The Instigator
SavedByChrist94
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Controverter
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

"atheism" is not merely Lack of Belief but believing that God doesn't exist

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...
Controverter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,012 times Debate No: 31942
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

SavedByChrist94

Pro

Lack of belief, or not believing leaves with only 2 possible reasons for the lack of belief,

1, Uncertainty, which is "agnosticism"

2, believing that no god exist, which is an assertion

If it isn't the 2nd then one isn't an "atheist" but an "agnostic", therefore making "atheism"'s definition to believing that no deity/deities exist.
Debate Round No. 1
SavedByChrist94

Pro

The Wikipedia link of "agnostic atheism" that you posted which says, "Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known"

That is Illogical, a Lack of belief, not holding a belief, or not believing can only be due to these 2 reasons

1, Uncertainty, which is "agnosticism",

2, Believing God doesn't exist which is "atheism"

One cannot be uncertain while at the same time believe He doesn't exist. it's They Believe(Theism), or don't believe, and if they don't believe they either are Uncertain if He(YHWH) exists which is Agnosticism, or assert that He doesn't which is "atheism"

In order for my opponent to give a proper rebuttal he must prove how it is possible to believe God doesn't exist while being uncertain of His existence.
Controverter

Con

"In order for my opponent to give a proper rebuttal he must prove how it is possible to believe God doesn't exist while being uncertain of His existence." Do you believe in Unicorns? In Santa Claus? The Easter bunny? The Tooth Fairy? ghosts? Zombies? Vampires? Werewolves?

If you answered no to any of them are you 100% certain of their non-existence and if so what is your certainty's logical origin?

You now can hopefully see the truth.
Debate Round No. 2
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"" Do you believe in Unicorns?"

Unless unicorns are proven to not exist I must remain agnostic on unicorns.

"The Easter bunny?"

Is just a bunny, of course bunnies exist.

"ghosts?"

Yes

"Zombies? Vampires? Werewolves? Santa Claus)"

YHWH(The Father, and The Son and The Holy Spirit) wouldn't allow there existence, I believe in YHWH therefore I not only don't believe those things listed don't exist, I know so.

Santa Claus though we know for sure doesn't, no ones up at the north pole.

Now,

'You now can hopefully see the truth."

I object to this off putting, The Opponent refused to answer my rebuttal I gave the debate, which is,

"a Lack of belief, not holding a belief, or not believing can only be due to these 2 reasons

1, Uncertainty, which is "agnosticism",

2, Believing God doesn't exist which is "atheism"

One cannot be uncertain while at the same time believe He doesn't exist. it's They Believe(Theism), or don't believe, and if they don't believe they either are Uncertain if He(YHWH) exists which is Agnosticism, or assert that He doesn't which is "atheism"

In order for my opponent to give a proper rebuttal he must prove how it is possible to believe God doesn't exist while being uncertain of His existence."

Instead of doing that he cowardly off put and talked about unicorns and tooth faires, which is irrelevant to this debate, as this debate is strictly about the definition of "atheism", in which the opponent has failed to provide any proof for "agnostic atheism", one as I have proven cannot be both an "atheist" and "agnostic".

If one is an "agnostic" they claim uncertainly, if one is an "atheist" they assert.

The opponent claimed that "atheism" is a lack of belief, however "agnosticism" is a lack of belief as well.

A lack of belief is due to either 2 reasons,

1, Uncertainty of whether God exists

2, Believing He doesn't exist.

Until the opponent can prove that one can bother be uncertain of His existence and believe He doesn't exist,(which is a contradictive impossibility), he has been refuted.
Controverter

Con

But the nature of belief can definitely be uncertain.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 4 years ago
ModusTollens
SavedByChrist94ControverterTied
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 Checkmark1 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 is unaware of the definition of atheism. Agnosticism and atheism are answers to two very different questions. Con tries to explain this and Pro simply continues to define atheism any way he/she wants.
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
SavedByChrist94ControverterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never makes any attempt to refute Pro's argument. Obvious Pro wins argument. I even the spelling point and give Con sources because he was the only one to give any. I give conduct to Pro because he came to debate and Con just did not do anything to counter Pro.