The Instigator
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Belief of Atheism is Self-Refuting

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,138 times Debate No: 22508
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (55)
Votes (4)

 

Zaradi

Pro

Alright. Religion debate. Fun...

I really don't know why I'm doing this. Whoever accepts this is probably going to get an easy win, as I horribly suck at these kinds of debates. But my mind has been taking me to weird places as of late, and at the current moment I find the concept of atheism to be quite stupid.

I'll try to phrase my thoughts in a syllogism, that I will defend and explain in the next round.

To start with, I'll define atheism as the belief that no god exists, i.e. a god cannot possibly exist. With any sort of differentiating probability, we leave the realm of atheism and enter into agnosticism, which isn't what I intend to debate. We will also specify the God to the characteristics of the Judeo/Christian God. Anyway, onto the syllogism:

1. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
2. God is a supernatural being.
3. If God is a supernatural being, then there is no direct physical evidence to His existence.
4. If there is no direct physical evidence, then we cannot confirm nor deny God's existence.
5. If there is no physical evidence, one would have to be a supernatural being to confirm that God does not exist.
6. If atheism is true, then atheists must be gods.
7. Atheism is the belief that no God exists.
8. Atheism is self-refuting.

Some ground rules that I hope will be unecessary for me to type out:
1. First round is acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. General stuff.
2. In the event of a forfeit, give all points to the victor. I put this in here since I'm likely to get my a.ss kicked, and will need to figure out what will happen if I forfeit.
3. No semantics. Please, we all understand what the resolution really means. If I have to go through the resolution and define every syllable, I will. But I would rather not do that.

With that all done, I await an opponent. Feel free to ask for clarification on rules or definitions in the comments.
lannan13

Con

I accept. *sigh* I just hope this is better thatn the last time.
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Pro

Am I the only one who finds it slightly ironic that Lannan, who is a catholic, is accepting a debate defending atheism, which posits that his God does not exist? Funny little non-debate related thought. Anyway, I'll explain the syllogism that I posted last round.

1. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

Definitional. By agreeing to debate, he agreed to the definition.

2. God is a supernatural being.

A characteristic commonly associated with the Judeo/Christian God. Thus, also being definitional.

3. If God is a supernatural being, then there is no direct physical evidence to His existence.

Here's where the real fun starts. Lets consider things for a moment. Has there been any direct physical sightings of God, outside of the Bible? No. Are there physical signs that we can see that prove the existence of God? No. Because he is a supernatural being, and we as humans are not supernatural, we have no direct evidence to prove the supernatural. Thus, we have no direct evidence to prove His existence.

My opponent may try to assert that we can use logic, which is grounded in the physical world, to prove the existence of God. However, this response is flawed because it doesn't directly prove the existence of God. We can logically follow a train of thought and arrive at some conclusion, but that doesn't always make the conclusion to be a true conclusion. Lets say that I have the following syllogism:

1. When it rains, the ground gets wet.
2. The ground is wet.
3. It has rained recently.

We can see that the conclusion logically follows from the two premises. But let's also look at the next syllogism:

1. When it's snowing, there is snow on the ground.
2. There is snow on the ground.
3. Therefore, it's snowing.

While the conclusion logically follows from the two premises, the conclusion itself is false. While it is true that if it is snowing outside, there will be snow on the ground, however that's not the only time snow can be on the ground. If the weather is cold enough, snow can last for hours or days after the original snow storm. So while there is snow on the ground, it could possibly not be snowing. Therefore, logic cannot be definitively used to prove God's existence.

4. If there is no direct physical evidence, then we cannot confirm nor deny God's existence.

Follows from premise three.

5. If there is no physical evidence, one would have to be a supernatural being to confirm that God does not exist.

This premise can easily be proven true. Lets look at our physical world. Can we confirm that an apple exists? Yes, as we have physical evidence (i.e. apple trees that grow apples) to prove that they exist. Likewise, we can also confirm that the laptop that I am currently typing on exists, as I have direct physical evidence that it does (i.e. the fact that I can type on it and make characters appear on the screen). But God is a supernatural being, which we cannot confirm using physical methods. In order to confirm something supernatural exists, one would have to be supernatural themselves (i.e. to prove that ghosts exist, one would have to by a medium to the dead).

6. If atheism is true, then atheists must be gods.

Follows from premises 1, 2, and 5. If atheism is the belief that no god exists, and god is a supernatural being, one would have to be a supernatural being to definitively claim that he doesn't exist. In order to do that, one would have to be a supernatural being to do it. Since god is a supernatural being, atheists would have to be gods.

7. Atheism is the belief that no God exists.

Follows from the definition, which is in direct contrast to premise six. If atheists are gods, but atheism is the belief that no God exists, how is this even possible?

8. Atheism is self-refuting.

Follows from premises 6 and 7.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I feel that I have sufficiently proved that the concept of atheism is self-refuting. I invite my opponent to try to disprove it.
lannan13

Con

1 and 2 don't need refuted.
Here's an understanding on what God is http://www.doesgodexist.org...
3-5 (they're technically the same)
He states that there is no proof of God outside of the Bible, well he is wrong. God created the universe. Many people say he didn't well lets look at it this way. Explosion according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com... violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction. This is otherwise an accident. According to the second law of Thermodynamics http://answers.yahoo.com... that matter can't be created or destroyed, which means the big bang couldn't have happend without someone or something to start it.
Then there are miracle. You know unexplained things that happen.
We can comfirm hauntings.
hauntings are Supernatural
God is Supernatural
Therefore we can explain God


6. We have defined God as Supernatural. Now you say atheists are Gods. But they are just normal human beings therefore they can't be God and your arguement here is illogical.

7. This further's the fact I stated in 6. (are you thinking out loud.)


Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Pro

So my opponent's arguments only really adress the arguments coming out of premise three. He tries to claim that 3, 4, and 5 all say the same thing, but this is vastly false. 4 is the conclusion of what is implied by 3. Five occurs if 3 is true. They don't say the same thing at all. Insofar as you concede 4 and 5, I only need to refute his arguments for 3, and the vast majority of his last round goes away.

So my opponent attempts to show physical proof that the Big Bang theory confirms that God must exist. This, of course, only begs the question as to was the Big Bang the start of the universe? There are plenty of other theories that caused the creation of the universe and life that exist outside of his arguments. I never state anywhere that the Big Bang was the start of the universe. He merely asserts that it was. So since we can't confirm that this was the start of the universe, this argument holds no ground.

He then tries to say that the miracles and supernatural occurances provide us with physical evidence. But again, this is all supernatural occurances, as my opponent concedes, which is not the same thing as physical evidence. As we humans exist in the physical world, not in the supernatural, supernatural occurances do not count as physical evidence. They are two entirely different realms.

With his arguments against my premise three refuted, it takes out the vast majority of his last rebuttal. This also means that my syllogism flows, for the vast part, uninterrupted.

He tries to put an argument against premise six, saying that because humans are not supernatural, then the premise is illogical. But as I clearly have pointed out through the conceded premise five, if we have no direct physical proof to God's existence, one would have to be supernatural to definitively claim that God doesn't exist. It logically follows. But this would be contradictory with the entire premise of atheism, as my 7th premise points out, which makes the entire theory self-refuting.

So, the debate breaks down pretty easily:
1. The vast majority of my premises have gone conceded.
2. His arguments against premise three all fall.
3. I'm logically proving that if atheism is true, then atheism can't be true, thus making it self-refuting.

Thus, you vote pro.
lannan13

Con

So my opponent attempts to show physical proof that the Big Bang theory confirms that God must exist. This, of course, only begs the question as to was the Big Bang the start of the universe? There are plenty of other theories that caused the creation of the universe and life that exist outside of his arguments. I never state anywhere that the Big Bang was the start of the universe. He merely asserts that it was. So since we can't confirm that this was the start of the universe, this argument holds no ground.
I would like to here these other theories. I never said you said it I said it was an example.


He then tries to say that the miracles and supernatural occurances provide us with physical evidence. But again, this is all supernatural occurances, as my opponent concedes, which is not the same thing as physical evidence. As we humans exist in the physical world, not in the supernatural, supernatural occurances do not count as physical evidence. They are two entirely different realms.

Wrong here are some sites that say other wise http://dsc.discovery.com..., http://members.shaw.ca..., and http://www.uark.edu...

With his arguments against my premise three refuted, it takes out the vast majority of his last rebuttal. This also means that my syllogism flows, for the vast part, uninterrupted.

He tries to put an argument against premise six, saying that because humans are not supernatural, then the premise is illogical. But as I clearly have pointed out through the conceded premise five, if we have no direct physical proof to God's existence, one would have to be supernatural to definitively claim that God doesn't exist. It logically follows. But this would be contradictory with the entire premise of atheism, as my 7th premise points out, which makes the entire theory self-refuting.

So, the debate breaks down pretty easily:
1. The vast majority of my premises have gone conceded.
2. His arguments against premise three all fall.
3. I'm logically proving that if atheism is true, then atheism can't be true, thus making it self-refuting.




So state that atheists are Gods but you go and say God doesn't exsist therefore you contradict yourself.
We can comfirm hauntings.
hauntings are Supernatural
God is Supernatural
Therefore we can explain God
You just ignore my arguements and say mine are blunt. WTF.
Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Pro

I would've posted sooner, but I was a bit distraught at the lack of actual effort put into my opponent's last round that I had to take a breater and refresh my mind with other things before I could come back to here. I'd also like to point out that while my opponent's last rounds seems impressive with the massives amounts of text and bolding in it, he posted a total of nine sentances of his own. Needless to say, I'm a little dissapointed. Regardless, we shall continue forwards.

"I would like to here[sic] these other theories."

You want other theories? You shall have them. Three theories that have the potential to oust the Big Bang theory, coming right up!
1. The Incredible Bulk [1]
2. Time's Arrow [2]
3. The Nows have it [3]

As I am fully providing other possible origins of the universe that answer back for the Big Bang, this can't be used as evidence against me.

"Wrong here are some sites that say otherwise..."

I'd absolutely love to point out that my opponent isn't actually making any arguments against this. He clearly misconstrues posting sources as the same thing as posting arguments, which isn't the case. If this were true, all of our rounds would just be different sources with different arguments for our side and against our opponent's side. It would make debate rounds so unreadable and so undigestable that no one would ever be able to vote! We have to come up with our own arguments, using our own words, and not just say "No, you're wrong! Look at what these guys did!" *copy/paste a bunch of URLs* "There! See!?"

Insofar as my opponent actually isn't posting an argument of his own, I refuse to refute this until he makes his own argument. If he doesn't make his own argument, a deduction of the conduct point would be an appropriate response.

In so far as he doesn't actually post an argument against this, it still is clearly taking out his argument for supernatural evidence (i.e. hauntings and the like). Thus, my syllogism still flows perfectly and unrefuted. Because my syllogism still stands, you still vote for the pro debater.

I do hope for better argumentation from my opponent in the rounds to come.

Sources:

[1] http://discovermagazine.com...=
[2] http://discovermagazine.com...=
[3] http://discovermagazine.com...;
lannan13

Con

I guess it's over
Debate Round No. 4
Zaradi

Pro

Since my opponent, more or less, forfeits the last round, it counts as a forfeit as per the second rule.
Thus, all 7 points should go to me.
Extend all my arguments. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 5
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
@ahopele- Having no credible knowledge and having no knowledge can be the same thing. If a person does not believe that the knowledge he/she has acquired is credible, then they will believe that they have no actual knowledge about the subject or entity being discussed.

Belief is just a strong opinion.
It takes credible knowledge(credible knowledge is subjective to each person) to form an opinion.
If the person has no knowledge they believe to be credible, then they will not form an opinion.
Posted by ahopele 5 years ago
ahopele
@Zaradi I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore lol. All I know is that we can't control what we believe. So in that sense, belief isn't necessarily a choice. If you told me you were a billionaire, and I didn't believe you, that's in my nature. I can't just choose to believe you if I really don't. But I do understand your previous arguments. I'm just going to have to respectfully disagree. Good talk. Lol.
Posted by ahopele 5 years ago
ahopele
@IFLYHIGH your neighbor example was a good analogy. Ok now i'm convinced there's an inbetween in belief. I'm still not convinced however, that there's an inbetween in believing whether a god exists. Every culture has had their own beliefs in a god, thus they have knowledge of what a god is. Someone can only be inbetween if they have no knowledge of what a god is. There isn't anybody in the world who doesn't know what a god is. Except for babies, but you know what I mean.
Posted by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
*second sentence-

Not knowing, just not having knowledge about the entity or subject.
Posted by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
@ahopele- No I did not intend to misspell your name, but I laughed really hard when you pointed it out. That is literally how I read it the first time- weird.

Anyways, you can not have believe or not believe in something you don't have knowledge about. Not knowing, just having information about the entity or subject. There are people who don't have any credible knowledge about god, so they haven't formed a belief yet.

Example, Did you have an opinion as to if my neighbor is a serial killer before I just mentioned him in this sentence? You probably did not have an opinion because you had no prior knowledge. You neither believed nor disbelieved.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
@ahopele:

Of course an argument can be convincing, yet not enough to make you to want to change your beliefs. You make convincing arguments, but I don't find them necessarily convincing enough to change what I believe. An argument can be convincing in nature, but not change my belief. If a person were stubborn or arrogant, it wouldn't matter how convincing the argument was: the person wouldn't ever make the choice to believe it.

Also, I just used arguments for God as an example. We can use arguments AGAINST god and reach the same point, or any sort of argument.
Posted by ahopele 5 years ago
ahopele
@Zaradi hmm...lol. I don't agree at all. If you find an argument convincing, but it doesn't convince you into changing your beliefs, I wouldn't say you're convinced at all. But as far as arguments for the existence of a god, there are no good arguments. Almost every argument (if not all) for the existence of a god is a fallacy.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
@ahopele:

True, but I can be convinced by something, yet not believe in it. For example, there are plenty of good arguments for God's existence (The Argument from Logic, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, etc.) but this does not mean I automatically believe in God because those arguments are convincing. In order to take a convincing argument and make it a belief, you have to make some sort of mental or psycological change to then believe that argument and what it advocates for.
Posted by ahopele 5 years ago
ahopele
Oh before I forget, @IFLYHIGH did you intentionally misspell my username to make fun of me? You're an immature idiot who also needs to learn what an agnostic is.
Posted by ahopele 5 years ago
ahopele
@IFLYHIGH *sigh* I explained that in my previous comments. An agnostic doesn't know whether a god exists or not, but that is irrelevant to whether he/she actually believes if a god exists. I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't know if a god exists but I don't believe a god exists (and no, I didn't make that up, look it up). You either believe or you don't. "Knowing" whether it's true is irrelevant.

@Zaradi Ok good point. But my point is that you can't actually control what you believe. You can't control what convinces you.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Zaradilannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: kittens
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Zaradilannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
Zaradilannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Giving all 7 points to Con as per debate rules. But it's a shame he didn't approach me with this debate first.
Vote Placed by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
Zaradilannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: That was pitiful con. Just pitiful. Conduct to Zaradi for Lannan's FF.