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

Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Wizofoz has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 112098
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Latest news head lines right here;
There is no such thing as a true non believer of an existance creator of inteligant design in existance at all anymore. As I can not find a true disbelieving athiests anywhere they must be extinct or an endangered species.

Maybe we could clone a few of the hard core athiests from an era, when they used Charles Darwins evolutionary discoveries as factural evidance to attack any belivers in any religion or beliefs.

For now all they have to use is some kind of slinging match apon the tree of monkeys.

Where the hell in Richard Dawkins and his hard core followers? With the God delution published over 10 years ago. What happened have they evolved at last, into something that the majority of the human race could call humane?


I am a disbelieving Atheist.

Congratulations, you found one!
Debate Round No. 1


You all are as comical as a cabbage patch dolls.

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Have either of you the wisdom to understand what the about statement explain or is your own intelligence narrowing your overall perception that cripples your own ability to reason, in "other words" arrogance is not an excuse for ignorance.

The first sign of intelligence is the ability to adapt. As it is not being able to spell or to even to use correct grammar and pronunciation. For all that believe it is, as it is no more than,
Rote learning learning
Rote learning is a learning technique which avoids understanding the inner complexities and inferences of the subject that is being learned and instead focuses on memorizing the material so that it can be recalled by the learner exactly the way it was read or heard., in other words, a forced memory.

All written human language is without social gesture and lacks expression, movement, and motion, unlike the music as a manner of speaking as in person does, unless of course you one of those torture to the ear and of the mind monotone flatliners.

I have even considered that you pair don't get out and about the social sector and converse directly so you both put so much importance on being able to dictate
So when I ask to say what you mean and mean what you say. Is it impossible to even contemplate how impossible it actually is in a black and white text? But at least I try.

I have easily come to the assumption that debating in person is why the Greek philosophy had so much success as here on all online debate or forum sites it is a joke to even consider it possible. So I really don't bother, but for you both, I thought that just this once I'll consider dictation and grammar.
But I do prefer to use past present and future tense as a first preference when I have to be descriptive within explanation.


I agree with the definitions of Atheists, with perhaps the quibble that an actual statement of believing there is no god is beyond it's normal definition. "Strong Atheism" is perhaps a useful descriptor for people holding this belief.

I also agree that spelling and grammar are not necessarily indicators of intelligence, however they are useful tools, and it is churlish for Pro to be upset if it is simply impossible at time to understand what he is trying top say given his poor ability at written communication.

I am more than happy to attempt to counter arguments pro might make in support of the contention "Atheists as of late prove there is no such thing as a true non-BELIEVER of an EXISTANT creator."

But, to do so, Pro will have to post some.

He has yet to do so.
Debate Round No. 2


a non-BELIEVER of an EXISTENCE creator. Would you still consider this as what you wrote is incomprehensible as well?

This is your own text "non-BELIEVER of an EXISTANT creator" as I see flaws in your own grammar and descriptives. With; believer and existant. non-believer lacks the necessary information to come to a conclusion or the ability to comprehend.
(necessary or necessity)

Not let us not quibble within the idiocentricities of what is at hand of the topic header
Atheists as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non beleiver of an existance creator.

yes, I have flaws in my own approach putting forward this debate. Yes, I can admit this. As I don't really care too much about winning or losing in competition because war is not about who is right it's all about who is left. This war is going on in every abled body's mind every day of every week drawing the line in the sand between being humane or being inhumane.

I draw a line in the sand and adjust it as best I can between sociology and philosophy as all science must or must not stay flawed without the pearls of wisdom's fundamental principals that create the foundations of our own existence creators intelligent design.
The poetry of science is a bad joke because the wisdom of philosophies poetry creates poetry. For our own juvenile understandings of the known and unknown universe or universes as we comprehend it to be, is no more then scientists try to "yes try" to dissect any structure under a magnifying glass and do no more than burning ants.

All I am saying is; ignorance feeds arrogance and arrogance feed ignorance while atheists are no more than religion without science is blind but science without religion is inhumane.
While an eye for an eye leaves us all blind.


It would seem Pro has started a debate without intending to actually make any arguments or points, so I am at a loss as to what to argue.

I would point out that the reason I highlighted EXISTENT CREATOR is that pro continually uses the term EXISTENCE CREATOR as his use is incorrect grammar.

He highlights this but does not seem to understand it is he making the error.

Aside from this, I have no idea what he is trying to convey as it is basically unintelligible.

I will, however, refute his rhetoric regarding science versus religion. Pro has indicated elsewhere that he rejects some of the most basic, well evidenced scientific theories, such as evolution, and when faced with the conflict between the obvious scientific fact that the flood never happened versus the silly religious belief that it did, at best equivocates.

This is a very real example of how religious beliefs interfere with science, they do not facilitate or help it.
Debate Round No. 3


And you still won't say what you mean and mean what you say. Have you been educated by a politician?

Stand up and say it as it is; Are you atheist that says out loud an existence creator of intelligent design does not exist at all?

Or are you an atheist that lacks the scientific evidence as to fully comprehend the concept of an existence creator of intelligent design?

If I need to spell it out for you anymore then I have obviously been wasting my time with this debate as you must lack the ability to be able to comprehend. Or is there a break down in communication here or something. Put your spell check option on Australian English and leave American English to the dumb a#ses that created it and choose to stay ignorant.


Right. After four rounds I have a rough idea what pro is on about.

Firstly, it is EXISTANT creator. EXISTENCE creator makes no sense.

My position is that I very much doubt there is any form of creator. There is no reason to believe there is one, and the fact that there are so many contradictory claims, all obviously the product of human imagination, that it seems very unlikely there is a creator.

I cannot claim this as a fact, but I have little doubt, and a very strong belief that all evidence claimed in relation to a creator is not real.
Debate Round No. 4


Atheists as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non-believer of an existence creator. There you just did it.

Their con just verified the header of this debate. "I cannot claim this as a fact, but I have little doubt, and a very strong belief that all evidence claimed in relation to a creator is not real"

Atheists are fence sitters I have not and I dought that I will find one that isn't.

Let us just see if it's another kangaroo court outcome on this debate, shall we?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
If I cared about winning a debate upon this debate site, I kid you not it would be a miracle as this site is full of atheists. Don't even question that as only atheists have and will even bother to vote upon every debate. Not a Christian to be seen anywhere I wonder why. Maybe they are sick of being bullied by atheist fence sitters
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
if you are just going to be insulting I will stop debating.
Posted by Redpilled 3 years ago
If Atheism is the belief that nothing exists that created us then why can't science prove that nothing exists? If they proved the universe was created somehow from nothing into something then you may be able to prove a creator does not exist. But to prove that nothing exists you actually disprove that it exists simply because nothing can never be seen because it doesn't exist.

Your post is full of ad hominem insults backwardseden ( Also backwardseden I noticed you mentioned Hitler and I guess that makes sense since you're a Grammar Nazi.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
O please forgive my o lords of grammar and dictation I made an error I am so heartbroken how could I ever forgive my self for such a crime upon intelligence. Y is it Im_inteligent isn't it I'm_inteligent and how about backwardseden did you run out of space within the name box? and whatever happened too capital letters at the start of names and proper nouns and plurals? Backward's Eden. How can you can you hide behind that dictation error and call yourselves intelligent?

Have either of you the wisdom to understand what the above statement explains or is your own intelligence narrowing your overall perception that cripples your own ability to reason, in "other words" arrogance is not an excuse for ignorance.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@Im_Intelligent - the host of this debate and or his other sheepish bore moldy diaper noodle tinsel mind at the you know where area so he can present his digestive track a little bit better for the four scores and seven yard sales ago doesn't know his a$$ from the hole in the wall barge and yet he tries to huff and puff and blow his own horse down with his flat breasted junk of neon milked wonders that somehow fall from his failed sky. Oh imagine what it must be like for him to prove his unproved god as only he can with one fist clenched to his cabbage batbrain squealing "Hitler is commie bastard!" Oh darn, sorry, "a devout christian!" - Hitler's Christianity
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
"Athiests as of late prove that there is no such thing as a true non believer of an existence creator"

Let me correct this for you for the tenth time 2far4u2CharlesDarwin

"true non believer of an existence creator" is not an Atheist

that doesn't mean there are not people out there who truly believe there is no god, there just not atheists.

i really wish you could understand this, because this is getting annoyingly repetitive.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.