God Doesn't Exist

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@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.

@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.

"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?

@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.

@Athias

Do you consider the first Round to be acceptance?
Or a Round not to give an argument?