The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Across_Walden_Pond
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is irrational for BOP to be on Atheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 24894
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

cience is philosophy!

Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic.


1. Arguments must be intellegentally defended by the Debators.

2. Appeal to authorty or references are NOT replacements for Arguments.

3. Principle of Charity=Conduct

4. The Debate is for Intellectual truth value rather then debate value.


Principle of Charity
-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator.
-giving the best representation of opponest arguments.
-Assume your opponent to be rational and intellegent.
-Vague language is to be avoided.


No Loop whole wins:
-sementic Games.
-playing to the definition(playing to the a particular definition of a word and not the reality of what the debate is about.


Definitions rules!
The Most informative, percise and reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.

A contradiction, is a FATAL blow. No believes, or convincings, or seems like, or shouldness Votes about it.

First round is acceptence.
Across_Walden_Pond

Con

Acceptance.



Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The Fool: Hello everybody, Its you favourite Fool again, back to set the record straight. So first round for me will be to hit hard with somee rational arguments. Then again and again.


1. Parmenides’s argument of existence:

P1 What is IS!

P2 What is not does not existed

C1 Therefore there is only existence.

P2 More precisely; for what is not does not exist.

First formulation:

P1 IS

P2 Not

C1 Absurd (contradiction)

Second formulation:

What is not = What (is the case)(not the case)= contradiction.

Third Formulation:

For all that exist there is 1 of.

E.g. One universe. One house or one mind.

Even if there are three houses(3 x houses) there is one set of Three.(1(3H)

Therefore what IS can be represented mathematically as 1. And not as 0 for absence.

Thus “what is not”, can be represented as the following.

For let x be=a particular case

What is not= 1x(0x)=0

Thus my formulation of the Parmenides argument is a V type. Which mean all formulations must be refuted or else the conclusion holds. That is “there is only existence.”

2. The argument from Absolute universe:

For I use the ‘word’(physical symbol) ‘ Absolute Universe’, to refer to The whole of all that exist.

Thus if there are God, or and outside to that which is physical and whatever else it may be exist in the Absolute Universe. If is outside then it does not exist.

No time, Is the non-existence of time. Just as no god is the non-existence of God.

Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because there doesn't exist something to prove..

3. The argument of oppression:

God claim are more than that of a passive being but of also his of divine rules, commandments and explanations. It is irrational to claim that others are to be judged under such rule without first proving them true. You cannot morally expect someone to follow or act in a way to accord with rules that have not been demonstrated to then and the require then to prove it false first. Irrational.

4. Argument from Pride and honesty:

If you are sure and proud of you argument. You would not even care about burden of proof but just proof it by sheer honesty and pride. If I think something true, I put my argument right out in the open to be tested right away. There shouldn’t be a question about it.

Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because the theist should want to prove it if it is true. Not avoid it.

5. The argument from claims non-existence:

For there are many who consider themselves strong atheist.

IN that they claim that they believe in no God. But whether they claim it or not does not hide the truth that it is irrational, to proof wrong a supernatural claim since they are those beyond human understanding. And therefore are not falsifiable in the first place.

Secondly it is equally irrational to belief in any type of non-existence for the very fact non-existence is nor there to belief in. And that in that sense they have false beliefs. That is just because they claim it doesn’t mean it’s a rational claim. And thus it’s still irrational to expect them to proof it because its an irrational claim in the first place.

6. Argument from order:

For there must be a claim of existence in order for there to me a claim that something doesn’t exist. In other words there must be something at least in thought and or claim for someone to create a claim against it. Thus nobody would be claiming the non-existence of God if someone did not claim God in the first place. And therefore the original claim is always of the IS. And the counter claim can only be of is not. Thus Since the original thought or claim must be of IS. The claim of IS NOT, is always prior. Then the claim of there being a God is the initial claim of IS, and so by the order of claims they must provide the proof.

Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because it only a reaction to the original claim.

7. Argument from implication:

That is a “should” implies a “could. “

Since the debate of Burdon of proof is about whom “should” have the Burdon of proof, it can then only be on those who could give proof, but what does non-exist is not there to be proven, nor even to have knowledge of because it is not there. Therefore the Burdon of proof could never be on the non-existence of things. But only on the existence of something.

Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because should implies a could.

8 . The Tea pot argument: (different version)

If it irrational to make a claim which cannot be demonstrated and then expects others to have demonstrate it false first.

Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. because claims of God are not falsifiable.



Mind you 8 of the arguments are mutually exclusive. Which mean each one must be proven wrong, individually, to reject my resolution. That is, it is irrational for BOP to be on Atheism

The Fool: Long live the Good!

Across_Walden_Pond

Con

Burden of proof is on The Fool to demonstrate as to why it is irrational. Due to character limit, positive arguments will be found within rebuttals.

Parmenides’s argument of existence

My opponent gives three formulations of premise 2: What is not does not exist. I agree with this premise. If it is not, then it does not exist, simple reasoning.

Now my opponent goes on to say that all of his premises must be refuted, or else his conclusion stands. This is very wrong. Apparently my opponent proudly references Parmenides, but has never taken a course of study on the Parmenides dialogue.

"P1 What is IS!"

What the dialogue amounts to is there is only* a problem with premise one, thus a problem with the contextual conclusion. “Is” simply implies “being.” Now The Fool simply presupposes that there is no plurality in the “is.” Socrates/ Plato rightly point out the “is” could be many of multiple things, unlike and like, and still be completely sensible: including containing Forms, or rather God. The Fool’s argument says nothing on the topic of plurality of “is.” This is where the argument greatly breaks down, it presupposes there is no plurality in being, which is ultimately what it is trying to disprove.

So now that we know this argument doesn’t do any service, The Fool loses his premise that “you can’t prove something that doesn’t exist.” And that particular premise is utilized many times by him.

The argument from Absolute universe

“Thus if there are God, or and outside to that which is physical and whatever else it may be exist in the Absolute Universe. If is outside then it does not exist.” [Absolute Universe refers to The Whole]

I would like The Fool to proofread, so his arguments can show more clearly. Secondly, The Fool is assuming Forms, or God as he terms it, are not part apart of The Whole. Moreover, The Fool, once again, assumes “if outside…then does not exist [non-being.]” But conveniently supplies no argument against plurality of being, so the entirety of both of his two argument boil down to nothing but bold assumption fallacies.

The argument of oppression

“You cannot morally expect someone to follow or act in a way to accord with rules that have not been demonstrated to then and the require then to prove it false first. Irrational.”

Now, my opponent is just tossing around the word “irrational.” I’m also curious as to what religion you are discussing in this argument? Secondly, religious people, generally speaking, don’t shove the commandments or rules down other people’s throat, unless of course you go to church, but that’s a choice. Third, religions like Christianity and Buddhism articulate ideals like altruism, love, and empathy, which are lessons that are accepted by most every culture in the status-quo, anyway. Accepting the commandments or these lessons is totally up to a person’s choice, there is no oppression going on. Fourth, this argument really has no link to the BOP topic.

Argument from Pride and honesty

“If you are sure and proud of you argument…You would just proof it by sheer honesty and pride…Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Atheist. Because the theist should want to prove it if it is true”

This argument lacks sense and link-to-conclusion of the resolution.

First, your assuming that not one atheist should want to disprove the God hypothesis. There are weak atheists, or agnostics, who are apathetic, but they’re not the topic. It is the case that there are many internationally known atheists that should want to disprove God. One example would be Mr. Christopher Hitchens, RIP, who goes on to say that not one brilliant person was Christian and religions of the world are vastly destructive. Thus, with such claims, that many strong atheists have, it is the case that BOP justifiably is equally placed on them. With such claims they should want to disprove God, so they could push for solvency to their claims.

It’s nice that The Fool has pride in his arguments, but we are not talking about him, we are talking about atheism, in whole. But even The Fool has lofty claims such as when he states religions, in the status-quo, are oppressive. Well if he would want to right such an accusation then he should want to disprove the God hypothesis.

The argument from claims non-existence

Once again, I’m having a hard time completely understanding your argument through the choice of grammar and spelling but it seems to me The Fool is stating:

1. God is nonexistent

2. Non-existence is beyond human understanding

3. Anything beyond understanding cannot be proven absolutely false

4. Therefore it is irrational to put BOP on atheist

The Fool has in no way shown that God does not exist. Therefore the rest of his argument follows in no way, shape or form. It is all predicated off of his nonexistent premise.

Argument from order

A good way of checking the reasoning behind someone’s argument is if it is applicable to every day life. If we applied the reasoning of The Fool all of society would plummet into chaos. Explanation:

 If dozens of witnesses tell the court they saw a car hit a pedestrian then a proponent lawyer would try and demonstrate their statement valid. A defense lawyer would attempt to show the witness statements to be not valid and somehow mistaken. Most lawyers never get to the absolute truth but rather try to reach truth through inferences and implications of facts and witness statements. The same is true for the God hypothesis. A theist will gather the facts and try to demonstrate the witness accounts—true. A strong atheist will do otherwise. Thus BOP, reasonably, is on both. An atheist will gather a case that shows –there is no good reason to believe witness accounts: a theist, vice versa. No one gets a free pass, in trial. And that’s what a debate serves as—an informal trial. There’s nothing irrational about this paradigm.

Argument from implication

Cross-apply my analysis in Argument from Pride and Honesty, as to why any atheist that sees a damaging fault in religion or God to society, easily has a should. Also cross-apply all my analysis on The Fool’s non-existent God premise. This argument is more of the same, just combined in one.

The Tea pot argument

“If it irrational to make a claim which cannot be demonstrated and then expects others to have demonstrate it false first.”

The burden of proof should be equal on both, for if anyone wants to prove or disprove they must bring something to warrant their claims. Just because something is not absolutely falsifiable, does not give a free pass in warranting claims. It wasn’t absolutely falsifiable that O.J. Simpson killed two persons, but the defense did not give up. They accepted their BOP,and convinced everyone of their case. A responsible and rational mind would, without hesitation, take equal burden of proof to prove their case. They would and should especially do so if they believe it is to bring down a destructive institution, like many strong atheists contend.

The fact of the matter is, is there are apathetic God-believers and non-believers. People, who don’t care to enter into this debate, will live their entire lives for God, see Mother Theresa. Their faith becomes their life. To attempt to show God as false is to upset the equilibrium of many lives, all that to say it is disrespectful on behalf of the strong atheist not to take equal burden of proof. Believers do not have to prove God, for they believe it.

If you enter into the intellectual arena to prove/disprove the God hypothesis, the “ticket” is proof. Especially since the arena, in and of itself, is an option for both parties! No one has to partake in the debate.

Looking through everything,

Burden of proof has not been met.

Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Critical thinking Tips from the Hill!!! (on rationality)

The Fool: It is clearly stated in the acceptance round that; Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic, therefore it follows by necessity that irrational is with logic/math aka Ratiocination.

Con said assertively:

“Now, my opponent is just tossing around the word “irrational.”” (Sophisms; tossing, words)

Thus without rationality are statement are of pure emotionally bias claims. They become objective/universal/non-bias when they are subsumed (under the category) ratiocination, thus we say the argument is objective and rational when proven to cohere with rational inquirary

That is when the premise is true and the conclusion follow from the synthesis of the premises. Irrational conceptions can be objective or rational.

The hypothetical:

Con says:

“If you enter into the intellectual arena to prove/disprove the God hypothesis, the “ticket” is proof.”

The Fool: there is there is three notions here that I am foolish in understanding.

  1. Firstly, I do not know what the’ intellectual arena” IS, but to a mere fool it seems like metaphor inserted to give an appearance of intelligence. (Sophism)
  2. Secondly, I am as confused as to prove and disproof depend up the ticket of Proof when they are opposite in nature. But I am sure Con has rational explanation of what the ‘Ticket’ itself here is..????
  3. Thirdly I do remember a wise man telling me that a hypothesis is a hypothetical theory; Hypo meaning LESS THEN, a genuine theory or claim. Something is hypothetical in that UNTIL a certain set of conditions are satisfied then the theory or claim will be valid. But this is another proof for my resolution. So I should remain, humble and expect that con will have rational explanation for “why’” he said this? (Q2) To assure us that this is not a concession to a fools proof.

What is a sophism?

Sophisms are fallacies or other irrational techniques of persuasion. They are used to convince/control people/audiences by bypassing there rational capacities. Irrational techniques of persuasion can come in many forms: as unnecessary metaphors, emotional language, subjective words, and appeal to be intuitional, learned or heuristically biases of the audience. These techniques are used to create illusions and appearance rather than being of logical/rational nature. They are much more powerful in controlling audiences then dry sincere, rational, or complicated yet true explanations.
E.g. For example Hitler was an intelligence Sophist he had amazing speech skills and use words of inspiration to get people to do what he wanted.

“It is great for those in power that people do not think” Hitler.

Critical thinking skills are skill which enable people to arm and protect people themselves from being fooled by such types of persuasion, control and or abuse. That is making people aware of the difference between the uses of language, thus enabling to be less vulnerable to the deception of others.

So I will introduce my invisible enemy the Hypothetical Sophist. A fake character I will use to get arguments across more efficiently.

Warning: This is no way to parody or ad hoc my partner I am sure graduate Degree makes him well worth only plays. But this is to help keep the debate cleaner and clear so the audience is not confused.

Parmenides’s argument of existence 1.1

1. Parmenides’s argument of existence:

P1 what is IS!

P2 what is not does not existed

C1 Therefore there is only existence.

From being fooled in the past I thought it important to give 3 more versions just to make sure that is was impossible to misinterpret what I meant. What is IS! Which is a powerful tautological argument; it is the fundamental necessity of everything. In that what exist, is itself. There 1x=1x. That is everything that does in fact exist, well in fact does exist, for even a God must exist to be himself. For even Truth=Truth

What follows from the most fundamental argument of existence? It means that God is subsumed by this universal principle of logic. Therefore God cannot be the creature of Logic. Since he cannot escape existence itsef or he would seize to be.

Re-hash:

The Fool: I went well out of my way to give four formulations to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation. But as a fool, I assume I am in the wrong, unless my credible partner cannot give a completely rationally demonstration for why he is justified and honest for his entire set of claims about my lack of knowledge, assumptions, foolish error, and what I really meant? And we should all give him the benefit of the doubt unless he fails in the next round to justify why?

Therefore it is irrational (lacks logic) to say that God has created such rules, and that other depend on them. I will tie this in with everything latter.

The argument from Absolute universe 1.1

As I hope that I made clear this time that IS=existence. Therefore absolutely all that exist is the Absolute Universe. This is to express the original philosopher’s universe as appose to the Natural Sciences physical universe and the theologians universe for which there exist an outside. I use the word ‘absolute universe” in its original philosophic meaning of ”universe’ which refers to ALL OF EXISTENCE PERIOD!

IF it is found that there is any other physical universe or world in any sense they are all subset of the ABSOLUTE UNIVERSE AKA what IS

A wise man once told me a thing or two about understanding the universe, I thought he was completely crazy at the time, but it went something like the following:

So for everything there is 1. Even 3 things are one set of three. And that 1=existence.

And so it is now easy to recognize that the logic of quantity (math) is the logic of existence.

Types of one’s

The Universe 1 U The set of all general sets.

The general 1 G as in a category of sets.

The particular 1 P particulars of a general set.

Non-existence =0 in that being an empty it is not a set of anything, and therefore is false set=non-existing.

Thus an amount of an existence is its magnitude.

Example: Cars is a general category and particular types of cars are subsumed under it.

Warning and times saver: Appeal to authority is a fallacy, in a philosophical debate. I am giving the most advanced version I know, according to a mysterious wise man. This may not yet be in any text yet. But it’s not the wise man that makes it true it’s the Rationality of it that makes it true.

“For what makes a God the one God, is his infinite magnitude in being and powers. “

The Fool: Mind you I am not dropping anything.

Across_Walden_Pond

Con

Across_Walden_Pond forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro



1. The argument of oppression:

God claims are more than that of a passive being but of also his of divine rules, commandments and explanations. It is irrational to claim that others are to be judged under such rule without first proving them true. The monotheist religions have extreme conviction and presume Their Gods rule to all other people. There has been no rational process of interpretation. Nor is there any official interpretation, These are oppressive claims over others who do not share the belief. E.g. Homosexuals, and or Athiest, or even smaller religions, It is immoral, and unjust must be justified first!

There is nothing confusing about this argument.

2. Argument from neutralization:

If you claim some God must be proven false, for its non-existence to be true. Then anyone who claims to believe the opposite of your God, but with the same supernatural power, creates a deadlock.

I am claiming believe of the opposite God.

If these are both to be considered true.

Then either they are not all powerful, in which none of them exist or they cancel each other by contradiction, then none of them can be claimed to exist.

Therefore there should be balanced equality which would neutralize both claim until prove has been demonstrated on one side or the other.

4. Argument from Pride and honesty:

If you are sure and proud of you argument. You would not even care about burden of proof but just proof it by sheer honesty and pride. If I think something true, I put my argument right out in the open to be tested right away. There shouldn’t be a question about it.

Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Athiest. Because the theist should want to prove it if it is true. Not avoid it.

The major difference is

Youve been Fooled!

“For what makes a God the one God, is his infinite magnitude in being and powers. “

Its us or him!!!

The Fool: Being stems from the word “existent. “ It’s just to ‘be’ as in to ‘exist.’ But all that exist is the Absolute Universe. And God can’t be outside all things that exist, or he wouldn’t exist, but if we is infinite then we are a limited existence under infinite. Which would mean our existence is 0. That we don’t exist at all, but that is OBSURD. So either God doesn’t exist or we don’t exist. Therefore God does not exist.

Across_Walden_Pond

Con

Across_Walden_Pond forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
The_Fool_on_the_hillAcross_Walden_PondTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
The_Fool_on_the_hillAcross_Walden_PondTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit... and an entertaining one at that.
Vote Placed by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
The_Fool_on_the_hillAcross_Walden_PondTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF