theists and atheists have no place in a debate
Debate Rounds (5)
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"
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
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
"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.
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 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
"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.
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
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to support his arguments, and failed to meet the BoP. Pro did not follow a proper grammar structure.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate