The Instigator
chipmonk
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Jedd
Con (against)
Losing
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 1 vote the winner is...
chipmonk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 738 times Debate No: 88232
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (1)

 

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.

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.
Jedd

Con

I accept. Thanks to Pro for bringing up such a debate. I hope to clear some misconceptions about this topic.

There is nothing false about your first Construct by definition. Everybody listen up, I think we may have lots of misconceptions about the opposing side, me included. Let's start with Construct 2.

"Believers claim they have faith God exists", "Believers do not claim to 'know' if God exists."
Speak for yourself. Yes, I've seen theists agreeing on "it's just faith", but others claim to "know" God as they have found Him deep within their hearts, more claim everything's existence is evidence of a God and the Bible claims God exists. So yes, some may just put their belief in a category of faith, but a majority of them are convinced that they know God, and they know God exists. Correct me if this is a misconception.

Now, for Construct 3. I think this is a really big misconception about atheism.

"Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists. Atheists claim to "know" if God exists."
No. I'd like some time to elaborate on this.

Prof. Richard Dawkins in his book, the God Delusion, constructed a 7 point scale of belief. 1, being total belief there is a God, and 7, total belief there isn't. The thing about this is, Pro, that we atheists base our beliefs on reason and science, which is open to new evidence disproving previous claims. We weigh the new evidence up, and if it's overwhelming and strong enough, then the old claim will be disproved. I can say with good accuracy that most atheists are a 6.5, as with Richard Dawkins, because there is a possibility, we won't deny it, that there is a God, no matter how low the probability is. This is what makes atheists quite open-minded, as to say "we know everything" is what atheists are fighting against. That stance is taken commonly by theists, as stated above. We are against that "we know everything" stance. That's why without adequate evidence we don't imply we know what happened before the Big Bang as theists claim "God" without any evidence.

To clear it up, atheists do not disbelieve God. Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF, NOT DISBELIEF in God. We do not claim we know everything, but we question everything and science is finding out. Our lack of belief comes from the lack of evidence to support the claim, and we don't mindlessly say "there is no God, there is no God." That would be a 7, and that person will be going against a principle atheism fights for; he might as well be a theist, and atheism might as well be a religion.

Some examples to help understand:
Religion: Hair color.
Lack of belief: Bald.
Disbelief: Black.

Religion: TV channel.
Lack of belief: Off.
Disbelief: Static.

I hope this debunks the common misunderstanding.
Debate Round No. 1
chipmonk

Pro

Thanks for your rebuttal Con and I do agree misconceptions are prevalent.

Con states;
"So yes, some may just put their belief in a category of faith, but a majority of them are convinced that they know God, and they know God exists. Correct me if this is a misconception."

Where is Con's evidence for this belief? Con seems to think just because he has "seen" someone say something, that is some kind of valid evidence. If someone says "i Know God exists deep within my HEART." Is this a claim to knowledge via scientific or valid evidence? Certainly not. What kind of evidence can you hold in your "heart." Con admits unwittingly that the believer never claims to Know , at least not deep within his "mind", and not with any evidence.

Philosophy teaches us there is a difference between " knowing that God exists" and "knowing of God's existence." Former being a claim for knowledge, while the latter is a claim to familiariTy. Also if con has accepted my first construct as valid and sound, and admitted that no one can actually "know" if God exists or not, it would be dishonest of her to say that the preacher or any believer, let alone a majority, is actually claiming to have VALID and TESTABLE evidence , scientific or not, that would lead to unanimously and scientifically valid belief. Ergo knowledge. To say that the believers who is making a claim of familiarity is making a claim to knowledge, is fallacious and a lie. Con is Misrepresenting the believer's views, building a strawman, and misintterpretting the believer or preacher's words.

Believers do not claim to know. By definition, a believer is only someone who believes. Therefore, they cannot know. To believe that they do know , or might possibly know, is to reject my first construct, and assert that it can be known if God exists. Even if as a remote possibility. Again, atheism seems to lie about its position at every turn of logic.

Con cannot provide a scale in place of reason and logic. Just becausenDawkins creates a 7 pt scale, it does not reflect any aspect of truth or reality. All the scale does is place vagueness on ideas that have always been made clear. My contention is that atheism is a lie in itself. If my contention is true, and Dawkinsnis an atheist, his 7pt scale would also be a lie.

Con only makes my argument stronger as she lacks any logical argument or position and only insists that her beliefs are rational. Without any evidence, logic or science.

Con says "we atheists base our beliefs on science and reason."
Here con admits she has beliefs. About Reality. About God. She also claims these beliefs are valid beliefs. Ergo knowledge. (See definitions)

Further. If Con lacks belief and has no belief, that is not based on evidence, then she is claiming that all her beliefs are by default - knowledge. Con claims atheists are open minded, but I have yet to meet one resdy to admit openly that they are wrong. How could they be wrong in any belief, if they only base beliefs on valid evidence? Whatever the case, by virtue of her own words, Con has officially equated her belief with knowledge. As it shows in my original constructs.

She then quickly asserts atheists claim "we dont know everything" yet everything they believe, they say they also know. There is a difference between the theists claims to knowledge of familiarity and the atheidtic claim to knowledge. As mentioned before.

Atheists may not be stupid or arrogant enough to claim they know everything. But they are certainly claiming to possess valid evidence for their beliefs. And by nature atheism is a belief ABOUT god and in the least, about reality. So, though Con may not want to ADMIT her beliefs are beliefs, and she would do her best to call it a "lack of" belief instead, so as to confuse the audience and decieve them into thinking a rejection of a belief and a lack of a belief are the same things.

If theism is a acceptance of any God claim
Atheism is the rejection of ALL God claims
And Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

Con will also probably argue she is somehow an agnostic because she claims she doesnt know. But that does not fit in with her beliefs about God, her requests for evidennce, and her active disbelief in all God claims. Further , most agnostics would not be caught dead calling themself an atheist.

So the atheis will lie, pretty much, any way they can to justify their belief or nonbelief. In the face of their own existence, they need to believe SOMETHING about reality. God or no God. It is a belief about how this world works. They claim since their beliefs are baded on science , they KNoW HOw the universe began, life evolved, wihout God, and therefore claim that they KNOW if God exists or not.

Atheism is a Lie.

Con needs to show by some reason or logic...HOW her beliefs are based on valid evidence, yet she lacks knowledge on God existence. . If God's existence is unknowable, she cannot claim any valid evidence for her beliefs. The paradoxical relationship between how beliefs and knowledge works, between what Con isn claiming to believe and know is quite apparent. Either she is confused herself, or she is a liar.

Looking forward to your rebuttal.
Jedd

Con

Jedd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
chipmonk

Pro

I guess i win ?
Jedd

Con

Jedd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Emmarie// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: ROD - Winning statement by con,"Con says "we atheists base our beliefs on science and reason." Here con admits she has beliefs. About Reality. About God. She also claims these beliefs are valid beliefs. Ergo knowledge. " *see additional comments

[*Reason for removal*] While the argument vote is sufficient (at least in combination with the extension), the conduct point is not explained. I get that it's obvious that there are two forfeits, but the voter still has to state it somewhere in the RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: NoMagic// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con gets before and after support. Pro's wrong regardless of how Con argued. That's just the deal. Gave Pro conduct since Con forfeited.

[*Reason for non-removal*] As the voter solely awards conduct, the reasoning for arguments is inconsequential. And as there were two forfeits, that is sufficient reason to award conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
@x15

Jesus knows God because he is directly come from Him. I know Jesus and Jesus knows God.
Posted by x15 8 months ago
x15
that is exactly what I mean - you don't understand your own constructs

You have another problem now that you claim "Jesus" is a God because:

if you're claiming you don't know if "Jesus" existed or not - you're fine with your own constructs.
But if you're claiming you do know "Jesus" existed and claim he is a God - then by your own constructs - you're a liar.
Posted by Emmarie 8 months ago
Emmarie
RFD - Pro's resolution, "Atheism is a Lie" is proven by rebutting Con's arguement that Atheists are open minded and about whether they have lack of belief or have disbelief. In con's argument, she states,"......reason and science, which is open to new evidence disproving previous claims" Science may be open to new evidence, but reason is the science of philosophy which is based on the proof of claims VALIDITY. Science and reason are two separate studies and approaches, and cons conjoining of these subjects, shows the likelihood of atheism's disbelief rather than lack of belief in God. If it were simply a lack of belief, than she would have sited only science for it's lack of proof or evidence of God. But many philosophers who's art is reason have argued in favor of God's existence.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
I believe Jesus when he says "no man has seen the father save the son." Which is how i created my first construct. Are you calling Jesus a liar?

Second time i ask you nicely for evidence for your assertions.

Otherwise. Please remove ur empty opinions from face.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
@x15. Jesus is the one who made that statement, implying only He has seen God. So...i donno what you are trying to point out.

Jesus is not a "man". He is son of God. And he does not apply to my construct being that Jesus is God.

Reality is,...you are illogical and you can't seem to stand truth. Reality.

Oh how the delusional will believe others live in delusions.
Posted by x15 8 months ago
x15
you claim other people are delusional

and yet you fail to see your own delusional statements:

"Yes. If Jesus did not see God he would be a liar exactly. If you can find him to lie, by all means im listening."
"Hahah. "No man has seen the father, except the son. " -Jesus."

I clearly stated that by your own construct:

"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."

you're claiming this character "Jesus" knows God Exists and by your own conclusion in construct 1 would render - "Jesus" is a liar BECAUSE "Jesus" claims to know if God exist.

if you can't even follow your own construct, then whatever people say to you will not even register - and it's fruitless for you to debate anything at all. First step into reality is the ability to understand your own constructs!
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
Looks like I win.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
@15x

Specutlate is what you do for things that exist. You dont speculate things that dont exist. That would make you 1. Retarded 2. An atheist. 3. Delusional.

This renders you as one of the above or all of the above. And thus ur point is moot my argument is valid as ever.

Stop trying to win me on this. U will only continue to be a fool.

Yes. If Jesus did not see God he would be a liar exactly. If you can find him to lie, by all means im listening.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 8 months ago
NoMagic
chipmonkJeddTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets before and after support. Pro's wrong regardless of how Con argued. That's just the deal. Gave Pro conduct since Con forfeited.