The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chaosism
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, theism

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...
Chaosism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,674 times Debate No: 72399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (64)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

am i wearing a hat as i type this? you have to imagine it
Chaosism

Con

I shall accept your challenge! It is my pleasure to debate you, good sir!

Contrary to your statement, I can simply not hold a belief that you are wearing a hat.

Definition:
Disbelief - "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." [1]

Not everything in the world is true or false; sometimes, there is a middle-ground or gray-area.

[1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you dont have the ability to disbelieve? what if i tell you i have a dragon chained up in my backyard?

it is either true or false, there is no in between
Chaosism

Con

Ah, but there IS an in-between.

Unlike your hat, I hold that the dragon claim is false, based on my belief that dragons do not exist. Now, both of these are beliefs on my part.

Let us reexamine your previous hat scenario in detail...

So, the TRUTH is a dichotomy, which mean that one must be true and that both cannot be true. The two possible truths here are:
(A) You are wearing a hat -or- (B) You are not wearing a hat

Firstly, note that belief is not reliant on truth, and that it is fully possible for one to believe that something is true when it is in fact, false in reality.

Now, in order for me to believe either (A) or (B), I would have to believe that the claim was true. In both of these cases, I would be making a positive claim, or assertion, in which case, I would possess belief. If these were the only two options, you would be right. However, though the *truth* may be a dichotomy, one's *belief* is not.

Let us take a closer look a statement (A). We know that I could say (1) "I believe you are wearing a hat" which would be a positive claim. However, the opposite thing I can say is (2) "I do not believe that you are wearing a hat", which is a rejection of that claim, and therefore, a *disbelief*.

Both sides of this argument have their own, sub-argument, each of which is a dichotomy. One side is the claim (or belief), and the other is the rejection of that claim (lack of belief). So, in this situation, we have two options among two dichotomies:

(A)(1) "I believe that you are wearing a hat"
(A)(2) "I do not believe that you are wearing a hat"
(B)(1) "I believe that you are not wearing a hat"
(B)(2) "I do not believe that you are not wearing a hat"

If the wording of the above seems confusing (especially (B)(2) !), simply use the word, "convinced", instead:

(A)(1) "I am convinced that you are wearing a hat" --(belief)
(A)(2) "I am not convinced that you are wearing a hat" --(not a belief)
(B)(1) "I am convinced that you are not wearing a hat" --(belief)
(B)(2) "I am not convinced that you are not wearing a hat" --(not a belief)

Moving on, since both of the sub-arguments of (A) and (B) are dichotomies (they are since one either accepts the claim or rejects it, and cannot do both), any individual must have a position in each of them. There are four possible combinations of positions, here (I am going to drop the parenthesis for clarity):

#1 - A1 / B1
#2 - A1 / B2
#3 - A2 / B1
#4 - A2 / B2

Let us now assign the corresponding statements to each of there groups:

#1 - A1 / B1 - This stance is inherently contradictory and is a paradox, so it is impossible (unless you are insane).
"I believe that you are wearing a hat"
"I believe that you are not wearing a hat"

#2 - A1 / B2 - The second statement is redundant, since the first implies that you lack belief that he isn't wearing a hat.
"I believe that you are wearing a hat"
"I do not believe that you are not wearing a hat"

#3 - A2 / B1 - This is the same as above; the first statement is redundant by the second.
"I do not believe that you are wearing a hat"
"I believe that you are not wearing a hat"

#4 - A2 / B2 - Note that THIS stance does not hold ANY positive belief.
"I do not believe that you are wearing a hat"
"I do not believe that you are not wearing a hat"

So, regarding your original statement, I reside in stance #4, in that I hold NO BELIEF that you are, or are not, wearing a hat.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

false dosnt exist in reality


religion is a position on an imaginary claim, you can either believe, disbelieve, or accept you dont know i am wearing a hat


you can believe my claim, disbelieve it, or accept you dont know


lack of belief=i know or i accept i dont know


disbelief="i believe that you are not wearing a hat"




if your position is that "you dont believe that i am wearing a hat", then why dont you believe i am wearing a hat?



in any case, if you believe that i am not wearing a hat, what is your potion on my claim?(atheist)



Chaosism

Con

:: "false dosnt exist in reality"

This is irrelevant, because we are discussing belief, which does not exist in reality.
-----------------------
:: "religion is a position on an imaginary claim, you can either believe, disbelieve, or accept you dont know i am wearing a hat"
:: "lack of belief=i know or i accept i dont know"
:: "you can believe my claim, disbelieve it, or accept you dont know"

This is a motion towards agnosticism, right? Well...

Definition:
Agnosticism - "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." [1]
OR, the second definition which everyone confuses agnosticism as:
Agnosticism - "(In a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something." [1]

Agnosticism is completely separate from belief, as it pertain to knowledge. It is possible to be an agnostic theist, meaning that you hold a belief that God exists, but you admit that you don't know for certain.

I currently do not believe that you are wearing a hat, nor do I believe that you aren't wearing a hat. But, I do admit that I do not possess knowledge of it.
------------------------
:: "disbelief="i believe that you are not wearing a hat" "

No. That statement indicates that I am convinced that you are not wearing a hat. I lack belief, stating "I am not convinced that you are wearing a hat." In normal conversation, we have no reason to recognize the difference. However, that difference matters here.
-------------------------
:: "if your position is that "you dont believe that i am wearing a hat", then why dont you believe i am wearing a hat?"

Because I have insufficient evidence to convince me that you are either wearing a hat, or that you are not wearing a hat. Since I lack this evidence, I do not accept either as true.
--------------------------
"in any case, if you believe that i am not wearing a hat, what is your potion on my claim?(atheist)"

Again, I lack belief either way. My position on your hat-wearing is the same as my theistic stance. (atheist)
Atheism is the lack of belief that god exists. If I come to believe that god does not exist, I shall then be an anti-theist.
"anti-" means, opposed to, or opposite.
--------------------------

[1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

theist=belief=i accept imagination

atheist=disbelief=i accept imagination

agnostic=i dont know=i accept reality

all g no stick

nobody knows god, so everyone is agnostic by default, therfore the agnostic position by default is i accept, i dont know

belief is only relevant when i dont know, i know that i am reading these words on the screen, i dont have to imagine and believe it

imaginary claims are not about knowledge, future is the opposite of past, imaginaiton is the opposite of memory, knowledge is from the past

okay so, what evidence is sufficient for you to know i am wearing a hat, but you still have to imagine it?

disBelief is belief, not non belief

atheism is anti theism, like negative is anti positive
Chaosism

Con

:: "theist=belief=i accept imagination"

Some may not like calling it imagination, but I guess so.
---------------------
:: "atheist=disbelief=i accept imagination"

No. You are using the word "accept" and that is not happening. Believing that god exists OR believing that god doesn't exist would be accepting "imagination". Atheism would be rejecting "imagination".

theist=belief=I accept imagination
anti-theist=belief=I accept imagination
atheist=disbelief=I reject imagination
---------------------
:: "agnostic=i dont know=i accept reality"

How do you get "I accept reality" out of that?
---------------------
:: "all g no stick"

Heh, funny. :)
---------------------
:: "nobody knows god, so everyone is agnostic by default, therfore the agnostic position by default is i accept, i dont know"

No, this is where it gets tricky(ier). Note that the definition of Agnostic state "a person who believes...". This mean that if someone BELIEVES that they KNOW that gos exists or doesn't exist, they are Gnostic, not Agnostic.
-----------------------
:: "belief is only relevant when i dont know, i know that i am reading these words on the screen, i dont have to imagine and believe it"

No. You believe that you know. Because there can be no such thing as 100% absolute knowledge of something being true (except for your own existence), you believe that you know. For all you know, you could be in the Matrix; you cannot prove that you are not. [1]
-----------------------
::"imaginary claims are not about knowledge, future is the opposite of past,
:: imaginaiton is the opposite of memory, knowledge is from the past"

You are losing me on your use of the word "imaginary". Can you word it another way?
------------------------
:: "okay so, what evidence is sufficient for you to know i am wearing a hat, but you still have to imagine it?"

The level of evidence is different for everyone. Personally, I am very skeptical, and I think I would be satisfied with a live video feed showing you wearing the hat. If I knew and trusted you well (i.e. you rarely lie), I would accept that as enough evidence. In actuality, I cannot *choose* what I believe without deluding myself.
--------------------------
:: "disBelief is belief, not non belief"

How do you figure? Please elaborate.
---------------------------
:: "atheism is anti theism, like negative is anti positive"

No. Anti-theism is negative (or anti-positive), theism is positive (or anti-negative), and atheism is neither.
"a-" is a prefix that means "without", while "anti-" means "against, opposite" [2]

[1] Wikipedia: The Matrix - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Infoplease.com - http://www.infoplease.com...
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

dammit i deleted my response... couldnt send it for some reason.........



how do you know you are not being tricked and its not a live feed you are waching?



atheism is the negative position on and imaginary claim, to say you are a lier! is being an atheist, unless ts true the guy is lying, then i know, and its not about religion


science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines



i know you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes clsoed with absolute certainty


belief is the opposite of know, know is something, belief is nothing



again.. atheism dosnt reject anything, its an opposing stance on an claim, its no rejection



or modern atheism is the rejection that its theism, there you go



belief in science, is being a theist, there are no atheists..


Chaosism

Con

:: "how do you know you are not being tricked and its not a live feed you are waching?"

I don't. As stated earlier, belief is not related to truth. I may believe that you are wearing a hat, but I will not claim to know it for a fact. (The video could be someone else, for instance, but I couldn't know that).
--------------------------------
:: "atheism is the negative position on and imaginary claim, to say you are a lier!
:: is being an atheist, unless ts true the guy is lying, then i know, and its not about religion"

No - lack of belief is not the same as believing that something is not true.

For example, let us assume that we are flipping a coin (which is a dichotomy). There is no reason to believe that the coin will have more chance of resulting in heads because it is a flat 50%/50% chance. If I ask everyone to raise their hand if they believed that the coin would land on heads, and then asked everyone to raise their hand if the believed the coin would land on tails, then everyone who did *not* raise their hand for either is not positive OR negative.

Again, whether it is actually true or not does not matter. This is an issue of belief, not truth.
--------------------------------
:: "science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines"

What? That's not right. Look up those words in a dictionary. Science is not a religion. And it doesn't always rely on machines. Science is more of a process.
---------------------------------
:: "i know you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes clsoed with absolute certainty"

You strongly believe that you know, but what if I'm actually a bot with transparent eyelids, hmmm?
---------------------------------
:: "belief is the opposite of know, know is something, belief is nothing"

Definition:
Belief - "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." [1]

With *your* use of the word, perhaps. I *strongly* encourage you to write definitions for your words. I would be happy to see it.
------------------------------------
:: "again.. atheism dosnt reject anything, its an opposing stance on an claim, its no rejection"

It is an opposition to the assertion that the existence of God is true. I reject that claim due to lack of evidence; that does not mean that I then hold a belief that God does not exist. I don't have enough evidence to believe that, either.
----------------------------------
:: "or modern atheism is the rejection that its theism, there you go"

I don't understand this. If you are referring to those who champion that God does not exist, then those people should be labeled as anti-theists. Technically, they are also Atheist because if you believe that something is false, you therefore lack belief that it is true. So, every anti-theist is an atheist, but not every atheist is an anti-theist. Anti-theist should be identified by their positive assertion ("God doesn't exists"), rather than their passive position ("I lack belief that God exists").
------------------------------------------
:: "belief in science, is being a theist, there are no atheists.."

No. Simply believing in something not theism. While it is true that belief is required to accept ANYTHING as true, science is much different than religion. Science requires massive evidence for, and minimal or no evidence against and idea. Religion operates on "Faith", which is a belief regardless of evidence beyond one's own feelings. Science does not accept intuition or feelings as evidence, as they cannot be observed by anyone but that person.

[1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.debate.org...

Thank you, vi_spex, for this debate!

To all who have read through this: I apologize for the messy format, as I had to respond to almost every line individually. I put forth effort to keep this readable.
Debate Round No. 5
64 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
if you say, there is a path where everything is bright and on the other side its ugly and smells and big monsters walk around and screams in the distance... there is no question which way i go, but i still know now, i dont know ahead of now
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
religion=to rely on, while self is one

i am one is true, i am being now, i am now

there is a difference to the situation, why do i need to go Down the alley?
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
Prediction is imaginary, too. It also exists only in the imagination.

if prediction=false, why would you rely on it? If you regard it as false, then you would walk straight down that alley with the pianos above you. If there is a difference between belief and prediction, I need it to be explained to me.

If it is not thoroughly explained, I cannot continue.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i know you are light on my screen, and a story in my mind
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
possibilities are false, reality is not possible, it isnt possible, that i type these Words on my keyboard and read them on my screen, as it is happening, not can happen
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
not necessarily, belief is imaginary, but i can have no beliefs and use my imagination

a=a, b=b?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
a claim i have to imagine

if i claim the cup on your table is made of glass, you can objectivly verify that i am right or not, see it with your eyes, grab it and pick it up, smell it, bang on it, bite it, whatever, you cant do that with Jesus, or unicorns, or superman, so superman is alien!

i can imagine a miniature superman flying around inside the cup on your desk
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
belief=future

prediction=future

therefore,

belief=prediction

If A=B, and B=C, then A=C
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
"the claim is imaginary, is imagination true? is superman flying around in my imagination true? and how is superman different then your cup?"

What is an "imaginary claim"??

You know that cups exist in the word. You should know that Superman is a fictional character. By that reasoning, it is possible that the cup exists, whereas, it is almost 100% impossible that Superman is flying around.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
its not different like that, its a different situation, like if i am in a war zone, beliefs might be comforting or something.

prediction isnt about knowing, i dont know future

yees, prediction=future=false

kNow=now

beLief=be lie, as i have to imagine it
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
vi_spexChaosismTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: See tejretics's RFD
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
vi_spexChaosismTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no attempt whatsoever to refute Con's arguments. Con's arguments [based on the scientifical unfalsifiability of theism] were not rebutted by Pro, who instead drew random analogies on the comparison and equivalence of *irrelevant* words. The form of unusual semantics used by Pro did not refute or disprove the resolution. Pro's grammar was poor [no punctuation]. Con used the only sources in the debate.