The Instigator
ViceRegent
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
maryconnolly11
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Are atheists atheists for psychological reasons?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
maryconnolly11
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 85975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

ViceRegent

Pro

I have never met a rational atheist. Therefore, it is not possible that atheists are atheists because of philosophical reasons. Rather, every one I have met is emotionally damaged in some way and is an atheist for psychological reasons.
maryconnolly11

Con

I am an atheist myself and I do not believe that atheists are only atheists for psychological reasons. I am not emotionally damaged. I go to a Catholic school, and through that have discovered that I do not believe in any God as it is impossible for one to exist and there is no scientific proof that a God does exist. I receive my love and emotions from other places and seek my friends and families advice, rather than a God. In addition, just because you have never met a rational atheist does not mean one does not exist, for I would like to think myself as one. Scientists are forever updating their evidence and discovering things everyday, and many scientists are atheists, therefore there are atheists who are atheists because of philosophical reason because we simply do not believe there is a God, but we study nature and try to find out things we do not know the answer to. I am sure some scientists have done experiments or lengthy research into the existence of God, but are yet to find anything; so are very philosophical in that respect.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Pro

Prove any of those claims. Thanks.
maryconnolly11

Con

maryconnolly11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Pro

That is what I thought. We know atheism is held for psychological reasons because when you ask an atheist for philosophical reasons, they run away.
maryconnolly11

Con

maryconnolly11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Of course, consistent atheism denies the existence of the mind.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Con, if you would like to, we could do a "That God Likely Exists" debate sometime.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Heh. VR is never gonna give this up, is he?

Although, he could have very well argued that atheism indeed arises due to psychological reasons. Psychology, in essence, has to do with the mind. The choice of atheism is consciously made, and it is made by the living, thinking being. If you wanted to argue from this point, then, yes -- semantically, atheists are atheists for psychological reasons.
Posted by klaralein 1 year ago
klaralein
Yeah VR is a troll. Don't waste your time.
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
Jedd, debating with VR is a total waste of time. His argument against atheism is "Atheists can't be certain that their perception agrees with Absolute Reality, therefore they know nothing." Obviously this argument applies to Christians just as much as atheists, but just try getting VR to address/acknowledge that. He'll flat-out ignore the rebuttal and keep reminding you that you "know nothing." After that, he'll resort to irrelevant insults and threats: "You're an unreasoning animal, you know nothing, you'll burn in Hell" etc. Don't bother with this guy.
Posted by Jovian 1 year ago
Jovian
"I have never met a rational atheist. Therefore, it is not possible that atheists are atheists because of philosophical reasons. "

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Examples of the fallacy:

1. 5 year old children know advanced algebra. I know this because I met a 5 year old once who knew this.
2. Americans are bad at baseball. I know this because my American friend wasn't good at it.
3. It's a myth that people over 90 years old are less vital. My 102 year old neighbour does jogging two times every week.
Posted by Jedd 1 year ago
Jedd
Hey Vice, invite me to your next debate will you? Haha
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Now you do not have to look it up...Great PR for atheism.
Posted by BenJWasson 1 year ago
BenJWasson
Also, in your first speech is a huge flaw. "I have not met any rational atheists, therefore etc etc etc." You can't use personal evidence in a debate, especially when you're making such a claim as to say that since you have not met a rational atheist they can't be atheists for philosophical reasons. Honestly, I don't even understand religion. When looking up "religion is", the 5 most common results are: bulls*it, a lie, the root of all evil, fake, and poison. That pretty much sums my thoughts entirely.
Posted by BenJWasson 1 year ago
BenJWasson
Con doesn't have to prove anything, BOPboy, and you didn't refute any of her points in your speech. Con gave reasoning against your topic, and you replied with "prove any of those claims". I would like to see you fail after saying that in an actual debate. "Thanks".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 1 year ago
kkjnay
ViceRegentmaryconnolly11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Burden on proof is on Pro, even if Con forfeit a couple rounds. With their one round of arguments they successfully refuted Pro's points whilst providing their own case that Pro did not refute. Pro states: "Prove any of those claims. Thanks." and continues with feisty remarks and one sentence responses. Pro easily could have won if they argued their stance in any of the rounds. Conduct points are tied, even though con forfeited, Pro exhibited unsportsmanlike behavior: "That is what I thought. We know atheism is held for psychological reasons because when you ask an atheist for philosophical reasons, they run away." Pro essentially argued as much as Con did in their forfeited rounds, thus not fulfilling their burden of proof. Convincing argument points go to Con.