The Instigator
bpv1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kinesis
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Atheists are Deep Believers

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 6 votes the winner is...
Kinesis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,655 times Debate No: 12284
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

bpv1

Pro

Every worldview is founded on faith. Atheists everywhere, try to distingish themselves with the theists on the basis of the 'FAITH' which they too have similar to the followers of any religion...

I welcome my opponent first itself... I would request Atheists in this forum to take up this debate..
Kinesis

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I am atheistic towards most forms of theism, so I assume I'm qualified to take this debate.

Atheism is, at minimum, a person's lack of belief in a God or Gods. It can extend to explicit denial or belief that there is no God or Gods. [2]

Faith, I assume in my opponent's context would be defined as 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence' [1]

The first definition of atheism is obviously not predicated on faith, since it has no beliefs.
The second is based on argumentation such as inconsistent properties of God, the argument from evil, the argument from non-belief, the argument from inconsistent revelations and so on. It is based on both logical proof and material evidence, so is not based on faith.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
bpv1

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking up this debate.

Let me jot down some dictionary definitions for reference.

Faith.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3.The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
4.A system of religious belief or the body of dogma of a religion: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith etc.
5.A set of principles or beliefs.

Atheism
1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
3.Denial that there is a God.
The American Heritage� New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright � 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[I am atheistic towards most forms of theism]
[Atheism is, at minimum, a person's lack of belief in a God or Gods. It can extend to explicit denial or belief that there is no God or Gods.]

One who do not believe in God, Believes in the non existence of God.

['Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence']
Neither Atheism relies on Logical proofs or material Evidence. God by definition itself is a supreme being with infinite intelligence and the Creator of the Universe. Here our finite intelligence will undoubtly be insufficient to explain the absolute in the relative terminology we have and prove His existence.

Every theist accepts the limitation of Human mind to explain the supra mind and all the language, terminologies, definitions and understanding of human mind is subjective and relative. There needs no necessity for theist to prove the existence of God. How will and Atheist empirically prove the non existence of God who by definition itself is not material?

The existence or no existence of God can neither be proved nor be disproved. All the arguments, debates, discussions and study can help us strengthen our stand with some factors believed to be evidences, in our perception. This is at last a personal choice.

Atheism or Theism is what one chooses to believe based on comparatively little knowledge we have, about the universe and its structure, function, interaction etc. What sounds Logical to me will be something absurd to some other person.

There are Hundreds of arguments for and against the existence of God and none of them proves or disproves with evidence convincing to the other with another worldview and we take the inferring statements/ examples/ experience/ incidents/ knowledge/ logic as a support to our stand.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

With the relative use of terms and language we have, we can only strengthen our position of Debate/Discussion. Irrespective of what I choose to believe, there must exist some absolute truth which is ‘either' or ‘Or'. Not both.

So I would conclude here, that Atheism is a world view just similar to any other world view and is not proved by logic, empiricism or material evidence. Atheism stands on the faith in the absence of God.
Kinesis

Con

Thanks to my opponent for responding.

Pro: 'One who do not believe in God, Believes in the non existence of God'

--> This is clearly false. The lack of belief in something does not equate to the belief that it does not exist. The first makes no claims about reality, the second specifically denies that something exists.

Pro: 'God by definition itself is a supreme being with infinite intelligence and the Creator of the Universe. Here our finite intelligence will undoubtly be insufficient to explain the absolute in the relative terminology we have and prove His existence'

--> A God with properties such as omni-benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience leaves us to expect certain aspects of our world to be in certain ways. For instance, everyone who could possibly come to believe in God would do so, since an omnipotent and omniscient being would be able to, and would want as many people as possible to join him in heaven (to go by the Christian story). We can infer, then, that such a being probably does not exist due to the vast amounts of unbelief in the world.

I see no relevant distinction between comprehending an infinite being and comprehending a finite one. What is the 'absolute'? I'm afraid you're going to have to elaborate. We study and build knowledge, infer facts based on observational evidence and learn about the universe we are in all the time with our 'relative and subjective' mind. Why should this not further apply to an infinite God?

Pro: '. How will and Atheist empirically prove the non existence of God who by definition itself is not material?'

--> Using arguments such as those listed in the first round.

Pro: 'There are Hundreds of arguments for and against the existence of God and none of them proves or disproves with evidence convincing to the other'

Pro concedes the debate by pointing out that the atheists have evidence for their position, albeit evidence not accepted by theists. By conceding that atheists have evidence for their position, Pro accepts that atheism is not a faith position.
Debate Round No. 2
bpv1

Pro

Once again I thank Con for the inputs.

[Pro: 'One who do not believe in God, Believes in the non existence of God']

[Con: This is clearly false. The lack of belief in something does not equate to the belief that it does not exist. The first makes no claims about reality; the second specifically denies that something exists.]

There can be only two positions out of which one may be the absolute truth regarding the existence of God.

Statement 1> God Exists
Statement2> God Does Not Exist.

Statement 1 and Statement 2 are mutually contradicting and only one out them can be true. At no instance, both the mutually contradicting positions pertaining to the existence of something can be true.

One can't believe Statement 1 to be true without believing statement 2 as false and vice versa.

Theist > Believes in the Existence of God and Denies the Non Existence of God (Believe Statement
1 as True and Statement 2 as False)
Atheist> Denies the existence of God and Believe in the Non Existence of God (Believe Statement
2 as True and Statement 1 as False)

Truth: http://www.debate.org...

[>>>>> The lack of belief in something does not equate to the belief that it does not exist<<<<< ]

In the context of existence of God, if this does not equate, the stator is not certain about what He denies and what He believes. One having this stand can't be an Atheist, but an Agnostic. "My statement referred to Atheists only"

[Pro: 'God by definition itself is a supreme being with infinite intelligence and the Creator of the Universe. Here our finite intelligence will undoubtly be insufficient to explain the absolute in the relative terminology we have and prove His existence']

[Con: A God with properties such as omni-benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience leaves us to expect certain aspects of our world to be in certain ways. For instance, everyone who could possibly come to believe in God would do so, since an omnipotent and omniscient being would be able to, and would want as many people as possible to join him in heaven (to go by the Christian story). We can infer, then, that such a being probably does not exist due to the vast amounts of unbelief in the world.]

I hope the answer for this is already there in the previous post and which is quoted above. Here I think con is going away from the topic of discussion, which is not the attributes of God. Vast amount of disbelief does not help one to conclude the non existence of God. Moreover I think by the usage ‘vast' my friend has just referred the con circle alone. The percentage of atheists is just 2-3 of the world population.

Theism/Atheism Statistics: http://www.adherents.com...

[Con: We study and build knowledge, infer facts based on observational evidence and learn about the universe we are in all the time with our 'relative and subjective' mind. Why should this not further apply to an infinite God?
Con has agreed that we learn and infer with the relative and subjective mind. If the mind is relative, the understanding and perception of concepts/ideas will vary with individuals and the other variable associated with the study and observation. How will we conclude that an idea inferred by a relative mind is absolutely true? ]

Absolute: http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)

Non Existence/Existence of God and the Universe is an absolute truth. On can never say that it depends upon how you observe or the objects of your reference. Absolutes are unconditional reality and exist irrespective of how you understand it. Your understanding is just your knowledge of the absolute, resultant of your perception.

[Pro: 'There are Hundreds of arguments for and against the existence of God and none of them proves or disproves with evidence convincing to the other']

[Con: Pro concedes the debate by pointing out that the atheists have evidence for their position, albeit evidence not accepted by theists. By conceding that atheists have evidence for their position, Pro accepts that atheism is not a faith position. ]

[Post 1 Con: Argumentation such as inconsistent properties of God, the argument from evil, the argument from non-belief, the argument from inconsistent revelations and so on]

Con has mistaken here. What are referred here are mere arguments, NOT EVIDENCES. Both in the presence or absence of evidence any one who identifies himself with a worldview confirms his identity on the basis off their faith in the presence or absence of evidence pertaining to His or the opposing worldview. Con is not different as there absolutely exist no evidence to prove the non existence of God and Con is and ardent believer of Atheism and he has taken it up by Faith.

Arguments are done to support once stand, which one has already chosen to stick to, by Faith. A real Truth Seeker converts arguments to discussions…….

I thank Kinesis for taking part in this discussion…..

http://www.biola.edu...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
http://www.simpletoremember.com...
Kinesis

Con

Thanks to Pro for this debate.

[Responses]

I agree that two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

I disagree that someone can't believe something is both true and false - the human mind can contain extremely weird systems of belief.

None of this disproves the definition of atheist as 'someone who lacks a belief is God'

'the stator is not certain about what He denies and what He believes. One having this stand can't be an Atheist, but an Agnostic'

This is not true. Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence is not or cannot be known. This is not exclusive with weak atheism - a weak atheist is also a type of agnostic, but the two are distinct nonetheless. [1] [2]

Pro claims I am going off the topic of discussion by bringing up aspects of God - not at all. By bringing up some of the many arguments atheists use in support of their position, I am showing that atheists do not simply take the non-existence of God on faith. This disproves Pro's side of the debate, so is very relevant.

Pro brings up no real response to the argument from unbelief, simply pointing out that the number of atheists in the world is relatively small (though it drastically increases if you include atheistic religions like Buddhism). But this completely misses the point - if Christianity is true, everyone who does not believe in the Christian God is headed for hell. Unbelievers include not only atheists, but everyone who is not a Christian -the majority of the world, in other words. This objection doesn't even come close to hitting the mark.

'Your understanding is just your knowledge of the absolute, resultant of your perception'

Of course, this is true. Things exist or not regardless of whether we believe or know about them. But that doesn't mean we can't infer the existence or non-existence of things based on out understanding of the universe. Pro appears to confuse whether we can deduce whether or not something exists, with whether or not our belief has an impact on its existence. The two are not the same.

'Con has mistaken here. What are referred here are mere arguments, NOT EVIDENCES.'

Evidence is something used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion [3]. In the case of the Argument from evil, the evidence is the vast amounts of suffering and pain in the world. In the argument from unbelief, it is the vast amounts of unbelief in the world. These arguments for atheism draw their conclusion from evidence in favour of atheism. Pro is simply incorrect when he states that there is no evidence for atheism -many theists would agree with me.

'Arguments are done to support once stand, which one has already chosen to stick to, by Faith'

This stance would destroy everything we have achieved in the last few centuries. We have learned more about the world in the last fifty years than the last one hundred thousand years. People who objectively weigh the facts before coming to a conclusion do not fit into Pro's assertion - it is absurd and contrary to a great many atheists, for instance who were once believers but decided they could not reconcile aspects of the world with the God they believed in.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TAHRAQUE 6 years ago
TAHRAQUE
Only FOOLS deny the existence of GOD
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
is there any pupose behind the Big Man's existence??
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
I AM THAT I AM.

(notallcaps)
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
I was born because of the nature of physical reality.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Uh...there isn't really any purpose, apart from that which comes from yourself.
Posted by bpv1 6 years ago
bpv1
Can any atheist here explain the purpose of their existence in the world... Why you were born?
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
People may wrongly associate them, but I think the smart atheists are also anti-theists. :)
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
Also Brandon, votebombing isn't cool.
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
It's been my experience that most people equate Atheism with Anti-Theism.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro doesn't understand what atheism is.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
bpv1KinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
bpv1KinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Vote Placed by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
bpv1KinesisTied
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 
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
bpv1KinesisTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
bpv1KinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
bpv1KinesisTied
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