The Instigator
squirtdonthurt
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cognitive_Consonance
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The Athiest Defense

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Cognitive_Consonance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 59453
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

squirtdonthurt

Pro

My Argument

..... that some Atheist attempt to sit on the sidelines with a passive nuetral stance in the matters of the existence of God, meaning they will try to place themself in a position where they do not have to defend themself or make a claim making their stance undefeatable, seeing how you cannot validate or invalidate a claim that is never made and cannot debate against a positon that claims it does not have a position or claim this leads me to talk to thin air.

Athiest sometimes merely assert that they lack the beleif in God and conviently leave it there and rely soley on the simple phrase lack of beleif in God will automatically defeat the opposing position without them saying anything else. which makes the debate unfair since they never make a stance,claim,position to speak against.

If you have a point of view in ANYTHING you have a beleif if you have a beleif then you aslo have a posive claim within your belief, you do not arrive at your VIEW for no reason, the REASON is your Position and your CONCLUSION of that reason is your Claim

KNOWING THIS, I then Proceed to Take the Stance or position that If CON makes a arguement agaisnt me in this very debate, he must automatically defend his position, If he defends his position then he also has to prove his position and by doing this he can no longer take the passive nuetral stance.

Resolution Con must refute my position

Position

Athiest Take the sideline approach to avoid having to defend themself, seeking to run from the BOP in the same way a theif runs from the Cops

Argument

1 round Open arguement Plus end with a question

2 round rebuttals to arguments

3 round rebuttals Plus 1 question for opposing side

4 round rebuttals rebuttals

5 round closing arguments and Thank opponent for the Debate
Cognitive_Consonance

Con

First, I don't want anyone to vote for me on the basis of me being atheist, I dislike biased votes. Vote based solely on the argument.
Thank you.

Now, this argument is very flawed and a clear misunderstanding of 1. How debates work and 2. The atheist position.

In order for any debate or argument to occur there must be a position brought forth. Then an opposing position must negate the initial position. In this case theism is the initial position and atheism is the opposition to it. Atheism cannot exist without theism. Yet theism can exist without atheism. Atheism is simply the result of theism. Theism makes the initial claim "god exists", atheism acknowledges the claim and rejects it. Both hold a position. Atheism is never neutral, its the opposite of theism. Agnosticism is neutral.

For instance one will not approach someone and say "hey I don't believe in giglamoos...do you? If you do...prove they exist" and then the other person says "well first off, what's a giglamoo?" to where the first person replies "I just made it up, now let's debate". That makes no sense. The atheist will defend their position by saying "I dont believe you...therefore prove it". If the theist says "why don't you believe me?". The atheist says "BECAUSE you lack evidence ", It is now the theist job to prove it since they made the initial claim. The atheist NEVER has to disprove the theist claims....it's a logical fallacy called "Burden of proof".

Thanks
Debate Round No. 1
squirtdonthurt

Pro

Thank u for accepting the debate. My Opponent has put forth his opening argument and gave me clarification on things so I would like to thank my opponent for that correction. So I will establish that part where I agree so that we can take that off the table left for scraps in the trash, if he would like to debate points we already agree on, that would be his choice, if not, then we can see what is left to eat.

two Clarifications
1.Atheism is basically a negative position, so I am not asking my opponent to prove that God does not exist. That is far too difficult a proposition to impose upon anyone.

2.I made a mistake in Round 1 it says so that we were suppose to include our opening arguments and 1 question at the end of it. I myself forgot to do so, So I will ask it here on Round 2 and so can my opponent in his round 2. And then second question will remain as stated in Round 1 that another question should be posed on round 3.

Agreements
for a debate to occur a position must be brought forth
Atheism is never neutral, its the opposite of theism. Agnosticism is neutral.(Yes Atheism is not neutral so it must prove itself to be true due to a positive claim made )

Disagreements
My Opponent says Atheism cannot exist without Theism. My opponent without realizing it has refuted his own statement. By also saying Atheism is lack of belief if theism happened to disappear tomorrow, there would still be people without belief in a God. At that point while theism would exist as a CONCEPT, it would not exist as a practice. If not believing in a God is a natural state then Atheism is not about opposition to the CONCEPT of God, it is only non-belief IN Gods. would All atheist be erased from existence if theism didn't exist? No. Granted, No one would have created a word Atheism unless theism existed. But that's linguistics, not theology.

Question. My opponent says "BOTH HOLD A POISITON" in a debate, are you putting forth a position that doesn't need to be defended or true
Cognitive_Consonance

Con

Atheism cannot exist without theism. If theism ceased to exist, then the idea of god would cease to exist. If the idea of god ceased to exist then how can one disbelieve in something they know nothing of?(rhetorical auestion). If you NEVER heard of god, the term god was never made up, the idea never presented, then you cannot disbelieve it, you don't even know what it is. People 4000 years ago didn't disbelieve in cellphones. Cus the idea of cellphones was never presented. In order to hold a disbelief, a belief MUST first be presented. Concept of god was presented....atheism is simply the result. Every action has an equal and OPPOSITE reaction. Theism is the action, atheism is the equal and opposite reaction. You can't REact if an action never took place. How can one REact to an action that never happened? (Rhetorical question).

Answer: Atheism position is defended. Theists made a claim (they must prove their claim,the onus is on them)-they are the pprosecutors. Atheism disbelieves the claim made by theists-they are the defendants. The atheist defense is ...you said it, now provide proof of what you said. Until then we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Question: How can someone defend a position if there was never an offense presented? We can't defend against nothing,something MUST exist in order for us to defend.
Debate Round No. 2
squirtdonthurt

Pro

I'm Surprised my opponent still held to the stance of Atheism cannot exist without Theism. I was ready to move past that, as it is not the MEAT of the debate. As I stated before that its a linguistics issue and not a theological one. I allow my opponent to take back this stance.

6 rebuttals

1. If theism happened to disappear tomorrow, everyone would be without belief in god, aka atheists.
If suddenly everyone started believing in god tomorrow, everyone would have belief in god, aka theists. Both concepts that can exist independently of the other.

2. Substitute the belief of a god with some other form of fantasy. A common one is fairies. I do not believe in fairies. That does not mean there has to be someone out there who believes in them so I can justify my non-belief.

3. You don't need the existence of something to not believe in it. Someone has to have invented and mentioned gods in order for us to know what we don't believe, but we can still not believe whether there are believers or not.

4. Even if there was no theism, as in there was no belief in any God/s whatsoever, the thought of Gods would still remain as an idea. And just because there is no belief in the idea of Gods doesn't mean that there would be complete disbelief so atheism could exist even without theism.

5.There wouldn't be the word 'atheism', but the concept of a lack of god would exist (in the absence of a God).

6.A whole society could develop without religion, without making up a god of any kind to believe in; everyone in that society would be atheists and none of them would be theists.

Answer.
No you cant defend a position if there is no position to defend. I'm in agreement Hence my Round 1 Argument "seeing how you cannot validate or invalidate a claim that is never made and cannot debate against a position that claims it does not have a position or claim this leads me to talk to thin air"

Question
Would you say your position is not available to attack and examination?
Cognitive_Consonance

Con

1. You are not comprehending what is being said here. If theism NEVER existed...aka belief in GOD...then no one can disbelieve or have a lack of belief in GOD. God wouldn't be a subject, a word, an idea, a thought, a position...NOTHING. We cannot disbelieve or have a lack of belief in something that NOT ONE PERSON has ever heard of. How can you say they lack a belief in GOD...when GOD-the word, the idea, the being, the definition....doesn't even exist? Rhetorical....you can't use the word GOD anymorr...GOD doesnt exist in that.scenario. so they wouldnt have a lack if belief in god...that word is nonexistent in your scenario.

2. You can't substitute fairies with god..Because the idea of fairies EXIST...if it didn't exist, you wouldn't of used Fairies as an example. The concept of fairies had to be presented FIRST for you to even have knowledge of them..So yes, you have had to have knowledge of fairies to even come up with that word..Someone elses belief.

3. You keep repeating the same argument using diff.examples.

"Even if there was no theism, as in there was no belief in any God/s whatsoever, the thought of Gods would still remain as an idea."

^^^^you literally just proved my position correct.
To atheists that's all god is-an IDEA. God can't be an actual physical being to atheists,.that would contradict the whole concept of atheism.

5. The concept or lack of belief in GOD is what makes atheism what it is....if.you take GOD out of that.definition,..all you have is lack of belief..... The concept of GOD is what makes it atheism.

6. No everyone.wouldn't be atheists...same argument again. In.order to be atheists...the word,term,name,concept,idea.of GOD has to be present.

answer: You can attack the atheist position all you want. We are on defense remember? But the ONUS will ALWAYS rely on the person making the claim. We didn't make a claim, we simply rejected it.

I have no.question
Debate Round No. 3
squirtdonthurt

Pro

Thanks Opponent for interesting debate. :)
I only repeated the rebuttals it in different ways because some people grasp in different ways since neither of them stuck. Then I will chose 2 of them as my strongest refutation.

You don't need the existence of something to not believe in it. Someone has to have invented and mentioned gods in order for us to know what we don't believe, but we can still not believe whether there are believers or not.

There wouldn't be the word 'atheism', but the concept of a lack of god would exist (in the absence of a God). the concept of Atheism would still exist. We just wouldn't have a word for it.

So..sounds simply to me.
its impossible to remove the fact that there would be in reality an "absence of a God" You are still talking about linguistics, the words, they wont exist. That I agree. But The "absence of a God" will remain. and if the Absence of God can remain then again that's why said "A whole society could develop without religion, without making up a god of any kind to believe in; everyone in that society would be atheists and none of them would be theists."

There only 2k Characters I cannot use up another round again about a stance that wasn't the main case of the resolution.
MY POSITION was that the atheist that use the "lack of belief in God" stance for the purpose of removing itself from a positive claim so they do not have to defend it. Once you are introduced to an idea you cannot be neutral about it, CON has agreed that Atheism is not a neutral position, yet he tries to remain in a position that IS neutral wanted. I want Con to PROVE his position, but he himself says he cannot prove a position that doesn't exist. You cannot remain in a state of lack of belief once introduced to a concept as in being unaware of it altogether, if you ARE aware then how can you lack the belief of what you are NOT aware of, without being aware of it first?
Cognitive_Consonance

Con

No this isn't a linguistics thing. You made a hypothetical reality where theism didn't exist not the word theism...theism itself didnt exist, if theism itself doesn't exist then the word theism wouldn't exist either. This isn't a linguistic argument. The core basis of theism is GOD...that's apart of what theism is. You remove theism you remove god and everything that comes with it. You're still trying to incorporate god in the equation when you are creating a hypothetical reality where god (the belief, the idea, the word, the concept) doesn't exist. There would be no "absence of god" cus god wouldn't even exist for.it to be an absence of. If it doesn't exist then atheism (the disbelief in GOD) CANNOT exist because god (in every way) doesn't exist. You can't call it atheism anymore.

You keep saying positive claim..No it's a CLAIM...not positive or negative. We are UNABLE to be against something that was never initially presented in the first place. All.atheism is, is a defense. Atheism is NOT neutral for the 2nd time...its the opposite of theism,.that's not neutral.

answer: I never claimed atheism lacked a belief in something they are unaware of. We can definitely remain in a state of lack of belief once we're aware of it...that's the entire basis of atheism. You made us aware of your claim we reject it as truth. We CANNOT reject something that was never presented.

Example:
Me- " I have an invisible,all powerful poca dotted creature called a Chibicorizoo that I talk to" .....( I just presented the claim)

You- "what? That's amazing...but it's hard to believe. I don't believe you...prove it"...( you just rejected the claim)

Me- " I can't prove it. Can you prove it's not there?"...(me attempting to switch the ONUS onto you)

Logical fallacy.^^^^ furthermore you would've NEVER known about the creature until I made the claim.

Question: Prior to me making up a Chibicorizoo...how could you have possibly disbelieved it existed? How could you even lack a belief?
Debate Round No. 4
squirtdonthurt

Pro

This is the final Round. SO no further New arguments. I leave with my Closing

The Atheism cannot exist without Theism stance by Con to me I still believe is a linguistics issue. NOT smoking does not REQUIRE Cigarettes to exist. I used 2rounds to defend my point. Its not the main meat of the point I was originally trying to make, it was a point by Con that I simply responded to so I will move on.

My Position was not that God exists, so I did not need to defend this in this debate per se, My position was that the "Lack of belief of God" stance is used by atheist for the purpose of putting them self in a position they do no have to defend. If they do not have to defend, this is by default neutral.

Con says That in a debate BOTH HOLD A POSITION, if this is true then both sides must defend their position not one, yet Con tries to have only 1 side defend their position when he said he is not the one that has to defend a claim at the end of each of his rounds. This strategy by Con default essentially forces him in a neutral position, a position that that doesn't need to be defended. Since he said at the end of every round I was the one that needed to defend mine. He says he has a defense actually, which is to attack the other position. Con is fulfilling my very position from round 1 He is in the attempt to get in a situation where he does NOT have to defend himself.
Con is trying to put himself in some sort of non-cognition(non-intellectual contemplation of God)but if he does this than its a slippery slope and will classify even rocks birds and cell phones to also be atheists. A more accurate Stance would be "As a person I lack belief or lacking belief in God is for sentient beings only"

I enjoyed the debate with Con I did not intentionally try to misrepresent his position.
2k Characters I realized was much to short for adequate expression and rebuttals. Terms were not defined as we both should have done, and essentially both of us ended up fighting our own misconceptions.
Cognitive_Consonance

Con

There's nothing more to elaborate. You keep making the same argument. My points stand. Not smoking cigarettes is not.the same as disbelief in.cigarettes existing.. If cigarettes NEVER existed, never heard.of....then its IMPOSSIBLE to.fisbelieve.in.cigarettes....again same argument repeated with different words.

Again stated...atheist are the exact opposite of.theists,,.that's not and can never be a neutral position. Agnostics are in neutral position. Therefore we can just say...they all lack ANY belief and that would be an entirely different word.

Conclusion: in order to disbelieve a belief MUST be presented. You cannot disbelieve in something you have no knowledge of.

Atheist do take a position...its opposite of theists.

The defense is NO evidence. If a theist can present evidence then the atheist would no longer be...atheist
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by squirtdonthurt 3 years ago
squirtdonthurt
i cannot comment further specifically until after debate
Posted by Eggsample 3 years ago
Eggsample
I feel as if both sides strayed and ended up stuck in the same spot without getting anywhere. :/
Posted by squirtdonthurt 3 years ago
squirtdonthurt
Thats the thing it seems over the years the definitions have morphed and evolved. They will mean one thing in this 3 to 5year timespace and then something else in the next. When a term is argued in the wrong definiton it can get messy
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Read what's agnosticism and gnosticism and why atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive.
The fact that you may be a gnostic, doesn't make the debate unfair. It just makes it fair.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
squirtdonthurtCognitive_ConsonanceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ei, not ie. Con came close to the fact that the BOP is on those who assert, refuting Pro.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 3 years ago
Codedlogic
squirtdonthurtCognitive_ConsonanceTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Perhaps one of the worst debates I have come across yet. Pro made the claim that once you have heard of something you MUST have a position. Con thoroughly refuted this by bringing up the Agnostic position - disbelief in both propositions simultaneously (there is a god / there is no god). . . . Both Pro and Con seem to have a complete lack of understanding how BoP works. If someone makes the claim - there is a god or there is no god - the BoP is on them. BoP is ALWAYS on the person making the claim. More convincing argument goes to Con as they addressed the Null Set (agnosticism).