The Instigator
magicman2604
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
imnotsayingimjustsaying
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

prove to me god is NOT real

Do you like this debate?NoYes-10
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 12 votes the winner is...
magicman2604
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,785 times Debate No: 27520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (12)

 

magicman2604

Con

Prove to me that god is NOT real. You will have no agruments
imnotsayingimjustsaying

Pro

Um...I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god
Debate Round No. 1
magicman2604

Con

So you have no way of proving that god doesn't exist? then you lose
imnotsayingimjustsaying

Pro

I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god
I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god
I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god
I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god
I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god
I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god

You don't believe in invisible unicorns, and you don't need proof to tell you that.
Debate Round No. 2
magicman2604

Con

You just don't believe in the holy spirit. I guess there is no way you can believe in god.

Burn in Hell, Godbless
imnotsayingimjustsaying

Pro

You have some serious problems if you wish someone to suffer forever then thank God for that.
I don't hope you burn in hell for not believing in the 63,000 other religions there have been in the world. there has been no proof of god and if there is no way to prove that there is a god then everyone can say that no god exists.
This debate is a waste of time and i hope nobody else wasted their time reading such a terrible debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
I am very religious, and I also think that an atheist should be able to disprove God's existence before they start criticizing religious people for their beliefs. HOWEVER, I also believe that a religious person should be able to PROVE God's existence before they start criticizing atheists for their beliefs.
Either way, there is no reason to be wishing eternal torture on others, especially when you claim to follow a religion of peace and love.
Posted by DaileyScience 4 years ago
DaileyScience
Russels's teapot. Look it up. It says that the burden of proof lies upon a person make scientifically infalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others.
Ex. Flying spaghetti monster created the universe.
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
Whoah. The claim did say that you had to prove that God DIDN'T exist.
Posted by TheBoss 4 years ago
TheBoss
Um... I honestly don't know why or what the whole point of this debate was... In the end it was just liked two people annoyed and mad at each other compared to a debate... Oh well
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Terrible debate on all sides, but WTF was Pro even doing? He only presented an argument when it was impossible to refute (final round). Methinks this was on purpose for voter manipulation. Thus, Conduct and Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither debater debated well. I gave pro the conduct point because of con saying "Burn in Hell [sic]." Pro gets arguments because he pointed out that the resolution is falsely stated - con has the BoP and not him. Pro's argument, however weak it may be, was an argument for weak atheism; namely, there is no evidence for God's existence and therefore, rejection of the God hypothesis is warranted. Neither pro nor con had great spelling or sources.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution clearly stipulated the BoP to be on Pro. Since Pro seemed to miss/deny this, he couldn't actually provide an argument. Conduct to Pro for Con telling him to burn in hell.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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: Why the devil would you accept a debate, undertake a burden of proof, then try to claim that the other person actually has the burden of proof? Pro presented no relevant arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as philochristos's vote, pro didnt give arguments at all yet con was a complete prick
Vote Placed by Altilongitude 4 years ago
Altilongitude
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fulfill b o p.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave arguments to Con because although ordinarily we might say that theists have the burden of proof when it comes to the existence of God, con explicitly stipulated that the burden of proof would be on his opponent. Pro should not have accepted the debate if he was not willing to abide be the stipulations of the debate. Since Pro offered no arguments, Pro did not carry his burden of proof, and Con had nothing to refute. Conduct went to Pro because Con told him to "burn in hell."
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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: Firstguy clearly assigned the burden of proof to Secondguy. Secondguy accepted the debate on those terms, and then didn't try to argue. Persuasion to Firstguy. "Burn in Hell"? I'm very tempted to assign conduct points to Secondguy. I can't quite manage to do that though, given Secondguy's also poor conduct.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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: this should end in a tie
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
magicman2604imnotsayingimjustsayingTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con told him to burn in hell ..... Arguments to Pro because its impossible to prove something doesn't exist, BoP is on believer to prove it is real.