The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Atheism is a Lie

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,732 times Debate No: 88647
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (290)
Votes (0)




I am Pro.

I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate.

There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate.

I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically.

My resolution is "Atheism is a lie."

Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution.

Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence
Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence.

Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence.
Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence.

Construct 1
Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.
Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence
Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.

Construct 2
Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists.
Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions)
Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists.

Construct 3
Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.
Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)
Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.

Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.
Report this Argument
Report this Argument


Thank you Chipmunk for giving me this opportunity.

Although, Apparently it would seem that I agree with you, and perhaps if you re-evaluate the way that you presented the argument I do in fact agree with you, I am going to take this debate as a challenge for you.

Because this is a logical debate, I present my first case, my acceptance in this manner:

A Word everyone can Use.
Philanthropy: is the study or practice of improving human behaviour.
Philanthropist(s): help make people be well.
Philosophy: is the study of thought(s) and how a person thinks.
Philosopher(s): know how to explain emotions, ideas and desires, and the/their causes.
Then, what am I thinking? You are: interested in what I might be able to do; are wondering if I actually might know what you are thinking; [you] think/thought that you have/had no use for me or my skills; and think that I am funny because this is my expertise. But, you are also interested in what else I might be useful for, which|that might make you decide not to abolish me.
Then what do you do? I motivate people to be productive, healthy, smart|intelligent and wise.
By doing what (exactly)? Planting crops, writing, participating in sports, listening to people"s political and/or personal problems, teaching science(s). Simple things, which|that make life rich/interesting.

Modest: Not being conceited. Not prioritizing on one"s own desires. Not being presumptuious.
Humble : Not interjecting or disregarding other"s statments. Tolerating but not indulging in other"s loftyness or arrogance.
You are humble, but you have humility. Humble is an adjective. Humility is a noun, but is more accurately described as an adverb. It is humilitaing to listen to patronizing or pretending people.
A Humble person is an unpretending person ~ they are not delusional. A Modest person may be delusional or unpretending, but they are not offensively intrusive.


To present a delsuional opinion, conclusion or idea as a fact or soemthing of graveness is what it means to not be modest or humble.
A delusional opinion can be determined by the means it was aquired or "established". Because the delusion is always rendered by an individual whom is not ignorant of their conduct, they can be determeined to not be humble or modest, even if they appear formal or polite. " That state, can be judged by evaluating the content of their delusion and determining that they have had no substance for genuine faith.

This is the art of Philanthropy: Improving human nature through evaluation of physcology (which is the sciencce of Philosophy).

Antinoms of Humility and Modesty.

Arrogance: a pretending, assuming, over exerting, incoherent, pompous or conceited act of behaviour, geared towards influencing conclusions or results.
Insolence: The act of being arrogant with an air of jubalie.
Impudence: the act of arrogance where one is incapable (due to lack of knowledge or capacity to aquire knowledge) of truthfully making assertions.

& Altruistic
Altruistically can be found to be defined as: "unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others (oposed to egotistical).
Also defined as an animal trait relating to the behaviour of: risking or directly placing one"s self at a disadvantage for the benefit of other"s (specifically of it"s own kind in the animal kingdom (ie. Bees or ants, parents or herds.).

Where as an act intended to be out of Richteousness can be foolish, presumptuous or ill conducted, altruistic "behaviour" is simply a mentality, what is not reflected in the behaviour that manifests.

An example of what is and what is not philanthropy:
If the results of the effort are more valuable t the worker than the wage, it may be an act of philanthropy. If the wages exceed the results of the work in priority, it is not an act of philanthropy.
Philanthropy can be a form of education, or "charity" in the sence that you are providing the tools nessisssary to think, rationalize or come to true conclusions, communicate ethically and produce knowledge.
In each case (every instance of philanthropy) you further develop understanding and apply wisdom {Study and practice*}. ). Charity is not always philanthropy; if it is not an act of improving the state of being, and not only improving the current affairs.
It is most readily defined as Charity.

I choose to be a philanthropist not out of richteousness or even self-richteousness, but out of fear. I regret the plausible outcome of affliction on humanity should we overlook it"s deterioration. I do not study or apply philanthropy for my own good, I simply do it, with complete disregard for the afflictions which may ensue, to do it for the immediate reward of enlightenment [ & expect the recipient to flourish as "God" intended {in their own way(but with measurable guidance[ei. Do not use the Lord"s name in vain])}].

This is the Story of my life."

through this evaluation of conduct I will have you deduct that,
"Agnosism is a lack of faith in God. Although it is faith in "a" 'God', it is lack of Faith in THE God. Therefor it is atheism." People clearly can and do lack faith in God. BUT you did not make it clear that ATHEISM is a belief in God not being real as a convincing argument to contend - that (God not existing) would be a bold-faced lie indeed.
Debate Round No. 1


I am very impressed with my opponent's rebuttal and sound conduct. Whether his deductions are valid, we aim to gather.

All Pro's definitions I accept as clear and valid. Also his deductions seem fair enough.

Agnosticism is a lack of faith in any one particular God. The agnostic is not able to have evidence , nor is he given spiritual insight to take a leap of faith. However, the agnostic does not reject the The God, only he does not reject any god, necessarily. Without having conviction, the agnostic is not only unable to decide, but he is unable to assert any claim at all, regarding the topic.

As Descartes said , his life is too short, and the topic is too obscure. Surely, we have come along way since the times of Descartes, and knowledge has multiplied upon the earth, not only in sciences, but is sociology, philosophy, and religion. Surely still our deas about God are not always correct, whether individual or written in a book. It would be "impudence" to claim that one possessed absolute knowledge of God, so as to define God, or make God comprehensible to another. So i guess saying The God should suffice.

Isaiah states "there is no searching of His understanding."
Jesus states "no man has seen the Father save the Son."

So clearly, no man "knows" absolutely if God exists or not. This is why one must believe. Having faith or believing is a virtue. Believing is an act that DOES manifest humility and modesty, by its nature it also disowns any claims to valid , testable evidence. Valid , testable evidence, meaning scientific evidence,
Meaning evidence that can be shared, meaning there can also be communal knowledge on the topic. Beliefs become knowledge not when evidence exists. Belief does not become knowledge even when one has encountered evidence first hand. Belief only becomes knowledge when you can recognize the evidence that demonstrates the truth and share that truth with others. Knowledge is often shared. Static. Defined. Beliefs not so much. . .

As far as altruism and philanthropy , they are less of a concern (at least here on the internet) than that of discovering truth. Perhaps your versions of spiritual edification is much of the same idea, except you may call it philanthropy while i simply call it discourse. I do not assume to know the truth,though i reserve the right to believe my beliefs R true, i do not assume they are right. I do not know if they are right. I only believe such.

In light of this fact about myself, and my limited knowledge, and lack of conviction to say i KNOW the God exists , i prefer to say i ,believe god exists. I cannot say if it

And if the agnostic has not rejected god, and even the believer does not KNOW god, so as to be 100percent free from doubt (unless u claim to be jesus) , that God exists, then the agnostic is not far from being a believer and an atheist not far from being a believer. And as such, it may not be philantropy, but if it can be decided reasonably that ones does not need to ,KNOW god, in order to believe god (but one must know him to reject him),, it is my hopes that this will open up avenues for those who are still "lacking belief because i have no evidence," to believe without evidence. First they need to realiZe that belief comes first. Then comes knowledge. They do not need evidence to belief. They decieve themselves into thinking such. And if i can help them see the illogicality of their position, ,,then perhaps even out of insolence can altruism manifest.

The eventual conclusion that comes out of these seemingly agnostic constructs, is that it does not matter what the priests say, what the pope says, or the monks or even the bible.

there is only one truth. One light. And one way. Regardless of what the hirelings claim. None of them are infallible representatives for God. Nor am I. i am but a sheep following the good shepherd because I believe i am known. Not because i know.

"Beware of the bread of scribes and pharisees. "


Very interesting, elaborate, well put and fare minded response. However, I still think that I may be able to sway you.

"If a man opens the bible and starts to read it. He may read and read but find nothing. His eyes will not be opened, his ears will not be unblocked, the flame of his mouth and heart will not fill with wisdom. Why is this?
This is not because the bible is true or false, nor would that effect the reader. What inhibited the reader was that he was not reading the context of the scripture.
Instead of reading the scripture from the perspective the narrator had presented, they were skeptical and judgemental. Not being judgmental or skeptical, does not imply blindly believing, it implies the script is simply perceived as presented.
By not rejecting the message one can actually decipher it. And choose to accept it afterwards should they find it true, OR only accept the true aspects of it."
What I am asserting here, is two things:

first, Modesty, in that before attacking the scripture for it's reprised renown, you should simply read it as such: "God IS, without doubt, and he created the world. And he s perfect, so he is without blame. The world becomes adulterous and indulgent and bigoted as they are without proper upbringing, and so social injustice ensues and the conflicts of man snowball rather quickly. God however, refuses to destroy the planet because it would not be a Good (flawless) decision to make.
As we Go on we read that, 'women began to have relationships with oppressors, and tyrants, slave owners and likely beastial perverts, pedophiles, incest couples' etc... and so God viewed this snow balling effect as cause to say, 'it is a Good (flawless) decision to make to destroy Babel.' For the social inequality was not just to man's dismay.
Eventually, we learn that God's prophets while dealing with infidels become dismayed, and break his laws to ease their burdens, by relaxing their judgement on the congregation. And the snowballing, that leads to infidelity continues unchecked afterwards until utter failure.
Then, after wars, and testimony of the peoples specific behaviours which lead to war, social inequality and utter desolation of wisdom, the land and the people we become acquainted with a great prophet, Jesus.
Now, where as the other prophets did not remark over vain things, or redundant things, regarding God's nature, but instead simply recounted the factual events that were imminent and looming due to man's poor conduct as well as recounting eh plight of those suffering from their own sin and that of other's, Jesus did something different.
The Lord of Heaven, forced us to review the entire content of the Bible prior to his birth, and evaluate the character of God more personally. He did what the prophets before him did, 'Told us that there is no forgiveness for denial of the word of God (ie. adultery, lying to one's self, IDOLIZING womanizers or womanizing, rejecting eh words of the prophets), but he did something more, He told us that The God of the Kingdom of Heaven has a biased preference towards the people he communicates with based on their conduct (not because this is what scripture taught, but because by actually accepting the guidance of the scripture people were immersed in wisdom, love and a communion with God)."

What is significant about that is, that if you do not simply rea the scripture as it is presented you have actually refused to search for the Reasoning and Significance of God's judgement and preferences. The methods of God's behaviour, the fruits of his actions, and the logic of his patience.

Secondly, By choosing to come to your conclusions after not during your evaluation of the evidence, not always having reached an evolving conclusion, THEN
- AH HA, see here -
You only ever believe in the Facts, and you have no belief structure outside of True Knowledge.

^ This is called Modesty, and living by this practice is called Humble.
You are not delusional, or blind in any faith if you only put faith and only believe in TRUTH, which can be evaluated scientifically with wisdom. Wisdom is the Mechanic of a Modest mind, which prevents any fallacy or false conclusion from taking root, For no fallacy is every accepted, it is logged only as notable or reference-able data and is never used or presented in a pretending or arrogant manner.

What say you, 'The Witness of God, came to you today, and without being able to present a miracle testified to the glory of God.' You, either atheist or theist, cannot judge this man's experiences, or hold his lack of credibility against him, YOU CAN ONLY evaluate the content of his testimony. And whether or not, in his testimony he was overbearing, or perhaps hysterically errant, You have no right to reject one IOTA of wisdom nor accept one iota of fallacy. But in the end, Either way, you cannot judge God on this man's behaviour - God, is the judge of all your actions, and he watches all your conduct, and You are required to modestly firsthand, and honestly second hand be capable of testifying to God the Uprightness of your self-reflection - God accepts no excuses. He simply states facts: whether or not you were guilty;
For to deny the Word of God, and say you were wise or justified to refute God, was always an act of blasphemous arrogance.

I have always feared, not being able to testify to y own actions. But this is not why I believe in God, nor is it why I absolutely revere him and Love him. It is simply why I revere him... which lead to loving him... which in turn is why I am modest.

I choose at this time to withhold my next assertion: That lacking Faith in the Word of God, is in effect lacking faith in God; And If God exist then scriptures and human interaction would have and is taking place, something with many testimonies, and easy explanation as to how and why there are not more; and also that Atheism, being a lack in the word of God, is... well overall a lie, BUT is a genuine lack of faith (in God).
Debate Round No. 2


So to summarize Con's thoughts on the matter of "He who judges the nations and the hearts of men",

God has particular likes and dislikes. Adverse to sin, being holy. Scripture reveals such, practice in one's life confirms such aspects of God's preferences. God is adverse to sin and it is not only, verifiably true in life, it is logical to think so.

Al these aspects I agree. 100 percent. However, first id like to point our posessing knowledge is separate from knowing the truth. One can know the truth, but not have the knowledge to pass it on to others. One is familiarity the other is evidence. I do not claim to posess knowledge that can be verified. But i do profess. Truth can be verified. Simply, I am not the one who can verify it for someone else. Tthat is what I call being honest. Each person must find truth on their own, or it is meaningless. Knowledge can be passed down like old trousers.

i suppose i create confusion in an attempt to kill two birds with one stone, so that three seeds may find good soil to bear good fruit over the course of four seasons.. He who has ears let him hear.

First, bird, "what about all those ppl who never heard about Jesus? Do they all goto hell?"
Second bird. "What about all the contradictions in the bible?"

One stone. "If God is God, he is God of us all, and judges us not based on the color of our skin or creed, but based on the tone of our character or soul."

Seeds. The audience.

Seasons. The major religions.

This idea that God judges eveyone irrespective of their race or religion, brings up even more questions. But if accepted as true by christians and nonnchristians alike, it becomes logical. Because God could not have created only a part of humanity, if anything, he created us all. Or you have an antiquated notion of God. That didnt really create anything. Certainly not you or I. . Logic. Our antiquated notions of God are further refined by our understanding of his creation. logic. This does not mean we have fully grasped God's nature. Nor does it mean that God's nature is fully comprehensible. Here I would ask Con whether or not he believes scripture is the ONLY word of God. And if he thinks scripture is complete in its definition of God, or in the least in terms of God's "Preferences."

I would argue that the bible itself is incomplete, inherently, fallible definitely, in providing a complete understanding of God. It is but a book. Written by men. However inspired. Replete with truth, however lacking in absolution of it. The bible will tell you there is a truth. But it does not tell you what the truth is. Most of its truths are disguised in allegorical symbolisms and parables. Thus, it is not readily interpretable to someone who does not already believe. And those who already do they come to know the truth?

10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
-Jesus clearly states that His parables contain the mysteries of heaven , there in. Yet still, how does one come to believe and know? Does one simply take Jesus' word for it? Does Jesus not provide us with confirmation?

1Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
- yes. Jesus tells us that all we need to do is believe in Him continue on his WORD. So, whom or what shall i believe? Shall I believe Paul? Or Jesus? Shall I believe the bible or Jesus? Which is the word
Of God ? The bible is the word of God? Oh yeah, Jesus is the Word and the Word made flesh! Where shall I turn to seek my
Salvation? The scriptures? Or to Him that leadeth us to pasture?

And how shall we further know, the mysteries and truth revealed to us is truly the truth, and not our delusion. Should we look to others? To confirm our modesty? Or shall we consider what the Lord has said.

And He says;

15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
-Jesus will confirm your faith, your evidence, your scripture and he will be your salvation. And he will manifest himself before you, so you are not only without excuse, but you are without doubt. Not without doubt that God exists or not. But Without doubt that Jesus shall lead the way to The Father, as one would not doubt if he had something he could call evidence. Albeit non scientific. Such as the manifestation of Jesus.

In fact, hardly do I see someone come to faith, via scripture. However often do I see scripture confirm the faith they found through life and reason. Here it is important to distinguish faith in God and confirmation of that faith. The bible is generally seen as a confirmation in that it is often presented as "evidence." Alas, As even u correctly note it can only be valid in the eyes of the perceiver whom already possesses the intrinsic quality of faith.

And upon faith one acquires fear of God and wisdom. Yet without it, one has no other alternative but to remain blind to the truth, given that Jesus has indeed truth to impart.

The argument for philanthropy, modesty, altruism, and such are in the end acts pleasing to God. And when God is pleased, we may for a glimpse of a moment experience his presence and His divine light being manifest within us. This, does not require scripture. However, it does require faith and understanding. And it does require modesty. Derived from honesty as opposed to pretense. One must be true, to experience that which is true.

You note scripture as presented readily conveys "God's behaviour, the fruits of his actions, and the logic of his patience." I would like to point out some key terms here. Fruits: meaning result or effect. Implying a cause and effect relationship, where logic demands primacy over scriptural passages. Even within the persona of God, one finds God immutable, unchanging, unbending, eternal and true, thus one would see God's patience as that which does not change and works accordance to predetermined laws , as if it were logical. because it is logical. And we have been given the ability to rationalize and be logical. This separates us (along with a superior capacity for love) from the animals we dominate.

So in sum, what you claim my position is quite the opposite from what I hope to convey. Which is that ALL men have the ability to come to know God on their own terms. For that is the focal reasons for Jesus being sent among us. To let us know God is with each and everyone of us. And every mans heart is judged before God, though his actions are forgiven with little regard for severity. Even. A Murderer can repent and be saved.

Alas. The road to that salvation is not the bible. Its not your priest. Or pastor. Or church that claims the bible is inerrant word of god. That is illogical. And goes against that which is God. Whom is perfect. God cannot be contained or defined by a book made by men. To think that he can, is blasphemy. No writer of any chapter in the new testament bible intended for their words to be regarded as such. Why? Because the bible is not the torah. It is not the LAW. Nor is the bible Jesus. It is not the Word. So there ya have it. The only way to be saved is through Jesus. The version you pick, is up to you. He is all of them and more. He is the son of God. Directly coming from Him whom made us all. What can be more logical?

So my point is the bible is not contradictory. Its just not the word of God either. So of course contradictions can be found. In contradiction of that , never have I found the words of Jesus to be contradicted inthe same way. Contradiction assumes that there should be no contadiction. To assume such for God, greeat! To assume such for a is where I see people being led astray. From logic. And truth.

So what about the peole that havent read the bible and therefore dont know about Jesus? Do they all goto hell?

I believe just as much as the catholic church would have you believe you need the bible for salvation, they would also have you believe that anyone who does not accept the orthodox biblical version of Jesus, that person is barred from heaven as well. I find this highly illogical, only adding fuel to the atheist flames of blindness.

14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
- Jesus clearly says, he has sheep "not of this fold" that will also hear his voice. And them also he must bring. The question here is bring them where?!? Many Christian fundamentalists will say that this passage refers to becoming christian , jesus will bring them into the "fold" of christianity. Highly illogical. If they are his sheep, they are already part of his "fold" just not of that "fold". So where does he lead his "fold"? He could not mean he will lead a believer to be a believer. Where is he leading them? Into heaven. And in heaven , how will we not need to know Biblical facts. Only His Voice.


Now I am religious. But As such, I feel that I am competent enough to actually provide a Valid example of How atheism is plausibly Real, as apposed to the stereotypical atheist rebuttals which are close minded and founded on nonchalant. So listen, because this is a fare assertion.

First, I will present where My belief structure overlaps a plausible atheistic approach:

God does not oppose the laws of physics, in any religion, or in any belief structure, or in any theology - thus we can determine that God is to a measurable extent a-biotic, in that he is restricted to a founding principal. Via this principal, we can deduct that all qualities of the imagination, philosophy and physics are accounted for in the nature that is 'God'.

- before I continue. We are suggesting not that "God", 'the mechanics of reality, the substances of and all that without substance taken into a holistic account' is not real, but that he is not the "Personable God" associated with Atheistic disbelief. God by definition of all religions ahs always been, 'the mechanics of reality, the substances of and all that without substance taken into a holistic account' and has been applied in such a manner -

We are stipulating over a very ZIONic trait of religion that God simply is the term used to describe our reality as a Whole. I personally think Zionism is stupid, because the Zionist holds so much enmity against "The person, God" that they wouldn't know the difference between him and the state of their enmity delusionally confronting them.

If God, were in fact to be entirely Unpersonable, then The story of Creation itself would not be remotely in need or revision ~ "There was matter, and then from that matter came the perfect condition to produce light, the light consumed the matter, left marks proving the event, rationally depicted a map of how DNA and cells spontaneously came into existence together from the present matter and energy, followed by the first extra-terrestrial extension of the new light energy." However, if there was no Creation as scientifically proven there was, as it had been depicted, then
The principals and characteristics of the "character God" remain irrefutable real and contingent as a portion of our reality.

This does not mean however that God is guaranteed to be an individual. And although, strictly speaking this is not what personification of God literally forces us to accept as a teaching, the contrary is the only atheistic approach to a contrary belief. The insolence of Pastaphareanism is endless - "noodle brain", "dick-noodle-brain"... they're just idiots. BUT, God not being a person is equally acceptable as God's being a person.

To further elaborate,
God as a whole, can as a human being, be perceived in perfect complexion to only reflect his Physical qualities, and the qualities attached to his physical nature. We can perceive how other qualities may exist, but can not identify them. These traits explain why the Universe exists, and they must exist, and thus are a contingent portion of the Whole; God being Holistically everything.
-- where was I --
Oh yes,
Just as a Human can be evaluated to only be physical matter, hosting non material qualities such as philosophy and imagination.
This means that if the human was entirely A-symbiotic, and capable of thought, that the Universe as a Whole can too, be an ENTIRELY self aware entity through a Balance of Physics which dictates it is Universally connected.
But does That make "God" a person, personable, or an individual? Stipulably, we can theoretically come tot he conclusion that the answer is NO.
BUT as a religious creed, we know that God can only be known through elements of himself, The Word(Hope), the Light(Faith), and that the whole is disconnected from us personally as to not draw the attention of the cosmos upon us individual as it were to seem.
However, When you close your eyes and you pray, whether as simple self-reflection not directed at being prayer or worship - you worship by default by appreciating God's qualities which do not impose or corrupt prosperity, and you curse him with false ego and wicked (selfish) intentions - The universe as a Whole records your thoughts in the nature of it's equilibrium, eternally recorded as an unchanging aspect of the past which will eternally effect the future, hopefully only through wavelengths and not through wicked actions as karma would suggest.
What I am asserting, is that just because your prayers are recorded, and "heard" by the Eternal entity does not mean that the enriching process exceeds delusion *Factually. However it brings joy, and respite, revelation, and honesty, hallucination, insight and motivation, clarity, and reassurance ~ not because you delusionally believe in God, but because that is the nature of reflecting upon him, real or not.

Why anyone would reject scriptures, which were they produced atheistically, dictate that their laws were produced scientifically to directly reprove human behaviour, which was specifically pointed. There were not only in scriptures but all general human history the actual causes of deprivation. Reasons to suggest that these laws are perfect in every way. That God was dictated in many cultures, all over the world as being the Element of complete enlightenment, which alone led to prosperity, social security, Genuine happiness and equality. These Religions were not used to control the people, but only to attack governments that tyrannized them, and to attack bigots in society.
Yet, this does not indicate God is a Person, but only that as a Person, we are certainly capable of Personalizing the Entire Universe into a considerate element that should we open up to it, can absorb us into it's infinite capacity to produce Philosophy and Theory in an Immaterial realm to liquidate our psyche, even should we die, in an eternal element.

That eternal state of our psyche living on outside the body because we connected tot he Universe as a whole, can guarantee a reincarnation, but Does not State that God must be Personable. YET his son IS, his son is that element which we may simply establish ourselves, that lives in us alone personally, But it is the actual Child of the reality we live in that comes into existence with us and shares in our own spiritual journey through Only this one Physical Reality.

So. Is Atheism Real? NO, of course not. But can we pretend for literary purposes? if you think it can help you get rich, I don't see why God would be offended. Just don't advocate bigotry.

I have 3344 more character's, and I am interested in using them.

I have currently forgone the actual story events of the Bible. Other Mythologies are primarily, myth's, stories and anecdotes used to explain human nature, the fruits of labour and their rewards, aspects of our reality etc... But the Bible is somewhat Unique is resounding scriptures.

Now, if we look at Noah, for instance: It is not forceably suggested that God spoke to Noah with a booming voice from the heavens that he heard as an actual voice. Noah simply could have said to himself, "these people are idiots (according to the laws of fawking reality)" and built a boat. He still heard the Word of God, and built a boat, via wisdom with the wood God, that reality, provided {Saying thanks and alms to our circumstances with the humility to not provoke any enmity among his people}. Now if he left he continent and they all died, or became American, and died, or if there was a Great flood - Maybe just maybe, the Flood was a flood of Blood.
But none the less, We saved the Book of Creation, the Turtle that rose from the ocean, on the third day of creation, leaving proof That the story of Creation was credible. -a nd Maybe there was an Actual Flood. And when Babel fell, the story in the Book of Mormon was real and they sent ships to America then... or both. And then perhaps even Jews came to America 2500 years ago. THREE BOAT journeys in 6000 years.
This changes not one iota of the scripture, the lessons they teach, or the true foundations of the faiths of the congregation.

The yeast of the Pharisees NEVER under any circumstance reflect true faith, the religion from which their teachings were taken, Nor does it actually afflict the religion. BUT, were God to be entirely A-symbolic, he would still be the exact same as a Personable God. Perfect, because he Parameters of God are determined by nothing else but his nature, and we must structure our enlightenment, productivity and legacy with them.

This is simply good literature. But can you contend with that? Can you assure me that my faith is absolute? Or am I alone to my God alone to testify to me ritually and routinely in miraculous ways which defy the seemingly logical requirements of an atheistic existence? { Or would they > ?

:) hmmm.

So religious I can beat religion coherently in a debate. Try using this tactic against me. I'll put you to the wall, and make you look stupid.

you know what, I was about to post this - there was a swear 'as' with two "S"'s and the voice instructed me to write more, so I didn't post it after fixing it, and here I am - SO, the A-symbolic God Has now to contend with Noah: ~
The world is filled with sinners, and it is not a perfect deed for God to abolish human life, in a mathematical evaluation of the value of life, because Noah presents hope for the future generations - where arrogance is not in need of needless reproving - as God will never alleviate "ignorance" which is only 'arrogance', SO
mathematically, the Universe which is watching in all despair Humanity reject prosperity and wisdom out of selfishness, Sends forth a Great surge of Karma which changes the Thermal Dynamic presence of the World to force the 190 000 km's of atmosphere into a tight atmosphere, forming great volumes of water, and flooding the earth to solve this Galactic trauma.
Debate Round No. 3


That... was An intricately woven masterpiece about a fairytale Spinoza god that gathers his might and expresses his unwavering need for balance through the cosmos and their eventual creations. In deed, from outward appearance, this god seems all mighty, all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent as well.

The first glaring problem about this Spinoza God, is that he has particular qualities that make him unfit to be called the one True God. Namely, the fact that he has somehow been or can be "defined", though not entirely understood and "known", Con has been able to "limit" the properties of this God. Con refers to such properties as a "guiding principle" from which God may not stray. These guiding principles, however seemingly befitting to God (harmony, justice, equality, truth, love, etc.), so as to refer to them as God's nature, do not necessarily mean God CANNOT be personable.

Here it seems that Con is trying to make a slippery slope argument, that because we know that which works based on principle, such as physics or nature, often times does not possess a person (or active agent) that thinks, feels, to put action in motion, then it is impossible for that which works on principle to have a personable quality. OF course, we only know that which is "personable" by the term to which it refers. People. Something is personable, if it acts like a person. Animals may be personable, but not trees. Trees work on principle while animals exhibit freedom. Those that work by principle and only by principle, cannot stray from their intended purpose of form. Thereby exhibiting what people call "perfection." However, people, recognizing such perfection are unable to practice it themselves. This is the age old question of flesh vs. spirit. One is corruptible, the other is not. Just because people are not perfect, it does not mean God cannot be perfect. Just because ppl are unable to live by principle, it does not mean God cannot live by principle , be perfect, and be personable at the same time.

It is also important to differentiate , personification w/ personalization. To personify something is to place human qualities on to that which does not possess such qualities. PErsonalization ... in this context, is being used to refer to any thing or being or entity, actually possessing some qualities of a person, and thereby describing that being in terms of a person. Like referring to my dog as "good boy."

God cannot be personified. But can be personalized.

The key error in all atheist , agnostic, and mystic thinking is this. : YOU are made in HIS image. Not the other way around.

Him first. You next.
God is the original. You are the clone.
God does not resemble a person.
A person resembles God.

You can not, should not personify God. You should let God sanctify (making one godly) You.

So... what does it mean that God is "personable" exactly?

MY theory is that it is not referring to the fact that God, acts, thinks or feels, necessarily. What is it that makes a person ... a person? Is it his ability to act think and feel? then are all animals also people? Maybe thats what atheists like to tell themselves, yet act as if they are not.

What makes a person a person is that which is what makes God personable. As you can see... it makes God's nature entirely irrelevant. It also makes the fallibility of people entirely irrelevant. Even if all individual people are not able to live by perfection or principle, what makes them human would still make them that. Even if they all did live by such perfection, such principle, unable to stray from that Will. they will still be a personable human.

Ah then what makes something or someone or some God ...personable? What does it mean?? to be "personable."?

The bible, as fallible as it may be, is replete with insight into such matters. Though the book itself, may not be dictated, compiled, and scribed by God himself, the scriptures or books (authors) within the book (the bible), seem to have certainly been inspired by or claim to be inspired by that which we call God. Much controversy obviously exists regarding the bible, its interpretation and its fallibility. As such , the bible may not be perfect, but it is definitely a useful tool for us to leverage the knowledge of ancestors as well as important figures, that helped shape our modern history. And as such, the bible is an excellent artifact for scrutinizing what past people meant, when they refer to God. And the first thing we find, is that they say we are made in His image. Or perhaps it is the bible that is perfect. And the interpreter who is flawed. Everytime. I just am unable to know it. Without knowing what is perfection (because I am helplessly human) , how could I make this determination?

From this simple sentence. There is a snowball of confusion about the "image" of God. We imagine a human. With arms and legs and a body. We imagine a person, with feelings, thinking, and acting. We also imagine a consciousness ,,, that just IS.

But is this all that makes a human a person ?

or is there something else? Is there something that scripture refers to as a Spirit?

It is said in the bible many times, God is a Spirit.

How is a Spirit different from Consciousness? is it different at all?

Though people have are conscious of their feelings and actions , even thoughts, people are unaware of themselves. How could this be? Even though people are conscious they have a subconscious that is also a part of who they are. Then are we our conscious minds? OR is there something more? Or is there ALOT more?

Clearly, or maybe not so clearly (due to the obscurity of the topic), I have demonstrated that being "personable" is not something a person really knows how to "define."

So yes, I believe God is personable. And certainly, logically, he must be, should he be God. However, to be clear it is not God that is a personable thing... it is people who are God-able animals. :)


First, I would like to state that Spinonza God was as personalizable as a human is by nature* In fact more personalizable than personifiable. because as an "atheistic" being, it souly has traits which can be directly associated with a material-being.

It can clearly be personified. Because everything is subject to this literary tool.

Second, we are made in God's image: given a few varying, equally true and significant meanings:
1.) God, created an algorithm to accurately reflect his perspective of perfection, and the aspects of himself he wanted to share, and gave us the qualities to enjoy them. Thus mirroring his excellence in the best possible manner appreciable, without diminishing the appreciation of his own qualities from our perspectives.
& 2.) We are in this atheistic image I have illustrated of "God". literally in it. We are in the Image of God!

This however, all things which can be proven, scientifically, theoretically and with many methods and forms of rationing, which has been studied for thousands of years by hundreds of thousands of people, and testified to by millions and more who heard it and could relate or understand,
does not, prove that God is factually paranormal.
Which is the case, that I am presenting for an atheist to indulge in. We can not deny reality. And the scriptures, nor any religion have not forcibly taught you to accept contrary to what I have presented. I have even atheistically established a heaven and condemnation in my previous round.
Atheism is not defined Literally, according to the definition which has been applied to the term, as A lack of Faith in the Body of God, but only in 'God' himself.
If you lack faith in God's wisdom, you lack faith and are atheist, and though
you feed the fires of a hell on earth, and arrogantly promote the negativity, thus warranting condemnation or establishing a Condemned Nation on earth as your aim, desire and preference - as a mean of showing God enmity -
You clearly, in arrogance and personal rejection of God, or in a temporary non-actively-sinful childlike mourning
Lack faith in God's wisdom and Guidance and thus
qualify to be classified as an Atheist. And you bring about AbomiNation or CondemNation as a passively default of your activities in the act of refusing to uphold righteousness and proactivity.

Atheism is thus real.

Believing IN God's Word is the requirement for salvation, in an atheistic reality or not. And although I am not defending the Atheistic construct of the "creator" anymore, That previous sentence alone is what defines someone as NOT AN ATHEIST.

One who has absolute faith in scripture and yet does not put true faith in God, but instead arrogantly follows, stumbling and shrowding the ability for others to come into the light, will be told by Jesus(whom is the Wisdom of God, by which all things came into existence), "I do not know you" and though they speak or not, the wisdom of The Creator, for Genuinely not believing in THE TRUTH, they will be condemned and not given salvation,
for that atheistic heaven, will consume them with false hopes, and corrupt ambition and destroy the remnants of their self-righteousness with Spite.

Now. If one believes the words of the Bible, but does not know their meaning. He repeats them, but in his heart he has given them false meaning. He lacks faith in God, instead idolizing false hopes and ambitions as an adulterer idolizes foolish ways. These people are not Christians no matter how often they pray their wicked 'prayers'.

How can a man be Christian and cut the grass with non-renewable resources? He is delusional. he denied the TRUTH. It did not need to be spoken or written. he rejected wisdom and upheld an idiocy he idolized as his preference.
Debate Round No. 4


I have about 10 ongoing debate challenges, and this is the only one or I am due to post.


Aright, I guess it is my turn again to defend Atheism as being a real thing. But specifically this time, I will make my second stance that Atheism is in fact true.

Although I do not believe anyone truly lacks faith in God's existence, but only those blackmail, and say to themselves that, "they cannot be judged for their sins, for They are innocent!" and that lack of faith in his law is not real either, but that they say, "I can see what you are saying, and why. But I cannot be judged!"

But as I have already stipulated that there are people who Lack faith in God's Guidance, The Wisdom of his actions, the true reasoning behind his patience, and in the Reservation of His interactions with humanity and the marks he left upon the world with his own almighty hand,

I am going to now, do what the atheists want me to do, for all the worth they have as a congregation gathered in full honesty:

If a blueberry were to sprout wherever there was a bear stone, full of sulfite and rich in the proper nutrients #specifically the proper stone#, and this occurred whenever there was a forest fire, the seeds would miraculously stir and fill the valley with blueberries? Where di they come from? Do their seeds lay dormant fro hundreds of years at the surface of the foliage in the forest?
Of course not, but is it so that RNA specific tot he environment gathers the necessary elements to establish this very specific DNA from these conditions to actually manifest a seed from the molecular level? It takes a mechanic device, RNA, and in the exact same manner as it does everywhere, many times over, establishes the Blueberry... maybe not even a seed but the genuine sprout?
Then did we produce a trait, which suggests that RNA actually does have some influence in the production of DNA? something otherwise entirely unscientific to assert. For no DNA has ever been witnessed to have any manifestation outside of a cell, to suggest RNA has anything to do with it. BUT does not the Blueberry bring forth a question as to if RNA could actually in the right conditions produce the seed? Of course it does. It does. The fawking seeds come out of nowhere.
genuinely. Seeds spread across the earth on the 3rd day because the energy volume was so exponential and growing that it was able to accumulate all the necessary matter to establish the DNA compatible with the direct environment the energy just surged over and mapped, and in an breath like a magnet pulled the seed into form from the matter which was present and perfect for each variety.
As I depicted earlier, The Universal Entity as a whole could be, very... oh wait. anyways RNA can potentially bring forth a reoccurring DNA pattern in the same manner all Seeds did in the first place.. ~
Listen. THE HOLISTIC IMAGE OF REALITY, and all aspects of it, HAS ALWAYS BEEN, the unspecified PARAMETERS of the term GOD, and it is holistically united.

Atheists goodbye.
live to be good, be rich, hate for womanizers.
It is clinical insanity to idolize womanizers and it has repercussions of irrevocable damage to your psyche. trying to defend such a case causes impudence #impudence is defined as the attempt to make a claim without the capacity to do so or the knowledge necessary to do so.#.
BUT if you loved this Holistic entity which exists regardless of any and all circumstances You would be glad to just fight for it's supreme Utopian glory. Knowing that is the purpose of the algorithm of your life, which was established by the whole when it created the laws of Physics, and applied them to the environment we co-exist with.

So what I think you want me to say is, Scriptures are Garbage. the most inspiration, well known, influential, literatures written and reserved by the most insightful people of the known history of humanity...
I think, that if you read them fro what they are, not rejecting wisdom, you'll find exactly what you want, and it's so beautiful to think that it doesn't effect what other people think they may have found, to simply have it your way.

cats are cats, dogs are dogs, weasels are weasels, and man there was this other really good example... But why tell a womanizer that they're right to be bastards, corrupt people their in the clear to be knobs, tell girls there is no danger in ending up alone after promoting the lowest male standard possible, and the men, I shitt in the water.

peace and halleluiah. XD forever more and so on. That's what its called to be gladimized. And it goes with every other positive quality you can make up name for.

I am sorry if I ever hurt anyone, ever. I hate homo's but I am not a radical who would use the lord's name in vain and have the congregation of people who care targeted. I have patience - Oh check out this. I believe in immortality: don't be lazy, don't waste all your time and money on intoxicants and base your social life on it dependently, don't drop your hormones sporadically and spike them routinely - partially by eating the blood form animal meet, and your 50% of the way to not dying for hundreds of years if not thousands ~ something which was found to be impossible once people started living in cities filled with seducing elements of Death. Depression causes mental perversion, laziness, and produces the urge to indulge and give up, with a disregard for destruction of the world.

anyways. God Bless. and don't think I don't like atheists any more. I just hate the way they think.
Debate Round No. 5
290 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 2 years ago
Your still doing this? I'm only here cause of the notification. I thought we all settled in some kind of way.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
Whiney ~ " @goordin You provided no evidence. You just made baseless claims and asserted them as fact."

Wrong. The evidence was self-evident. I provided no baseless remarks from beginning to end. I don't. I don't do that. I did however deviate from my last debate argument*** but none the less, The sentences were all built on solid ground.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 2 years ago
Nice to see the flames have died out from all of us. Considering this thing is nearly at 300 comments (not mentioning the ones that were removed) it really should end soon. It is much nicer to see thing during the calm.
Posted by chipmonk 2 years ago
@whiny. Thats quite alright. No confusion here. It is nice to seem you are man enough to own up to mistakes. Maybe there is room for salvation in you, after all.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 2 years ago
With unfalsifiale. When looking back. I realised that i coul have made it less consusing. I meant unfalsfiable means something cannot be proven wrong. When i was talking about undeniable evidence, that was what i was reffering to when asked what could possibly prove god as real to the world. Sorry about that confusion.

I said how in the jesus mistake that it has been several years since i have read any religous text. I admit i messed up there but i don't see how it even really related to the argument.
Posted by chipmonk 2 years ago
And u thought Jesus taught people not to judge anyone under any circumstance. Wrong again.
Posted by chipmonk 2 years ago
You thought unfasifiable meant that the evidence would be undeniable to everyone. Wrong.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 2 years ago
@goordin You provided no evidence. You just made baseless claims and asserted them as fact.
On the more recent one. The way your wording it is kind of weird. You think you could reword it? I'm just really tired and today sucked so i am kinda off
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago

and you clearly didn't respond to me here at all,
"I also do not go around saying i disproved somone else's beliefs,"
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
How atheism supports indecency. It is all throughout pages 8-11
No votes have been placed for this debate.