The Instigator
mcc1789
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
bluecarnival
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Atheism is the default position for human beings.

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 7 votes the winner is...
mcc1789
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,607 times Debate No: 12130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (7)

 

mcc1789

Pro

At birth, humans are unaware the concept of god exists, let alone if actuals god/s exist, along with many other things. We are of course told what other people who raise us believe, usually following their belief as well. I do not deny the natural tendency of humans to desire answers, finding or inventing them, as opinion varies. However, it is my contention that when our life begins no human being is anything beside atheist by definition (atheist in this case is "lacking belief in a god of gods" the "weak" atheist or "agnostic" form of this). Now, when one grows up and begins to question how the world works, then a god concept often arises in answer, or is taught. Whether this is true or not is another question, but at birth I contend the human default position is that of atheism.

I will thank my opponent in advance and look forward to an interesting debate.
bluecarnival

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for offering his definition of atheism, and remind him that in order for people to be able to communicate, it's never going to be valid to decide what words mean. Here are various definitions from various sources for both atheist/atheism:

Merriam-Webster:
a. Disbelief in the existence of deity
b. The doctrine that there is no deity

Dictionary.com:
A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary:
Someone who believes that God or gods do not exist.

Google.com Dictionary:
An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.

Google is so smart, it says "see also: agnostic". That's important, so keep it in mind for later.

My opponent is likely a generic, stereotypical ignorant Atheist/Anarchist in his teens coming to terms with the world and not liking the concept of a system that spits out your predefined life. Mind you, he still goes to high school every day, so there's no real substance to his values. Nonetheless, this is where we stand.

He probably thinks religion is going to be the downfall of society, so he's debating that religion is unnatural. Which is ironic, because as an anarchist, he's debating to protect the same society that he supposedly wants to see the downfall of. If your values were consistent, you'd be out there promoting religion. Choose a side, you Teenybopper anarchist.

My opponent is likely considered an intelligent person in his social circle. Maybe even a genius. But my opponent is at the stage where he's not really thinking about anything. He's likely learning all about Nietzsche or some other person who's good with interesting metaphors.

My opponent is the type of person that believes by winning on a technicality (say, the definition of a word), he can change reality. He believes that if we can somehow manage to bend the definition of atheism in this one instance so he can just win this one debate, the entire world can work a different way.

A human is not born an atheist. They are not born believing that G(g)od(s) do(es) not exist(s). It isn't even a concept to them. Only if it was could they be born atheist.

The word you were probably looking for was Agnostic. Humans aren't born that way either. Agnostic is the belief that you can't prove it one way or the other, but it's still a belief. And you can't believe or not believe in something that you aren't aware of the possibility of.

Let's assume there's a giant purple lemon that tastes like happiness that nobody can get to, okay? Now people who believe this giant purple lemon that tastes like happiness that nobody can get to exists are called Winglewangles and people who believe that this giant purple lemon that tastes like happiness that nobody can get to does NOT exist are called Nupsydupsees.

Now let's say your sister has a child tomorrow (this is all very relevant), is her baby a Winglewangle or a Nupsydupsee, OR DOES IT NOT MATTER?
Debate Round No. 1
mcc1789

Pro

Well...my opponent is off to a good start. Have I decided what words mean? We're both using definitions it seems. Many of yours seem to agree with mine too.

My opponent is already resorting to personal attacks in the beginning of the debate. So, well done! I am in fact 24, though it's not an issue either way in my view. I have no idea of why my opponent thinks someone going to high school every day will not have values of substance. As I don't go to high school, this is not where we stand anyway.

The stereotypes just keep flying, don't they? I'm not debating that religion is "natural" or "unnatural", two much-abused words. How do we get from me supposedly thinking "religion is the downfall of society" to me "debating to protect the same society" I "supposedly want to see the downfall of"? If my values were consistent, I'd be out there "promoting religion"? Wtf? Again, not a teen, and my politics are not part of the debate.

My opponent is presumptuous to act like he'd know what kind of social circle I'm in, or what stage I'm at, what philosophers I read (hint: not Nietzche) etc. I might also point out that Nietzsche was not anarchist, but that's not important. In fact, most of this has not been related to the debate so far. Let's get back to it.

Please stop pretending you know what kind of person I am. If you think my definition is merely a technicality, by that standard yours must be as well. I urge you to look up "agnostic atheism" or "weak atheism" if you're interested. As for the entire world working that way...What are you talking about? if

"A human is not born an atheist. They are not born believing that G(g)od(s) do(es) not exist(s). It isn't even a concept to them." Um, yes, this is my argument. "Only if it was could they be born atheist." See my definition: Does not believe in god/s, or agnostic atheist, a "weak" atheist.

Agnostic: Yes, that was the word I use if you look up above, as in "don't know," along with atheist. Agnostic atheist is thus "I don't know that god/s exist." Not to say that no one "can" know one way or the other. Just we start out this way. "And you can't believe or not believe in something that you aren't aware of the possibility of." If you're unaware of it, you don't believe it. How can you believe in something you're not aware of?

I'm sorry, your strange metaphor does not clear things up for me.
bluecarnival

Con

I haven't resorted to personal attacks, I work on probability. If anything I've said was inaccurate, it wasn't personal.

Also, I smoked Salvia and travelled through the world and found out everything there is to know about my opponent.

If you believe we're not debating whether or not religion is natural, you are in denial. Let's not work on technicalities here, we're talking about whether or not someone is born with an understanding about gods. If you don't that is sort of circa land of religion, pshhhhhh.

Like I said, definitions are not flexible. I gave the actual definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism and showed how a person could not be born with an opinion about gods because they were not aware of them. I understand this coincides with what my opponent believes, but that's irrelevant, because it's my argument.

My opponent restated his incorrect definition of atheism and then added his incorrect definition of agnosticism. I cited from four different sources, he cited from what he can remember he's been told.
Debate Round No. 2
mcc1789

Pro

It wasn't personal? Insulting someone as to age, supposed intelligence, and politics are certainly personal. However as I said, that's not part of this debate.

Well, smoking something makes sense...

Ok, let me be clear. I'm not debating whether religion arises "naturally" later in life or not. We're debating whether someone believes that "from birth." Obviously, this is a debate about religion, and I don't deny that one bit.

Here's some defintions: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I think you'll find that definitions, in fact, are flexible and tricky things. I hoped I'd made my defintions clear: apparently not. "I understand this coincides with what my opponent believes, but that's irrelevant, because it's my argument." How would that not be relevant? It was indeed your argument, so that makes it far more relevant even, since you seem to be conceding what I've argued myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm not going to include Agnosticism, as I've already linked to Agnostic Atheism, which is what I discussed, rather than full-on Agnostic thinking. I urge you to vote Pro, on both the substance and conduct of the debate (if you wish to include it). I'd say thanks for the debate, but... Vote Pro anyway.
bluecarnival

Con

You've provided a couple short wikipedia articles describing a couple of obscure concepts.

It doesn't change the fact that these words have specific definitions. It doesn't matter what you think it means or what you want it to mean. Language is only ever going to work if you understand that unless we're on the same ground, we can't communicate. If you aren't on the ground of the dictionary, then how am I supposed to debate you?

I mean come on. Do I really have to explain how making up your own definition isn't fair? Really?

My opponent hasn't provided any compelling evidence to suggest that atheism means more or less than what the dictionary says it means.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
The definition of 'weak atheist' as 'lacking a belief in God' is severely lacking. Is my laptop a weak atheist? My right nipple? My bin? Are stars weak atheists? Are cars and plant pots? They all are by that definition. It's absurd.
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
blue carnival: LMFAO

anyways, logic is a system of reasoning but it follows certain rules. those rules apply the same to everyone.... thats all i was getting at.
Posted by bluecarnival 7 years ago
bluecarnival
that makes total sense, zetsubou.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
There's the correct Logic blue carnival.

The Logic. The Objetive Logic.
Posted by bluecarnival 7 years ago
bluecarnival
Korashk, reasonable judgement is not logic? Is that what you're trying to say?

Here are some definitions of logic:
- a system of reasoning
- reasoned and reasonable judgment
- capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning

Don't you people look up things, ever? Or do you just babble off at the mouth until you say something that sounds intelligent?

belle, I can tell you're just another product of the social machine. There's no sense in debating you, since you probably won't fathom most of what I say since you're not really listening.
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
also (i keep reading and noticing more things lol) all definitions are pretty much made up bluecarnival so i am not sure what the basis for your argument there was... that you don't like pros definitions because if you accept them pro wins?
Posted by belle 7 years ago
belle
just because people disagree about what the objective truth is, that doesn't mean there is no objective truth. that just means that people are still trying to tease out the logic. what people *think* follows can differ, but they can't both be right.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Common sense aka Reasonable judgement =/= Logic
Posted by bluecarnival 7 years ago
bluecarnival
uhh, which logic are you talking about? you mean reasonable judgement? yeah, that's subjective.

that's like saying "i'm always right, people just understand me as not always being right"
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
It's Objective people's understanding of it is Subjective.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Hopeliveson 7 years ago
Hopeliveson
mcc1789bluecarnivalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by IKeneally 7 years ago
IKeneally
mcc1789bluecarnivalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
mcc1789bluecarnivalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 7 years ago
Shestakov
mcc1789bluecarnivalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
mcc1789bluecarnivalTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by mcc1789 7 years ago
mcc1789
mcc1789bluecarnivalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
mcc1789bluecarnivalTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60