The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tahir.imanov
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Atheism is self-delusional

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 3 votes the winner is...
tahir.imanov
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 815 times Debate No: 66991
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Atheism is defined by it's three roots,"a" meaning "no", " theo", meaning "God" (capitalized as a proper noun in this debate, since a lesser god would be irrelevant for any objective discussion) and "ism" meaning " This ROOT-WORD is the Suffix ISM. It means DOCTRINE, SYSTEM, MANNER, CONDITION, ACT & CHARACTERISTIC.".
Merriam-Webster's full definition of "ism" is :

Full Definition of -ISM
1a : act : practice : process b : manner of action or behavior characteristic of a (specified) person or thing c : prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attribute
2a : state : condition : property b : abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing or marked by resemblance to (such) a person or thing
3a : doctrine : theory : religion b : adherence to a system or a class of principles
4: characteristic or peculiar feature or trait

In this debate, I will show how atheism is self-delusional. My opponent will attempt to show how atheism is realistic and rational and not delusional. By accetping this debate, my opponent agrees to abide by the following simple rules:

The definitions given here will be accepted and used as the established English definitions. The three root words which form the word "atheism" are agreed to be accurately defined in this challenge opening argument.

In this debate, the word "God" will always be captialized as a proper noun. The word god may be used, but it will be agreed to be understood as a god who is lesser than the God referred to by the proper noun, God, who would be the God over all.

No cussing.

My opponent may simply accept the challenge on pass on giving an opening argument or post his or her opening argument. I say you can't win againt God, maybe you can win this debate against me. The points are not as important as the topic.
tahir.imanov

Con

I am neither atheist, nor Atheist. But accepted this debate because the topic Pro argues for is non-sense.

Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for accepting this challenge. I will be interested to see how you assert that atheism is anything other than self-delusional.
First I would like to clarify my opponents attempt toward saying something by claiming to be neither Atheist or atheist. I believe my opponent is trying to say he is not aheistic and is not an Atheist. If this is what he is trying to say, it seems unnecessarily redundant. If he is simply trying to make fun with word-play, the humor would be easier to recognize if he would use proper grammar.
So far, my opponents only attempt at making an argument has been to say my position is non-sense. That's not very nice. My position is a position of concern for people who delude themselves into thinking that God does not rule over them.
Our society may appear to be concerned about caring for people who are delusional, but when it comes to caring about whether or not God rules over an individual, the inmates are running the asylum and the whole world is a mental hospital.

Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value. The atheist's own existence then, in their own deluded thinking, has no objective value. With belief in no God who can love them, the atheist has no hope other than to prove in death that he is correct. The meaning of life then is nothing but confusion, because the atheist exists in a delusion of their own making.

I'll close with that and see if my opponent can offer any kind of reasonable and rational response without resorting to simplistic statments such as "my opponents position is non-sense". As in the first round, I againt courteously offer my opponent the opportunity to win this debate against me though I again assert he cannot win against God. This is a challenge, and I hope that any atheist will honestly take this challenge as from God, and address God when he or she tries to argue agaisnt God. That is between the atheist and God. My opponent may win this debate against me, but he can't win agaisnt God. Atheism is self-delusional.
tahir.imanov

Con

1) "I believe my opponent is trying to say he is not atheistic and is not an Atheist," - Pro.
No, It is not what I was trying to say. Atheist vs. atheist - There is actually difference. Google it.

2) "So far, my opponents only attempt at making an argument has been to say my position is non-sense," - Pro.
I haven't made an argument yet.

3) Let's first define atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc.) evidence for it.
I do not understand the reasoning of Pro, by saying "Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value," at the end everyone (everyone who exists) has a right to exist, and I can say same thing for Christians, by changing few words.
And next three sentences does not fit into grammatical pattern of English.

4) The last paragraph is about what I will or won't do. And some cheap statements.

5) Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually. Each atheist may have different interpretation of atheism and can have different worldviews or philosophies (empiricism vs. rationalism, idealism vs. realism, LOTR vs. Harry Potter and etc.) and all of this is not "fault" of atheism, rather it is part of being human being (Homo Sapien).
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Ok, again I want to thank my opponent for engaging in this debate. I still do not see where my opponent is offering any argument against my assertion that atheism is self-delusional. He has clarified the definition of atheism somewhat, but then muddies his own clarification in a way which shows he is deluded. First he claims th have the correct definition of atheism, as if I don't know what the word means, by saying " atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc.) evidence for it." My opponent attempts here to limit the definition of atheism to an irrationally narrow line of thinking, but then goes on to say it is an unlimited line of thinking by claiming " atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc.) evidence for it". He then states "Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually. Again, my opponent offers some kind of explanation of a definition which muddies the definition unexplainably. If atheism is not (a) belief system or way of life, how can it be the basis for a worldview without being a belief system or a way of life? My opponent is not helping to clarify anything with his non-clarifying definitions. This is not a debate about the definition of atheistic, which is a person who holds a worldview or way of life with a mannerism which denies God is there, or as my opponent would say "Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) ". What's the difference in the semantics? You say there is no God, you say you have no belief in a deity, whatever........it's nothing but expansions on the three roots of the word which acurately state the meaning of atheism...."a" meaning "no" , "theos" meaning "God", and "ism" meaning a system of beliefs or philosophies. When my opponent asserts that atheism is "a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually." he is giving a pretty good description of an "ism" which is not limited to a simple statement which says "there is no God". My opponent and I are not disagreeing about the definition of Atheism or Atheist or atheistic or atheist (whaterver he says makes atheist different than Atheist when the captializaion of "A" makes the word a proper noun and somehow he expects googling atheist and Atheist to be an enlightening experience for me...seems like it would be a waste of time more than enlightening) This debate is not about semantice, though I have argued with semantics showing my atheism is self-delusional in that it makes a person think they have special wisdom that cannot be pinned down by simple definitions.

Atheism is self-delusional in making a person believe they have the right to exist outside of the everlasting fire of Hell when in fact they have no right but to die. The only problem in that is that the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that living in the comforts of earth proves they have the right to not live in the fire of Hell which is nothing but the continuation of their dying after their time has been counted down to zero in the comforts of earth. This is the focus of the debate, the self-deluding aspect of atheism. The definitions of atheist, atheistic, atheism, Atheist, and similar words is not in dispute other than for my opponent's self-deluding insinutation that his varying and multi-faceted explanations of the word prove that atheism is not self-delusional.....even though my opponent has offered absolutely no arguement against my assertion that atheism is self-delusional.
tahir.imanov

Con

The most "rational" claim was made by Pro is -- "Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value. The atheist's own existence then, in their own deluded thinking, has no objective value. With belief in no God who can love them, the atheist has no hope other than to prove in death that he is correct. The meaning of life then is nothing but confusion, because the atheist exists in a delusion of their own making."

Let's analyze it.

A) "Atheism asserts that there is no God. In so doing, the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that they have the right to exist as long as they are alive and nothing else has any objective value." -- And it is very fallacious argument, because I can say same thing for Christians (Christians asserts there is Trinity, in so doing, they delude themselves .....) or for Jews and Muslims (Jews/Muslims asserts that there is One True God, in so doing, they delude themselves .....) and etc. Only way to prove this statement for atheists is to prove existence of deity (or deities). And this debate is not about existence of deity (or Deity).

B) "The atheist's own existence then, in their own deluded thinking, has no objective value." -- Well, (let me play devil's advocate) what has an objective value in its existence. Does muons existence have an objective value?! If particles we made of has no objective value, then why we (Homo Sapiens) made from those particles should have an objective value?!

C) "With belief in no God who can love them, the atheist has no hope other than to prove in death that he is correct." -- God can love them. And also, you have ho hope other than to prove in death that you are right.

D) "The meaning of life then is nothing but confusion, because the atheist exists in a delusion of their own making." -- If we assume Subjective Idealism to be true, then it is not a big problem.

Even in 3rd round Pro still makes claims without giving evidences for those claims. At least give me some evidence to deal with. And what Hell has to do with it, leave Hell alone.
Debate Round No. 3
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Keeping the focus on the question of the debate, and my opponents responsibility to post arguments showing how atheism is not self-delusional, has been a difficult task. My opponent is not offering any rational counter to the main points of my argument which are:

1) Nothing but the atheist"s existence while alive has any objective value, and

2)Atheists delude themselves into thinkning they have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. Nobody has the right to be alive, or we would not have to die. If we have the right to be alive, then we die, who do we sue for causing our death? The truth is that we do not have the right to live. The self-deluding aspect of atheism is that they deny their own existence in death thinking God is not there to Judge them and punish them in Hell. There is no need in this debate to prove Hell is real or that God is real. The point of this debate is that atheism is a self-deluding belief system in which a person makes themselves think they have the right to live outside of the fire of Hell.

There is no need to claim any special understanding of what an Atheist is, or what Atheism is. My opponents repeated attemtps to derail the discussion by trying to make rulings of semantics is one way he gives evidence of the self-delusional aspect of atheism. He seems to think thay by denying or changing or claiming special understanding of the word Atheist (or atheist, both of which my opponent says he is not, whatever he means by that) he is making an argument that atheism is not self-delusional. Playing semantics is not making an argument in the debate. Also, his attempts to change the debte into proving God and Hell are real rather than proving that belief in the right to exist outisde of Hell shows some self-delusional aspects. Those things are not the topic of the debate. The debate is about my assertion that atheism is a self-deluding belief (or non-belief, whatever semantic approach is preferred).

I am having great difficulty finding coherence in my opponents analysis of my assertions. In his Point A, he asserts my arguments are fallacious but does not explain why. The beliefs of Christians, Jews, or Muslims are not part of this debate.
If my opponent is aguiing that everybody is delusional, except for atheists, he is not explaining how atheism is not self-delusional, he is not addressing my points of argument. If my opponent is arguing that atheists are self-deluded the same as everybody else, then he is agreeing with me that atheism is self-delusional. I really don't know what my opponent is trying to say.

In his Pont B, again my opponent is incoherent. I think he is saying that muons and particles we are made of have no objeciive value, so we as humans have no objective value. This would be in agreement with my assertion that in atheism, a person's exixtence has no objective value and is therefore self-delusional. Every individual has objective and undeniable value which is not given by themselves or by other people. That is why life is worth the living even when it hurts. If we question our own value and our value is not defined by God, then we have no certain value and life is only a time of confusioin ending in death. If my opponent is trying to disagree with me in his Point B, I wish he would be more clear about it.

In his Point C, he states " God can love them. And also, you have ho hope other than to prove in death that you are right."

Now my opponent is using the name of God after he says you have to prove God is there before you can say atheism is self-delusional. This is more evidence of the confusing nature of Atheism's self delusional belief (or non-belief, or non-observance of evidence, or whatever) The love of God is not the subject of this debate, though i would wholehearedly agree with my opponent that God can, and even more that He does, love them.

"Subjective Idealism" is an oxymoron....again, incoherent.
tahir.imanov

Con

I do not have to prove that atheism is not self-delusional, simple reason is "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat," - means, proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies.

And proof is based on evidence, and evidence ought to be assessed, first. And also, you do not present any valid chain of premises, which support the conclusion (topic).

Now, let me analyze your round 4 argument:

(A) "Nothing but the atheist's existence while alive has any objective value, and" - PRO. It means "non-sense" and study English first.

(B) "Atheists delude themselves into thinking they have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell," - PRO. You take so many things as granted, and give 0 (zero) evidence, to support them. "Fire of Hell" - first prove Hell exists, then prove it has fire, then I may consider thinking about what your statement means. And why for somebody thinking he/she has the right to exist outside of the ice of Hell is self-delusion? Provide an evidence.

(C) "Nobody has the right to be alive, or we would not have to die," - PRO. It is stupid statement, if nobody has the right to be alive, then killing anyone cannot be considered as crime, except maybe killing zombies.

(D) Rest of argument is just non-sense.

(E) ""Subjective Idealism" is an oxymoron....again, incoherent," - PRO. Google "George Berkeley". Or contact Rational_Thinker9119 on this website.

Debate Round No. 4
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

This is supposed to be a debate. My opponent is putting up no argument. Saying my statement is nonsense and is poor English is not making an argument. I did not ask for proof that is atheism is not self delusional, not self-delusional. I asked for an argument trying to show why it is not self-delusional. The statement my opponent seems to want to pick on the most without making any kind of counter arguement is: "Nothing but the atheist's existence while alive has any objective value," The sentence is logical and grammatically correct. It is not me who needs to study English, and it is not me who is failing to put up any arugment in support of my position. I'm asking my opponent to put up a counter arguement or forfeit the debate.

s " And why for somebody thinking he/she has the right to exist outside of the ice of Hell is self-delusion?" and then demans "provide an evidence"

Again, my opponent is making no argument. This is the basic point of my arguement, saying atheism is self-delusional in believing one has the right to exist outsid of the fire of Hell. In atheism, a person believes they have the right to live outside of Hell now, and if they are wrong and they find there really is a God when they die, they believe they have the right to continue existiing outside of the fire of Hell. An atheist does not have the right to exist outside of Hell any more than he has the right to live forever. This is the basic self-deluding point of atheism, believing things they have no evidence of untill their death is finalized.

The debate here is not about proving the existence of Hell, or proving the existence of God. The debate is about the self-deluding aspect of being an atheist or Atheist, whatever my opponent asserts is the difference between the two and can be discovered by Googling.

My opponent again avoids showing how atheism is not self-delusional by simply saying my statement about having the right to live is stupid. It is a fact that we do not have the right to live or we would not have to die. The fact that I have to die does not mean I can kill you. If I were to say that because I have to die, I must kill everybody, then that would be psychotic. We all have to die because we do not have the righ to live. If you have the right to live, why can't you sue somebody when you die and your right to live is gone? My opponent did not offer any argument to show why atheism is not self-delusional, he only called my statements stupid. Who is being stupid here?

Idealism is objective, not subjective. If you try to make idealism subjective rather than objective, it is nothing more than your own feelings and is not ideal. I don't need to google George Berkeley. My opponent needs to put up an argument showing why atheism is not self-delusional or forfeit the debate.

Again, my opponent does not have to prove atheism is not self-delusional, but he could at least put up an argument and do more than sit there and call me stupid. I have made an argument, and am ready to make more if I could get an arguement from the Con position. At ;least he seems to have abandoned trying to play semantics games.
tahir.imanov

Con

Ok, I am not going to teach you how to make an argument, here.

I am contender, I do not have to prove anything, or put a counter-argument. All I need to do is just to show that your premises are false, and they do not support the conclusion (conclusion being topic of the debate).


You can ask many time for an argument which shows atheism is not self-delusional. My only argument is I see no reason for atheism to be self-delusional. Now, prove that my subjective opinion is false, which obviously you had to do from start, by proving your topic.

And if you base your basic premises on Hell and existence of God, then you have to prove them, because without God, you are self-delusional.

And you do not know what (Philosophical) Idealism is. Google it.

And I didn't call you stupid (It would be insult against ........... ), rather I said your argument was stupid. There is a difference.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
My fear comes from the irrational behaviour of the religious, when they use there belief in god to justify hatred towards others.
Irrational; not thinking clearly : not able to use reason or good judgment.
Irrational; not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
To the contrary, Atheists do not fear there is a God, but the religious fear there isn't one. I've never met an atheist who is afraid there might be a creator, they just simply don't believe it's possible, the same way they don't fear a T-Rex will eat them when they walk outside. However, the religious are afraid that their lives would be meaningless if there is no God. I should know and it's a difficult barrier to overcome on the path to enlightenment.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Then that would me theists phobic or Christianophobic,
And you would have sophophobia.
Posted by halo_butt123 2 years ago
halo_butt123
In my opinion, atheists fear the concept and reality that there is in fact, an Almighty God. I do not understand why they are afraid. It is a form of fear.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 2 years ago
Beagle_hugs
I am a little confused by the challenge. From the definitions offered by the Pro, it seems he is setting up a trap definition of atheism by parsing up words for which there are already established definitions into bits and pieces that can be manipulatively assembled.

Atheism can be defined very simply using a dictionary by simply noting that "a" as a prefix means "not" or "without," and the word "theism" has an already-established definition, which may easily be found in the dictionary: "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world." Atheism, then, is simply not holding that belief.

However, we must admit that there are different senses of "atheism," one of which is a stance that there is no God.

Turning to our friendly Merriam-Websters, we discover that, oddly enough, "atheism" actually has a definition:

a. a disbelief in the existence of a deity (note that "disbelief" means "a feeling that you do not or cannot accept that something is true or real,"" which is a lack of belief, not a belief against); or, alternatively,

b. a doctrine that there is no deity.

If the Pro would establish a mutually agreeable and understood definition so that we all know which position he intends to demonstrate is self-delusional, I'm sure that's a debate that could be met.

Furthermore, the words "realistic," "rational," and "delusional" need definition, as well as context, because the ability to slide between definitions of those words and morph context will make a coherent discussion unlikely.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
A Muslim defending the word Atheism, very interesting. It's too bad this debate will be easy for Con, Pro even admitted they will likely lose (hence the mention of not winning against god).
Posted by Danielle 2 years ago
Danielle
This will obviously be a semantics debate on the etymology of a word whose definition has probably involved since its inception. Define atheism as rejecting belief in god(s) and I'll accept.
Posted by Duncan 2 years ago
Duncan
I accept the challenge under the terms stated. Innocent until proven guilty, I will allow Pro to begin the first round of debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
LifeMeansGodIsGoodtahir.imanovTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed unable to distinguish between debate and preaching and failed to make a supporting argument for his resolution.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
LifeMeansGodIsGoodtahir.imanovTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to think he can win a debate by making unsupported statements without evidence or solid arguments. Most of Pro's "arguments" consist of his own personal opinion (aka programming by his church) and no support. Pro gets graded down on conduct for claiming atheist (any group of people would qualify) don't deserve to live. Simply poor character by Pro. Think Pro really wanted to just insult a group of people over arguing for his proposition. Pro you make Christians look bad. As an atheist, I thank you for that.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
LifeMeansGodIsGoodtahir.imanovTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments were made in demonstration of a self delusion.