The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FreedomBeforeEquality
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

It is always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
FreedomBeforeEquality
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2020 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 619 times Debate No: 125411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (43)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

It is always always always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None. You as my debating opponent MUST prove that your god(s) exists. After all why should it be the atheists positioning to prove something that has never been proven? Talk about being extra counterproductive. And better yet, Why should an atheist even care to prove that your god(s) even exists? Even better? Why do you think that creationists will not put their god on trial again? They are not THAT hellaciously stupid after all. They will not put their god on trial again because they know better and they know that they cannot possibly win their case because all they have to go on as evidence is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved. Now here's the catcher. . . Since creationists cannot and will not stand behind their product, Namely their god, And thus take responsibility for their product, This means that they cannot possibly be trusted. So how can any of these creationists, How can any of them be trusted for ---anything---? In other words, Anything any creationist has to say, Dream or think because of this is completely invalid and worthless.

dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

As a deist I believe I still fall into this category and can defend the existence of a god, And by proxy defend the idea that quite possibly one of the theists you are directing this argument at is closer to knowing that god than you are.

I will do this systematically by demonstrating how human beings are unique in the universe and the probability of the conditions that took place in our creation so infinitely remote that it could only be explained with creationism. I believe also that anyone claiming to have the knowledge to prove atheism in this current age is being extremely pompous and dishonest in their claims. Atheism is more a theory than most any Religious system out there today (and I say most because I recognize that there are some that merely play on the success that other religions have and prey upon the people in search of an explanation for their existence).
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Why should I even bother with simpletons like Con that cannot follow easy to follow directions? "It is always always always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None. You as my debating opponent MUST prove that your god(s) exists. " It's not too hard now is it? Nope. Con completely wasted a RD. Congrats. Btw, I couldn't care less if Con is a deist. It only made him look all the more foolish.

Deism "1. Belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, With rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. Belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

Notice those defining words of "belief"?
Notice also how many times in RD 1 Con used the word "believe" which means he does-not-know. He guesses.

Does Con even know what a god is?
Um nope.
There's no possible way deism can be true and or be proven to be true. Well, At least right now as Con implies. Con, Just like everybody else that has ever existed cannot test nor can you demonstrate a god. It is impossible because he cannot define a god because none has been defined by anyone in the history of the human race because no god has ever been seen, Defined, Told to anyone through talking about/ oratory, Written about from a god's point of view as far as to how it can be tested, Demonstrated and thus defined. So Con would be and is only shooting blanks.

"demonstrating how human beings are unique in the universe"
Now how would Con know this? Has he uncovered every single planet, Moon, Asteroid, Dead star, Black hole, Place that has to be discovered by man as of yet to be determined by his small little brain? Why no. So Con's statement is that of ignorance.

"I believe also that anyone claiming to have the knowledge to prove atheism"
Who is proving atheism? Atheism is a CLAIM of disbelief. It is rather blatantly clear that Con has no idea as to what atheism is.
"Atheism is more a theory than most any Religious system out there"
How is "disbelief" a theory when no religion has ever been proved? Indeed Con is barking up his narcissistic rat pole in an attempt to fire up his theories that only work for his invented excuses religion which is what religion is as they all fall upon fatal gullibility until proven.
It might be a little bit nice had Con provided some evidence for his "beliefs" rather than having no evidence and thus making the cataclysmic incurable "who cares" what he has to say anymore. He had his chance to make a first impression. He blew it.
FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

A rejection of a belief (as is the case with Atheism) is in itself a belief to the contrary. The instant you are self aware of the belief of another and reject it you have made the conscious choice to believe otherwise. In the words of Rush "If you choose not to decide, You still have made a choice". I think you dismissing theism based on the term belief alone is rather contradictory because you yourself are dismissing it on your belief that it is false. Its cyclical. You shouldn't be trying to disprove something with that thing "

Your first round seemed like a rambling of your frustrations with previous debates you've had and such " so I suppose it would have been unfair for me to do anything in that round except state my stance. (that is usually customary in these by the way).

Belief isn't a guess. I just went through this with another fellow in a debate about how he thought virus' in general were made up. Now this belief of yours applies just the same, So I will pivot to a point I made there for a minute since it seems relevant. Based on everything else you know in the universe you can surmise something is present despite not being able to see it. When you apply natural law and its mechanisms to things you can tell if something is acting upon it or not. Something isn't coming from nothing. Now in the case of god, Creationism, Or some other power and its impacts on us, This is all just a macro level of the same thing. We can detect a god exists based on everything we know and we can detect its will upon us by everything we must do to exist within the constraints it sets for us.

Given what i've said above, Successful religions (and even some of the less successful ones) pose answers to successfully to questions of the universe and guide people toward living within those constraints. Short of suicidal cults, I challenge you to find any religious claims religions make that they say their god wills of them that tell their follows to do things that are self destructive. Or rather, Are they all incentivizing type rules that try to keep people from straying into self destructive practices?

To the point of the "unique in the universe" point, This ties right back into the one above about absence of evidence. There is an unsurmountable amount of evidence to say that we indeed are unique. For you to "believe" otherwise would just be falling into contradicting yourself. I won't make you do that, Because it might hurt for you.

But then you come full circle back to not understanding the significance of making conscious decisions (as I alluded to in my first paragraph). You are not mutually exclusive in your decision making on a topic the very second you know of an alternative belief. You are only truly innocent in your decision making when you are ignorant of your alternatives. So I pose to you, Are you ignorant? Or are you standing by a belief yourself? Once we get that sorted out then I can decide whether I should be presenting you with evidence (or perhaps you already know the evidence because you are educated about the topic) or not. You appear to be trying to paint yourself as some sort of infallible arbiter as far as belief goes and don't recognize that you are doing it yourself. If this is the case then all I really have to do is prove that you are more fallible and fake than the thing im trying to prove exists " and we know you exist " so it'll make things easier. In essence it'll come down to the logic you use versus god/nature and the later wins everytime. People will see that.

So as not to distract too much from the aim of this debate. Ill restate that I made the claim that God sets the boundaries for which we may exist on a physical level and where we can find happiness in life mentally and spiritually. My proof is that There is enough of a trend in society to show that barriers and limits exist there, Where in the case of a chaotic and random universe there would not be. I guess now that I have to hear you make a claim as to how that isn't proof of the existence of an outside force. That a trend like that is completely random noise. We can go into specific instances once you come out as being human and taking a side. Like I said " if you keep trying to paint yourself as the infallible one " people might start to think you are claiming to be god yourself there. I didn't think that was the point of this argument. Do you believe things or not? I mean shoot, You must. You haven't done or experienced everything in life that you probably believe to exist through the experiences of others " and yet you believe those to be true.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Until proven there is no god, It really is that simple as to what atheism is. You nor anyone has proved that there is a god in the entire existence of the human race. So until you or anyone can and or does prove that a god exists, In which case no one can and or no one even knows what a god is and or cannot define what a god is and can in no possible way test as well as demonstrate that a god exists, The atheist claim stands.
"A rejection of a belief (as is the case with Atheism) is in itself a belief to the contrary. "
The contrary of what?
"The instant you are self aware of the belief of another"
This makes no sense. How can someone be self aware of disbelief from something that has yet to be proved and is no possible way can be tested and demonstrated?
"and reject it"
Ab-so-lu-te-ly.
"you have made the conscious choice to believe otherwise. "
No. We have made the conscious choice to know otherwise until proven otherwise. That"s the difference that you don"t get. That"s the difference that you don"t want to get. , That"s the difference that you are unwilling to get. That"s the difference that you don"t unconsciously understand.
"In the words of Rush"
Well that"s tossed.

"Your first round seemed like a rambling of your frustrations"
Whoa. Stop right there. Yeah it"s frustrations. Damn right. It sure is. I REALLY HATE it especially when darling little saps like you come on in here and flatly point-blank invent excuses, And you know it though many don"t, From something in which they clearly know absolutely nothing about, In which case you obviously don"t and yet you thus pretend that you do and wow have you 100% provide this. You just did it. AND because you don"t you have to invent excuses for it and or flat out lie to cover for your subject(s) fatal flaws in which case here it"s your religion in which case you cannot in any possible way prove that your god exists either because nobody has in the entire existence of the human race and you think you can? Really? And because you think you can, You take it out on atheism in which case, As 100% proved, You know nothing, Absolutely nothing about atheism because atheism is one, Just one point only and yet you try to mangle it into YOURS and only YOURS "beliefs" in which case atheism is a "disbelief". That"s it. Nothing else.

To prove it even further, Let"s continue. . .

"Belief isn't a guess. "
Oh absolutely it is. If it wasn"t then you"d have truth and or proof in which case in no possible way do you so it"s a "belief". That"s what religion is. That"s what a "belief" in a god is since you have no proof that any god exists.
"I just went through this with another fellow"
Well that should tell you something.
"Now this belief of yours applies just the same, "
Belief as far as what?
"When you apply natural law""
Natural Law as far as what? Hmmmmm. Interesting. This might be a switch on things because I"m certainly no expert and this came out a little more than a month ago and knows one helluva lot more than you"
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=9IpNEzucNyo - Study Suggests Fundamental Laws of Nature Change Throughout the Universe
Now are the "Laws of Nature" different from "Natural Law"? Sure I"m stupid on many things. My main subjects that I"m not stupid on are christianity and it"s terrorist god, Music, And film.

So let"s continue"
"Something isn't coming from nothing. "
Really? According to what? You? How would you know? Please don"t make things up from something in which case you clearly know nothing about and haven"t done any research on it and haven"t thought too much about it on. Thanx. K? Stephen Hawking, Perhaps the smartest person who has ever lived and his colleague came up with a mathematical equation (don"t worry it"s quite beyond you and me to even fathom) that proves that something indeed does come from nothing. Also, And think about this" The Maya thought of the number 0. That"s nothing. So before thinking of that number, Nothing, That"s nothing. Makes sense? There"s a lot of brain teasers you can go down the rabbit hole like that.

"Now in the case of god, "
Whoa. Stop right there. Which god? And why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Trillions, Quadrillions of gods? Or the very best bet is why not 0 gods since you do not have any evidence for any god(s) existence?
"Creationism"
Huh? Who ever even spoke of something like "creationism"? What is that exactly?
"Or some other power and its impacts on us, "
And what exactly would that be?
"This is all just a macro level of the same thing. "
Now how would you know? I get it. Just some more guesswork.
"We can detect a god exists based on everything we know and we can detect its will upon us by everything we must do to exist within the constraints it sets for us. "
Who is this "we"? And what can "YOU" detect? Don"t put billions into this "we" because it"s only you, Just you because you cannot define, Test, Nor demonstrate a god.

"Assume that we have no answer. Then the answer is "I don"t know". The answer isn"t "I can"t think of anything better, Therefore a god did it. ""Matt Dillahunty
He"s right. You say "I don"t know" for something that you don"t know. You don"t invent excuses and or flat out lie as you are clearly without question doing so and do it for others for something that YOU have no answers for. AND since you have no answers for the unexplainable you do not put a religion in place of it, Which is what all religions are based on and then you thus call it "god".

"Or rather, Are they all incentivizing type rules that try to keep people from straying into self destructive practices"
Now how would I know that? You don"t know that either. In fact no one can possibly know that. And what kind of stupid ignorant self righteous question is that that clearly has no bearing on this debate is it and only weakens your status? Why? How many dead religions are there that NOBODY knows about? How many religions are there that nobody can decipher its culture and living structure and it"s god(s) laws, Rules and regulations to live by? So your question is MOOT and makes you look really silly. That"s strike 1. If there"s 3 strikes in this debate, It will end.
One thing that is for sure in answering your question is that it"s true for your unproven storybook character god of print only. Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5.

"There is an unsurmountable amount of evidence to say that we indeed are unique. "
How would YOU know that when there"s NOTHING to compare it to? Again have YOU searched through every single moon, Planet, Asteroid, Even atom, Electron, . Are you really THIS stupid and ignorant?
STRIKE 2.

"You are not mutually exclusive in your decision making on a topic the very second you know of an alternative belief. "
Really? There are currently over 4200 religions. Each one of them have different beliefs. Within your s--t of a terrorist religion and it"s unproven storybook character god of print only, And not proven to exist, There are over 33, 480 denominations so there"s no consensus. None. So don"t tell me I don"t know of an "alternative belief" when your unproven god wants to murder you for believing in such as proven in the verses 2 paragraphs above.
We"re done. Strike 3. Sheesh.
Your next argument, If there is a next one, Because you have absolutely no idea, None, As to what you are gibberishing about, And yet you pretend that you do, And because you don"t you have to invent excuses for it and or flat out lie to cover for mistakes that your arrogant terrorist god has made in your bible, But clearly cannot do it, And yeah I"m p**sed because you tried to do this to me, To someone who does know better, A lot better, But you cannot squeak on by, Like a cheap little nothingness who cannot possibly invent something just a little bit better, Nah, Well that"s just too bad. Sorry. You got caught.

You didn't prove your unproven storybook character god of print only especially with those crappy excuses that have been used thousands of times before and millions of times by others. Try harder next time with someone else who does not know better than me. K? Bye.
FreedomBeforeEquality

Con

On the contrary, What you describe is agnostic. I would trust better that an agnostic would change his opinion on the existence of something upon new evidence emerging than any atheist. An atheist came to their conclusion even despite all of the evidence around them, Where agnostic at least have enough humility to say "I might be wrong".

Ill try to expound upon "conscious decision making" some more for you. Here are a couple examples:
You are close to being late for work and you're walking down the street on your way to the office, You hear some commotion in an alley as you pass, You continue on to work and go about your day. (You unconsciously made the decision not to explore what was going on around you - spoiler - you missed an opportunity to save an innocent life) The thing that makes this ok is your total lack of knowledge of what was going on in that alley. Upon learning that you could have done something, Some people feel regret and remorse (those would be your agnostics). You however are atheist, So you insist there was nothing that could be done and try to keep a clear conscious about the whole thing.

Now, A slightly different iteration of this example:
You are late for work and you're walking down the street on the way to the office, You hear some commotion in the alley, A person behind you walking as well looks and states out loud "hey, Quick, That woman over there needs help", You look over briefly and choose to ignore that piece of information, You continue on to work and go about your day. (You consciously made the decision not to acknowledge what was going on in the alley and have now attributed to that woman's death. )

Perhaps you've heard the (dare I say it) religious teaching that a sin of omission is a sin of commission. It falls right into what we are talking about with you and about decision making. If you fail to do something (in this case you fail to believe something) after having been given information about an event, It changes the dynamic of the decision you are about to make. You could have made a claim about atheism from a place of total ignorance and been just fine. But to have even simply heard about a possible alternative " when you dismiss that alternative then you are no longer in a simple state of "disbelief". Because you were handed the ability to believe and you willed it away. You chose to believe in the antithesis of something.

You could apply the same rationale to 'conscientious objectors'. The war is there whether they chose to believe in war or not. I know some take offense to being forced to make a decision on account of others around them, But unfortunately for those people its part of the social contract that is entered when you are exposed to others. An expectation is formed of you and your decision in light of what's going on around you decides who you are. You can't will that away unfortunately. And that is one of the many essences of God right there, An existence of something very real, That you can't see, But will govern your life and the morality of men against everything you might try to conjure up. That's natural law for you.

If you want a test, I invite you to apply that rationale above to something and see how it holds up. Or just think back, I'm sure you've done it before.

For proof, Again I pose to you that you don't have to physically see something for it to exist. Enough empirical evidence exists to show how little you know about the alpha and omega of our being. And for every answer you think you get closer to knowing it only ever opens up more questions. It sounds to me like you think it's fitting for you to be able to assume the lack of something exists at the end of all your evidence, And yet its unfitting to suggest that something could be there using the same methodology.

Just to remind you, My god doesn't only exist in print. It exists as the creative spark to our existence and is evidenced to us through natural law. You seem very predisposed at bashing one of the more popular interpretations of that god (Christianity) though I don't know why. Their teachings carry the same principles if you can get past some of the dated writing style. I also think its fun that you have at least succumbed to the belief that a god can/should be able to talk to you. That ones interesting, That you ascribe humanlike attributes to it. But for some, Perhaps it works for them to better relate to what its trying to convey to them to think of it in humanlike form. For you it seems though to have brought you to an impasse and made the whole notion unbelievable. To you i'd say, Why is it you can't pull good lessons from slightly embellished of fictitious stories? I've said this before, But Aesop's Fables would be lost on a person like you who wouldn't be able to get past the fact that the animals are talking to one another.

I think i've exhausted my points here though explain back what was said in Round 3. If I may, I'm going to throw a natural law (you can call it god's law if you want, It presupposes you and is evidence of a higher power) out there that I've cherry picked based on your stance above about atheism and freewill. Thomas Hobbes wrote about what he called the 18th law of nature in his book Leviathan which states:
"No man ought to be accepted as an arbitrator in any case where it seems that he will get greater profit or honor or pleasure from the victory of one party than from the victory of the other. That is because he has taken a bribe - an unavoidable one, But still a bribe - and no man can be obliged to trust him. So here again, "if such an arbitrator is appointed", The controversy remains, And thus the condition of war remains, Contrary to the law of nature. "

http://www. Woldww. Net/classes/General_Philosophy/Hobbes_on_the_state_of_nature. Htm

Earlier you talked about the mistrust towards religious believers and the like for believing in something that created that, The condition above, One that humbles 'the individual'. For you to make the claim that you or your belief in the non-existence of a god is not you making yourself the arbiter in your own creation or fate, Your own alpha/omega, Would be entirely false. Then why should we trust that you are right? If you are not claiming to be the arbiter, Then something else is that arbiter (as i've alluded to before in the analogies i've stated to you). At which point you are claiming there is an outside power. What's more, This can be said of people who choose their own religions as well. Religious believers are not innocent in doing this either. They are however closer to following natural law than any denier is. And most religions leave room in there for that human error. I'm certain this is why Abrahamic Religions' mortal sin is consciously turning away from God. That's a completely hopeless path, Being a conscientious denier of natural law.
Debate Round No. 3
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
@Surgeon - I've found the opposite as they are constantly challenged to defend those beliefs, In which case many times they are not beliefs. Dillahunty and they all do every single week especially when The Atheist Experience goes live as an example. If they don't they lose credibility and integrity. Sure, Sometimes someone offers them a challenge, But it's so ridiculously rare, Like a burnt plump pizza roast, And the opponents really do look silly. I really can't think of the last time there was a genuine challenge?
Posted by Surgeon 4 months ago
Surgeon
@backwardseden

You have no disagreement from me that the Atheist Experience, Aron Ra, Hitchens et al eviscerate poorly constructed Theistic arguments. I also applaud them giving voice to Atheism.

The problem I find is that they offer no objective foundations for their own beliefs and are vulnerable to Ontological and Epistemic challenges. In short it is often good knockabout stuff, But thats all it is.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
@FreedomBeforeEquality - You should get off your unproven storybook character god of print only dick for a second.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
"Then you have to skeptical of skepticism and just like logical positivism you end up in a viscious circle. "
They've handled that nicely so that it's not. I do as well. I can admit when I am wrong. Also when someone points out things that clearly shows me being wrong, Sure, I know where my circle goes round and round. Now do you?
"Skepticism is a useful tool but its not a whole philosophy. "
In regards to religion, I don't use skepticism. I use until there is evidence there is no belief. Even if there is evidence there is no belief. That's not skepticism. It's not whole philosophy either. It's proof of concept, Completely drop the immorality crap, The "believe in me or else" charade, Drop all texts in this behalf and damn it TALK TO EVERYONE, Create a knowing peace forever here on planet earth for all man AND species (plants, Trees, Organisms, And animals), And lastly stop all suffering especially among children. Yeah, Then I'd "believe". However, I wouldn't bow. No true god would demand it.

Please always tc and haveth thee fun
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
@Surgeon "The Atheist Experience and Dillahunty are in the business of destroying poor quality Theistic claims. "
True. And they do one heck-of-a great job at it. They are also in the business of helping people for many various problems. Examples are a couple of times per year they get calls in for those who are suicidal. And they do one heck-of-a very good job at that as well. They help out with very difficult teens who's parents kick them out because they believe differently practically on a monthly basis etc etc etc. Yeah. I'm sure you know it's all non-profit. I'm sure you know also that Dillahunty and practically all on camera have been slaves to the cloth, Dillahunty for 20 years. So indeed they do know what they are talking about. Supposed christians guess. And it really p**ses me off when they flatly invent excuses for something that they don't know rather than saying "I don't know".
The Atheist Experience is my main squeeze, Yes. There's also Christopher Hitchens, Aron Ra, Lawrence Krauss, Seth Andrews etc.
"Its not difficult to knock down the arguments of uneducated Theists (same goes for Atheists). "
For the last time there is only one, Just one argument for atheists. So how is it that this one argument can be knocked down? And who is going to knock it down? Indeed, It's theists who have absolutely no clue as to what or who atheists are.
"But the show is hardly a serious discussion about Theism"
It's about whatever the callers want to call about, That is if it has a bearing on the subject of religion or even close to it, Otherwise the caller will probably get hung up on and rightly so.
"To my knowledge has made no contribution to the philosophy of Religion. "
Why should it? It's called "The Atheist Experience" for a reason.
"It is a show which unwittingly eats itself. "
Sometimes but not anywhere near all the time because what they do is they get different hosts to keep the show fresh every week. It's not a stick in the mud.
Posted by Surgeon 4 months ago
Surgeon
@backwardseden

The Atheist Experience and Dilahunty are in the business of destroying poor quality Theistic claims. They are "flat track bullies". Its not difficult to knock down the arguments of uneducated Theists (same goes for Atheists). I know Dilahunty has started studying philosophy. But the show is hardly a serious discussion about Theism, To my knowledge has made no contribution to the philosophy of Religion. It is a show which unwittingly eats itself. If one really is that skeptical, Then you have to skeptical of skepticism and just like logical positivism you end up in a viscious circle. Skepticism is a useful tool but its not a whole philosophy. This is the mistake you are making.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 4 months ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
Dude, Are you talking about the quasar video? That's the only one you posted that goes to anything, And it doesn't support anything you've claimed about the bible. In fact you never really related anything from that source to what you were talking about.

You should get off Pew's dick for a second. Theyre wrong as much as the weatherman. But it makes since that a poll could be wrong, Because well, Youre asking people! Lol By the way, I would love to take that poll if you've got a link to it. I wonder if youd even trust my taking of the poll? That I wouldnt lie on it. I wonder why you trust any of the people who took the poll. I wonder why you even trust the outcome of such a poll. Then, I wonder why you don't believe what Hobbe's had to say about that, Since he'd agree with you about that trust.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
You didn't look at the video just as I 100% knew you wouldn't like the true coward that ou are because you cannot possibly handle any true evidence when slapped across the face with it but only had ---more--- stupid--- unintelligent, Uneducated, Invented excuses (and I really hate excuses) that still does not in any possible way prove a god and cannot say "I don't know" for something in which case you clearly, Without question, Have no idea, None, And wow does it show, Don't know for what you are squawking about. I'm finally done. Use some other pigeon. Bye.
And for the record, I did ask how did the idea of a god originally pooped into your idealistic pop up childish tinker toy fields of dung without your bibles? You might want to examine the records here on DDO rather than babbling. I asked it more than once. But wait! According to Pew Research Center, The very best poll company in the world, Those that are religious, They have roughly a 15% lesser education. For you it's even lesser than the average. You'd truly fail their quiz. Care to take it and see how you do? That's what I thought. Nah. So I wish you the very best. Go out and get some friends.
Your next post will be ignored. I can no longer sink to your level.
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 4 months ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
Great " now 3 out of the 5 ad banners on this page are for an atheist dating site. Thanks man. . .
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 4 months ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
"So where and how did a god once again for at least the third f--king time you coward originally pop into your brain since it did not pop from your bible AND originally into other deists brains"

Well if you had asked that in the debate id have told you that belief in a god pre-existed the bible. Several different cultures had religion and codes of laws before Christianity was a twinkle in anyone's eye. You give the good book a little too much credit on that one. "Thou shall not kill" was around long before Christ or Abraham walked the earth.

If you want to know when it "popped into their brains" it happened around the moment we developed enough to start thinking about our place in the universe. Its been there since the day we became human. And it stands to reason that since we didn't create ourselves, It was there before us and made itself known to us through all the interactions we've had with it since the dawn of time. Everything in existence had it acting upon it and its all still acting on us now. That's not to say the first religious interpretation of it got it right " its as much a learning experience as any. But if you don't even know what it is you don't know " youre really really lost. That's why I say, At least theyre closer to the answer than you are.

And again, You can know/prove something is there by more means than just seeing a guy in a white robe. If that's the proof you were expecting and that's all youll accept then youre going to be disappointed, Because that's not what god is.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 4 months ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenFreedomBeforeEqualityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con a "simpleton" in round two. That's poor conduct

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