The Instigator
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
zmikecuber
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Are atheists ignorant?

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 7 votes the winner is...
zmikecuber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,459 times Debate No: 44016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Pro

I believe atheists are ignorant because all they want is proof for a God, proof isnt the only thing that matters in this world, in fact, there is no proof suggesting that God doesn't exist, if you accept this debate, be reasonable.
zmikecuber

Con

Intro
I accept this debate, and shall argue that atheists are not necessarily ignorant.

Since Pro has not presented any definitions, here are a few.

Ignorant: "destitute of knowledge or education." [1]

Atheist: "a person who believes that God does not exist" [2]

I'd like to clarify that the burden of proof rests on Pro to show that atheists are in fact ignorant.

A brief argument
So are atheists ignorant? I would say: no. Or at the very least, not necessarily.

It's very possible for someone to be extremely intelligent, and yet not believe in God. There seems to be no relation between the two. If there is, Pro must show so. Furthermore, if we can conceive of someone being extremely smart, and yet not believing in God, this demonstrates that such a case is possible.

A moustache argument
Let's assume however, that God does exist, and that atheists are ignorant in this area. Even if this is the case, it can't be inferred that atheists are generally ignorant.

Someone who grows a moustache may be ignorant of the undeniable fact that moustaches are extremely ugly. However, just because they are ignorant in this particular area, it doesn't follow that they are ignorant in general.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Pro

Of course not all of the are ignorant, just the ignorant ones who think they're smarter then everyone and who think they are the ultimate power in the universe just for the fact that there isnt proof od a god, which is the point of Religion

With proof, there wouldn't be faith, without faith there would be no religion, without religion there would be no law, without law, people get killed, when people get killed, even more get broken hearts, with more broken hearts, comes depression, with depression comes suicide, with suicide comes broken hearts, then the chain goes on and on and on.

Thats how i think religion helps society, because we all know how depression feels and wouldnt want to lay that on anyone.
zmikecuber

Con

Pro agrees that not all atheists are necessarily ignorant, and instead states that some are. However, rereading Pro's first round, and the topic of debate, it should be obvious that this debate is about whether "atheists" are ignorant, not about whether some atheists are ignorant. I agree with Pro that some atheists are ignorant; however, Pro needs to show that "atheists" (atheists in general) are ignorant.

Pro's remarks about the importance of faith and religion to society are irrellevant. The debate topic is "Are atheists ignorant?"

Pro seems to concede that there isn't necessarily a relation between atheism and ignorance. However, in doing so, Pro concedes the whole debate.
Debate Round No. 2
RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Pro

I believe that atheists in general are ignorant, like you said.

Why? Because every single atheist i've met has been ignorant in their own way, I know i cant prove this of course, but there are alot of ignorant atheists we can all agree i think, of course you cant say all because there never is an all in religion.

The reason i proved importance of religion is not only do the ignorant atheists want proof, they think it wouldnt matter anyway. But it really does.
zmikecuber

Con

Pro argues that atheists in general are ignorant, because every atheist he has met has been ignorant in some way.

But this does not follow. Even if all atheists are ignorant in some way then it doesn't mean that atheists are in general ignorant. In fact, if this is the case, why stop with atheists? Nearly everyone is ignorant in some way or another; I am ignorant of how to do deep sea fishing, or play the oboe. Does this mean I am ignorant in general?

Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ChloeMcIverFloyd 3 years ago
ChloeMcIverFloyd
zmikecumber, you should have stated, (above or below the links,) something like this, "I found my definitions in The Merriam-Webster Dictionary , here are the links if you would like to check." That way no one would have to look at the links to see what they are, because they could be links to some survey website. I think you should have clarified what the links were, and I don't think the numbers you used for that is enough. You should have had something like my example, because some people don't pay attention to little numbers next to words or links.

Thank you for reading my comment to the end,(if you did.)
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
I used the definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I referenced this too. How does that not count as a real definition? Lol
Posted by ChloeMcIverFloyd 3 years ago
ChloeMcIverFloyd
I am sorry, but I forgot this in my prior comment. But zmikecumber's definitions are not out of the dictionary, which means that they are paraphrased. So they do not count for REAL definitions. The real definitions are as follows: atheist- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, and ignorant- lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. Those are the real definitions, you have to have definitions during a debate, not a paraphrased definition.

Thank you for reading my comment to the end, (if you did.)
Posted by ChloeMcIverFloyd 3 years ago
ChloeMcIverFloyd
RebelRebelDixieDixie01, clearly you don't know the definition of ignorant, so this is the definition of ignorant, lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. So you can't just change the meaning of a word, and then get upset if people don't understand what you mean. Also, I am an atheist, but I don't treat people who believe in a God or Gods differently just because they don't share my personal beliefs. I completely understand that a lot of people do believe in a God or Gods, which is why I don't treat them any differently than I would treat a person who doesn't believe in a God or Gods.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comment to the end, (if you did.)
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 3 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
I know, and I don't care! :)
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Rebel Dixie, you have a very poor command of the English Language
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
I'm Catholic. I choose not to put it on my profile, not because I'm ashamed, but rather because otherwise some people "judge you" and won't listen to anything you say, because of your beliefs.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 3 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Oh, well which religion? I hope im not getting to personal, you probably know this but im a Jew
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
I'm a theist myself.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 3 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
OFF SUBJECT, SORRY, but are you theist or atheist?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
RebelRebelDixieDixie01zmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: CON did a great job showing the wholes in the argument of PRO
Vote Placed by xXx_Warshak_xXx 3 years ago
xXx_Warshak_xXx
RebelRebelDixieDixie01zmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No, we all have the choice to believe what we want and just because an Athiest chooses not to believe that there isn't ah higher being or a "God" does not make them ignorant beside's that just like any other person one Atheiest could be different from the other.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
RebelRebelDixieDixie01zmikecuberTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. Then after redefining the debate said he had no proof of his argument. Pro also had horrible grammar.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
RebelRebelDixieDixie01zmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided no sources and actually agreed with Con that all atheists are not ignorant and so it became a one sided debate. Either Pro did not think the reasoning through or the debate title was poorly constructed. You cannot expect votes if you agree with the opposition and thus sit in the middle on the debated issue.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
RebelRebelDixieDixie01zmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro was at a fair disadvantage, making blanket statements almost never works too well. In this case, Con defused Pro's arguments quite clearly.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
RebelRebelDixieDixie01zmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros argument was very weak and he even conceded the point he was making. Con had better grammar and no typos. Pro did not come near to meeting his BOP.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
RebelRebelDixieDixie01zmikecuberTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON had better S&G. PRO failed to clarify his position and even conceded aspects of the resolution to CON while CON provided a strong defence of his own position. CON was also the only one to use sources.