The Instigator
Wallstreetatheist
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
iPwnuNOW
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism is not a religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,879 times Debate No: 22358
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Resolution: Atheism is not a religion.

Rules
: Debater must have typing experience.

Debater must have internet access.
No excuses or forfeitures.
Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
Must insert one witty quote per round.



Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five
(2) Main Argument
(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument
(4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)


"I once wanted to become an atheist. I gave up the idea. They have no holidays." -Henny Youngman


I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.

Let the game begin!
iPwnuNOW

Con

I accept these terms and also return the ritualistically instigated internet high-five with enthusiasm.
Just as so to be clear, definition from dictionary.com.
re�li�gion ;[ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Also just as to be sure again with the definition from http://www.merriam-webster.com...:

re�li�gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

I will now insert one witty quote.
"If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul."
-Isaac Asimov
Debate Round No. 1
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I look forward to a salutary intellectual experience. :D

Isn’t atheism a religion? Short answer: no, obviously. But, atheists consistently hear this canard repeated ad nauseum, because many religious people seem to have difficulty understanding that people can choose to “opt out” of the whole believing-you-have-imaginary-friends thing. Simply put, the religious think everyone has a religion. To better understand this topic in depth, we must examine what exactly makes a religion a religion in the first place.

The religion section of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions nine qualifications for religions. The more qualifications out of the nine, the more “religious-like” the belief system is.


Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
Right off the bat, atheism does not fit the criteria of the most basic requirement of religion: belief in supernatural beings. A basic justification for this is the etymology of the word. Atheism comes from the Greek atheos: a- “without” and theos “a god,” meaning “without god/s.” [1][2] Consonantly, both positive atheism (affirming the non-existence of god/s) and negative atheism (lack of belief that god/s exist) do not have belief in supernatural beings. [3] I think this one is pretty much laid to rest, so we’ll move on.

A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Whereas in Catholic churches water is “holy” and the altar is the place for “sacred offerings,” atheists make no distinction between arbitrary or doctrinal justification for sacred and non-sacred/profane objects. To an atheist, a large, bronze statue of Baal in a sunny park would just be seen as artwork, but to Christians and Jews, the “artwork” would be seen as profane and blasphemous. Then they would complain, start making threats of coercion and legal suits, and the issue would prolong like an open sore. Atheists are free to make their own moral judgments according to a subjective moral compass or objective moral theory to ascertain which objects are morally bad and good, but the important distinction here is that they don’t arbitrarily choose objects as religiously good because they support a desert God or animal spirit. Moving on.

Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
As we’ve established, atheists don’t have a sacred object like a Pastafarian pasta strainer or a Judaic yarmulke; therefore, they do not have acts that focus on them, because the sacred objects are as non-existent as the gods they are told have “great evidence.” You won’t see an atheist walking a 200 mile jaunt while flagellating his back on holy day. You won’t see an atheist symbolically eating the flesh and blood of another man in some sort of benign cannibalistic ritual, and there is nothing that doctrinally compels him to do so.

A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
Seeing as though atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief that god/s exist, it is reasonable to conclude that they don’t believe that a moral code exists which is sanctioned by said non-existent god/s. In fact, the moral code presented in religious books resembles more the religious code of ignorant, savage, homophobic, petrified, misogynistic, sadomasochistic, sinister, callous, inane sheep herders than the inspired word of an omnibenevolent creator. The bible sanctions slavery, abortion, animal cruelty, homophobia, genocide, and many other grotesque acts that we deem woefully immoral today. That’s why the moral code of atheism is not that of a particular religion, is not a singular theory, and resembles more of a constellation of ideas about moral action than a particular religion would. Despite this sanctioned moral code, atheists tend to be much more objectively moral human beings: lower crime rates, better marriages, and more accepting of people.

Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
This is a quadruple cluster of wrong. Atheism doesn’t inspire any such religious feelings any more than not believing in Santa Claus would fill you with wonder. However, that does not leave the atheist without room for spiritual experience, which is another discussion. Again, atheists do not believe in god/s, nor do they have sacred objects or rituals surrounding those objects.

Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
Ask yourself, “what would be the point of praying, if I strongly did not believe an imaginary being existed.” Atheism is the disbelief that god/s exist, so prayer and other forms of communication with the gods is inane. Praying only further detaches one from reality, and develops numerous ad hoc justifications that it still is useful. E.g. a woman prays for god to save her husband who has been injured in a toilet-plunging accident in Guatemala; however, doctors fail to save him, and he passes away. She then says, “It was god’s plan.” If god is going to do his plan regardless of your prayer, then there is no point of praying...

A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein.
Atheism is a term we really don’t need, since it is the default position for all humans, and the only way to muck it up is by being conned into a religion by one’s parents, associates, or one’s own susceptible mind. Atheism doesn’t have a world view. Anything people want to believe is fine, as long as they don’t believe in gods, they’re still atheists. If atheism did have a world view, then it’s doing an awful job of letting people know, because atheism subsumes an incredibly vast spectrum of people.

This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
No world view, so people are free to choose their own paths, purposes, and meanings.

A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
You are completely free as an atheist to organize your life in any manner you see fit.

A social group bound together by the above.
As none of the above were achieved through reasoning to be applied to atheism, a social group is not bound by any of the preceding qualifications.

If Atheism is a religion ...
then bald is a hair color.

then health is a disease.
then pedestrians should be ticketed for driving their cars too far under the speed limit.
then what's the opposite of religion and what would you call someone who has no religion?
then bears are still Catholic, and the Pope still craps in the woods.
then cremation is a fashion statement and 0 is a quantity.
then absence is presence and you can never be lonely for anyone ever again because they are always with you.
then does that mean Christians have 2 religions since they also don't believe in all of the other gods?
then transparent is a color.
then abstinence is a form of sex.
then the Taliban is a Goodwill Organization
then a blank DVD is a movie and a blank word document is an essay (try telling that to a teacher).
then being a nonsmoker is a smoking habit.
then unemployment is a career.
[4]

Summary
Atheists don’t have imaginary friends, so they don’t build places to worship to appease them; they don’t create objects to appease their imaginary friends, nor do they create elaborate rituals with those objects that serve absolutely no function. Atheism is not a religion, it’s just an identification of people who do not have imaginary friends.



[1] http://www.etymonline.com...
[2] http://www.etymonline.com...
[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[4] http://atheism.about.com...
iPwnuNOW

Con

Before I forget to do so, here is a witty quote:
"Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but live for it."
-C.C. Colton

Thank you for this topic, as I think the is an interesting topic to debate on.
I look forward to a good debate.
Also, I am agnostic. Just putting that out there.

Main Arguments:

The set Definitions for Atheism and how it Pertains to the Definition of Religion:

Atheism is loosely defined as a belief in which there is no god and/or deity. Another definition of religion besides the one I posted in Round One is : a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
(dictionary.com)
Atheism is a belief and there is a population that refute the existence of a god. I am not entirely sure how the criteria set by Pro are official and if it is widely accepted (Do not take this as a rebuttal). Atheism is not simply confined to absolutely NOT believing is gods and living with that one belief. I will expand on this in the next point.

Philosophies based on the non-existence of Deities:

Because someone does not believe in a god or gods does not mean they are devoid of a belief at all. In fact several philosophies and religions do follow a leader. Several religions do have followers loosely classified as atheists. Buddhism's followers, for example, do not believe in a god or deity. I will not dwell further in any specific religion.
A list of non-theist religions:
-Buddhism
-Sciencetology
-Humanism
- Raelism
[1]


In these religions, no being(s) are divine in any way.


Moral Values and Set Codes:

In the stated religions above, there are set values and codes. Buddhism has the Eight-Fold Path that describes what traits to follow to lead a good life and have acceptable moral standards [2]. Raelism, though containing questionable morals, do indeed have morals. This religion does hold some ground and these two example beliefs do not hold one being divine. Sacred and profane things are both described in their respective "holy" books.

The Religious Feel:

Atheism does not inspire religious feelings? Refer to the non-theistic religions stated above. I have now classified several religions that fall under having atheistic beliefs and therefore have followers who are atheists and follows atheism's beliefs that do follow the Pro's qualifications. (Note: This is not a rebuttal, but rather a statement ascertaining my point and/or points.)

Atheism: Religion or Not?

Ok, now let us just theoretically dismiss the other non-theist religions and just focus on not believing a god or deity, even though Pro did not specify adding other non-theistic religions as atheism and did not specify just the belief of no god.

Post Scriptum:
I apologize in advance for spelling and/or grammatical errors I have made during this round as I have a lot on my hands at the moment. This is no excuse as I find this debate educational of sorts and wish Pro good luck. :D
I will be awaiting your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

I’d like to kindly remind my opponent that this round is for rebuttals. Thanks for reading and debating! :D

My opponent begins by defining atheism as, “a belief in which there is no god and/or deity” and religion as, “a specific fundamental set of beliefs AND practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.”
Immediately one’s intellect alerts himself to the major discrepancy between the two terms and definitions. Firstly, atheism doesn’t have a “set of practices.”
Secondly, atheism doesn’t have factions or sects that break apart the almost nonexistent fabric of atheism; atheism and atheists are unified through their lack of belief in deities.
Lastly, atheism isn’t a set of beliefs, it’s one belief, if you consider rational doubting in the face of pitiful/nonexistent evidence a belief.


“I am not entirely sure how the criteria presented by Pro are official and if it is widely accepted”

The criteria I established come from a highly reputable source, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The criteria are valid, because there is obviously not one component of religion that makes it so; there is no “special sauce.” Religion is composed of common elements throughout history and throughout the world. These nine most common elements identify a religion as being more or less “religious-like.” This is a better qualification than a dictionary.com reference.


“Philosophies based on the non-existence of deities”

The first problem with even this contention’s title is that it is blatantly illogical to assert that a number of philosophies comes out of absolutely nothing. Atheism is neutral and nothing, the only way to build off of atheism, is to not use atheism as a base. You could accept political dogma, religious dogma, or some other sort of belief or philosophy. The reason atheism doesn’t produce philosophies is the same reason not collecting stamps doesn’t produce hobby magazines.


“Because someone does not believe in a god or gods does not mean they are devoid of a belief at all.”

Agreed, atheists’ beliefs are resemble a connstellation. There is no set of beliefs atheists need follow except for the condition that they do not believe in any god or gods. They can believe in love, science, beauty, human compassion, etc.. But, that does not take root in atheism, it finds its place in the realities of human existence.


“Buddhism”

A non-theistic religion is still a religion. Buddhism has beliefs in dogma such as the karma principle, nirvana, and zen. It has a founder, a school of thought, and holy books. It satisfies most of the characteristics of religion according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, therefore, is a religion. Atheism is not a sacred doctrine of Buddhism or a meaningful part of Buddhism; Buddhists just reject the notion of an omnipotent creator deity. Buddhism is a religion, atheism, by itself, is not.


“Scientology”

Scientologists have a set of beliefs in dianetics, thetans, alien stories, past lives, and beliefs against practices such as psychiatry. Scientology uses sacred items, Churches of Scientology, and religious ceremonies. Scientology is a religion with many crazy beliefs just like Christianity and Hinduism.

“Humanism”

Humanism, “is an approach in study, philosophy, world view or practice that focuses on human values and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.” This focuses on the value of human life and what humans themselves value. The source of this philosophy is not disbelief or lack of belief in deity, but rather from the source of humanity and human endeavor. As a member of the human species, I attach a higher importance to a human than a lower animal. I want to see people thrive; I cringe at genocide; I rejoice in the highest achievements of mankind. This philosophy is essentially contrary to theology, which sees humanity through the prism of religion, whereas humanism sees humanity without any biased obstruction to truth.


“Realism”

Realism holds that, “reality exists independently of observers, whether in philosophy itself or in the applied arts and sciences.” It’s hard to tell how this is a valid attempt to assert your position that atheism is a religion. Even if one of the previous religions/philosophies had your intended effect, you would still be where you are: holding an empty sack. Objectivism is its independent philosophy, it isn’t directly related to atheism. There are objectivist and subjectivist approaches to morality from those people who identify as atheists, so as you can tell, this doesn’t undermine my claim or assert yours.


“Buddhism has the Eight-Fold Path that describes what traits to follow to lead a good life and have acceptable moral standards”

Buddhism is a religion based on the teaching of a primary man. His philosophies stemmed from his own worldview. They do not stem from atheism. Buddhist holy books are not atheist holy books, etc... Any atheist can search for his or her own meaning to life, subjectivist, objectivist, categorical imperative, etc.. it does not flow from the lack of belief in a deity, and the diverse range of ideas about morality from atheists demonstrate this fact aptly.


“Sacred and profane things are both described in their respective "holy" books.”

You have yet to show that atheism itself has any holy books and/or things.

“Atheism does not inspire religious feelings? Refer to the non-theistic religions stated above.”

Atheism doesn’t inspire religious feelings, because it is a lack of belief in a deity and has a lack of religious iconography, literature, and everything else that would make it a religion. Atheists are however open to spiritual experience without being religious or theists.

Thanks!! :D
iPwnuNOW

Con

Thank for your response, Pro.
Begin Contentions.
Also, here's a witty quote:
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."
-Doris Egan
Pro has not posted a witty quote. However, he has provided his own excuse. He has led a hectic week. He has promised to compensate for this loss next round.
And I agree with Pro's proof of his nine qualifications legitimacy.

C1: "Right off the bat, atheism does not fit the criteria of the most basic requirement of religion: belief in supernatural beings"

I would substitute "supernatural beings" or "deities" as a leader. Or someone with utmost power. Or someone to follow. Buddhism, Scientology, Raelism, and Humanism are religions who do not believe in a supernatural being. Therefore, their followers are atheist. Therefore they believe loosely of the atheists belief. My loose logic is that all the non-theistic religions believe in "atheism".

Pro has admitted in the practice of sacred objects in Scientology and has called it a religion.
Logic Equation:
Scientology Atheism beliefs Atheism ≈ Religion



However, if you do not agree with this. I could fit blank and raw atheism into some (if not all) of these criteria. As for this criterion, atheists believe in the idea of morals or their own morals. That alone is an "authority" or "deity". "God" is a belief, something of the mind. Something some people believe. Atheists set their own morals. If you define "no beliefs" as "you make your own", then I am afraid that is decidedly wrong. Have you (Pro) defined "no morals"? Describe a situation in which some actions have no morals, for there is always an angle to which we can draw forth a "moral" or "belief".

Since I say "God" is a belief, or self-imposed "authority", then this mean everyone is subject to their own way of thinking. "Morals" is therefore a "god". Self subject to self. In this logic, we all believe in a deity and/or higher authority and we, therefore, all fulfill this criterion. Please try to understand my abstract logic here.


C2: "Whereas in Catholic churches water is “holy” and the altar is the place for “sacred offerings,” atheists make no distinction between arbitrary or doctrinal justification for sacred and non-sacred/profane objects."

"Sacred"? "Profane"? "Holy"? This could be defined as "revered", "impure", "unclean", and "respected". One's morals, or "God", justifies holy and profane things. I could easily provide examples if you refute this.

C3: "Ritual acts focused on sacred objects."

Own morals deem ritualistic acts. Ritualistic can be defined many differant ways. Like celebrations for game night could be seen as ritualistic. Making your own signature chili could be ritualistic.

C4: A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.

Morals = God
Sanctioned by self already resolved.

C5: Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.

Religious Feel is not present. I will give you this point. But religious feel is not needed for something to be religious.

C6: Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.

Moral= God
Self communication

As for the last remaining points, they are subject to self thought and self reasoning atheism.
Thank you for your time and I realize my arguments closely resemble Humanism, but please refer to my example equation for scientology above.
\
Thank You! :D

Debate Round No. 3
Wallstreetatheist

Pro

Thanks for reading and debating! :D


Witty quotes:

“Man is, and always has been, a maker of gods.” -John Burroughs

“The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments-of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue-are complete skeptics in religion.” -John Stuart Mill


Belief in supernatural beings
“I would substitute "supernatural beings" or "deities" as a leader. Or someone with utmost power. Or someone to follow. Buddhism, Scientology, Realism, and Humanism are religions who do not believe in a supernatural being.”

Buddhism and Scientology are religions that fit into the context that I had lain out in round two. Realism and Humanism are philosophies that find their root in the objectivity of the universe and the realities of human existence, respectively. If my opponent chooses to assert that belief in a leader (not only gods or deities) is the first qualification of a religion, then I humbly allow him to make such a claim, and ask him, “Who is the leader of atheism?”


“Therefore, their followers are atheist. Therefore they believe loosely of the atheists belief. My loose logic is that all the non-theistic religions believe in ‘atheism.’”

This is a direct contradiction to what my opponent had just said. He considers leaders of religions on par with deities and gods, so if the religion was comprised of atheists in the true meaning of the term, then they would not follow such a leader, because they would not believe in the leader nor find his statements to have any truth value over supernatural claims or moral teachings. Even if non-theistic religions believed in atheism, this would not make atheism a religion. Notice how none of the religions or philosophies he mentioned out of the four include the word “atheism.” Buddhism and Scientology are religions for the reasons I explained in round three; however, atheism, in and of itself, is not a religion, and neither is theism, in and of itself, a religion. They are simply terms describing the relative belief or lack of belief in god/s.


“Pro has admitted in the practice of sacred objects in Scientology and has called it a religion.
Logic Equation:
Scientology ≈ Atheism beliefs ≈ Atheism ≈ Religion”

Yes, Scientology is a religion. We agree on this, because it meets the requirements of a religion. You continue the contradiction from before right here. Scientology has a leader: L. Ron Hubbard, and as you pointed out, this suffices the first qualification of a religion. Conversely, atheism has no leader, no belief in such a leader or deity or god, and has nothing that indicates atheism to be a religion flowing from that belief. Atheism lacks these rituals, sacred objects, and dogma. You have not shown the link between atheism and religion, yet.



“However, if you do not agree with this. I could fit blank and raw atheism into some (if not all) of these criteria. As for this criterion, atheists believe in the idea of morals or their own morals. That alone is an ‘authority’ or ‘deity’.”

You could not do so without compromising intellectual honesty or without playing semantics which are both frowned upon in debate. Atheists are free to believe in any moral code they choose whether it is shared by a variety of people or not. They are also free to be amoral, nihilist, or fatalist. It would be quite a stretch to say each atheist is his own god, as the definition of atheist means one who does not believe in a god.


"God" is a belief, something of the mind. … a "moral" or "belief".

Atheists have beliefs, but they do not have beliefs in gods. They can have beliefs in moral systems, economic systems, philosophy, science, compassion, etc. They can create their own moral codes, but most people, in general, have an accepted idea of what is right and wrong. Throwing battery acid in the face of a little girl who is trying to read would generally be accepted as bad, for example, while helping an old lady who has fallen receive medical treatment would generally be considered good. People take these general principles that are instilled in our deepest human integrity and apply them, only differing slightly from person to person, unless corrupted by dogma, hatred, ignorance or other force. People also decide for themselves about charity, benevolence, and the lengths at which it is acceptable to help others while sacrificing time, money, and resources for oneself. Some mentally handicapped people are amoral, some people have such hatred and have been exposed to so much violence, propaganda, and evil that their tolerance for such atrocious acts is high, this is why genocides occur. Atheists tend to shy away from dogma propagated by the state and the supposed “holy people.”



Since I say "God" is a belief, or self-imposed "authority",... abstract logic here.

You have not convinced me and will probably not convince any of the judges with this poultry logic that each atheist is a god unto himself. Atheists don’t believe in gods, and are quick to criticize anyone who thinks he has god on his side or the divine approval of some deity or the solipsistic approval of a self-god.


A distinction between sacred and profane objects.

"Sacred"? ….This could be defined as "respected"....refute this.

No and no, because respect is earned and it has a practical explanation behind that reason. Holy items are arbitrarily chosen as such and unquestionably and stupidly defended. Holy and profane things stem from a religion’s dogma, since atheism has no such dogma, it does not differentiate between items or practices considered holy or profane. This point you have tried to make utilizes semantics and is intellectually vacuous.


Ritual acts focused on sacred objects

"Own morals deem ritualistic acts. Ritualistic can be defined many differant ways. Like celebrations for game night could be seen as ritualistic. Making your own signature chili could be ritualistic."

More semantics. Plus, where does this ritual come from? Is it ordained from the gods of chili that atheists worship on a daily basis and make chili to appease the gods? Or does it stem from a repition of human action based on prior results and pattern formation? The latter.


A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.

Morals = God
Sanctioned by self already resolved.

Self-gods already rebutted. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; therefore, self-gods would not be a valid claim by an atheist nor a valid argument against this contention.


Characteristically religious feelings

Religious Feel is not present. I will give you this point. But religious feel is not needed for something to be religious.

My opponent concedes this point.


Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.

Moral= God
Self communication

My opponent does not even directly refute this point, he just provides an equation of poor logic. He attempts to say that if an atheist is his own god (a fact we’ve established is logically impermissible), then talking to oneself is communication with the gods just like prayer. Sorry, not good enough. The premise has already been eviscerated: one who lacks a belief in gods would not make himself a god.

Conclusion / Voting Issues
I have effectively demonstrated through the nine qualifications of religions that atheism is not a one. My opponent has made a half-hearted attempt to try to assert that atheism is a religion by mentioning the red herring of non-theistic religions; he then got around to addressing atheism itself, but could not create a reasonable argument, and resorted to semantics and poor logic. Atheists are not self-gods, and atheism, in and of itself, is not a relgion in any sense of the term.

Con concedes my 5th, and 7th-9th contentions.

Vote Pro!


iPwnuNOW

Con

iPwnuNOW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
My quote for the last round was the extensive list of, "If atheism is a religion, then..."
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Words have meaning. If I do not define them, the typical dictionary definitions stand. I don't need to define these words in any particular way to win this debate. I don't think defining atheism as a cherry and religion as a nuclear explosion would be accurate. So, no it doesn't depend on how they are defined, because their inherent meanings stand. I hope you made it though this paragraph without questioning the definition of every word.
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
Doesn't this depend on how atheism and religion are defined?
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
After hearing the comment that "atheism is dogmatic" and "actually a religion" several times this week, I felt compelled to post this topic.
Posted by beatmaster2012 4 years ago
beatmaster2012
I doubt this is really debatable since it's a stated fact.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tkubok 4 years ago
tkubok
WallstreetatheistiPwnuNOWTied
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: Con loses for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
WallstreetatheistiPwnuNOWTied
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