself suffices.

Do I think people who believe in God should be put in re-education camps? No more than I think people who believe in Santa should. Believing in something without evidence is not, in itself, a sign of mental illness. However, when someone tries to get *me* to believe in God, I have a right to hold his arguments to whatever standard provides the basis of my beliefs and judge his argument accordingly. It is the God botherers that are banging on *my* door, not the other way around.

Lastly, regarding how many people believe in God: http://en.wikipedia.org...

@theorusso:

The burden of proof is not necessarily on Pro, it is on the claimant. In this case Illegalcombatant, by starting the debate, is asserting that the statement, "Without God life has no meaning or value" is false. He now has the burden to prove that. He can do it by either showing that life never has meaning or value regardless of God, or he can show that life can have meaning or value without God. He made no attempt to do either. However, like I said, I had to give him the points because Pro made his case for him.
Posted by theorusso 6 years ago
theorusso
@Sadolite

Don't misunderstand atheists to be immoral and heartless people.
You are using a logical fallacy, generalization, and if you are trying to argue for belief in God if my understanding of you're comment is correct, then you should use sound logic.
The reason why people argue for solid evidence is because that is physical proof. You cannot convict someone on faith or belief, because without tangible evidence, it is just hearsay.
I do not wish to discount anyone's beliefs in God, but I do believe that in a formal debate setting, anyone arguing for belief in a higher power and faith is at a disadvantage. Since religion is based on faith without solid evidence, you cannot provide solid evidence to support any arguments.
Posted by theorusso 6 years ago
theorusso
Not to be rude, but debate's should be structured like a court trial, not necessarily the same format, but logical arguments that flow seamlessly with evidence and reasoning to support claims put forth.

I'm not sure why you don't believe anything must be proven, when in a debate, the affirmative has the burden of proof. That means they must prove the resolved, or statement of intent. Negative's job is to disprove the claims and arguments put forth by the affirmative side, thereby disproving the resolved set forth by the affirmative.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
You wanna explain that votebomb mp3 ?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by theorusso 6 years ago
theorusso
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
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 daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by purplenight 6 years ago
purplenight
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
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 Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
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 gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
IllegalcombatantpurplenightTied
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