The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
khalifvhasreturned
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The Belief in atheist Dogma is a Mental Disorder

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 2 votes the winner is...
khalifvhasreturned
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,032 times Debate No: 103413
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Only a believer in atheist Dogma would be so demonic as to deny the existence of objective moral values. The atheist's position is clearly an irrational one: The atheist may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, and be rightfully considered a lunatic. In reality, the belief in atheist Dogma is a mental disorder that should be treated with a good dose of competent psychological help.

Because it fails as a worldview to provide the basis for objective moral values, the belief in atheist Dogma inevitably leads to corruption of moral character, which naturally leads to such horrible activities as murder, rape, racism, war, poverty, genocide, and all other sorts of man-made calamities. If they can't be helped by psychological treatment, then they should be deported. In fact, most psychologists define "insanity" as displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy, and that is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma is " a collection of beliefs and behaviors that fall outside the standard range of normalcy: https://www.youtube.com...
khalifvhasreturned

Con



Hello,






Thank you for proposing this fascinating debate. It doesn’t appear that pro has offered a serious argument in R1, so I shall merely accept and offer some opening remarks.






Insanity has fallen out of the clinical psychological and psychiatric nomenclature. What pro refers to by conduct outside of the bell-curve is deviancy. Deviancy is not always corresponding to a mental disorder. It’s deviant to have a genius IQ, but this does not correspond to a mental disorder.






Pro’s claim seems to be that the atheist cannot account for objective morals so he/she has a mental disorder. I need for pro to expound on whether this per se is sufficient for a mental disorder, or is it the asserted slippery slope into unethical behavior that is the culprit.






So, I shall need pro to detail what is the atheist dogma, why the position cannot account for objective morality, and how this translates into a mental disorder.






Contra, I shall argue that the question of morality is the question of ought, which therefore is tied to a state of affairs being better off. Which I shall argue is invariably a function of the pain-pleasure dichotomy. Additionally, I shall argue that objective does not entail transcendence.



ps: I'm not an atheist; this is just an untennable resolution.


Good luck.





Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"Deviancy is not always corresponding to a mental disorder. "

I did not make such a claim anyway, so your above statement is, at best, a straw man logical fallacy.

"Pro"s claim seems to be that the atheist cannot account for objective morals so he/she has a mental disorder."

Nope, I never made that claim either -- again, straw man on your part.

All you managed to do was posit a few wild and unsupported claims and commit at least three straw man logical fallacies. You're very new to debate, aren't you? LOL SMH

"Contra, I shall argue that the question of morality is the question of ought, which therefore is tied to a state of affairs being better off."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between better and worse.

"Which I shall argue is invariably a function of the pain-pleasure dichotomy."

No it isn't.

"Additionally, I shall argue that objective does not entail transcendence."

I didn't make such a claim either, so again, straw man on your part.

You just lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
khalifvhasreturned

Con

Initial Rebuttals:

1.
Pro says he never made the claim that deviancy is corresponding to a mental disorder per se.


Pro states:

"In fact, most psychologists define "insanity" as displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy, and that is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma is " a collection of beliefs and behaviors that fall outside the standard range of normalcy"


I never stated pro did; I was merely pointing out that his definition of insanity was conflated with deviancy, and further that insanity is an obsolete clinical concept.

Pro's argument is incredibly disorganized, so it's quite difficult to pin his thought, so I was attempting to inference.

2.Pro says that they did not make a claim that the failure to account for objective morality translates into a clinical issue. However, this is implied. Pro argues that the atheist cannot account for objective morality, which in turn degrades moral character which produces immoral acts that therefore are deviant, or insane per pro's nomenclature; ergo, the failure to account for objective morality entails a clinical disposition; this is entirely sequitur.

3.Pro says:

"Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between better and worse."

Well, I'm going to argue against this. However, pro fails to substantiate this assertion in the first place.

4.To my claim of better being a pain-pleasure dichotomous function, pro states:

"No it isn't"

This, again, is not an argument.

5.To my claim that I shall argue objective is not transcendent, pro states:

"I didn't make such a claim either, so again, straw man on your part."

Once again, implicitly pro did. The statement that without God there is no objective distinction between better and worse, is an appeal to transcendent.


To invoke the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, he writes:

"If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. When I speak of objective moral values, I mean moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not". This seems to be exactly what you are saying, and if you are not, please express the difference. The connection, to me, is that since the claim morality is not self-produced, then it must be transcendent, coming from God, and surely you believe God is transcendent."[1]

So, Pro has made no well-defined argument, and additionally, is quite rude.

A Mental Disorder:

I expected pro to explicate an account of morality; remember the onus is on pro, he is shifting the BoP. Technically, pro has made no substantial argument, so I don't have to say anything; however, I will address the proposition.

Recall, the proposition is if atheist dogma is a mental disorder. Pro has failed to define the atheist dogma, so it is hard to address the proposition.

However, let's see if we can extrapolate if the common-sense idea of atheism is.

The American Psychiatric Association defines mental illness as follows:

"Mental illnesses are health conditions involving changes in thinking, emotion or behavior (or a combination of these). Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities."[2]


It is a pretty hefty task to display that atheism is a mental disorder. Not only would pro need to show that there are no atheists who have the aforementioned problems, they would also need to show that the aetiology is atheism.

Furthermore, if pro wishes to assert that atheism is a mental illness, they will have to identify what sort it is, e.g., psychoses, dissociative, developmental, cognitive.

Also, clinically speaking, can pro rule out that the issues are caused by say, a vitamin deficiency, anemia, dehydration, a neurological ailment, liver failure; there are a multitude of physical ailments that manifests and are misdiagnosed as psychiatric. How can we be sure the atheist dogma is a psychological issue, if an issue at all?

Even so, how can pro differentiate atheism as a symptom from atheism as an aetiology?

Recall, the proposition is that atheist dogma is a mental disorder. Disorder, syndrome, diseased, symptom are all not the same thing.

A link to the DSM-IV will be in the references, I couldn't find the term anywhere. So, please clarify in what sense atheism is clinical, and additionally psychiatric.[3]

Atheism and Morality

Pro has not been very rigorous so I will not go all out, but I will give a short account of my thought on morality.

Pro gave no objection to my view that morality has to do with better or worse conduct, in which the better is moral and the worse is not.

so, to me this creates a translation to pain or pleasure. Now, this is the only context in which morality makes sense. For example, imagine a state of affairs in which there are only rocks. How does morality exist here? Imagine a state of affairs in which there are only P-Zombies, how would it exist there. If there is no property of consciousness, there is no morality; thus, morality is only referential to consciousness.

Now, the University of Chicago describes Searle's ontological distinctions as follows:

"Second, there is an ontological variety of the objectivity/subjectivity distinction, which concerns the nature of a thing. Some things have a subjective sort of existence (tickles and itches), and others have an objective existence (mountains and architectonic plates). Searle argues that there are no conceptual problems with the project of carrying out epistemically objective investigations of ontologically subjective states."[4]

All things that exist because they are experienced are ontologically subjective, thus sense morality only makes sense in mental context, it is ontologically subjective. However, that doesn't preclude an epistemically objective account of it, i.e., it isn't a matter of opinion.


Now, if there were no minds, there would be no math because only minds can produce math. Hence, the equation: 2+2=4 can only exist in the context of mind; it is not ontologically objective. Where do you see this per se in nature? A mind has to express it and apply it to an ontologically objective set of things.

So, what is it about math that allows it to be epistemically objective yet ontologically subjective? It is constructed. That is, it's merely how we've designed it. Likewise, morality's property of better or worse is how we've defined the thing, e.g., the oughtness, or shouldness of it. What had a mindless entity ought to do? The question is incoherent.

Now, if one says 2+2=5, this is objectively wrong. One can't just say we have a different view of math. Likewise, to say an act wasn't wrong isn't merely opinion; this is because it is a function of pain and pleasure, something also ontologically subjective but epistemically objective.

Now, the nexus of better and pleasure is apodictic. By pleasure, we aren't only saying x makes me feel good, we are concerned with the pleasure of all parties. And we aren't only talking about immediate pleasure, but also the long run. When we say X shouldn't murder, we are saying that murder would result in a net decrease of well being. However, we don't analyze these things ad hoc, we have a rule that says not to murder because it has such a propensity.

I'll leave it to you to object, but since pleasure is an ontologically subjective property, we can know it because we are conscious; there is not transcendent appeal needed. I will clarify things next round; I'm out of room.

References:

[1]http://commonsenseatheism.com...

[2]https://www.psychiatry.org...

[3]https://justines2010blog.files.wordpress.com...

[4]https://lucian.uchicago.edu...


Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"I was merely pointing out that his definition of insanity was conflated with deviancy, and further that insanity is an obsolete clinical concept."

You were wrong on both counts, though.

"Pro says that they did not make a claim that the failure to account for objective morality translates into a clinical issue."

No, I never said that -- stop lying.

" However, this is implied."

No it isn't.

" Pro argues that the atheist cannot account for objective morality, which in turn degrades moral character which produces immoral acts that therefore are deviant, or insane per pro's nomenclature; ergo, the failure to account for objective morality entails a clinical disposition; this is entirely sequitur."

I never made the statements you claimed I made above -- that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

3.Pro says:

"Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between better and worse."

Finally, you actually quoted me correctly -- one time -- out of all the other ones that were merely straw man logical fallacies on your part! Congratulations! Maybe this means that you'll actually become an honest person one day.

"4.To my claim of better being a pain-pleasure dichotomous function, pro states:"

"No it isn't"

"This, again, is not an argument."

It is a response to your non-argument, for which you offered exactly zero evidence.

"To my claim that I shall argue objective is not transcendent, pro states:"

"I didn't make such a claim either, so again, straw man on your part."

"Once again, implicitly pro did."

No I didn't: Stop lying.

" The statement that without God there is no objective distinction between better and worse, is an appeal to transcendent."

I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man on your part. You're really bad at this!

"...remember the onus is on pro...."

In actual debate, the onus for evidence is equally on both sides. You are obviously unfamiliar with actual debate, however, so I will forgive your ignorance of that fact. Besides, no evidence from you = good news for me! =)

"...if pro wishes to assert that atheism is a mental illness...."

Again, not what I said, so again, straw man on your part.

"so, to me this creates a translation to pain or pleasure."

That is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact. "to me," you said. LOL SMH =)

"All things that exist because they are experienced are ontologically subjective, thus sense morality only makes sense in mental context, it is ontologically subjective."

Oh, you poor kid -- you don't know what the word "subjective" means! LOL get a dictionary maybe?

"Hence, the equation: 2+2=4 can only exist in the context of mind; it is not ontologically objective."

Actually, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true.

"What had a mindless entity ought to do? The question is incoherent."

Well, it is your question, not mine, so there's no surprise that it's incoherent -- so is the rest of your ridiculous and sophomoric drivel.

"Now, if one says 2+2=5, this is objectively wrong."

Yes: It is objectively wrong because 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively right.

"Likewise, to say an act wasn't wrong isn't merely opinion; this is because it is a function of pain and pleasure"

No it isn't.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
khalifvhasreturned

Con

To my note on the clinical unsoundness of insanity,

pro states:

"You were wrong on both counts, though."

Pro has offered no reason as to why I am incorrect: In the entire DSM IV , there is only one entry of the word "insanity" and it is in the context of the effects of Hallucinogen-Related Disorders--"Tearfulness and anxiety may become intense, with dread of insanity or death." Insanity per se is not a symptom of anything, only the fear of it can be a symptom.


I said:""Pro says that they did not make a claim that the failure to account for objective morality translates into a clinical issue."

Pro says: "
No, I never said that -- stop lying."

However, I said: "Pro"s claim seems to be that the atheist cannot account for objective morals so he/she has a mental disorder"

Pro says: "Nope, I never made that claim either -- again, straw man on your part."

So which is it? This a contradiction.

I said: "Pro argues that the atheist cannot account for objective morality, which in turn degrades moral character which produces immoral acts that therefore are deviant, or insane per pro's nomenclature; ergo, the failure to account for objective morality entails a clinical disposition; this is entirely sequitur."

Pro says: "I never made the statements you claimed I made above -- that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part."

However, pro exactly says this: "Because it fails as a worldview to provide the basis for objective moral values, the belief in atheist Dogma inevitably leads to corruption of moral character, which naturally leads to such horrible activities as murder, rape, racism, war, poverty, genocide, and all other sorts of man-made calamities. If they can't be helped by psychological treatment, then they should be deported. In fact, most psychologists define "insanity" as displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy, and that is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma is " a collection of beliefs and behaviors that fall outside the standard range of normalcy"

"It is a response to your non-argument, for which you offered exactly zero evidence."

Well, I actually gave a brief argument in R2 to which you didn't respond.

Pro asserts the onus is shared; no, the BoP is always on pro; everyone knows this.

Pro says they never made the assertion that atheism is a mental illness; LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION.

Pro says:"Oh, you poor kid -- you don't know what the word "subjective" means! LOL get a dictionary maybe?"

I gave an account of what I meant by ontologically subjective, i.e., relating to a SUBJECT.


Pro says :"Actually, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true."

Yes, I conveyed it's EPISTEMICALLY objective, not ONTOLOGICALLY.

Pro says:"Well, it is your question, not mine, so there's no surprise that it's incoherent -- so is the rest of your ridiculous and sophomoric drivel."

It was rhetorical.

Remember, the resolution is: "The Belief in atheist Dogma is a Mental Disorder".


I gave a thorough account of why this would be incredibly difficult; pro has given no differential diagnosis, no account of what kind of mental disorder, etc.

Pro has put forth such ridiculous trolling that I cannot bring myself to dignify this with a response. Voters, pro has in no way upheld the BoP.


Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Thank you all for so many kind and intelligent posts.

My engagement on this site was intended, from the beginning, to be a nothing more than a temporary experiment.

I didn't know specifically when it was going to end, until this evening: My girlfriend, Bhaktin Caroline, said something to me that inspired me to make tonight the end of the experiment.

Bhaktin Caroline matters much, much more than this website.

If you are still feeling overly attached after I leave, I apologize, but I will still be leaving nonetheless: I won't be engaging in any further debates, arguments, or conversations on this site, and nor will I be reading any further posts uploaded by its kind and intelligent members -- starting now.

You can argue amongst yourselves, from now on.

Good-bye! =)
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
It so happens that an overwhelming majority of people who believe in God and disbelieve in God are calling you stupid.

Clearly God has nothing to do with your idiocy.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between wisdom and stupidity.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
Purushadasa is so stupid.

His entire argument is pure denial. It's like something a 10 year old would do. The man certainly has no clue how to debate.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Actually, I won this debate.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 11 months ago
FanboyMctroll
Purushadasa looks like you are losing this debate

What do you have to say now BURN!!!!
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Yes, I do get to decide who wins.
Posted by thomas12354 11 months ago
thomas12354
To the Pro's side i believe you misunderstand the point that you are trying to prove to others your point you do not get to decide who wins it is up to the others who witness and read your debate. If you constantly say you lost the debate thank you for your time, it hurts your own argument as you appear to be unwilling to any other opinion therefore missing the point of debating and not actually targeting your audience and therefore not here to change minds but make yourself feel better.
Posted by thomas12354 11 months ago
thomas12354
To the Pro's side i believe you misunderstand the point that you are trying to prove to others your point you do not get to decide who wins it is up to the others who witness and read your debate. If you constantly say you lost the debate thank you for your time, it hurts your own argument as you appear to be unwilling to any other opinion therefore missing the point of debating and not actually targeting your audience and therefore not here to change minds but make yourself feel better.
Posted by thomas12354 11 months ago
thomas12354
To the Pro's side i believe you misunderstand the point that you are trying to prove to others your point you do not get to decide who wins it is up to the others who witness and read your debate. If you constantly say you lost the debate thank you for your time, it hurts your own argument as you appear to be unwilling to any other opinion therefore missing the point of debating and not actually targeting your audience and therefore not here to change minds but make yourself feel better.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasakhalifvhasreturnedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Debating with Purushadasa is an exercise in frustration. Con deserves 7 points just for keeping his cool.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 11 months ago
Emilrose
PurushadasakhalifvhasreturnedTied
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: Pro failed to clarify/offer any definitions for this debate in round one. Nevertheless, Con dealt with the resolution at hand and argued that atheism (or lack of belief in God) does not equate mental disorder--using a scientific basis for his argument. Con used four sources in round two, all of which Pro failed to address in the debate. Moreover key points/rebuttals made by Con were ultimately dropped by Pro, therefore, I vote CON.