The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Atheism just another I believe blah blah

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Mister_Man has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 880 times Debate No: 114982
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




Can an ant or a cat or even the most intelligent Ape describe human civilizations? Absurd. Why absurd? These lower species lack the development to speak with human beings. An Ape might communicate the simplests of abstract ideas, but no Ape yet has ever written a dissertation upon human civilization and presented this thesis to a University.

And yet Man assumes that he has the mental development to describe the Gods? Mohammed declared that only one God rules supreme. Whereas the Church dogmatism declared God as a mysterious 3 that live as 1 - they labelled their new faith, the Trinity. Church dogma of the Trinity resulted in the persecution and slaughter of entire communities.

Both these religions stand upon - personally believing and accepting some type of theologica belief system. I - all belief systems express Egotism - I believe that jesus son of Zeus is the son of God (brother of Hercules) - [another illegitimate child fathered by Zeus], I believe that this God ... has 3 parts father/son/holy spirit. My belief in this 3 part God its a mystery to me which i do not understand but I believe as an act of faith.

Then you have this dude Mohammed, who claimed the title of illiteracy. Marvel at the poety of his koran - surely that's proof that the Angel Gabrael dictated the koran. This dude claims himself to be a prophet in the line of the Hebrew prophets. Yet his book - even though it makes a matra of the word "prophet", can not distinguish that undefined term from an Angel - another undefined term.

The first word of the Torah of Moses B'ra'shet; this word in Hebrew contains within its 6 letters. (By simply re-arranging the order of the letters in that first word [An example in English: God/Dog] its possible to form the words brit fire). Brit means alliance in the Torah literature. The term "fire" refers to the responsibility of making oaths. For example, shortly after the Creation story, the story of the floods which killed virtually all of Mankind except for Noah. What caused these terrible floods? The Talmud answers this questions with the teaching warning against swearing false oaths.

The 1st Book of that 5 part Hebraic code tells story after story of men and nations establishing a oath brit alliances. For example: Jacob made an oath brit alliance with his father in law.

You being a military man you know the value of people forging a military or economic alliance. To cut an alliance requires terms that the parties forging this said alliance agree to honor and keep. Trust between the 2 allies, its measured by the strictness by which the allies honor and respect the terms of their alliance.

Abraham,Isaac and Jacob made an oath brit alliance with Avi-melech. The latter king ruled over a people which the Book of Samuel refers to as Jebusites. The city state of Avi-melech's kingdom: Jerusalem. Avi-melech sought to establish an alliance between his city state and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - rich and powerful land owning shepherds. Yet in the days of David, Avi-melech's descendents referred to Jacob as a cripple and to Isaac as a blind man.

How did David, a military man, honor that oath alliance? He slaughtered the Jebusites and drove them out of Jerusalem. Thereafter he made Jerusalem the Capital of his kingdom. This term brit, represents a key political idea in the Torah/Constitution of the Davidic kingdom. In Hebrew the name of the former USSR contains the word "brit"; the name of the United States, in Hebrew likewise contains the word "brit". Both of these two world powers claimed to exist as a Republic! The term brit, in Hebrew, means both 1. alliance and 2. Republic. In the case of the 12 tribes which made an alliance to conquer the kingdoms within the lands of Canaan, the union of these 12 tribes formed a larger Republic.

The foreign bible translations and koran - both translated brit as covenant. An alliance requires that the allies swear an oath based upon clearly defined terms or conditions of agreement. The Torah as the Constitution of the Hebrew Republic [unlike Xtianity or Islam] did not stand upon theological belief systems. In point of fact, the 2nd commandment at Sinai: do not worship other Gods, directly acknowledges that other Gods live. Clearly Mohammeds' strict Monotheism differed with the Sinai revelation!!

Having watered down the concept of brit linked to making an oath alliance, both religions replaced the key term brit, with a totally undefined term - "covenant". Both ego based belief systems of Xtianity and Islam changed the focus away from oath alliances. Both religions replaced the concept of people conducting diplomacy to forge an oath alliance; and replaced brit with I believe that Jesus son of Zeus is the son of God; or I believe that Mohammed is the prophet and that only Allah lives as God.

Both of these bogus egotistical belief systems stand upon the premise that the lives of the Gods human belief and theology determines. Both religions turned the concept of swearing an oath alliance upon its head. Man, according to these religions possesses the power to determine the nature of the Gods! By this arrogance Man stands eye to eye with the Gods. Plenty of men have in fact declared themselves as being a God. Caesar declared himself as being the son of God.

The ancient Hebrews made no such presumptions about Man. Man ruled over animals and nature, except when the animals preyed upon Man, and floods or drought proved that Man existed on a lower order of power than nature.

Other people hence declared that the Gods live as one with nature. Spinoza's philosophy embraced this type of pantheism. The rabbis placed Spinoza into charem/ex-communication.

This brings us to the subject of this debate challenge. It seems to me that atheism exists as the flip side of the coin of religious belief in God(s). Just as Man lacks the development to prove the existence of this or that God, so too atheists lack the development to disprove the existence of this or that God. Look who's calling the kettle black type of Status quo ante - action/reaction - religious/atheist, bi-polor none sense.


I'm going to accept this debate in hopes that it doesn't last very long. Please forgive me if my answers and responses come off hastily or rash, as I've had this discussion a few times. But thanks for challenging me to this topic nonetheless.

From what I gathered from our brief chat outside of this debate, your stance is that Atheism is a belief in the same way Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc are all beliefs.

I feel bad for not having anything to say in response to your long opening statement, but my main point is that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief.

Let me try to explain.

A Christian believes in God, Jesus, all that fun stuff. An atheist hears out what the Christian has to say, and responds with "nah, I don't buy it." Does this mean that the atheist has formed an independent belief system? I don't think so. Rejecting a statement for lack of evidence is not the same as believing the opposite of that statement.

We use this technique in court. There's a reason the verdict is "guilty" or "not guilty," while the term "innocent" is never used. If someone is deemed not guilty, does that mean they're innocent? Not necessarily, as there's not enough evidence to prove that they are, and there's not enough evidence to prove that they're guilty. Atheists' stance on religion or God is basically "not guilty," instead of "innocent."

If this analogy doesn't hold much merit, then think of atheism as nothing more than a rejection of other beliefs, instead of its own independent belief.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 1


I am pleased that you have so graciously agreed to debate this subject, yet one more time. Thank You, I hope to learn something new from our debate.

Your opening thesis: "my main point is that atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief." My response to this - your main point - that a believer declares I believe in etc. An atheist declares I do not believe in etc. It seems to my that your main point acknowledges that both believer and atheist stand on the identical foundation of EGO. I believe vs. I do not believe. The first word of both belief systems -- the self important EGO of "I". Limiting the Gods to what a person personally believes or does not believe - while opposites - exist as the 2 sides of the same coin - heads or tails.

Let me bring proof from what you write: ""nah, I don't buy it." "" A belief system centers upon the EGO of I. Let me bring another proof from what you write: ""I don't think so"". Once more the EGO of I raises its head. Who are you or myself, do our personal opinions change the nature of gravity? No they do not. How much more so the nature of the Gods!

Let me bring proof from what you write: ""Rejecting a statement for lack of evidence"" What qualifies as evidence? Shall we rely upon the scientific method? The latter relies strictly upon physical "empirical" evidence. But limiting the Gods to 3 physical dimensions - that's just simple idolatry. Xtianity must have a physical jesus son of Zeus. The religion falls apart if Jesus son of Zeus exists only as mythology.

To disprove the folly and arrogance of the Scientific method as the holder of the keys of all evidence, 19th century's hyperbolic geometry's refutation of the 5th axiom of Euclidian geometry. I do not know your math skills, so i will make this simple: A plane and a line not on that plane ... how many lines can be drawn through that line ... and remain parallel to the plane? Euclid's 5th axiom declares "1 line". Hyperbolic geometry teaches "infinite lines". How? Euclid's 5th axiom limited all reality to 3 physical dimensions. Hyperbolic geometry argues that mathematically infinite dimensions exist. The ancient Greeks and Romans named the planets in our galaxy by names of their Gods. So too the days of the week.

A simple question: what distinguishes between ancient Greek mythology which limited reality to 3 physical dimensions to that of the modern Scientific method which makes the exact same mathematical error?!

Sir, how do you define this term: "evidence"? As an atheist praise God, I do not believe in the Gods worshipped by christians and muslims or buddists etc. However, what I personally believe does not count for a hill of beans! Therefore its not enough for me to declare my atheism, but rather its necessary for me to praise the God of my People [being Jewish]. Torah contrasts with the other abomination religions b/c its 1st and foremost a Constitutional political document rather than a religious book of faith. Its logic system does not depend upon personal beliefs pro or con. Torah stands upon the integrity of the oath alliance which allies swear to one another. A person does not swear to keep defined terms of an oath, and later declare: "I believe I made an oath!"

Swearing a Torah oath has its consequences: keep faith to the terms and conditions of the oath sworn and live; break faith with the terms and conditions of the oath sworn and die. Examples of this within the Hebrew T'NaCH: exile. The Torah teaches that exile - becoming a stateless refugee population qualifies as a form of death. Jews existed as stateless refugees scattered across Asia and Europe for over 2000 years. Stateless refugees have little or no rights. The oppression of European society for over 2000 years of the Jewish stateless refugee populations in Europe resulted in Genocide wherein the European barbarians efficiently slaughtered 75% of European Jewry in less than 4 years! Jesus son of Zeus stated in the gospel mythologies "by their fruits you shall know them". I mosc kerr abhor the gods worshipped by the scum christian pigs!

Please permit me to bring another quote and address it directly. "Atheists' stance on religion or God is basically "not guilty," instead of "innocent."

First point of distinction, the Gods and religion - 2 totally separate realities. Theology and dogma do not determine the Gods. That's just silly arrogant Egotism. Man can no more bring evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the Gods and can a frog write a dissertation upon human society and present this history in order to receive a PhD.

I like and agree with your closing statement and thank you: "think of atheism as nothing more than a rejection of other beliefs, instead of its own independent belief." I love my people, our culture and customs and traditions. As a Jew I do not believe in God or Gods. But the oath to obey the commandments of Moshe our prophet, please HaShem bless my nation Israel, give me the merit to obey the Torah of Moshe the greatest prophet of my People.

A prophet does not fortell the future - that's a witch. A prophet commands mussar. Mussar, ethical rebukes, apply to all generations of Man. All men must put their pants on one leg at a time and urinate in a toilet of some kind, even if its a tree or a wall. The Oral Torah - represents a unique logic system, totally different from the logic systems developed by Plato and Aristotle of ancient Greece.

Everything has its limitations, and logic has its limitations. Logic can not provide evidence of the existence or none existence of the Gods. Logic does permit all generations of the Jewish people a common logic format wherein they can interpret the intent of the Framer of our Torah Constitution. Judaism, developed by exiled Jewry in the Middle Ages - that's a religion. Religion does not define or restrain or limit the nature of the Gods which no man can comprehend.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
We can continue our excellent discussions on this comment forum.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Haha yeah I don't know what it's doing, it apparently doesn't want to update the debate. Hasn't done that to me before, must be a new glitch.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
oh i see yes it has. Gotcha! :)
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Very good. But why not just post the 3rd round? Has time run out?
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Okay great thanks, I'll challenge you most likely tomorrow or Wednesday if that isn't a problem and I'll just copy and paste my first round argument and you can do the same with the second and we'll continue from there?
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
sure let's start again :)
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Aw sh*t sorry, got super busy this weekend... can we continue? I don't know what it's doing.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
An atheist does not express his personal opinion by choosing to embrace his opinion?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Another believe ?..No it is the absense of believe..
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
cool, a good discussion ideally introduces new ideas.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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