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

atheism is disbelief, disbelief, is belief to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Chaosism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 413 times Debate No: 72844
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

there are only 3 different positions on any imaginary claim


theism=belief=i accept imagination=YES


a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism=i accept imagination=NO


agnostic=i accept i dont know=i accept reality=I DONT KNOW



i just looked at my dog, is that a fact?



Chaosism

Con

Sure, I will accept your challenge. You do realize this will be a battle regarding a definition and semantics, right?

Let's begin with the word "Disbelief", as this is the root of the misunderstanding.

I'll just start with some dictionary references...

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

Disbelief : A feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real. [2]

Disbelief : The inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. [3]

[1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] Merriam-Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] Dictionary.com - http://dictionary.reference.com...

Since we have five rounds to get through this, let's start small. Do you accept these definitions from official sources that all convey the same basic meaning? If not, please state any specific problems.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

if you believe that i didnt just look at my dog, what is your position on my claim

answer the question, it is easily explained with an example

you can believe in a different religion and therby can not believe, that is not disbelief, that is just religion negating religion, the key is the arguments you hear

disbelief=belief to the contrary, the negative position on an imaginary claim, the no position
Chaosism

Con

This debate is completely useless until we can agree on some definitions.

:: vi_spex said: "if you believe that i didnt just look at my dog, what is your position on my claim"

I believe that you did just look at your dog because gods are common and it is very possible that you do have dog. However, I also concede that I do not know.

:: vi_spex said: "you can believe in a different religion and therby can not believe, that is not disbelief, that is just religion negating religion, the key is the arguments you hear"

What if the religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive? Can you not possess them both? Or reject them both?

"disbelief=belief to the contrary, the negative position on an imaginary claim, the no position"

I reject this definition unless you can provide some sources to back it up. You cannot simply make up new definitions as you see fit.

And why can't there be a neutral position on a claim that doesn't hinge on knowledge? Rejection doesn't mean accepting the opposite. If you say, "this cake tastes great!", and I say I don't accept that, does that mean that I think it tastes horrible?

Please address this example:
There are three primary colors (blue, red, and yellow). You claim that yellow is the best color. So, if I disbelief that claim, what does the mean in this situation?
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

cool, but even if you concede that you dont know, you still admit you go beyond what you dont know and believe


i dont have a dog


but, am i lying about not having a dog?



you can believe in science and christianity as long as they dont contradict to obviusly, i think


belief is doubt, so to believe god is false is to doubt god is false, and as a balance i must believe god is true


same with theism negating theism



imaginary claims goes to future, knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past, past is the opposite of future


the neutral position is i accept i dont know, its the only true positionm therfore, as belief is based on that position, its automaticly false, imaginary


doubt is the balancing point between belief and disbelief, and on the opposite side, on the true side, is the i dont know position, doubt being a false position


i dont know=certain, as i know i dont know, and know is true


do you know i am wearing a hat right now?


if i say the cake tastes great, and you say i dont accept that, then i would ask why dont you accept that it dosnt taste great



for you to disbelieve my claim that yellow is the best colour, is you believing i am lying about that. unless best isnt oppinion based




Chaosism

Con

:: vi_spex said: "cool, but even if you concede that you dont know, you still admit you go beyond what you dont know and believe"

EVERYTHING is beyond my absolute knowledge due to my flawed senses and perception, thus, I cannot absolutely know ANYTHING. I can, at best, very strongly BELIEVE that I know something. There have been many times in my life where I was *certain* about something within my "physical experience" and then learned that I was wrong.

Do you have perfect sight? Perfect hearing? And so on? If not, then you cannot be 100.0% certain that what you see is correct, either, because of the possibility of misperceiving something.

Have you ever been fooled by an optical illusion? In that case, "physical experience of now = FALSE"

"Knowing" is the same as "believing", except that "knowing" implies a significantly greater degree of certainty, due to evidence of faith (neither of which is necessarily true). You have to BELIEVE that you KNOW something. We don't normally say that we "believe that we know", because it is built into the meaning of the word:

know : Be absolutely certain or sure about something. [1]

[1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Now, "certain" and "sure" have the same basic meaning:

sure : Completely confident that one is right. [1]

Note that these words imply confidence that one is right; NOT that they are right in actuality.
Believe = "I think this is true."
Know = "I think this is true without a doubt."

:: vi_spex said, "do you know i am wearing a hat right now?"

Let's say I was shown pictures of you. Then, let's say that I meet you in person. You are wearing a hat. Surely I would then "know" that you were wearing a hat because I can see it. However, what if I was sent the picture of an imposter, and that I was looking at the imposter instead of you. Even though I am wrong in reality, I "know" that you have a hat on.

:: vi_spex said, "if i say the cake tastes great, and you say i dont accept that, then i would ask why dont you accept that it dosnt taste great"

I tasted the cake. I did not accept that you claim it is great. I do not hold the opposite belief from you. I know because I tasted the cake.

:: vi_spex said, "for you to disbelieve my claim that yellow is the best colour, is you believing i am lying about that. unless best isnt oppinion based"

Why does it matter that the matter is opinion based? It still mimics the disbelief situation. If I say to you, "I don't accept that yellow is the best color", that means I'm calling you a lair?!? I don't think so. That just means that I don't accept that AND that I don't accept the opposite of your belief, either.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

so your position is true in saying that i just looked at my dog? that is a true position for you to have?

this is a god claim, you believe that reality is not real

belief is false thou, so you can agree with me that you wont stick a knife in your leg

only sensory experience is true

what is your neighour doing right now?

i dont know=i have to imagine it

know=i dont have to imagine it

do you have 5 fingers on your hand? does a scientist need to tell you when you need to pee? you need a mechanical clock on your side to infom you of this maybe

belief=nothing

know=something

1+1=2=absolute

logic is absolute, physical experience is logic, like physical math

i know i am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it.

are you most certain of right now, what your neighbour is doing, or that you are reading these words?

so if you say physical experience is false, is it then true what your neighour is doing right now? in his house, and you reading theses words are false?

i am certain that i see an optical illusion when i see it

belief is false, and know is true, you can believe that you know what your neighbour is doing all day long, he might be dead

essentially what you are asserting is that its possible that you are reading these words, that, it isnt happening now. possibility is in the future, now is absolute, no other possibility. i know you cant read these words with your eyes closed, you cant argue with that, it is absolute

a blind mans reality, is not of colours and light

belief=be lie

kNow=now

knowledge is in the past, i have no knowledge of the future, i have to imagine the future, now is true, now is matter, i know my experience of now

cause and effect is absolute, cause and effect is logic

absolutes=existence

lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one

yes you dont know from a photo, on the news all i know is true is the light on my screen, shapes colours, but its like looking into the imagination of another person, as it all goes to belief. like if you imagine the speakers are the sounds inside the head of another person, that is speakers right there, +screen+movie= it becomoes like wathing a movie inside some ones elses head

when i am alone, the true size of the human population is 1

the cake thing is different, not about belief, just about opinions based on sensory experience, memory of joy is good, if you hadnt tasted any cake before you couldnt really say its bad compared to other cakes at least. you tasted the cake and to you it dosnt taste good, you are not disbelieving my claim you are merly asserting your own oppinion

the cake stuff is about knowledge and sensory experience, not imagination, belief=imagination, not true and truth, not now and past

can you put god in your mouth and taste god?
Chaosism

Con

:: vi_spex said, "so your position is true in saying that i just looked at my dog? that is a true position for you to have?"

Yes. My reasons for believing so is that my judgement of your character tells me that you are unlikely to lie. I cannot be certain of that you own a dog, but I believe that you do.

:: vi_spex said, "belief is false thou, so you can agree with me that you wont stick a knife in your leg"

I will not agree with you; by your logic, a belief that I *won't* stick a knife in my leg is also false, because it is a belief.

:: vi_spex said, "only sensory experience is true" * "know=i dont have to imagine it"

Again, an optical illusion. You have to imagine that it IS an optical illusion when you are looking at it. Your sensory experience can be FALSE as well.

:: vi_spex said, "i am certain that i see an optical illusion when i see it"

What does that mean? If you look at an optical illusion when you are unaware that it is, you say you always know that it is an optical illusion? I highly doubt that.

Regarding the cake thing; we form our opinions from the evidence we have gathered. Obviously, tasting it is the strongest form of evidence here. However, if *everyone* I knew told me that the cake was fantastic and it was on the news as being fantastic, I would believe that the cake is fantastic because that would be enough evidence to convince me that it is true.

The rest of the arguments are useless because we do not have a foundation of common definitions. I will respond to no more of this argument until the basic requirements are met.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

i dont have a dog

i know the implication of sticking a knife in my leg, cause and effect.. also i have plenty of reasoning that confirm this..

maybe you die before you stick it into your leg

its a trick of the senses, like you can drik yourself drunk and be.. not so certain of your experience

you can see optical illusions..

i dont recognize it instantly, but when i do i am certain of it, and you are talking about something that is designed to trick the eyes, something that looks like something else within itself... hard to see, its not hard to see that these words on the screen

you have memories of how cakes taste.. scientists do not tell you which cake is better do they..

but what if you dont like the cake..

it is as simple and positive negative and balance.. theism atheism and agnostic, 3 positions, thats it. you are hiding
Chaosism

Con

:: vi_spex said, "i know the implication of sticking a knife in my leg, cause and effect.. also i have plenty of reasoning that confirm this.."

Know=now=true

implications of sticking knife in leg=future=belief=false

:: vi_spex said, "i dont recognize it instantly, but when i do i am certain of it, and you are talking about something that is designed to trick the eyes, something that looks like something else within itself... hard to see, its not hard to see that these words on the screen"

The point of it is that your perception can be incorrect. you likely miss something or see something wrong quite commonly, but you will never notice unless there is some reason for you to reevaluate it. Our brains are imperfect.

:: vi_spex said, "you have memories of how cakes taste.. scientists do not tell you which cake is better do they.."
:: and... "but what if you dont like the cake.."
:: and... "it is as simple and positive negative and balance.. theism atheism and agnostic, 3 positions, thats it. you are hiding"

Again, we cannot properly communicate without commonly defined words.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
Typo correction to my #2...
"I believe that you did just look at your dog because *dogs* are common and it is very possible that you do have dog. However, I also concede that I do not know."

Although, gods are somewhat common, too...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by VotesforCandid_Atheism 2 years ago
VotesforCandid_Atheism
vi_spexChaosismTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a really close debate, but I will have to give it to Con for putting up a very valid argument. Pro's grammar and argument was kind of all over the place. Pro had me convinced in the beginning, but then Con showed me what's up and he had better conduct.