The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
zgb1997
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Atheism contradicts itself

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
zgb1997
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,629 times Debate No: 29515
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (7)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

Atheism contradicts itself! Via Atheists. They contradict each other and cant be valid. I show how just accept. Forst round is for acceptance only

Accept if you dare! !!!
zgb1997

Con

Oh, I dare.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

Thanks zgb1997, you poor poor soul. He said "oh i dare". Oh he'll be praying that he never accepted. I was hesitant to open this debate because i t will ruin me on DDO because no atheist will want to debate me ever again because the argument is so good.

Let's say we have 666 atheists in a house. 333 say it's possible that god exists. 333 say its impossible for god to exist. They are all representing atheism. But are they contradicting themselves? Yes they are. this make atheism null and void because it has 2 contradictory claims.
zgb1997

Con

I thank my opponent for presenting his exposition.

To begin with, I had myself a hearty little chuckle at the "poor soul" remark. Ignorance really does fascinate me sometimes. And I wholeheartedly agree that no atheist will ever want to debate my opponent again. As to why that is so, I'll leave it to my opponent to mull over that fact.

As for his...let us call it an "argument", his statement is null and void due to one simple reason.
This is the definition of atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. [1]

An atheist, or a true atheist at least, will not claim that there is possibly a god out there - that would mean denying their atheist worldview. Thus, the argument does not stand.


Back to my opponent.
I honestly look forward to his reply.


SOURCE:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

Con failed. He says "oh there not true atheists". but there is people who do say its possible and say they are atheists! How? WP say its the rejection of deities. You can still say its possible. Con picked the cherrys . Look further down

" Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

You can still say its possible. Why does con get scared? I bet by round 3 he'll be praying he never accepted. My fellow handsome opponent if thee convert to theism i shall accept a tie.
zgb1997

Con

I thank pro for presenting his arguments.

Yes, there truly are people who believe that there is a distinct possibility as to the existence of a deity - we call them agnostics. Not atheists.

And indeed, "most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.". Atheists do not believe in deities, or a distinct possibilty that one exists.


Furthermore, even saying that pro's absurd statement is true - why should that disprove atheism? Many creationists, for example, believe in the young Earth theory, while others don't. Does this contradicton make my opponent consider creationism null and void? No, it doesn't and it shouldn't. A theory is disproved through falsification.
That is, one should definitely consider creationism null and void, but not because of the reason stated above.


I've shown that even if I were to accept my opponent's argument (which I've refuted as well), he still has no reason to call atheism null and void.
Back to pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

Con changes what an atheist is. No definition posted forbids an atheist saying its possible god exists. Many call themselves atheist and say its possible.

Your young earth v old earth is different. You see ALL Christians say god exists. They all believe in god. So that argument is fail
zgb1997

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments and the debate.

It is true that nothing forbids an atheist from saying that it is possible God exists, in the same way as nothing forbids a Christian from saying that it's possible God doesn't exist - which happens, and would, according to my opponent's theory, make Christianity null and void. Also, atheism as a belief rejects the possibility of the existence of God - what a single atheist says does not affect the belief system.

Furthermore, I was talking about creationism. The young Earth vs old Earth debate is very important for creationism, and since creationists themselves disagree on the topic, creationism cannot be a viable position according to my opponent.

Finally, my opponent has in no way proven that, even if one were to admit that an atheist can claim that God exists, atheism would be rendered null and void because of the statement, which is why voters should vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
He's a troll I'm sure. I thought his prof was actually pretty funny.
Posted by achmed242 4 years ago
achmed242
Please tell me Anti-Atheist is a troll, because if not, wow, just wow. Your profile is messed up. Also, it says you have no losses, while in fact you have 18, might want to go change that.
Posted by achmed242 4 years ago
achmed242
Please tell me Anti-Atheist is a troll, because if not, wow, just wow. Your profile is messed up. Also, it says you have no losses, while in fact you have 18, might want to go change that.
Posted by achmed242 4 years ago
achmed242
Please tell me Anti-Atheist is a troll, because if not, wow, just wow. Your profile is messed up. Also, it says you have no losses, while in fact you have 18, might want to go change that.
Posted by achmed242 4 years ago
achmed242
Please tell me Anti-Atheist is a troll, because if not, wow, just wow. Your profile is messed up. Also, it says you have no losses, while in fact you have 18, might want to go change that.
Posted by achmed242 4 years ago
achmed242
Please tell me Anti-Atheist is a troll, because if not, wow, just wow. Your profile is messed up. Also, it says you have no losses, while in fact you have 18, might want to go change that.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
::sigh:: Seriously?!
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
"Atheism contradicts itself!" - reading round one, I sense a whopping loss coming. I can't imagine how Pro would prove "a rejection of belief in the existence in deities" is contradictory.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
I will eat my penguin's hat if he is actually serious.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Chad Elliot, aka the self-proclaimed "Atheist Killa".
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Anti-atheistzgb1997Tied
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: Pro had no sources, was an asshat and couldn't capitalize. Both ZGB and AA seem to assume that it is /agnostics/ that believe that a deity could exist and that atheists can't (regardless of whether or not they actively did not believe in it or not), which seems to me like saying someone who says 'Bigfoot is logically possible but doesn't exist' is 'agnostic to the existence of Bigfoot'. But Pro's arguments were refuted by Con.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Anti-atheistzgb1997Tied
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: This isnt just regular stupid...... This is..... *zoom in close to mouth*..... ADVANCED stupid
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Anti-atheistzgb1997Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm afraid I agreewith Pro here, He got con to admit that atheist can believe in the possibility of God, as far I am concerned God is not even considered a possibility to atheists, they simply lack any belief whatsoever, were they to hold a possibiltiy of God existieng then that would be contradictive. Messy debate btw.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Anti-atheistzgb1997Tied
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: Con's arguments were weak, but still stronger than Pro's. The fundamental point remains - two atheists believing different things does not mean that atheism itself is internally inconsistent, anymore than the thousands of different Abrahamic sects mean that the Abrahamic religions are each internally inconsistent (I do believe they are, but not for this reason). Pro, you need a lot of work to become a good debater. Con, you could use a lot of practice too. On a side note, I read Con's arguments in the voice of his profile picture.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Anti-atheistzgb1997Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Bizarre. Con points out that two people can agree on one thing and disagree on another thing. E.g., one Christian or Atheist can prefer red and another can prefer blue. Con also provided a source.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
Anti-atheistzgb1997Tied
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: Con provided arguments that even if an atheist were to say that there is a possibility that God exist, it does not mean that his position is valid and it is not an accurate representation on what atheism is based on the definition.
Vote Placed by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
Anti-atheistzgb1997Tied
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 never met his BOP and had no sources whilst con had a reliable one. S&G is due to no errors by con but many by pro.