disbelief=belief to the contrary
Debate Rounds (5)
theist=yes, no 1 2 4 or 5
atheist=no=4 fingers, 2 fingers etc, not 3
agnostic=i dont know=dont see it
the theist is atheist to 1 2 4 and 5 finger positions
the atheist believing i am showing 2, is a theist
So it seems that this is pretty obviously grounded in the notion that atheists don't merely lack belief but also believe that he does not exist as a result of not believing he exists. Not to sound condescending, but this is a common misconception that I used to share as well and I'm happy to clear it up as one who is currently atheistic.
Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. Nothing more, nothing less. If I choose not to believe something, this is not the same to say that I believe it didn't happen. There is a middle ground of simply not taking a side on the matter. Anti-theism is the term for those who believe that god DOES NOT exist.
This is perhaps demonstrated best with the popular courtroom analogy, which I'll quote from another website that explains it very well:
"The accused"s innocence is assumed to be true, unless someone can actually prove otherwise. In other words, the accused"s innocence is the default position. As a result, it is absolutely not required for the accused to prove his innocence; he has only to show that, based on the prosecution"s case, there is no good reason to believe in his guilt; that the arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution are either unreliable, or do not make his guilt any more likely than some alternative explanation. Simply put, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Importantly, when a jury returns a finding of "not guilty" they are not saying that they believe the suspect is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have a truckload of doubt about his innocence. Their finding means only that reasonable doubt exists as to the suspect"s guilt. If there is such reasonable doubt and the burden is on the prosecution, then the jury is ethically and rationally required to acquit"
You may believe that the defendant is innocent, but that's a separate matter. All the atheist says is that the evidence is not good.
no, atheism Is disbelief, belief to the contrary.. gnostic and agnostic is non belief, know and i dont know positions
atheism is anti theism, negative is anti positive
why are you trying to change it
am i showing 3 fingers behind my back?
we dont take hypothesis to court and put them on trial.. lets not complicate things into oblivion shall we
"no, atheism Is disbelief, belief to the contrary"
Disbelief just means refusal to accept something is true, but as I have demonstrated that does not mean you believe it is false
Pro makes assertions on definitions which is not really within his grounds to set. He uses no source and doesn't give us any good reason to accept his definitions or logic. Vote con.
you agree with the resolution?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KthulhuHimself 2 months 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro does not address Con's arguments (apart from one joke, which does not qualify as a rebuttal), and never presents any support to his; rewarding Con with the points for the more convincing arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate