The Instigator
MrJK
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
janetsanders733
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Atheism is a world view.

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...
janetsanders733
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 40231
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

MrJK

Con

My opponent holds that atheism is a world view:

"It is [atheism] how you see the world, through a set of propositions and beliefs"


I beg to differ.


janetsanders733

Pro

I accept, How will this debate work?
Debate Round No. 1
MrJK

Con

Atheism is not a world view.


Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. In other words, it is the denial of a world view, not the proposition of an alternative.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider theism a good example of a world view, what defines it as such?

A collection of beliefs and values.

A particular theism can be defined as a world view as it outlines a series of beliefs and values which encompass all that is met by it's proponents and dictates it's proponents interpretation of all s/he encounters and considers.

When discussing 'religion' or any particular religion in contrast to atheism, I often find that the religiosity finds itself somewhat neglected, and in substitution I often find myself involved in a conversation about the possibility of a prime mover.
Theism as it has come to generally be known, is not used to describe those that reason for the positive necessity or possibility of a prime mover alone. In fact, the possibility of a god or a supreme being is something I, an atheist, accept very comfortably.

What I do not accept, or am yet to accept are claims regarding the nature of such a thing, the 'revelation' with such a thing, morality, politics, 'science' base on such a thing, or claims of human/god relationships. This, is theism, I do not have this and am far from accepting it as a world view. As such, I am an atheist.

A-theism
Root of ‘a-’
http://membean.com......



This idea of a god, and god's 'design', his 'master plan' etc, it has had more than a little influence on our species. We have developed various strict codes and guidelines which must be adhered to
in order to be in keeping with his plan (as interpreted and illustrated by which ever culture/decade/country/family you happened to have landed in at birth). So vast and permeating are these ideas, so insidious it has been, that we wonder, as Neitzche does, if it is a human requirement, if we can function successfully in its absence.


Do we need substitute this ancient conclusion with a relevant religiosity which accepts our ever sharpening perspective on nature?
Do we need satisfy this primal reasoning with a universally agreed moral imperative and complimentary standard of ethics?

Perhaps we do, and of course these questions are all very interesting, but atheism is not this. Not X does not = X. or Y. or Z.


My opponent must offer a case for atheism as a world view, a collection of shared beliefs, values and standards.
janetsanders733

Pro

Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. In other words, it is the denial of a world view, not the proposition of an alternative. Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider theism a good example of a world view, what defines it as such?A collection of beliefs and values."

According to the websters dictionary, atheism is a disbelief in God, or the doctorine that their is no God.from Greekatheosgodless, froma-+theosgod. I would strongly beg to differ with Con on the fact that he said that Atheism is "not the proposition of an alternative." Atheism is an alternative. It is the complete opposite of Theism; not only that it is a default position so it changes.Atheists see the world differently without God. They all believe they are an accident through evolution. They don't believe there is an ultimate purpose or meaning for human beings. They differ on Morality whether it is subjective/objective. They don't believe in an afterlife or destiny. Every Worldview has four questions that are commonly proposed and held to: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. Atheists believes differently on all four than someone who is lets say a Theist.

"When discussing 'religion' or any particular religion in contrast to atheism, I often find that the religiosity finds itself somewhat neglected, and in substitution I often find myself involved in a conversation about the possibility of a prime mover."

"Theism as it has come to generally be known, is not used to describe those that reason for the positive necessity or possibility of a prime mover alone. In fact, the possibility of a god or a supreme being is something I, an atheist, accept very comfortably. "What I do not accept, or am yet to accept are claims regarding the nature of such a thing, the 'revelation' with such a thing, morality, politics, 'science' base on such a thing, or claims of human/god relationships. This, is theism, I do not have this and am far from accepting it as a world view. As such, I am an atheist."

It sounds like Con could be moving towards Agnosticsm or at Best Deism. Again Con is showing that even though he calls himself an "atheist", he tends to differ on atheists in terms of God's existence being possible. I think his second paragraph is also again another commonly held belief in atheism. All atheists don't believe in Transcendence.I don't see how Con has refuted my position that Atheism is a worldview; in fact I think Con has refuted his own position, since he shows how he has differences of opinion as an Atheist.

Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MrJK

Con

MrJK forfeited this round.
janetsanders733

Pro

I understand that my opponent has forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MrJK

Con

I can only apologise for my forfeiture in the last round. It was not intentional, personal circumstances prevented me from posting the round. If my opponent wishes to replay the debate I will happily do so.


I hope that voters can please respect that "FF" where any arguments are presented is not an adequate basis for casting a vote on a debate.




On to my opponents arguments for atheism as a world view.


Pro: "According to the websters dictionary, atheism is a disbelief in God, or the doctorine that their is no God."


Websters dictionary is hardly an authority on words, let alone the intricasies of this enourmous subject.As any other dictionaries, even by far more credible ones, it provides only a quick reference guide to common usages of words.

In this case, it certainly has it wrong. "Doctrine" refers to a collection of beliefs, atheism is a single point of contention regarding the proposition of a god.

My opponent claims to have identified this collection of atheistic beliefs as per his burden of proof. Let's consider them:


"They all believe they are an accident through evolution."


Evolution is not exclusive to theists or atheists, therefore can not be attributed favourably to one over the other.

For example how about...


Francis Collins, leader of the international human genome project and Christian evangelist (http://www.nih.gov... /http://www.beliefnet.com...)


Or


"...of Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education"


(http://ncse.com...)



Or the following extensive endorsement of evolution by lifelong Christian Carl Drews:

(http://www.theistic-evolution.com... )


You can find statements from a huge number of churches and religious organizations endorsing evolution here:

(http://ncse.com...)


You can learn here (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) that evolution is NOT the theory that we are 'an accident'


Also, here is Christian explaining why evolution is irrelevent to the issue of a deity creating the universe (evolution is not abiogenesis):

http://www.thinkingthroughchristianity.com...



Evolution is a subject of science, not (a)theism.




"They don't believe there is an ultimate purpose or meaning for human beings" "They don't believe in an afterlife or destiny"


Not believing something is not the same has having a belief or believing the opposite.


The atheist does not believe that purpose or meaning has anything to do with your god, that does not mean that there are no alternative sources for purpose and meaning.


Similarly, afterlife is not exclusively a theistic belief. It is not necessary for me to believe that there is a god in order for me to believe that there is an afterlife. I happen to believe that there is an afterlife, I just don't define it in the terms that you might, and I don't relate it to a god.


Destiny also does not require god, it is irrelevant to (a)theism. It is my belief for example that I am destined to die within the next century, I don't relate this to a god, I relate this to predetermined factors within my biology.


Fallacy of false dichotomy: (http://www.philosophy-index.com...)



"Every Worldview has four questions that are commonly proposed and held to: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny."


My opponent must give sufficient proof that atheists have collective and unified propositions for each of the catagories he offered, as he himself proposed.



Not agreeing or disagreeing with the proposition that existence originates with a god is not an alternative proposition. Once god is denied as the originator the origins are still left to be discovered.

I might argue that life originated with an orange, my fellow atheist may argue that it has no origin, another might argue that the nature of time dictates that our destiny has past and our origins are yet to originate. I stick with my orange theory, Orangism and the goddess Orangina...she didn't create the world but she knows what did and it's fizzy and retro, in fact, I don't even say 'origins' I say 'orangins'.

There is no agreement on the origins of life among atheists other than "it wasn't your god" this leaves a vaccum, not an alternative.

This applies to meaning, morality and destiny also.




Myself: "Theism as it has come to generally be known, is not used to describe those that reason for the positive necessity or possibility of a prime mover alone. In fact, the possibility of a god or a supreme being is something I, an atheist, accept very comfortably. "What I do not accept, or am yet to accept are claims regarding the nature of such a thing, the 'revelation' with such a thing, morality, politics, 'science' base on such a thing, or claims of human/god relationships. This, is theism, I do not have this and am far from accepting it as a world view. As such, I am an atheist."


Con:"It sounds like Con could be moving towards Agnosticsm or at Best Deism. Again Con is showing that even though he calls himself an "atheist", he tends to differ on atheists in terms of God's existence being possible. I think his second paragraph is also again another commonly held belief in atheism. All atheists don't believe in Transcendence.I don't see how Con has refuted my position that Atheism is a worldview; in fact I think Con has refuted his own position, since he shows how he has differences of opinion as an Atheist."



Read it again: "...another commonly held belief in atheism. All atheists don't believe in Transcendence"


The false dichotomy fallacy again. Also, again, false attribution.


A world view can not be based on what you don't believe to be the case. I do not believe superman, batman or spiderman to be real, this is can not be a world view.


Now, to the claim itself:


"All atheists don't believe in Transcendence"


What of Kant's transcendental idealism?

What about Nietzsche's transcendence of man?


Transcendance i'm afraid is not a necessary element of either theism or atheism, and neither theist or atheist must exclusively deny transcendance by default.



"It sounds like Con could be moving towards Agnosticsm or at Best Deism."


I am an agnostic atheist. I am not a deist, a deist is not one who allows that a god is possible, a deist is someone who makes the positive claim that a deist exists/existed.


I have not yet found an argument for 'no possibility of a non-specific deity' If you can offer one, be my guest.

What I do say as an atheist, is that I do not believe in any claims regarding god that I have been presented with. Which is as atheistic as humanly possible.


Name me one credible source that offers an argument for "no gods perceivable or otherwise are possible" and I will gladly dismiss it.




Atheism, is not and can not be a world view.


Thanks again to my opponent, and again, my apologies for the forfeiture of the last round. I look forward to reading your final statements.




janetsanders733

Pro


I would like to say to Con, I am sorry and that it is no problem, and that the voting should not depend on FF. Voters should vote on who had the best convincing argument. I will try and address Con’s arguments as best as I can.

“Websters dictionary is hardly an authority on words, let alone the intricasies of this enourmous subject .As any other dictionaries, even by far more credible ones, it provides only a quick reference guide to common usages of words.
In this case, it certainly has it wrong. "Doctrine" refers to a collection of beliefs, atheism is a single point of contention regarding the proposition of a god.
A world view can not be based on what you don't believe to be the case. I do not believe superman, batman or spiderman to be real, this is can not be a world view.
I am an agnostic atheist. I am not a deist, a deist is not one who allows that a god is possible, a deist is someone who makes the positive claim that a deist exists/existed.

I have not yet found an argument for 'no possibility of a non-specific deity' If you can offer one, be my guest.

What I do say as an atheist, is that I do not believe in any claims regarding god that I have been presented with. Which is as atheistic as humanly possible.

Name me one credible source that offers an argument for "no gods perceivable or otherwise are possible" and I will gladly dismiss it.”

Con asserts Webster’s is not accurate, so I will use a credible Dictionary. According to the Oxford dictionary Atheism is by definition is:
Noun “ A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” [1]
Origin: late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god' [1]
Doctrine is irrelevant to this debate. Doctrine refers to a specific belief in a religious worldview. For the sake of this argument, I think we both can agree to leave it out.
As a view there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the worldview that

1. There is no God.

That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If Con does not think (1) is true, then he is not, by definition, an atheist.
What my opponent is confusing is the distinction between atheism as a worldview, and the justification of atheism[1]. Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism. What is important to see here is that the strength or weakness has to do, not with the claim, but with the justification being offered on behalf of that claim.







“My opponent claims to have identified this collection of atheistic beliefs as per his burden of proof. Let's consider them:
Evolution is not exclusive to theists or atheists, therefore can not be attributed favourably to one over the other.
For example how about...

Francis Collins, leader of the international human genome project and Christian evangelist
Or

"...of Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education"



Or the following extensive endorsement of evolution by lifelong Christian Carl Drews:

You can find statements from a huge number of churches and religious organizations endorsing evolution here:

You can learn here that evolution is NOT the theory that we are 'an accident'

Also, here is Christian explaining why evolution is irrelevent to the issue of a deity creating the universe (evolution is not abiogenesis):

While I do agree that Theists can believe in evolution like Francis Collins, and many denominations of Christianity can as well. This is not what I am arguing about here. This is a 'straw man' fallacy that Con is using against me. My argument is not: Evolution is exclusive to Atheism. Rather, I am simply arguing that: Atheism is exclusive to Evolution. On the atheist worldview, If the commonly held belief is there is no God (No matter if your strong/weak atheist). Then your only option is to believe in evolution to explain your existence. Why? Because by definition evolution is naturalistic, so any other scientific proposition to explain how life originated would defeat the atheist’s view of origins. Atheists can’t believe in Intelligent Design, because it implies a Designer outside of our existence. This would then open up the possibility of God’s existence. The same thing with Creationism, Atheists can’t believe that God can create the universe, since it implies a Creator.



“The false dichotomy fallacy again. Also, again, false attribution.

Now, to the claim itself:

"All atheists don't believe in Transcendence"

What of Kant's transcendental idealism?

What about Nietzsche's transcendence of man?

Transcendance i'm afraid is not a necessary element of either theism or atheism, and neither theist or atheist must exclusively deny transcendance by default.”

Worldview: a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. You do have commonly held beliefs, as mentioned above in my earlier paragraphs. As an atheist you see the world differently than someone who is a theist. You have a different idea of the world we live contrary to theism. I have addressed this in my above argument.

Con assumes that, as an atheist, you can believe in Transcendence. He uses Immanuel Kant and Frederick Nietzsche as examples. Before I address the two beliefs of Kant and Nietzsche; I would like to first define the word transcendence.

Transcendence- to exist above and independent from; to rise above, surpass, succeed.

This is what Immanuel Kant believed about Transcendence: “Here can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience...But though all our knowledge begins with experience it does not follow that it all arises out of experience”

Frederick Nietzsche- Nietzsche for instance removed the things-in-themselves altogether and suggest they may not even exist at all. What followed was a strong empiricist idealism: we shouldn't even bother finding "truth" - all that matters is our phenomenon world and what we find aesthetically pleasing about it.

Yes, Kant and Nietzsche both believed in transcendence. But, I think if you’re an atheist and you believe in transcendence, it really defeats the whole purpose of atheism. When you logically get into transcendence, you must imply a higher being that rises above you and me. I and think that is what Kant and Nietzsche were trying to do, but they take God out of the equation and they’re left searching for an objective reality apart from their existence. So I guess my point is once you really start diving into transcendence, then it becomes a more religious/spiritual issue, and is exclusive to theism rather than atheism.

https://www.youtube.com... do not have enough room to copy what Con's other argument about Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. So, I will try and answer it best here. All atheists believe that Origin is through evolution. Evolution is an accident because it is naturalistic. All atheists do not have an objective purpose to life. Therfore they must find their own purpose to live. Morality, Atheists can differ on morality being subjective/objective. Destiny, all atheists do not believe in an afterlife, since death is the end of all things.

Conclusion:
Atheism is a worldview, since it has differnt ideas/beliefs about origins, meaning, morality, and destiny.

Sources:

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[2} http://www.gotquestions.org...

[3] http://atheism.about.com...

[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[5] http://www.anus.com...

[6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by supershamu 3 years ago
supershamu
MrJKjanetsanders733Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate. I just didn't feel that there was a whole lot of fight to the argument. I feel the Pro made a good solid attack that the Con was not able to overcome. Pro pointed out the unifying idea that (in spite of all difference in ideas) brings atheism together and that is there can be no God. I found the debate very interesting with much put into by both parties. The Pro I felt just had stronger arguments.