The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lorch317
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

theism is atheism, both are wrong

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 297 times Debate No: 90893
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

i dont know means, i have to imagine it, so if i take my hand behind my back, how many fingers am i showing?

theism=yes=1-5
atheism=no=opposite yes position
agnostic=i dont know=maybe
Lorch317

Con

Hello. I would like to start by saying that I believe you have misrepresented the key terms of the debate. Your explanation of "theism" is fine enough by my standards, but your assertion that the atheist's position that no god or gods exist ("atheism=no=opposite yes position") isn't really true. It is impossible to technically disprove the existence of anything, including unicorns, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus. However, one can use logical and empirical reasoning to deduce that there is a lack of evidence to support those beliefs. This is different from making the positive claim that they don't exist-- it is simply saying that the differing claim has a lack of evidence. Agnosticism answers a different question entirely-- whether or not someone "knows" if gods exist. To put it simply, the atheist answers "Is there evidence to support belief in a god or gods?" and the agnostic answers "Do you know if there is a god or gods?" The atheist answers his question with "no," which logically leads to a lack of belief. Why believe in a god that there is a lack of evidence to support (according to the atheist)? Only the strongest type of atheist will assert that no gods exist for certain, but this type of atheist is rare, extreme, and can't really prove his point. Overall, atheism isn't as extreme as theism, because atheism has no dogma, tenants, or doctrine. Agnosticism is a question of personal or societal knowledge, and almost all agnostics are technically atheists (except for the religious agnostic, who grants that there is no evidence to back his position, which is purely by faith), and almost all atheists are agnostic (except for the strongest type of atheist, who asserts that no gods exist, instead of a lack of evidence). At large, it isn't sound to equate the extremity of theism and atheism. The theist has the burden of proof, while the atheist does not.

My definition of atheism came straight from https://atheists.org...
agnosticism: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

belief=theism

so an agnostic believes that i have no fingers on my hand.. no agnostic is simply the i dont know position, maybe you are showing 3 fingers behind your back vi, maybe not

no agnostic atheist or theist can exist.. maybe is not yes or no

are you saying i am not showing any fingers behind my back?
Lorch317

Con

Ok, so I get the sense that you didn't actually read what I wrote, and I also don't understand your analogy. When someone is asked to guess a number of fingers someone is holding up, "yes" and "no" aren't even available answers. You simply guess 1 through 5, and anything else is nonsensical. Given this analogy, the theist would claim to know the amount of fingers, by faith or intuition or whatever unprovable yet unfalsifiable reasoning. The agnostic would say he didn't know how many fingers, and the atheist would see the theist's claim and say there is a lack of evidence to support it. Remember, the claim made by the atheist is not a positive claim saying that god doesn't exist-- instead, it is a challenge of the theist's claim. The burden of proof lies with the theist and not the atheist, since the theist is making the claim. Your claim that atheism is the same as theism represents a misunderstanding of the terms, claims being made, and burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

yes=1-5 fingers behind your back vi
no=1-5
maybe=1-5

so, what position does the gay have saying no vi, you are not holding 3 or any fingers behind your back?
Lorch317

Con

Your argument is incomprehensible. "yes=1-5 fingers behind your back vi, no=1-5, maybe=1-5, so, what position does the gay have saying no vi, you are not holding 3 or any fingers behind your back?"

This makes absolutely no sense to me, or to anyone who speaks English. I have stated and restated my position, yet you ignore it. Your initial definition of atheism was wrong, yet you continue to use it. Once more. An atheist does NOT say "No god or gods exist." He DOES say "There is a LACK OF EVIDENCE to support a belief in god or gods." There is a difference. Therefore, the theist's position is more extreme, in making a pretty wild claim. The atheist is simply challenging the claim. I repeat, the atheist is NOT saying god doesn't exist. So, it isn't a "guessing game." The atheist examines the evidence and says we need more. I will try to communicate why I believe there is a lack of evidence.

Why is there a lack of evidence? I will say concisely that pretty much the only evidence presented by theists is anecdotal, god of the gaps, or the Bible, none of which is convincing enough to me or other atheists. Anecdotal evidence doesn't work because it's biased and differs from person to person because each person has a different experience. Also, conflicting religions give similar stories, showing that the anecdote doesn't really prove anything. God of the gaps never proves God's existence; all it does is point out holes in science, which are being filled. A lack of an answer does not mean that God did it. Moreover, the Bible has many conflicting and/or impossible claims, and it contains a circular argument. "The Bible is divine because it was ordained by God, and we know about God through the Bible." There are probably other points brought up by theists, but what I'm saying is that we need more. Maybe if we weren't a speck in the universe, made out of the most common elements there are...

I'm pointing out a lack of evidence, not a belief that God doesn't exist. The theist's assertion that he DOES exist is more extreme and carries the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
vip doggy style
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
you what
Posted by SkyLeach 9 months ago
SkyLeach
et tu' vi_spex
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
so your a bonehead
Posted by SkyLeach 9 months ago
SkyLeach
theist - a dogmatic bonehead
atheist - a dogmatic bonehead
agnostic - a passive-aggressive bonehead
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
atheists and theists shouldnt be debating at all given its a guessing game
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
atheism and theism have no burden, it is non sense
Posted by jakabus 9 months ago
jakabus
Atheism and theism are equally bound to the burden of proof. If I say there is no such thing as gravity, I would be expected to prove my statement. However if I said that I had a dream last night that I was flying around the world like superman, would I be able to prove that I am telling the truth? 99% of the time we do not have access to a lie detector or able to be put under hypnosis. So what options are left?

If you applied for a job and after a few days were denied the position, would you assume that job didn't exist in the first place or would you accept that you did not fill the requirements needed for that job. We all know that if we drop a ball from head height that gravity will bring it to the ground. But that doest prove to me that gravity exists. It has been said for centuries that God created the earth. No one knows how God and gravity work, let alone exist. Yet there is a lot of people that will agree gravity exists while they deny God.
I As kids we believed Santa existed because we were told so by a trust worthy source. Who is a child to disprove what their parents have told them? However they will question them & speculate out of curiosity. What would happen if the child's parents never let on that Santa was a lie for gift giving? Would that child grow old still believing in Santa? Coincidently hear a thud on the roof but wake to find no present under the tree. Wouldn't that play a roll in that person's reasoning? A confirmation bias perhaps but it is down to the induviduals opinion of the situation.

Is there always going to be evidence? What evidence is there that Jack the ripper existed? If the perpetrator was under a different name, that would mean jack didn't exist, right? Whether he be fictional or not, in what way does it benifit you? Theism would be non existent if there was no evidence to back it up. Atheism would not exist if we did not question life. Agnosticism would not exist if there was no attention to detail.
Posted by dj123w1 9 months ago
dj123w1
Mr. Contender is right.
No votes have been placed for this debate.