The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Atheism and Theism use the same logical reasoning, merely in reverse process.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,158 times Debate No: 26052
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

Just let me explain what I mean first.

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[1]

Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods.[2]

God: TheoneSupremeBeing,thecreatorandrulerofthe universe.[3]

Logical reasoning: Using language to express and analyse a concept in order to reach a conclusion.

Just don't think I am trolling or laugh at me. Too many people on this site are ignorant fools who vote based on preconceived opinions and make me lose unfairly because instead of reading my debate they merely laugh at the side of it which I am on.

Just listen:

Agnosticism is the truth. Anyone who says it isn't is a fool.

Atheism decides that because we have no seen a sign of a supreme being that made our universe (not necessarily the multiverse, only made our universe) then we must immediately not believe in God.

Theism decides that because we have no logical explanation for everything existing, a superior being to us made everything.

The reasoning behind atheism is same as behind theism in that it takes the fact we don't know the beginning of universe and then jumps to opposite conclusion because we don't know. The reason they reach reversed conclusions is because they look at other side first then loop back to their own conclusion like as follows:

Logical Reasoning Behind Atheism

1) We do not know what made universe.
2) We have seen no signs of it being a supreme entity so thus should not believe in it.

Logical Reasoning Behind Theism

1) We do not know what made universe.
2) We have seen no signs to deny it being a supreme entity so thus it probably is.
3) This is further justified because the most intelligent species we know cannot decipher the truth.

If you really are so foolish to think you can disprove this go ahead and try. don't just be a cocky person who thinks they'll get cheap votes for picking easy side. Seriously.

Sources:

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept. In essence, all I'm going to do is restate the comment because it's right in pointing out the problem here, but still: all I have to do is provide reasoning which someone can present to propose atheism over theism, that does not rest on a lack of knowledge of a universe's cause.

Materialistic Atheism

P1 - Everything is made from other materials.
P2 - The universe is something
C1 - Thus, the universe has a cause (Bertrand Russell's argument, shortened from his works)

This argument does not use the reasoning my opponent presented at all. This states explicitly we have knowledge of the universe's cause: the material nature of it.

Political Atheism:

P1 - One ought not support the existence of a dictator at any stage of any system.
P2 - God is de dicto a dictator.
C1 - Thus, one ought not support the existence of God, i.e. atheism.

This is again different reasoning to my opponent's strawman of atheism.

However, theistic reasoning is different, and is luckily easier to pose:

Personal Theism:

P1 - I experienced God.
L1- God Exists.
L2- Theism is true.

(where L is lemma)

This is an example of theists being theist because of personal experience.

Cultural Theism:

P1 - My upbringing was Christian/Zoroastrian/Muslim/Jedi
P2 - My upbringing determines my faith.
C1 - Therefore I am a theist.

This is an example of a theist that is their faith because their upbringing was just so. Strangely, these people do exist.

'Rational' Theism:

P1 - There is a rational Argument for God(teleological, cosmological, etc.)
P2 - If the argument is rational, then if one prizes reason, one must accept its conclusion.
C2 - One must accept that God exists.
L1 - Theism is true.

This is a very broad generic example of people being theist because they know what made the universe: God.


Fallibilism

And this is just an additional point, but still: my opponent has to provide reason for infallibilism. That means that, if infallibilism is true, one cannot know something that is false. So for example, one cannot know Mt. Etna is the largest mountain in the world. Similarly, my opponent's first premise rests on infallibilism: one does not know what made the universe is not enough, for one can easily posit a person who does know. One has to posit that one cannot know anyone who knows the cause of the universe. This is completely unjustified.
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

You are twisting theism and atheism into separate things.

The reasoning behind materialistic atheism makes no sense. It doesn't disprove God.

The reasoning behind political atheism makes no sense. It doesn't disprove God.

The reasoning behind personal theism is subjective and irrelevant.

The reasoning behind cultural theism is just blind brainwashing, like the education system, it doesn't necessarily prove God.

Rational theism is what I suggest, what you suggested is irrational because it stated "One must accept that God exists." and this is not rational.

Please only give valid arguments.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I'm just going to amend the materialistic atheism argument's conclusion, because I realised I made a typo. The conclusion should read "the universe must have, if caused, a material cause.

Firstly, all my arguments posed (with the exception of the first, which is now valid through that typo fix) is valid. I take great personal offence at questioning of validity. For reference, validity means that, if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. Each argument was either a modus ponens, or a lemma, which works through predicate reasoning (i.e. if the sun set yesterday, then there was a yesterday and the sun existed yesterday by lemma/predicate). In fact, I'd be happy to completely overhaul the debate that we are doing in order to debate the validity of the arguments posed.

Secondly, they all disprove and equally prove good reason why one would believe in God - though this is a strawman, and not for debate. The debate is whether "Atheism and Theism use the same logical reasoning, merely in reverse process".

Thirdly, my opponent is magically claiming rational theism with no justification. If he claims it to be true, then he must claim that a theist can know with certainty and be correct that theism, or atheism, is accurate. Further, seeing as e.g. the teleological argument claims knowledge of what made the universe, he must discard his first premise of his argument ("We do not know what made the universe") and thus concede the debate. In fact, this acceptance by my opponent is irreconcilable with the resolution, and forces his own defeat.

Fourthly, he needs to disprove each argument I posed as being reasons why an atheist might be atheist, or a theist might be theist, instead of saying "it doesn't [dis]prove God." as that is unsubstantiated and false.

Finally, my opponent seems to have given up justifying any of his premises. If he does not do so, he cannot fulfil his burden of justification, and must rationally abandon his argument: otherwise, it's just making stuff up and hoping they're true.
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

Whatever then, if you can't see it's true, it's not my problem.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Seeing as my opponent has conceded an inability to argue his case, I urge a vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

Even I agree with con now.
Debate Round No. 4
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 1 year ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
How on earth did I prove your point? I refuted your point.
Posted by muzebreak 1 year ago
muzebreak
Thank you for proving my point.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 1 year ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
muzebreak

"Clearly you would rather argue then [sic] understand, ..."

No, I argue IN ORDER TO understand.

You say that you made a play on the fact that that pro accidentally added an "a".

First, I don't know how one would know whether or not this was an accident. People often use the singular term when referring to a group. It's an acceptable form of speech. Someone might say something like "The American is a person who believes in freedom" when it is understood the the writer is referring to Americans. I regularly come across this in writing. They mean the same thing.

Second, even if pro did mistakenly leave out the "a", how on earth does have anything do with playing on the word "affair". Somehow you think that the change from plurality to singularity of the word "affair" implies the sexual use of the word. Huh?????

Have I explained it to you clearly enough or do you still need more help?
Posted by muzebreak 1 year ago
muzebreak
Clearly you would rather argue then understand, but let me spell this out to you.

You know what a joke is, yes?
And you know what word play is, yes?
Ok, now read the line I quoted and notice how it is an exact quote from debate.
Do you see it yet? Probably not, so il be more specific.

He made an error, instead of putting that he believes god is interested in human affairs, he put that he thought god is interested in a human affair. I Made a play on the other definition of affair, extra-marital sex, and his accidental addition of "a". Do you get it yet or do I have to spell it out more?
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 1 year ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
muzebreak

No, I'm not just following you around. I comment on some debates, you comment on some debates. Sometimes we will coincide and comment on the same debate. It happens.

I didn't think it was necessary to quote you. I named the debate in which I accused you of attacking a straw man, and there was only one comment from you for that debate so there was no ambiguity as to what I was referring, but whatever. Here you are:

"The 'God Hypothesis' is there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in having a human affair." So you're trying to prove that god wants to have sex with a married woman?"

I'd like you to show me evidence that traditional theists believe that God wants to have sex with married women. Good luck finding it.

If you are basing your belief that God wants to have sex with married women on your claim that the God wants to have a human "affair", then you are equivocating on the word "affair". Whenever the word is used to refer to God (and I actually don't usually hear it being referred to God) it is generally understood to mean "a personal relationship." You are deliberately using the word in a different sense, using it to refer to a specifically sexual act. I don't know a single person who believes in the kind of God that you described. It's a straw man.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by muzebreak 1 year ago
muzebreak
Critical, are you just following me around now?

And please quote where I attacked a strawman version of christianity, in a debate im not in.

If you mean your claim to my supposed strawman in the comments section, then please show me how it was in any way a strawman.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 1 year ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
muzebreak is one to talk, after attacking a straw man version of Christianity in the debate "The God Hypothesis Should Be a Scientific Theory".
Posted by muzebreak 1 year ago
muzebreak
I so wish I could take this but I'm already debating you on something else.

Just so you know, this is an easy win. All someone has to do is inform you that different people have different reasonings, and in some cases people have no reasoning. What you have done is make yourself some nice little atheist and theist strawmen, which you then set out to argue against.

And I can tell you, for a fact, that your first contention for your atheist strawman is guilty of begging the question by assuming the universe was made.

What I don't understand is how you can't see the difference between believing something and knowing something. You call people who deny agnosticism fools. Well I call you an idiot for not understanding that someone can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. Just like they can be a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist. You comparing atheism and theism to agnosticism is like comparing a carpet to a ceiling, they're on different levels entirely. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge, atheism and theism deal with beleif. Understand the terms before you use them.

Now, your sentence "Agnosticism is the truth. Anyone who says it isn't is a fool." shows how stupid you are. No one is a fool but you for poisoning your own well against anyone who tries to convince you that your wrong. Maybe when you understand the difference between belief and knowledge we could have this debate, and hopefully by then you'll be rid of your strawmen.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 1 year ago
Smithereens
RationalMadmanStephen_HawkinsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments to hawkins for the funnier vids, conduct to hawkins for the better arguments
Vote Placed by JorgeLucas 1 year ago
JorgeLucas
RationalMadmanStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proposed a debate and then got mad when somebody provided evidence against him.
Vote Placed by DeFool 1 year ago
DeFool
RationalMadmanStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I awarded the spelling and grammar to Con, for arguments that were as direct and cutting as a rapier. Although I agreed with him before studying the debate, his arguments were insightful and refreshingly surprising. I could not award sourcing and conduct; I saw no conclusive winner in this area.
Vote Placed by alex1094 1 year ago
alex1094
RationalMadmanStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and failed to address Con's arguments.