The Instigator
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
Lightkeeper
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

Evolution is not part of atheism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,318 times Debate No: 5574
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (15)

 

Tatarize

Pro

Despite common claims that evolution is simply preaching atheism, this is not the case. Evolution is a well established and evidenced theory which explains the progression, form, organization, and distribution of all the life on this planet without the need of any outside forces. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. There were plenty of atheists before Darwinian evolution became widely known and easily properly understood as the mechanism for the design of life.

While there is some congruity between having a firm and robust theory which allows us to understand all life on the planet without needing to genuflect to God and not believing in God. They are completely different.

Ken Miller: Ken Miller is a theist and a world class biologist who fully understands evolution.

Raelians: Raelians are a religious group who believe that aliens created Earth and the life on this planet. They don't believe in God and thus are atheists while they believe in creationisms and often deny the basic science behind evolution.

Without overlap between the two it seems remarkably hard to show that evolution is part of atheism. Further, atheism is only a lack of belief in God giving it a total of 0 claims needing to be accepted by all atheists for them to be atheists. With zero claims and evolution being one claim, it's once again a nearly impossible argument to make.
Lightkeeper

Con

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to argue this exciting topic.

I have been asked to disprove the resolution that Evolution is not part of atheism. I take that to mean that "The belief in evolution and advocation thereof is not part of atheism". Let us begin.

For my opponent to say that "atheism is simply the lack of belief in God" is, with respect, a gross oversimplification.

Firstly, by capitalising the word "god" he is obviously referring to a particular diety, most likely the one otherwise known as Yahwe. Atheism is a philosophy that goes way beyond that. It concerns ANY god. It therefore, even on my opponent's narrow interpretation would be "the lack of belief in a god".

Secondly and more importantly, however, my opponent is doing this broad philosophical concept (atheism) great injustice by bringing it down to a single 6 word sentence.

Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, defines atheism as "in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings" (http://www.britannica.com...).

"Critique and denial" are more than a mere "lack of belief". "Critique" involves the concept of arguing against, of criticising.

There are many sub-species of the broad philosophy called atheism. One of these is Practical Atheism. This concept indeed entails the lack of belief in a god. Theoretical atheism (aka contemplative atheism), on the other hand, "posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. " (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

While other forms exist, it is Theoretical Atheism that is relevant to this debate. A person practising Theoretical Atheism engages in a process of arguing against "common theistic arguments". These common theistic arguments necessarily involve the agument for the theory of intelligent design. In fact, I would suggest that if there is a single dogma that religions of the world have in common more than all other dogmas it is indeed Intelligent Design (Creation). Does arguing against this concept involve relying on the theory of evolution? Not necessarily, not always. But I do contend that in the vast majority of cases (UFO believers excepted) they do. I will provide evidence of this if challenged to. However I would be suprised if my opponent (with his knowledge and fairness) were to in fact challenge me to that.

Therefore, two points need to be kept in mind.
Firstly, atheism is a broad concept that involves (amongst other things) the active thought process of negating the existence of a god.
Secondly, the theory of evolution is a major (if not the main) alternative used by the theoretical atheist when confronting the concept of intelligent design.

It follows therefore that evolution is very much part of atheism.

My opponent has argued that atheists existed before Darwin's Theory was developed. I say that contention does not support his argument. By analogy, theists existed before Christ was born. Does it follow that a belief in Christ's diety is not part of theism (religion)? Bicycles existed before the automobile was ever invented. Does it follow that the automobile is not part of transportation? Transportation COULD exist without automobiles. Equally, there are many many automobiles that are not ever used for transportation (desplay items, collectors' items).

The reason I post these analogies is that my opponent is of the view that A can be part of B if and only if B could not exist BUT FOR A.

I clearly oppose that point. However, that is not how I present my argument. My argument is that we must look at atheism as the broad general philosophy. Negating creation (done largely by proposing evolution) is part of that philosophy (more specifically it's part of its sub-set called Theoretical Atheism).

In conclusion, evolution is part of atheism.

I will make some additional notes, given that I have some space left.

The following might sound somewhat strange but let us consider this for a minute:
My opponent has proposed that Raelinas are an example of atheists who do not believe in evolution. As I stated above, this does not defeat my argument that evolution is part of atheism. However, let us just think about his proposition. Are Raelians really atheists? My opponent's proposition that they are because they do not believe in "God" would be correct, had he applied the correct definition of atheism. However, he did not. Polytheists (people believing in MANY gods) are not atheists. They are a species of theist. Could it be argued that Raelinas are in fact theists? They believe in some very very very very advanced beings from outer space who came to Earth and used their vastly superior technology and knowledge to engineer DNA and create all life on Earth. Could we say that to the Raelians they were gods? Some will say "no, they were not omnipotent". Well, gods do not have to be omnipotent. Just consider Roman mythology, Greek mythology, Ancient Egyptian gods. Gods that could kill one another, hurt one another, imprison one another. Were they omnipotent beings? Clearly not.

Gods are usually defined as "supernatural". But what does that mean? "...pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they lack a clear scientific explanation. " (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
"LACK OF CLEAR SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION". Do we have clear scientific explanation for a being that can genetically engineer DNA to the point of creating every single living thing on Earth? I suggest we do not. We will not for a long time to come. Bear in mind that a number of new species are discovered EVERY DAY. What about the Bible? What about God parting the Red Sea so that Moses could ride through it? Is that supernatural? Surely, if we could have a large enough hairdryer it would not be. The Flood? A very very large pump and showerhead would, in my submission, do the trick. Just where does natural end and supernatural begin? Are those aliens really not gods? Are the Raelinas really atheists?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I do realise that I have written a number of things without citing references. I consider them to be matters of common knowledge. If my opponent challenges me to do so, I will come back with references for those matters. Quite simply, given his level of knowledge, his intelligence and his inherent ability to focus on the real issues, I believe he will not challenge me in relation to matters that he knows could be referenced with ease.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Pro

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god(s). Typically and colloquially this is typified by a non-belief in the monotheistic gods of the Abrahamic religions. While I don't believe in the polytheistic gods of ancient Greece, I doubted anybody taking this debate would believe in them either. There's an old saying that your typical theist is an atheist on the millions of different gods who have every been believed in the history of the world, we just go one god further.

Atheism is not a broad philosophical concept. Atheism is the lack of a belief. Atheism is the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. Atheism has no tenets, no beliefs, no structures, no dogma, nothing. I am not referring to atheism "in general" as the Encyclopedia Britannica might. Although, to deny a belief is by default to not accept that belief.

All the various "sub-species" are simply related beliefs that happen to not require a belief in God and even suppose a few things about why the idiotic may not be true. Nothing of which puts asunder the fact that atheism is the lack of belief in any gods.

A good number of reasonable religious groups have no qualms with evolution being the tool of their god's creation. They accept that evolution clearly happened based on the overwhelming evidence that it did. Believing the evidence and not believing in gods are not causally linked or required in any fashion one to the other.

>>Firstly, atheism is a broad concept that involves (amongst other things) the active thought process of negating the existence of a god.

No it isn't. Atheism is a non-belief in gods. A- (without) theism (belief in gods), without the belief in gods.

>>Secondly, the theory of evolution is a major (if not the main) alternative used by the theoretical atheist when confronting the concept of intelligent design.

Evolution isn't an alternative to anything or a tool for confrontation. Evolution is a scientific theory based on the preponderance of evidence which lead to a specific conclusion of a gradual change of the life on this planet by the mechanism of natural selection.

>>It follows therefore that evolution is very much part of atheism.

This does not follow.

-------

I show the desync between evolution and atheism via atheists who don't believe in evolution and theists who believe in evolution in order to show that there is not a required overlap. If evolution were a part of atheism shouldn't it be true for atheists should believe in evolution? Further, there is no middle ground between atheism and theism. You either believe there is a god(s) or you don't. If you don't your an atheist. If theists can believe in evolution then how could it be a part of atheism? If it's a part of both then it certainly cannot be described as limited to either in any reasonable way. Thus evolution is not a part of atheism.

Further, my argument goes on to point out that atheism doesn't have any beliefs, tenets, dogmas, stances, positions, or anything else. With 0 shared tenets it is categorically impossible that evolution could be one of those shared tenets.

>>Are Raelians really atheists?

Yes. The Raelians do not believe in gods and thus are not theists, they are thusly atheistic.

>>My opponent's proposition that they are because they do not believe in "God" would be correct, had he applied the correct definition of atheism.

Generally it's better to just suppose that that "one god further" is an Abrahamic god, and thus define atheism as lacking belief in God. It is however, admittedly true, that atheism is the lack of belief in any god. Harping on a minor point where I sided with a colloquilial usage to avoid derailing the argument is not going to win you any points.

>>Could it be argued that Raelinas are in fact theists? They believe in some very very very very advanced beings from outer space who came to Earth and used their vastly superior technology and knowledge to engineer DNA and create all life on Earth. Could we say that to the Raelians they were gods?

No. Because the Raelians do not consider them gods. If the Raelians believed the aliens who created life on this planet to be gods they would be theists. It isn't the supposed abilities of the aliens but the considerations of believers. If you were to believe that the universe is god, as some theistic scientific naturalistic pantheists do then you would be a theist.

---------------

Atheism has no beliefs.
Evolution cannot be a belief of atheism.

Some atheists don't believe in evolution, not just Raelians but other individuals who "just don't buy it".
Some theists do believe in evolution, such as those who believe in "theistic evolution" which makes for a good 20% or so in a number of polls.
Lightkeeper

Con

I would like to begin by pointing out that the Britannica definition of atheism begins with the words "in general" for one simple reason: it goes on to define and describe at some length atheism and its various forms and approaches. The article itself goes on for in excess of ten pages; by far the most comprehensive definition of the concept that I have seen.
My opponent is, of course, at a liberty to out of hand dismiss that definition. Likewise, he is free to dismiss the wikipedia definition and countless other definitions, critiques, discussions, debates, arguments and propositions about atheism that can be found in contemporary philosophical literature both online and offline.
Most those who have given the subject matter any thought will at least distinguish between weak atheism (lack of belief in god(s)) and strong atheism (a positive belief that there is no god).
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com...
http://www.strongatheism.net...
It is this strong atheism that is related to the concept of theoretical (contemplative) atheism outlined in my argument in R1. A newborn is an atheist (weak atheist) as he does not believe in a god (although Ernest Nagel would disagree with that - see the top reference above) , having never heard of the concept. My opponent, by contrast, appears to be a strong atheist as he proposes in many debates various arguments countering those of theists and then concludes that such arguments are not based on scientific evidence such that would possibly convince him of the eixstence of one more more gods. This is an assumption only as I do not know the true beliefs my opponent subscribes to, other than the fact that he has claimed to be a believer in Santa.
Be that as it may, my opponent simply chooses to reject Britannica's discourse on the matter. He simply asserts that atheism is "the lack of belief in a god [full stop]".
Even the simplest dictionary definitions more often than not use the term "denial of the existence of a god". Quite often the term is "the disbelief OR denial of the existence of a god".
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Denial is more than a mere lack of belief. It is an active proposition that something does not exist. A proposition that, when confronted with theses to the contrary, is supported by evidence to discredit such theses. It is that concept that is termed "strong atheism" or "theoretical atheism".
Wether my opponent likes it or not, the process of denying the existence of a god, the process of arguing against theist propositions cannot be divorced from lack of belief in a god. Both strong and weak atheism, practical and theoretical atheism, are concepts existing within the general scope of atheism. Yes, it is a question of definition and there are disagreements about it amongst contemporary thinkers. However, my opponent is in no position to exclude that definition. It exists, it is supported by many sources and it becomse part of the wider concept. The fact that some choose to use a wider definition, more basic one (such as that proposed by my opponent) does not invalidate the more specific and more carefully considered discourses on the matter. I suggest it would have been prudent for my opponent to make this debate conditional on an ASSUMPTION that atheism is no more than the lack of belief in a god.

I again repeat my assertion (supported by evidence and citations in my first post) that atheism includes, in one of its forms, the concept of actively arguing against theses proposed by theists and that one (and a main one at that) counter argument against them is that of evolution. Evolution provides an explanation for how humans and animals have come to exist. An explanation which is frequently capable of confronting the theist argument that they were created by a god. It is frequently used in that context, even, I might add, by my opponent in his debates on this very website.

It is true that many religious groups do not oppose the theory of evolution. The Catholic Church, for example, has accepted it as not contradictory to its dogmas. This does not, with respect, support my opponent's argument. Just as many theists do not believe in Christ, a belief which unquestionably is part of theism. See my first post for some other examples for the "overlap" issue. For A to be part of B it is NOT necessary that B's existence would have to be contingent on the existence of A. My opponent has said nothing to negate that.

I will add that my opponent has in fact said nothing at all to negate my proposition. All he has managed to do in this round is express a complete lack of respect for a very credible and respected source, one often cited in many courts of law worldwide. He is asking the readers to disregard it along with citations from a wikipedia article which in turn was premised on the works of respectable contemporary thinkers on the subject.

My opponent continues to maintain that the Raelinas are not theists. He does this in a circular fashion. I respectfully say that it doesn't matter whether the Raelians call their aliens "gods". To quote the duck test "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it IS a duck." One may call it a cat or a dog but a duck is nevertheless a duck. This is in fact a legal test developed by the Courts in Contract Law cases in England many many years ago. Having said that, the Raelinas consideration was only a tangent to my argument, more of a curiousity, "something to think about".

With all due respect, I am not trying to "win points" by pointing my opponent's attention to the fact that he ought to have used the words "gods" rather than "God". Rather, this was done to illustrate that he himself has not given very much thought to the very concept he wishes to debate about. Had he done so, he would have formulated his proposition much more carefully. I will add that it does not matter whether the majority of people using debate.org are Christians, Hindu or believers in ancient Greek gods. This debate is not about them, it is not an act of personal attack or of support for anyone. It is a debate about a concept. I will go further, however, and say that if saying "I believe XYZ are gods" were indeed what it took to make one a theist then Microsoft would by now be exempt from paying taxes by making itself into the Church of Microsoftology with God Gates the Almighty as its head. I am afraid the issue is not and cannot be that simple.

With respect, I assert that my opponent will need to do more than merely repeat his own original assertion in a "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm right and you disagree with me" fashion.

nb: Although for the present discussion I agree that lack of belief in a god is a species of atheism (and in fact the most commonly encountered one!), I personally am of the view that such a person would more properly be described as an agnostic. However, that is beyond the scope of this discussion, at least at the present time.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Pro

My opponent has made no compelling case that evolution is a part of atheism. There are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution (in fact if you look at the US statistics there are more people religious people who believe in evolution than there are atheists in general), and there are atheists who don't believe in evolution. Evolution isn't a part of atheism. Evolution can't be a part of atheism because atheism doesn't have any parts. It's a lack of belief in god or gods, no more, no less.

------

Strong Atheism is a position that there is no God. It isn't atheism, it's atheistic. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods whereas strong atheists take it one step further and profess an actual belief in the non-existence of god, rather than simply the lack of position that there is a god. While it is true that all strong atheists are atheists it is not true that all atheists are strong atheists.

Atheism doesn't include any affirmative beliefs. And while atheists are often critical of religion and can and do advocate for particular philosophies, those philosophies are not part of atheism. Just as if an atheist were to believe in the compelling scientific evidence of the theory which comprises the cornerstone of biology that theory would not become a part of atheism.

-----

As an atheist, I'd love to plant that flag in one of the greatest scientific theories of all time and claim it for atheism. Richard Dawkins once argued that the religious equating evolution with atheism was absurd but if he felt inclined to "preach atheism" (as he has be accused of doing), the religious would be making his job dreadfully easy. While there's certainly critiques of religion and dry treatises on the every facet of arcane minutia concerning obscure theological dribbling, those are hardly a compelling case for anything. Those religionists who, unlike most religious people, equate evolution directly with atheism are suggesting that that simply pointing to the world of evidence for evolution would wrought unspeakable damage to their fragile gods are doing both a disservice to science and religion.

Atheism is far more empty than you suppose. There's no virtues or vices, great truths or unquestionable dogmas, there is simply the admission that on the subject of deities, one is not compelled.

If evolution provides a contradictory explanation to the life on this planet than a religion supposed then why must theists look at such and declare that life is far to complex and far to splendid and impressive to have anything behind it? "This universe is far to beautiful for God to exist, those atheist evolutionists must be right!" Attempting to include evolution into atheism, which again doesn't even contain any beliefs, is nothing less than trying to concede reality to atheism. How much power you must ascribe a lack of belief in God?

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'" - Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot.

----

>>"Just as many theists do not believe in Christ, a belief which unquestionably is part of theism."

No. Belief in god(s) is the core of theism. While belief in Jesus as God is unquestionably a theistic belief, it isn't a part of theism. Theism is simply a description. It's a belief without any specificity at all.

Your supposed "overlap" issue is sophistry. If evolution were a part of atheism shouldn't atheists believe in evolution? There is no middle ground between atheism and theism. You either believe there is a god(s) or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist. If theists can believe in evolution then how could it be a part of atheism? If it's a part of both then it certainly cannot be described as limited to either in any reasonable way. Thus evolution is not a part of atheism.

Your given example to point out this logic suggests that Christianity is a not a part of theism, but theism is not just limited to Christians. You then, with a wave of your hands suppose this is the same as the example I gave. However, you actually flipped the groupings and tried to hide the clear mistake.

All evolutionists are atheists. -- False.
All atheists are evolutionists. -- False.
All theists are Christians. -- False.
All Christians are theists. -- True.

So there is actually an overlap between Christians and theism. This would allow us to conclude that theism is part of Christianity and a belief in God is a part of that religion while that religion is not necessarily a part of a generic belief in God.

Theism has a single requirement, a belief in God. Christianity necessarily meets that definition and so *EVERY* Christian is a theist. However, it is not the case that every evolutionists is an atheist or that every atheist is an evolutionist.

In part 1 you said "my opponent is of the view that A can be part of B if and only if B could not exist BUT FOR A." This is a straw man. I am making the suggestion that A is not a part of B if the conditional if A then B fails.

-----

The Raelians aren't theists because they don't believe in a God. If you believed in Jesus but thought he was just a really powerful guy, that wouldn't suffice to make you a theist. While if you believed a coffee stain was a God, then you would be a theists. This isn't circular reasoning or semantics, it's simply the definition. Theism is the belief in a god, whereas atheism is the lack of such a belief.

-----

If a scientific theory can become a part of atheism simply by factually establishing some bits of religion wrong then there is a lot of science which suddenly becomes a part of atheism. In fact, Sufi Islam argued that even the very basics of science weren't real but rather the will of Allah. Al Ghazali argued that if some wool is placed into a fire and turns black and shrivels it isn't because of some independent chemical reaction but rather because Allah wills it so. Thus, all science would be a part of atheism.

I'm sure with a few more religions and a few more claims about God we could work the entire portfolio of human accomplishments into this little non-belief.
Lightkeeper

Con

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have come to the final round of this debate. I now wish to thank you for your attention. I also thank my opponent for a fun and interesting debate.

My task was to show that evolution is part of atheism. Please think about this very carefully. I was not asked to prove that evolution is an "essential element", "defining element", "constituent element" or "necessary element" of atheism. It was merely to show that is a part of it.
I have presented you with a number of links to definitions and discussions of the topic. These sources discussed the various forms of atheism.
On the one hand we have the weak form and on the other the strong form. The strong form in fact involves a positive belief that there is not a god. The concept of Theoretical Atheism goes even further as it in itself entails arguing against the existence of a god. It involves confronting the many various religious arguments and dogmas, including that of Creation. Creation is most often confronted with the concept of evolution. This proposition is so obvious that it does not even need sourcing. Secondly, I have offered to source it if requested to and was never so requested. Thus, it is to be taken as accepted.

EXCLUSIVE/INCLUSIVE DEFINITIONS (OVERLAP)
Does the fact that some theists believe in evolution mean that evolution can't be a part of atheism? I contend it does not. My opponent's argument that A is a part of B only if B wouldn't exist BUT FOR A is incorrect. As I have pointed out, cars are part of transportation. That is so even though each concept exists without the other. A belief in Jesus is part of religion. That is so even though there are religions that do not believe in Jesus. Many of Plato's writings are part of philosophy even though they would exist without philosophy (as mathematical or scientific writings). And philosophy would certainly exist without Plato. I am part of staff working in my office. Staff at my office would do just fine without me (some might argue they would in fact do better). Conversely, if I had enough money not to have to work, I would surely continue to exist without being part of staff at my office. These are just some examples of things that can be part of other things even though they are not a NECESSARY part or a DEFINING part.
The fact that some theists believe in evolution does not mean that evolution cannot be part of atheism.
Equally, the fact that no all atheists believe in evolution does not mean that it is not a part of atheism (same argument as in the preceding paragraph).
Opposing concepts can (and often do) have common aspects. Some people may use the Bible to argue for the existence of a particular god. Others may use it to disprove that existence (by pointing out inconsistencies within the Bible or how it may contradict common sense). Is the Bible part of both arguments? Of course. The arguments for and against celibacy of priests can equally be based on the Bible and hits interpretations. There are countless other examples of this and I will not list more as I am confident you understand what I am seeking to illustrate.

Is there an overlap between evolution and atheism? Of course there is. One does not subsume the other; that much is true. However, an overlap exists. Atheism includes in its forms Theoretical Atheism. Theoretical Atheism is the process of presenting arguments against gods and religious dogma. Evolution is one of those arguments.

MY OPPONENT'S FAILURE TO REBUTT SOURCED ARGUMENTS
With respect, all that my opponent has done is re-iterate his preferred definition of atheism. He has not even so much as cited a single source for that definition. I am not saying that there are no such sources. However, as the judges of this debate, you are to rely on the information and argument as presented by the parties. You are NOT to resort to your own independent research. On this basis, I contend that you should accept my definition and reject my opponent's. But I will take it further. I will say that even if both definitions were to be supported, this in effect gives rise to a broader definition, one which includes both concepts. Atheism is everything that atheism is reasonably defined to be, by credible sources. Britannica, I contend, is a very reliable source. It consistently receives awards for being world's best encyclopedia in various areas. Wikipedia, while easily editable, has in its discussion of the topic relied on sources from well recognised contemporary thinkers. Numerous other definitions also support my argument. Strong atheism, the belief that gods do not exist, necessarily involves some degree of giving the matter some consideration. In effect, it is the process of rejecting religious dogma, including that of Creation. This is opposed to weak atheism where a person does not believe without a real reason (eg infants or those never exposed to the notion of a god).

My opponent in his last paragraph claims that if my contention holds then a lot of science would become a part of atheism. To an extent, he may well be right. However, that matter is outside the scope of this debate.

MY CONCLUSION
Ladies and Gentlemen, I agree that on its face, at a first glance, a person would probably think that evolution is not part of atheism. I must say I thought so too until I looked a little deeper into the issues for this debate.
However, I have presented a well sourced and logically sound argument for the proposition that evolution is in fact a part of atheism. My opponent's argument relies on two propositions. Firstly, he insists on a limited definition of atheism (while failing to source any other definitions). Secondly, he insists on an incorrect view of what it means for one thing to be a part of another. I respectfully submit that I have rebutted both of his propositions.

In light of the above I ask that you vote Pro.

Nb: As far as the Raelians go, my opponent has again basically repeated his previous contention. Unless one calls something a god it is not a god. I have said a lot on the subject in a previous round and will not continue with it. It is not relevant in any case.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
agreed for the most part ^_^ hope you accept my friend request cause I've looked at some of your debates and hope to maybe debate something with you in the future

I just joined this website and honestly I love to argue so I'm looking forward to arguing with intelligent people like yourself.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Mylynes,

That's fine with me. I never claimed it's connected to all of atheism. What argued was that atheism is a broader concept which includes theoretical atheism and evolution is a central part of the latter.

You could compare it to transsubstantiation being part of religion. It is. It's a central part of catholicism.

Good to see we actually agree.
Posted by Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
"Having said that, you could probably argue that CAR cigarette lighters are part of transportation, if you put your mind to it...."

There we go. You have admitted that using the same logic in a different situation you could claim that car cigarette lighters are a part of transportation. I am completely agreeing with you both on this and the evolution issue however I am merely pointing out that the "part" is very tiny and really not large enough to really group them together. Evolution may have a "part" of some atheists views but they are still very very seperate. Just because you can connect some atheists to using evolution in debates does make it a part of their personal belief systems but in no way is it connected to all atheism.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Mylynes,

The cigarette lighter example is bad anyway.

A lighter is completely incidental to the purose of the motor vehicle. Evolution, on the other hand, is at the very center of theoretical atheism.

Having said that, you could probably argue that CAR cigarette lighters are part of transportation, if you put your mind to it....

Altough curburator would be a much more appropriate example.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
What i'm saying is that I do not need to show that mexican food is used in any arguements. If by your logic "some" atheists happen to have used it to argue against theism makes evolution a "part" of atheism then why can't I say that because "some" atheists believe mexican food is good is a "part" of atheism? If some of them believe in the tastiness of mexican food surely that would make it a "part" of "some" of their belief systems and by your own logic therefore a "part" of atheism itself!
*****
Not at all. Mexican food is not at all connected to the definition or practice of theoretical atheism. Arguing against creation is. The most common argument against creation is evolution.

Obviously the cigarette lighter is a part of the car just like evolution may be a part of a theoretical athiesm BUT the cigarette lighter has absolutely nothing to do with transportation and evolution also is not a part of atheism.
********
You're begging the question :)
Posted by Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
"I have now carefully read both your comments. I must say that every single point in your comments was covered and countered by myself in the debate rounds. You have not read the entire debate, that much is clear."

I would like to begin by saying that I read the debate a few times before I even figured out where the comments area is.

"Your example about mexican food is, with respect, a fallacy. For it to be a good example of my logic, you'd have to show that mexican food is used in arguments against theism and therefore forms part of theoretical atheism."

What i'm saying is that I do not need to show that mexican food is used in any arguements. If by your logic "some" atheists happen to have used it to argue against theism makes evolution a "part" of atheism then why can't I say that because "some" atheists believe mexican food is good is a "part" of atheism? If some of them believe in the tastiness of mexican food surely that would make it a "part" of "some" of their belief systems and by your own logic therefore a "part" of atheism itself!

"As for your argument about the meaning of "part of" (you claim A is not part of B unless B could not exist BUT FOR A), that was thoroughly addressed in the debate; examples were included (eg, cars and transportation)."

Sure cars are a part of transportation but.. Aren't cigarette lighters a part of a car? By you logic that is supposed to make a cigarette lighter a part of transportation. Obviously the cigarette lighter is a part of the car just like evolution may be a part of a theoretical athiesm BUT the cigarette lighter has absolutely nothing to do with transportation and evolution also is not a part of atheism.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Mylynes,

I have now carefully read both your comments. I must say that every single point in your comments was covered and countered by myself in the debate rounds. You have not read the entire debate, that much is clear. Rather, you're entering into a polemic based on your own beliefs of what atheism is and what it isn't.
Your example about mexican food is, with respect, a fallacy. For it to be a good example of my logic, you'd have to show that mexican food is used in arguments against theism and therefore forms part of theoretical atheism.
As for your argument about the meaning of "part of" (you claim A is not part of B unless B could not exist BUT FOR A), that was thoroughly addressed in the debate; examples were included (eg, cars and transportation).
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
This is a proper debate!!! i got my a** handed to me by lightkeeper the other day!
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
None of that matters. Maybe you haven't read my argument, Mylynes. In its entirety.

Not every atheist is a theoretical atheist. I'm not arguing to the contrary. But theoretical atheism is part of atheism. It's part of the general concept of atheism. You have various sub-species of atheism and Th Atheism is one of them. That's the angle of my argument.

As I've said in these comments, if my opponent's Resolution was "Evolution is not a defining element of atheism" then there should be no debate and I might as well post a debate "spaceshuttle is not part of shoelace"......The way I approached it was, as far as I'm concerned, the only way to approach it and still have a debate.

The ideas are indeed separate ideas. Unless you view theoretical atheism as a sub-species of atheism.
Posted by Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
"No, my argument wouldn't lead to a conclusion that evolution is part of Christianity. The fact that some Christians believe in it doesn't make it part of it. I myself used to be a Chrisian and believed in evolution at the same time.
However, if there is a religion or denomination which holds as one of its dogmas or sets of beliefs or rituals or arguments that evolution is true, that does make evolution a part of that religion.

See the definition of Theoretical Atheism again :)"

The topic is Evolution is not part of atheism. The topic is not Evolution is not part of theoretical atheism. I personally do not believe there is a god and at the same time I do believe in evolution. I happen to believe both of those ideas likely but I also view them as "seperate" ideas. I do not have a lack of faith in a god due to evolution nor did I decide to believe in evolution because of my lack of faith in a god. I could stretch what you are saying a bit further and say that because I and probably some other Atheist happen to think mexican food is good then.. perhaps thinking mexican food is good is a part of atheism? Just because some of us happen to like mexican food perhaps in some extremely small way mexican food IS a part of atheism by your logic. Since you know like.. the fact that they are two completely different things doesn't seem to matter much to you.

By the way please ignore the order of the abbcac thing because I was going to point out the flaw in that model but I ran out of room for where I wanted to go with it and accidentally posted the message without deleting all of it.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
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 Alex 7 years ago
Alex
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
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 Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by KokeAndSoup 8 years ago
KokeAndSoup
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
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 arthurxanimal 8 years ago
arthurxanimal
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
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 Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
TatarizeLightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07