Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

RFD: If Atheists really believed in logic...

Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 11:39:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago

Four major points I want to give:

(I) Pro's Main Argument:
Pro rightly says that the title seems to put Pro at a disadvantage, but Pro manages to overcome the disadvantage.

Here is why:

Pro's argument:

If the idea that "There really is no reason why we should eventually find everything out" is true, logical, and scientific, then atheists would go insane.

Insane: "In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill" (Google Dictionary).

So, Pro's argument seems to be saying that if atheists realized that if life was pointless, then atheists would act that way. I think that this prevents normal behavior or social interaction, and Pro referred to this when talking about dreaming. If atheists realized that life was pointless but acted as though it wasn't, then Pro rightly says that those atheists would be deluding themselves with regards to this point.

Delude- "impose a misleading belief upon (someone); deceive; fool" (Google Dictionary).

(*) So, the last question is this: How would atheists say that life is pointless, since this is Pro's assumption? Pro says that we know nothing when we get down to the why of things, and I think Pro is acting like Socrates, in saying that we can't ground our knowledge to the point where we can't ask the question of "why?" Pro can ask the question of "why" to the point where someone basically says that they don't have an answer, that this is just how we do things. In this sense, we know nothing in the absolute sense, though we know things on the condition that the premises, in which the idea is the conclusion, are true.

This is an interesting idea of Pro, but it fails to show why an atheist would say that life is pointless, even though what Pro says here seems true.

But in round 3, Pro finally gives the reason for why life is pointless, and in a clear way, although Pro doesn't emphasize the hugeness of how important it is to making Pro's argument work. "" life " pointless": "Hey, welcome to life! [(Corrected Pro's grammar with "Its" to "It's")] It's pretty much pointless since you die at the end " You don't know what happens when you die. It probably feels like sleeping. Just nothing."

Since atheists don't believe in a God, their belief in an afterlife seems hard. Now, there are some atheists who say, "Well, maybe there's an afterlife." However, Con seems to be talking about the atheism that doesn't believe in an afterlife, in quoting Pro here:
" 'You are just part of a bunch of organisms living on a floating rock. Wake up.' This is exactly what atheists believe."

So, unless human organisms are going to be somehow brought back to life (including the ones who have decomposed pretty much, are cremated, and so on) through materialism, it seems, then it seems reasonable to say that, for Con's definition of atheism, atheists at least don't have a good reason for an afterlife.

Now, I must admit that Pro failed to explain why life is pointless because you die at the end, but since Con failed to attack this, which would have been successful if Pro didn't respond, Pro's argument holds. (I want to note why I think this way for my previous paragraph. Con may say that life isn't pointless because future generations are effected by our actions. However, Pro could say that he is only talking about the person who does the action themselves, because they won't be around to see those effects, so why care about them?)

So, Pro gives the point of what is essentially existential nihilism, that existence doesn't have meaning or value.

(II) Con's Arguments and Pro's Responses:
Con gives 3 arguments (I was initially biased by automatically not allowing them, so I must allow Con's arguments to hold until Pro convinces me otherwise, thanks Mod).

Con is misled by Pro's argument, especially since Pro wasn't clear enough about what Pro was saying until round 3: "I believe that what my opponent is arguing is that atheists that actually believe in science would go insane."

Therefore, these three arguments don't address Pro's argument because Pro doesn't seem to give a specific enough explanation. However, I think Pro gave clearly enough what Pro wanted to try to show, just that Pro didn't give a good argument until round 3.

This is demonstrated in the fact that the first argument does the best in trying to address this.

1: Con claims that atheists aren't insane because Democritus believed in science. Con doesn't show how Democritus is even an atheist, but Pro doesn't attack this, so Con holds here. Con then does an inductive fallacy by saying that since Democritus was an atheistic philosopher who accomplished science, then this is true for all atheists (assuming that all atheists are philosophers, and no philosopher is insane). Since Pro didn't talk about this, this part of Con's argument holds.

Con does define insane as "extreme [foolishness] or irrationality." Pro doesn't but should have responded to this, or at least given Pro's own definition. This makes Pro's burden impossible, which mean Pro lost the argument (3 points), since Pro failed to reject this definition.

Here is why: "If atheists really believed in logic and science without deluding themselves they would go 'irrationality'. " However, if scientists did nothing, which assumes that Pro's argument is right, then the scientists would be acting rationally, although they would be acting insane by the first definition, but not by the second (which favors Con). If the scientists deluded themselves, they would be acting irrationally though, if Pro's argument is right.

A more obvious demonstration: "If atheism follows rationality (logic), they would be irrational." This is impossible to prove, yet Pro allowed his position to be defined by this.

(Apart from this, I don't see any of Con's arguments working against Pro.)

This first argument is challenged when Pro says "How on earth do you know that these people didn't delude themselves" (referring to Con's Democritus). However, Con failed to give a reason for Con's argument, which is why Con's argument here wasn't substantially threatened until round 3 (Pro's argument that if there is no afterlife but death is the end, then nothing matters).

2: Importance of knowledge: Con doesn't address Pro's argument because Pro didn't give his argument fully yet.

Con's argument 2 (Part A) was challenged by Pro before Con posted it in terms of knowledge for survival by asking the "why" Q. (Part B) Con is right to say that science is rational. To say that atheists are rational begs the question of the debate, at least with regard to Pro's arguments.

3: Theists are less rational than Atheists:
Pro says that Con was off topic for theism, that the topic was about atheists (I agree, Con's argument 3 is refuted since Pro said something). The topic is irrelevant to the debate, but Pro had to say something in order for this to count from a voter's perspective, which Pro did.

Pro gives a reason for the delusion: Evolution makes us delude ourselves so that we can survive. Another reason Pro gave was fear.

Con attacks Pro's argument of no proof of consciousness, but I don't see how that is relevant to the debate topic.

I didn't see Pro's argument of existential nihilism for atheists get refuted or challenged, but Pro gave a reason, hidden in Pro's text for how it could be true: death. Pro doesn't expand, but Con didn't seem to threaten unless Pro failed to respond to arguments (minus the defining of insane).
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 11:40:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
(III) Conduct:
Con, for a completely different debate, attacks theism both rounds, continuing after Pro said in R3 that this was irrelevant to the debate.

At the very end, Con seems to think he's arguing that theism is false and atheism is true, and then concludes that since Pro says a quote describing an atheist's belief, and that Pro is an atheist from this quote, then Con wins. Con seems to have misinterpreted the quote as including Pro, because in looking at Pro's context of the quote, Pro is clearly not referring to himself ("You").

I want to clarify and say that Con's point about a) and b) are spot on given what Con seemed to argue here, and that is not only valid conduct but an effective argument for what Con wanted to show. The problem was that Con seems to be arguing something different than what Pro was, despite Pro's effort to realign Con to the issue.

I give a point for conduct because one side went to a different debate topic for no good reason, showing that he seems to be emotional about that particular topic.

(IV) Conclusion:
Con seems to argue that theism makes atheism look rational, but the question is really whether atheism can be rational without being insane. If the answer is yes, Con wins, and if the answer is no, pro wins.

Con's definition of insanity and Pro saying nothing about it saved Con. Otherwise, those three points would have gone to Pro.

Both sides seemed to confuse each other, but good effort guys!
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 6:58:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
(III) Conduct:

I remove the point I made initially, because the points I made are supposed to apply to the convincing arguments section. Con seemed to be assuming some things about Pro that aren't clearly true, which affects conduct if Con accuses Pro, which seems to be true here.

I am really stuck between whether I should give the point or not.

I say that the point should be given if it can be clearly shown that Con had a bad-intent, like purposefully trying to make the voter be confused, or misleading other people about what Pro says too many times (being careless about the opponent counts as bad conduct).

I only saw one time this happened, so I don't think there is enough evidence to justify bad or careless conduct toward the opponent. I could see of a situation where Con was genuinely confused by Pro's arguments (which Pro was somewhat confusing) to where this was unintentional.
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 7:19:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'd love to reply and say that Con did not really reply or debunk my arguments since if the people he mentioned was delusional or not is not known, but your the voter. You choice and I have to say thank you for writing such a detailed explanation.

Just want to ask, why does it matter so much that I did not challenge Con's definition?

And thx for voting and taking all this time to look at our argument.