Instigator / Pro
2
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5694
Atheism is in no way the most logical stance to take on the existence of god(s). Absolutely not.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Greetings. A newcomer . This is an introduction.
Before we proceed, I'm taking a survey on serious participants.
What drove you to accept to debate this topic?
What was or is your impression on this matter?
Thanks and welcome.
Forfeited
Round 2
Ok that's why I like the introduction to newcomers .
Forfeited
Round 3
I wonder if there was a charge to debate, will this eliminate the no shows.
Forfeited
Round 4
I rest my case.
Forfeited
Round 5
Case closed. Could of did this in my sleep.
Forfeited
1.- It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, because we cannot look at every corner of the universe.
2.- We cannot live as if all imagined things exist. For example, we can imagine gods that order morals contrary to each other. Which one should we follow?
3.- Therefore, whoever affirms the existence of something, must prove it. And if he does not prove it, we must live as if that thing did not exist. In other words, he who affirms the existence has the burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the accuser has the burden of proof; that is, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In debates about the existence of something it is similar: he who affirms the existence has the burden of proof; and as long as he does not prove it, we will believe that it does not exist.
4.- Therefore, in practice, agnosticism leads to atheism.