atheism is belief to the contrary, thats all
Debate Rounds (5)
theist=yes position on an imaginary claim
agnostic=I accept i dont know
only 3 positions exist on any imaginary claim
belief=i dont accept i dont know
non belief=i accept i dont know
Have a look at atheist.org, the website to your supposed 'religion', even it says that "Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion." This disproves your statement on the fact of is atheism is a belief or not.
why dont you believe in god?
you cant see me right now, and if i claim i am wearing a hat, a theist would say i am, an atheist would say i am not(imagine i am not), and an agnostic sees both sides for what they are, imaginary
science believer today call themselves atheists while truly being theists to science and these are the arguments you hear, Scientific arguments, but my claim is that atheism is purely disbelief, so to contrast, belief is purely theism, and science is a religion, as i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it
1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.
2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease.
A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The singular thing that groups all of the atheists together is their non belief in gods or supernatural beings. That means, since there are many religions out there with different idols, atheists are not bound to agree on anything further than that. Countless arguments have single-handedly proven that atheism is in fact no religion.
Does atheism have an eschatology? Eschatology is a "belief about the end of the world or the last things." Now, I'm sure that many atheists have some sort of beliefs about how the world might end, but those beliefs sure aren't clearly defined or uniform among all of us. In fact, any beliefs about the end of the world are accidental - that is to say, they are not a necessary part of atheism. There is absolutely, positively nothing inherent in the disbelief in gods that leads one to any opinions about the end of the world. Quite the opposite of how 'eschatology' is treated in a religion.
Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life - is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy.
atheism is the opposite of theism, but they are both not real, so it isnt like hot and Cold, but more like not Cold but hot and unhot, but there is no such thing in reality
these retorts are more like jokes.. they are not arguments, my hair is not atheism, atheism isnt a thing
religion is a position, on an imaginary claim, atheism is the no vi spex, you are not wearing a hat right now(if you now go to evidence it Means you rely on science)
religion=to rely on, while self is one
i am one is true
belief is theism, atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, disbelieving my claim is not, not believing it
how do you know the tooth fairy is not real?
how is believing in the tooth fairy different then belief in the christian god?
Brian1813 forfeited this round.
Various definitions of religion could be 1. Something one believes in and follows devotedly. or 2. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It"s a definition of religion that is so broad that it"s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But it is a hobby, not a religion.
One last thing. Some theists have responded to the "if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby" argument by pointing out that non stamp collectors don"t write books or blogs about not collecting stamps, don"t post anti stamp collecting ads on buses, don't ridicule stamp collectors, etc. This is meant to demonstrate that the "stamp collecting" analogy is weak. It actually demonstrates that the analogy is very good, since it highlights one of the main problems atheists have with many religious people.
Here"s the thing they are missing, and the real problem most atheists have with religion. If stamp collectors demanded that people who don"t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby. Or a religion.
I shall not compose another proof for round five, as Vi_spex has written only meaningless words. I will allow my opponent an equitable opportunity at the debate. Thanks you for reading, and I hope you'll vote for me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.