The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
13 Points
The Contender
tumeric
Con (against)
Tied
13 Points

Atheism is not a religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,504 times Debate No: 119837
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (101)
Votes (5)

 

backwardseden

Pro

"The only way you can be a bad atheist is to believe in god. " Matt Dillahunty

"You don't get to put your unreason upon the same shelf with my reason. " Bill Maher

"Atheism is a response to a single claim, That some god exists. We don"t believe that"s true so we"re atheists. And that"s all it means. " Jen peeples

Atheism: 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Here"s some videos among hundreds to help you out and show that atheism is NOT a religion.

http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=7o5h0DdcyTA&t=264s - Reasons for accepting atheism
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=WbxqvugoJuw - Proof that atheism is accurate and correct
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=E3rGev6OZ3w&t=130s - Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible (Or the Koran, Or the Torah) Will Make You an Atheist
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=_25w9CE73ak - Bill Maher - Atheism IS NOT a Religion
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=qHsFA7cp7M0&t=178s - Atheism a religion?
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=cUh91EP8ClE - The case for Atheism (Richard Carrier)
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=lDpEeHD54Mo&t=1397s - The Gospel According to Carrier
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=mLdjoEWOnec - A believers guide to Atheism in 9 minutes
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=wtO1e9breLs - Is Atheism a Dogmatic Religion?
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=TqhRlpjp4Dw - Atheist VS christian Jaclyn Glenn

RULES:
Prove that atheism is a religion.

dsjpk5 will NOT be allowed to vote in the voting process.
tumeric

Con

My cat lacks belief in a supreme being or beings.
Is he an atheist?
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

You stated some intelligent things about socialism and about the worst president of all time, Donald Trump who has a lot in common with the god of the bible https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Things-that-Donald-Trump-the-worst-president-of-all-time-and-god-both-are-unclean-have-in-common/2/, But all you did was burp nothingness of Ren and Stimpy yak sauce of pre miss-steak evolution harmonica camp fire love songs.
tumeric

Con

By evading the question, You've indicated your fear of answering, And stuttered out some incoherent blubbering to boot.
Yet the implication of the question remains.

I was just kidding anyway. My cat would accept any miracle as a matter of course. He never bothers to wonder where his food comes from, Or what cat food even is. My cat would accept the existence of any possibility with no need to square any experience with any other observations.
Is my cat religious?
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

"By evading the question, You've indicated your fear of answering, " No I reversed it and put it in your face like gooey pimples on a rectal itch gone viral. "Yet the implication of the question remains. " Nope oh great tire iron lung flat breasted junk.

"I was just kidding anyway. " Course you were! You don't think I DON'T understand sarcasm?
"Is my cat religious? " Now its going to be avoided again. Take oh about 30 guesses why?
tumeric

Con

I'll make one guess why:
Because your view on atheism is dependent totally on religious fundamentalism, So much so that it is a form of fundamentalism itself. As the bastard child of Abrahamic religion, Your Atheism has all the same flaws. Since god cannot be defined, Atheism cannot be defined. You can't say whether may cat is an atheist or a believer. One more round. Try to do better.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Try to do booger.
Your guess didn't even hit a flash dive of bottoming out from a cow chirp. Take one lucky guess why? Well luck on the open range to be pistol whipped by stoned barbie dolls who don't know how to use fiberglass con-dumbs for god's sake, You were a very big bad "say uncle" naughty boy and you used some very big homogenized words that you do not understand. "fundamentalism" what is that? Abrahamic, Gosh where did you stack your used con-dumbs?

"Because your view on atheism is dependent totally on religious fundamentalism, " Awe well gosh golly gee gosh darned it all um no diaper daddy noddle brain put some dirt on your legs become a turkey in the morning. Had yah taken a viewership of the videos, Combined with the definition of what atheism is then that would be parked on the outside of a Gee Your Hair Smells commercial.

"Since god cannot be defined, " Well garsh with a pincushion in your har, That grasps onto telephone poles while you have sex with your Justin Beiber collection, Yeah it can and thus atheism is defined as not only proven now, But as previously proven also. But not to an underachiever drillbit like you.

"You can't say whether may cat is an atheist or a believer. " Yeah actually I can.
1. Prove you have a cat.
2. Supposing you do have a cat, A believer in what?
3. Since you've been an arrogant prick and really don't have the foggiest idea as to what you are squawking about, And I do, And have proven you wrong at every instance, Including this one, Guess what sparky? I'm gonna stay tight lipped about this one because believe me, I really can prove whether your cat is an atheist or a believer.

Try to do booger.
Nighty night.
tumeric

Con

Poor BackwardSedan!

Pro laid out bait for a fundamentalist, And got a debate with one of the 90% of humanity who isn't one.
Then Pro refuses to participate in his own debate, Because without the box of fundamentalism, The arguments fall apart. Instead we get some weird and bombastic drivel.

So the rest of this is for you, Dear reader:

Pro claims he can say whether my cat is a believer or not -- But then doesn't!
The question behind the answer, Of course, Is what the hell does it mean to "believe" something anyway? Many religions are essentially a set of social values, So to believe in them is a belief in social constraints and moral codes and God is never independent of those things, So what then does it mean to believe in that god? But atheism does that too. Without the humanism, Individualism, And other attendant ideologies, Disbelief would be a thoughtless 'whateverism'. With the ideological construct, Atheism becomes a religion, Buddhism is an example. Secular Humanism is another. So just accept the accusation, And the tax exemption that come with it.
Debate Round No. 4
101 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Athias - "You have user dsjpk5 using his vote to counter a vote with which he disagreed. " Um nope. Not at all. He tracks down my debates like the racist pig bigot arrogant a$$ that he is just so he can vote negatively on them. It truly is what he lives for. Yeppers you can check him out on how many of my debates he's voted on. Yep you can also check out how many others he's done this to. And you can also check out how he votes only one way on all of them.

Btw, Oh great god of sir genie-us, I did 100% prove that atheism is not a religion by the mere definition of what atheism is. Also the videos presented proves 100% that atheism is not a religion. Did your teeny bopper brian have a lookie at them? Why no. You had your eyelids glued shut with rubbers on an Easter day parade. You are really not that bright. And you should not for a single moment in time ---ever-- think that you are. Anyone can easily outwit you. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say. Thanx. It would be most appreciated.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Okay
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@omar2345: Yes, I meant that. If instead it would be "laws [and] regulation, " then I'd still say that the more accurate assessment is "policies and regulations. "
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"This was a qualification of the notion you put forth that we have laws not regulations. "
No could you quote me where I implied it?
We have laws and regulations.

"This was a qualification of the notion you put forth that we have laws not regulations. "
Do you mean this: "Which is why we have laws not regulations"?
not should be and.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
superficial: appearing to be true or real only until examine more closely. This was a qualification of the notion you put forth that we have laws not regulations. As for threat of "jail time, " how do you suppose one is detained? They are compelled to comply to armed officers who have discretion in using deadly force. Is that not violent? The term "threat" itself denotes violence.

And when you state "Where do you imply this? " can I take it that you meant "Where did [I] imply this? " Assuming the latter, I'm not suggesting that you implied anything. I'm suggesting that in the absence of "enforcement" voting according to one's grudge is a logically inconsistent to the gripe with which one has grievance.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"The notion you put forward is far more superficial than it is accurate. "
Can you use smaller worlds I am finding it difficult to understand you?
Superficial is what I have a problem with.

"Which are enforced with the threat of violence. "
Jail time actually.

"Responding to irrationality with irrationality is no less irrational any more than responding to criminality with criminality is less criminal. "
Where did you imply this?
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
The notion you put forward is far more superficial than it is accurate. We, And I assume, You mean your government and those over whom it presume to preside do not have "law. " If they did, They'd follow them. They have policies, Which are enforced with the threat of violence. I'm not suggesting such policies be implemented here--far from it actually. One can't put a stop to irrationality. It's a fool's errand. However "we" can control how we respond to it. Responding to irrationality with irrationality is no less irrational any more than responding to criminality with criminality is less criminal.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"What needs "enforcing"? "
We should be voting on the debate not on grudges.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

"What needs "enforcing"? "
The person who is the moderator should moderate.

"Seemingly reasonable individuals should be able to regulate this themselves and not indulge the very same behavior with which they have a grievance. "
Well some people are not reasonable. They have instincts and emotions that they allow to cloud their judgement. Which is why we have laws not regulations instead of allowing people who are not reasonable to commit crimes and face consequences.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@omar2345: What needs "enforcing"? How does one "enforce"? There's no way to accurately gauge the insincerity of the vote unless the culprits are sincere in their RFD's. And it defeats the purpose if one's vote is to "counter" a seemingly illegitimate vote while disregarding the content of the argument. Seemingly reasonable individuals should be able to regulate this themselves and not indulge the very same behavior with which they have a grievance.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by zhaod1 3 years ago
zhaod1
backwardsedentumericTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had youtube sources, which although are very biased and untrustworthy, they are better than no sources presented by Con. However, Pro's conduct was atrocious, so conduct goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
backwardsedentumericTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is in the comments. Also, counter-countering baseless votes.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedentumericTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering multiple members poor vote.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 3 years ago
andymcstab
backwardsedentumericTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro thinks quotes and youtube links (and to such esteemed scholars as Jaclyn Glenn at that) make an argument, was incoherent and had poor conduct. Neither made good arguments but i'll give it to Con for his final response because it is atleast an argument, which is one more than PRO.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
backwardsedentumericTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one to give arguments. Con did not give an argument in the first Round which is bad conduct. Con only gave counter arguments with no openinig arguments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.