The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
HomelySherlock
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

theists and atheists have no place in a debate

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...
HomelySherlock
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 725 times Debate No: 73710
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

both positions are false, therfore irrelveant to any debate about true, real, thus circuler debates leading nowhere are easily observed everywhere you look for "debates"
HomelySherlock

Con

While you may believe that "most positions are false", this is an opinion statement. You cannot use it to prove your point. Also, what about debates regarding religion and philosophy? Theists/atheists would obviously be debating there. Unless you believe that people who follow or disagree with a religion don't have the right to debate about that religion?
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i have no beliefs, belief=theism

no opinion involved, atheism and theism are the only religious positions that exist, and religion is false by default

im saying, whatever a theist talks in a debate he by default dosnt know, therfore its not true, therfore i dont even have to argue against it to win
HomelySherlock

Con

You are an atheist, yet you argue? Contradiction. This entire debate is in my favor, because you said that. Now to mention, everyone is either an atheist or a theist. By your logic, debate must not exist. Yet, as I pointed out, you are debating.Once again, you presented your controversial opinion that religion is false. Why is religion "false by default"? Now, don't answer that, because that's not the debate. I'm just pointing out that your position is opinionated, at least on that standpoint. And then you go on to state that a theist "by default doesn't know" about religion? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Who better to debate about a religion then it's follower? Your entire argument can be summarized as "Theists shouldn't debate, because religion is false by default, therefore Theists are wrong, thus I do not have to prove that theists are wrong."
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

atheism=disbelief

disbelief=belief

belief=theism

i have no beliefs, i know my experience of now

realigion is belief, belief is false

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

i dont know=i have to imagine it

kNow=physical experience of now

a theists arguments are false in any case

theists have no place in a debate, as their claims are false, and atheists are theists to the contrary

if we walk in the forest and stumble upon an unbrekable nutshell, you can believe there is a nut inside it, and i can believe there isnt, while its true we both dont know, therfore a debate about wheather or not there is nut inside it is irrelevant, given we can not know
HomelySherlock

Con

Thank you for the prompt reply.

"disbelief = belief"

I don't even need to refute this. It's ridiculousness should be apparent.

"religion is belief, belief is false."
belief = be lie, as I don't know is true"

I'm not sure if your argument here is that believing in anything is false or that to believe is to not know that something is true. Either viewpoint is incorrect - Believing in something doesn't make it false, it means you truly think it's true. The fact that something is believed in doesn't make it false - You may believe in a scientific theory. This doesn't prove or disprove the theory.

"I don't know = I have to imagine it"

If you truly didn't know, you would indeed have to blindly follow it. But, as this debate is arguing of theism/atheism, I know that there is truly proof which validates both sides. This point is irrelevant.

"if we walk in the forest and stumble upon an unbrekable nutshell, you can believe there is a nut inside it, and i can believe there isnt, while its true we both dont know, therfore a debate about wheather or not there is nut inside it is irrelevant, given we can not know"

To be honest, this is a good example - except for the fact that in the case of this nut, we have no evidence as to either point. As I previously said, there is valid evidence for both theism and atheism that still has yet to be refuted.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

disbelief is simply belief to the contrary.. you can believe i am wearing a hat, and you can believe i am not if i claim that, both side being belief, believing either is theism

not knowing and believing is the same

belief=false

know=true

knowledge=truth

belief itself is false, belief is not matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now

belief being based on the i dont know position, i can believe any theory is true, but my belief dosnt make it true

i dont know is position, and its a position i know. i have to see, to see that i dont see a dog right now, is like saying, i have to know to know i dont know a dog right now

i like the nut example, but lets say that the nut has a little bit weight, but could also be empty.. same, still belief

evidence is a belief system, kNow=now

what evidence is sufficient for you to know, that i am wearing a hat right now, yet you still have to imagine it?

theism and atheism can never be true, because belief automaticly is a position i dont know, therfore i dont know is true, not belief. beyond what i know, is what i dont know
HomelySherlock

Con

While I agree that disbelief is belief to the contrary, not knowing and believing are not the same. You KNOW, for example, that person X has or had (if they have passed away) two biological parents. However, by your logic, you are then not believing that they have two biological parents, because as you say belief is not knowing, the opposite of knowing. Since "disbelief is belief to the contrary", by your logic then if you KNOW a fact you DISBELIEVE in the fact. This is completely false - does it not make more sense to say that if you know something you believe in it? I doubt if you asked a theist they would say they don't know whether God exists, they simply believe it to be so. Theists like myself are utterly convinced that there is a God - to them, it is fact.

"i can believe any theory is true, but my belief dosnt make it true"

Your belief doesn't make it untrue, either, which is what you're arguing. I'm saying that belief is irrelevant to a topic as belief and truth don't necessarily correlate (though they might).

As an aside, if atheist and theists have no place in a debate how are debates possible? Everyone falls into those categories.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

the true position, is still i dont know

3 positions on any imaginary claim

belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know

disbelief is belief, belief is theism

i have no beliefs, i know my experience of now
HomelySherlock

Con

I've posted the same thing repeatedly. You parrot the same words without addressing my rebuttals. I'm not going to reiterate the same thing for the fourth time now. Just read my previous arguments - you haven't yet tried to disprove them, so they still stand.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
only now is true
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
I can say I believe you but that's based on belief, not proof. If I had proof I can also say I believe you, but this time cause its true.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
lol

belief is having, believe is doing

i can say the moon is made of a White cluster of monkeys
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Semantics. Believe and belief. Belief = dnt know. Believe = know. If I believe you holding up three fingers I can say its true.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
belief is possibility and know is no other possibility
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
possibiltiies are false
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Besides, believe has levels of belief. I believe a hundred percent = know.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
No. It would not be true because I don't know. You could be lying. But its not impossible that you are. Just because I dnt know the answer for sure doesn't mean the answer is yes.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i can show you i have 5 fingers on my hand, but i can then put my hand behind my back and ask how many fingers i am holding up/showing behind my back. i can also tell you, i am holding 3 fingers up behind my back, and my question to you is, is it true for you to say yes you are holding 3 fingers up behind your back, do you know it?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i dont know=i can at best imagine it

false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
vi_spexHomelySherlockTied
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: Pro failed to support his arguments, and failed to meet the BoP. Pro did not follow a proper grammar structure.