The Instigator
mall
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheWhiteKnight
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Atheism is a religion

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...
TheWhiteKnight
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2016 Category: People
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 383 times Debate No: 91043
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

mall

Pro

Atheism is a religion and I'm for that being a true statement . Simply because it is a belief system, believe it or not with no pun intended . Accept or not , that is the debate challenge . This is a cordial invite to any who wishes to find out how the statement is true detailed above . Any who requires explanation on the matter and argues otherwise, please come forth . Atheism is a belief system like any other religion , and the god is the very person that holds the religion of atheism.
TheWhiteKnight

Con

First of all we have to settle what the definition of religion is. The oxford dictionary defines religion as: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". By this definition it is clear that a human being can not be a god, which completely eliminates one of my opponent's argument. If my opponent has a better and more accurate source of definition he will be very welcome to represent it.
And one question we ought to ask ourself is wheter a belief in something makes you religious. I believe that Scarlett Johansson is the most beautiful woman alive, is this now a religion. Or let's say that some people believe in UFOs, does this mean their gods are now UFOs?
First of all there are non-religious people who does believe in a god. What makes them non-religious is simply because they don't belong to an organized religion and they don't follow a written down set of beliefs. A religion is an organization with a belief system in a god/gods with a large following of people.

Atheism rejects the possible existence of god, which is not a belief in and of itself, it's a disbelief of other religious people's beliefs.
However there is no doubt that there are a lot atheists that worship other things such as the government, the global warmist agenda, political leaders etc. But that does not make them religious.
Debate Round No. 1
mall

Pro

"First of all we have to settle what the definition of religion is. The oxford dictionary defines religion as: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". By this definition it is clear that a human being can not be a god, which completely eliminates one of my opponent's argument. " Anybody can pick and choose definitions based on their view and to fit their bias. We can go back to that same source which is the Oxford dictionaries and see this word "religion" is equivocal. It also means "a particular system of faith and worship" . Which is a BELIEF SYSTEM. The word religion as one will continue to research, it will be found that the word religion is synonomous with faith and belief. Next definition there from that source is " pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance . Example it gives there in a sentence is : " consumerism is the new religion". So anything made into a belief system, that is worshiped, made supreme is or can be considered a religion. Think outside the box and look at it on a grand scale. Ascribe supreme importance to it as if it were the highest pinnacle of life, like a demigod.

"And one question we ought to ask ourself is wheter a belief in something makes you religious. I believe that Scarlett Johansson is the most beautiful woman alive, is this now a religion. Or let's say that some people believe in UFOs, does this mean their gods are now UFOs. " Yes, as just mentioned, religion is synonmous with belief. Practicing something regularly is meaning to do it religiously, faithfully ,etc. Anything a person believes in or believes in doing and or practicing is their religion. Doesnt matter if they are the only person on the planet that practices the belief . Regardless of anyone else, it only takes one. If I'm the only one who believes in whatever I'm doing, my belief doesnt change or gets dictated to, subject to by any means of another. That's because I still believe it. Remember, a god entity is not always involved in a religion. The god entity is not always supernatural and not always a animate thing. These words have more than one definition. A god can be money, gold, cars, wherewithal and so forth. In the context of religion it's whatever the object of the belief is. Like the cult that's called the LaVeyan Satanists, a group of ATHEISTS that truly believes in themselves as their own demigods. If it feels good, not hurting anybody else , not infringing on anyone else's rights, do it. The hedonism philosophy can be well ingrained into the religion of the satanists.

"First of all there are non-religious people who does believe in a god. What makes them non-religious is simply because they don't belong to an organized religion and they don't follow a written down set of beliefs. A religion is an organization with a belief system in a god/gods with a large following of people." Totally nitpicked and based off of one definition of the word. Again, a religion is a belief system, a faith, practice of faith in a church, denomination, group, whatever. The object is not necessarily a belief in god of some sort. It's the fact that one believes in anything. Yes that it is correct and all of the above applies and what is considered a religion is atheism. In numerous places, atheism is found as a subcategory in the category of religion.
"Atheism rejects the possible existence of god, which is not a belief in and of itself, it's a disbelief of other religious people's beliefs.
However there is no doubt that there are a lot atheists that worship other things such as the government, the global warmist agenda, political leaders etc. But that does not make them religious." That's a good job of crafting your own definition of the word. Atheism rejects and how does atheism reject the possible existence of God? What does that mean to reject it? As the definition is researched more, the basic definition means to not have a belief in God/gods. Atheism meaning to be without theism. Which is disbelieving in God or believing in the non-existence of God. The object of the position is not important to the verb as much as is to the subject meaning no God/gods. That's how atheism is considered a religion. The position of atheism is a not a neutral position and it takes a position that does not hold absolute , logical, physical, empirical evidence for it's stance. You would have to add what? You would to add and make that leap of FAITH in order to take a stand in believing in the non-existence of God/gods. Factually , there is not enough to go on to make the atheist's belief true which is why it's just a belief. The atheist practice these beliefs, regularly, devoutly and religiously. They hold themselves as supreme, as idols, as images of the highest(demigod, mortal deity, god). So atheists would like to hold themselves as influential, powerful, authoritative and masters of their own fate. Not having to answer to a judge or hierarchy. Maybe not all, but a lot however will attest to this kind of thinking. The definition of religion in this one argument alone has been exhausted and repeated countless times. To go on debating about the word is futile. Every statement made about it is partially defined by the one making the statement.
TheWhiteKnight

Con

TheWhiteKnight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mall

Pro

Just to continue basically where the last argument left off or add a little more in here. The whole point in this debate is to get people educated and to start thinking unconventionally. When we think of atheism , we automatically think in the context of non -belief. Likewise with religion , we think in the context OF belief. But the same thinking applies in how words are used. A theist is one that DOES NOT BELIEVE that all existence is creator-less. Again it's all on how we look at this in one aspect or another. This why when we explain certain things and examine them in one sense or another it can be eligible to be understood in a classification, category we never even thought about prior. This is also how we come to the phrase of "think outside of the box". People see that phrase but are obstinate in their mindsets and the mind is closed. Another example, a child tells there parent , "I go to work just like you Father, and I have a job just like you mother". How is that? The child is not employed but the child's JOB is to get an education. The child has to WORK hard to get it. Look at the words specifically in depth and see how they fit. Get past the limitations in your comprehensions, it can be done .Definitions are not being changed, the words are being re-arranged which gets us to look at the word's meaning in a different light keeping the same meaning. Lets not assume anything, about how a person feels about something. Leave the emotion out and look at the logic that has been put on the table by the person that has laid it there. This is for the individual that is debating against the topic statement and others who are narrow minded. Atheism being a faith in a sense does not take away its meaning and what members of that group believe in. They BELIEVE IN NO GOD , CREATOR , SUPERNATURAL FORCE WHATSOEVER. It takes FAITH to hold the position that God does not exist. Why does it take faith? It's because the atheist hasn't ruled out everything so that it will disprove the claim made by a theist. With little to no evidence to disprove something, only room that is left is to believe whatever the person believes. This is by little to no evidence , they can come only to believe but not know for sure. Usually atheists appeal to the argument of ignorance, or the appeal of ignorance. This is a argument tactic position, which is used to an advantage of the atheists. They are aware that when the subject is a negative , meaning it can't or most likely present any physical evidence. Hence the addage, a negative can't be proven which is what most understand as true in ALL cases . So to the atheists , there's no evidence to prove and validate the subject so therefore it will be regarded as false until proven. The fallacy arises when the subject hasn't been disproved either. The more logical stance is to subcribe to agnosticism which is an area of inability to have knowledge. This position is the most neutral and the direction of belief doesn't sway one way or the other. Some atheists have FAITH in the THEORY of evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang THEORY independent of a external/eternal designer, natural selection, existence emerging out of ex nihilo and even in scientists. You must have trust that the experiment(s)and research is done correctly due to us humans prone to making mistakes and thus being imperfect. Look at this scenario, with a half of a tank of gas, I see it as half empty. An optimistic person says , 'oh looks like your gasoline tank is half full". Now full and empty are two different things . In context the meaning is still the same, both phrases are the equivalent in value. One thing that doesn't change is when referring to a word or two that's opposite of themselves in meaning placed in a sentence that's paired with a negative/positive will remain consistent. Simple equation is , a negative/positive or positive/negative has the same result/definition. No matter how it's switched or turned around. To change a definition, one would have to remove words and add others to change the whole critieria that was laid out originally. An atheist is without God, that's it. Everything else an individual makes effort to add on to that is redundant.
TheWhiteKnight

Con

I'll start of by apologizing that i couldn't post a second argument due to lack of time.

My opponent has made some interesting arguments on how to define what religion is and who a religious person are. So far i haven't seen any sources from the instigator that backups his claims, sadly. The question turns more into: "do you think that Atheism should be considered a religion?". Because whether you like it or not Atheism is not considered a religion anywhere. The freedom of religion that exists in North America and some parts of western Europe does not apply to Atheism. Atheists has a right NOT to practice a religion, and that's exactly what they do, they don't practice a religion because they don't belong to one.
And if we are going to define every single belief in something as a religion, then the word religion becomes useless. Because what you're saying is that religion basically has the exact same definition as the word belief itself. So in your world the words belief and religion means exactly the same thing. Religion has always been related to a large following of religious people with a certain faith of a certain god. Religion, faith and god are connected, and seperating them completely ruins the historical meaning of religion. There is a reason why we call christians, such as myself, religious. Just like there is a reason we don't call atheists religious.
And i would argue over your statement that Atheism takes faith. Atheists believes what they see with their own eyes, that does not require faith. It takes faith to believe something in the unknowing. Faith is an act of courage and humility. Sure, atheists may believe in the big bang theory, but they do not believe in the existence of god. And not believing in the existence of god does not take faith, because no single human being on earth have seen god with their own eyes. And faith is about taking a "leap of faith", it's about dedicating yourself to an idea that is not proveable.
And the argument whether Atheists are believers or non-believers could be turned around how much we want. I personally define an Atheist someone who doesn't believe in a god, instead of your definition which seems to be "belief in no god". The Oxford dictionary is on my side, but many dictionaries has two definitions and it is those we are arguing over. Let's look what history says. The word Atheist derived from the greek word "atheos" which translated to "godless". The word godless translates to:

The Oxford Dictionary: "Not believing in God".
Dictionary.com: "Having or acknowledging no god or deity; atheistic.".
Merriam-webster: "Not believing in God".

So the three biggest dictionaries online is saying exactly what i have been saying all along. But i personally find this as irrelevant. Because religion has never been about beliefs it has always been about faith. And the word belief and faith are two very different things. They are similar, yes. But faith is more deeper. Faith is when you devote yourself "spiritually" to a person, a thing or and idea. A simple belief can be a belief in anything, it can be a belief in something that doesn't even affect me. I believe that Microsoft is better than Apple for example. This belief has no effect on my life whatsoever. Faith is about putting your trust and soul into someone or something. Faith is something that effects your life and the way you see the world as it is. As i said before faith is about courage and humility. And faith has always been related to god and to religion, while beliefs hasn't.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Blazzered 2 months ago
Blazzered
RFD (3) Conduct:
While Con did forfeit round 2, Pro did not seem to have a problem with Con, and no rule for the debate had been set for forfeiture to automatically be a lost of conduct point. Since Pro had no problem with Con and no rule had been enforced, I do not take away Cons point.
Both participants remained respectful to one another throughout the debate. Neither resorted to insults, vulgar language, or excessive caps lock use, nor any other form of disrespect. With that being said, I decided to keep conduct as a tie.

Spelling and Grammar:
Both Pro and Con had spelling errors, punctuation errors, some letters weren't capitalized, etc. I was still able to understand and read their arguments just fine. The grammar was even, I was not effected by their small errors. Since the errors were even, small, and did not effect my take on their arguments. I keep spelling and grammar as a tie.

I hope I gave a detailed enough, RFD for all points. If there are any problems, I will correct my mistakes, where ever they may be. This was a good debate, both participants did well.
Posted by Blazzered 2 months ago
Blazzered
RFD (2) Convincing Arguments (cont):
Overall:
By the end, Con had used 3 reliable, popular, dictionary sources to define what "Atheist". He also used one of those reliable sources to define "Religion", which Pro dismissed, and instead continued to use that source for, what seemed to be, his own bias definition. Con had pointed out that Pros terms for "belief" and "faith" were being used too loosely, giving them the same definition. Con also successfully explained that atheism does not require faith, and is a disbelief in god, not a belief there is no god. With that said, I reward Con convincing arguments.

Sources: Con provided 3 reliable, popular, dictionary sources throughout the debate to define "Atheist" and "Religion". Pro, on the other hand, provided no sources for his claims and dismissed a specific part of Cons source for his own bias. For this, I reward Con with most reliable sources.
Posted by Blazzered 2 months ago
Blazzered
RFD (1) Convincing Arguments:
Round 1
Pro) Begins his claim saying Atheism is a religion, and claims this off of his idea of a belief system.
Con) Defines "religion", his source being Oxford, and jumps right into arguments. He goes into detail on the difference between belief and organized religion. and then explains that Atheism is not a belief, but a dis-belief.
Round 2
Pro) Pro dismisses Cons Oxford definition, and decides to go on with the debate with his, seemingly, own bias definitions. Pro seems to dismiss Oxford definition of "religion" but decides to use Oxfords synonyms for "religion". Pro seems to be attempting to use Cons source for his own personal bias by dismissing the definition, but accepting synonyms. Pro then responds to Cons questions saying the belief in UFO's is a religion, and that Atheists may not worship a God or gods, but they worship other things like the government and their agendas.
Con) Forfeiture.
Round 3
Pro) Continues where his arguments left off. Pro goes into what a theist is, and what a atheist is. Pro says Atheists have faith that there is no god, that they believe there is no god. Pro tells of how atheists tend to argue and claims that atheists have faith in evolution, natural selection, the big bang, etc.
Con) Apologizes for forfeiture in Round 2. Con points out how Pro lacks sources to prove his claims. Con then points out that Atheism is not considered a religion anywhere. With the Oxford definition, and this being pointed out, I thin Pro has a very strong case now. Con also then points out how Pro is using the word "belief" and "faith" too loosely, almost giving them the same definition. Con also makes a very good point when he says that Atheists see with their eyes, while faith requires believing without sight. Con shows 2 other sources and shows origins of the word Atheist and how they all track down to "Not believing in God". By this point I think Con has refuted Pros arguments, with sources and his own rebuttal
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Behold// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Instigator doesn't provide set of definitions, then rejects a specific, relevant Oxford Dictionary definition Contender provides and tries to play the semantic game using a broader, more vague usage. For shame. Further, he failed his own argument, never making the connection between the beliefs of atheists as also being systemic (since his own definition was belief _system_). Sources default to Con because Pro provided none, only using Con's (You missed easy points! D:) Interesting debate to read though overall guys, good job.

[*Reason for removal*] While sources are sufficiently explained, arguments are not. The voter is required to specifically analyze the arguments given in the debate. Merely stating what Pro failed to accomplish is a partial assessment of his argument, but the RFD lacks any assessment of Con's argument beyond the presentation of definitions. Either the voter must show that Pro's failure also meant a failure to meet his BoP, or he must compare arguments made by both debaters to determine a winner.
************************************************************************
Posted by mall 6 months ago
mall
Ok you are now blocked. Continue to make comments that is considered harassment .
Posted by zookdook1 6 months ago
zookdook1
Note that although I cannot officially vote, I am placing my support behind Con.

And you don't seem to understand this:

"What you're doing here by repeating the same comment over and over is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'Lalalala I can't hear you'. It's childish."
Posted by mall 6 months ago
mall
THEN STOP COMMENTING (Yes folks that just don't understand due to the narrow mindedness continue on in their thinking . Everything was laid out plainly and in depth . The information goes over a person's head and just simply doesn't comprehend. I urge people to go out and do their own research and broaden their horizons.) ACCEPT IT, THE DEBATE IS OVER
Posted by zookdook1 6 months ago
zookdook1
Again, you fail to understand that we DO understand, and we DO have an open mind.

We just don't agree.

What you're doing here by repeating the same comment over and over is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'Lalalala I can't hear you'. It's childish.
Posted by mall 6 months ago
mall
Yes folks that just don't understand due to the narrow mindedness continue on in their thinking . Everything was laid out plainly and in depth . The information goes over a person's head and just simply doesn't comprehend. I urge people to go out and do their own research and broaden their horizons.
Posted by zookdook1 6 months ago
zookdook1
Mall, what you don't get is that it's not that we don't have an open mind, we just don't agree with you. People can have an open mind and disagree.

And atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack thereof.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 2 months ago
Blazzered
mallTheWhiteKnightTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.