The Instigator
hashtagmugger1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Keeyan
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

god doesn't exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
Keeyan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 61235
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

hashtagmugger1

Pro

ok so this is the second god doesn't exist debate im doing so i may be delayed by not gone, please use factual evidence for your arguments( the bible or hell ETC.)
Keeyan

Con

Well, good luck good sir and/or madam!
Debate accepted.
Your turn!
Debate Round No. 1
hashtagmugger1

Pro

i was really hoping for you to give an argument but ok, first let me say that the bible should not be used in this argument as it is completely inaccurate(if you want me to debate that ill start another debate) but for now i ll start with the creation of the universe.yes us atheists/scientists don't know how the universe started but if a gods hand was involved don't you think that humans would have better lives (starvation,poverty, and murder are all examples of a gods ignorance or non existence) but alone that is not proof as it is a claim the starting of a theory. Some evidence that i own in my library is Jesus's non existence/ non divine. during the time that he was supposedly living not one single document/letter was produced with Jesus mentioned in it. it wasn't until around 200 years later when the oldest known copy of the bible appeared that his name was mentioned. if there was a god surely he wouldn't let his son be unnoticed especially after what he supposedly did for us, not for 10 years and definitely not for 200.
Keeyan

Con

Thank you for your first argument sir/madam; sorry I wasn't aware you wanted me to go first.

Although stated clearly and eloquently, I believe your argument has one fatal flaw: it deals exclusively in the Christian faith. Your debate topic is stated to be "God doesn't exist." No specification is made as to whether this is the God of Abrahamic tradition (YHWH, Allah, etc.), Shiva, Jupiter, The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Your argument as it is stated only really supports the argument that the heavenly Father of Jesus did not create the Earth as we know it.

Following this, your argument still does nothing to prove that a God (or Goddess, no sexism here) does not exist. Not all faiths view deities as interventionist beings that directly aid their followers. Some simply view God as a "celestial watchman" who views our lives for simple curiosity. Others, including scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, view God as more of a metaphor for the entirety of nature and physics. Belief in personal Gods may be the belief of the majority, but it is not the only kind.

In conclusion, I find Creationists and Religious Fanatics to be narrow-sighted and ridiculous. Only through rational thinking can the human race progress. However, I also believe that the concept of "God" in its broadest sense is something that can never fully be disproved.

Thank you.

Your turn!
Debate Round No. 2
hashtagmugger1

Pro

as someone said in the comments i should have name this argument prove god exists, not doing so was my downfall we atheists can not prove that he doesn't exist but we can disprove evidence. the fact of the matter is that neither side of the debate has solid evidence, but on the theist side it is technically your job to provide evidence that something exists as you believe in it on the opposing side i sit trying to disprove evidence. fro Example if i said dragons existed and you think there fake its my job to prove to you that they are real. in reality you know if they are or if they are not real but based on factual evidence and past experiences all you can do is deny them and disprove any evidence i have . im sorry fort he misconception that this argument has brought but in future arguments i will better label my debates. as i hope you will remember if you have to prove something that we do not know as factual evidence and the side disproving has to disprove evidence. in conclusion unless a god/ goddess appears in or world and announces him/herself we will never now if or not a god exists all we can do is use the factual evidence around us to decipher in our minds what to believe. But no matter what religion it is you don't see a god everyday so it's their job to prove that one exists, and the non believers to disprove claims and misconceptions.
Keeyan

Con

Good day again Sir/Madam!

First of all, I feel that I need to point out that I am not, strictly speaking, on the theist side. I have not argued for the existence of a God. I have advocated the Agnostic view that any possible deity, and I stress POSSIBLE, is ultimately unknowable and non-interventionist, thus perfectly fitting the imperfect world that we have the fortune to inhabit. My argument has also provided unassailable evidence that the resolution in its current form: "God doesn't exist," is incorrect.

Furthermore, you seem to hold the belief that as the apparent holder of a belief, the burden of proof lies upon my shoulders to defend such a belief. This may seem plausible to an atheist deriding an "illogical" religion, but let's put the argument in context: If a researcher were to "disprove" the theory of gravity, would it be the responsibility of the scientific establishment to defend it? Rather, it would be the researcher's responsibility to give evidence supporting his proof. This parallels our current debate. You, sir/ madam, deride the millennia-old idea of a deity with opinions formed only within the past few centuries, yet somehow believe the burden of proof falls upon me. Even if one were to take this absurd notion as law, it is clear that the belief in question is "God doesn't exist" and, you , sir/madam, are the holder of it!

Therefore, I believe that I have adequately explained why "God doesn't exist" is unprovable, and that any last minute protestations about your own inadequately-worded resolution does not prove the contrary.
Debate Round No. 3
hashtagmugger1

Pro

hashtagmugger1 forfeited this round.
Keeyan

Con

...So in conclusion dear voters, I believe that Agnosticism is the only possible route to take with a debate resolution so-worded. The concept of a God is the most abstract concept humans have ever imagined, and the absolute refutation of such a concept shall take evidence beyond that currently in the possession of our species.

I believe that I have stated my argument clearly, and that my opponent has not been able to provide evidence to the contrary of my points.

Now it is your turn; please vote for the better arguments. Have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Natsu_Dragneel 2 years ago
Natsu_Dragneel
So, what was the point of Pro's 3rd round... Is he trying to cushion his defeat? He obviously made a massive mistake and misunderstands how arguments are carried out. Opposing sides do not HAVE to do anything. This is an argument, and you will try your best to convince others to join your side. Please just forfeit because Con destroyed your first argument. You then proceeded to waste your 3rd round mumbling about how much you messed up and that Con shouldn't take advantage of your poorly worded title.
.
.
IN ADDITION (not done yet), you are an atheist right? Then stop wasting your time trying to disprove gods presence. Seriously dude, YOU. DO. NOT. BELIEVE. IN. GOD! So stop trying to spread your soiled existence to others. Just go to college, or get a job. Find a nice atheist wife, and have an atheist baby. Stop trying to pick fights with people about whether or not God exist. Go debate child abortion, or prison conditions. Go away, your just another misled sheep.
Posted by Mussab 2 years ago
Mussab
It is impossible for Pro to win this debate. There are some things we accept without any proof.
Examples:
1+1=2
I had a great, great, great, great,great grandfather.

Saying that God doesn't exist is a statement that needs proving if it were true. I don't mean to make a debate in the comment section about this.
Posted by Keeyan 2 years ago
Keeyan
@indecisive: Thanks for the constructive criticism. I understand what you mean about my argument, but I need to stress that I'm not strictly arguing that God exists, but rather that we can't prove that he (or she or it or agjafiafgafngafdn) doesn't exist.
@cheyennebodie:
First Comment: That's sort of like saying you're a man of faith if you believe there aren't bogiemen under your bed.
Second Comment: ???
@GoOrDin: I read your profile. Your arguments are incoherent.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The more I read these debates what God said comes to mind. " The wisdom of this world is foolishness." Of course he also said that the wisdom of God is foolishness to the carnally minded. God does have a sense of humor. Calliong you carnally minded . Taking the word, carnal. Which means meat. Carnivorous. Meat eater. So in God's eyes, the carnal minded person is a meathead.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
impossible. God must exist. read my profile.
Posted by indecisive 2 years ago
indecisive
@hashtagmugger1 It is not his job to prove to you what he believes nor provide non existing evidence for it especially since you are already so set against it. Also, your use of the word "misconceptions" in round 3 shows you are a tad bit close minded yourself. @Keeyan Your round two argument didn't introduce anything new and you taught a good bit about different religions then denied your belief in them. Debating skills a tad bit subpar today. No offense meant though, I still understand your perspective.
Posted by hashtagmugger1 2 years ago
hashtagmugger1
"face palm" i have no faith that's all i don't believe in a god or any divine creature that's all get your facts straight
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You are sure a man of faith.For you to be so intense on your belief, faith has to come into play. Since you have never peeked past your own death into that future, you have to have faith that God will not be there at that time.
Posted by hashtagmugger1 2 years ago
hashtagmugger1
if you want to debate the accuracy of the bible, and the bible should not be used as proof
Posted by hashtagmugger1 2 years ago
hashtagmugger1
thanks i just realized that i haven't done a debate in at least 6 months because my account got hacked but ill try to make intellectual argument
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
hashtagmugger1KeeyanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
hashtagmugger1KeeyanTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't capitalize So grammar to con. Pro ff a round, so conduct to con. Pro conceded in round three, so arguments to con.