The Instigator
rowsdower
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
Dale.G
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

atheist don't have a belief in god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
rowsdower
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 29154
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

rowsdower

Pro

I will be arguing that that atheist don't have a belief in god, and that when atheist say things like, "I don't believe any gods exist", they aren't expressing a belief in god.
Dale.G

Con

Atheist say there is no God but I will stop the Atheist right there and say the First 2 words you said there is before you say no / Me Quote so there is a God and you want to know him here is the link to what I will say to those who say there is no God

/ Me Quote a question to the one who is debating me why do atheist talk so much about God if they do not believe in God
Debate Round No. 1
rowsdower

Pro

Pointless semantics don't prove anything. When an atheist says "I don't believe any gods exist", That is what the atheist means. Taking random words out of the sentence proves nothing. At best that is quote mining. A Christian might say things like "I don't believe that Krishna exist." Clearly this isn't an affirmation for the existence of Krishna. As for the video I can't comment on that because I honestly can't understand what you are saying.
Dale.G

Con

Pro has failed to answer my question the fact that Atheist talk so much about God proves God is real

now Pro tell me this what proof and Evidence do you have that say's Atheism is accurate and correct

if you cannot answer that question then Atheism is not accurate and correct thus there is a God because Atheism has no proof of Atheism being real non believe system

a question Pro do you believe you are a Atheist I want a yes or no answer thank u
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Who was it that said "Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?" Smart man, whoever it was.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Wow, where to begin?

> "Pro has failed to answer my question the fact that Atheist talk so much about God proves God is real"

I was talking quite a bit about Batman yesterday. By your logic, Batman is real.

> "now Pro tell me this what proof and Evidence do you have that say's Atheism is accurate and correct"

I would need evidence to believe Batman is real. Not believing Batman is real doesn't require any evidence. Requiring evidence for the non-existance of beings (unicorns, leprauchans, etc.) would lead to wasted brainpower and suboptimal behavior.
Posted by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
If I could vote, I would vote for PRO! Not because I am Atheist and don't believe in god, but because CON used his own video as a source. CON did not come up with any legitimate argument against Pro and only twisted words in a 3 year old way to claim an empty victory in his mind.

My advice would be for Dale to quit while he is completely behind and I don't think he will ever be able to win one debate on here unless he debates himself.
Posted by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
Also the debate wasn't about the accuracy of atheism or whether I believe I am an atheist. Your entire round 2 was wholly unrelated to the topic of the debate
Posted by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
NO! The debate wasn't about why atheist discuss religion or any deities. That is why I ignored your question.
Posted by Dale.G 4 years ago
Dale.G
I win for the very fact that pro never answered my question thus that is a win for me
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Annihilation. Pro fully met BOP. Con had no arguments and made s&G errors.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was hard to read, didn't make much sense. Many of his "sentences," here and in other debates, start with something like "Me slash me," for no apparent reason. It's offputting and incoherent. Spelling and Grammar to Pro. Pro stated his position, and Con never even tried (not counting new arguments introduced in the last round) to refute it Persuasion to Pro. Con held back his arguments until the final round, when Pro no longer had a chance to respond to them. Conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: What the ... yah ...
Vote Placed by minstrel 4 years ago
minstrel
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh my god! That was horrific. I'm not trying to be mean but is con an elementary school student?
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Word games cannot and will not ever prove the existence of anything. The existence of a concept relating to a thing does not prove the existence of the thing. To argue that it does is foolhardy; to do so with such atrocious grammar and conduct is almost laughable.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll second bladerunner060's rationale.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has atrocious S&G as always, was insulting and tried to dodge the actual debate question, made no convincing arguments, and his one source (the only one in this debate) is in no way reliable. So Con gets a tie for that at least, considering one bad source is just as bad as no sources at all (sorry Pro)
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument, "the fact that atheists speak so frequently of gods and goddesses proves they believe in gods and goddesses" doe not change the definition of atheist. I would have liked Pro to have pointed this out more forcefully, but I can interpret his statements that "semantics prove nothing" as definitive. S&G to Pro as well, because Con's argument was so often marred by gibberish. The defining characteristic of atheism remains what it was before this debate.
Vote Placed by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
rowsdowerDale.GTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: All I can say is that CON used his own video as source and changed debate topic in the second round. CON's twisting of words is also very childish and shows the lack of skills he has in debates!