The Instigator
Valkrin
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism = Theism, and science is a religion.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Valkrin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 698 times Debate No: 65443
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Valkrin

Con

I wish to debate spex on this topic, as I tried to accept this challenge before but someone beat me to it.

By accepting to this debate you agree to the following definitions:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

72 hours to argue, 10,000 characters max per argument.

Any offensive content, including, but not limited to, swearing, derogatory language, and insulting will result in a forfeiture of the debate.

R1: Pro's acceptance statement.
R2: Opening arguments (no rebuttals).
R3: Rebuttals.
R4: More rebuttals.
R5: Conclusion from both sides.

Failure to comply to the rules results in a forfeiture of the debate. BoP is on Pro.

Best of luck if you decide to accept.

Sources:
[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
vi_spex

Pro

belief=acceptance that information is true
disbelief=acceptance that information is true
non belief=I know the claim is true or false, I accept i dont know. or I am unaware of the claim

religion=to rely on
Debate Round No. 1
Valkrin

Con

Pro has FROM THE START failed to comply to the debate rules that had been set.

However, this CAN be considered an acceptance from Pro, as he states his own definitions for the terms of this debate. However, he should have mentioned something along the lines of "I accept, but add these to your list of definitions."
This will only be considered a warning, as of now. Further failure to comply to the rules results in a forfeiture by Pro.

For his act, I will change some of Pro's definitions to their by-the-book definitions and not Pro's own words...

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. [1]

Disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. [2]

Non-belief is the same as disbelief.

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. [3]

Now onto the main points.

1. Pro admits Atheism is not the same as Theism
From the rules of the debate as listed above, Pro agreed to the definitions of "atheism" and "theism" as I had listed above. If you look at the definitions, you will notice atheism is NOT the same as theism, in fact they are opposites. Atheism is the belief of no God or gods, and theism is the belief of a God or gods. By agreeing to the debate Pro agrees to the definitions. Since Pro agreed, Pro agrees that atheism does NOT equal theism. One half of the argument is done right here.

However, I shall elaborate further. Atheism is the belief of no god/gods, while theism is the belief of such things. If, as Pro believes to be true, atheism is the same as theism, then I would have to believe in no god/gods, while at the same time believing in (a) god/gods. It's self-contradictory and each statement completely questions the validity the other. If the statement "I believe in God and don't believe in God" were canceled out, it would simply state "I believe". What do you believe in? This statement alone makes no sense, is very vague, and proves my point even further.

2. Science and Religion are different yet closely linked.
By definition, "science" and "religion" are two different things (see above). Therefore I win already, and have proved science and religion are different, as well as atheism and theism are different. However, to elaborate further, I shall explain how much of science can be incorporated into religion.

For instance, many people look to science for the explanation of the universe. Some look at the Bible. While I am a Christian myself, I feel people need to stop ignorantly trusting the Bible as being profoundly true and look up the facts themselves of creation, evolution, and all of the evolutionist theories. It may seem pointless for Christians to study this, as they feel "why study what I'm against?" The answer is quite simple: they need to be prepared when evolutionists ask them a question regarding the validity of Christianity. Using science, those same Christians would be able to debate the evolutionist and even bring on some strong evidence of their own.

Evolutionism, or Darwinism, can be considered close to that of science and religion, as it essentially is the belief of science. However this isn't the true case. The belief of something doesn't necessarily mean that it is a religion. By the definition of belief, science is true and it exists. That doesn't necessarily make it a "religion". If I believed I had a friend, is that a religion, or a truth? It would be true, or in accordance with fact and reality. There is no superhuman or controlling power involved in science if you wish to believe that there is no God. Therefore it is not a religion. A "religion" can be divided into three main categories: atheism, agnosticism, and theism.
Since I didn't define it before:

Agnosticism: The belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; claiming neither faith nor disbelief in God. [4]

Those who do not believe in a god or gods fall under the category of agnosticism or atheism. Those who aren't sure or can't prove or disprove the existence of a god (or the gods) fall under the category of agnosticism. Those that strictly believe there is no god or gods fall under atheism. If you believe in atheism, you believe there is no God or gods, and no superhuman power. Science is merely the basis to back up those beliefs. Science is not atheism, agnosticism, or theism. It is, as listed above, "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." It is not religion. But it is the basis for many people's beliefs.

Did Pro meet the Resolution?
By the arguments of this debate, Pro did not meet his intended resolution, of atheism being the same as theism, and science being a religion. Pro agreed to my definitions of atheism and theism at the start of the debate, thus debunking his first argument. His second argument, however, can still be refuted if Pro can successfully prove that science is, in fact, the same thing as religion.

REMEMBER OPPONENT. YOUR R2 IS ONLY YOUR ARGUMENTS. DO NOT REBUT MINE. IF YOU DO SO, YOU LOSE THE DEBATE BASED ON THE DEBATE RULES.

Best of luck and thank you for reading.

Sources:
[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
vi_spex

Pro

if I hadn't accepted the debate I couldn't write these words..

am I holding a rock in my hand? you have to imagine it, and if you disbelieve the claim that I am holding a rock in my hand, what is your position on my claim?

disbelief is belief

non belief=know or unaware of the claim
Debate Round No. 2
Valkrin

Con

I wonder, due to the short amount of time between my argument and Pro's if Pro even read my statements. As well, his second arguments prove near nothing to the original claim of "atheism = theism, and science is religion". His entire R2 reasoning fails to provide any real argument for him. His whole goal is to stay along the parameters of the debate and prove that atheism is theism and science is religion.

And while his statement of disbelief = belief is valid in a way, I fail to see any real reason for it. Disbelief is, as I defined "the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." Belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

By these definitions, disbelief is "the inability to believe" or "the refusal to believe".


If you were to apply this to religion, theism would be "belief in a god/gods" and atheism would be "belief in the disbelief of a god/gods". So in a way, yes, belief is disbelief. But this does not mean atheism = theism, or science = religion, for that matter.

Pro needs to counter my original claims, though, in his R3. If he fails to do so I have won the debate.

Extend all arguments. I await Pro's arguments.

vi_spex

Pro

just answer my question
Debate Round No. 3
Valkrin

Con

First of all, Pro fails to comply by the debate rules once more. Therefore, this results in a forfeiture by Pro. On top of this, he demands an answer to his question when he hasn't addressed one issue of my claims!

This debate will continue if Pro responds to my claims, in order, and refutes them, or at least attempts to.
If Pro does this, I shall answer his question. If he fails to, the debate will be over, as Pro has failed to comply to rules and forfeits.

Extend all arguments once more.
vi_spex

Pro

the answer to my question is the answer to all your claims
Debate Round No. 4
Valkrin

Con

Pro fails to comply and the debate is now forfeited by his own hand.

Pro's question of "am I holding a rock in my hand? you have to imagine it, and if you disbelieve the claim that I am holding a rock in my hand, what is your position on my claim?" contributes nothing to my claims. It does not respond to every single one, as Pro believes it does. It barely even responds to a few, let alone one. As such, Pro has refuted nothing as to my claims, and I have refuted Pro's question (see R3, where I prove in some instances disbelief is belief but it contributes nothing to atheism = theism), even though he states I have not. I think Pro is unaware of how a formal debate situation works.

But to answer (directly), my answer is you never said IF you had a physical rock in your hand or not. You never stated this so I cannot answer it.

Thank you, audience, if you have read through this debate. Vote wisely.
vi_spex

Pro

why do you debate
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
The debate's over, stop commenting please T_T
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism

a=all that can possible be experienced
Posted by gherkin 2 years ago
gherkin
Atheism cant be theism because the a in atheism is a root word, and it means without and theism means religion. Put those together and you get without religion. Make sure you know what your talking about in your debates before you post them you dunce
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Why do I debate? To challenge my beliefs and knowledge against people of equal skill.
You don't fall under that spex.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Disappointing debate.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
Christianity is not just way of thinking?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter
Posted by Harold_Lloyd 2 years ago
Harold_Lloyd
To a non-scientist, science may seem to be a religion, but in reality, science is just a way of thinking.

Science is really about predicting the future by understanding the processes of the physical world.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Valkrinvi_spexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is better and hard-working. Thus, I award him all seven points.
Vote Placed by MartinKauai 2 years ago
MartinKauai
Valkrinvi_spexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I think my voting is rather self evident. Pros conduct and arguments were inept on every single level.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
Valkrinvi_spexTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dominated Pro, Pro didn't even put up an argument.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Valkrinvi_spexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not Adhere to acceptance only in R1, and made very few arguments to the debate.