CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:145
Arguments:146
Total Votes:159
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Open challenge to the religious. (136)

Debate Creator

WastingAway(340) pic



Open challenge to the religious.

Okay so obviously there are a lot of religious (and non-religious) people on this site. My challenge here is not an argument, just a question that I wish you to answer. I want you to ask this same question to any other religious people you know, and have them try to answer.
I want someone to provide me with one piece of evidence. Hard, testable, empirical evidence in support for the existence of a god or gods. It doesn't even need to be supporting your own god. One piece of evidence, because that is all you need to win the debate about religion. I, and every other atheist, will convert to that correct religion if you can provide us evidence.
So please, make your religion proud and prove that you are right. Not with threats of hell (Saintnow), not with ad hominem "arguments" (Enlightened). One piece of proof and I will convert. 
If you think that this is an unreasonable challenge and you are religious maybe you should consider as to why.
Add New Argument
1 point

Dear Wasting:

Your challenge is a pointless call for direct proof that does not exist. You are likely aware that there is NO direct proof on either side of the question.

I'm using a small tablet and you are wasting valuable screen space with your meaningless drivel.

So there 😕

WastingAway(340) Clarified
3 points

And that is exactly why I asked it; there's no point to having any religion debate at all until someone religious can prove their standpoint to some extent. Otherwise the only legitimate position you can have is that there is no god.

1 point

Good Job Old Man. You told him what fer!

1 point

this is a very interesting ?.. but simple... gods evidence of existence is as simple as you itself... the manifestation of all things is he alone... god is not on a scale of man so he can not just be represented as one thing alone.. just as we all believe in science. but science is nothing without its counter parts ( protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms etc) break it down a little more simpler. water is H2O indisputable but water is non existent if the molecules did not work together as in 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen which equals water. thats just me explaining it without using the good books... remember god is simply the creater. so we are substance of him... so we can not measure him.

Jedd2001(1) Disputed
2 points

And God is nothing without people believing in him. We don't need any creator, the big bang, evolution and common sense are all we need. You can't just say this exists, because of God, and it exists because of God and you exist because of God. I exist now, and there is no evidence that God has anything to do with it.

WastingAway(340) Disputed
1 point

And why can this logic not be applied to anything else that we can't prove? I could use the same logic in support for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if I were to say it created us.

WastingAway(340) Clarified
1 point

Note that this is not to say that that logic is sound, nor is it proof. Until it is proven with evidence we cannot just assume that there is a creator because we simply do not know and that is wayy too big a question to boil down to "because it sounds right."

1 point

""""I want someone to provide me with one piece of evidence. Hard, testable, empirical evidence in support for the existence of a god or gods."""////

You set up a question for which you can not receive an answer. What is empirical and testable in finite by definition. But If God were finite, then it wouldn't be God , now would it .

So your question is stupid. Formally, its a Category Error Fallacy

Cartman(18205) Disputed
3 points

What is empirical and testable in finite by definition.

Not true. Things that are infinite can have parts that are empirical and testable. The infinite thing can't be fully explained/tested, but parts of it can. Parts of an infinite system can be finite.

But If God were finite, then it wouldn't be God , now would it .

It could actually.

WastingAway(340) Disputed
1 point

The idea that something is unprovable and should therefore be accepted is in itself a much bigger fallacy than demanding proof of it.

"But If God were finite, then it wouldn't be God , now would it ."

That in and of itself is a "stupid" notion, the idea that something doesn't need and cannot be proven is idiotic to say the least! Nothing that is real is untestable, to entertain the notion that something is is a pointless pastime at best but to seriously believe it is ridiculous and detrimental.

Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

"""Nothing that is real is untestable""""///

Testable how ?

Uh oh !

1 point

Uniformity in nature. Can an atheist account for the uniformity in nature, without presupposing uniformity?

Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

Uniformity in nature is known to be true. There is nothing to presuppose.

sceathers(155) Disputed
1 point

How is it known to be true? Is it because it's always been that way?

1 point

Ladies and gentlemen I asked the creator of this debate---WastingAway--- one simple question but fundamental question.......... I asked him to define God.

You will not want to miss this.

Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

That backfired on you.

1 point

Wastingaway, Now that you made a fool of yourself , go and learn the correct definition

WastingAway(340) Disputed
1 point

Your entire argument was "We can't have evidence of a god (not true) therefore we mus presume God exists (also not true)" and then you proceeded to defend that position by ignoring points made and repeating yourself. "I'm right because I'm right" is not a mentality that can expect anyone to respect. Your points were answered, and you lost the debate. Your blatant lack of arguments hitherto is proof of that.

Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

"""Your entire argument was "We can't have evidence of a god"" """///

Ladies and Gentlemen, now watch as he quotes where I said that, and at the same time watch how he makes a fool of himself yet again.

This is why the debating atheists is so fun, folks.

Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

There is no single correct definition. God is a made up entity. You can give it any definition you want since it isn't real.

1 point

Um...the Virgin Mary appeared on my toast...so yeah. .

All religions are faith-based in that they require accepting something as true without proof or facts.

1 point

Ladies and gentlemen, notice how Wastingaway failed to answer where did I imply that my entire argument was "We can't have evidence of a god".

Also notice how some other idiot said : ""The part where you said we can't measure anything infinite you dumb fuck"".

Notice how this other idiot made an arbitrary interpretation.

So, Notice how I single-handedly ended this debate.

My fellow Theists. If you thought debating atheists was difficult, follow me and become my fan. So you can learn how really simple this is.

Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

Ladies and gentlemen, notice how Wastingaway failed to answer where did I imply that my entire argument was "We can't have evidence of a god".

You didn't actually ask for the quote.

Also notice how some other idiot said : ""The part where you said we can't measure anything infinite you dumb fuck"".

We did. It was an incredibly intelligent response that you couldn't respond to.

Notice how this other idiot made an arbitrary interpretation.

It isn't an arbitrary interpretation. It is by definition, like you keep saying. It is also an interpretation that you couldn't respond to.

So, Notice how I single-handedly ended this debate.

Yes, we see how you single handedly ended the debate before you started and how the 2 people who responded to you tried actually debating.

My fellow Theists.

You are an Atheist. You believe there is no evidence of God.

If you thought debating atheists was difficult, follow me and become my fan. So you can learn how really simple this is.

When are you going to start debating? You can't even respond in a way where the website will notify your opponents.

0 points

Sorry there was a glitch of some kind so two debates were made

Saintnow(3684) Disputed Banned
1 point

If you have the right to exist outside of Hell, why are you not burning in it now?

0 points

You are religious. You call your religion "wasting away". In your religion, you pass your time wasting away as you try to convince yourself that you have the right to exist outside of Hell.

If I felt like "Hell" is a threat, I would try to find out for sure how I could never be threatened by it ever again in any way. I don't like threats. When I feel threatened, I try to see if the threat is real, and if it is or could be real, what measures can I take to be safe from it, if any? In reality, that is what your religion is, trying to make Hell go away but unable to fully persuade yourself that it is gone, so you keep doing whatever to try to keep yourself safe from it. Burying your head in the sand seems to work for now.

WastingAway(340) Disputed
2 points

That is not an answer to this challenge. I wasn't being vague, and if you're really so confident then you should have no problem with it.

Give me a legitimate answer, if you keep dodging the question and resorting to the bullshit you have always used then I will ban you from the debate.

I'm not being unreasonable, I'm not being vauge. You can't make unwarranted claims without evidence and expect them to go unchallenged purely out of those claims. Give. Me. Proof.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed Banned
1 point

You want a "legitimate" answer? That's legal talk. So is "justified". Death is justice for sinners. Hell is eternal dying, it is legitimate punishment for creatures who have turned against their Creator.

You are trying to legitimize yourself when in reality you cannot justify your living. If you could justify your living, you would not have to die. God gives you time because He does not want you dying forever. He wants you to be saved, legitimately. The only way that God can be legitimate to save you when your sins against Him demand His justice is to take your punishment on Himself, and that's what He did as the Son of God on the cross for you, shed His life's blood to pay your debt so you can be forgiven in His resurrection. If you can't find legitimacy in that, only the fire of Hell can legitimize your existence as a sinner and you will know it if you believe it now or if you wait until you can't get out before you believe it. The truth seems like a threat only if you are fighting against it. God loves you, stop fighting. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved from Hell. It's reality I'm talking about. Religion can't help you, you can't help yourself to stop your dying. Jesus is the Savior.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed Banned
0 points

You need to challenge yourself. I do not feel threatened by Hell, I know my sins are forgiven and I am going to heaven, I know I have eternal life now and death cannot hurt me. I want everybody to know what I know, but most people are too proud and they think they have the right to exist outside of Hell because they are good enough to not be punished that way now.....but they are dying now, under the death penalty, on death row, that should be enough proof that they are not too good to be punished in death, even eternal death the same as the continual dying they are in now.....

the faith of God is reasonable, logical, legitimate. God is trying to reason with you to bring you into a peace agreement with Him so He can pardon you and bring you to Heaven. God loves you. He's being patient with you. His patience will run out eventually if you wont' stop fighting Him.

0 points

He created a debate called reality vs. religion, and he had his religion as reality and actual reality as religion. He has everything backwards and you will never get a real answer.

Cartman(18205) Disputed
0 points

You are describing your belief. You fear hell and you are taking the steps to avoid it. Stop projecting your thoughts on us.

0 points

Watch how easy this is.

Atheist I assume you're a rational person. So you would never claim there's no evidence for something if you cannot state what that evidence would consists of.

Otherwise your claim would be meaningless. So tell us, what evidence would that be ?

Cartman(18205) Disputed
2 points

You are arguing that there is no evidence and it is ok that there is no evidence. You also argue that anyone who thinks there is no evidence is committing a fallacy. You are an idiot.

1 point

I was walking with God the other day. He sneezed. I didn't know what to say.