So we had to do a debate unit in composition and research. My team got the topic of proving that God does not exist. Now, we are being forced to go to a private Christian school so we knew we would lose despite being promised an unbiased judge. They were supposed to judge it by the arguments and not what they believe. But after the arguments it really pisses me off that they said the other team won. They started off with a Josh Feuerstein video (Yeah the guy that got mad about Starbucks cups) because yelling makes something true apparently. I would have failed them just for that. All of theirs arguments were basically just "everything is beautiful, so God must have made it". At the end, the judge (Who works at the school) said we lost because we used the bible to prove something but we said the Bible is wrong. We only used a verse from the Bible to show that it contradicts itself. We didn't try to prove it was true, we just showed that if it was true it wouldn't make any sense. Then she said we lost credibility because we said that people believe in gods because they are ignorant to how the world actually works. It's ironic that she was ignorant to what ignorant actually means. She thought we were just calling the other team stupid and attacking them. We were actually saying that people turn to a made up being because they do not have the knowledge to properly explain the world. The worst part is that the other team is so full of themselves now, they think they actually proved something. They didn't even have a real argument. If they are unable to separate their beliefs from the argument then why do they even assign it as a topic? They could have given us something that they could be (a bit) more unbiased about. It shouldn't be about your beliefs, it should be about the arguments. Good news is it's the weekend and I'm going to my friend's house to shoot some guns and celebrate his birthday, so I hopefully can get over a pointless argument that proves nothing. Edit: Here are some of our other points: •If the world is too complex to happen by chance then so is God. (Counter to Intelligent Design) •If God can just always exist then why can't the universe? (Cyclic Model) •If he was perfect he wouldn't need to create anything to make him happy. (No Reason Argument) •If he was perfect then he wouldn't regret anything. •If God created everything he created evil, if he didn't then that means someone else can create something entirely new, even against the will of God. •It makes no sense that he would create problems for himself. Why doesn't he want everything to be perfect and stay that way? •Gods are usually made to explain things people don't understand. As people learn more about the world they rely less and less on gods because they find a more logical explanation. •Morals do not need to come from God. They are based on how people would like themselves to be treated. Most people who don't believe in God will still agree that murder is wrong. •Feelings and Emotions are not legitimate evidence. People have often come to incorrect conclusions as a result of following emotions. •Man wrote the Bible and were responsible for it since it was written. It is very likely that there were changes made to it and it can't be trusted. •Pascals Wager is not costless. If God doesn't exist then you just wasted your temporary life worshipping something that doesn't exist. •Why would you believe in a certain God over another? Many Christians are only Christians because they were born into it. They could have been born into a Muslim family and would just as willingly accept Islam. •(Counter to the Earth being in the Goldilocks Zone) We are only here because our planet happened to be in the livable zone by chance. There are plenty of examples of this randomness going either way. There are many planets who are not in this zone but there are also many planets who are also in the habitable zone around their stars.