The Instigator
fojumdk
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Athias
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God Doesn't Exist

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 119945
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

fojumdk

Pro

I believe that god doesn't exist.
Most religious people believes in the bible and has become way to religious.
This book that people like so much is from the good old days. They didn't have smartphones or Internet. It was hard communicating with each other if they were far away. Now I am speaking to you and you probably live far away from me. Information is much easier spread. Most of the writings in the Old Testament are of anonymous authorship, And in many cases it is not known whether they were compiled by individuals or by groups. There is absolutely no proof that God exist.
Think about how it could be people writing histories at the time and actually not true facts.
Athias

Con

I accept. First before I move forward with my argument/rebuttal I must ask you to indicate the parameters of establishing existence, Whether they be material or immaterial, By stipulating a definition for existence/to exist (a citation would be appreciated. )

Second, I wish to clarify: is it your argument that because there has yet to be discovered any proof of God's existence, Subject to the parameters you indicate, God therefore does not exist? Or are you proposing the proof itself of God's existence does not and can not exist?
Debate Round No. 1
fojumdk

Pro

fojumdk forfeited this round.
Athias

Con

My opponent has forfeited Round 2. He hasn't logged on since he first started this debate, Which also was incidentally started on the date of his joining. I assume my opponent will participate no more.
Debate Round No. 2
fojumdk

Pro

fojumdk forfeited this round.
Athias

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round as well. I presume as I did in the previous round that he'll respond no more. So my posts from here on out will primarily consist of acknowledging my opponent's forfeiture.
Debate Round No. 3
fojumdk

Pro

fojumdk forfeited this round.
Athias

Con

Athias forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
fojumdk

Pro

fojumdk forfeited this round.
Athias

Con

Athias forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Gods, As perfect beings, Need nothing. They have no deficits. Praying is pointless because God knows everything and if God is perfectly good and just, Then our prayers asking it to help others are pointless: God will help those that deserve it without or without our persuasive attempts. Praying is for ourselves and is essentially a self-help psychology disguised as religious behaviour. Also as God is everywhere it doesn't need us to go to specific places to do specific things: religious buildings are also purely a facet of human relations, Not divine requirement. Intelligent humans realized this long ago - Aristodemus and Socrates in 4 BCE discuss that the idea of the divine is "too exalted to need worship". The reason we do so are social. God can tell us anything we need to know, And if there are things we need to know, A perfectly good-god would tell us directly. Therefore evangelism is pointless, Merely a social exercise that feeds the ego of the evangelists. God doesn't need prophets such as Jesus, Muhammad, Or magical tricks such as the Resurrection, To tell the world what it wants the world to know. If it is good for us to know something, God would tell everyone instantly and clearly, Not via 3rd-party magical tricks and public relations stunts. God, As all-powerful and the facilitator of our personalities and consciousness, Does not need the operation of "souls" in order to preserve us after death. All these things can only be believed in by those who don't understand that Gods, If they exist, Are perfect beings. If you strip away all the nonsense from god-belief, The result is called deism, Which is the belief in God but without religion. Deism is the most sensible form of god-belief. Antisthenes, The founder of the Cynic tradition of classical Greece, Taught that we should reject all worship of the gods because as perfect beings they were in need of nothing. The idea of God is pretty much incompatible with all religious dogma and practice.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Here Con, Namely Athias goes *yawn* again. Talk about a snoozer of a *bore*. Tying to get his ape like definitions in, When he perfectly knows oh-so-well of his dogmatic sleaze ridden cow chirp ridden inferno ball bearing safe cracking nothingness that he represents. The debate ideals here as well as for what I laid out are hook line and sinker for anyone to be able to figure out and thus follow. All Con, Namely Athias, Is attempting to do is be a sweaty piece of rear end wipe. He knows it.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@omar2345: I'm fine with starting, But it should be noted that the burden of proof rests with the one who affirms regardless of whether the content of that statement is positive or negative. My opponent in this debate affirms a negative claim; therefore, He has a burden of proof. If I offer a counterargument affirm another claim, I too would have a burden of proof.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Okay but you will start since I am not good with opening arguments and burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
omar2345: I'd rather engage my opponent first in this argument, And not have a separate debate in the comments section. But maybe later on, I'll take on that debate, After all rounds have finished, Or in the forums.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

What is your best argument for God's existence?
God: a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Argument: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, Action or theory.

If you don't want then don't since you are currently in a debate about it.
Bear in mind one argument not many.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@omar2345: I declared my acceptance of this debate and my seeking of clarification in the same round, So it can be either, Neither, Or both.

As for my debate with backwardseden, He stipulated a specific, Yet logically inconsistent, Set of rules. In doing so, He did not stipulate his definition of existence; therefore, I offer a stipulated definition. I then argued by induction (or deduction) that God(s) exists using the definitions I cited. Even if he stipulated a material description of existence, His third rule outlawed the use of the scientific method. And that's all she wrote.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"the courtesy of stipulating his description of existence. "
So an acceptance Round then or clarification Round?

"I've already engaged a semantic argument"
Could go over it but briefly?
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@omar2345: that which I consider it doesn't matter. I sought to clarify my opponent's argument and offer my opponent the courtesy of stipulating his description of existence. I've already engaged a semantic argument with backwardseden over the existence of God; I thought I'd try a different approach.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

Do you consider the first Round to be acceptance?
Or a Round not to give an argument?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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