CreateDebate


Debate Info

72
112
Atheists Religion
Debate Score:184
Arguments:163
Total Votes:236
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Atheists (66)
 
 Religion (78)

Debate Creator

warrior(1854) pic



Atheism and Religion, which truly bears the burden of proof.

We all know by now what the burden of proof is and on to whom it falls. He who makes the claim must then prove it. Therefor Atheists have long said that we the faithful must provide proof of God's existence since we are claiming he exsists. But I say otherwise. The belief in God or God's in some form is not new, it is as old as humanity. However the lack of belive in any such deity is new VERY new. So Therefor I submit that it is not the idea of God''s existence which is the claim but rather the belief that there is no God which is the claim, and therefore the onus is on Atheists to prove that God dosent exsist.

Atheists

Side Score: 72
VS.

Religion

Side Score: 112
2 points

being an atheist like myself, I believe in science and common sense, I decide at a young age to question the religious drivel being fed to me at school, and look at the evidence behind it all.

when you really break religion down and try to find the truth and fact behind the words and story's, there's nothing to be found.

so why would I dedicate my one life to myth and hearsay when science has given and proven everything to me.

Side: Atheists
1 point

Belief in a deity or deities probably serves some evolutionary function, possibly to do with herd instinct, otherwise, given how counter to rationale it is, it wouldn't be so strong and so common. It must make some kind of sense

Side: Atheists
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

Can science explain how our planet exsists in the state that it dose ie supporting life. Despite how incredibly rare that is? Can it explain how our planet somehow hit the intergalactic lottery and not only has all the right factors for supporting life interrerorly but exteriorly as well such as the moon, being the exact right distance from the sun, and having Jupiter in just the exact perfect position to protect us from meteors despite scientists themselves stating how incredibly rare even one of these factors are by themselves?

Side: Atheists
2 points

Can science explain how our planet exsists in the state that it dose ie supporting life. Despite how incredibly rare that is?

Yes, and it isn't. The planet exists within the Goldilocks zone, a range from the sun that requires a certain planet density. We have found millions of planets that exist within this zone.

Can it explain how our planet somehow hit the intergalactic lottery and not only has all the right factors for supporting life interrerorly but exteriorly as well such as the moon, being the exact right distance from the sun, and having Jupiter in just the exact perfect position to protect us from meteors despite scientists themselves stating how incredibly rare even one of these factors are by themselves?

Can you please provide a citation for this claim that all these factors are "incredibly rare"? Because, for example, this "exact right distance from the sun" is measured in millions of miles.

Side: Religion
minimurph83(194) Disputed
1 point

Its only rare because were still gathering evidence about our existence, and were finding out more and more day by day unlike Religion? if you think religion explains everything you have questioned me on then your incredibly lazy minded.

you have chosen the easy route in believing what your told and not questioning it. how old does religion believe the earth is?? does religion explain dinosaurs?? does religion explain the Jupiter the sun or anything remotely factual?? religion is a fools game and only fool would use it to justify our existence.

Side: Religion
1 point

This is an ignorant question. If I make a claim, I have the burden of proof. If you reject my claim, you have Burden of Clash. It's simple. If you reject my claim, I'm going to ask you why. And that's where you're going to make a whole bunch of positive claims.

Side: Atheists
Cartman(18191) Disputed
3 points

In what way is your claim rejected? Your claim is simply dismissed because it has no backing.

Side: Religion
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

But.....but.....burden of clash!

Side: Atheists
1 point

Are other theists watching me handle these atheists ?

I hope you are learning the correct approach. I'm showing it for free

Side: Atheists
3 points

What, start a debate then run away half way through?

Nice methodology.

Side: Religion
minimurph83(194) Disputed
1 point

DELVIS:What is your stance on this subject? your answers arnt clear to me? not trying to be derogative or out you down

Side: Religion
Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

I just demonstrated how atheism carries the same burden of proof, because they cannot avoid making a positive claim. If they reject a claim, they reject it for rational reasons, or for irrational ones. If the reasons are irrational, they are simply dismissed. If the reasons are rational, they must elucidate them. And once they do, that's where the fun starts. Because they will have to make a whole bunch of positive claims.

And that's when they get crushed

Side: Atheists
1 point

This is what happens to atheists when they face someone well prepared. Go ahead, study and learn.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Atheism isselfRefuting5

They won't get any appeals to faith or emotions from me. I destroy them with pure Logic.

Side: Atheists
3 points

You just linked to a debate where you didn't provide any arguments and ran away half way through.

You didn't use logic. You think that if you can ask someone enough questions, you win. Your "trick" is that you don't ever even try to prove your point, you just try to argue theirs. Which is why you ran away half way through our debate: Because I knew what you were doing ahead of time.

Side: Religion
1 point

I didnt need to do anything. You had no position from the start. It wasn't even fair

Side: Religion

we proved the earth wasn't flat yet for thousands of years we believed it was! only in the last hundred to two hundred years have we started to understand the universe and the world we populate, so only recently have we looked at religion and questioned it, because science has given us the evidence to do that, religion hasn't given us anything to counter or to clarify? thus more and more people choose to not believe in unfounded and man made myths and rules!! and more burden of proof is placed upon religion.

Side: Atheists
Delvis(221) Clarified
1 point

Atheism has the same amount of burden of proof every step of the way. Because if I give you an argument, you will conclude that I am right or I am wrong. If you conclude that I am wrong, you have to give me reasons. And you must demonstrate that your reasons are more Justified than mine

Side: Atheists
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

Atheism has the same amount of burden of proof every step of the way.

Atheism by definition is the negation of Theism. It bears no more burden of proof than the negation of any claim. It is the null hypothesis. If someone claims that they discovered a previously unknown species of primate in Peru, it is not my burden to prove that they didn't. If they have video or photographic evidence, hair samples, footprints, an article from a reputable publisher announcing the discovery, or other physical evidence, then they have met the burden of proof. If I counter-claim that these photographs, news article or hair samples are fake, now I am making a positive claim and now I bear the burden of proof.

Side: Religion
1 point

Don't atheists know that they have always been the overwhelming minority ?

Don't they realize what this implies even from an evolutionary perspective ?

Side: Atheists
Cartman(18191) Disputed
3 points

What point are you trying to make with your ad populum fallacy?

Side: Religion
1 point

Atheism has the same amount of burden of proof every step of the way. Because if I give you an argument, you will conclude that I am right or I am wrong. If you conclude that I am wrong, you have to give me reasons. And you must demonstrate that your reasons are more Justified than mine

Side: Atheists
minimurph83(194) Disputed
1 point

There is the same burden, but when science has proven so much and religion so little the greater burden fall on religion.

Science always seeks the answer to the unknown with evidence, religion cant answer with evidence only assumption and belief.

Side: Religion
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

There is the same burden, but when science has proven so much and religion so little the greater burden fall on religion.

The burden of proof rests on the one making the positive claim.

Side: Atheists
Delvis(221) Disputed
0 points

""""There is the same burden, but when science has proven so much and religion so little""///

WTF !! What does science have to do with this ?

Side: Atheists
0 points

When you have proof of having the right to exist outside of Hell, then you have proof that there is no God. The fact that you are not burning in Hell is not proof that you will not be dying in the Lake of Fire forever the same as you are dying now.

Until you can prove the Lake of Fire is not your destiny, the burden of proof is on you. Saying there is no Hell is not proof that there is no Hell. Assuming you know things you do not know is not exemption from the burden of proof.

Atheist are fooling themselves when they say they have no burden of proof. The only burden of proof I carry is because I care about people who are dying and have one foot in the grave and one on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell. When they repeatedly insist they have the right to exist outside of Hell, and I have told them the gospel of God in His death, burial, and resurrection as the Son of God offering forgiveness through faith in His blood which paid to cover our sins if we will repent and believe on Him and receive Him as our Savior......once I have given them that message from God, and they reject the Savior, I have no more burden as I have done all I can do and it's time to leave behind the ones who would drag me down insisting it is me, and not them, who must prove they do not have the right to exist outside of Hell. Death delivers the proof which I cannot provide, and the fire of Hell is the wrath of God against sinners who demand proof that He has the right to reject them and leave them frying like eternal sausage in their pride after they have rejected what He did for them on the cross to buy them back from their sins and give them eternal life.

Most of the atheist here, I have given up on as they repeatedly say they will never stop insisting there is no God to rule over them, and they do not fear the wrath of God. Their blood is on their own heads, I tried to tell them the truth, the only proof of being wrong they will accept will be to see the reality of Hell's torment of sinners...they insist they have to see it for themselves to know it is real, and indeed they will see it. I have met my burden of proof, I have carried that burden, and now I leave behind the dead weight of people who insist their dying is ok.

Side: Atheists
4 points

Argumentum ad antiquitatem; appeal to tradition is not logically valid grounds for your conclusion. Not that you could actually prove that atheists are a relatively recent development anyways.

Side: Religion
4 points

I am a Christian, but I admit that religious people have the burden of proof. If you are going to say that God exists, you need to prove it.

Side: Religion
Saving101(17) Clarified
1 point

May God's grace be upon you. As a Christian you must understand we are not given the task by Jesus to prove God exist by physical evidence. We are charged to teach all nation about the truth. remember Israel in the wilderness. They made God prove himself time and time again but in the end many still didn't believe. It would be no difference with people of today. Some of them would say it was only an optical illusion. The Bible says blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (John 20:29).

Side: Atheists
Sitar(3682) Clarified
1 point

Thank you. I wish the best for you too. I don't understand why Christians like us do not have to prove God exists, or am I reading you wrong?

Side: Atheists
2 points

We all know by now what the burden of proof is and on to whom it falls.

Were that the case, there would have been no need for this debate.

He who makes the claim must then prove it.

He who makes a positive claim must prove it. You must prove that God exists because you say (without evidence) that God exists. If you had evidence, there would be no need for this debate.

Therefor Atheists have long said that we the faithful must provide proof of God's existence since we are claiming he exsists.

Well aren't you? If you didn't claim he existed contrary to all common sense and logic, then there would be no need for this debate.

But I say otherwise.

If you didn't, there'd be no need for this debate.

The belief in God or God's in some form is not new, it is as old as humanity.

I assume you were around back then? If so, then I'll assume it is simply the senility catching up to you, otherwise there'd be no need for this debate.

However the lack of belive in any such deity is new VERY new.

Not at all. The thing is, historically, when somebody goes against the grain and claims that knowledge of the Deity is unobtainable, he is usually burned at the stake or tortured to death. There have always been atheists, they just didn't feel comfortable coming out knowing how insecure the religious are.

So Therefor I submit that it is not the idea of God''s existence which is the claim but rather the belief that there is no God which is the claim, and therefore the onus is on Atheists to prove that God dosent exsist.

Humans have always believed in fairies and sea monsters and Wechselbälger.

Prove to me that they don't exist. Go on, give it a shot. I dare ya.

Side: Religion
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

he who makes a positive claim must prove it

That actually was not originally a part of this rule. That was a latter addition added due to the false assumption that one cannot prove a negative. That is obviously false. If I make the negative claim that you are not stronger than me (provided that it's true) then I can quite easily prove such a thing.

if you didn't claim he exsisted contrary to all common sence and logic

Implying.

I assume you were around back then? If so I'll assume it is simply the senility catching up to you, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate

Are you suggesting that atheist predates religion, because if so then there are very many archeologists who would like to have a word with you.

As for your following point whigh I won't quote as it is very long

All I will say is ASSERTIONS ASSERTIONS EVERYWHERE.

humans have always believed in fairies and sea monsters and wechselbälger

Prove to me they don't exsist I dare ya

I never said they didn't. Not that I belive they do I simply mean that I never made that claim and therefor I need not prove it. So no.

BTW sea monsters do exsist they are called giant squid.

Side: Atheists
3 points

That actually was not originally a part of this rule. That was a latter addition added due to the false assumption that one cannot prove a negative. That is obviously false. If I make the negative claim that you are not stronger than me (provided that it's true) then I can quite easily prove such a thing.

That is a positive claim, not a negative one. Him saying "No I'm not" would be the negative claim.

Are you suggesting that atheist predates religion, because if so then there are very many archeologists who would like to have a word with you.

And they would agree with him. Atheism predates humanity, technically speaking.

Side: Religion
Pantagruel(984) Disputed
1 point

If I make the negative claim that you are not stronger than me (provided that it's true) then I can quite easily prove such a thing.

No. What you would be proving is that you are stronger than me, and that is a positive (and very likely, but that's another story). You can make any number of conclusions from that point, but that is merely a rewording. The fact is, you are proving the positive concept that you are stronger, and by extension that I am not stronger.

However, that doesn't mean that I need to prove God doesn't exist. Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

Are you suggesting that atheist predates religion

Not at all. I was mocking you.

But yet, I do believe that atheism predates religion based on that old chicken-and-egg argument. Before man made up deity, man was without deity, and was thus "atheist".

because if so then there are very many archeologists who would like to have a word with you.

Really? Name a few. I'd love to chat with them.

I think you mean anthropologists. Even so, you're dead wrong.

Anybody involved in paleoanthropology would admit that what we know about the past is a minuscule fraction compared with what we don't know. The few relics of prehistory paint a very small portrait, with colors filled in on almost entirely on guesswork.

All I will say is ASSERTIONS ASSERTIONS EVERYWHERE.

Says the theist.

Hahahahahaha.

You assert that a deity exists, without any evidence or even a argument not rife with fallacy.

P.S. Google "Inquisition" or "Giordano Bruno".

Not that I belive they do I simply mean that I never made that claim and therefor I need not prove it.

I never made the claim that gods exist. Igitur I do not need to prove that they do.

You did, thus you do.

BTW sea monsters do exsist they are called giant squid.

You just don't give up, do you?

Side: Religion
0 points

humans have always believed in fairies and sea monsters and wechselbälger

Prove to me they don't exsist I dare ya

I never said they didn't. Not that I belive they do I simply mean that I never made that claim and therefor I need not prove it. So no.

BTW sea monsters do exsist they are called giant squid.

VERY GOOD ANSWER. I WILL USE THIS IN THE FUTURE, if the Lord permits.

The comparison of creatures to their Creator is not a valid comparison to start with, but this is an excellent way of answering which leaves the worshippers of the flying spaghetti monster scratching their heads to try to come up with another twist of irrational logic.

Side: Atheists
Delvis(221) Disputed
0 points

If I make a claim, I have the burden of proof. If you reject my claim, you have Burden of Clash. It's simple. If you reject my claim, I'm going to ask you why. And that's where you're going to make a whole bunch of positive claims.

Saying that you are unconvinced, well, just means that you are unconvinced. Cornflake

Side: Religion
1 point

This is a misunderstanding of what most atheists say. Most atheists do not say that there for sure is no God. Atheism is the state of not being convinced. If we start from the neutral state of not being convinced one way or the other we start off as atheists.

Side: Religion
1 point

Which religion bears the burden of proof? Christians? Muslims? Jews? Hindu's? etc.! They all have "PROOF" that THEY have proof! They all disagree on the "proof". Even different Christian religions believe differently, Sunni's and Shiite's believe differently, Catholics and other Christians believe differently!

If you can make any sense out of this confusion, you must not understand the situation! At least Atheist's agree, religions are confused people.

I agree with Voltaire (1694-1778) "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

Many keep sprouting Bible verses til the truth goes away.

Side: Religion
Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

""""Which religion bears the burden of proof? """////

WTF ?!! Irrelevant. I'm debating atheists, now ain't I

Side: Atheists
Cartman(18191) Disputed
1 point

No, you ain't. You never debate anyone.

Side: Religion
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Has BiblicalProphesyBeenAccurate

For the prophesy below to have come true, God would have had to have fulfilled

2 OTHER Bible Prophesies,

1 -to scatter them to all the Nations, and 2 - then bring the Jews back from all the Nations He had scattered them, which are also other detailed prophesied! And bringing them back was fullfilled after ww2. .. ... Thousands of years after these prophesies!

Coincidence? Or is this inaccurate?

Was Terrorism a Biblical Prophesy?

Was the Middle East Crisis a Biblical Prophesy?

How many points can we accumulate for -

Bible Truth or Bible Lie?

It almost seems if it weren't for Israel life wouldn't be quite as disturbed. How is it that 4000 years of these people who really didn't bring much on themselves historically, are the matter that brings TREMBLING (OR TERROR!!!) To the door of EVERY Nation? Has Israel been a burden to lift? When lifting Israel

have those Nations face Trembling, and being cut into pieces?

How did the Bible know Nations would lift Israel? What Nations back then lifted other Nations?

Accurate prophesy?

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of TREMBLING unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it… For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of

the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle

(Zech 12:2-3, Zech 14:2-3 KJV).”

Side: Atheists

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can use the "logic" you have provided here you can justify any claim whatsoever as being utterly true if it cannot be disproved.

Additionally, burden of proof lies with the AFFIRMATIVE claim. Atheism holds no affirmative claims - it is nothing more than the disbelief in a god or gods. Religion, on the other hand, claims (affirmatively) that a god exists and that his/her word is known and absolute.

Until any religion can be proved, none will have to be disproved.

Side: Religion
1 point

Well said!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Religion
Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

.........................

,...............................What are you, a cheerleader ?

Side: Atheists
Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

""""That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. """///

WTF ? !! Remember you belong to the minority. So I'm curious, there's no evidence according to who ?

Side: Atheists
Cartman(18191) Disputed
1 point

You. You have admitted that you have absolutely no evidence. You are even proud of it.

Side: Religion
Delvis(221) Disputed
0 points

"""That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence""//

Look, fruit loop. You forgot one small detail. Who gets to decide what evidence is.

Side: Atheists
1 point

No he didn't. No evidence, by anyone's standards, had been provided.

I'm surprised you are even still here, considering how you ran away from the last debate you attempted.

Side: Religion
WastingAway(340) Disputed
1 point

Evidence is hard, testable proof. Something that can be scientifically proven. This is because it the most objective form of evidence - personal faith is by no way objective or any form of legitimate evidence.

Side: Religion
1 point

Delvis has the right idea. If you make a claim then the initial burden is on the one making a claim. And in the context of religion vs atheism the vast majority of claims, at least to me, appear to be by religion. Because it's religion which seeks believers and converts, and religion that tries to impose behaviors and norms and consequences based on their claims. That's not to say no atheist has ever made a claim. They do. But atheists don't typically send missionaries door to door or to the third world to try to tell people to abandon their religious beliefs. And atheists don't threaten eternal damnation and lakes of fire. And atheists don't insert anti-religious oaths, or "not under any God", or anti-religion holidays into the institutional practices of society.

Side: Religion

If you assert something is, the onus is on you, not the doubters.

Side: Religion
warrior(1854) Disputed
1 point

Quite right. Atheists belive their is no God and thus that the universe in all its complexity can exist. And the exact correct conditions for life observed here on earth could happen by simple random chance. Despite the mathematical likelihood of such a planet forming with these exact Characteristics in the exact right place ie the correct distance from the sun with a gas giant like Jupiter close by to protect the planet from meteors is so infetesmally small as to be virtually impossible. I doubt this.

Side: Atheists
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Atheists think that is more likely than "We don't know, therefore God".

Neither side should be belittling the other, considering the nature of said beliefs.

Side: Atheists
Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

""""Atheists belive their is no God and thus that the universe in all its complexity can exist""////

WTF ? !!. Who gives a shit what they believe. It's what they can prove, son

Side: Religion

Proof. Ha. You can't prove what is undeciable. If I say there are leprechauns who's existence is unprovable as they disappear anytime someone looks at them or attempts to record them with instruments and they have no impact upon the universe, can you prove me wrong? You can't ask me to prove they exist because their existence is unprovable by definition.

By the same token, a deity's existence cannot be proven or disproven if they exist outside the phenomenal world and have no impact on the universe. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, you will ask who bears the burden of proof to explain natural phenomenon that are attributed to your deity. If you believe God heals the blind, that can actually be tested. If you believe mental illness is caused by demons, that can be tested. If the only thing you think your deity can do is send people to heaven or hell, you cannot prove or disprove that. Theologians have been working for the past 2000 years to make the concepts of heaven and hell empirically untestable because skeptics kept proving them wrong.

This is why religion in the 21st century is so pitiful. For the past two thousand years religions have been removing all substance from their theology because they cannot satisfy the rigor of empiricism. They removed curses and magic, then miracles, then divine revelation, then demons and blessings, etc. Evertime the apparatus of empirical science grew, the power of God faded. At this point all you are left with is a God who's only power is that he is the bouncer for heaven.

Side: Religion
1 point

Come up with an equation that disproves Jesus performed miracles.

Side: Atheists
nobodyknows(745) Disputed
1 point

You miss the point. You cannot prove he did, I cannot prove he didn't. Therefore, the burden of proof is on no one. Please come up with an equation that disproves Jesus secretly killed small children at night. Come up with an equation that disproves Jesus is the son of Satan. You cannot. This doesn't mean it's true, but it also means we don't know that it is not true.

Why would anyone put any faith in something we know so little about? The answer is people want to believe miracles can happen today. That belief can be tested. We can disprove faith healing.

Side: Religion
Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

""""Proof. Ha. You can't prove what is undeciable."""///

And what would that be ?

Side: Atheists
nobodyknows(745) Disputed
1 point

That there exists some noncorporeal being that decides what kind of afterlife humans get.

Side: Religion
1 point

I believe that both side should bare the burden of proof! It shouldn't be up to just one side to proof something!

Side: Religion
1 point

Clearly the burden of proof belongs to us religious people. But just as we can't prove who we worship other than a book 1400 years old (Al-Qur'an) or a compilation compiled between 100 - 400 CE (Bible), neither can anyone disprove the existence of God.

Yes, many religious statements have been disproved by science, but there will be one subject that cannot be disproven, that is, the existence of God.

Some of you will use the 'Big Bang' as a reason of God's nonexistence. To that, I can only say, "It was as God had willed."

Some will also use mankind's imperfection as an excuse of the lack of God. God has made us adaptable, and yet, we're not perfect in every way. And many of us will be born with defects. I was born with Hepatitis C, as well as Diabetes Mellitus, but I can only be patient, and take it as a test from God.

Truth be told I'm not even sure why I wrote all that. Now if you excuse me, I'll be arguing about whether technology is important or harmful

Side: Religion