The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points


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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 34947
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




there is no god in the universe.people are just mad ,they are mentally disturbed so though what happens wrong they give up to god they dont think that is there fault


As I see that Pro is a new member to the site, I’d like to extend him a warm welcome, and look forward to a lively conversation.

Pro seems to have articulated his position to have three separate components, all of which he’ll need to defend in order to his statement to be true and for him to win.

  1. i. There is no god in the universe.

  2. ii. People who believe in a god are mentally disturbed

  3. iii. When bad things happen, believers falsely attribute it to god rather than admitting it is their fault.

As he is both Pro and instigator, the burden is on him to prove all three of these statements. If he cannot substantiate any one of them, then he ought not to have made them in the first place.

By using the lowercase “god” rather than the capitalized “God” of Abraham, and by making no mention specifically to Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, I can only assume that my opponent is making these claims with respect to theism in general, and not just the practitioners of any one particular religion or denomination.

If I have incorrectly stated his position in any way, I ask for his clarification.

Otherwise, I accept, and look forward to hearing his opening argument in round 2.

Debate Round No. 1


Gicki forfeited this round.


As my opponent has forfieted round 2, I have nothing to counter. However, I will offer a brief comment about each claim.

1) "there is no god in the universe" cannot at this time be proven or disproven. Specific gods could be disproven depending on their nature. For example, a volcano god that will erupt if a sacrifice is not provided could be disproven simply by withholding sacrifice. But for there to be absolutely no gods, especially considering how broad a definition is considered, is beyond impractical, it would be impossible.

2) the definition of "mentally disturbed" would need to be provided, shown to include all believers before I could refute this. As far as I can tell, being mentally disturbed is not a characteristic commonly accepted by the psychology community in reference to believers solely because of their belief in a god.

3) again, nothing except a bald assertion has been given, so I would need more to work with in order to refute this.
Debate Round No. 2


Gicki forfeited this round.


Pro forfeits conduct; Resolution negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by O.Z 5 years ago
Oh no, I know. I was just nitpicking in a more joking manner, just trying to get the pro all riled up. I understand everything you said, but again, I was simply joking, I meant nothing by it. I would vote for you, but as it happens, I don't have the right requirements yet. I aplaude you in facing down the ramblings of a lunatic with calm ad resolve. Hats off, good sir!
Posted by calculatedr1sk 5 years ago
Logically speaking, I'm afraid that is not the case, OZ. There was a time when most people in the world thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Intuitively, from our vantage point, that seems to be the case, and we thought people were crazy if they believed Earth was not the center of everything. The number of people who believe in something is irrelevant to whether it is actually true or not.

As it happens, at this time there is no good evidence for the existence of god. However, absence of evidence doesn't mean that we can conclusively say no god exists, or that those who believe in one are insane. I argue that my opponent goes too far in making these claims. But you would also be going too far to claim that not believing in a god is insane simply because more people do than don't. It does not logically follow.
Posted by O.Z 5 years ago
Seeing as how most people on earth are religious, this guy seems to think most of us are mentallly insane. Classifying someone as insane is when someone does something out of the ordinary. If most of the worlds population are religious, religion is considered ordinary. So logically speaking. the Pro is the one who is metnally insane.
Posted by Overkill 5 years ago
I agree with the absence of a God-figure, however your debate (just from opening statements) is already ad hominem.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by THElittleRISK 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited all rounds, had worse S&G, and his only argument was poorly made. Easy victory to Con.