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

There is no God, No Jesus, No religion

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous has forfeited round #2.
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: 8/27/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 117930
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




There is no God, No Muhammad, No Buddha, No miracles, No religions. Religions are just cults.

Anyone who is religious is just mentally ill. The more religious you are the more mentally ill you are. Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause as an adult. There is no actual proof of some man made up entity. Science has shown us evolution, Space, Biology, Medial science, We can create life through DNA and science labs. We have advanced so far and have proven that there is no spiritual being. It is all a figment of your own imagination.

Like people with Bi-polar disorder, Schizophrenia, Autism, Dissociative mental disorders, THE MIND is what creates coping skills, Like after a very traumatic event the mind can suppress these haunting memories, It's the same with God and religion. A stressed out, Depressed mind can create religion to cope with hard times and the thought of there being more to their miserable life than just themselves. Therefore people create religion and an invisible being that can do anything to help them cope with their unstable mind.

This is why the poorest countries have the highest religion levels, This is why inmates in jails turn to religion to cope with being locked up, This is why people with mental illness turn to religion.

Religion, Gods, It's all FAKE NEWS for the mentally weak.


The first thing atheists tell me when I say that God exists is that no one can prove it. This is partially correct because we cannot see physical signs of him. That does not mean however that there aren't good arguments for him. I will give a few of them here.
The first is the argument from design. When you look at the world around us, You see the complexity of it. Take DNA. It contains the amount of information equivalent to 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica's put together. Every life form on this earth has them. Without a God, In the equation, Then it all must have come from nothing. But if it takes a very smart person-years to put together even one, Then wouldn't there have to be an even more intelligent person to put together 1000 sets of encyclopedia's in the first one-celled animal. Or did it all just come together from an explosion, Also known as the big bang? If so, That is an awful lot to be arranged perfectly from a single explosion. As a matter of fact here are some probabilities of it coming together from actual material.
1. The chance of life forming from non-life is 1 in 10 to the 40, 000th power. That is 10 with 40, 000 zeros after it
Source: https://www. Scienceforums. Net/
Source: www. Ideacenter. Org/contentmgr/showdetails. Php/id/740

2. The chance of the universe coming into existence by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion
Source: https://blogs. Plos. Org/

3. The chance of a simple protein coming from dead matter is 1 in 1. 28 with 10, 175 zeros after it
Source: http://www. Creationstudies. Org/

4. The chance of the earth by itself coming into existence from nothing is 1 in 700 quintillion
Source: https://answersingenesis. Org/

5. "The chance of evolution occurring is equivalent to the chance of a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outerspace, Knocking down a satellite that then crashes down on a target on a van on a highway"
Even in a billion years, That's never going to happen
Source: https://answersingenesis. Org/

Another thing about evolution. What about mutualism? Mutualism, Is a relationship between two organisms where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible if DNA is that complicated, Can you even imagine the rest of the world? How can it be chance? How can it all come from an explosion that I don't even believe to be possible. Nothing cannot produce something so I don't see how this explosion could have occurred. This world calls for an intelligent designer, Not chance.
My second argument is the argument from motion. According to Isaac Newton's first law of motion everything that is in motion will stay in motion until acted on by another force. At the same time, Nothing will ever be in motion until acted on by another force. In other words if anything is in motion, There must be a force that causes it to do so. This law completely contradicts the idea that there is no God. You see, Everything in this world is in motion. Because nothing can set itself in motion, There must be an outside force that is the result of all motion today. Because God is all powerful he can do anything and therefore does not need to be set in motion and is the only thing that can be the root cause of all motion today. Otherwise, Isaac Newton is wrong.
My third argument. How does matter arise to make this whole scenario possible in the first place? The big bang is bound by some very important scientific laws. The law of conservation of energy, The law of conservation of mass, The law of biogenesis, And Newton's first law of motion. All 4 of these scientific laws and the big bang cannot be true at the same time because they are contradictory. The Big bang is believed to be the result of all energy and mass but the law of conservation of mass says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. You believe in the big bang theory but the Big bang itself is a theory and according to the scientific method, A scientific law has so much more credibility then a theory. So, In this case, In order to believe in the big bang theory, You are forced to rely on the LEAST reliable data while ignoring the MOST reliable data. Not good scientific practice.
My third argument is the cosmological argument. Here is what it states:
P1 everything that exists has a cause of existence
P2 Because the universe exists, It must have a cause of existence
P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force
P4 That outside force is God
P5 God created the universe
C God exists
I will probably get lots of questions on this particular argument which I will answer in the next round.
So tell me, If God does not exists, Then give me a step by step explanation of how the universe was created from nothing.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all there are no good arguments for God, News flash, He doesn't exist, Just like the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa Clause, Krumpus and any other man made up entity.

You give figures for creation of life being a very minute number, Well there are billions of stars in the universe and so far we have not found any life out there, So yes life creation is minute in the grand scheme of the universe.

Your second argument about all things being in motion is not entirely true, A rock on a beach in not in motion, Sure the earth is moving but the rock is not going anywhere. You are describing an entire universe which is essentially unlimited. There are things that might not be in motion, But chain reactions happen. The big bang created our solar system, The planets, Than time and evolution did the rest.

There is no God because where is he. Are you going to tell me he is invisible? We can detect gamma rays, Radiation, Small particles in space, Atoms, We have technology, Yet no one has ever said they detected a spirit of God. Because it's all made up in your head, Like an exaggeration of a story, A fairy tale you spin. You can make up anything, Any being, Any story, BUT show me proof of God, Don't just tell me he exists but you can't sent me a photograph.

So you need a lesson on the creation of the universe, Ok here you go

Around 13. 8 billion years ago, All the matter in the Universe emerged from a single, Minute point, Or singularity, In a violent burst. This expanded at an astonishingly high rate and temperature, Doubling in size every 10-34 seconds, Creating space as it rapidly inflated. Within a tiny fraction of a second gravity and all the other forces were formed. Energy changed into particles of matter and antimatter, Which largely destroyed each other. But luckily for us some matter survived. Protons and neutrons started to form within the first second; within minutes these protons and neutrons could fuse and form hydrogen and helium nuclei. After 300, 000 years, Nuclei could finally capture electrons to form atoms, Filling the Universe with clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. After around 380, 000 years it left behind a bath of photons " the Cosmic Microwave Background that Penzias and Wilson accidentally detected. Within this were tiny ripples of matter that were stretched to enormous sizes during inflation, And in turn these became the seeds for the galaxies and galactic clusters we see today.

Nowhere is there any mention of God, Or Jesus or any other man made up entity.

Also God did not create Adam and Eve as you would like to believe in your MAN MADE UP book called the bible.

Here is some reading for you on the evolution of earth and humans

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/History_of_Earth
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Human_evolution
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Anonymous 10 months ago
As an Atheist I tend to side with FanboyMctroll, But only up to a certain level. I find it difficult to accept the idea of spontaneous development from simple molecules to complex amino acids and organisms beyond that, Culminating with Homo Sapiens as the current top of the chain. The suggestion of an intervention by a higher intelligence seems plausible. This higher intelligence would have to be magnitudes above the Deities proposed by the teachings of our religions. These Gods are simply not smart enough for Intelligent Design.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Really poor arguments, Jackgilbert
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
i tend to be defeatist at times. I would like to restate. We should aim our hatred at those personal traits but also stand against religious beliefs. I sent my message and then say another post that said "abortion is murder" and it reminded me about all the immoral things religious people do because God tells them it's good. I rest my case. Criticize and fight people for their beliefs, Hate the detrimental personality and character traits about them that make them really dangerous, Always respect them as a fellow human being.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
I think there is certainly truth to what you say. It is worth mentioning that were certainly atheists who committed terrible atrocities and genocides as well. Examples, I'm pretty sure, Include Stalin, Mao, Columbine, Bundy etc. I think an important realization here is that both atheistic and theistic people are responsible for atrocious crimes against humanity which might be to say that the problem isn't with their belief systems but rather with the people themselves. Maybe instead of focusing on people's belief systems we should be focused on the character traits that energize these belief systems unto such atrocities; maybe we should steer our hatred and disgust more towards things like ignorance, Fanaticism, Intolerance and dehumanization. And also give ourselves a path for our hearts to steer towards. We should encourage doubt, Curiosity, Empathy, Comedy, Bravery etc.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
I agree with your points, So let me ask you this.

Why is it when there is a tragedy the perpetrator always seems to be spewing some religious connotation while it's happening or right after. Like the serial killer who is spewing something from the bible like John 3:16 or psalm 21 from Peter or some Islamic yell during a terrorist attack. If you are really religious does that mean you are really crazy? Like the very strict priest who beats his kids with a belt or broom because they have sinned and said the lords name in vain or swore. It seems to me the more religious the person the more off the wall and crazy they seem. Is it me or have I just watched too many movies about it.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
That being said, As much I don't like to admit it, I do partially share your sentiment towards the logic of religious people. I believe all people are born knowing nothing and only know something after you've learned it so i believe all people are constantly ignorant of most things and therefore all of human is a social, Collective journey of discovering how stupid we all are and how hilarious it is that we are such. So I don't see religious people as mentally compromised; just ignorant in some cases, Psychologically or curiously satisfied or comfortable, Biased and maybe some other things but they are sill intelligent regular old people.

But still, I can't bring myself to fully trust someone else's logic who believes in such things, Especially when part of that belief includes things like: genital mutilation, Racism, Xenophobia, Antisemitism, Domestic abuse, Child abuse, Murder, Human sacrifice, Genocide, Homophobia, Fanaticism, Dehumanization and demonizing your fellow man.

It baffles me that a cafeteria style adoption of a belief system that is intended to teach morality can account for so much of the worlds crimes against humanity. I suspect a core reason is the emphasis of so many of these religions on a life after this one, Which devalues this life.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
I think I see what you're saying. I certainly agree that evidence does not mean proof. Christians and Atheists alike struggle with this fact because neither will ever be able to provide enough evidence to prove their argument or disprove the other; so we will remain deadlocked in our millennia old struggle for the foreseeable future I think.

To your next point, I think this is also dangerous thinking. It is very reminiscent of the witch trials, Joseph McCarthian and otherwise the condemnation that can come with accusations alone.

If I understand you correctly, You are saying that if someone is religious then they are delusional. If they are delusional then they are mentally compromised. If they are mentally compromised then their arguments, Logic, Ideas, And opinions hold no legitimacy or value. If their arguments, Logic, Ideas, And opinions hold no legitimacy or value then there is no need to listen to their defense of their beliefs. Connecting these logical steps, In conclusion, If you are religious there is no need for me to listen to or consider the defense of your beliefs.

Due process is a beautiful thing and I am very grateful to live in America where I can not be punished for simply being accused of something without it being proven that I did actually commit the crime. It is a dangerous thought that as soon as someone is accused of something, In this case any number of religious beliefs, They are simultaneously deprived of their ability to defend their belief with their logic and reason. Like calling someone a witch. As soon as they are accused of it, Everyone severely doubts everything they say because. . . Well. . . They might be a witch.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
@Whispering - We need to have some boundaries and evidence in order to believe in mythical beings and preaching of religion. It's like in the court of law. Without evidence there is no crime. Hearsay evidence of God, Jesus, Apostles etc etc. Is not proof. That is just proof of someone being unfit to stand trial/provide evidence of religion. Unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity is the same as someone believing in religion.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
The argument for the necessity of causation of existence is a common one for the existence of a God though I personally do not find it terribly compelling for two main reasons:

1. I don't believe any of us are informed enough about physics to know for sure that absolutely all things have a cause. It could very well be that most things have causes but some things do not. I believe, Using the Socratic principle of wisdom, The wisest approach to have to the origin of existence is awareness of ignorance. So, "how did the universe come to be? " "I don't know. And it's okay that I don't know. "

2. I will entail a brief chain of hypothetical logic of the origin of existence based on a premise of universal causation. Time exists. Existence cannot exist without time. Existence has existed since the beginning of time. Therefore the universe has always existed.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
The sort of dehumanizing talk of The Instigator is characteristic of the sort of language used right before a mob of people organize to slaughter those who disagree with them to enforce or bring a certain belief of their to fruition. Ironically, Throughout history, The idea being fanatically pushed is a religious one (i. E. Present day Islam. See beheading of Christians and homosexuals) Their view of homosexuals would be similar to your view on religious people - sick, Mentally ill or unwell, Sinners, Corrupted. So I'm really trying to warn you of your fanaticism because it is violent, Impedes judgement and is historically and presently characteristic of the very people you dehumanize.

This immoral fanaticism is the reason I despise religion and it pains me to see a fellow Atheist, If i dare assume, Behaving in a similar fashion.
This debate has 2 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.