There is NO god. (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 13,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
A little backstory here, I grew up with a VERY religious family. I believed in God (the Christianity one) for a very long time. but when I reached high school, it finally dawned on me that I was believing in a God that would send anyone to hell (suffering in horrible agony for the rest of existence BTW) for just not believing in them. if ol daddy in the sky DOES exist, I'm about to royally piss him off. There is NO god, change my mind.
There is NO god. (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all)
There is NO god.
- God does not exist.
- There is a lack of God.
- It is false that "God Exists".
- I am going to Sue Andrews' company.
- I am going to sue Andrews' company.
- The telescope is fast.
- The telescope is FAST.
(Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all)
- (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all) There is NO god.
- There is (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all) NO god.
- There is NO god (Specifically Christianity though I think there are NO gods at all).
- Consider the topic not provable at all, as the second part of the topic is in no way integrable into any sentence or become its own sentence meaningfully;
- OR to drop said second part, and make the first part the only statement required for proof or disproof.
There is NO god.
There exists no nitrous oxide god.
- And God said, Let there be light.
- There is no peace.
It was a very long and detailed description on the meaning of "NO" and how the sentence "There are NO gods" is not grammatically correct.
for example, The SKY iS BluE! is correct yet not grammatically correct.
There was not a single sentence in the argument working to forward their side, it was just a glorified grammar lesson in terms of importance to the topic.
2. What is a god?
Also, irrelevant. Pro has yet to prove that NO god exists, possibly a nitrous oxide deity, but alas, no proof of anything that could be "NO god".
3. Burden of proof
There is no established Burden of Proof prior. Therefore, as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported".
4. My argument
- All criticism on what the topic might mean and on my interpretation of said string that serves as the topic have been settled and proven to be futile to dismantle said interpretation. Said interpretation is maintained.
- Pro did not prove the existence of NO god despite obviously intending to keeping the topic as so due to how the topic is typed.
- Therefore, the topic statement is unsupported. Vote Con. Thank you for reading this hunk of text.
I argued that "There is NO god." is a grammatically correct sentence and is distinct from "There is no god."
as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported". So far, I have shown just that.
This sentence is neither correct nor grammatically correct due to the term "iS" being obviously different from "is" and thus cannot serve as "is". Thus, this sentence has no verb, meaning that it cannot ever make sense pragmatically or semantically.
so what do you have to argue with?
Pro made around the first round without ever defining what a god is. If Pro can do it the second round, Pro could do it the last round and make Pro winning much easier. Except...that is moving the goalpost
Pro made around the first round without ever defining the actual burden of proof. On the contrary, I did last round."There is no established Burden of Proof prior. Therefore, as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported."
- All criticism on what the topic might mean and on my interpretation of said string that serves as the topic have been settled and proven to be futile to dismantle said interpretation. Said interpretation is maintained.
- Pro did not prove the existence of NO god despite obviously intending to keeping the topic as so due to how the topic is typed.
- Therefore, the topic statement is unsupported. Vote Con. Thank you for reading this hunk of text.
- Criticism is very much maintained.
- At least I tried to prove anything.
- False, and vote Pro please.
- Con has yet to present their points and is instead simply coasting off criticism against Pro.
- Pro is the only one who has presented their points to forward their side.
- Con didn't even try to argue Pro's points.
- Pro is the better option to vote for, thank you and have a good day.
Please, for my own sanity, just give me some points to go against!
- Pro did not prove the existence of NO god despite obviously intending to keeping the topic as so due to how the topic is typed.\
we're here to debate whether gods exist believe it or not
I AM concerned, on whether or not we can get this debate back on track.
So you argued that "There is NO god" was untrue/unsupported by saying it was grammatically correct and distinct from "There is no god"?
The word "iS" is simply a slightly misspelled version of "is" and would serve the same purpose to anyone not critiquing the sentence's grammar,
- I think iS is just a regular stock photo app and there are better alternatives.
- I think is is just a regular stock photo app and there are better alternatives.
But did I do it on the last round? No, I did it on the second, this is just invalid and useless.
There is no established Burden of Proof prior. Therefore, as Con, all that is there to do is to prove the inverse of the topic, not "there is NO god", but merely "that the statement 'there is NO god' is untrue/unsupported".[CON R1]
Pro: Must prove that no Gods or deities exist.Con: Must prove that at least one God or deity does exist.
No, you did not. What does Pro have to prove then? If "there is NO god" is false, then prove it with points.
- The topic is nevertheless still "There is NO god." and not "There is no god.".
- Pro assumes the topic means the latter and builds a set of BoP upon it, despite the fact that it is not the topic.
- Therefore, the BoP it intended to override, the one I established in R1, is the one to go with.
- According to that set of BoP, all I need to prove is that "There is NO god." is not supported. Pro did not point out anything wrong with it(and cannot do that anymore) and Pro did not prove "There is NO god." with any points at all due to a faulty assumption.
- Therefore, as of now, Con still has the upper hand.
- Gods have been inactive. We live in a world where information is shared extremely quickly with the internet and cameras, and we have seen nothing. Yet in nearly all pantheons, gods are constantly interacting with humans, changing fates, birthing heroes, and just doing god stuff. I find it very hard to believe that no undeniable miracles or evidence has shown up if any gods really do exist.
- Numbers. There are so many religions with so many gods in them. Knowing that there is one truth to the question, that means only one if any of the religions on earth is actually correct, so the others prove that religions can simply form from falsehood. Maybe religions simply interpret the same stories though, but if that was the case, all religions would almost certainly have many similarities, yet all the major religions and many of the smaller ones differ so drastically from one another that this seems impossible.
- We created gods to explain what we didn't understand. Back when we had no understanding of gravity, atoms, and quarks, the only way we could explain lightning or floods or earthquakes was by creating stories, lands, and gods we couldn't see that did all of that with motives far beyond our understanding. Now in this modern age we understand how and why those things happen, and our view of the universe we inhabit has increased ten-fold.
- Con has presented no points while Pro has.
- Con has repeatedly dodged talking about the topic.
- Con has not made a single attempt to prove their side correct.
- Con has focused on "NO" vs. "no" more than the topic itself.
- Con's arguments are disappointing.
- Vote for Pro, and have an amazing day recovering from reading this debate.
Do you think you're going to win like this?
I gave you a burden of proof when it was unclear, I presented points working toward my side, and I did my best to keep this debate on track.
- Pro presented no BoP frameworks in the description nor the first round argument.
- Con presented a BoP framework in the first round to which Pro did not attempt to object(Well, Pro did not explain why in an unexplained setup like this prior to the first round, the BoP defaults to Pro).
- Pro presented a BoP framework in the 2nd round that is not only attempting to override the established BoP to which Pro did not disagree with, but is based on the interpretation of "There is no god" which is different from "There is NO god", the latter being the title, therefore this BoP is entirely unreasonable as it is unreasonable to assume "NO" == "no".
- Con's original text of his BoP can be seen in R1 and R3.
I failed, the moment you turned this debate into a grammar lesson and a space where the topic has been argued so little in place of plain pettiness.
This entire damn debate has been turned on its head because you insist that "NO" is entirely different from "no" instead of debating the topic.
I honestly just want this "debate" done with at this point.
2. My points
- Con has presented no points while Pro has.
- Con has repeatedly dodged talking about the topic.
- Con has not made a single attempt to prove their side correct.
- Con has focused on "NO" vs. "no" more than the topic itself.
- Con's arguments are disappointing.
- Vote for Pro, and have an amazing day recovering from reading this debate.
In this case, Pro won by default. Con decided to go a different route and not really stick to the spirit of this debate but rather tried for the technical side of grammar and such. So, all in all, Con didn't even debate the idea of the topic given, even when the opening round made it obvious to what Pro was trying to do.
This is an interesting one. Con's case rests on the assumption that if a statement is grammatically incorrect, it cannot be affirmed. Both sides propose completely different burdens of proof.
I find it questionable whether capitalization affects the meaning of the resolution in this case. If that's true, then none of oromagi's resolutions mean anything, but Pro never brings up this precedent. Capitalization can be used for emphasis, and I'm not sure whether that's grammatically incorrect or just stylistic.
These are arguments Pro doesn't make, but as a voter I have to weigh arguments against the resolution, and I do have some discretion in that regard. That said, I'm willing to let this debate take a non-conventional path.
My interpretation is that Pro supports the resolution, which is all that's necessary under Con's burden of proof. "ThE sKy Is BlUe" was enough to establish this point. Con can critique the grammar, but the meaning of the statement is clear enough to me as a voter that Pro's interpretation is reasonable. So I feel that the resolution was affirmed for all intensive purposes
No, this isn’t Toki Pona, and you would not call the current US president “Biden person.”
I prefer the idea being “Nitrogen monoxide god”.
A God named "NO"?
Exactly.
I feel like this debate was more about grammer and technicality rather than proving/disproving religion.
thank you😂
"If that's true, then none of oromagi's resolutions mean anything"
Well, I suppose if all words are capitalized, then it is acceptable that they all mean the same as if they were lowercase due to them being styled the same. In this case, the "NO" stand out meaning that it is a choice of wording to include the capitalized version instead of that of the lowercase.
👍``
I don't feel like voting right this moment,
Maybe won't later either,
I just wanted to post my thoughts on your round 1,
Not that my thoughts are great,
But I enjoy posting them anyhow sometimes, once thought of.
I would argue that not all Christians believe in Hell as some fire pit of eternal torment,
Nor do all Christians believe God literally resides in the Heavens/Sky.
I am unsure what you mean by the 'modern age of science,
That people were clueless as to how the world around them really worked,
Or that Humans had no knowledge about atoms,
"Democritus (/dɪˈmɒkrɪtəs/; Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from Abdera, primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.[1] None of his work has survived."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus
Of course Dēmókritos example can be rebutted, but Intelligence_06 takes debate another course.
. . .
The Old Testament, 'seems to me an impressive record of history, poetry, and philosophy,
I say 'seems, because I don't know that much of it.
. .
I don't think Jews look upon their religions writings the same some Christians do,
History is passed down through people, different history books exist, different science books,
But this is not to say their claims do not exist.
Even if it is not 'exact,
One person says there was a man named Dan who did this and that,
Another person says there was a man named Dann who did this and that,
We might say a man named Dan and a man named Dann could not have existed at the same time,
But 'roughly 'someone did,
If Dan/Dann had been a criminal at some crime scene,
Police would not say oh a word contradiction and ignore,
They would focus on there being a man at the crime scene, 'likely a man with a name possibly or similar to Dan/Dann.
. . . . . . . . .
"Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.[10][11]
Some scholars estimate that there are about 30 surviving independent sources written by 25 authors who attest to Jesus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
2000 years ago, was a 'long time ago.
. . . . . . . . .
What qualifies as a miracle,
And who can say what 'happened long ago?
Take the Red Sea,
Waters may recede provided circumstance provides,
Provide a crossing,
Or return and drown an army.
Modern miracles for some people, include merely surviving a car crash,
Problem with these arguments of mine here, of course are an Atheistic bent,
One might argue an invisible gardener absurd,
Or that my arguments are the opposite of anthromorphizing,
But I'm rambling, well, I'm not a Christian.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I suppose a different argument might be an event doesn't happen for a long period of time,
So people assume it never existed to begin with.
You're telling me
One of the most genuine compliments I have received over the past year. Flattery is intended to be exhibited.
This is one of the weirdest serious debates I've read 😂
Looking at my 3rd argument now it seems a little petty, especially at the end, sorry about that.
You're not likely to get my vote for such tactics.
I simply interpret topics as strings because they are presented as so, and when the opposing side insists this string means something, I prioritize analyzing the string itself and go from there.
It was back when I actually tried taking a debating class and on the last class I tried to be a little cheeky and got labeled “off-topic”. After that, I strove to argue what the topic is and only what the topic is so that it will absolutely never be off-topic, because, well, it is the topic itself, not some vague entity the opposing side thinks the topic is above.
So far, the captalized “NO” is enough reason for me to believe that what Pro thinks Pro is trying to argue is purposefully disconnected from what Pro made the title to be, even if it is an accident. But the title is set in stone, the Rosetta Stone of the ever-growing internet, and upon acceptance the mistake is way too late for correction.
When I have even just threshold motivation, I accept every topic that is obviously exploitable. If you ask why I don’t debate such as Whiteflame, it is because he makes his arguments, well, not so easily acceptable. Still, learning how topics can be exploited just based on how they are written is in my opinion a good strategy for new users, like I did for the past years.
I view Intelligence_06 as an intelligent person,
Their arguments 'do make sense,
And it's fair for people to encourage other's to use airtight debate titles, definitions, description.
But I prefer more laid back debates myself,
Would rather point out such in the comments if it 'really needs be,
And think it more 'friendly, to debate people as they 'intended to be debated.
That last part honestly made my day, I was worried that Cons arguments made more sense to other people than they did to me.
@DavidAZ
I think myself, many later Atheists only give slight or shallow thought to religion and God in their childhood and teenage years,
Maybe even their adult years.
I also think many, (Though not all) are bitter,
Though reasons vary.
The one's who 'are bitter though,
Well, when one is angry, even less likely they 'think about the arguments given by their opponent,
Just applies to most people on any topic,
Viewing the other as the enemy, or something hateful, stupid, reduces objective consideration.
. . .
I'm not bitter about religion, then 'or now,
But I didn't think about it 'much as a kid,
Nor when I questioned it,
Nor now while I don't believe it.
@Intelligence_06
Why do you debate like this?
Azeal's meaning is clear enough to me.
Jamgiller, I do think, and know myself, that a child does regurgitate what their parents tell them. Usually the faith is not repeated when the child is rebelling against the parent(s) and their way of life. This is stemmed from a environment that is not loving and full of power or control, which is usually the case with most religious homes. The reason for this is that I believe most religious people don't really care about God as much as how the religion soothes their own conscience and guilt OR the idea of being a super-spiritual giant and being able to hear from God directly.
So if a child becomes baptized at an early age on their own will, it's usually because their parents taught them to do so, which is good, but there will become a time that the child will decide themselves if they will stay in that way of life. Since being a Christian is supposed to make people walk righteously (obviously nobody is perfect, but they should strive for it), then it should not harm others around them, including their children, but again, most people don't really care about the things of God, but rather what they can extract from God and His church.
So, Azeal, the reason I asked about your parent's treatment to you is because I have a brother who talks just like you and when we talk about religion years later, he doesn't come from rational thinking, it comes from anger and bitterness. Therefore, he will use any statement he can to justify his way of thought, regardless of how it sounds or where it comes from.
Anyways, good luck on the debate.
My family was and is VERY religious, and I chose to not be in 7th grade.
Do you think that young children from baptism to confirmation are only regurgitating what their parents tell them?
I'd like to jump in the comments here and say that if your belief in God stopped at high school, then you never thought about God at all. You only regurgitated what your parents told you. Around the age of 16 or so, a person will start to become independent and start to think for themselves. So really, if you stopped believing in God that early, then you never really thought about God and your description proves this.
I'd like to ask, how did your parents treat you? Because this is a classic example of teen rebellion to the parents and not a rational thinker.
Im interested to see how this debate goes
Doesn't matter.
Is the debate here specifically about Christianity or about God in general?
Glad to hear your story!