The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NoCoolNameNate
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

disbelief=belief to the contrary

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 1 vote the winner is...
NoCoolNameNate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 94594
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

is it true that i am showing 3 fingers behind my back?
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
NoCoolNameNate

Con

Good luck.

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:

http://www.freethoughtdebater.org...

"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.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

so you are an agnostic then, agnostics dont believe..

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
NoCoolNameNate

Con

Thanks. Unfortunately, my opponent has not really responded to the vast majority of my case and instead has chosen to make some bare assertions, which is essentially this:

"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.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

am i showing 3 fingers behind my back?
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

theist=yes
atheist=no
agnostic=maybe

you agree with the resolution?
NoCoolNameNate

Con

No. Agnostic would be like the jury not ruling on the case/needing more evidence.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

do you have sufficient evidence that i am showing 3 fingers on my back?
NoCoolNameNate

Con

No I don't... Anyway my arguments were never really responded to fully so I extend and urge the audience to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
nocoolnamenate dont exist.. vote now
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
your right, we got this debate and trolls to confirm it
Posted by NoCoolNameNate 6 months ago
NoCoolNameNate
Any skill at all? Lol dude I debate irl and win tournaments I don't need the current DDO clown with a horrible win rate to tell me what my skill level is.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
stay easy
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
in the absence of any skill at all, we got
Posted by NoCoolNameNate 6 months ago
NoCoolNameNate
Ok dude
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
super noobing
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
hahahaha
Posted by NoCoolNameNate 6 months ago
NoCoolNameNate
Cool beans
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
shouldnt urge people to be liers like yourself
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KthulhuHimself 6 months ago
KthulhuHimself
vi_spexNoCoolNameNateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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.