Instigator / Pro
48
1508
rating
4
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#73
Atheism towards The One True God is foolish and/or ignorant
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 8 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
Mopac
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
30
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description
The existence of God is irrefutable, and denial of the monotheistic God is self defeating.
Con position is expected to argue the position of the atheist.
Round 1
Oxford defines God as...
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Merriam Webster defines God as...
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality
To quote a father of the catholic/orthodox tradition and canonized saint... Augustine of Hippo...
"Where I found truth, there found I my God, who is the truth itself"
Augustine repeats in no uncertain terms throughout his vast corpus of works that The Truth is God.
Also in the Christian protestant tradition Herman Bavinck wrote
“God is the truth in its absolute fullness. He, therefore, is the primary, the original truth, the source of all truth, the truth in all truth. He is the ground of the truth – of the true being "
And though these are examples from western academia and Christian traditions, you will find this understanding of God is fairly universal in the various religious traditions of the world. The Abrahamic faiths all recognize The Truth as being God. Even in vedic monotheism, God is understood as ultimate reality.
So to make what I am saying very clear, The Truth is God.
So to say "There is no God" is to say, "It is the truth that there is no such thing as truth!". Clearly self defeating.
To say, "I do not believe in God" or "I don't know if God exists" is to admit that you have doubts. If you have doubts, you know at least one thing is true.. that is, you have doubt. If anything is true at all, it is because The Truth is in it.
Atheism towards God is a self defeating and foolish position to hold on to, as it is fundamentally a denial of truth and reality. I personally don't believe that this is what atheists actually believe. I think most atheists likely do not believe that God exists because they have a superstitious conception of God. They have a conception of God that is not real. However, being real is literally the defining characteristic of God, as God is literally, not metaphorically, The Truth.
Forfeited
Round 2
The Truth is God.
Just because people who believe God is the truth say he's the truth doesn't prove that God is the truth.
Purple flying hippos that fart magic talking rooster pellets are the truth.
Doubt is the true sign of a truth seeker. It is those who think they know everything or believe blindly that have the hardest time discovering the truth.
Round 3
"Purple flying hippos that fart magic talking rooster pellets" cannot arbitrarily be said to exist.
I am not arbitrarily saying "God exists" because I believe so. This is literally the defining characteristic of God. If what you are imagining doesn't exist, it isn't God.
Ultimate Reality means it exists. God means Ultimate reality. The ultimate reality by definition exists. That is what reality means. If it doesn't exist, that would be unreality.
So no, it is quite certain that God exists, and there is no argument against God.
Atheism towards this God is foolish and self defeating.
God cannot arbitrarily be said to exist.
You are arbitrarily saying "God exists" because you believe so.
People thinking something and writing down words or including them in arbitrary man made definitions of symbolic shapes and sounds does not make them true.
Ultimate reality doesn't mean what you say simply because you are a dirty little tomato sucker who defines your spiritual delusions as reality itself.
If part of the definition of Mopac was tomato sucker, would that make you a tomato sucker?
Round 4
Your argument is...
"What I think God is is not the ultimate reality"
But I am saying, along with my sources, that God is The Ultimate Reality, as in, that is what the word means, and that clearly transcends peoples conceptions or understanding.
I am not being arbitrary. I am telling you the truth. If that makes you wrong, that can't be helped. There is no shame in being wrong, but their is shame in persisting stubbornly in one's error
Your sources are merely people who share the same arbitrary opinion as you.
A buddhists opinion or an atheists is just as valid.
Your claims could be a refuted by a two month old kangaroo still in the pouch.
You do not have a single argument, only shapes and sounds that humans arbitrarily assign meaning to.
You will need more than words and cherry picked definitions to prove your claims.
Round 5
The Truth is my God, and everything about my religion has to do with aligning myself more to The Truth. That is the entire purpose of discarding the influences over me that keep me from being honest. I discard the things that keep me from having peace with reality.
You equate my God with a false god. You equate my God with a god who was created, is known for a period of time, and then is forgotten to time.
My God is The Truth, which always was, always is, and always will be. You were born. You will die. My God was here before anything. My God will continue to be after everything perishes. You would not exist unless my God formed you in your mothers womb. You would not be alive unless my God gave you air, food, water, and life.
Your life is vanity, and you abide in death.
I pray that you one day come to know The Eternal God, The God of your salvation.
I do not believe in words, I believe in evidence.
That is why I'm an atheist, because I don't see any evidence of God, but I have thousands of reasons not to believe in him.
When I read the bible, I do not see transcendent wisdom, I see a fictional being with the mindset of a human characterized as God.
Your God is not God, he is a primitive animal that destroys cities full of children because the adults in that city have an affinity towards consentual butt sex.
He is a monster who curses people for things their ancestors did, simply because they are part of a certain bloodline.
He is a racist who favours certain tribes and peoples over others.
He has the markings of a fictional character that very stupid, very primitive humans made up.
Your morality comes from a fictional tyrant that lives in the sky who was made up by barbaric bronze age retards.
You wouldn't know "reality" if it abseiled down your butt crack with a climbing rope.
You wouldn't know "truth" if it drilled a tunnel through your belly button and started mining for lint and dorito crumbs
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient
***********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: CON conduct is awful and PRO answers with better claims.
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is not sufficient. The voter needs to cite at least a forfeit or examples of extreme breechb of conduct in order to award this point. The argument point is insufficient. The voter needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
But he argued in the other rounds, you need to take those arguments into consideration
Con forfeit in round 1. I think my vote was fair.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeit. This is poor arguing and poor conduct..
>Reason for Mod Action: The conduct point is sufficient, however because con did not full forfeit, the voter still needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
Vote Report: Chopsphene // Removed
RFD: Mopac had better arguments and sources, spelling and conduct is a tie.
Reason: Voter fails to explain all points
Vote report: BillHowitzer
Mod Decision: Removed
RFD: Con's argument lacks any substance. Mopac's appeal to the dictionary is a valid point. If con wants to discredit the validity of the dictionary, then how do we know what any words that con used meant?
Reason: The voter fails to explain all points
Vote report: Jboy3r
Mod: Removed
RFD: Con made a very convincing argument but pro had better spelling and grammar.
Reason: None of these are explained properly
Vote report: zedvictor4
Mod decision: Removed
RFD (con arguments, pro sources spelling and conduct): Typical theist rhetoric based argument, lacking any real substance or evidence. But otherwise Pro's presentation was far superior, especially with regard to conduct.
Reason: Nothing is explained properly
Vote Report: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD (con arguments pro conduct): Con made convincing arguments in the final round even though your supposed to do this in prior rounds. He also forfeit a round which is poor conduct.
Reaosn: Arguments are not explained properly. The conduct point is fine
"What authority"
EXACTLY
Go away
"I gave you the definition of definition."
That isn't what I asked.
"You think that you can change the meanings of things written in the past by changing the way words are understood today."
No, that isn't what I'm getting at here.
"Well, there are a continuity of writings stretching back thousands of years spanning multiple languages. I know what my God is."
Ok, but do you know how dictionaries work?
"And I know your veiled ploy to undermine the dictionary's authority when it comes to the defining of terms is a waste of time, because it doesn't change what I'm saying."
LOL, What "authority"?
I gave you the definition of definition.
I already know what you think. You think that you can change the meanings of things written in the past by changing the way words are understood today.
Well, there are a continuity of writings stretching back thousands of years spanning multiple languages. I know what my God is.
And I know your veiled ploy to undermine the dictionary's authority when it comes to the defining of terms is a waste of time, because it doesn't change what I'm saying.
What am I saying? When I say God, I am talking about The Ultimate Reality.
What are you saying? Things written by people don't make those things true!
My God isn't made by the dictionary, you are wasting your time. Not only that, but I don't respect where you are coming from. You are striving about words to no profit.
Why? Because you are more interested in justifying yourself than understanding what I am saying, or really, understanding THE TRUTH.
You are being arbitrary. That is why you are asking this question. The purpose of it is so that you can say words are made up and everything is meaningless!
Get real. I'm not interested in talking to you.
I wasn't making an argument? I was asking how you think dictionaries work.
Not an argument
This comment wasn't particularly charitable.😂
I gave you an answer, and I was serious.
To me, you are the one who appears to be evading.
I don't respect your authority. You are are clearly arrogant and arbitrary. You are arguing with the dictionary because it accurately reveals your beliefs as worthless and stupid. You are too prideful to see this.
I'm not interested in arguing with you, it is foolishness to no profit.
Let me know when you have an answer, rather than an evasion.
Drafterman's arbitrary sense of personal aesthetics.
Where do you think definitions come from?
Here are some definitions of the word "definition" for you....
"a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol"
"a statement expressing the essential nature of something"
"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear"
I'm sure it'd be amusing to hear how YOU think a dictionary works.
"I don't know what a dictionary is or how it works, so I vote CON."
Mopac, just an FYI, I challenged Type1 to a follow-up debate on several of his arguments used in this debate (since there was some disagreement over your win), but Type1 declined.
Yes, I actually already had it on my favorites list. I'll be watching.
Also, I challenged Type1 to a debate on some of the smaller claims he made in this debate which I disagreed with. He declined.
Observe a real debate on this topic between Mopac and I. https://www.debateart.com/debates/309
It's cool. I won't likely use all that time, it is really just a safety buffer.
I post throughout the day but that is because I usually have little 15 minute windows.
It'll be better for both of us to make good debate.
Look forward to it.
I'm new to this site, and didn't notice the inbox messages. I retract that statement, with apologies. Three days seems a bit much, but so be it. I will make the debate with your specifications now.
Type1 is a jobber. This debate was an open invite and he jumped on it.
In fact, that is why I don't do open invite debates anymore.
Why pretend I refused to debate you?
I'm sure you got both of my PMs.
Check you Pm I told you that I would gladly debate you if you increased the time berween rounds.
I am particularly busy on the weekend and I have engagements during the week besides my regular work.
As I said, I challenged him/her/it to debate the same thing with me, and he/she/it declined. I guess he/she/it doesn't wanna debate a real debater. That little semantic would be refuted in the first round, and he/she/it would be screwed.
I wouldn't have approached the argument the same way, I'll give you that.
However, Pro did what they did, they provided a citation to support their point and stuck with that point to the end. Con mostly responded with ah-hominem, rhetorical claims, a complete lack of any sources and forfeited one round. I really don't see much of a contest here over who really won this debate.
There is a reason why Type1 is the lowest ranked debater on this site and it isn't because he wins a lot of arguments with his witty retorts.
And that is, of course, ignoring the fact that the dictionary's definition of "God" is entirely irrelevant to the debate in the first place, since Mopac is referring to the Christian god, which can only be validly defined by the Christian bible, wherein this god has an entirely different definition.
Then he/she/it needs to explain why he/she/it accepts only that specific definition from that specific dictionary when the overwhelming majority of definitions given by dictionaries are a variation of the one I just gave you. That is a case of pure semantics, thus a laughably pathetic excuse for an argument.
Oh, and let me add that I challenged Mopac to almost the same exact debate, and he/she/it declined. I wonder why.
Pro clearly cited Merriam Webster dictionary specifically.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
I had absolutely no difficulty finding the spot where it says "the supreme or ultimate reality" as the very first definition. Literally took me about 30 seconds.
God
ɡäd
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
As you can see, the dictionary defines "God" as a sentient entity, thus existence falls into question. There is no mention of "ultimate reality" or whatever nonsense Mopac is talking about. God is "the creator and ruler of the universe." One needs to prove the universe even has a creator, or a ruler, in order for that definition to matter at all in the context of whether or not this God exists, and even if one did somehow manage to prove the universe has a creator and ruler, one would then need to prove that this God is indeed the creator and ruler, and not some other such entity. But I guess you two geniuses don't grasp that concept do you?
By the way, I have never, do not, and will never claim that gods(any god at all) don't exist. I'd be just as delusional as theists are if I made that claim, because humans have no ability to prove nonexistence. I can no more prove gods don't exist than a theist can prove they/one do/does.
"All he did was cite some "sources"(in quotes because they aren't credible sources, as the sources equally did not prove their claims)"
So the dictionary is no longer credible and it has to "prove" what words mean?
Hey, I'm still new to this site. Does anyone know how I can post a reaction GIF of a person looking confused in response to a baffling statement?
You don't even know what God is.
That isnthe point of the dictionary.
The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.
What does that mean?
It means God exists by definition. Not only does God exist, but there is nothing more real than God.
So you are mistaken, God absolutely exists, and saying that God doesn't exist is an invalid and self defeating position.
Note that claims about God are not the same thing as God. Most people, whether they believe in God or not are superstitious.
It isn't much different than people saying different things are true. Just because some people say false things are true doesn't mean you throw out the whole thing and say that there is no truth!
And when you say God doesn't exist, you are saying "There is no truth" because God is The Truth.
All atheist arguments are contingent on making God something other than what God is. There is a difference between God and god. The dictionary acknowledges these are seperate words. You don't have this problem in all languages. For example, God in Arabic is Allah while god in Arabic is illah. Another example, God in Chinese is The Tao while god in Chinese is shen. They are different words.
You are right though, a dictionary doesn't prove God exists, but it does clarify what is meant when we are speaking of God. In this case, it is all the proof that is really necessary, because if The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, nothing is true, and that is ridiculous.
I don't know where you went to school and what they taught you there, but dictionaries don't hold proof of gods existing, so I'm not sure why you've mentioned the validity of such things.
@Raltar Alright then, you explain it. Pro did not prove his claims. All he did was cite some "sources"(in quotes because they aren't credible sources, as the sources equally did not prove their claims), and practically ignored Con's refutations. You can't win a debate without proving your claims, and the burden of proof lies with Pro. Therefore, Pro did not win this debate, yet people are voting for him. There are only two possible explanations for that: #1 people are, for whatever reason(I guessed bias) voting for someone they know didn't win, or #2 the voters are ignorant(have no idea how debates work).
And I assume you noticed where he claimed the site is biased and people only voted for you because they are rallying around the side they agree with?
I guess he missed the part where the owner of this site is an atheist, his head moderator is gay, the highest ranked debater is pagan and most of the users are politically left-wing. I'm sure all of those guys really wanted God to win this one, yeah?
Another one who doesn't accept the validity of the dictionary when it comes to the defining of terms.
Always amazes me.
@Admiral Stupidest? So I guess the concept of a site taking measures to ensure votes have merit and are actually based on the performance of both participants rather than people just rallying around the person whose ideology they agree with is too complicated for you to comprehend?
"So, if I don’t explain my reasoning my vote is removed."
Yes.
So, if I don’t explain my reasoning my vote is removed. That is the stupidest rule I have ever heard of.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Kommandant_Nomad // Moderator action: Removed<
1 point to Pro (conduct), 3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Argument's to CON as PRO's argument's revolved around god is true because Christians said he was. Conduct to PRO for CON's FF and borderline ad hominems. Grammar was fine. Neither listed sources for their arguments.
[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do one of two things. Either they must analyze arguments from both sides of the debate or they must explain why the burden of proof in the debate is structured in such a way that they only need to analyze arguments from one side. The voter only discusses Pro’s case, failing to discuss Con’s contribution to the debate at all, thus failing to meet these requirements.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: AdmiralSn4ckb4r // Moderator action: Removed<
7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: There is no factual evidence to suggest that god exists. All it is, is your word against theirs
[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb. This vote has no explanation for any points it awards.
==================================================================
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments; 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: I hope this vote does not get deleted. Con had more concise arguments that were easier to understand. However, Con forfeit a round without apologizing. This is poor conduct.
>Reason for Mod Action: Unfortunately, the voter fails to "survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision," and fails to engage in any explicit analysis of these arguments. This renders the awarding of argument points insufficient.
************************************************************************