The Instigator
ourgodisaconsumingfire
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Is atheism credible?

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...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,846 times Debate No: 15701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

ourgodisaconsumingfire

Con

What is the credibility and credentials of Atheism? Is it provable in a court of law? Can it hold up in a heated debate?
Ore_Ele

Pro

This is going to be 3 rounds, so I will take it as...
Round 1) definitions
Round 2) Counter Arguments and my own Arguments
Round 3) Counter Arguments and than summarize the debate.

So for this round, I will define some words that my opponent did not when he started this debate.

Atheism - "•a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" meaning that it could be the belief that there is no God, or holding no belief either way (refered as a weak atheist or agnostic).

Credible - "•capable of being believed" or "•appearing to merit belief or acceptance" note, that according to this definition, to be credible does not require to be correct, only that it appears correct.

I would also like to ask my opponent if he believes that the bible is a credible source.

http://www.google.com...=
http://www.google.com...=
Debate Round No. 1
ourgodisaconsumingfire

Con

Thank you to my opponent for a swift response. I will accept the rules which he stated. This is a formal debate and since I am against the stance I have the burden of proof to prove. With your definitions you added though your personal beliefs not just the definitions.

Atheism - "•a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
Credible - "•capable of being believed" or "•appearing to merit belief or acceptance"

You cannot mix water and oil. Within this the very definition's of Atheism and Credible contradict one another; this is by pure definition. Lets get into the words of the definitions themselves.

The word lack is defined as this.
Lack - •miss: be without
Believe - •believe - accept as true

Within these definitions is a major contradiction of Atheism. First you have to (believe) in the existence of a God or God's; in order to believe something there must be an original belief. If you are without though or missing the belief or lack... belief one cannot be truly Atheist. They would have to be agnostic truly.

Agnostic - •a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)•uncertain of all claims to knowledge
This definition within itself also contradicts itself.

In reality just within the definitions of Atheism and Agnoticsism one must have the knowledge of a God or God's.

Lets see the Origin of the word Atheism

Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966).

How can one deny God in which they first must assume their is one to have a doctrine theory or belief.

In reality for Atheism to exist there must be a God or God's.

* The First Atheist*

Sophists were the first group of people to deny the god's of Greece existence. They were theologist's but again in order to deny something there must be a (belief or believe) to accept as true. So in order for

Sophists definition - •any of a group of Greek philosophers and teachers in the 5th century BC who speculated on a wide range of subjects •casuist: someone whose reasoning is subtle and often specious

So the sophists had to believe in god's to deny them within the definitions of atheist and believe.

To state something like this. "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.

To refute or to deny something there must be a line or a bar which is unmistakeably absolutely true. An atheist cannot do this without accepting the truth of A God or god's.

In Atheism one must have a belief in something to deny it. In reality one cannot deny the reality that something is not there. The wind is not visible but we can deny it because it's existence is known; but one cannot deny the wind if there was no wind to begin with.

Atheism within itself is a weak theory. It is a theory in which one cannot come to in which one cannot base a stance on without knowing of a God.

One must believe in a God that there is the presence of one to deny it.

With the Bible since this is not a religious debate we can use it as historical evidence. It must be historically proved in order to be used. Not on pre determined it must be proved. We can debate on faith in another round this though is a philosophical debate. I am not denying my faith in the accuracy or completeness of the Bible; something we both as Christian's believe as doctrine. This although is a philosophical debate.

I thank the audience viewing and my opponent for this debate.
Ore_Ele

Pro

I thank my opponent for their round. Rather than attack every individual point of it, I will simply take out the foundation that the argument is assumed upon.

"Within these definitions is a major contradiction of Atheism. First you have to (believe) in the existence of a God or God's; in order to believe something there must be an original belief."

My opponent shows no evidence to support this. In atheism, one does not need to believe in the existence of a God, but merely in the definition of a God. It is something that has been brought up many times on this site, and probably on just about every site that has religious debates. In order to debate about God, God must be defined. Atheists believe in the existance of the definition of a God, without having a belief in that God.

For example, "I don't believe that there are unicorns in the real world." In order to make that logical, I only need to believe in a definition of "unicorn" so that I can assess whether or not I believe in the existance.

My opponent also alludes to that the definition of Atheism contains "lack of belief" and that the definition of Credible contains "capable of being believed." So for atheism to be credible, it would be "capable of beliving a lack of belief." This may seem like it doesn't logically fit, but it does. Just like one can say "I know that I don't know."

With that, the rest of my opponent's arguments fall down. It is possible to believe in non-belief. And only a definition of God must be accepted, not the existance of an actual God.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2
ourgodisaconsumingfire

Con

I thank the audience and my opponent for this debate. It was a well rounded debate in which my opponent never stated the Credential's for atheism as I did. I Sourced the first documented atheist known in history. What my opponent did forget was the credentials in which he needed to state. Atheism we all can agree on if there was No God there would have never been Atheism. We as humans if no God was omnipresent there were no teaching's of a God atheism would have never been a theory.

I will show you this statement once more. Think about it from a philosophical perspective.

In Atheism one must have a belief in something to deny it. In reality one cannot deny the reality that something is not there. The wind is not visible but we can deny it because it's existence is known; but one cannot deny the wind if there was no wind to begin with.

If my opponent is correct with Atheism as they believe as a group that there is no God then if this group has no belief they cannot deny one's deny his presence.

Just like one can say "I know that I don't know."

If you state "I know" that I do not know one is a Liar by definition.

Lie (liar) - statement that deviates from or perverts the truth (Princeton dictionary)

You first must know the truth to tell a lie. If one does not know God in the first place how can one say he knows not a God. It is simple you can say this but people call these people Liars. You first must know definite truth before one can deny it. One must know that there is a bar set to try to jump higher than that bar.

If they do they are liar's as my opponent stated this.
It is simple this is impossible. Atheism is the weakest stance one can take in history.

Also as Christian's we believe in Jesus which is God in the flesh. This God in flesh whose historical backing and authenticity is amazing as we seen in Julius Africanus world book of the third histories stating; When Christ was crucified on the Passover, there was an eclipse as not known by man.
Also Pliny the Younger documented his followers.
As well as Josephus's.
As well as the Talmud of Jewish culture and histories.

In a court of law the physical proof of Christ as God is beyond reasonable doubt. Still to this day Christianity is the world's largest religion.

So if there was no God there would be no Atheism. It is that simple.

My worthy opponent stated this as well.

"It is possible to believe in non-belief"

Again this is contradictory. You cannot believe in something that is not real in court or in a debate. One has to have reliable reasonable facts in order to prove something.

In debate or a court without the Reality of God one can never deny it. One cannot go against God if there is not a belief in place firstly.

I will sum up the debate like this.

Plaintiff (Religion) - States that the (defendant) stole 500 dollars from his company. Has all the proof from tax records and video of the employer stealing the money.

Defendant (Atheism) - Stole the money. Is guilty. Is a liar.

Judge = God the infinite point of law the creator of all.

One must know the law in order to break the law.

Without God their is no Atheism theory.

Therefore Atheism is not reliable in debate or a court of law.

Thank you all for viewing this debate. I also thank my opponent this was very interesting and fun.!
Ore_Ele

Pro

My opponent is mixing up words and definitions and so his argument is extremely difficult to follow.

"If you state "I know" that I do not know one is a Liar by definition."

My opponent has provided no evidence for this. In fact, in that statement "I know that I don't know." No lie is told. A perfect example is "I do not know my opponent's home address." And "I know, that I don't know my opponent's home address." Both of those statements are true. Under my opponent's "logic" I must know his address in order to claim that I don't know it. And so, through reduction to the absurd (reductio ad absurdum), we must know everything that we don't know. But since we don't know it, the entire premise is negated.

My opponent again states "In Atheism one must have a belief in something to deny it." Again, I'll say (since he never argued against it, only ignored it) Atheism only needs a definition for God in order to claim that they don't believe that definition to be true or existing.

The logical holes have been pointed out and my opponent has not even bothered to attempt to cover them, just leaves them open and claims that they are not really there.

I leave this to the voters.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro won this debate easily, disposing of tired arguments by Con.

There was an argument from etymology claiming "atheist" is derived from "denying god." How a word was derived does not say how it is now used. consider "flammable" and "inflammable," which now mean the same thing. Jeferson was denounced as an "atheist" meaning, at the time, "not a Christian." (Jefferson was a Deist, a believer, not an atheist by current definition.)
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
I'll be ready to accept a debate around Friday so if you're interested challenge me then.
Posted by ourgodisaconsumingfire 6 years ago
ourgodisaconsumingfire
Great I have much respect for you social
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
I assure you that there is no hatred. I completely resect your decision to be a Christian. I am not upset by our last debate as I realize it was stupid for me to even accept it as I was not arguing either in favor or against the resolution. I was simply stunned at the topic you posted.

"I think that you are just a confused scared 16 year old who has no idea about the real world side of religion and politics."

Please do not speculate like this as it happens enough. I would appreciate if you would not pick on my age, you must understand that I do not think that I am "oh so smart". I simply enjoy learning and debating.

I would be happy to debate with you on the existence of god after I am finished with my current debates. I bear you no ill will outside of the intellectual sphere.
Posted by ourgodisaconsumingfire 6 years ago
ourgodisaconsumingfire
Try again social..... I always showed respect towards you in debates and comments. I do not understand the hatred towards one. If you are upset challenge me to a new debate. Clearly the last one was a landslide I dont think you can face me on religious terms with debating. Even the Muslim that I just debated forefeited. I know that you seem to think you are so atheistic and oh so smart. One a person a Atheist is not a smart person when one cannot prove anything about their own belief. I laugh at Hitchen's and Dawkin's they are not smart people they are weak in faith and cannot explain their theories. They throw out there a bunch of scientific rhetoric not citing sources along the way. I think if you and many other Atheist's would open their mind and stop trying to rebel so much you would see that the universe is too complex to be made by mistake. I think that you are just a confused scared 16 year old who has no idea about the real world side of religion and politics. Just a Christian basher who wants to get on this website and try to pick on weaker apologist. I will accept any debate on religion against you as long as their is not vote bombing. As I have said I was at one time a Strong atheist until i opened my eyes that it was all crap...
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
I'm really embarrased that I lost a debate to this guy(ourgodisaconsumingfire)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
ourgodisaconsumingfireOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not have good logic and got pwned by analogous situations.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
ourgodisaconsumingfireOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con misses the most basic of the fundamentals. By his argument, one must believe in unicorns if one can form the concept of a unicorn. Nonsense. Pro made the points correctly.
Vote Placed by Zyanya 6 years ago
Zyanya
ourgodisaconsumingfireOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ourgodisaconsumingfire gave convoluted and confusing arguments. Seeming to think that length of the argument would make it seem more 'credible' (:D). Meanwhile, Oreele gave clear arguments and refuted ourgodisaconsumingfires arguments with ease.
Vote Placed by Dmetal 6 years ago
Dmetal
ourgodisaconsumingfireOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had absurd arguments, repeating them round-after-round.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ourgodisaconsumingfireOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Novel approach by Con, and it is true that something needs to be known to be denied. But the fact that it is denied is the issue, similar to how we now deny the earth is flat.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
ourgodisaconsumingfireOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "In Atheism one must have a belief in something to deny it."-Con. Pro adequately refuted this point by showing that an atheist only has to accept the definition of god and not it's actual existence in order to disbelieve.