The Instigator
GUSTAV
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
serp888
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheism Should be defined only as the belief that God doesn't exist!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 801 times Debate No: 33751
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

GUSTAV

Pro

As an agnostic, I think that anyone claiming to DISbelief or LACK belief in God is the same thing or at least has the same conclusion of the agnostic. Therefore, all non-theists who claim to lack belief in God is an agnostic, but all atheists who belief in the non-existence of God is a true atheist.
serp888

Con

Too highlight some terminology here, this topic is whether atheism should be redefined, because i assume he means in order to be more accurate. He says that the definition should be "all atheists who belief in the non-existence of God is a true atheist." However, neither atheism nor agnosticism denies the possibility that God exists, and so agnosticism is what actually should be redefined.

No atheist, such as Richard Dawkins, worth his or her salt can claim that God cannot exist or denies the possibility that God exists, regardless of how low they consider that chance to be. The atheist is in fact equivalent to the scientist; no conclusions are drawn until evidence or proof exists for a proposition. They only believe in the evidence. It is impossible, scientifically, to prove that God does not exist. A true atheist does not have to believe in God, but he or she doesn't reject the possibility of the existence of a higher power.

Agnosticism refers to, on the other hand, the belief in a higher power, but with a lower certainty of which religion is the correct religion. So essentially agnosticism is saying the same thing as atheism, except that they reject the notion that there is a possibility that there is NO higher power.

Therefore, it should really be agnosticism, which should be redefined to improve the accuracy of the definition, specifically: " Unsure of which religion is correct, but denies that there is no higher power"

Your argument reflects a major misunderstanding of athiesm, which is the false assumption, namely that atheism believes in the non existence of God.
Debate Round No. 1
GUSTAV

Pro

GUSTAV forfeited this round.
serp888

Con

Ok well i guess this debate is won.
Debate Round No. 2
GUSTAV

Pro

GUSTAV forfeited this round.
serp888

Con

I had a better debate from the comments section LOL
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by serp888 4 years ago
serp888
Ok, i'm happy to list out my definitions. My definition is identical to the oxford definition, except that it is only "one who disbelieves the existence of God." In other words, they don't believe that God certainly exists, or even that God likely exists, but that word doesn't imply that atheists deny the possibility of the existence of God. The reason atheism needs to be defined this way is because it is not reasonable or scientific to say that God certainly does not exist, until more evidence is provided. Every reasonable atheist should believe exactly what the science says, and nothing more. Agnosticism, on the other hand should be differentiated a bit more specifically, because otherwise it is the same thing as atheism. Agnosticism are certain that there is some God, they're just unsure which God or Gods it is. They reject the possibility that a God doesn't exist.
Posted by djamin.seery 4 years ago
djamin.seery
the debate was about the definition of an atheist and i actually agree with you on some points however i'm still trying to work out what it is you are saying. in your own word please define an atheist and an agnostic and tell me if you believe there is a difference :)
Posted by serp888 4 years ago
serp888
I literally just explained to you how disbelief and denial are two separate things. The clause was "OR" anyways, so my argument still stands. Instead of addressing my paragraph that explained how it was slightly flawed, you decided to just argue from Authority.
Posted by djamin.seery 4 years ago
djamin.seery
that definition came from the oxford dictionary, so i cant see how it is flawed...
Posted by serp888 4 years ago
serp888
Ok, to address your other points, you need to proof to say that there isn't a possibility that God exists. You can't say "oh it just doesn't make sense", and therefore you suddenly don't need proof. Quantum physics doesn't always make sense, but you can't just assume it's then wrong. It is impossible to prove with certainty, and so therefore you can't logically assume that God doesn't doesn't exist. And i didn't say it was alright for Christians, Muslims and Jews to say that God certainly exists; that's just as wrong and false as your statements.
Posted by serp888 4 years ago
serp888
The definition is actually slightly flawed; A person who disbelieves the existence from God is different from someone who denies the existence of God. A person who disbelieves the existence of God is merely stating that they don't accept the statement that God exists, but that doesn't mean they also believe that God doesn't exist . They don't believe one way or the other until valid evidence is show. A person who denies the existence of God is saying that there is certainty in the fact that God doesn't exist. They are slightly different, but relevant to my argument nonetheless.
Posted by djamin.seery 4 years ago
djamin.seery
also why is it certainly false for me (an atheist) to say "god does not exist" but its quite alright for a Christian or Muslim or Jew to say "goes does certainly exist"???
Posted by djamin.seery 4 years ago
djamin.seery
a quote from you "You can't deny that there is some chance that God exists. Atheists don't believe anything until proof becomes available;"..... I do deny that god exists, as a magical being in the sky doesn't make sense. So if i deny it and in my mind there is no room to move and its set in stone in my mind does that mean i am not an atheist?
Posted by djamin.seery 4 years ago
djamin.seery
in the last section I was only stating how I, as an atheist, am different to my family, who are agnostic. however look at the definitions again it clearly states a difference between the two. the definition also states that an atheist denies the existence of god (which I do) whereas an agnostic doesn't know or cant decide or is sceptical
Posted by serp888 4 years ago
serp888
Djamin what you're saying is irrelevant. The keyword from your definition is "disbelieves" that God exists, which means that you don't accept God exists. That is not equivalent to saying that you believe God doesn't exist . No one can prove that God doesn't exist. You can't deny that there is some chance that God exists. Atheists don't believe anything until proof becomes available; the idea of an atheist is someone who accepts the observations of the scientific universe. You could not have come to a logical conclusion because your faulty proposition is that God certainly doesn't exist; that's just completely false unless you can provide the evidence that there is no possibility.
No votes have been placed for this debate.