The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dhulke
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

god is a fart that never happend

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...
dhulke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 77694
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

religious people just insist that a poo that never happend, does smell
dhulke

Con

Taking a poo does not imply that it will smell nor farting implies that a sound will come followed by a smell. Regardless of the existence of God, your argument is fundamentally fallacious. Absence of evidence (smell) isn't evidence of absence (fart/poo). I ask the readers to focus on the argument given by my opponent regardless of any religious/atheistic beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i agree.. i wrote poo while high last night and i have just been copy pasting the tekst..

i mean god is a fart that never happend, i have never seen a fart that never happend, and so there is no truth, no honest story to give of a fart that never happend

if you cant smell it, how do you know its there?
dhulke

Con

Galileo Galilei had never seen a planet spining around a sun before, but that did not mean there was no truth to it nor that it had never happened. The fact that you've never seen something happening isn't proof that something doesn't happen.

If you can't smell a fart, you could run some air tests, or you could ask other people to smell it and have a poll. However, if none of the previous attempts rendered any evidence of the fart, you have just two options left: either the fart happened and you don't have the necessary instruments to measure its presence or e didn't happen. The problem is: you can't prove that a fart actually never happened with a 100% certainty. You can get a pretty good statistical answer, but never a sure answer.

So again: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

but if i havnt seen it i do have to imagine it

i can at best believe what other people tell me, as i have to imagine it

my point is, god is a fart that never happened, becasue god never happend
dhulke

Con

You are using a circular argument: "god is a fart that never happened because god never happened". You have no authority to say that since you don't have evidence of the inexistence of god.
Why do you say that god never happened? God did happen, only you don't have the right instruments to assess his presence.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

lack of evidence for god is the proof that god is a fart that never happend

reality is your authority

instruments..
dhulke

Con

So do you believe that lack of evidence that the earth was spinning around the sun was proof that it didn't happen at the time of Galileu? Do you believe that the lack of evidence for the existence of the Higgs Bosom was evidence that it didn't exist?

I ask my fellow reader to not consider my beliefs, which I have chosen not to present here, but to consider that my opponent is using fallacious arguments to uphold his arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

no it just means i dont know, and i still dont

science is a belief system

just simply tell me 1 difference between a fart that never happened and god
dhulke

Con

Since you insist in using fallacious arguments to explain your position, I ask the reader to consider this when voting.

As for your question, the difference between a fart that never happened is that you're already stating that the fart never happened. You already know the condition of existence of this fart and you're trying to compare the sure inexistence of a fart with the probable inexistence of god. You know the fart never happened, you stated it, but you don't know if god never happened.

This is my last argument and I actually don't believe in the existence of god, but I don't use fallacious arguments to justify it. I ask the reader to not condone with these kinds of arguments to justify the lack of belief. Please judge the arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
only when it never happend :)
Posted by frenchmoosetwo 1 year ago
frenchmoosetwo
My rectum excretes god particles
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jeong_Donghyun 1 year ago
Jeong_Donghyun
vi_spexdhulkeTied
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: Con's conduct was better, that is obvious. Con had better arguments, whereas Pro simply repeated the unsupported arguments. Pro also had many grammatical errors.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
vi_spexdhulkeTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: ff essentially