The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Berend
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

atheism and theism are false by default

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...
Berend
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 605 times Debate No: 74696
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro


only know is true, i dont know is a position i know, as i have to see to see that i dont see a dog right now, and i am certain that i am not


false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now, as i dont know is true


belief=be lie, as i dont know is true=i can at best imagine it


imagination is false, and now is true, 0 and 1


Berend

Con

I accept the debate and begin with a simple clause that says it all. Atheism, by default, is not false. Having no belief in any deity ever thought of, and even the New Atheist view that there is no evidence, therefor lack of belief, are in fact the correct default positions.

You can only have one, you agree or disagree, no middle ground is available.

The argument that you can be agnostic is flawed because that simply states your knowledge, not your position. That is why, many, like myself, would correctly be claimed as agnostic areligious atheist (Triple A baby), meaning you have no belief in any deity or religion and have no knowledge on if said deity or religions of any kind are truly false or not.

You can not make yourself believe something, you either do or you don't. I wish to believe reincarnation is true, but I just can't, regardless.

Not following a claim is real position to follow. I can not say false because obviously there is no real debate on it being true or not.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

non belief=know or i dont know(agnostic), i am unaware of the claim, i have another religion etc
theism=belief=i accept imagination
a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism=i accept imagination
agnostic=i accept i dont know=i accept reality
default position on any imaginary claim=i dont know
imagination is unknonw, and reality is unbelieved
am i wearing a hat right now? you can at best imagine it, and you cant go back in time. you can believe me, disbelieve me, or accept you dont know. thats it
Berend

Con

I'll try to decipher your post, because it is very convoluted in of itself.

My friend, you are jumping all over the map with little logic applied too your rhetoric. At first you agree with me and then twist it to be something else. The clause of "a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism=i accept imagination" is a contradictory statement that is nonsensical.

First off, claiming belief equals a belief makes no sense, no matter how many gymnastic logic you throw out. A disbelief is just that, that of no, or absent, belief. A vacuum of the belief. theism doesn't claim there is no God of any kind, it simply means it rejects the notion there is one. Saying there is non with certainty is moving the level higher.

Agnostic, as I said, is stating your knowledge, not a position. So I fail to see my opponent counter my opening on how atheism is good by default and as such arguing from agnostic vs atheism is flawed.

"Imagination is unknown..."

Not really. There is always someone who knows, it's just a matter if they are alive or not.

"... and reality is unbelieved."

Sadly, this doesn't make much sense too my. If our audience understands your views, that is fine. You have a very low win ration, to which I assume is the lack of communication efficient and people holding incredulity to your ideas because of it. I am having a hard time understanding what you wish too imply and request you to be less vague and convoluted and more clear.

I don't see anything logical from you that has yet suggested that atheism is false by default.

"am i wearing a hat right now? you can at best imagine it, and you cant go back in time. you can believe me, disbelieve me, or accept you dont know. thats it"

You are star manning what atheism is. Atheism says I can not know if you are wearing a hat, but nothing suggest you are wearing it. So I will say you are not, but I can not fully know. Atheist agnostic. But that is also a false dichotomy on religion.

Atheism is forced, for the most part, to rely on science and math to explain the world as we know. There is absolutely no evidence for the claim you are wearing a hat, you simply say you are. As such with a deity, there is no evidence too support there is a deity. As such, it is logical to deny the belief of a deity being around and creating the world, especially when it holds contradictions and illogical fallacies, that you can say there is no God, but obviously I can not know for sure. 6 on the Richard Dawkin scale.

Wat atheism does is follow science, for most. With science we would discover all there is about the world and learn there is no evidence to ever support your claim you wear a hat, as such no reason to believe you do. A better comparison is me telling you I can fly and make a whistle out of my bottom when I do. But no one can hear it or see me, because I do not let them. The sound can no be heard by human ears or what technology can. That is me making a claim. A rather more important claim than you wearing a hat. You can believe it or don't believe it. You do not say you have no idea, you say it's false. But the best thing is to not outright deny it, but be skeptical.

Fence sitting is illogical, Pro, and as such is done by those who make indecisive decisions. That is why we can use science to see if any evidence sup[ports my claim, and if not and science actually shows why my claim might be more related to reality by means of nature and forces rather than simply a power as I claim, then we can deduce my claim is false.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

belief=non sense


a belief is a belief, a stone is a stone, a stone is not not a stone


absolutes=Existence


cause+effect=logic


there is no logic in fantasy, reality is logic



dude.. disbelief can never be non belief.


is it a non belief for you to believe my claim is false? is it a non believe for you to believe that i am not wearing a hat when i claim otherwise?


imagination is non sense


religious claims have nothing to do with knowledge.. there is no truth in the future, and no god in the past


i cant know imagination, and i cant believe in reality


i have no religion, i win all the debates i do.. it is impossible for you to win, even if you are physically god


know is true, is it true that i am wearing a hat right now? know is not false, matter is not imaginary


know=physical experience



atheism has nothing to do with science, unless you disbelieve science.. science is not a unicorn but i can believe in it







Berend

Con

I will cross-examine my opponents argument too me and address them followed by a counter to the claim and the topic.


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

"belief=non sense"


    • Depends on the belief.



"a belief is a belief, a stone is a stone, a stone is not not a stone"


    • The continuation of convoluted clauses.



"absolutes=Existence"


    • For one to speak of absolutes, you take fancy to the notion of agnosticism.



"cause+effect=logic"


    • No it doesn't. You obviously have never read even some of Stephen Hawking's work were he has addressed this issue. Not everything requires the cause and effect law.



"there is no logic in fantasy, reality is logic"


    • This has nothing to do with atheism, only theism.

    • Reality isn't logic, reality acceptance is logical.




"dude.. disbelief can never be non belief."


    • They are literally the same meaning. And atheism is directly disbelief, it is non-belief. It is without a belief. That is what the "a" stands for. Without. Without belief of deity(s).



"is it a non belief for you to believe my claim is false?"


    • That is contradictory. If I do not accept the belief you can fly, it isn't a belief that I do not believe. It is rejecting and following what we can learn via experiment and observation, via philosophical and rational thought. Critical thinking. You are asking a loaded question by assuming I hold a belief, that by your logic, everything must be a belief, even if ti is anti-belief. Making even agnosticism a belief, which puts you into a big hole.



"is it a non believe for you to believe that i am not wearing a hat when i claim otherwise?"


    • No, because I am not believing you are not wearing it, I simply reject the claim. A claim is generally something said to be true with, most times, no evidence. Following evidence isn't a belief. Is evidence argues against you, I can reject your belief. That doesn't make it a belief. You are asking loaded questions.



"imagination is non sense"


    • This has literally nothing to do with my stance. You are all over the place.



"religious claims have nothing to do with knowledge.."


    • No one said they did. And religious claims are generally claims to explain the world with no evidence, knowledge isn't needed. Knowledge is required for you to deduce the claims or not.



"there is no truth in the future, and no god in the past"


    • This makes absolutely no sense at all. You are making, what seems to be an absolute claim. You yourself are not making claims, making you completely missing your own points as with my own. You can not prove there was no Gods in the past, God needs to be defined also. There is truth in the future, it's silly to deny otherwise.



"i cant know imagination, and i cant believe in reality"


    • So you're an atheist, not an agnostic. A rather brutish atheist rather than an agnostic atheist. So now you are arguing, at first, that said position was flawed when it is your own position?



"i have no religion, i win all the debates i do.. it is impossible for you to win, even if you are physically god"


    • So you are also areligious. No offense here, but looking at your record, out of 197 debates, you have a 156 losing debate record and a total of 6 wins. 34 ties and a percentile ranking of 3.70%. For you to make claims like you winning in nonsensical manners while arguing really against yourself, you seem to lack self-awareness to see you are fighting yourself.



"know is true, is it true that i am wearing a hat right now? know is not false, matter is not imaginary"


    • You seem to be confused between metaphysical concepts and matter of the physical world while mixing it up in a knee-jerk fashion of a loaded question. I do not know if you are or not. I have no way to even test you, for me to give an answer I need to experiment if you are or not.



"know=physical experience"


    • No, it does not. Knowing is simply perceptual experience. You have no way to know if your truth is absolute or correct. That is the beauty of delusional minds.



"atheism has nothing to do with science, unless you disbelieve science.. science is not a unicorn but i can believe in it"


    • What? This makes no sense at all. I hate too sound rude, but after doing some research, you being a claimed 26-year-old, I have to ask: Are you mentally disabled?



    • Atheism is not claimed to have anything to do with science, but atheist only have really science and math, as I said already, to understand the world. We don't have a religion to give us baseless claims how things work, we can only use science to really explain things. I have already addressed this.





Conclusion


So to further conclude this. Atheism is not a false stance nor makes false premises. Atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief in God or Gods. The rejection of the claim, the belief, there are deities that made the world or have existed. Atheist generally rely on the use of mathematics, which is the only thing that can prove absolute, and science, which works to explain the world.

Because of this, atheism is not false stance by default, it is rather the more logical one because it normally uses skepticism on claims of deities, which is the logical conclusion. It makes no absolute stance on Gods, but chooses a side and claims no absolute.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

know=sense

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

kNow=now

life is true, true is now, your arm is life

i know god is false, as i dont know god

atheism=disbelief(believe that my claim is false)=belief(believe that my claim is true)=theism

beyond what i know is what i dont know, only know is true. know=physical experience=now

reality is cause and effect, cause and effect is logic. if you are human... close your eyes and read on to prove im wrong

no disbelief is in no way non belief.. you can believe my claim that i am wearing a hat, or beleive that i am not wearing a hat, 2 options, and the third option is i accept i dont know

right... if you dont believe you dont believe.. but disbelieve my claim and you are literally calling me a lier

if you disbelieve my claim, that i can fly, you believe that i can not fly, except you might be able to know other things here.. basicly you are implying disbelief dosnt exist. what is your positon on my claim that i am wearing a hat, if you believe that i am not?

unknown is non sense

all my arguments and claims are absolute, can never be defeated

truth is knowledge, i have no knowledge of the future, no memory. past=memory

i know my experience of now, i know god is false.

i have no beliefs, belief=false, know=true

votes determine nothing

metaphysical=mental=nothing=0

physical=something=1

what test could be suffisient for you to make in order for you to know that i am wearing a hat right now, but you still can at best imagine it? how about looking at a live video feed? do you know it then?

i am certain when i remember correctly, and certain when i am in doubt and i have to fill the blanks with imaginary ideas

science is a religion, as it relys on confirmation from machines. also i can at best beleive what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it

god=information

atheism is 100 percent can only be false in any case forever
Berend

Con

"atheism=disbelief(believe that my claim is false)=belief(believe that my claim is true)=theism"
  • No, oh my god, you don't even understand the definition of disbelief. Disbelief is the refusal to believe something is true. Atheism is the Disbelief or Lack of Belief in God or Gods. You are simply remolding definitions to fit your view, which is god awfully wrong.

"beyond what i know is what i dont know, only know is true. know=physical experience=now"
  • Once more, convoluted clauses that are nonsensical. Difficult to understand and have no real point.

"reality is cause and effect, cause and effect is logic. if you are human... close your eyes and read on to prove im wrong"

"no disbelief is in no way non belief.. you can believe my claim that i am wearing a hat, or beleive that i am not wearing a hat, 2 options, and the third option is i accept i dont know"
  • You only continue to prove me right.

"right... if you dont believe you dont believe.. but disbelieve my claim and you are literally calling me a lier"
  • No. Disbelieving your claim is refusing to believe a claim that has no evidence to back it, like God. Therefor we don't believe there is a God. It isn't a belief and it isn't claiming you are a liar.

"if you disbelieve my claim, that i can fly, you believe that i can not fly, except you might be able to know other things here.. basicly you are implying disbelief dosnt exist. what is your positon on my claim that i am wearing a hat, if you believe that i am not?"
  • Already addressed this enough in my last post. You are running in circles at this point.
  • By your logic, disbelieving means you believe claim is false. By agnosticism, you believe you do not know and believe you should sit on the fence and not make a logical choose via rational thought. So, you killed your own entire argument.

"unknown is non sense"

"all my arguments and claims are absolute, can never be defeated"
  • You defeated yourself. You basically have agreed with me more than once. If they can't be defeated, it's because they are so convoluted that they make no sense.
"truth is knowledge, i have no knowledge of the future, no memory. past=memory"
  • Knowledge isn't memory if that is what you claim.

"i know my experience of now, i know god is false."
  • You know God is false, therefor you are an atheist, hardcore at that. You are literally agreeing with me on the stance and showing, by your logic, it is logical to be an atheist, otherwise you kind of kill yourself knowingly accepting an illogical stance.



  • You know God is false (you do not), therefor you are a gnostic atheist. Thank you.

"i have no beliefs, belief=false, know=true"
  • Neither do atheist on the aspect of God. And you do have a belief, a quite deluded one at that, because you claim too know God is false. You have no evidence, therefor it is a claim, a belief. "Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."



  • So not only to do blatantly accept the stance you claim is "false" by default and is a belief, you accept and come out saying you are that stance and have no belief. You also misuse the words of the dictionary to suit your own illogical, ill-rational, sophomoric, asinine, convoluted claims and clauses all around. You have both, in this debate, agreed and disagreed at the same time. Congratulations, you won the internet.

"votes determine nothing"
  • They do actually. They do not determine reality, but they determine how your skill is at a debate and how your rhetoric is wrong or not. It shows you have been called on only to continue blatantly parroting information.

"metaphysical=mental=nothing=0"
  • You do not seem to even understand what metaphysical is.

"physical=something=1"
  • This isn't math, and you are not using mathematics to support yourself very well.

"what test could be suffisient for you to make in order for you to know that i am wearing a hat right now, but you still can at best imagine it? how about looking at a live video feed? do you know it then?"
  • Look up the scientific method. I am not going to spout how I can experiment, it doesn't matter so long as I can follow the method. It's self explanatory on ways one can do it.

"i am certain when i remember correctly, and certain when i am in doubt and i have to fill the blanks with imaginary ideas"

"science is a religion, as it relys on confirmation from machines. also i can at best beleive what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it"
  • As one who studies physics, no. It's not a religion, you again have no actual idea what definitions of words mean. You simply take religion based on a belief, a belief based on claims with no evidence and blind acceptance. That isn't science.
  • Science is following methods to determine how the world works. Claiming it is a religion shows you have no idea what science is. No one worships science, no one prays too science, no one believes science, what science says comes from humans experimenting and uncovering things. They change all the time when needed.
  • No, it doesn't rely on confirmation from machines. And even if it completely did, that doesn't make it a religion. You don't understand how the machinery with scientific experiments even work.

"god=information"
  • No it doesn't.

"atheism is 100 percent can only be false in any case forever"
  • What? Doesn't matter, you have already agreed with me and disagreed. Completely contradicting yourself left and right.

Points extended.

Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

lol..

am i wearing a hat? you can at best imagine it

only 3 position exist on any imaginary claim, belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know. 2 possibiltities, i am wearing it, or not

non belief=i accept i dont know
Berend

Con

Earlier points and conclusion extended. Nothing here warrants I need to say any more. Enough has been said for the people to make a vote.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by pressplay010 2 years ago
pressplay010
@Vi_spex oh that sounds good, have you had lunch yet? what did you have?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
today i might feel like i am.. instant antiprogramming butterfly dust magically inhaled electrical impulse amplified active neuron firering microscopic quantum lightning strike onset of joy
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i cant lose when im right
Posted by pressplay010 2 years ago
pressplay010
How are you today Vi_spex ? Do you think you will win this debate?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
some say unicorns exist
Posted by pressplay010 2 years ago
pressplay010
Con in R3-
"Are you mentally disabled?"

lol, you aren't the first to suggest that.
Posted by McHitler 2 years ago
McHitler
Well this is pretty much in the bag for con...
Posted by McHitler 2 years ago
McHitler
Well this is pretty much in the bag for con...
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i am.. antiprogramming butterfly dust magically inhaled electrical impulse active neuron firering microscopic quantum lightning strike onset of joy awarness
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 2 years ago
KroneckerDelta
vi_spexBerendTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were almost completely incomprehensible. As best I can tell, Pro was arguing that a disbelief is the same as a belief--i.e. disbelief is actually a form of belief. So Con won arguments when they stated: "You are simply remolding definitions to fit your view, which is god awfully wrong." Conduct goes to Con because I don't think Pro ever really made clear what the debate was or what their arguments were and, for the similar reasons, spelling/grammar go to Con.
Vote Placed by PointlessQuestions 2 years ago
PointlessQuestions
vi_spexBerendTied
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: Pro's Argument Is Extremely Nonsensical, Illogical And Hard To Follow. In Fact The Very Idea Of This Debate Topic Is Contradictory.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
vi_spexBerendTied
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 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: Pro's a-grammatical format was difficult to read and follow. S/G to Con. Pro did not adequately support his assertion, while Con provide good rebuttals and counter-arguments. Arguments to Con.