Debate Preparation

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pitar's picture
The theist who wants to

The theist who wants to debate his belief is defending the notion that atheism needs to provide proof that man created god. The archeology providing proof of that is a plain read but the theist will not accept it as proof. That being the case, the theist proposing a debate will not accept anything the atheist might provide to prove his or her stance. In other words, there is no point to the debate the atheist can bring to bear that a theist will accept.

This is why it's called faith. Faith needs no defense so the theist bringing it to a debate already has the upper hand.

Darren Koch's picture
Pitar- well put. Faith needs

Pitar- well put. Faith needs no defense. I agree the "scientific proof" many atheists demand will never be provided, but in no way discounts God. I believe scientific proof provided by God would render faith in God obsolete and undermine man's logic-based free will.

mykcob4's picture
You misunderstood what Pitar

You misunderstood what Pitar said. Typical! Since the belief in a god is based on myth and nothing else, and it isn't the business nor is it logical to disprove things, there is no need to disprove a god. It is the obligation of believers to prove their god. It is morally reprehensible to force people to obey anything dictated by a god that isn't proven. Faith in god should be obsolete the only thing keeping the god myth going are greed and stupidity.

Darren Koch's picture
MYKCOB4- thank you for

MYKCOB4- thank you for interpreting Pitar for me. Prove the myth you reference is a myth. Believers have no such burden of proof, and you have no right to assign obligations to believers as an atheist. Finally, how can you possibly deem certain actions or philosophies as immoral? What is your moral standard and where did it come from? Define "moral", as used in your post.

mykcob4's picture
Man are you simple Sinner.

Man are you simple Sinner.
Atheists didn't make up god. Believers did, so they must PROVE their claim that there is a god. Man are you fucking dumb or what!
Morality comes from society, not any fucking god or religion.
It is morally reprehensible to force people to obey anything that is based on something that is not proven.
I have every right to assign obligation to believers as an atheist and a human being. You are the ones claiming that your god is real. I simply don't believe you. You must prove to me that he is real. The default is that something not proven is false. I can deem many actions and philosophies as immoral.
Heres the very definition:
[ih-mawr-uh l, ih-mor-]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
licentious or lascivious.
Morality has nothing to do with religion or a belief in a god. Morality comes from, has always come from society and nowhere else. Now a particular society may or may not claim that they base their morals on their faith, but the fact is that morals come from society. What morals are acceptable depending on the society. When it was a society, how big it was, how it was comprised, etc.
Morals change over time as well, as societies change.
I don't know why I have to keep teaching you dopes this over and over.
By and large, if you compare atheists individuals against nonatheists in the USA, percentage-wise atheists are far more moral as a demographic.
The number one demographic of a felony criminal in the USA is white male middle-aged conservative christian English speaker relatively uneducated poor.
Atheists make up nearly 13% of the USA population, but less than 1/10th of 1 % of the prison population.
I'd say from that statistic alone atheists are far more moral than christians.
Let's take education. Atheists are more educated. The percentage of atheists in the USA with at least a bachelor's degree is around 60-65 %. For christians it is about 30-40%. We could break down those with higher degrees but the numbers get even worse for christians.

Discere's picture


If I may be allowed to but in for a moment:

"Believers have no such burden of proof, and you have no right to assign obligations to believers as an atheist."

Your statement represents a misunderstanding of how burden of proof works:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim" -

Thence, believers, in whatever god/s, have the burden of proof, being the claimant.

Nonbelievers, on the other hand, are the disputing party. We are are not claiming anything, but rather are disputing your claims correctness. (I'm sincerely hoping that this is not a horrendously incorrect sweeping generalization. If it is, then I apologize to my fellow atheists.)

The only way to solve such a dispute in your(believers) favor would be to provide proof.

Not only is the burden of proof most certainly in your part of the ballpark, its also entirely necessary for it to be there, as any other setup would produce a nonsensical dispute that would be impossible to resolve.

Darren Koch's picture

Mykcob4- BREAKTHROUGH! I AM simple, and so is the God thing! You got it! morality comes from which society? Yours? Mine? Put an Eskimo in LA- does his moral code adjust once his feet hit the beach? Since I'm not forcing you into anything, does that save me from having to prove my hillbilly ideas to your brilliant, educated ass? I will anyway- God is love, love is God. The end. Let me know if you have anymore questions. Thanks!

Discere- thanks for your input, and I agree. If this were a science experiment, I'd be burdened I provide scientific proof, but it's not. I claim God is love. I prove unselfish, sacrificial and unassuming love daily. My kids do too. Simple enough for the slowest guy in the history of the planet to pick up on...I think that's kinda important too! Thx again.

Discere's picture
"If this were a science

"If this were a science experiment, I'd be burdened I provide scientific proof, but it's not." I never said that it was. The burden of proof applies to philosophical disputes as well. Besides that, if religion does not exist as a scientific pursuit, then to me it seems that by default anything that can be explained perfectly well by scientific observations, theories, and laws needs no other explanation. A connection made by logic serves the purpose of truth value better than a leap of logic - but both of those are preferable to a leap of faith.

" I claim God is love."

A philosophical claim which I could dispute, which would then once more cause the burden of proof to fall upon you. But I wont do that, because I am not that petty.

" I prove unselfish, sacrificial and unassuming love daily."

This, too, is a disputable claim, despite the word "prove".

mykcob4's picture
Oh for cryin' out loud Sinner

Oh for cryin' out loud Sinner.
Morals are a societal construct. That is just a fact.
There is no god. If you claim god is love, you have to prove your god. You once said that we atheists have to get over this prove bs. That is just stupid. I am not about to base the importance of my entire life on an unsubstantiated claim. Easy enough for the most casual observer to understand. PERIOD!

Darren Koch's picture
Mykcob4- if I bought u a

Mykcob4- if I bought u a plane ticket, would u fly to KS and do this in person? I'd pay good $ to see your face when u read these posts! Prove morality is a social construct. Your assertion, your burden. It is the most important question, and if you really are atheist, go live whatever life u have left and quit arguing with my dumb ass!

Discere's picture
"go live whatever life u have

"go live whatever life u have left and quit arguing with my dumb ass!"

How funny. You come on to an atheism geared website, say something that an atheist doesn't agree with, then get upset when they dispute what you have said and tell them to stop.

When it was YOU who made the decision to come onto this website under you own willpower.

(insert slow clap here)

On another note, morality is entirely subjective. Each society develops its own moral code based on its own experiences and ideals. Religious societies are no different. Hence, there is no real burden of proof on anyone until some one claims their moral code to be the correct one. Hence, the sentence " Prove morality is a social construct." is invalid.

mykcob4's picture
No Sinner, you don't want to

No Sinner, you don't want to meet me face to face. I suspect that you just want to fight because you are frustrated.
And for once you are correct. I claimed that morality is a social construct and it is on me to prove it. You are not going to like the answer.

So here goes:

Every society has a basic morality, a code of ethics, laws. Those laws are the dictates of what that particular society will accept as behavior by individuals as they relate to the society at large. With different societies, these acceptable behaviors vary. Over time what is acceptable to a society changes as the society changes.
I often use this example.
Confined to the relatively small society and to the relatively small time period of said society, Spartans thought it perfectly acceptable and moral to throw newborns with birth defects off of a cliff to their death. In fact, the mothers of these babies with birth defects performed the task themselves.
That was accepted as moral behavior at that time by that society. We would think anyone doing that in our general society was immoral.
So in each case, the Spartan society and our own society has dictated what is accepted as moral.

BTW I am not affraid to fight, but there is no profit in it. So if you are frustrated you can either get help or just kick your car.
And BTW I am the last person you would ever want to tangle with.
And as a rule, I never go to Kansas if I can avoid it, too fucking redneck for me!

curious's picture
"Or any helpful advice that I

"Or any helpful advice that I may not have heard before would be great as well".

My advice is to let your opponent finish his speech before you answer him. If there is something to object - take a note - and answer it later when it is your turn. And hopefully your opponent will do the same.

mykcob4's picture

Since you are not an atheist you have no idea of what an atheist faces in a debate with a believer.
1) An atheist can expect attempts of believers to just shut him or her down. Believers don't want to hear any opposition at all.
2) Believers don't practice debate protocol. They don't respect any opinion but their own.
3) Believers don't want to hear logic, history, science or facts.

It's like debating with Trump. You have to deal with all his childish antics. Facts are unimportant. There is no reason. You can't have a reasonable debate when the subject isn't based on reason and one side is emotionally attached to the subject.
If I were to debate you and the first thing out of my mouth was "Fuck your god", you would be understandably upset. Well, atheist face this behavior almost every time and with almost every believer.

Darren Koch's picture
Mykcob4- take it easy man!

Mykcob4- take it easy man! Wouldn't fight u if you lived right down the road. Never meant to make the implication- I meant it's tough to have a heated debate online. Without seeing each other's expressions or hearing tones of voices it's very easy to take things the wrong way. Maybe I'm laughing, but your "mind's voice" associated with me is yelling. I love ya man, you're my brother!

By the way, I agree with you for the most part on the morality issue. Kinda trying to separate instincts from morality in my own mind.

Discere- you're kinda late to the party, and I never told him to "stop". My arguments obviously offend many of u, and that's fine but remember this is a DEBATE forum!

Discere's picture
You explicitly said: "and

You explicitly said: "and quit arguing with my dumb ass."

Note: quit.

Sorry if I read too much into that. If that's the case, my mistake. I apologize.

mykcob4's picture
Well, Sinner, I have had the

Well, Sinner, I have had the experience where people want to fight. In my younger days, I would post my address and see if they were serious. I did so because I didn't want to get shot trespassing. Only one person ever showed up at my door and they were sorry they did.
On the other hand, I don't see any reason for a face to face. If something is misunderstood, it can be explained. These forums make me mad as a rule. I don't take them seriously and even if it becomes the most heated debate of all time, what is the end result? Nothing. So it doesn't make me mad.
As you pointed out earlier, I made the claim about morality and it was my responsibility to prove my claim. I accepted that. That was correct. Now can you see that it is the onus of the believer, not the atheist, to prove whether or not a god is real? Atheist by virtue of existence didn't make the claim a god is real. It is just a fact of circumstance that atheists do not believe the original claim of a god being real. It isn't up to us to disprove a claim that has never been proven. Now you can justify all you want. You can point to the bible, you can say we just need faith, but neither is even the minimum of the requirement.
As for your tone and manner, I don't even give it a second thought. When you say things like "quit", it only means that you are frustrated, or trapped, boxed in. I never quit BTW. I'm wired to persevere.

Darren Koch's picture
Mykcob4- I said quit, as in

Mykcob4- I said quit, as in quit banging the keyboard and go live life! I assure u, I'm not boxed in and I'll bet you're really tough. Probably beat my face in if I came to your address. Do you think a society has the right to judge another society who is acting based on their separate but valid moral code? Whose to say what's "immoral" if it's based on different societies experience and beliefs? Kinda comes back to the realization that justice cannot exist without a governing moral standard or judge.

mykcob4's picture

The society that exists constructs that judgment and is the judge.
I have a full life. Your statement about my life is by its own definition condescending.
I don't tell you to "get a life", which essentially what you said.

lupisnoctum's picture
At this point in my life I

At this point in my life I don't really see the point to "debating" theists. To have a debate, there has to be at least two opposing sides. The theist can bring nothing to the discussion but subjective feelings and opinions since they can't even provide vague evidence that there's anything to discuss. With no evidence for any of the thousands of gods mankind has created, there's not much point in discussing what opinions those gods might hold on an issue.

The atheist and the theist simply don't have a common point from which to start a debate. Think about it. In any other debate on most any other topic, there exists common ground. Abortion debate? Well, abortion, as a practice, does exist. Ford vs. Chevy? Both sides of that argument agree beforehand that automobiles exist. Even a Coke vs. Pepsi argument assumes that cola drinks exist. The theist comes to any debate assuming that their god or gods exist without even a shred of evidence that they do. The atheist then is essentially being asked to play checkers using the rules of Monopoly, to use an imperfect analogy. How does one debate the state of, say, the US economy with someone who thinks that they're currently residing on Neptune?

Want to prepare to debate a theist? Easy. Rent a hall, invite an audience, and put two podiums on the stage. On your podium, place a whiteboard with two words on it: "prove it." Then go have a drink, a smoke, or perhaps dinner.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.