The Instigator
atheistmaximus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thinkingaboutit
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Atheism defined - Atheism does NOT have an impact on an Atheist worldview

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...
thinkingaboutit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 762 times Debate No: 19317
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

atheistmaximus

Pro

I will define atheism and show that it does not have an impact on an Atheist worldview.

Let's start that Atheism it is NOT a system with teachings, promises, handouts, no manual, no assumptions, no conflicts with logic and science, no punishments, no PREACHING. It is the freedom of all that, from whomever assigns it.
thinkingaboutit

Con

Your description of what atheism means to you. Here below (resumed in 5 points):

Atheism (per your definition) is:

1. Is Self-Responsibility.
2. Is NOT a system with teachings.
3. (It has) No assumptions.
4. It has no conflicts with logic and science.
5. Therefore, is freedom from all that and whomever assigns it.

I think these 5 points above are a fair summary of what you view as a definition of atheism. I do want to mention, that I think anyone who lives by a set of foundational assumptions about the world (i.e. the ones you provided above), has its implications. Let me touch on two points for now.

Point #3 Atheism as per your description has/makes "No assumptions."

Well, let's point out two contentions about point #3:

1. You have already made an assumption by implying that atheism is true.
2. You have already made an assumption by implying that (in this case religion standards) other views are not to be an alternative, " Self-responsibility wants nothing to do with the handouts that religion understands as standard."

Are you sure that by your affirmation of atheism as true, you have NOT already made an assumption?

Point #1, Atheism as per your description "Is Self-Responsibility."

Contentions against point#1:

1. Your point #2 (atheism, Is NOT a system with teachings) discredits your own point #1 (Atheism is "Self-Responsibility). Is "Self-responsibility" itself NOT a teaching, or part of a system of teachings?

2. Why should I allow your personally defined moral values and moral duties ("self-responsibility") imposed on me? Then by no means have you held to your conclusion, Point #5 to be true ("is freedom from all that and whomever assigns it".) For if I want freedom from your ("whomever assigns it") "Self-responsibility," I should be able to exercise point # 5. But by doing so it will be an inconsistent way of living in a society. Since your moral duty ("Self-Responsibility) has no objective foundation, for your "Self-Responsibility" (moral duty) is whatever you personally desire to assign.

Example: The main complaint that the "Occupy" movement seems to have is that WS self-imposed "Self-Responsibility" is only to benefit the "1%." Again how can anyone who affirms moral relativism as true even come close to imply that WS is objectively the "wrong doer."?
Debate Round No. 1
atheistmaximus

Pro

You are anchored in beliefs that do not allow you to submerge into your self and practical possibilities far beyond this scratch-n-sniff argument. You're definitely seeking individual freedom. But it will not come dressed as religion, with theories, over-embelished NON-points, and doctrines that REQUIRE some sort of mechanical participation. I'm sorry, but I cannot even take these arguments seriously. They are little constructs, not realistic. Having shackles and being freed from them do NOT present the balanced "compare and contrast" you are fabricating.
thinkingaboutit

Con

I. atheistmaximus said: "You are anchored in beliefs that do not allow you to submerge into yourself and practical possibilities far beyond this scratch-n-sniff argument." - Yasser

1. If this argument is "scratch-n-sniff" as you have labeled it, it should be easy for you to refute it.

2. I am NOT the one that has presented an argument, I presented a statement of the implications of atheism and it was YOU who presented the argument for atheism as the best choice you have personally made.

3. In other words, you have called your OWN argument for atheism a "scratch-n-sniff" argument.

To remind you the argument summarized below is YOURS in favor of atheism and how YOU personally define atheism:

1. Is Self-Responsibility.
2. Is NOT a system with teachings.
3. (It has) No assumptions.
4. It has no conflicts with logic and science.
5. Therefore, is freedom from all that and whomever assigns it.

II. "I'm sorry, but I cannot even take these arguments seriously. They are little constructs, not realistic."

1. Once again is this the way you define your own argument for atheism? of "little constructs, not realistic."

2. All I have done is question your description of atheism.

III. "Having shackles and being freed from them do NOT present the balanced "compare and contrast" you so much like to fabricate."

1. There has been NO "fabrication," and even IF there is one, they are the ones that you have made up as a description for atheism as you see it.

IV. You are anchored in beliefs..."

1. Again, at this point it seems that you are the one anchored to a non-belief that you can't account for.

IF atheism is to be true, then it has implications on the atheist worldview. Russell, as well as Nietzsche were willing to accept the implications of atheism. But, many "modern atheism" proclaimers are not comfortable when having to face the nihilism it brings to life or having to explain their way out of it.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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 pointed out correctly that Pro's definition on what atheism is implied a certain worldview(e.g. self-responsibility, hostility to hand-outs). This alone won Con the debate since Pro refused to even consider the points.
Vote Placed by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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: I will be polite
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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: The resolution is incoherent. Pro had the burden of proof, but he never identifiably tried to argue for the resolution. Con didn't either. Con pointed out contradictions in Pro's "case," but since Pro wasn't supporting the resolution anyway, refuting him didn't refute the resolution. Since nobody argued for or against the resolution, and since Pro had the burden of proof: Advantage Con. Since Pro's tone was the first to deteriorate: Conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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 pointed out pros contradictions. Pro doesn't make much of an effort. Saying he's not even going to take cons arguments seriously is not a rebuttal.