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
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 8 votes and 18 points ahead, the winner is ...
Mopac
Parameters
More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Religion
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 30,000
Contender / Con
30
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description
~ 154
/
5,000
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.