The Instigator
chipmonk
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Atheism is a Lie

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 87942
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (67)
Votes (1)

 

chipmonk

Pro

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. 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.

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 : If no one knows if God exists or not
Premise2: And somebody claims to KNOW
Conclusion: That person 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: To disbelieve is to reject a claim based on a lack of valid evidence and annabundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)
Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.

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

Con

Hopefully my opponent has enough sense to concede when this round is over, otherwise this will get tedious and boring. I am an atheist and do not assert that God does not exist. I think my opponent is unaware of the definition of atheism, but he is about to be made aware.

Definition-The lack of belief in a god or gods.

https://atheists.org...

Most modern dictionaries agree with this definition, as do just about any atheist you ask. It is not a disbelief in God, but a lack of belief, and therefore makes no claims. Furthermore if any of the judges are stupid enough to buy pro's argument, it still fails. It fails because the argument doesn't make atheism a lie. A lie is a dishonest statement. It is an intentional dishonest statement. A belief system that is wrong, is not a lie. It is merely wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
chipmonk

Pro

con has set forth a definition proposed by atheist.org. A credible source is an objective source that can be TRUSTED. If atheism is a lie, atheists cannot give a credible definition for themselves. They are liars.

As you have done.

The definition you incorrectly portray is the definition of Agnosticism. Not atheism.

Atheism is correctly defined as below, from a MoDeRn dictionary,

a"the"ism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms:nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"
- source ; dictionary.com

It does reflect your definition. And it is also in line with mine. However, I would also content atheism is disbelief and agnosticism is a lack of belief. Further i would contend atheists are not the same as agnostics. My opponent will of course argue that they are.

But I would remind the audience that true agnostics vehemently oppose the label "atheist" because they deem it irrational. These agnostics include Descartes, Hume, Kant, Chonsky and so on.

Con says "if any judge is stupid enough..."
Ad hominem fallacy. He is saying my argument is stupid, without providing proper logical reasons for why. He only provided FALSE definitions to obscure FACTS.

FACT - a lack of belief is not a disbelief.

FACT - agnostics do not call themselves atheists. So dont u dare call ur self an agnostic atheist to remove your self from my logical construct, which is absolutely true.

FACT - atheists pretend to be agnostic, but are infact atheist. Atheism is a LIE.

Defintion of a LIE.
Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com " browse " lie
Mobile-friendly - to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Synonyms: prevaricate, fib. 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. verb (used with object), lied, lying.

If something is false. Yet expressed as bearing truth, such as the claim that "God requires evidence to BeLIEVE", it becomes a LIE.

All of Con's points have been refuted. And my logic stands correct, valid, and true. I would like Con to provide non biased definitions, as I have, to further make his point. If he has any more. It would appear i won already.

Atheists pretend to know if God exists or not. Based on the available evidence. And therefore disbelieve Any god or God exists. They make claims to knowledge, they donnot have, and therefore make themselves liars.

Con is only right about one thing. It does get tedious when someone arguing against you doesn't even know what simple words mean.
Wylted

Con

This whole debate is about definitions. This is sad that my opponent is even aware of one definition, finds alternative wording that says the same thing, and is still misunderstanding the definition. Here is my opponent"s definition;

" disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Here is the definition I have provided which he has called incorrect;

" The lack of belief in a god or gods."

You can see that they are both the same definition, and "lack of belief" are the key words in those definitions. Now my opponent goes on to explain that the definition I have provided is actually one for agnosticism. For one, that is incorrect, for another thing, even if correct. So What? Often times multiple words have the same definition. Stating a word has a synonym is not a rebuttal.
Agnosticism is the belief that one cannot know whether God exists or not. You can believe god exists and be agnostic or disbelieve in God and also be agnostic. A person is either atheist or theist, there is no purgatory between the two such as agnosticism. I happen to be an agnostic atheist, My sister is an agnostic theist.
" Agnosticism, (from Greek agn!3;stos, "unknowable"), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought."
So no "lack of belief" or atheist is not the meaning of or synonym for agnostic.
Here my opponent defines lie:
" Defintion of a LIE.
Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com " browse " lie
Mobile-friendly - to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Synonyms: prevaricate, fib. 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. verb (used with object), lied, lying."


This definition shows that there must be an intention of dishonesty. Being wrong, conveying wrong information or saying something that is untrue, is not a lie unless there is some sort of intent to deceive, and my opponent has made no argument that lying has occurred, or that atheism is some sort of intentional deception. (intention being the key word)

Vote for Wylted, and don"t forget to award me conduct points. I deserve conduct points, because there is no way he is mentally retarded enough to not know how utterly stupid he sounds. This means he is trolling and deserves a loss of conduct.
Debate Round No. 2
chipmonk

Pro

My opponent con doesnt realize most debates are about definitions. How we define the world that is.

A lack of belief is not the same as a disbelief. Anyone can tell you dictionaries do not give absolute definitions. They only provide references for us, about the word in question. So to discover what something truly means, one must rely on his own reasoning as well. I suppose one could reason that "disbelief" and a "lack of belief" is the same thing. Which is why my opponent prefers the term "lack" rather than "dis".

The key difference is that one is a simple lack, while the other is an outright rejection of a claim. If I dislike someone, do I lack fondness of him? Or do I outright dislike him? If I disprove something, then do i lack proof or did prove the opposite was true? Logically, one can see, disbelief is not a mere lack of belief, as my opponent would have you believe.

As my opponent correctly notes, agnosticism is the dogma that the existence of God cannot be known. However, my opponent obfuscates the truth when assuming an atheist can also be agnostic. As mentioned before, if atheism is a rejection of any theistic claim, atheism claims to it can KNOW if god exists or not. Atheism is a lie. And it makes atheists liars.

Atheists will oftrn change, distort, and obfuscate the meaning of words. In order to decieve their audience. The ideology of atheism does not hold deciet in and of itself, but neither is it an ideology in those terms to begin with. When an atheist practices atheism, their intent mostly seems to be deciet. (To pretend to KNoW something that they dont, and decieve the other into thinking the atheist knows more than he does. Deciet.) whether or not the atheist is AWARE of his own intentions is another debate, and Con cannot rationally say the falsehood he constantly and consistently presents (such as his false definition of atheism) , is unintentional. Even if Con were unaware his falsehoods are false, Con must always be aware of that he KNOWs to be true and what he knows to be false. Atheism isnt a lie because they are false about the proposition of God's existence. Atheism is a lie because it purports to know something it does not. It presupposes God's non-existence as a REASON for it's agnostic grounds.

Atheism says "i dont (or lack a) believe(belief) God exists, because there is no evidence, and no reason to believe God exists. " correct?

Then the atheist assumes to know that if a God existed...there would be evidence. The atheist assumes that he knows what evidence for God should look like or should be. And also claims to know that if he encounterrd it, he would be able to recognize the evidence. Thus, the atheist is claiming that he knows if God exists or not, because if God did exist, he would have evidence for it, and he would know it. Simple logic.

Id like to hear Con's rebuttal to my simple logic above. And explain how he is assuming agnosis as position while also claiming to know if God exists or not.

Also, if anyone is stupid enough to use an ad hominem on a debate forum...THAT individual needs to get docked on not only conduct...but should also render his arguments "utterly" useless, as they are without content , reason or logic. We can do so, because making logical fallacies in a debate, in form of an ad hominem, is an obviously an intentional deception of the audience. Is it not deceit? Is it not intentional? Unless, he also wants to claim that it wasnt his intention to persuade the audience by making petty personal attacks on his opponents intellect , as opposed to being logical

Atheism is a lie. And my opponent is all the demonstration I need.
Wylted

Con

Just vote me, not even going to dignify that with a response
Debate Round No. 3
chipmonk

Pro

Too easy. I win. again.
Wylted

Con

Lol, this is beyond stupid. You have the definitions. Vote me
Debate Round No. 4
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
@whiteflame. Noted. I do see your point and appreciate yor lengthy explanation. If i decide to award a pt from now on, ill make sure my opinion is explained.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
"My opponent didnt even rebut and said "just vote for me.""

He did have actual arguments in the debate. The voter analyzed those, and analyzed yours as well.

"If thats not a biased vote, i dont know what is."

There's usually going to be a certain amount of bias present in votes. If I was removing based on a subjective perception of bias every time, I'd either be removing a lot more votes, or I'd be very inconsistent. What I'm looking for when I look for bias is very clear and obvious statements that show bias. This would include statements from the voter themselves and efforts to dismiss arguments that are mentioned within the RFD based on things not said within the debate. Lacking that, there's little I would consider evidence of bias sufficient to remove a given vote.

"the voter IGNoRED all my rebuttals to Con which Con provided no counter argument."

I agree. The voter, however, is not required to cover every point you or your opponent made. That's not part of the standards, mainly because it would make the standards that much more difficult to abide.

"By default i should have won and been awarded conduct pts."

It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they award any given points. Hoppi chose not to award conduct points. He's not required to do so. As for thinking that you've won the debate, you're welcome to that view, but the voter clearly disagrees. If you feel he's wrong, take it up with him. This is not a matter of whether moderation was done correctly, it's a matter of whether you think he addressed the paramount points.

"What rationale do you have that justifies this vote as NoT veing a biased vote bomb?"

What I've said above. The voter addressed specific issues from each debater in the round, and explained the decision based on those issues. It's not a vote bomb because it explained the point allocations with all the necessary pieces. It's not objectively biased so it's not removed on that basis.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
@whiteflame,

Thats biased. My opponent didnt even rebut and said "just vote for me."
If thats not a biased vote, i dont know what is.

the voter IGNoRED all my rebuttals to Con which Con provided no counter argument. By default i should have won and been awarded conduct pts.

In light of such FAcTS.

What rationale do you have that justifies this vote as NoT veing a biased vote bomb?
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hoppi// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: A lot of the problems of the debate could have been avoided by defining "atheism" and "lie" in round 1. Pro's own definition included "lack of belief" as part of the definition: nevertheless, Pro clearly meant atheism as "disbelief in God" in construct 3, premise 1. Therefore, I think the debate should be judged using the "disbelief in God" definition, although it would have been better to define it clearly at the beginning. Con argues that atheism is not a lie because a lie is an "intentionally dishonest statement" and if someone believes something is true then they are not intentionally dishonest, even if they are wrong. This argument is convincing, because Pro's definition of atheism is that they "disbelieve" in God, and he defines that as an "assumption of falsehood." Therefore, it's hard to see what's dishonest about it. An assumption of falsehood is less than knowing certainty of falsehood. Arguments to Con, mostly because of Pro's lack of clarity.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains the decision by analyzing some of the major points made in the debate. The voter is not required to cover every argument or lack thereof in the debate, which appears to be what the reporter wants.

Note: While the reporter states new concerns, there is not a clear reason to believe that the voter based his decision on a false view of the debate, and the voter does hit enough points in the debate to meet the standards.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Hoppi// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: A lot of the problems of the debate could have been avoided by defining "atheism" and "lie" in round 1. Pro's own definition included "lack of belief" as part of the definition: nevertheless, Pro clearly meant atheism as "disbelief in God" in construct 3, premise 1. Therefore, I think the debate should be judged using the "disbelief in God" definition, although it would have been better to define it clearly at the beginning. Con argues that atheism is not a lie because a lie is an "intentionally dishonest statement" and if someone believes something is true then they are not intentionally dishonest, even if they are wrong. This argument is convincing, because Pro's definition of atheism is that they "disbelieve" in God, and he defines that as an "assumption of falsehood." Therefore, it's hard to see what's dishonest about it. An assumption of falsehood is less than knowing certainty of falsehood. Arguments to Con, mostly because of Pro's lack of clarity.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains the decision by analyzing some of the major points made in the debate. The voter is not required to cover every argument or lack thereof in the debate, which appears to be what the reporter wants.
************************************************************************
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
Sure. Everyone is entitled to have wrong opinions.
Posted by dude100 8 months ago
dude100
On that same note, how do you know God is perfect? If we were created in God's image, and we're imperfect then how could god be perfect? Anyways, it's impossible to know for sure, thus neither believers nor non-believers would be liars if nobody knows the facts about god. God is not a fact, God is a matter of opinion which is why we debate about it online :).
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
@dude100. Yes if a believer claimed to know it would make him a liar also. But believers don't claim to know. They only claim to believe. Atheism loses no matter how you look it. God is perfect. Did you think Atheism would really be logical in the face of perfection?
Posted by dude100 8 months ago
dude100
Also You say that believer is an assumption of truth without evidence right? so by that same logic a nonbeliever is also an assumption of truth without evidence correct? God is a subject that is currently not proven one way or the other. Thus it's impossible to be a liar on the subject, when there's no way to know which side is true. Thus neither are liars but both are arrogant.
Posted by dude100 8 months ago
dude100
That's not quite true, there are just as many believers who claim god exists as there are nonbelievers who claim god doesn't exist. However both sides are arrogant because they are claiming to know something which is currently impossible to prove/disprove. neither are liars however, because in order to be a liar you need to make a claim which contradicts something that is proven. God isn't proven thus impossible to be a liar whichever your claim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 8 months ago
Hoppi
chipmonkWyltedTied
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: A lot of the problems of the debate could have been avoided by defining "atheism" and "lie" in round 1. Pro's own definition included "lack of belief" as part of the definition: nevertheless, Pro clearly meant atheism as "disbelief in God" in construct 3, premise 1. Therefore, I think the debate should be judged using the "disbelief in God" definition, although it would have been better to define it clearly at the beginning. Con argues that atheism is not a lie because a lie is an "intentionally dishonest statement" and if someone believes something is true then they are not intentionally dishonest, even if they are wrong. This argument is convincing, because Pro's definition of atheism is that they "disbelieve" in God, and he defines that as an "assumption of falsehood." Therefore, it's hard to see what's dishonest about it. An assumption of falsehood is less than knowing certainty of falsehood. Arguments to Con, mostly because of Pro's lack of clarity.