The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
The Contender
PJ2Massive
Con (against)

Due to his Utter Existential Hopelessness the Believer in atheist Dogma Should Commit Suicide

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
PJ2Massive has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 103540
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

On his crippled and ignorant atheistic worldview, the believer in atheist Dogma faces utter existential hopelessness:

All the believer in atheist Dogma has to look forward to in the future (on his crippled and ignorant atheistic worldview) is disease, old age, and death. On atheist Dogma, your death is inevitable and irrevocable, and before your death occurs, your disease and your old age (and thus your suffering) will only increase, on balance, as time passes. According to the belief in atheist Dogma, there is no afterlife, and thus on atheist Dogma there can be no lasting reward for any virtuous act that may be performed during this lifetime: On atheist Dogma, the only possible permanent cessation to your suffering would be your own death.

Therefore the believer in atheist Dogma should commit suicide as soon as possible -- while he is still young and healthy -- in order to avoid his future suffering by dint of his inevitable old age, disease, and death. Of course he will not do so BECAUSE HE KNOWS, JUST AS ALL HUMAN BEINGS KNOW, THAT THE BELIEF IN atheist DOGMA IS ACTUALLY A FALSE WORLDVIEW. His failure to commit suicide betrays his actual acceptance of God"s existence, and it also betrays the fact that he is just lying about supposedly believing in atheist Dogma.

Committing suicide -- today -- would actually be consistent with the atheistic position, whereas failing to do so is consistent with his concrete and provable acceptance of God's factual existence (whether he denies this fact or not).

Incidentally, believers in atheist Dogma do in fact commit suicide at much higher rates than people who honestly and straightforwardly accept God"s factual existence.

Camus, a believer in atheist Dogma (now dead),
concluded that on atheist Dogma, life is 100% absurd and not worth living.

Serious question:

If you are a believer in atheist Dogma,
why don't you just kill yourself today?

https://www.youtube.com...

(Four related atheist/death videos):

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...
PJ2Massive

Con

Before delving into my argument by pointing out how presumptuous you have been in inferring the state of mind every atheist will find themselves in. As you will learn from my arguments - provided you have an open mind - you have an erroneous understanding of the frame of mind of an atheist. Atheism can, in fact, coexist with happiness and optimism. In spite of your proclivity for drawing unfounded conclusions, I look forward to having an interesting debate.

*Main argument*

Your laughable assertion that atheists have nothing to look forward but sickness, old age and other unpleasant things you cited fails to take into account that all those misfortunes befall the religious as well. In light of that, atheism or any belief one may hold has nothing to do with whether or not they experience the cited misfortunes. Any individual who believes that by virtue of the fact that they hold religious beliefs they will not grow old or fall sick is truly delusional. That point you raised has thus been proven to have no merit whatsoever. Further to that, an atheist does not fall into depression simply because they do not believe in an omnipresent and omniscient deity. An atheist has many things to look forward to - some of which are things that are looked forward to by the religious. These things include, but are not limited to, the pleasures of life. Such pleasures include eating, enjoying mental and physical stimulation and sex. Pleasures of this nature are, in and of themselves enough to keep a person optimistic and cheerful about life. I will briefly delve into science and say that many of these pleasures are due to the release of dopamine in the brain. The same chemical is excreted by the brain when one reaches the goals they had preset for themselves. In that respect, an atheist can find great joy in life by achieving their goals. The pleasures I have mentioned have nothing to do with whether one or not holds any religious beliefs; they can be experienced irrespective of that.

You mentioned that an atheist would do themselves a great service by committing suicide because their understanding is that they will die anyway and nothing comes after that. Because of the scope of the term, atheism houses a variety of thought patterns - one of which is the one you cited. Where you were remiss was in making that a general belief that defines all atheists. A belief that would completely run contrary to that one is that since the atheist spent an unknown but lengthy period of time without existing - prebirth - and will spend an unknown but lengthy period of time out of existence - death - it stands to reason that they should value each unit of time they are alive. An atheist who possesses that thought patten realises the immense value of life because they spent infinity without existing and will spend infinity deceased. The only period of time that is measurable is when they are alive. This alone makes life very much worth living for them, and even lessens the burden of misfortunes they face throughout life because they see things from an incredibly wide perspective.
Death can be met with stoic acceptance and life will still retain its joys and comforts through this way.

A point I will leave you with is that atheists do not completely despair because, like the religious, they possess hope. Their hope does not originate from dues ex machina kind of intervention by a supernatural being but from the knowledge that everything is about chance. The atheist understands that very few things are certain and has hope that the randomness and spontaneity of life may play to their favour. Indeed, while the atheist understands that there are things within his control, he also understands that there are things that are determined by chance. The things within his control he aims to fully take control of through hard work and discipline and the things out of his control he leaves to chance and maintains hope.

In light of my arguments, committing suicide would rob the atheist of the beauty of life and the pleasures and joy they experience through life. That is precisely why they should not commit suicide.

I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"have been in inferring the state of mind every atheist"

The argument in my OP makes no statements whatsoever about any "atheist," so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"you have an erroneous understanding of the frame of mind of an atheist."

No I don't, and in fact, there is no such thing as an atheist.

" Atheism can, in fact, coexist with happiness and optimism."

I never claimed otherwise, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"drawing unfounded conclusions"

Without God,. nobody could make an objective distinction between founded conclusions and unfounded ones.

"assertion that atheists"

The argument in my OP never made such an assertion, so that is your straw man logical fallacy.

"befall the religious as well."

Believers in atheist Dogma ARE religious.

"atheism or any belief one may hold has nothing to do with whether or not they experience the cited misfortunes."

I never claimed it did, so that is just another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" Any individual who believes that by virtue of the fact that they hold religious beliefs"

I never made such a claim, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

Also, the belief in atheist Dogma IS a group of religious beliefs.

"truly delusional"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between reality and delusion.

". That point you raised has thus been proven to have no merit whatsoever. "

Actually, you have only thus far addressed your own straw man logical fallacies, and have utterly failed to even address any of my actual statements.

"n atheist does not fall into depression simply because they do not"

I never made any such claims, so that is just another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"An atheist has many things to look forward to -"

Not true, because there is no such thing as an atheist.

"looked forward to by the religious."

Believers in atheist Dogma ARE religious.

"Pleasures of this nature are, in and of themselves enough to keep a person optimistic and cheerful about life."

That is your subjective, faith-based, unsupported religious belief, not observable science.

" I will briefly delve into science and say that many of these pleasures are due to the release of dopamine in the brain."

No they aren't.

" The same chemical is excreted by the brain when one reaches the goals they had preset for themselves."

No it isn't: That is your own personal faith-based religious belief, not observable science.

"an atheist can find great joy in life by achieving their goals."

No he can't, because there is no such thing as an atheist.

"You mentioned that an atheist"

The argument in my OP does not make any such statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"their understanding is that they will die anyway and nothing comes after that."

I did not actually say that either, so that is another one of your straw man logical fallacies.

"Where you were remiss was in making that a general belief that defines all atheists."

That is not even a sentence.

"it stands to reason that they should value each unit of time they are alive."

No it doesn't -- that is your own personal faith-based and unsupported religious belief, and is neither observable science nor rational logic. Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between what should be done and what should not be done.

Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between that which stands to reason and that which does not stand to reason.

" An atheist who possesses that thought patten realises"

No he doesn't, because there is no such thing as an atheist.

" the immense value of life"

Without God, there could be no objective value to life.

" because they spent infinity without existing"

That phrase makes no sense whatsoever: Nobody can possibly spend any time not existing, because the very act of spending time necessitates that the person in question must exist.

" and will spend infinity deceased."

That phrase also makes no sense whatsoever: Nobody can possibly spend any time deceased, because the very act of spending time necessitates that the person in question must be alive.

"This alone makes life very much worth living for them"

That is your own personal faith-based religious belief, not observable science.

Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between worth and lack thereof.

"an incredibly wide perspective."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between a wide perspective and a narrow perspective.

"Death can be met with stoic acceptance and life will still retain its joys and comforts through this way."

That is your own personal faith-based religious belief, not observable science.

"A point I will leave you with is that atheists do not completely despair"

atheists can neither despair nor refrain from despair because there is no such thing as an atheist.

" like the religious'

Believers in atheist Dogma ARE religious.

", they possess hope."

Without God, there could be no hope for anything at all.

"everything is about chance"

So-called "chance" is nothing but an unscientific myth that does not exist in reality -- it is your own personal faith-based religious belief, not observable science.

". The atheist understands"

The atheist understands exactly nothing, because there is no such thing as an atheist.

" that very few things are certain"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the certain and the uncertain.

" and has hope that the randomness"

So-called "randomness" is nothing but an unscientific myth that does not exist in reality -- it is your own personal faith-based religious belief, not observable science.

"spontaneity of life "

Without God, life could have no spontaneity.

"may play to their favour."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between favor and disfavor.

"determined by chance"

So-called "chance" is nothing but an unscientific myth that does not exist in reality -- it is your own personal faith-based religious belief, not observable science.

"rob the atheist"

Nobody could rob a nonexistent entity of anything, and there is no such thing as an atheist.

You lost this debate, and actually, you really should commit suicide as soon as possible: Thanks for your time! =)
PJ2Massive

Con

PRO has made no debatable points in round 2. PRO has simply denied saying things they, in fact, did say. Anyone who follows this debate closely will realise that. It would be superfluous on my part to argue against the substanceless assertions made in round 2 by PRO as I have addressed them in round one. My arguments from round 1 still stand, unchallenged.

I urge PRO to make actual arguments in Round 3 if they have want to have even the slightest chance of winning this debate.

Until round 3, au revoir.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

All of my points are valid, true, and unchallenged, and all of my points have been proven conclusively with solid evidence.

My opponent provided exactly zero evidence for any of his silly and untrue atheistic claims. Therefore I won this debate.

Here are the points that my opponent utterly failed to counter:

On his crippled and ignorant atheistic worldview, the believer in atheist Dogma faces utter existential hopelessness:

All the believer in atheist Dogma has to look forward to in the future (on his crippled and ignorant atheistic worldview) is disease, old age, and death. On atheist Dogma, your death is inevitable and irrevocable, and before your death occurs, your disease and your old age (and thus your suffering) will only increase, on balance, as time passes. According to the belief in atheist Dogma, there is no afterlife, and thus on atheist Dogma there can be no lasting reward for any virtuous act that may be performed during this lifetime: On atheist Dogma, the only possible permanent cessation to your suffering would be your own death.

Therefore the believer in atheist Dogma should commit suicide as soon as possible -- while he is still young and healthy -- in order to avoid his future suffering by dint of his inevitable old age, disease, and death. Of course he will not do so BECAUSE HE KNOWS, JUST AS ALL HUMAN BEINGS KNOW, THAT THE BELIEF IN atheist DOGMA IS ACTUALLY A FALSE BELIEF SYSTEM. His failure to commit suicide betrays his actual acceptance of God"s existence, and it also betrays the fact that he is just lying about supposedly believing in atheist Dogma.

Committing suicide " today -- would actually be consistent with the atheistic position, whereas failing to do so is consistent with his concrete and provable acceptance of God"s factual existence (whether he denies this fact or not).

Incidentally, believers in atheist Dogma do in fact commit suicide at much higher rates than people who honestly and straightforwardly accept God"s factual existence.

Camus, a believer in atheist Dogma (now dead),
concluded that on atheist Dogma, life is 100% absurd and not worth living.

Serious question:

If you are a believer in atheist Dogma,
why don't you just kill yourself today?

https://www.youtube.com...

(Four related atheist/death videos):

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 6 months ago
Purushadasa
There was one debate that I forfeited, and it could well have been the one that I had with you. I don't remember you at all (you are singularly unworthy of the energy it takes to actually remember), so I'm not sure if that was you or not. If it was the debate in which my opponent defined the term "Theist," and I admitted that I had been wrong about its definition, then yes, that was the one debate that I lost here, but it was the only one that I lost, and that was only because I deliberately forfeited it.

Was that you? If not, then no, you did not win any debate against me.

In any case, I have won every debate in which I have engaged in this site, except one, which I deliberately forfeited.
Posted by Kyro 6 months ago
Kyro
Lmao. To anyone reading this, check my debate history and go to my debate with Purushadasa, where he openly admitted that I won.
Posted by Purushadasa 6 months ago
Purushadasa
I won our debate, actually.

"evidence is that without evidence,"

Without God, there could be no evidence for anything.

"arguments have no base on which to stand."

atheistic arguments all lack a base on which to stand.

"WIthout God, there could be no evidence in support of anything"

That is true.
Posted by Kyro 6 months ago
Kyro
An ignorant punk, I might add, who beat you in a debate.

The reason that you have to support your arguments with evidence is that without evidence, your arguments have no base on which to stand. For example, if I said that dogs are actually machines created by Jimmy Carter to track human behavior, that wouldn't make it true. I would have to explain the inner workings of a dog and how Jimmy Carter created them in order to make the claim valid. If I didn't, nobody would have any reason to believe me.

Similarly, if you wish to claim that "WIthout God, there could be no evidence in support of anything", you have to explain why everyone should believe you. Otherwise, nobody will accept your claim as truth because they have no reason to.
Posted by Purushadasa 6 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"When you present an argument, you have to support it with evidence."

...but he failed to support that statement with any evidence.

Also, without God, there could be no evidence in support of anything.

"However, you have never explained how facts are impossible without God"

I never made that claim, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

", or how God turns opinions into facts."

I never claimed he did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Straw men are all you have, you ignorant punk!
Posted by Kyro 6 months ago
Kyro
I'm not sure that you understand how this works. When you present an argument, you have to support it with evidence. You make these arguments in almost all of your debates. However, you have never explained how facts are impossible without God, or how God turns opinions into facts. You have thrown that claim out and expected everyone to just go along with you.
Posted by Purushadasa 6 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"argument is ridiculous."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the acceptable and the ridiculous.

"Objective" means true regardless of any human being's or group of human beings' opinion.

"argument makes no sense whatsoever."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between an argument that makes sense and one that doesn't.
Posted by Kyro 6 months ago
Kyro
This whole "Without God, nothing is objective" argument is ridiculous.

"Objective" means "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" (1).

Unless God removes feelings/prejudices/interpretation, the objectivity argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Sources:
(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com... - Definition 3a
Posted by Purushadasa 6 months ago
Purushadasa
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the sane and the crazy.
Posted by Masterful 6 months ago
Masterful
I'm now convinced this guy can't be a troll, because he has gone through so much trouble to write sh*t that isn't even funny.

He is simply a crazy old man.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.