The Instigator
Luis_Zuniga
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Branding
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Real atheists have systematic faith

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 64596
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Luis_Zuniga

Pro

A convinced and thoughtful atheist may have a level of of faith that matches with that of Christians
Branding

Con

There are two definitions of faith:

1. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
2. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

You haven't defined what you are discussing, or even what "systematic faith" means, but I've taken the discussion to mean divine faith in Gods as the context.

You are wrong, and here is why.

Atheism is a LACK of belief in Gods. So having "faith" in the context of divine belief is preposterous. There is just no clear and compelling evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
Luis_Zuniga

Pro

Am I wrong? Actually you just proved me right when you stated,

«Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something».

How come? Picture this scenario from an atheist point if view:

---Hommo Sapiens Sapiens are what they are due to chemical, physical and biological accidents of evolution... Thus, life on Earth is just the consequence of slim odds in cosmic events... Same way, the universe is the vast consequence of the aftermath of Big Bang... But prior Big Bang all properties of time, space and matter, rested for some reason and existed with no supernatural decisions... In conclusion, there are many explanations to the genesis of life and the universe; in doesn't necessarily have to do with a supernatural force...---

In the end: what atheists in the latest centuries have believed, have required tremendous faith... Faith in chaos becoming harmony... Faith in God not being part of this.
Branding

Con

YOU:
>>Am I wrong? Actually you just proved me right when you stated,
>>"Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something".
>>How come?

ME: You were never clear from the start, so I went and pointed out the two textbook definitions. I also looked at your profile. Based on your previous Christian-subject discussions, I suspected you meant godly faith.

YOU: "Real atheists have systematic faith". "In the end: what atheists in the latest centuries have believed, have required tremendous faith... Faith in chaos becoming harmony... Faith in God not being part of this."

ME: "Real atheists" do NOT have "systematic faith". The reason: skepticism.

It is not possible to have complete 100% trust or confidence in a "system" either.
Debate Round No. 2
Luis_Zuniga

Pro

«Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something»; you said that, not me.

That can't be more right when atheist try to explain the paleogenesis of the universe before the Big Bang, therefore trusting something that can't be proved.

Bonus argument: atheist have faith on the premise that somehow they will die and nothing will happen after (like if somehow they will tell themselves “I was right"). I am not mocking atheist because of this fact; but I am acknowledging the huge faith they build in the form of trust, theories and hypothesis.

Faith is as human as language (it is in our genetic code), despite you believe in God or not.

Branding

Con

YOU:
>>"Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something"; you said that, not me.

ME: You quoted me in your last response. And thus, to keep things consistent, I quoted you "quoting" me.

YOU:
>>That can't be more right when atheist try to explain the paleogenesis of the universe before the Big Bang, therefore trusting something that can't be proved.

ME: You're wrong again, because:
1) I am an atheist. Prove to me that, with "tremendous faith" I believe the Big Bang is true. I do not believe all things are 100% certain in the Universe. I am willing to consider alternate theories to the Big Bang given clear and compelling evidence to do so.

You cannot measure or put value on what I believe on, nor can you do this with anyone else.

You are making claims about "real atheists" that cannot be demonstrated in any way, shape or form.

Thus you are in error, and wrong.

2) Trusting something is not the same as "tremendous faith" or absolute certainty.

3) You cannot demonstrate who these "REAL ATHEISTS" are.

YOU: Bonus argument: atheist have faith on the premise that somehow they will die and nothing will happen after (like if somehow they will tell themselves "I was right"). I am not mocking atheist because of this fact; but I am acknowledging the huge faith they build in the form of trust, theories and hypothesis. Faith is as human as language (it is in our genetic code), despite you believe in God or not.

ME: You have it backwards. Atheists are a minority of American citizens, whom reject the universally accepted claim of life after death. We reject it because we have no reason to believe that there is life after death. You are wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
Luis_Zuniga

Pro

To which position should I reply?

You started from scratch by stating, «Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something».

But you ended by denying countering yourself« trusting something is not the same as “tremendous faith» (of course not, because you'd need to type “tremendously" at the beginning of your phrase).

Either way, I would like you to enrich this debate by proposing what created the elements of Big Bang. What was before it and how?
Branding

Con

To which position should I reply? You started from scratch by stating, "Definitions of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something". But you ended by denying countering yourself" trusting something is not the same as "tremendous faith" (of course not, because you'd need to type "tremendously" at the beginning of your phrase).

Either way, I would like you to enrich this debate by proposing what created the elements of Big Bang. What was before it and how?

----

My laptop charger is not functional, so I may be unable to reply for the final round. Here goes:

This argument is not about the Big Bang. You're distracting the issue. Let's stay on topic.

YOU (The Statement 1): "Real atheists have systematic faith"
YOU (The Statement 2): "A convinced and thoughtful atheist may have a level of of faith that matches with that of Christians:"

This was your argument, to which I reply:

Yes, it is true we have beliefs, but you have not proven how they are "systemic". Prove to this audience what this "Belief" is and how it is systemic among "atheists". If you cannot competently demonstrate this, you lose.

You also say that we can have "a level of faith that matches with that of Christians". Explain to this audience what you mean by that. Establish for this audience how that level is to be established, measured, and tracked from one atheist to the next and how this is to be compared among atheists to christians? If you cannot demonstrate this competently, there is no argument to be made. You lose.

You have still not demonstrated how I have proven you right by pulling out two separate definitions of the word "faith" or how this proves your two statements correct.
Debate Round No. 4
Branding

Con

------------------------------------
I've pointed out the following:

1) Atheism is a LACK of BELIEF (in gods) because there is no clear and compelling evidence.
2) It is not possible to have full confidence in a system. We're predisposed to SKEPTICISM.
3) Individual beliefs among atheists and theists cannot be measured, quantified, or compared.
4) Atheists reject the afterlife because there is no reason to believe an afterlife exists.

------------------------------------
Your starting arguments:

1) "Real atheists have systematic faith"
2) "A convinced and thoughtful atheist may have a level of of faith that matches with that of Christians"

Round #2:

1) Suggested scenario from an atheists point of view, and, "In the end: what atheists in the latest centuries have believed, have required tremendous faith... Faith in chaos becoming harmony... Faith in God not being part of this."

Round #3:

1) (Faith = Belief) "That can't be more right when atheist try to explain the paleogenesis of the universe before the Big Bang, therefore trusting something that can't be proved."

2) Bonus argument: atheist have faith on the premise that somehow they will die and nothing will happen after.

Round 4:

1) "trusting something is not the same as "tremendous faith" (of course not, because you'd need to type "tremendously" at the beginning of your phrase)."

Round 5:

1) "See, Systematic: presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles ; methodical in procedure or plan . Retrieved from Merriam-Webster Dictionary. " In what system have you seen these items? Hypotheses, Theories, Questioning, Consensus. Are those somehow related to a not proved and accepted explanation like the Big Bang?

2) "Kudos! Your atheist faith is indeed, systematic. The weak point of religious faith is not part of your atheist faith: you question your faith which is a luxury Christian believers cannot afford because one of their principles is not to question."

3) "I have proved that atheist believe. I am afraid, the comparison of both, atheist and religious faith is subjective, but still a matter of social sciences. Both faiths enhance the understanding of reality, both satisfy our human need for truth, both lack concrete proofs."

------------------------------------
My comments:

1) Faith and the word "belief" may appear equal, but you are wrong. Here is Wikipedia's definition of faith vs belief. "Faith is defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant. It can also be belief that is not based on proof." (Source: Wikipedia)

2) Thus the word "belief" and faith are not the same. They are similar to how a square and rectangular have four sides but are unequal. A square can be a rectangle but a rectangle cannot be a square. Likewise, faith is a belief, but a "belief" is not a faith. Faith is belief without proof or evidence, whereas the academic beliefs you described require evidence. Thus this is their diverging point.

3) "Belief" and "Faith" in the context of this discussion are not the same. They are different, thus your attempt to win this debate by stating that "faith" is belief is wrong.

4) You are wrong about Christians having the same "level" of faith as Theists. Here are some examples why:

-- Theists either do not believe in the Big Bang, or explain that God created the Big Bang, because God exists outside of time and space and created the Universe that way. There is no evidence to support this claim. Theists take such claims at face value. That is faith. Belief without evidence.

-- There is no case study or demonstration shown that there is a united consensus among Atheists everywhere that the Big Bang is true. Some may belief, some may not, some may not even care. So you are wrong to say this belief is systemic. You are also wrong to ASSUME belief in the Big Bang is a natural outcome of having no reason to believe in God. It just doesn't make sense. I have no reason to believe in God, therefore I must believe the theory of the Big Bang is true?? Wat.

-- The Big Bang is a belief supported by evidence, whereas "faith" is a belief supported without evidence. So it doesn't make sense when you talk about our atheist "faiths" or our "faith" in Evolution or our "faith" in the Big Bang.

-- Belief in God is not required to Disbelief in God, so you are wrong about that too.

-- You haven't demonstrated any numbers or case studies comparing groups of atheists to groups of Christians, so your argument is just a speculated opinion based on "faith" rather than evidence.

-- My argument has been to prove that your argument is ridiculous and unsubstantiated on all fronts.

-- You don't make any clear distinction between Christian faith and evidence-based academic beliefs in the observable world. Your argument is a case study of you living in a fantasy world where belief without evidence is acceptable. It's not.

-- You have not proved anything, because all of your proofs have been speculated personal opinions not backed by any evidence.

-- You have tried to win this argument on a technicality. A ridiculous technicality.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Luis_Zuniga 2 years ago
Luis_Zuniga
Thank you, "missmedic"!
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, gives two distinct meanings for faith:
"1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."
A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.
Posted by Luis_Zuniga 2 years ago
Luis_Zuniga
Has it been worth it, NathanDucloos?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.
When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells you what god demands, you have no reason to accept it as true. In fact, it should be rejected. If he claims to have knowledge which you are incapable of achieving, his beliefs must be rejected. If one has to accept the knowledge of others, he must use reason in order to decide which others to listen to. Again, if there is no evidence or contrary evidence for accepting a person's beliefs, it is not an act of reason. It is an act of faith.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
You see, the problem with what you're suggesting is that everyone who has ever been born is a non-believer in everything. This doesn't mean they're a blank slate, only that it is impossible for them to have an opinion before they've acquired knowledge about the concept. So since everyone starts off as a non-believer, they must be exposed to concepts before they can even have an opinion. If they are exposed and remain a non-believer, there is no change from their previous state. If they do choose to accept the concept, for whatever reason, then they have experienced a change in opinion and are now believers. So you see, it is the believer who is making the claim, not the non-believer, and it is the believer who must produce evidence, not the non-believer. If there is no proper evidence for the belief, the believer can only have faith in its existence, the non-believer doesn't need to have faith that the belief isn't real because there isn't proper evidence... They remain unconvinced. Now if a non-believer IS shown proper evidence and remains unconvinced, then they are just ignorant and stubborn.
As for atheists, there hasn't been one single piece of evidence ever produced to make us change our minds, we remain as unconvinced as we have always been, perhaps even more so.
Posted by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
Hm. . . Odd. . . Troll? You can't be serious. . . If you are, Im getting popcorn. . .
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.
There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant. The more you know the less you believe.
No votes have been placed for this debate.