Instigator / Pro
Points: 48

Atheism towards The One True God is foolish and/or ignorant

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 8 votes the winner is ...
Mopac
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 30
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
Published:
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
Published:
The Truth is God.
Published:
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
Published:
"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.


Published:
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
Published:
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


Published:
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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

Added:
--> @SupaDudz
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient
***********************************************************************
#59
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
*******************************************************************
>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
************************************************************************
#58
Added:
--> @Alec
But he argued in the other rounds, you need to take those arguments into consideration
#57
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Con forfeit in round 1. I think my vote was fair.
#56
Added:
--> @Alec
*******************************************************************
>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
************************************************************************
#55
Added:
--> @chopsphene
Vote Report: Chopsphene // Removed
RFD: Mopac had better arguments and sources, spelling and conduct is a tie.
Reason: Voter fails to explain all points
#54
Added:
--> @BillHowitzer
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
#53
Added:
--> @Jboy3r
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
#52
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
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
#51
Added:
--> @Alec
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
#50
Added:
"What authority"
EXACTLY
Go away
Instigator
#49
Added:
--> @Mopac
"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"?
#48
Added:
--> @drafterman
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.
Instigator
#47
Added:
--> @Mopac
I wasn't making an argument? I was asking how you think dictionaries work.
#46
Added:
--> @drafterman
Not an argument
Instigator
#45
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct outweighs all of CONs arguments due to conceding round 1 and clear rudeness throughout the rounds
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro definitely had better conduct. Con engaged in constant ad hominem attacks. Also, given the definitions that Pro worked with, which Con did not challenge, it is hard to argue that COn had better arguments. Since Con also forfeited, Pro gets the vote for conduct.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
In short: Pro's case is very weak, but con wished to attack pro instead of challenging the case.
Pro's case is one of semantics, that if you define the world as God, than to be atheist world be to reject the very concept of reality... About the only flaw con caught in that is the cherry picked definition, but could find no counterpoint to it, nor the existence of any other definition (a single good one for atheist would have been better than his entire case). He rather built a case around other things that he would like to apply the same definition toward, which would not actually invalidate pro's case.
Conduct: Forfeiture and pointless insults. Con event went so far as to make claims about pro's hygiene ("dorito crumbs"). I wish I could penalize this twice.
Sources: Leaning pro for sure, but I do not award them for such light things as the dictionary.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con points out that Pros' definitions are simply statements made by people (including the dictionary definition) and that these statements (definition included) do not alone make something True. Pro does not address this rebuttal and simply restates his argument. However, Pro maintained better composure and additional gets conduct points for Con's forfeit.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
If it weren't for Con's use of ad hominem attacks, he'd have gotten all my votes. Pro seems to think he can prove an argument by making claims. He therefore has no understanding of how debate works. He quoted some "scholars" who likewise made claims without any proof or even evidence to back them up, and expected Con to somehow swallow it as evidence/proof. To put it simply: Pro has no case, his arguments were fallacious at best, and he was utterly obliterated in this debate by the first round. The fact that he got so many votes says a lot about the bias inherent in the voters of this site. Notice how I gave Pro the conduct vote, even though I completely disagree with him. That's because I'm an honest voter.
Pro made claims and didn't prove them. Con called him out on it, and Pro didn't refute Con's arguments. Con wins.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro provided a source by citing the dictionary, but Con never provided any sources. Con claims he has thousands of reasons not to believe in God, but based on the very small sample of reasons he provided, I can only assume that all of those reasons boil down to him being personally offended by the historical accounts of events surrounding the ancient Israelites. By the end of the debate he was just ranting about "retards" and "butt sex" with no obvious purpose, which was poor conduct.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to pro due to forfeit.
Pros main argument was to define God into existence, con needed to attack this definition directly. While he came close by arguing that you can’t arbitrarily say God is Truth - but due to the definition Pro chose, it is not Arbitrary. Therefore cons counter was ineffective - without inherently demonstrating the issue with pros definition, pros argument stands and thus pro wins on arguments.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con never offered an alternative definition for God that could be sourced. The issue with this debate is that Pro defines God as truth itself and Con just says 'no it isn't just the truth because you say it is' but the dictionary that Pro used wasn't his/her own words so... Con loses by default.