The Instigator
chipmonk
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
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 2 votes the winner is...
chipmonk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 89087
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

chipmonk

Pro

I am 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.
Report this Argument
Report this Argument
vi_spex

Con

truth is logical

belief=being convinced of something that is not true

disbelief=belief to the contrary

all believers are disbeliever by denial in the lights of all other possibilities to the contrary, like i am wearing a green blue red hat.. if you believe i am wearing a yellow hat you are a disbeliever on green blue and red..

know=non belief=true=something=these words on the screen=sense=life

if your position is that god can not be known then your position is that god can not be true.. is it true if you dont know it? how do you know

know=physical experience

god is information, information is the opposite of matter, matter is true

only the time of now is true

disbelief is by belief, all other religions are to the contrary of your particular religion, you are an atheist to all these possibilities

atheism is theism.. theism is belief.. belief=be lie

agnostic=let the content of the ufo in the night sky remain an unsolved mystery=i accept i dont know=maybe=true
Debate Round No. 1
chipmonk

Pro

Sigh.,,

i appreciate Con for providing an attempt to use logic.
I'd ask Con if he knows anything about programming, as it seems he does not.

Logic is not an A=B proposition. Nor is an A=B=C a logical construct, nor is it even an equation that contains an ounce of truth at all. Saying A=B=C=D because a=b=c=d, does not provide any links betwen A or a.

To say A=a is an assumption that has yet to be defined.

What assumption is the arguer using? That a is a lower case A.

The only reason such is such, is through human convention. Words and letters are agreed upon conventions. And i simply do not agree with Con's unconventional definitions.

Does Con not believe his parents love him? Does con not believe he is real? Does Con not believe that tomorrow will come?
Anything uncertain requires a degree of belief.

So IF u say that you disbelief anything uncertain = then u cannot know anything uncertain.

That is how logic works. Con needs to go back to the drawing board on his logic. Logic is an "if A then B proposition."
vi_spex

Con

poison=unhealthy(logic)
logical=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy
illogical=eat poisonous things to stay healthy

logic is real, there is no logic in fantasy

a=1=1=stone=stone

life is true, no belief involved

i have no doubt, so i have no good reason to trust or distrust

know=certain=true=logic

you are confusing logic with reasoning, logic is the opposite of reason.. there is no cause and effect in fantasy, no necessety of motion
Debate Round No. 2
chipmonk

Pro

Con=illogical=true=con's argument=debate=winning or losing=lose=the end=i win.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
@scarlet. Premises are conclusions built from other deductions or inductions of other premises. Unless the premises is axiomatic. Which is not always the case. Thats what we call a "line of reasoning."

You are right. It depends. On the YOUR defintion of God.

I define God in the most basic and comprehebsible terms. Its not my fault you are unable to comprehend. No? God is defined as the creator of all things. You can agree with this definition or not. Either way, you seem to be accepting all my premises as true, yet asserting my conclusion is false. See?
Posted by CaptainScarlet 8 months ago
CaptainScarlet
Construct 1

P1 Is a conclusion and not a premise. Its unsupported. Its heavily dependent on a missing definition of a god. Whether it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not, depends on this definition. The reality is that it is impossible to get a consistent and meaningful definition of a god, to answer the question in the first place (see the argument from non-cognitivism). The theist cannot get off the first base (or in this case Premise 1), as any definition offered is internally incoherent, non-specific, contradictory or so far from human experience, the conversation quickly spirals down into the theist invoking "divine mystery". It is a 'bug' and not a 'feature' of theism and leaves it critically poorly defined.
P2 This can only ever be an inductive argument, meaning the best you can ever hope for in your conclusion is ..."is probably a liar"
C - Is therefore unsubstantiated.

Construct 2

P1 Is false. Some believers claim to know that god exists, particularly those who cite personal experience.
C - Is therefore false and also equivocates.

Construct 3

Is confused. My general comments are that whilst some atheists do claim that there is no god, some atheists do not. The latter type may reject the claims of theists, and state "there is no reason to believe in a god", but they also stop short of saying "there is no god".
C - clearly equivocates on the word "know", and fatally so for the argument. But is false given Construct 1 and 2.
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
effects are caused
Posted by Jjjohn 8 months ago
Jjjohn
"every effect has a cause"

if we accept that as true, then there cannot be any uncaused effects. thus, there can not be any eternal god type beings, as it would an uncaused effect.
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
every effect has a cause
Posted by Jjjohn 8 months ago
Jjjohn
"therfore no first cause, as it would be equal to an uncaused effect"

is not the existence of a god an uncaused effect?
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
it is non sense..

if god truly exist, he can zap right down to earth and everyone can see him..

utterly defeated
Posted by Jjjohn 8 months ago
Jjjohn
@chipmonk, thanks.

to reply:

"P1:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: Everything and life began to exist.
C1: Therefore, everything and life had a cause."

I have no argument with this.

"P1: if God is defined as the cause of everythinng and life
p2: and no one knows how everything began
c2; no one knows if God exists."

Can't see how this is any different than the original argument. It has the same flaws with a contradiction of P1 and P2. Can you explain how you think it does not?
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
effects are caused.. so cause=effect

therfore no first cause, as it would be equal to an uncaused effect

on the easy level, try to make the matter that is an apple nothing, i dare you
Posted by Jjjohn 8 months ago
Jjjohn
"matter is eternal"

if yo think that, you must assume that there was no beginning to the universe. is that what you assert?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by missbailey8 8 months ago
missbailey8
chipmonkvi_spexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though I didn't fully agreed with Pro, their argument was miles ahead of Con's. They gave an argument and gave three constructs while Con just made an unorganized argument saying 'x = y so I'm correct.' Pro had better grammar as Con seemed to forget about capitalization. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Overhead 8 months ago
Overhead
chipmonkvi_spexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side used any sources, so tie. Nor did I notice any misconduct, so tie there as well. S&G: In all rounds CON failed to capitalise the starts of sentences, which is a basic rule. While Pro did this sometimes, such as in his opening paragraph in R2, it was infrequent rather than every sentence. Most Convincing argument: Although PRO failed to explain why his premises were right and took it as given that they were true, they do form a logical argument the premise are assumed correct. On the other hand CON failed to explain why his premises were true and the premises he put forth such as "a=1=1=stone=stone" are are confusing and don't make any logical sense to me even if I assume they are true.