The Instigator
x2MuzioPlayer
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Jegory
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Atheism is based on Faith

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 4 votes the winner is...
x2MuzioPlayer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,188 times Debate No: 35348
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

x2MuzioPlayer

Con

Resolved: Atheism is based on Faith.

--------------------

Welcome, DDO, it's been a while. About a month ago Jegory and I debated in the opinions section over the extent to which atheism requires faith. After coming to an impasse I decided to challenge him to a more formal debate. Due to timing conflicts, I unfortunately couldn't set up the debate at that time. But, now I do, and hopefully Jegory does as well. As agreed through PMs, the resolution for this debate will be "Atheism is based on Faith." Since I'm instigating the debate, I'll lay out the rules and structure:

Structure

Round 1: Pro's choice
Round 2-3: arguments (new arguments allowed)
Round 4: closing statements (new arguments not allowed)

Breaking the structure will result in conduct loss. New arguments in the final round should be disregarded if they come up.

BoP

Pro will be responsible for carrying the philosophical BoP for affirming the resolution. Con's burden will be to refute Pro's claims by either direct refutation or showing BoP has not been fulfilled.

Sources

Sources will most likely be a non-issue, since definitions will be provided below. If sources are used, they should be for reference, not a to provide further arguments.

Definitions

1. atheism (n): disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [1]
2. faith (n): a) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, or b) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. [2]
3. Faith (prop. n): generic term referencing a particular religion.

Concessions

Forfeiting a round or dropping an argument will be a concession of the argument, not necessarily the debate.

--------------------

If Pro has any questions pertaining to this debate, feel free to ask for clarifications in the comment section or PM me. Pro has the option to either use the first round as acceptance or for his first opening arguments. If Pro decides to use it for opening argumentation, I ask he leave his last round blank to keep the rounds even ("Left blank by request" or something along those lines would suffice). With details out of the way, I'm looking forward to an entertaining debate. And with that, I'll turn it over to Pro.

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Jegory

Pro

I accept this debate.

Firstly, I request that CON posts their arguments as soon as possible as I will only be available for a couple of days. I will try to do the same.

There is no proof

We have no proof either for or against God. Therefore, any decision made about the existence of God is based on faith. Atheism, as defined by CON, is the "lack of belief" in God, ie believing God doesn't exist. Therefore, atheism is, most definitely, based on faith.

I apologise for keeping this short; I haven't got too much time at the moment. Again, I request that CON submits his response as soon as possible.
Debate Round No. 1
x2MuzioPlayer

Con

My aim in this debate is not to prove God doesn't exist, nor am I going to attempt to affirm the atheistic position. My aim in this debate is to refute the claim that atheism is based on Faith. As per Pro's request, I'll try to make each of my rounds in a timely manner. Since Pro has the BoP, my response will be two-fold: a refutation of my opponents claims, and then a refutation of the resolution.

--------------------

"There is no proof"

To keep things organized, I'm going to section this off into several separate, but distinct, points. For reference, I'll outline Pro's argument in modus ponens form (P->Q, P, therefore Q):

P1: If there is no proof for or against God, the atheistic position is based on faith.
P2: There is no proof for or against God.
C1: Therefore, the atheistic position is based on faith.

1. The Conditional

a. Black-and-White Fallacy/Burden Shifting

For P1 to be true, we have to accept the condition that there is no proof for or against God. However, the term "proof" is misleading if it's intended to be argued as an absolute, rather than evidence that leans one direction or another. Not only is it a black-and-white fallacy to assume that there's a one-hit KO piece of evidence out there for either side and dismiss any evidence that only sways one way or another; it shifts the BoP away from the person making a claim to the person dismissing that same claim. The philosophical BoP lies in the affirmation of God's existence when debating between theism and atheism. The atheistic position is not a position, in and of itself, rather a responsive position provoked by the declaration that God, or gods, exist(s).

b. Equivocation

The conditional "P" in Pro's argument equivocates two statements, evident by Pro's claim, "Atheism, as defined by Con, is the 'lack of belief' in God, ie believing God doesn't exist." The latter statement is not the same as the former. The definition I provided in round one is a "lack of belief", which is drawn from the notion that insufficient evidence has been established to make the committing statement that God, or gods, exist(s). This does not mean atheism necessarily entails the assertion that God does not exist. I am simply saying, for the time being, we have not established enough evidence in support of God's, or gods', existence. Pro attempts to use his rewording as a justification for pinning atheism with some amount of BoP, which is entirely unfounded.

2. The Link

a. Non-Sequitur

Even if we were to accept the conditional "P" in P1, it doesn't logically follow that "Q" is necessarily true. As I noted above, there is a difference between making an assertion and responding to an assertion. A response to an assertion does not carry any inherent BoP, rather a burden to respond to the warrants of the initial claim. When a theist promotes the existence of God, or gods, an atheist only has to respond to what the theist has said. Anything beyond that is going a step further than is required to adequately defend the atheistic position, and is moving into the realm of attempting to disprove God or the gods.

b. Unfounded Claim

Assuming Pro's statement that there is no evidence for or against God's existence is true, it actually favors the position that atheism, the lack of belief in God or gods, is not based on faith. When taking into account an assertion, such as the existence of God (or any positive claim), the most rational response is to seek out the credibility of the claim. Scientific advancements over the past 100 years or so are a testament to how the method of hypothesis testing works. If the claim from a theist that God, or gods, exist(s) is taken as a hypothesis, the next step is to follow through with an experiment. However, God is more often than not given vague attributes that are untestable, and most arguments can be dismissed as an unfounded claim. If we take into account that there is no evidence whatsoever, we are left with an unfounded assertion, which entails no burden to refute.

3. P2

I have covered some issues regarded the conditional as it stands, which necessarily negates the premise itself. If "P" is deemed fallacious, then it no longer holds any logical bearing and falls apart. However, even if we take the premise face value, it doesn't stand. If we define God as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, we fall into a paradox where God likely exists as a contradiction to himself. Commonly labeled as the "problem of evil" and spanning back to Epicurus, it often falls along the logical reductio as follows:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist. [3]

Rather than defending an absolute refutation of God's existence, I am merely going to argue the excess of evil apparent in the world significantly decreases the chances that a God with these attributes exists. As Pro said in round one, there is no absolute proof one way or the other, however it's clearly a cop out to then conclude that evidence for either position does not exist. If the PoE establishes any marginal loss of probability in the existence of God, then Pro's P2 is refuted as there is some proof, however minimal, that may be used as the basis to expand from for an atheistic position.

4. The Conclusion

Since the conditional, the link, and the premise, are refuted, the conclusion cannot be established and Pro hasn't been able to maintain his BoP.

--------------------

Now that I have responded to Pro's defense for the resolution, I'll provide my case against the resolution.

1. Faith vs. faith

As atheism is a uniquely responsive position to the theistic position, it doesn't entail itself to any particular doctrine of beliefs outside the defining lack of belief in God or gods. With that in mind, it clearly doesn't follow that atheism is, or is based on, any form of Faith. For Pro to be able to defend that atheism is based on Faith, he must clearly show the link between being an atheist and necessarily prescribing to a doctrine or belief system. Until this has been done, the resolution hasn't been affirmed.

2. "Based on"

Being an atheist does not require him/her to base their lack of belief in God or gods on faith, let alone a Faith. The epistemological question is how atheists can justify their position. Theism is based on Faith, a particular doctrine divinely inspired, usually consisting of explicit rules/laws/morals/etc. Atheism, on the other hand, cannot be pinned down as a Faith. Far from being based on a particular Faith, the basis for atheism lies in evaluating (and dismissing) the arguments and evidence posed by theists, since this is the only way for atheism to exist. As theists propose differing definitions of God or gods, atheists have to morph their position to suit, since the atheistic position is entirely dependent on the theistic position in question. If the arguments pertaining to theism change, then the responses for an atheistic position change as well. If anything, atheism is based on its inherent contradiction to theism. Another question could be posed, asking what the contradiction with theism is based on. The answer is that there is no answer. Atheism, unlike theism, does not require any particular set of beliefs; which is precisely why it cannot be construed as a Faith, nor can it be considered based on faith. So, to answer the episemological question, atheists are able to justify their position by adequately responding to theistic arguments.

---------------------

And with that, I'll turn it over to Pro, where I eagerly await for his reply.






[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Jegory

Pro

I thank CON for his arguments.

There is no proof

1. The Conditional

a. Black-and-White Fallacy/Burden Shifting

"For P1 to be true, we have to accept the condition that there is no proof for or against God"

There is no absolute proof of God's existence.

"the term "proof" is misleading if it's intended to be argued as an absolute, rather than evidence that leans one direction or another"

Proof, as in absolute proof, as opposed to evidence. Evidence provides the possibility, proof provides the answer.

"it a black-and-white fallacy to assume that there's a one-hit KO piece of evidence out there for either side and dismiss any evidence that only sways one way or another"

I never said there was; in fact, I have been arguing against this fact.

"The atheistic position is not a position, in and of itself, rather a responsive position provoked by the declaration that God, or gods, exist(s)"

CON has neglected from responding to my argument; rather than believing God is unlikely they have a disbelief in God, meaning they do make assumptions against God's existence.

b. Equivocation

I'd like to point out here that there is a difference between agnsotic atheists and gnostic atheists.

AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS - Those who believe God is a possibility, yet unsupported by evidence

GNOSTIC ATHEISTS - Those who believe God cannot and does not exist

It's important to distingish between the two; one is making a claim, the other not. Although the two groups do become muddled, CON is arguing that the latter group have no faith in their beliefs.

2. The Link

a. Non-Sequitur

"there is a difference between making an assertion and responding to an assertion"

I disagree! It is impossible to not make a claim about something if you are defending it; would you argue that defending lawyers are not arguing for the accused in a court case?

Unfounded Claim

I'd, again, like to point out the difference between agnostic and gnostic atheists. The former is not making a claim, the latter is.

3. P2

This can be considered the atheistic "evidence" used to expand their arguments. It seems CON is taking the BoP upon himself to disprove God, going against his previous arguments that atheists make no claims.

4. The Conclusion

Although I thank CON for his efforts, it seems he has been arguing for agnostic atheists rather than gnostic, or proper atheists.

===============

1. Faith vs. faith

I'd like to begin by pointing out that CON has ommitted from stating which definition of "faith" he deems relevant to the debate.

Atheists defend their beliefs as strongly as any theist. While they may lack a universal set of beliefs, they stand up for their beliefs as much as any believer in God.

==============

It seems CON has made the resolution completely in his favour. I request that voters keep that in mind when they vote on this debate.

==============

I look forward to CON's reply.

Unfortunately, I will only be available for the remainder of today; therefore, I request that my opponent responds quickly and concisely to my points. If not, I may not be able to complete this debate which, I'm sure, would be a great disappointment to him and to me.
Debate Round No. 2
x2MuzioPlayer

Con

To keep things organized, I'm going to stick with the structure I set up in round two, starting with Pro's case and ending with mine.

1. The Conditional

a. Black-and-White Fallacy/Burden Shifting

I'd first like to say that to the everyday definitions, proof and evidence are interchangeable. A quick Google search will show they're synonyms, and the term "evidence" is used within the definition of "proof". [4] [5] Proofs are not an end to themselves, rather --like evidence-- they establish certain facts that support a reasonable conclusion. If I say, for example, every shirt I own is blue, and find a red shirt in my house, the fact is there is a red shirt in my house. However, it doesn't necessarily establish any conclusion aside from the red shirt being in my house. The conclusion I could make, given my proof, is that the shirt is not mine. If he'd like to debate these definitions, he should probably warrant the distinction between the two words when the Oxford Dictionary uses them interchangeably. My argument is not that Pro believes there is absolute proof, my argument is that we shouldn't assume the only evidence that is acceptable is some "one-hit KO" fact. Pro is dismissing anything short of absolute certainty, which is why this conditional "If there is no proof..." is fallacious. I accept that Pro's arguing there's no absolute proof, and I'm admitting there is no absolute proof, however, my entire argument here is criticizing the concept of only accepting absolute proof.

Pro's second answer to this is that atheism is "disbelief" in God and argues that this leads to the conclusion that we make assumption about God's non-existence. The conclusion is a complete non-sequitur. Disbelief, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is the "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real," or in the case of faith, a "lack of faith in something." [6] No, a disbelief in God is not making assumptions pertaining to God's existence, nor is it a claim that God does not exist. The definition itself only means there is a lack of belief, which I believe I mentioned in my last round.

I'd like to extend my argument that the premise commits burden shifting and should not be given serious consideration as a legitimate conditional. "The philosophical BoP lies in the affirmation of God's existence when debating between theism and atheism. The atheistic position is not a position, in and of itself, rather a responsive position provoked by the declaration that God, or gods, exist(s)." (R2, same section) This was conceded by Pro, which means he concedes atheism is solely a position based on response to theistic arguments, and does not maintain any inherent BoP. By failing to uphold his own BoP, Pro concedes the P1's conditional is fallacious.

b. Equivocation

This debate isn't about the distinction between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism, it's about what atheism is. The question at hand is whether or not atheism requires a foundation on Faith, not whether or not gnostic atheists have more faith than agnostic atheists. I'm not arguing for either, as Pro wants me to do. Pro claims I'm defending gnostic atheism, but as I mentioned in my last round, I'm not trying to defend atheism, merely explain its position and required assumptions. If anything, this section is defending agnostic atheism by making the distinction between Pro's equivocatation that "lack of belief" and "believing God doesn't exist" are the same thing. If the conditional premise relies on this equivocation (which I'm arguing it does) then the premise is flawed and Pro's argument does not stand.

2. The Link

a. Non-Sequitur

I don't think Pro could have chose a more incorrect analogy to work with. In a court of criminal law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosection doesn't say a word, the defendant could rightly ask for the case to be dismissed based on insufficient evidence. In the same way a defendant doesn't have BoP, being an atheist does not require any inherent BoP. If I can maintain that there is a non-sequitur between the P1 "P" and "Q", then the argument fails, and the resolution is negated.

b. Unfounded Claim

I believe Pro dropped this... since all he claimed is there is a difference between agnostic and gnostic atheism. That's not what the point of this section was. The point I'm making is that, under the assumption that only absolute proof is acceptable, then the claim in support for theism is unfounded, and therefore dismissable. This, in turn, makes atheism not unfounded and based on faith, but based on the dismission of theistic claims.

3. P2

Pro has decided not to argue against the PoE, but to argue that defending it is somehow contradictory to my case. So, if I can show there is no contradiction with my case, then the PoE stands and P2 is negated. I have taken it upon myself to negate the second premise, which means the conclusion that atheism is based on faith is negated as well. I have, for the argument, conceded that the argument is logically tight, and moved into the second level of argumentation to refute the idea that there is no proof against God's existence. This is not contradictory to my case by any means. Atheists are not required to make any claims to disprove God, but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to. I don't have to disprove the notion that there are flying pigs in the Congo; but I could attempt to disprove it empirically by arguing that the absence of documentation supporting the existence of such swines lends itself to conclude that flying pigs do not exist. It's not contradictory, it's just a different level of argumentation. I went beyond the framework of the argument and argued against the premise itself.

4. The Conclusion

Much of my case was predicated on establishing that being an atheist does not necessarily entail being a gnostic atheist. I am not defending atheism (except for negating P2), I am not saying there aren't irrational atheists who adamantly deny the possibly of God --or gods-- existing, and I'm not saying atheism is the correct position. However, being an atheist does not require some leap of faith when its clearly founded in responding to theistic claims. That's why atheism is a "lack of belief," because we lack the ability to believe in God.

--------------------

1. Faith vs. faith

In round one, I gave definitions to both Faith and faith, one being the proper noun derived from the common noun. I also made sure to capitalize the word in the topic title as well as in the italicized resolution... also, I quoted the resolution and capitalized the word in my opening paragraph as well. So, I made it clear three times outside of providing definitions. Now, to respond to Pro's argument, I concede that there are atheists that are very strong in their beliefs, however there is no set of beliefs in the sense theists have with their Faiths. However, I'm going to just concede this and move on, since most of my case is against atheism being based on faith anyways.

2. Based on

I believe this is conceded. The opinion question Pro and I debated about used this term, so I deemed it fit for our formal debate. We also had sent PMs regarding this issue, and came to the conclusion that this resolution was acceptable. Pro, I sincerely hope you don't really think I set this up just to beat you on semantics, when I worded the resolution based on your opinion question. [7] I extend my arguments, since it looks like a concession on Pro's part.

--------------------

I tried to get this in as quick as possible, but I had been up for over 48 hours straight and basically passed out about 12 hours ago. I hope this response was quick enough for you, Pro.

[4] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[5] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[6] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[7] http://www.debate.org...
Jegory

Pro

1. The Conditional



"I'd first like to say that to the everyday definitions, proof and evidence are interchangeable"

I disagree! Evidence is something that points to a particular answer; proof is a collection of evidence that shows something to be absolutely true. Evidence can show a set of possibilities, while proof only gives you one absolute answer.

In any case, by admitting that evidence and proof are the same, CON admits that there is no evidence against God either. Therefore, atheists have no evidence to base their beliefs on, either; it all comes down to faith.

CON also argues that disbelief is not a belief in something. Again, I respectfully disagree. If someone has a lack of belief in ghosts, for example, they believe ghosts cannot and do not exist. It is the same with God.

While atheists may not have the BoP, they are still arguing for something. If you are debating someone about a smoking ban and you are CON; yes, you are refuting PRO's points but, equally, you are arguing for there not to be a smoking ban.

b. Equivocation

I apologise for being vague in my previous round. This debate, as I understand it, is abou gnostic atheists rather than agnostic atheists who are, in my mind, not "proper" atheists at all. CON has refrained from responding to my points in this area.

2. The Link

a. Non-Sequitur

CON has not answered my question in any degree. The lawyer takes it upon him/herself to defend the accused and is, as such, arguing for their innocence as much as the prosecution is arguing against them.

b. Unfounded Claim

I'd like to point out that there is no absolute proof. Does that make belief in God false?

3. P2

"Atheists are not required to make any claims to disprove God, but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to"

Here, atheists are taking the BoP upon themselves. How is this not hypocritical; the ones who claim they do not make claims are making a claim!

4. The Conclusion

CON seems to neglect the idea that there is a difference between agnostic and gnostic atheists. The former may be considered agnostic rather than atheist; agnostics are the only party to not make any claims in a debate about God.

==============

1. Faith vs faith

CON's meaning was misleading; by his own admission:

"most of my case is against atheism being based on faith anyways."

CON moves away from the resolution he put in place.

2. Based on

Yep, I don't see any problems here.

I also apologise for being a little brusque; I meant that, in the sense of making use of both faith and Faith in your arguments, it seemed highly misleading.

==============

"I hope this response was quick enough for you, Pro."

Just :P. I thank my opponent for posting his arguments as quickly as he could, allowing me to finish this debate.

And finally...

CON and I have already agreed that I will not present any arguments in the last round. However, I will be unable to post my last round; therefore, I request that voters do not see the last round as a forfeit and base their votes on the debate up to that point.

I thank CON for this debate. I will nd by sincerely urging you to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
x2MuzioPlayer

Con

Since this is my final round, I'm not going to introduce anything new to the debate either, merely summarize the arguments that have been presented and defend why they negate the resolution either through presumption or refutation. In this debate it seems the main issues were semantically based, which is fine. I don't have any problem with that, however it creates two levels of argumentation that need to be addressed; and while I tried to structure the debate to accommodate for that, Pro seems to have ignored the substance of his premises, as I'll expand on below. Each of my arguments that are sectioned in bold are independent reasons why either Pro's case is unsound or the resolution is negated. With that said, if I have won any of those sections, arguments should go to Con, since I believe I've done my job in this debate at either refuting Pro's case or winning my own.

--------------------

1. The Conditional

a. Black-and-White Fallacy/Burden Shifting

In my last round, I asked if Pro would be able to substantiate a warrant as to why there should be a distinction between evidence and proof when the Oxford Dictionary uses them interchangeably. Inserting his own definitions for the words is not a warranted claim to justify the difference. If I call a dog a cat, and define it as a cat, it's not magically now a cat. Now, my intention here was to show the fallacy in saying only absolute evidence is acceptable, when that's clearly not how it works (black/white fallacy). By undermining the conditional here, I'm able to establish a flaw in Pro's case by attacking the link in P1. If "P" cannot be accepted, the "Q" cannot follow from it. To be clear, I'm not saying "Not P, therefore not Q", all I'm arguing is that Pro's BoP hasn't been upheld. Pro's last argument is that if evidence and proof are interchangeable, then atheists have no evidence either, which clearly doesn't follow. Again, he keeps trying to defend this black or white paradigm, which I've shown repeatedly is fallacious.

On the lack of belief being an assertive claim, I don't know what else to say. I've shown there's a difference between making a claim, and dismissing that same claim. As with a court of law, like I mentioned in my last round, the defendant does not have to prove s/he's innocent, the prosecution has to prove s/he's guilty. Just because atheism implies a lack of belief in God or gods, does not mean it is making the assertion "there are no gods."

Disbelief doesn't equate to a positive statement that "X is un/true". Pro's analogy with ghosts doesn't hold up. If someone is lacking a belief in ghosts that doesn't mean they're saying "no ghosts exist;" all they're saying is they don't have enough reason to believe they do.

Pro misses the point about BoP. If atheism has no inherent BoP, then the conditional doesn't work. Atheism doesn't argue for something, it's arguing against something. Atheism couldn't exist without theism. The conditional that there is no evidence against God's existence (implying that therefore it's a possibility) relies on burden shifting, that merely conjuring up an idea gives it any credibility. Since the first premise relies on burden shifting, the construct isn't logically sound, which negates Pro's case.

b. Equivocation

Pro argues I conceded the point, however that's because the point he made about gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism is non-responsive to my contention. My intention here is to show that atheism doesn't require gnosticism, so this equivocation blocks the link from "P" to "Q". Since this went conceded, P1 fails and Pro has no case, which warrants a negation of the resolution on presumption.

2. The Link

a. Non-Sequitur

I'll let the voters decide if I conceded this. As I see it, the non sequitur stands and hasn't been sufficiently responded to.

b. Unfounded Claim

Pro asks if, since there's no absolute proof, if the belief in God is false. My answer is that it is an unsupported assertion. Now, my contention here was to show that, although no absolute certainty may intuitively lend itself to conclude that atheism is based on faith, but it's quite the opposite on the assumption that absolute proof is necessary. If absolute proof is necessary, then the assertion that God exists is unfounded and justified as dismissible. If we are able to dismiss assertions that do not have absolute proof, then atheism is not grounded on faith, but a dismissive response to theism. If this is true, then Pro's BoP has not been upheld.

3. P2

As with the "Non-Sequitur" section, I'll let the voters decide this since I believe I answered how I'm not being hypocritical. I extend the PoE since it goes uncontested and P2 falls because of it.

4. The Conclusion

I don't really know where Pro thinks I'm equivocating between gnostic and agnostic atheists. Since this is a debate about atheism, in general, not gnosticism and agnosticism (which don't have to be necessarily tagged onto atheism), I'm simply defending the definition of atheism I provided in round one. I think I've clearly shown Pro's case is flawed on both a substantive (the PoE) and theoretical (the formal fallacies) level. Since Pro doesn't have a case anymore, the resolution hasn't been upheld because Pro hasn't been able to maintain his BoP to affirm it.

--------------------

My case went largely uncontested, which I find particularly unfortunate since it means we weren't able to engage in a debate over my counter-case. My case was an attempt to refute the resolution with arguments that weren't brought up in Pro's case. One of my two points I decided was not worth going for, and the other was just outright conceded.

1. Faith vs. faith

I wasn't misleading... and I really find this criticism undeserved. I didn't admit I was being misleading either, but thanks for quote-mining me Pro. I'll run out of text if I copy/paste my paragraph from last round here. If the voters would, please go up to my last round and reread this section, "Faith vs. faith". I clearly did not intend to mislead Pro in any way... the case I was referring to was my rebuttal of Pro's case, since that's where the majority of my arguments in this debate lied. I put up six arguments against Pro's case and two of my own... so, no, most of my case wasn't here in these two sections; it was above, in response to Pro's. Most of my case was against atheism being based on faith... however, that's what Pro was advocating for that in his case. That's not really my fault.

The only reason I moved away from the resolution was because Pro did. I can't really respond to a case that's off topic without straying off topic. I even agreed to drop this contention because I didn't feel like arguing for a cheap win with Pro dissatisfied for misrepresenting the resolution. No, I'm not going for this contention, but I think this criticism by Pro was entirely unwarranted...

2. "Based on"

Since this was conceded, I believe the resolution is refuted. If the resolution is "Atheism is based on Faith" (or "faith") and I showed that atheism isn't "based on" faith or derived from a Faith, I guess I just don't see how the resolution can be upheld. I already showed that even if there is an element of faith in being an atheist, that doesn't mean it's based primarily on faith. I provided a counter-base for atheism, which is its inherent contradiction to theism. I then anticipated the question of what the contradiction is based on. My answer to that was that there is no answer, or in other words, it's entirely predicated (and justified) off of answering theistic arguments.

--------------------

Well, I'd like to thank Pro for the debate, and anyone who takes their time to read this debate and vote on it. Like Pro said, he's going to forfeit his "final" round. Please don't count this against him. I believe i was able to both show Pro's case was unsound and refute the resolution. For my reasons above, please vote Con.
Jegory

Pro

Jegory forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
I'd like to congratulate x2MuzioPlayer for his very well deserved win!! I would have congratulated you sooner, but I've been away for the last few weeks and I've literally only just got back :P.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@Jegory- I've been trying. (-_-) It doesn't seem like people are listening.
Posted by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
Calculatedr1sk: I thank you for reading this debate thoroughly. If you had, you would have read that I was unable to post my last round and, as agreed, I forfeited the last round. Therefore, I request hat you recast your vote and I request that, n future, you read the debate before you vote.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
I'm going to post it here as well as in the rounds, so people don't get the wrong idea for voting. Jegory and I agreed he'd forfeit his "final" round, since that keeps the number of rounds for each of us even. So, please don't give me conduct for the last round forfeiture.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@Ragnar- I ended up putting down a lot more than I originally intended. It seems I have a tendency to be "thorough" to the point of rambling. Just imagine how bad it would be if I didn't try to organize my rounds. (-_-)
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I may try to read this one again, but there was a wall of text from con to reply to a very short point by pro... And within it talk about links (which I did not see).
Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
Atheism isn't based on faith. Its based on logic
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@Jegory- Yeah, something along the lines of, "Left blank to keep rounds even", or something along those lines would be just fine.
Posted by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
Ok. By the way, should I forfeit R4 to keep it even?
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
@Jegory- I should be able to get through the four rounds by Tuesday. I'm currently typing up my round right now.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
x2MuzioPlayerJegoryTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro states the "'lack of belief' in God" is "believing God doesn't exist", which is fundamentally wrong. Pro also failed to respond to many contentions, for example, only P2 of C3 was directly answered to. Also Forfeit.
Vote Placed by dragon_slayer489 3 years ago
dragon_slayer489
x2MuzioPlayerJegoryTied
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: just to make =
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
x2MuzioPlayerJegoryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: ff
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
x2MuzioPlayerJegoryTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F Con used sources