The Instigator
Chaddyd23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

there is no god

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,313 times Debate No: 12848
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Chaddyd23

Pro

I am a atrong atheist and strongly believe there is no god. i think religion was started a long time ago because people back then simply didnt know any better. science has again and again contradicted religious beliefs. religion started as an easy way to answer earths biggest questions. as science evolved, and some answers came about,religion was turned into a business. for example, mormons have to give up 10% pay. is that really fair? i think it is all jut a way forstory tellers to make money.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

== Epistemological Arguments ==

A knowledge claim is a logical assertion of truth.

A belief is cognitive content held as true.

One can believe something to be true, but just because they believe it does not make it true. For example, I might believe that my dog can fly. I decide to throw my dog off the roof and he indeed does not fly. My belief, therefore, was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that I KNEW my dog could fly, because obviously he could not. I cannot know something that is not true. However, if my dog could actually fly, then I might be justified in saying I knew my dog could fly. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.

While belief is a subjective personal basis for individual behavior, truth is an objective state independent of the individual, i.e., a fact. Whether someone's belief is true or not is not a prerequisite for its belief. Someone can still believe something untrue. However, it is impossible for someone to know something they do not believe. In other words, "I know I have brown hair, but I don't believe it" is self-contradictory. In order to know something you must believe it [1].

Now, the terms atheism and theism reflect beliefs about the existence of a god; however, Pro's assertion in the resolution reveals not a belief but a certainty: a knowledge claim. However, the philosopher Bertrand Russel explained with his Celestial Teapot analogy that such a knowledge claim about the existence of a god - or a lack thereof - was nearly impossible:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes" [2].

In other words, if my claim is that something exists though we don't have the technology to observe it, there is no way to actually disprove it even if it is not rational for us to believe. Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, because it is a matter of individual belief with no absolute verifiable proof, it cannot be considered knowledge. You cannot make the knowledge claim that there is no god without proof, just as you cannot make the knowledge claim that there is a god without proof.

Indeed one can disprove the Abrahamic god or various other descriptions of god(s) via logic proofs and/or other evidence. However, because god is not clearly defined (and there are many interpretations of god), then the concept of god itself cannot be disproved, or has not been disproved by my opponent. In order for his knowledge claim to be valid, he must present evidence that disproves all connotations of the word god. This includes beliefs such as pantheism (that god is itself the natural universe - 3) or panentheism (that the universe is a part of god, but god is more than the world and is not synonymous with the world - 4).

In short, there are many characteristics attributed to various concepts of god(s) that make god nearly impossible to disprove, just as Russell's teapot. Therefore, the knowledge claim that there is no god as implied by the resolution is inaccurate. Atheism - the simple rejection of belief in the existence of deities [4] is a more appropriate position than what my opponent has illustrated.

On a final note, I think we can see that my opponent has the burden of proof; he's the instigator of this debate and makes a positive claim [6] that god does not exist. I posit that his claim is not a knowledge claim but merely a belief, meaning his claim is not justified as there is just as much (or little) proof for his claim as the claim that god does indeed exist. Remember, simply disproving one concept of god(s) does not eliminate all aspects of god, nor is it certain that one can even disprove god considering one popular notion is that human reason and understanding cannot grapple with the complexity of god's existence.

Back to Pro.

[1] http://en.wikitemology...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370
Debate Round No. 1
Chaddyd23

Pro

Well now Mr. Lwerd... You are just a big ball of greatness. Thank you for accepting my debate.

I give up because I posted this as a belief, not something that can be debated fully. I am sorry. If you would like, we can finish this debate on topic, "There is no God"... Next three rounds?
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

We can continue debating the BELIEF that there is no god, though I don't see how you can really get around some of the arguments I've already made including Russell's teapot analogy. How do you plan on proving all concepts of god cannot exist despite the variation in description and applicable traits? Also, how do you plan on addressing the notion that human reason and understanding cannot grapple with the complexity of god's existence? I welcome the discussion so feel free to shed some light on disproving the belief in god in the next few rounds :)
Debate Round No. 2
Chaddyd23

Pro

Chaddyd23 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

So far my opponent hasn't defended either his knowledge claim or belief. Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Chaddyd23

Pro

Chaddyd23 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Chaddyd23

Pro

I have lost hope for this debate... But not for your votes ;). Vote for me and I will make your wildest dreams come true.
Danielle

Con

Lol, my opponent has forfeited the debate. I'm not sure why he forfeited considering I agreed to debate the BELIEF in god and not necessarily the knowledge claim, but I digress. The challenged I posed was addressing the notion that human reason and understanding could not grapple with the complexity of god's existence, for which Pro conceded. It was a fun attempt nevertheless! Thanks.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
debate*
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
"Vote for me and I will make your wildest dreams come true."

YOU WOULD PUT A KFC ON EVERY BLOCK!?!?

I better stop spamming Mr. Lwerd's thread.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
"Well now Mr. Lwerd... You are just a big ball of greatness."
LMAO.
Posted by LD_Freak 6 years ago
LD_Freak
Whoa whoa whoa, hold your horses, Chaddy. Mormons aren't required to pay 10% income. It is a commandment of God, yes, but it's not enforced, and you wont be thrown out of the Church if you don't. Only use facts that you know are true.
Posted by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
Idiot pro, theLwerd is not a Mr!
Posted by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
Which religion do you speak of? Or is it any spiritual deity?
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Meh, for what it's worth, most reasonable people (philosophers) discussing god agree to certain characteristics or traits typically applicable to all descriptions of god, including supernatural powers and of course things like omnipotence and/or omniscience and/or omnibenevolence. Then of course there are the pan(en)theistic perspectives I mentioned in R1. I don't want this to be a semantics debate - it's unnecessary - so while I acknowledge that Julius Caesar was called god, for example, I don't want to have to resort to Pro defending something absurd like Caesar didn't exist. I'll keep it to more deity or supernatural type figures, and things of that nature. Good point though.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
no god, that is way to broad, Julius Caesar was officially declared a god by the roman empire, he existed.
Posted by Alex 6 years ago
Alex
Hmm..Teenager who has taken intro to comparitive religion or Lwerd..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Chaddyd23DanielleTied
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 Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Chaddyd23DanielleTied
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 Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Chaddyd23DanielleTied
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