The Instigator
nonprophet
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
flame4321x
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheism is the default position

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,048 times Debate No: 52400
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)

 

nonprophet

Pro




First round is for acceptance only.

For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God".
flame4321x

Con

Yep I agree with it, let us begin!
Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Pro




Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists.
That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it. That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position of being an Atheist.

It's that simple.
flame4321x

Con

I negate.
The whole basis of my opponents one and only argument is that because children are born without a belief in a god, they are automatically atheists. Here are 2 rebuttals to my opponents argument. (The burden is on the affirmative to prove the resolution true beyond a reasonable doubt).
Rebuttal 1: We do not know what a baby might know. Simple as that. Do we have any proof that a baby is incapable of believing in a god? Babies everywhere know who their mother is, and often respond to their voice in a calm way (their voice calms them down). The child gives the mother their unconditional love and trust, and isn't that the exact same as what people do in a religion? And even if you still aren't persuaded by my rebuttal, here is
Rebuttal 2: Children are agnostic, not atheists. An agnostic is someone who does not know whether or not a god exists. An atheist is someone who is sure that there is no god. These are two distinct categories that cannot be grouped. Baby is a blank slate, knowing nothing and not having opinions on anything. They simply do not know. That is what an agnostics belief is, that there could be a god, but they don't have enough evidence to declare themselves an atheist or a theist either way.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Pro

We are talking about atheism, not agnosticism.
The debate is: "Atheism is the default position"
My opponent falsely claims, "These are two distinct categories that cannot be grouped."
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. In other words, you can prove a baby is agnostic, but that still has NOTHING to do with whether a baby is an atheist or not. The baby, could, in fact, be an agnostic atheist (both). They can be grouped.

My opponent is trying to shift the burden of proof by asking "Do we have any proof that a baby is incapable of believing in a god?" You don't prove a negative. You must prove the baby is capable, in order to win this debate. The lack of proof that a baby is incapable, isn't proof that babies are capable of believing in a god.
For the assertion that, "babies are capable of believing in a god", to be true, the baby would have to first have an understanding of what a god is.
I invite my opponent to prove by scientific means, that a baby can comprehend what a god is and then choose to believe in it. Without that proof, he has lost this debate. Instead, he admits "We do not know what a baby might know"
The fact that my opponent admits, "Baby is a blank slate, knowing nothing and not having opinions on anything."
PROVES that the baby lacks the belief in a God, which by our agreed upon definition, makes the baby an atheist.

We agreed upon a definition of atheism. Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God"
Now my opponent wants to re-define what we agreed upon by claiming, "An atheist is someone who is sure that there is no god."

Lacking the belief in a god doesn't make you sure of it. An atheist, under the agreed upon definition, doesn't claim there is no god. They aren't making any claims at all.

My opponent is trying to cheat by agreeing to one definition and then attempting to change the definition agreed upon, half way through the debate!

My opponent also falsely claims "they (babies) don't have enough evidence to declare themselves an atheist"
The LACK of a belief does not require anything. That's why atheism is the default position.
You are an atheist before you declare yourself anything. You don't need evidence to call yourself an atheist.

My opponent failed in this debate. He falsely assumed that atheism and agnosticism were mutually exclusive terms and tried to prove a baby is agnostic. Since the terms are NOT mutually exclusive, proving a baby to be agnostic or not has no bearing on whether the baby is an atheist or not. Proving a baby to be agnostic does NOT prove a baby is not an atheist.
My opponent also tried to re-define the agreed upon definition of atheism.
My opponent also admitted that "Baby is a blank slate, knowing nothing and not having opinions on anything." By admitting that, he has lost the debate. If a baby knows nothing, it lacks the belief in a god, which makes the baby an atheist, proving atheism is the default position.

I want to thank my opponent for trying.
flame4321x

Con

flame4321x forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tyler5362 2 years ago
Tyler5362
Flame grow the fock up
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Actually. no...so respect has nothing to do with winning.
Posted by flame4321x 2 years ago
flame4321x
I don't know, CAN you?
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
@flame4321x OK I respect you. Can I win, now?
Posted by flame4321x 2 years ago
flame4321x
I'm not sure if I should be insulted or complimented that you could only respond to what I said by a personal insult of my credibility (which was true, I was in Steubenville Ohio helping out with my family and relatives who live there, some church members came along as well which made me call it a mission trip, so technically it was more of a volunteer trip but you get the idea). As I said, maybe you'd hae more wins if you respected your opponents.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
"a mission trip" LOL!
Posted by flame4321x 2 years ago
flame4321x
I'm sorry, did you guys even read my last comment, which was my argument because I was away on a mission trip so I couldn't respond within the time for the last argument? I posted it in The comments, and it would clearly show that the burden which my opponent failed to prove was on him in fact, then said even if you didn't buy that and the burden was on me I still met my burden of proving babies are capable of believing in a god (see below comments)! How could this possibly result in a pro ballot! All he said was that they don't have a belief in god when they are born, but yet the only burden he placed on me was to prove that they are at least capable in believing in a god. So in conclusion, 1: I did NOT forfeit this debate, and 2: Maybe the reason nobody votes for you non prophet is the way you behave like you are the best and know everything, and treat all your opponents as idiots who don't know what they are talking about. Please be more courteous, and have a nice day.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Another forfeit
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Rocks are atheist also. Nobody debates it, because it's not even debatable. Just like this isn't debatable
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
@Tyler5362 Too little, too late. Thanks anyway. I'm going voteless from now on
No votes have been placed for this debate.