The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Behold
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

belief is theism

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 2 votes the winner is...
Behold
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 387 times Debate No: 72697
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

theism is belief in god

there are only 3 positions on any imaginary claim, belief, disbelief, or i accept i dont know

theism=belief=i accept imagination
a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism=i accept imagination
agnostic=i accept i dont know=i accept reality

religion is a position on an imaginary claim, religion=to rely on, while self is one

Behold

Con

I accept your debate, and contend that belief is not theism.

You've granted a definition for theism in your debate. You have not granted a definition for belief, however. While you do say "theism=belief=i accept imagination" This is not a valid definition, but is rather the petitio principii fallacy. You simply cannot use the conclusion in question as a premise - to try to do so is akin to trying to catch yourself while falling out of the air.
So, for the first round, (and later rounds if you would choose to not submit your own definition) I will use the first two definitions found at dictionary.reference.com.

While theism is a type of belief, a belief in a god (or gods for that matter), to say belief is theism is invalid because other beliefs exist. For instance, I hold the belief that when I jump up, gravity will pull me back towards Earth. This belief has nothing to do with a god or gods, and therefore cannot be described as theism.

Additionally it is an issue of sets versus subsets. A sombrero is a specific type of hat, just as a theism is a specific type of belief. I could say, "A sombrero is a hat." I would not say though, that "A hat is a sombrero." It does not follow logically. The assumption of the opposite is known as the fallacy of the converse.

As it stands then, I would hold the conclusion of the Pro to be impossible upon a definitional understanding of the terms.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

how are you a theist if you cant accept what you imagine as true

i accept reality, as i accept what i know and know is true

i dont know. is a position i know, i am certain of, a position that is true, while both theism, and atheism is imaginary, false

gravity is not a belief system, i know gravity

god is information

theism cant exist without belief, belief is theism, you cant have a bear skin without having a dead bear, and you cant have a bear skin that dosnt come from a bear
Behold

Con

Since you have not provided a new definition of belief, I will continue using the one provided by reference.dictionary.com

To begin with, I am not a theist. To contend with the general idea of your statement, however, here is a simple thought exercise. Consider a theist that believes in God, but has a dream where they eat their teeth. While you could say they imagined both God (for lack of a better phrasing) and eating their teeth, after they wake up they would likely not accept that they ate their teeth as a true statement. Imagination is not necessarily something that is believed in.

It seems now though that we delve into the realm of epistemology, so we need a working definition for knowledge. I assume by "" and know is true" you imply that if you know something, which is to say it is knowledge, it is necessarily true. This I can agree with, but I believe you will find it a very constricting definition for knowledge, since it implies that we can only know something if there is no possibility of it being false.

One more definition issue to clear up, as your next argument concerns agnosticism and uncertainty. Your dual definition of agnostic as "I accept I don"t know" and "I accept reality" is a bit lacking, notably the second. Agnosticism is a claim about how well something can be known, especially God or reality. To say agnosticism is the acceptance of reality, when the first (and common) definition of agnosticism is a statement about the ability to know reality, is not a useful or functioning definition, because it begs the question.

Next you begin with your argument of certainty versus uncertainty. I am not entirely sure how this is supposed to aid your claim that belief is theism, but I would note the following problems with your statement. While you can accept you know that you don"t know something (as per your definition of agnosticism, which I am inferring that you are comparing in your fourth line in opposition to theism and atheism), this does not necessitate theism or atheism being false. Theism and atheism are beliefs, and are not claims of knowledge. Indeed, you could be both agnostic and theistic for example, suggesting both that you cannot KNOW if God is true, but you do BELIEVE he is.

Gravity was perhaps not the best example, because of its rigorous backing, but with your strict definition of knowledge it should still hold as a belief, because you cannot know gravity. This sounds extreme but allow me to explain.

Virtually everyone has a basic understanding of gravity. Things fall toward the ground. Many people know further of Newton"s equation for it, or at least the principles behind it that gravity exists in all objects with mass, and the closer two masses are and the larger their masses, the greater the force of gravity pulling the two objects together.

This is all well and good, but this is not entirely true; rather it is a very good estimation system for things here on Earth (Citation 1). For this reason, Newton"s laws of gravity were replaced with Einstein"s general relativity theory. Go forward a few more decades, and we have discovered that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics (Citation 2). As of yet, this incompatibility has yet to be satisfactorily resolved, with the two "best" theories on explaining quantum gravity being string theory and loop quantum gravity theory.

To pull all this back to your claim, if you know gravity, and knowledge, by your own definition, must be true, this implies that you necessarily know the true theory of gravity. If you have a proof for a theory of gravity I am all ears and would be rather impressed, but I think it is otherwise safe to say gravity is still technically outside the realm of human knowledge, as per your definition of knowledge.

As to your claim that god is information, how exactly does that support your argument? I see no connection.

With your final line, apart from the second petitio principii fallacy, none of it warrants a rebuttal. Theism does not need to be able to exist without belief for your claim that belief is theism, to be true. On the contrary, belief needs to be unable to exist without being theism. The two statements are not one in the same. Your analogy would basically convert to "you cannot have a theism without a belief, and you cannot have a theism that does come from a belief" but once again, the claim of the debate is that belief is theism. Flipping the analogy ruins it: "you cannot have a dead bear without having a bear skin, and you cannot have a bear that doesn"t come from a bear skin".

Moreover, you have not rebutted my claim that belief is not necessarily theism, which would hold the claim of the debate false. As such, I will restate it now with more formally and with emphasis.

Premise 1: Theism is a belief in gods.

Premise 2: Atheism is a belief that there are no gods.

Premise 3: I hold one of the two previous beliefs.

Conclusion: My belief could be either theism or atheism. So to say it is necessarily theism is incorrect.

Indeed, the set of beliefs in innumerable. I could hold a belief in virtually anything and so long as it does not include a god, would not constitute a theism.

Citation 1: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Citation 2: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

belief=imaginary=false

know=physical experience=True(now)

knowledge=Memory=truth

belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it

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

if you believe i am, you are a theist and i am your god, i could also claim its a fact

yes, know is no other possibility, absolute, belief is possibility, and possibility has a positive and negative side, can go either way

reality is unbelieved, imagination is unknown

imagination is false, false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

here now is the limited size of my physical existence

i dont know=i know, as i dont know is a position i know, and know is real

everyone is agnostic by default on the god claim, unless they know a god is true or false, but then its not religion

becasue no one knows god, the agnostic position becomes specifik, i accept i dont know

(on a higher level, only know is true, and i dont know god)

if you believe, then you dont accept you dont know

theist=belief

atheist=belief to the contrary

agnostic=non belief

know=physical experience

i dont have to imagine gravity


belief=belief in god=theism

i am saying, atheism is theism in itself. look, belief is doubt, so believing god is false is doubting god is false, and as a balance i must believe god is true
Behold

Con

I am at a loss as to how you are stringing your thoughts together or how they are supposed to form an argument, so instead I will simply refute these statements in the order you have said them.

"belief=imaginary=false" What if I have a belief in something that is true? Some people believe in a god, even if he is unprovable. Some people do not believe in that specific god. Both people cannot simultaneously be wrong, so one of the beliefs, while unknowable, is true.

"know=physical experience=True(now)" You refer to a posteriori knowledge. What about a priori knowledge? A sphere is a solid three dimensional shape with radius r, which is the equidistance from its center. This is true by its own definition, you do not need a physical sphere to know this. (Indeed, there is no perfect sphere anyhow).

"knowledge=Memory=truth" We"ve been over this one, yes. Memory is fallible, and I don"t see the relevancy here, but other than that I addressed knowledge = truth in the previous round.

"am i wearing a hat as i type this? you have to imagine it
if you believe i am, you are a theist and i am your god, i could also claim its a fact" This is an interesting concept, but that"s not quite how it works. I can believe you are wearing a hat without believing you are a god. It seems like a non sequitur, does it not? You seem to be relying on your claim as a premise again. This is still a fallacy, a claim needs external support outside itself to give it standing.

"reality is unbelieved, imagination is unknown
imagination is false, false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
here now is the limited size of my physical existence" I refer back to my previous statements on a priori knowledge. You can imagine, and know, things outside physical experience. You can also imagine true things. This line of equivalency is untenable.

"i dont know=i know, as i dont know is a position i know, and know is real" This is a flat-out contradiction. Something cannot be simultaneously known to you and unknown to you.

"everyone is agnostic by default on the god claim, unless they know a god is true or false, but then its not religion
becasue no one knows god, the agnostic position becomes specifik, i accept i dont know
(on a higher level, only know is true, and i dont know god)" A quick poll of theists would probably show a significant portion that believe in their deity but do not claim to know, per your definition, his existence. Do you mean to claim that these people do not count as practicing a religion?

"if you believe, then you dont accept you dont know" This is untrue. As I gave example of in the previous round, you can believe in something you don"t know. Do you have any argument to back up this claim?

"theist=belief
atheist=belief to the contrary
agnostic=non belief
know=physical experience
i dont have to imagine gravity" Are these new definitions or additional ones? You"ve made an interesting stew of equivalencies. Given your equations so far, I could say agnostic = non belief = dis belief = atheist = I accept imagination = theist = belief? That is all rather contradictory. It gets even worse if you allow the equation to substitute into itself, since belief = all those things, one of which is disbelief. Consider especially the following continuation: Belief = theist = I accept imagination = atheist. There you have it, belief is not theism, as you claim in this debate, but atheism! The exact opposite!

"belief=belief in god=theism" The fact that you have to specify "in god" in your own argument is rather telling. What if it is belief in that mustard is the best condiment? Or belief in the tooth fairy? These are beliefs that are not beliefs in god.

"i am saying, atheism is theism in itself. look, belief is doubt, so believing god is false is doubting god is false, and as a balance i must believe god is true" A theism is theism in itself? Belief is doubt? What are you saying?

Pro"s arguments are an amalgam of incomprehensible, baseless claims and attempts to apply principles of mathematics to words and phrases. He has given a rebuttal to my argument nor supplied an argument of his own that is not self-contradictory or holds the conclusion as the premise.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

beLief=Nothing

kNow=something

matter is true, information is false and truth

belief is false by default, as i dont know is true, only know is true

know=true, not truth, not knowledge

truth can only be in the past, now is true

math is absolute, but if i imagine the sphere it dosnt make a sphere true, its just imaginary

believing me, is me being your god, creating your world, as i didnt wear a hat, which is to say the reality you thought you knew is really just a unicorn i made to enslave you to my will... :) but, really, i was wearing a hat, and i just enslaved you to my will by you believeing that i wasnt lying about not wearing a hat, so i am your god in either case unless you accept you dont know

imagination is false, there is no life, in my imagination, there are not things, in my imagination

know is a position i know, how do you know you dont know a dog unless you know you dont know a dog.. no contradiction, i am sure that i know, therfore i am sure that i dont know if i dont know

all beliefs are based on the i dont know position, belief is unknown. beyond what i know is what i dont know, and if i know it, why imagine and believe it

accepting that i dont know, is accepting that it is untrue, therfore belief is negated, to go beyond what i dont know is belief, is to not accept that i dont know

agnostic=non belief=not disbelief and belief=not atheism and theism=i accept reality not imagination

yees, you got it, theists are atheists and atheists are theists.

a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism

atheism is theism to the contrary of the positive theistic assertion which is the yes position, so an atheist says no there are no dragon! and theists says yes, but the theist dosnt see this in reality, and the atheist imagines a dragon and says, they are not there, even thou there is imaginary..

belief in mustard=belief in god

belief there is a nut inside the nutshell in my hand, is belief in god

belief is doubt, an atheist, believe god is false, this DOUBTS, god is false, therfore believes god is true, how else would you doubt that propositon?

Behold

Con

I would first amend a typo I have made. The last sentence of last round should read "He has NOT given..."

I will continue with the previous round"s format, as the arguments, and I use that term loosely, you have laid forth are no different in nature than the previous round"s arguments.

"beLief=Nothing
kNow=something
matter is true, information is false and truth
belief is false by default, as i dont know is true, only know is true
know=true, not truth, not knowledge" Information is false and truth? Only know is true but I don"t know is also true? Would you like to explain your reasoning behind these statements? They are both contradictory and seemingly unsubstantiated. I could say vi_spex=false, but simply because I say that doesn"t make it true. I must substantiate the claim.

"truth can only be in the past, now is true" Now is not in the past. How can now be true if truth can only be in the past. More importantly, how did you reach this conclusion? This seems to run tangent to the initial claim.

"math is absolute, but if i imagine the sphere it dosnt make a sphere true, its just imaginary
believing me, is me being your god, creating your world, as i didnt wear a hat, which is to say the reality you thought you knew is really just a unicorn i made to enslave you to my will... :) but, really, i was wearing a hat, and i just enslaved you to my will by you believeing that i wasnt lying about not wearing a hat, so i am your god in either case unless you accept you dont know
imagination is false, there is no life, in my imagination, there are not things, in my imagination
know is a position i know, how do you know you dont know a dog unless you know you dont know a dog.. no contradiction, i am sure that i know, therfore i am sure that i dont know if i dont know" Ah, but you believe that I believed you weren"t lying about not wearing a hat, so really I am your god! I jest though, since believing something about something does not make the object believed a god. Your examples keep using entities. What if I believe something about an inanimate object, does it then become a god? Regardless, you still have yet to support this claim. Prove to me you are a god, or I must insist you use a different argument. I have shown rather blatantly that beliefs outside of beliefs in deities exist. If you"re going to keep claiming that these objects of belief are actually gods, you must support this in a non-fallacious manner.

"accepting that i dont know, is accepting that it is untrue, therfore belief is negated, to go beyond what i dont know is belief, is to not accept that i dont know" Accepting you don"t know something is not accepting it is untrue. I accept I don"t know if you will win this debate. Does this make the statement that you are going to win the debated necessarily untrue? Careful, if you accept that line of reasoning it would mean you are going to lose even if your argument is considered right.

"agnostic=non belief=not disbelief and belief=not atheism and theism=i accept reality not imagination" But earlier you said agnostic=I accept reality. Which is it, agnostic or theism?

"yees, you got it, theists are atheists and atheists are theists.
a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism" I think I am beginning to understand your argument. However, atheism does not equal disbelief it equals disbelief IN GOD. So when you deduct the negative you have belief IN GOD equals theism. As I have stated and shown, there are beliefs in things beside god(s), so belief is not necessarily belief in god and therefore is not necessarily theism.

I would outline here that this means you must either provide proof that theism is not belief in god, but simply a belief (which is wrong by your own initial definition of theism) OR that no other beliefs beside beliefs in god(s) exist, which is an absurd claim.

"belief in mustard=belief in god" Surely you do not mean to make such a semantic argument that anything with a belief is a god. Then everything becomes a god and is equal. Belief in mayo? Mayo is god. Mustard is also god, so mayo is mustard. This makes the term god pointless and without a useful definition at all. More over, it begs the question and is flies in the face of common sense.

"belief there is a nut inside the nutshell in my hand, is belief in god" Still simply no. Just because you say something doesn"t make it true or even arguably true. I refuse to continue bothering to refute unsubstantiated claims when the burden of proof is on you! If you keep asserting claims without evidence I will insist I can dismiss them without evidence.

"belief is doubt, an atheist, believe god is false, this DOUBTS, god is false, therfore believes god is true, how else would you doubt that propositon?" " What??? Belief is doubt? Those are antonyms.

In summary, this round continues with unsubstantiated and self-contradictory claims by pro that follow no logical conclusion. In addition no attempt has been made yet to refute the counterargument that that beliefs in things beside gods exist except for the absurd claim that everything is god.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

the i dont know position, is a position i know.
its like saying i see that i dont see a dog right now, but how would i see that i dont see a dog if i didnt see in the first place..

false=imagination

know=physical experience=true

belief=imaginary

belief=Be lie, as i have to imagine it=be lie, as i dont know is true

true is the opposite of truth and false, matter is true, false and truth is information, matter is now

i was making an example of belief since that is what we are talking about.. to me you are light on my screen and a story in my mind

belief is of the mind, believing in an inanimate object is imagining it, its not something, know is something, know is true

belief=Nothing=information=0=seperation=religion=god=santa=false and truth=knowledge=not know, not matter, not physical

you gotta be good this year if you want santa to come with presents

creating existence in your mind from nothing, i am not unaware that i am god creating worlds

i am an eye that can see all, a pyramid capstone reflection with an eye flying at the top of a pyramid

only know is true, and i dont know god

only when i know is it true, and then its not something you predict, i cant say i predict i am reading these words, the prediction in itself is not true, future is false, now is true

theism=i accept imagination

agnostic=I accept reality

imaginaiton is the opposite of reality

god is information, you can believe that i am wearing a hat, believe that i am not wearing a hat, or accept you dont know

i can believe in a hammer, i can believe whatever i imagine, i can believe that i know what other people think, i can make up stories about others, and when i am with them experience that those stories are true, even the stories i never told anyone about

Behold

Con

"i am an eye that can see all, a pyramid capstone reflection with an eye flying at the top of a pyramid" I have no clue how to respond to this claim. Confirmed for illuminati?

"i can believe in a hammer, i can believe whatever i imagine, i can believe that i know what other people think, i can make up stories about others, and when i am with them experience that those stories are true, even the stories i never told anyone about" Yes, and this has been my point from the start. You can believe in whatever you imagine, which is virtually anything. Theism is a restricted specifically to god(s) by the definition of the term, so the two terms are different.

Thank you for a rather interesting debate.

My argument, stands uncontested and the Pro has submitted no arguments that were not nonsensical or easily shown to be fallacious or self-contradictory. If, as a reader, you have come this far, I applaud you for your patience and request you take the additional time to vote.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
:) but, really, i wasnt* wearing a hat
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
when
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Dude, that's not what you said.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
belief is doubt, agnostic=non belief
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
He is basically implying the different definitions for different types of religions.

Theism= you believe in something, you accept this because you believe.

Atheism= Disbelief in god, therefor you believe in your own understanding.

Agnostic= Uncertainty not sure, therefore you believe in what you are living. You believe in life. You have an uncertainty that god exists.

As for the "religion is a position on an imaginary claim, religion=to rely on, while self is one" I don't understand..lol
Posted by christopher1006 1 year ago
christopher1006
Please enlighten me. I feel like I understood less as I read on.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Wow, I actually somewhat understand what he is saying.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
vi_spexBeholdTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet BoP for his claim in any coherent manner, aside from the custom definitions of his words. Pro's arguments were difficult to follow, contextually, and lacked capitalization. This greatly prevented Pro's arguments from being understood. Con cited the only sources in the debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
vi_spexBeholdTied
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: as usual, pro failed to give any kind of a coherent argument