The Instigator
chipmonk
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
random_noob
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheism is a LIE

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: 4/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 89238
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

chipmonk

Pro

chipmonk
Pro

I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate.

There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate.

I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically.

My resolution is "Atheism is a lie."

Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution.

Theism. Belief in God
Atheism. Disbelief in God.

A LIE. Deception. Pretending. Acting. Hypocrisy. To decieve another or give another a false or inaccurate depiction of the truth.

Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence
Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence.

Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence.
Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence.

Construct 1
Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.
Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence
Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.

Construct 2
Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists.
Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions)
Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists.

Construct 3
Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.
Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)
Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.

Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.

Rules. If u do not know how logic works. You lose. If you do not like my definitions, you may propose an alternate definition. However, Both parties must concede to all definitions for any claim to be evaluated at all. If con is unable to find an agreeable ground for each definition cited, there is no point in talking to each other as we are not even talking the same language. Logic.

Basically, Con and Pro must agree on definitions before making any argument for or against. Any arguments ensued without agreeing on definitions is rendered moot.

Report this Argument as flawless.
random_noob

Con

First of all, good luck to my opponent. I will accept Pro's definitions, except the one for belief/disbelief, which we agreed in the comments. Since this is a logical debate, I would rather not argue about definitions. Furthermore, Pro provides some terms that could be relative and not absolute. For instance, a person could have a strong belief, a moderate belief, a weak belief etc. Little evidence could exist, or very strong evidence could exist etc. A statement could be unlikely true, very likely true etc. Since Pro did not mention anything that implies the above, I will assume that no intermediate states exist, e.g. a person either believes or not, evidence either exists or not. I will follow this during this debate, and I am kindly asking that Pro follows it as well.

Let me examine Pro's case. He provides 3 logical arguments and reaches the conclusion that "Atheism is a lie". It is his burden, to show how all of these are arguments are sound, and my burden to refute any of them.

1. Definitions
--------------------
(a) truth

When a statement X is TRUE, statement ~X (NOT X) is FALSE (NOT TRUE).
This is a basic logic concept. This means that when the statement "God exists" is TRUE, statement "God does not exist" is FALSE. God cannot both exist and not exist.

(b) belief / disbelief

belief:Person A thinks that statement X is TRUE, or simply person A believes X.
disbelief: Person A thinks that statement X is FALSE, or simply person A believes ~X.

A belief does not make X true or false. However if the statement "Person A believes X." is TRUE then "Person A believes ~X" is false.

As a last note, the statements:
Person A believes X.
Person B believes ~X.

are not mutually exclusive. They both can be TRUE. Finally, It was agreed by Pro in the comments that belief/disbelief does not have to do with evidence. It is just an assumption of truth or falsehood.

(c) evidence

Evidence, since it refers to observations by individuals, and not absolute truths, can exist for both X and ~X. Therefore:
The truth of the statement "Person A has evidence that X is TRUE" does not make the statement "Person B has evidence that X is FALSE" untrue.

If this is not self explanatory, I will give an example:

John has evidence that Mary has long hair. (He saw her hair two hours ago)
Jack has evidence that Mary does not have long hair. (He saw her an hour ago)

Of course Mary cannot have both short and long hair, however evidence may exist for both. She may occasionally wear a short hair wig, which makes short hair false. She may have had a haircut between the two observations, which makes long hair false.

Both pieces of evidence are valid, and John and Jack can both claim that they have evidence for the length of Mary's hair.
In our setting, both theists and atheists can have evidence for the existence of God, which is very reasonable.
Some simple examples of evidence for the existence of God may be: Jesus, the Bible, miracles, intelligent design etc.
Some simple examples of evidence against the existence of God may be: contradictions between religions, God of the gaps, God's non intervention etc.

Of course I am not a theologist, I am not aware of all the arguments for both sides. However, it is not in the scope of this debate to assess which party has better arguments/evidence, I will just acknowledge that evidence exists both ways.

(d) knowledge

According to Pro to know is to believe and have evidence. Therefore:

Person A knows X.

If and only if:
Person A believes X.
Person A has evidence for X.

Notice here that, using this definition, knowledge of a statement X does not say anything about X being TRUE or FALSE. Furthermore, because of the definitions of evidence and belief, two individuals can have contradictory knowledge.

Person A knows X.
Person B knows ~X.

The above statements can both be true, since it is only required that the two individuals hold a belief, and have evidence. Opposite beliefs can exist, as well as opposite evidence, as I showed in (b) and (c). As a result of the above, statements:

"Person A knows X.", "X is FALSE." can both be true.

2. Pro's argument
--------------------------------
C1 P1: no one knows if God exists of not.

This means, using Pro's definitions, that either:
- neither theists or atheist have evidence to support God's existence or the opposite.
- noone holds a belief about God.

Both of the above of course are false, as I showed earlier. Plenty of evidence exists both ways, and plenty of people hold a belief regarding God. I am expecting Pro to show how this premise is true, which seems an impossible task, given his definitions. Notice that, whether God exists or not, is irrelevant here.

C1 P2: redundant, we have already defined knowledge.

C1 Conclusion
Pro defines lie as deception, and in this statement, the definition implied, is someone being wrong. However, Pro"s position is already tough, so I "ll let him get away with that.

Construct 2
Irrelevant to the resolution

C3 P1: Atheists disbelieve that God exists.

"Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists" is the original statement but the word "claim" here provides nothing and this is a definition. Pro does not have to show why this is true.

C3 P2: Atheists claim that there is evidence that God does not exist.

"disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence." is the original statement but this is inconsistent, and we agreed with Pro that disbelief is the opposite of belief. So, P2 is not a direct result of the definition of disbelief as originally stated.

Pro can make the statement that both theists and atheists claim that they have evidence. He can also make the statement that neither of them claim to have evidence. I will not accept that only one side has evidence and the other does not. Evidence on something that abstract can be easily dismissed or accepted depending on your POV. Remember, we are talking about evidence here, not proof.

-------------------------------------------
Summary: I am expecting Pro to address my points, and prove his case. Particularly the points I made about C1P1, and C3P2.
Debate Round No. 1
chipmonk

Pro

Clap Clap Clap. Very Impressive Con. I agree with much of the foundation in your logic. Thank you for pointing out there are ranges of degree in belief (from weak to strong.) and also accepting my definitions. However, Con's logic does become disjointed from the middle of his argument. And though Con has done substantial work frame-working his argument Con has not provided much reasoning behind his "refuting" my claims (aside from declaring them inconsistent.), while in the end...his own "framework" works against his own refutations, and supports my argument. Atheism is, indeed, a Lie.

1. Definitions.
Truth :
I agree with Con's logic in defining Truth to be X=X. and statement X=-X is false. To say the Sky is the sky is true. To say the Sky is not the sky is false. Here Con points out , according to such logic, and acknowledgement of existence of "truth", we can asset almost axiomatically " God cannot both exist and not exist."

Much of the rest of Con's framework seems valid,, until! he gets to the point of saying :

"As a last note, the statements:
Person A believes X.
Person B believes ~X.

are not mutually exclusive. ..."

Con has not demonstrated how both Person A and B can be right and their claims or beliefs be TRUE. Clearly, from the logic we both agreed upon above, both beliefs cannot be true. I believe Con is arguing that both STATEMENTS are TRUE STATEMENTS. But My resolution is not that Atheists are deceiving themselves or making false statements about themselves. My resolution is that Atheism is a Lie and therefore atheists make false statements about God. The BELIEF of an Atheist is therefore a LIE. therefore, when (and only when) an Atheist declares his beliefs, and propagates them as a form of Truth,, makes them also liars. It does not make the STATEMENT " Atheists disbelieve God." a lie. That statement is part of one of my premises. and the statement is true. The disbelief or lack of belief in God IS mutually exclusive to a belief in God. And it is my contention that atheism is a lie which makes atheists liars.

This assertion of Con's that both can be true is recurrent throughout Con's argument. And is a stawman fallacy.

(c) evidence:
IT's interesting that Con accepts that both sides (theists and atheists) have "evidence" for their beliefs. Yet, important to note, that Atheists clearly do not recognize Con's claim that Theists hold evidence. Anyone who is an atheist, is familiar with the Mantra "Where is the evidence?" Clearly, Atheists claim that there is no "valid evidence" for the theist's beliefs. Ergo, the atheist's disbelief. Con is clearly using an equivocation fallacy to make his point again. (which seems rather convenient after asserting that he would not argue definitions.)

If atheists say there is NO evidence FOR God, and theists say there IS evidence FOR God.... One side must be wrong. Either the theist has evidence,,,, and the atheist is lying. Or the theist does not have evidence, and the theist is lying. There cannot be both evidence and no of evidence for God. Logic. In conclusion, if Con states both sides have evidence, he makes Atheists Liars, because atheists claim theists have no evidence. And my resolution is demonstrated yet again.

IF athesits say there is evidence against God, and theists say there is NO evidence AGAINST God, only one side can be wrong. Either the atheist has counter evidence (evolution) for God, or he does not. If we say Evolution is evidence against God, the theists must lie that there is no evidence against God. (If theists claim there is no evidence against God.) However, theists do not claim such ideas. Because Theists themselves have not properly defined God. Only Atheism has improperly defined God, making itself into a lie.

(d) knowledge

I'd like to expand upon Con's example, as I believe it supports my contention even more, if we clarify his proposition. And when clarified , Con's analogy is a better depiction of "knowledge" than evidence. As explained below.

John has evidence that Mary has long hair. (He saw her hair two hours ago)
Jack has evidence that Mary does not have long hair. (He saw her an hour ago)

The question : "Does Mary have long hair?"

Con asserts that "Mary cannot have both short and long hair, however evidence may exist for both. She may occasionally wear a short hair wig, which makes short hair false. She may have had a haircut between the two observations, which makes long hair false."

Con is saying one thing , yet implying another. Which is a common atheistic tactic and yet another demonstration of my resolution . Is clearly saying that Mary cannot have both long and short hair, is clearly saying that Mary cannot have both long and short hair yet implying that Mary having long and short hair can both be true, and having evidence for them both can be true. What is Con doing here? Besides confusing himself and the audience? Allow me to clarify.

The question itself suggests temporal truth. In that the question is actually asking "does mary have long hair (NOW)?" . The analogy fails to account for the fact that throughout mary's hypothetical life, she has indeed had short hair and long hair. Thus the evidence that Jack and John has can only be true if the question is "did Mary ever have long hair?"

In the case the question is as implied "does mary have long hair (now)?" Or "does god exist (now)?" , then the only honest answer both parties can give is "I dont know." Because neither side is looking at Mary Now.

John would be honest if he said , "i don't know if Mary has long hair, but I believe she does."
In contrast, Jack would be found to be dishonest if he said "i disbelieve mary has long hair, because John has no evidence."

Further. Jack does not KNOW if mary has long or short hair now. As mentioned before the evidence that John holes is not valid, if we are asking if Mary has long hair now. Jack having witnessed Mary's short hair, maybe entirely convinced that Mary does not have long hair , but without looking at Mary while the question is being asked , Jack cannot honestly say for certain . Neither can Jack assert that his evidence is more valid. It could very well be, that Mary was wearing a short hair wig one hour ago. And jack was mistaken. Then, logically we can conclude, if Jack says

" I just disbelieve Mary has long hair because there is no evidence that Mary has long hair. In fact there is evidence that Mary has short hair , and that's because I saw her one hour ago. So I know mary has short hair. Which is why i disbelieve mary has long hair."

Then Jack is lying

. 1. If mary was wearin a wig, Jack's claim is a lie entirely.
2. Even if Jack is correct, he is lying that either
a. there is no evidence for mary's long hair (john saw it 2 hrs ago), and
b. He has valid evidence that mary has short hair.
C. Both

Con says he will not accept the idea that only one side has evidence and the other does not. This means con will not except the atheist proposition that theists do not have evidence for their beliefs. Not confusing evidence with proof , but still differentiating evidence from valid evidence becomes crucial. It would appear that by "proof" pro means "valid evidence." as mentioned before, then Pro must be suggesting one side has proof, the other does not.

Either way. C2 is not irrelevant. Which further demonstrates Con's ireconcilably confusion on my own contention. Believers believe the claim. They do not make any claims. Therefore cannot be liars. It is the leaders or religious organizations or groups that make the claim, the believers only believe the claim.

Then conclusion of my argument is that should God exist, then his lack of scientific evidence is purely logicAL result of necessitating the need to differentiate "believers" from "nonbelievers." Its the perfect mechanism to decide who is innocent and who is guilty (at least in their hearts.)
random_noob

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his reply. Let's go over Pro's points.

1.belief
Pro is obviously confused or he did not understand what the statements mean.

The statement: "Person A believes X" does not mean that X is TRUE.
I will kindly provide Pro an example to understand.

(Person A believes that God exists.) <---- This can be true (Theists exist)
(Person B believes that God does not exist.) <------ This can also be true (Atheists exist)

The above statements are not mutually exclusive, this means that they both can be TRUE. By TRUE, it is not implied that either PERSON is right. It means that People with opposite beliefs can exist. I hope that clarifies. It is a pretty basic concept, I hope we don't spend any more time on this.

2. evidence - knowledge

I am amazed that Pro is trying to deny that evidence can exist both ways. This is, again, a pretty basic concept. Pro wastes so much space on something so simple. This, of course, has nothing to do with time.

Pro essentially tries to exploit that I wrote 2 hours ago and 1 hour ago in my example, which is, of course, irrelevant.

Jack is observing Mary's short hair RIGHT NOW. Does he have evidence that Mary has short hair? (Mary actually has long hair, and she's wearing a wig)

Two people measure the height of a person at the exact same moment. (One of them makes a mistake in the measurement.)

You see a person's blue eyes. (He's wearing contact lenses)

You see a person with a gun above a murdered person. Is that evidence? It classifies as evidence in court...

I have to kindly remind Pro that the first thing I wrote in R1 is that I would not like to argue about how strong evidence is or how deep a belief is. Let's keep this a logical debate.

To show his point that my simple example does not stand, Pro makes the following statement:

"I just disbelieve Mary has long hair because there is no evidence that Mary has long hair. In fact there is evidence that Mary has short hair , and that's because I saw her one hour ago. So I know Mary has short hair. Which is why I disbelieve Mary has long hair."

Then Jack is lying

Pro essentially dismisses sight as valid evidence. The question is NOT whether Jack is lying. The question is whether Jack HAS EVIDENCE that Mary has short hair. If Pro asserts that Jack's statement means that he is lying, I am really confused. Jack is not required to know everything. Jack is not God, he is human. There may exist evidence against Jack's claim, but he's not aware of it. Jack is justified to make the a claim that he has evidence that Mary has short hair, if he saw her.

Since Pro dismisses a lot of evidence, including sight, I would expect him to define what valid evidence is, and provide some examples. Pro not only confuses evidence with proof, he also dismisses any evidence for any statement that is not absolutely 100% true. I am getting the feeling that Pro assumes that humans are omniscient. So, if a something happens, everyone is aware of it. That's not how the real world works. People get plenty of evidence for different things. Evidence could be contradictory. Then a person uses his judgement and weighs the evidence and decides what is more likely. So when I say "Person A has evidence that God does not exist", it means that Person A is aware of evidence both against and for God, weighs them, and decides that evidence for one of the two is stronger. That's why agnostics exist. An agnostic is someone who can't decide, can't reach a conclusion about which evidence is stronger, or doesn't care enough to weigh them. Theists believe that the evidence for God's existence is stronger, while atheists believe the opposite.

When I said "I will not accept", I meant as an assertion. Pro is welcome to show how one side claims, and the other does not. Is the claim "Jesus resurrected" not a claim for valid evidence about God? Miracles? The whole Bible? Prophecies? Isn't this evidence? What classifies as valid evidence according to Pro? Does Pro dismiss resurrection/prophecies etc as invalid? That would be an interesting question for Pro to answer.

Finally, let me notice that my point still stands, since Pro did not even try to show how the core point of his argument, "no one knows if God exists of not" is true. I would like Pro to explicitly make an effort to show how this statement is possibly true. Without showing that, his whole argument falls apart.
Debate Round No. 2
chipmonk

Pro

I again thank Con for providing his Rebuttal. But this time around, even Con must admit that his rebuttal is weak, and my argument is becoming stronger with each round. As I clarify what I mean, and the truth of the matter is revealed, it becomes quite undeniable that Atheism is a Lie and Atheists Lie.

Con states:
"The above statements are not mutually exclusive, this means that they both can be TRUE. By TRUE, it is not implied that either PERSON is right. It means that People with opposite beliefs can exist. I hope that clarifies. It is a pretty basic concept, I hope we don't spend any more time on this."
- We would not have to spend more time on this, if you would admit you are wrong. Nobody is talking about if people exist or not. Quite ridiculous tangent that you drew. We are talking about if God exists or not, and if there is evidence for it, and there what people ought to believe or disbelieve about it.

Con states:
"I am amazed that Pro is trying to deny that evidence can exist both ways."
- And the strawmen continue. I did not deny that evidence could not exists both ways. THAT is what ATHEISTS CLAIM!!!! That is the very atheist lie, that I am exposing in my resolution. It is the Atheists that consistently claim that theists have failed to provide "Evidence for their beliefs" and then Atheists resort to name calling when the evidence is presented. IT's quite disgusting. Yet here, Con admits, theists in fact DO have evidence. And Atheists Lie. This was already explained in R2 and Con has not made his argument any more sound.

Then Con goes and tries to make several examples of how to deconstruct his own example that he used to support MY claim. Pro is laughing out loud.

Con asks:
"Jack is observing Mary's short hair RIGHT NOW. Does he have evidence that Mary has short hair? "
Pro Answers:
According to an atheist, No, Jack does not. Jack must have testable, repeatable evidence. Sight alone is not testable and repeatable. (Note : I am only using the Atheist's definition of evidence here. Which is synonymous to PROOF."

Con states:
"Two people measure the height of a person at the exact same moment. (One of them makes a mistake in the measurement.)"
Pro Answers: If one makes a mistake, then in order to be honest, they must admit it was a mistake or that they are NOT sure. They can BELIEVE they are right. Then even if it was a mistake, they would not be liars. Otherwise...they'd be a liar.. Like if they told the other guy, he was the one probably making the mistake. and said his measurement was evidence but the other guy's measurement was not. How could he know?

Con states :
"You see a person with a gun above a murdered person. Is that evidence? It classifies as evidence in court..."
Pro Answers:
Yes. I personally would consider that very compelling evidence. However, the question is not what I consider valid evidence. The question is what does an ATHEIST consider valid evidence? Afterall, who is the one requesting evidence? It's the atheist. Obviously the one requesting the evidence must set the minimum standard for what constitutes as "valid" or evidence that they would accept.
And the atheist does not classify such as evidence, or he would believe people when they had Near Death Experiences. But the atheist does not believe ppl with NDEs , considers them delusional, and the atheist continues to demand evidence. When asked, "what evidence do you consider valid?" The atheist is ALWAYS ready to give his response.

The Atheist's Evidence
"Evidence is that which is repeatable, testable, and observable by scientific measurements."

Of course, I do not agree with this definition of evidence, but it is what definition set forth by Atheism. Not myself.

IF CON DISAGREES, and says "No. That's not what atheists claim to be evidence!" Which is an understandable knee jerk reaction to being "caught red handed." ,, (the common reaction being - Denial.) .. then Con is stating that non-scientific evidence is evidence. he is saying Eye Witness Testimony, the Bible, Prophecies, JEsus Christ, are indeed "valid evidences" then Con is saying that Atheists are in effect "Ignorant." Why so? Simple. Think about it.

P1. Evidence for God exists.
P2. To be ignorant is to make incorrect statements or assertions (mistakes) in the light of valid evidence.
C: Atheists are Ignorant about God's existence.

For me, the theist, I consider the bible to be valid evidence for God. The Atheist will say that this is not evidence. The Atheist lies or is ignorant. demonstrated yet again.

Con needs to make up his mind about which side he is on.

Con says:
"If Pro asserts that Jack's statement means that he is lying, I am really confused. "
Pro Answers:
Hint ; John is the theist. Jack Is the Atheist. Read the analogy again. Jack LIES about KNOWING whether or not MARY has short of long hair. At surface level, it may seem that Jack's evidence is "more valid" than John's evidence ( having seen Mary one whole hour after john.). However, when given just a tad bit of CRITICAL THINKING, we can surmise that EVEN JACK must ASSUME that Mary has short hair NOW. Without Looking at Mary NOW, JAck cannot say he KNOWS Mary has short hair. Even with the evidence of eye witness testimony and sight.

However, IF jack CONSTANTLY PRETENDS TO KNOW something he does not know.... in the 21st century, we call the LYING. IF Jack acts like John's valid evidence is NOT valid evidence, then JAck Lies some more. IF JAck acts like a douchebag, and pretends to know-it-all, while calling John a nutcase or a bronze age peasant, then Jack is an atheist.

Con asserts :
"Pro essentially dismisses sight as valid evidence"

- No. It's the atheists that do this.

Con Asserts more straw men by saying " I am getting the feeling that Pro assumes that humans are omniscient. So, if a something happens, everyone is aware of it. That's not how the real world works. "

-mmhmm.. Con is PRETENEDING TO KNOW SOMETHING, he does not know. What do we call that ? LYING. "That's not how the real world works. " is a typical atheist mantra. Empty in actual content or veracity or truth. How does Con know how the "real" world works? Con is assuming that he has already figured out how the entire universe, reality, and human mind works. Then in the very same sentence before, Con says "I am getting the feeling that Pro assumes that humans are omniscient."
- No Con. I certainly don't think YOU are omniscient. Not when you are unable to do logic. and certainly not when you act like a hypocrite and blame me for your own misdeeds (see definition of Lie.)

The most rational statement by Con was :
"People get plenty of evidence for different things. Evidence could be contradictory. Then a person uses his judgement and weighs the evidence and decides what is more likely. So when I say "Person A has evidence that God does not exist", it means that Person A is aware of evidence both against and for God, weighs them, and decides that evidence for one of the two is stronger. That's why agnostics exist. An agnostic is someone who can't decide, can't reach a conclusion about which evidence is stronger, or doesn't care enough to weigh them. Theists believe that the evidence for God's existence is stronger, while atheists believe the opposite."

Con admits that both sides have evidence. but Con provides another fallacy in ASSUMING that the evidence is simply weighed like weighing out fruits and vegetables in a grocery market. Evidence is not weighed in such a simplistic manner. Certain evidences are given higher weight or authority. For example, Scientific evidence is not weighed in the same category as witness testimony. Con ASSUMES, the theist and atheist collect evidence and simply weighs them to make their decision. This is simply not true. Not all people come to "believe" in this way. MOST people come to believe through a single undeniable and immensely powerful spiritual personal experience - often described as "Meeting Jesus."

So in conclusion.. IF we decide that evidence is scietntific evidence or even demonstrable evidence in court, YES the evidence for theism is weaker. It is patently and obviously so. This is why the atheist will consistently demand scientific evidence from an unwitting theist. Because the atheist is aware of the different weight in evidence. But at the end of the day , all the atheist is doing is setting a snare for the theist. The atheist already knows the theist cannot provide any evidence to satisfy their doubt. Its not only common sense, its logic. Yet the atheist asks for the evidence any ways. Why? Because he is a liar. And wants to lie about having contradicting evidence.
random_noob

Con

Pro seems undecided about the definition of evidence we should use. I find this reasonable, but since this is the case, I don"t understand why he argued with me in the first place. It seems that we agree.

In this round Pro pretty much conceded this debate by accepting that valid evidence exists pro or against the existence of God.

"I did not deny that evidence could not exists both ways."
"theists in fact DO have evidence"
"For me, the theist, I consider the bible to be valid evidence for God. "
"Con admits that both sides have evidence." (That's one of the first things I said in R1, and Pro disagreed)

The above make his statement C1P1 FALSE. Even if we assume that C1P1 is TRUE:

Pro believes that God exists. (apparently)
Pro claims that he has valid evidence for God. (he just did in R3)
Pro claims to know whether God exists. (see definition of knowledge)
Pro is a liar. (through his construct 1)

Plenty of people would be happy to argue about the existence of God in this website. If that's what Pro wants, he should make a debate stating explicitly that. I know that making such a provocative statement will get more attention, but it's impossible for Pro to support such a case. In R2 and R3, Pro made absolutely no effort to stand by his initial argument. He wrote 3 constructs in R1, and he abandoned them right away. He is trying to debate about whether God exists or not, which is irrelevant to THIS debate. This debate is about whether the definition of atheism means that it is a lie ("Atheism is a lie by definition and logic."). I accepted Pro's definitions, and showed how (with these definitions) C1P1 is FALSE and C3P2 is not included in the definition of atheism. I asked Pro in both rounds to support his argument ("I am expecting Pro to address my points, and prove his case. Particularly the points I made about C1P1, and C3P2.","I would like Pro to explicitly make an effort to show how this statement is possibly true."). If Pro has nothing to support his initial argument, I will kindly ask him to forfeit the next rounds, or admit he lost.
Debate Round No. 3
chipmonk

Pro

I'd like to thank con for his rebuttal.

But this time around, Allcon can do is establish a straw man, and demand that I forfeit.

random_noob
Con
"Pro seems undecided about the definition of evidence we should use. I find this reasonable, but since this is the case, I don"t understand why he argued with me in the first place. It seems that we agree."
- con says he accepts my definitions, yep pretends to be confused when the definitions stands against his logic. I specifically stated that we are using the atheist definition of evidence, which is scientific evidence.

In this round Pro pretty much conceded this debate by accepting that valid evidence exists pro or against the existence of God.

"I did not deny that evidence could not exists both ways."
"theists in fact DO have evidence"
"For me, the theist, I consider the bible to be valid evidence for God. "
"Con admits that both sides have evidence." (That's one of the first things I said in R1, and Pro disagreed)
- is con Suggesting that this have scientific evidence for their beliefs? I made a very clear distinction between theistic evidence , like the Bible, and atheistic evidence like science. The only way con can argue his logic is true, is by obfuscating this fact that no atheists considers theistic evidence to even be evidence at all ! Thus the only way con can make this logic work. Which is, to say atheists lie about there being no evidence. Either way, my opponent seems to be conceding to my resolution, and if anyone should forfeit, it should be the person who is no longer able to set forth a logical Argument.

"The above make his statement C1P1 FALSE. Even if we assume that C1P1 is TRUE:"
- my opponent keeps asserting that C1 P1 is false. My opponent seems to believe, people can know or have knowledge that God exists. According to my definitions, that con already excepted, to know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs. Here con is asserting that people know God exists because they have valid evidence to believe God exists. My opponent wants to include the Bible, prophecies, and Jesus Christ into the fold of valid evidence. But who considers the Bible to be valid evidence so as to lead one to knowledge? Opponent seems to think that knowledge of the Bible is somehow a proof for God. Which is preposterous. Believers are called believers , specifically because they do not know. And specifically because they do not know , They only have the choice or option to believe or disbelieve. Having decided to believe , in the evidence (valid or not) , they r called believers, and can never be liars. Including my self.

Pro believes that God exists. (apparently)
-yes i do.

Pro claims that he has valid evidence for God. (he just did in R3)
- no i did not. Please quote where i said this. Or i ask conduct points be deducted
For defamation.

Pro claims to know whether God exists. (see definition of knowledge)
-your premise is a lie. Which is assumptive of an atheist.

Pro is a liar. (through his construct 1)
- correction ; Con is a liar.

Plenty of people would be happy to argue about the existence of God in this website. If that's what Pro wants, he should make a debate stating explicitly that
- no one is arguIng the existence of God. P1c1 clearly states no one can even know if God exists. You can build up your strawmen all around it however you like, yet all you do is further demonstrate my resolution, which is " atheism is a lie "

. I know that making such a provocative statement will get more attention, but it's impossible for Pro to support such a case.
-what is impossible to prove? That atheists lie about evidence? Like you did? That atheists lie about being able to KNOW if God exists? Like you just did? Or that atheists just flat out lie? Like you do now.

In R2 and R3, Pro made absolutely no effort to stand by his initial argument. He wrote 3 constructs in R1, and he abandoned them right away.
- sure. Keep writing your novel. Entirely fictionary. In fact, a more appropriate description of his own argument.

He is trying to debate about whether God exists or not, which is irrelevant to THIS debate.
-nope. As much as you try to confuse the audience. It wont work. My resolution is in the topic of this debate which is that "ATHeism is a lie. " this much, I feel I demonstrated Many times over again.

This debate is about whether the definition of atheism means that it is a lie ("Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.").
- yes. That is correct. And as you can see your ENTIRE rebuttal up to now, is just a strawman, or your own inability to grasp my argument .

I accepted Pro's definitions, and showed how (with these definitions) C1P1 is FALSE and C3P2 is not included in the definition of atheism. I asked Pro in both rounds to support his argument ("I am expecting Pro to address my points, and prove his case. Particularly the points I made about C1P1, and C3P2.","I would like Pro to explicitly make an effort to show how this statement is possibly true."). If Pro has nothing to support his initial argument, I will kindly ask him to forfeit the next rounds, or admit he lost.

C1P1 is not false. You have failed to demonstrate why it is false. Are you claiming to KNoW God does not exist? Or are you continously going to lie about me claiming such things? Even when its my first premise lol.

c3p2 is the definition of disbelief. To assume falsehood with or without evidence. And stands valid and sound.

I'd like to remind Con that pointing his finger at something and screaming "inconsistency" doesnt make it so.
random_noob

Con

I am finally glad to see Pro actually paying attention to the debate and not arguing against his own definitions.

"I specifically stated that we are using the atheist definition of evidence, which is scientific evidence."

I does not matter what definition of evidence we actually use, if Pro concedes that at least one party has evidence. Even if we use scientific evidence, and only atheists have evidence, what difference does it make? Still, there is someone with evidence. If evidence exists, C1P1 is FALSE.

Notice that Pro has already conceded that atheists have scientific evidence:
"IF we decide that evidence is scietntific evidence or even demonstrable evidence in court, YES the evidence for theism is weaker."(R3)

Subsequently Pro asks:
"But who considers the Bible to be valid evidence" (R4)
Pro does.
"For me, the theist, I consider the bible to be valid evidence for God." (R3)

I have to state here, that I am not biased in any way. I was since the beginning asking Pro to define his terms. I would accept anything that was not contradictory, as I promised. If Pro wants evidence, I accept evidence. If Pro wants no evidence, I accept no evidence. If Pro wants know = evidence + belief, I will accept that too. His resolution is impossible to prove, since it requires biased definitions to prove that 2 people that hold a different belief, one of them is a liar and the other is not. The only thing I said in R1, is that I will not accept biased definitions and assertions, i.e. one side has evidence, the other doesn't etc.

Even if I accept that no evidence exists, for neither atheists nor theists, and C1P1 is actually TRUE, Pro must still show what part of definition of atheism says they have evidence, causing them to "know", thus making his Construct 3 TRUE. However, I find it rather convenient for Pro to change his position to "no evidence", now that he saw that it backfired.

We have already agreed on the definition of Atheist:

A person who disbelieves that God exists.
Disbelief is a rejection of a claim with or without evidence. (as agreed)

Nowhere is evidence involved.

Therefore:

Atheists don't claim to know anything.
Debate Round No. 4
chipmonk

Pro

Thanks Con for your rebuttal and the opportunity to clarify once more. I have been payng attention. But I believe Con wants to make his logic as obscure as possible, so it would be difficult to do so. Also Since this is the last Round i will wrap up my argument best I can. May the best argument win.

i'd like to also mention that Con needs to stop asserting strawmen for his argument.

Clearly, I have established what constitutes "valid evidence" is DIFFERENT for an atheist and a theist.
Con used equivocation fallacies to generate strawmen for him to fight against. He confuses the audience, by stating it does not matter what the word "evidence" even means. This is obviously not true. Another lie. It matters of immensely on what or how evidence is defined as. How can you even tell if a proposition is true or false, if you are not even properly defining your terms?

Basically Con argues my proposition is impossible to prove, because he cannot understand what I mean by "evidence." Entirely illogical.

Allow me to skip through your straw men and prove it once again. This time i will clarify on the terms my opponent is obviously confused on, and allow him to refute once more. Though I expect he will just continue with more strawmen, like when he tried to insist that I was arguing that "atheists dont exist. " in R2 and 3.

1. No one "knows" or holds "scientific evidence" for or against the existence of God.
2. Then if someone claims to hold scientific evidence for or against God , they lie.

As well all know. Atheists claim evolution as counter evidence for God. Theists believe this is not scientific evidence against god. Either way, atheists believe this is valid evidence against God. Then require similar standards of evidence from theists. Ie. Asking for "valid" or scientific evidence for God.

IF we define knowledge as having valid evidence, atheists claim to know About God's existence.

Atheists claim they have scientific evidence for their beliefs , which is to KNOW. And therefore atheists lie. Pretty simple logic actually.
random_noob

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate.
Pro decided in the last round to reiterate his position from R1. He made a slight modification: he dropped the "by definition" part. So atheists in R5 are not liars by definition, just some atheists lie. I have to remind Pro, that I understood his position, his proof was absent. He can't assert things without supporting them. Finally, Pro decided in R5 to accept all the points I made in R1, and change one major thing: HIS definition of knowledge.

In brief, he took my advice from R4, " it requires biased definitions", and did exactly this, he introduced a biased definition. So he agrees after 5 rounds that both sides have evidence BUT his new definition of knowledge is:

Person A knows X if he believes X and has "scientific evidence" for X.

Very dishonest and unsportsmanlike from Pro if you ask me, considering that he established in R3 that:

1. He did not agree with this definition
"The Atheist's Evidence
"Evidence is that which is repeatable, testable, and observable by scientific measurements."

Of course, I do not agree with this definition of evidence, but it is what definition set forth by Atheism. Not myself."

2. He clearly stated in R3 that the the atheistic definition of evidence is synonymous to proof, and is different than the term we are using.
"Note : I am only using the Atheist's definition of evidence here. Which is synonymous to PROOF."

Of course, the biased definition "scientific evidence" is introduced to give theists a free pass. We were clearly debating about evidence and not proof. I understand that Pro is in such difficult position and he must bend the rules in order not to openly admit that he lost. After Pro admitted that theists have evidence, he supported that this evidence is valid, and now he says that it is "different". If you ask a random person, that if he sees someone rising from the dead, or someone turning water to wine etc., or a person going in a room and getting fire from God (see Holy Fire), that's pretty solid scientific evidence right there. Pro never explained why such distinction should be made. Probably he assumes that the above are fairytales (resurrection) or a scam (Holy Fire).

Anyway, since Pro decided to change his OWN definitions to something that he does not agree and something that we were clearly not debating on, I am assuming that I am allowed to introduce my own biased definitions as well.

Def1: To know is to believe and hold theistic evidence.

P1:No one knows whether God exists.
P2: Whoever claims to know whether God exists is a douchebag.

Theists believe in God and claim that they hold theistic evidence.
(using Def1) Theists claim to know whether God exists.
(using P2) Theists are douchebags. (Proven?)

Atheists don't claim to hold theistic evidence. Therefore they do not claim to know anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Pro did not make any effort even in the last round to support his position, and pretty much accepted every single one of the points of my case (see R1), I will use the remaining space to post some highlights of our debate.

1. human omniscience (Pro claims that I am lying because I said that humans are not omniscient)
Me: I am getting the feeling that Pro assumes that humans are omniscient. So, if a something happens, everyone is aware of it. That's not how the real world works.
Pro: mmhmm.. Con is PRETENEDING TO KNOW SOMETHING, he does not know. What do we call that ? LYING. "That's not how the real world works. " is a typical atheist mantra. Empty in actual content or veracity or truth. How does Con know how the "real" world works? Con is assuming that he has already figured out how the entire universe, reality, and human mind works. (!)

2. Pro answering 3 similar questions, which of them is evidence?
Me:
-Jack is observing Mary's short hair RIGHT NOW.
-Two people measure the height of a person at the exact same moment.
-You see a person with a gun above a murdered person
Pro:
-According to an atheist, No.
-They must admit it was a mistake or that they are NOT sure.
-Yes. I personally would consider that very compelling evidence.
Pro gave 3 different answers to pretty much the same question. He had to consult an atheist for the first, he decided No by himself for the second, and Yes for the third. Finally, he concludes, that his position does not matter (!). He has to ask an atheist on all cases whether this is evidence or not. Remember, these are simple everyday life questions. I wonder how he survives every day if he can't make up his mind about if his clothes are clean, or if his child did his homework etc. Does he have an atheist to ask for every decision he makes?

3. Pro on evidence again.

Me: Jack saw Mary an hour ago and he observes that she does not have long hair. Is that evidence?
Pro:Jack LIES about KNOWING whether or not MARY has short of long hair. At surface level, it may seem that Jack's evidence is "more valid" than John's evidence ( having seen Mary one whole hour after john.). However, when given just a tad bit of CRITICAL THINKING, we can surmise that EVEN JACK must ASSUME that Mary has short hair NOW. Without Looking at Mary NOW, JAck cannot say he KNOWS Mary has short hair. Even with the evidence of eye witness testimony and sight. However, IF jack CONSTANTLY PRETENDS TO KNOW something he does not know.... in the 21st century, we call the LYING. IF Jack acts like John's valid evidence is NOT valid evidence, then JAck Lies some more. IF JAck acts like a douchebag, and pretends to know-it-all, while calling John a nutcase or a bronze age peasant, then Jack is an atheist.
(!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is impossible for me to gather all the contradictions and inconsistencies of Pro's position. Pro throughout this debate conceded that:
-both sides have evidence
-the definition of atheism does not include evidence
-atheists hold scientific evidence against the existence of God
The above pretty much destroy his case.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chipmonk 7 months ago
chipmonk
Thanks Max.
Posted by MaxLamperouge 7 months ago
MaxLamperouge
Great debate, I saw brilliant logic.
Very well done.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Buckethead31594// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for his honorable forfeit. Spelling and grammar to Con for minor punctuation and capitalization errors. Neither party sufficiently provided any sources. It would be encouraged to establish a basis for agreement before presenting any further arguments. In the end, the debate was Agnosticism vs Gnosticism, not Atheism vs Theism.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The explanation for S&G is insufficient. Minor differences cannot be used as a means to award this point " this can only be awarded when one side's argument is difficult to understand as a result of S&G errors or structure. (2) The voter doesn't explain arguments, instead talking about what he found problematic in the debate rather than specifically assessing arguments from either side. (3) I'm honestly unclear on what the voter views as an "honorable forfeit" from Pro, which is cited as the reason for awarding the conduct point.
************************************************************************
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
Sure noob. Keep telling your self that.
Posted by random_noob 8 months ago
random_noob
Okay, thank you very much for the debate again.

I hope that this was a constructive debate for you. I hope as well that your God helps you realize that you should respect other people's position, even if they disagree with you. After all, we are all humans, no matter how strongly believe something, we could be wrong. People make mistakes!

Peace
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
Sorry noob. You cant continuously LIE about what really happened and expect no one to know about it.

Actually i didnt define" evidence" in my original construct. But thanks for lying that I did. I will make sure i clearly define it from the beginning now. So future opponents dont try to lie about me defining it incorrectly within my construct.

IN MY CONSTRUCT , (not in my personal vocabulary, smh) evidence is defined as proof. Scientifc evidence athesitic evidence. And i made this clear many times. Maybe i should make my responses shorter. Because content obviously confuses you.
Posted by random_noob 8 months ago
random_noob
I am sorry Pro, you can't do that. You can't establish definitions and then change it in the last round. That's pretty much a moving target for me. The debate is over now. You can't change what you said.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
Then i guess you agree that evidence means proof in my logical contruct? And that your rebuttals were pretty much trolling?
Posted by random_noob 8 months ago
random_noob
Sorry GoOrDin, but we did not disagree on definitions.
Posted by GoOrDin 8 months ago
GoOrDin
IF, God exists ~ then, to have belief in any other 'God' contrary to God, is a disbelief in God himself.
Therefor, lacking of Faith*
If you think that God may not for any reason be real, you disbelieve in him.
You Do Not Believe {DISBELIEF} in his perfection. @ random_noob
Disbelief is a Lack of Belief.

you can't monkey with the definitions of words because you' re uneducated or arrogant*

srry chipmonk for highjacking ur convo thread.

Both definitions of Disbelief he provided were WRONG:
valid definition.
"disbelief ~ rejection of a clause"
No votes have been placed for this debate.