The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Biancardi
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The BELIEF in atheist DOGMA is a MENTAL DISORDER (AKA INSANITY):

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
Biancardi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,266 times Debate No: 103475
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (52)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Preamble:

Only a believer in atheist Dogma would be so demonic as to deny the existence of objective moral values. The atheist's position is clearly an irrational one: The atheist may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence, and be rightfully considered a lunatic. In reality, the belief in atheist Dogma is a mental disorder that should be treated with a good dose of competent psychological help.

Because it fails as a worldview to provide the basis for objective moral values, the belief in atheist Dogma inevitably leads to corruption of moral character, which naturally leads to such horrible activities as murder, rape, racism, war, poverty, genocide, and all other sorts of man-made calamities. If they can't be helped by psychological treatment, then they should be deported. In fact, most psychologists define "insanity" as displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy, and that is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma is " a collection of beliefs and behaviors that fall outside the standard range of normalcy.

Formal Argument:

The belief in atheist Dogma and its concomitant behaviors qualify as insanity.

P1: Psychologists and Psychiatrists define insanity as: "displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy."

P2: The belief in atheist Dogma and its concomitant behaviors fall outside the standard range of normalcy.

Conclusion: Therefore the belief in atheist Dogma and its concomitant behaviors qualify as insanity.

Bonus video included for clarity:
Biancardi

Con

During the course of this debate, I intend to show beyond any reasonable doubt that atheism is not a mental disorder. To begin, I will define all terms to be used in the debate. I will then examine characteristics of atheism and atheists and characteristics of mental disorders. From there, I will show through the use of reason and logic that atheism is not, in fact, a mental disorder. Finally, I will analyze and refute the argument presented by my opponent.

To begin, it is necessary to define any relevant terms. I will be using Merriam-Webster as a source for these definitions. I would be happy to use any other credible dictionary in future rounds at the request of my opponent, though. In the case of multiple definitions, I will be using the primary definitions because these are the most commonly-used definitions, and thus the most useful to us.

Mental illness or mental disorder: any of a broad range of medical conditions (such as major depression, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, or panic disorder) that are marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning (Source 1)
Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods (Source 2)
Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods (Source 3)
Medical: of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine (Source 4)

Now that we have definitions out of the way, it's time to begin laying out the meat of the argument. The claim being made by my opponent is that believing in "atheist dogma," or being an atheist, is a mental disorder. As defined above, an atheist is effectively someone who does not believe in any god or gods. So, the argument being made is that a lack of belief in any god or gods is a mental disorder.

Let's analyze how atheism, as defined here, relates to mental disorders. The first basic property of mental disorders that one can extract from the above definition is that they are medical conditions. As defined above, medical means "of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine." As per its definition, atheism doesn't inherently have anything to do with medicine, physicians, or the practice of medicine. Additionally, nothing about belief in a god or gods relates to medicine. Therefore, atheism fails to have the first basic characteristic of a mental disorder.

The next characteristic of mental disorders to be extracted from the above definition is that it they are "marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions." Atheism, as defined above, has nothing to do with this property. The definition for atheist also lacks any reference to this property. Additionally, nothing about a lack of belief in any deities relates to this property. So, atheism fails to have the second characteristic of a mental disorder.

Continuing to extract characteristics of mental disorders from the definition above, we find that mental disorders impair "normal psychological functioning." Once more, it is found that neither the definition of atheism or the definition of atheist have any reference to anything along the lines of this. Also, there is not reason to believe that a lack of belief in any deities impairs normal psychological functioning. Thus, atheism again fails to have a characteristic of a mental disorder.

The next characteristic of mental disorders as per the definition above is that they cause "marked distress or disability." Again, nothing in the definitions of atheism or atheist imply this. Additionally, no scientific study has ever claimed that there is a relationship between atheism and "marked distress or disability." So, atheism fails once more to have a characteristic of a mental disorder.

The final characteristic of mental disorders to be found in the above definition is that they are "typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning." As is becoming a pattern, nothing inherent in atheism or being an atheist is related to this in any way. Additionally, no studies have ever found a relation between atheism and this characteristic. So, atheism fails to have yet another characteristic of mental disorders.

As has been shown above, atheism does not have any characteristics of mental disorders. Nothing about atheism inherently relates to any characteristics of mental disorders. Therefore, atheism is not a mental disorder. Atheism is not at all related to mental disorders in any way.

Now that I have laid out my basic argument, I am going to spend the remainder of this round countering my opponent's arguments. My opponent began by calling atheists "demonic." This is an unfounded claim. As per the definition of atheist, nothing is inherently demonic about all atheists.

My opponent then related the opinion of atheists that no god or gods exist to claiming that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist. This is an inaccurate analogy. There is no objective way to prove whether or not a god or gods exist. The existence of a deity isn't falsifiable; it can't be proved or disproved. The existence of the Statue of Liberty, on the other hand, can be proved or disproved by simply going to New York and observing if it is there or not. In fact, millions of people have done this very thing before. Therefore, this analogy doesn't hold up.

My opponent then states that because atheists don't have any objective basis for morality, they end up committing "horrible activities." This is a logical fallacy known as a slippery slope. There is no evidence that being an atheist leads to such behaviors. So, this statement is illogical and unfounded.

After this, my opponent goes on to define insanity. However, my opponent provided no source for this definition. In my research, I was unable to find such a definition for insanity. So, unless my opponent provides a credible source for this definition in future rounds, I am going to posit that the provided definition is invalid.

Sources:
1. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
4. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"I intend to show beyond any reasonable doubt that atheism is not a mental disorder."

I never claimed it was.

" To begin, I will define all terms to be used in the debate. I will then examine characteristics of atheism and atheists"

There is no such thing as an atheist, actually.

"reason and logic"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between reason and logic on the one hand, and irrationality and illogic on the other.

"that atheism is not,"

I never made any claims about "atheism."

"in fact, a mental disorder"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between mental health and mental disorders.

"a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning"

That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails.

The definitions of atheism and atheist that you posted were incorrect.

"being an atheist"

I never made any claims about being an atheist, and in fact, there is no such thing as an atheist.

"an atheist is effectively someone who does not believe in any god or gods"

That definition is incorrect.

. "So, the argument being made is that a lack of belief in any god or gods is a mental disorder."

That is definitely not my argument -- that is your straw man logical fallacy.

"atheism doesn't inherently have anything to do with medicine, physicians, or the practice of medicine."

I never claimed it did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"nothing about belief in a god or gods relates to medicine."

I never claimed that either -- straw man.

"Therefore, atheism fails to have the first basic characteristic of a mental disorder."

I never made a claim about atheism, so that's another straw man on your part.

The next characteristic of mental disorders to be extracted from the above definition is that it they are "marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions.""

That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails.

" Atheism, as defined above, has nothing to do with this property."

I never claimed it did -- straw man.

" The definition for atheist also lacks any reference to this property."

I never claimed it did, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part and in fact, there is no such thing as an atheist.

"Additionally, nothing about a lack of belief"

The belief in atheist Dogma is a belief system, not a "lack of belief."

"So, atheism fails to have the second characteristic of a mental disorder."

I never claimed anything about atheism, so you committed straw man once again.

"mental disorders impair "normal psychological functioning.""

That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma does.

"atheism or the definition of atheist"

I never made any such claims about atheist or atheism, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.

"Also, there is not reason to believe that a lack of belief"

Belief in atheist Dogma is a belief system, not a "lack of belief."

"Thus, atheism again fails to have a characteristic of a mental disorder."

I never claimed it did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"marked distress or disability.""

That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma causes.

Again, nothing in the definitions of atheism or atheist imply this""

I never claimed they did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

. Additionally, no scientific study has ever claimed that there is a relationship between atheism and "marked distress or disability.""

I never claimed so, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" So, atheism fails once more to have a characteristic of a mental disorder."

I never claimed so, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

The final characteristic of mental disorders to be found in the above definition is that they are "typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.""

That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails.

"atheism or being an atheist"

I made no claims about either one in my OP, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.

"a relation between atheism and this characteristic. So, atheism fails to have yet another characteristic of mental disorders."

OP does not make any claims about atheism at all, so that's another of your straw men.

"atheism does not have any characteristics of mental disorders."

I never claimed it did, so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" Nothing about atheism inherently relates to any characteristics of mental disorders"

I never claimed it did, so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

. "Therefore, atheism is not a mental disorder"

I never claimed it was, so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

". Atheism is not at all related to mental disorders in any way.

I never claimed it was, so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"calling atheists "demonic.""

I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.

"As per the definition of atheist, nothing is inherently demonic about all atheists."

I never made that statement either, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.

"My opponent then related the opinion of atheists"

I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.

" that no god or gods exist to claiming that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist."

I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"This is an inaccurate analogy."

The analogy in your straw man may or may not be accurate, but it was not my analogy. My actual analogy, however, is 100% accurate.

" There is no objective way to prove whether or not a god or gods exist."

I never made such a claim, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"The existence of a deity isn't falsifiable; it can't be proved or disproved."

Yes it can.

" The existence of the Statue of Liberty, on the other hand, can be proved or disproved by simply going to New York and observing if it is there or not."

God can also be proved by observation. In fact, millions of people have done this very thing before. Therefore, this analogy does indeed hold up.

"My opponent then states that because atheists don't have any objective basis for morality, they end up committing "horrible activities." "

I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.

" There is no evidence that being an atheist leads to such behaviors."

I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.

." So, this statement is illogical and unfounded."

The statement in question is your straw man logical fallacy, not my actual statement, so it may well be unfounded. However, you have as yet failed to even address my actual argument.

"in my research, I was unable to find such a definition for insanity."

That statement of yours falls under the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

The definitions that you provided were almost all invalid (except one), but all the definitions that I provided are valid.

You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Biancardi

Con

""I intend to show beyond any reasonable doubt that atheism is not a mental disorder."
I never claimed it was."

If you're not claiming that atheism is a mental disorder, then what exactly are you claiming? The topic for the debate is that the "belief in atheist dogma is a mental disorder." What exactly is meant by "atheist dogma" if not being an atheist? You should have defined "atheist dogma."

"" To begin, I will define all terms to be used in the debate. I will then examine characteristics of atheism and atheists"
There is no such thing as an atheist, actually."

Well, this is just blatantly false. All I need to do to disprove this statement is prove that there is at least one atheist in existence. I am an atheist. Ergo, your statement is false; there is such a thing as an atheist.

""reason and logic"
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between reason and logic on the one hand, and irrationality and illogic on the other."

This is hardly relevant to the debate. We're not talking about religion here; we're talking about atheism. Your personal beliefs about the role of a deity in our understanding of knowledge, intelligence, and logic don't impact whether or not "the belief in atheist dogma is a mental disorder."

""that atheism is not,"
I never made any claims about "atheism.""

Once more, what ARE you making claims about, then? What exactly do you mean when you refer to "atheist dogma?"

""in fact, a mental disorder"
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between mental health and mental disorders."

Regardless of if this statement is true or not, that's not relevant. Your personal beliefs about the role of a deity in our thought process is not relevant to the debate.

""a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning"
That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails."

This is an unfounded claim. You can claim that "atheist Dogma" entails that. However, without an good explanation or good evidence to back it, your claim means nothing.

"The definitions of atheism and atheist that you posted were incorrect."

I used definitions from a very credible and well-known dictionary. I even provided links to the source. The definitions are valid because they have the backing of many professional linguists were have been involved in the making of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

"I never made any claims about being an atheist, and in fact, there is no such thing as an atheist."

I'm repeating myself, but what exactly ARE you making claims about then? And also, I showed earlier that there is, in fact, such a thing as an atheist.

""an atheist is effectively someone who does not believe in any god or gods"
That definition is incorrect."

You can claim the definition to be incorrect, but that does not make it incorrect. We, as speakers of a language, collectively give meaning to words. One cannot simply redefine a word to one's liking. Words have set definitions set by major dictionaries.

" "So, the argument being made is that a lack of belief in any god or gods is a mental disorder."
That is definitely not my argument -- that is your straw man logical fallacy."

Well, your argument was never made clear. If "the belief in atheist dogma" doesn't mean being an atheist, what does it mean, then?

" "So, the argument being made is that a lack of belief in any god or gods is a mental disorder."
That is definitely not my argument -- that is your straw man logical fallacy.
"atheism doesn't inherently have anything to do with medicine, physicians, or the practice of medicine."
I never claimed it did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.
"nothing about belief in a god or gods relates to medicine."
I never claimed that either -- straw man."

I never claimed that you directly claimed any of these things. I worked from standard definitions to the words you used. By using those words, you associated your argument with the definitions of the words. If you did not intend for your argument to be associated with those words, you should have chosen different words to express your argument or you should have defined exactly what you meant when you used those words in your argument. This applies to most of your other claims of straw men. I won't address them specifically, though, in order to keep my character count low.

""Therefore, atheism fails to have the first basic characteristic of a mental disorder."
I never made a claim about atheism, so that's another straw man on your part."

As I've stated previously during this round, you never clearly defined what you meant by "atheist dogma." The simplest meaning, and thus the one most likely true as per Occam's Razor, was atheism. If you meant something so specific, you should have defined what exactly you meant by "atheist dogma."

"The next characteristic of mental disorders to be extracted from the above definition is that it they are "marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions.""
That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails."

That is an unfounded claim. You can claim that "atheist Dogma" entails something, but unless there is a good explanation or some valid evidence, the claim is meaningless.

""Additionally, nothing about a lack of belief"
The belief in atheist Dogma is a belief system, not a "lack of belief.""

Atheism is actually inherently a lack of belief. Atheism is defined as "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods." The reason atheism is a lack of belief is because it isn't any sort of coherent religious belief system. It is, by definition, a lack of belief in a deity. Now as for "the belief in atheist Dogma," it's not very clear what exactly you're referring to. It would be clearer if you defined that term.

"The final characteristic of mental disorders to be found in the above definition is that they are "typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.""
That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails."

Again, you never defined "atheist Dogma."

""calling atheists "demonic.""
I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.
"As per the definition of atheist, nothing is inherently demonic about all atheists."
I never made that statement either, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist."

Take a look at this quote from your OP: "a believer in atheist Dogma would be so demonic." You definitely did claim that.

"" that no god or gods exist to claiming that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist."
I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.
"This is an inaccurate analogy."
The analogy in your straw man may or may not be accurate, but it was not my analogy. My actual analogy, however, is 100% accurate."

You claimed that "The atheist may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence.." Clearly the disagreement comes from definitions. You appear to have some other definition regarding atheism. I used the standard definition of atheist. By that definition, your analogy fails. If you intended some other definition to be used, you should have specified that. Also, if atheists don't exist, as you claimed later, why write about what the atheist would claim?

""The existence of a deity isn't falsifiable; it can't be proved or disproved."
Yes it can."

You may believe it possible to prove this to yourself. However, it is not possible to objectively prove such a thing. The debate regarding the existence of a deity has quite literally been going for centuries. It's possible to believe in a deity. However, the existence of a deity cannot be objectively proven.

"" The existence of the Statue of Liberty, on the other hand, can be proved or disproved by simply going to New York and observing if it is there or not."
God can also be proved by observation. In fact, millions of people have done this very thing before. Therefore, this analogy does indeed hold up."

The difference here is in the observation. The Statue of Liberty can be physically and objectively observed and verified. A deity cannot be objectively observed. Even if you believe that you have observed a deity, you cannot prove that it is a deity.

""My opponent then states that because atheists don't have any objective basis for morality, they end up committing "horrible activities." "
I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.
" There is no evidence that being an atheist leads to such behaviors."
I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist."

Here is a quote from your OP: "Because it fails as a worldview to provide the basis for objective moral values, the belief in atheist Dogma inevitably leads to corruption of moral character, which naturally leads to such horrible activities as..." You do make that claim.

""in my research, I was unable to find such a definition for insanity."
That statement of yours falls under the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance."

Call it ignorance if you want. I used standard definitions, but you appear to have made one up.

"The definitions that you provided were almost all invalid (except one), but all the definitions that I provided are valid."

I used definitions from a standard dictionary. You cannot simply declare standard definitions invalid.

"You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)"

That is quite a large, unfounded claim to make when the debate isn't even halfway over.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"I am an atheist"

No you aren't: There is no such thing as an atheist.

""reason and logic"
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between reason and logic on the one hand, and irrationality and illogic on the other."

""that atheism is not,"
I never made any claims about "atheism.""

Once more, what ARE you making claims about, then?"

The subject of the debate is the belief in atheist Dogma.

""in fact, a mental disorder"
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between mental health and mental disorders.

""a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning"
That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails."

The definitions of atheism and atheist that you posted were incorrect.

"I never made any claims about being an atheist, and in fact, there is no such thing as an atheist.

I'm repeating myself, but what exactly ARE you making claims about then?"

The subject of this debate is the belief in atheist Dogma (your religion)

"Well, your argument was never made clear."

Yes it was -- my actual argument (which you have utterly failed to address thus far, BTW) is clearly enunciated in my OP.

If "the belief in atheist dogma" doesn't mean being an atheist, what does it mean, then?"

The phrase "the belief in atheist Dogma" refers to the religion that YOU follow.

" "So, the argument being made is that a lack of belief in any god or gods is a mental disorder."
That is definitely not my argument -- that is your straw man logical fallacy.
"atheism doesn't inherently have anything to do with medicine, physicians, or the practice of medicine."
I never claimed it did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.
"nothing about belief in a god or gods relates to medicine."
I never claimed that either -- straw man."

""Therefore, atheism fails to have the first basic characteristic of a mental disorder."
I never made a claim about atheism, so that's another straw man on your part."

As I've stated previously during this round, you never clearly defined what you meant by "atheist dogma."

All of your statements in this debate are atheist Dogma -- the belief in atheist Dogma is your own personal faith-based and unsupported religious belief.

"The simplest meaning, and thus the one most likely true as per Occam's Razor, was atheism. If you meant something so specific, you should have defined what exactly you meant by "atheist dogma.""

The belief in atheist Dogma refers to the religion that YOU follow.

"The next characteristic of mental disorders to be extracted from the above definition is that it they are "marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions.""
That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails."

"... some valid evidence, the claim is meaningless."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid evidence and invalid evidence.

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the meaningful and the meaningless.

""Additionally, nothing about a lack of belief"
The belief in atheist Dogma is a belief system, not a "lack of belief.""

Atheism is actually inherently a lack of belief. Atheism is defined as "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods." The reason atheism is a lack of belief is because it isn't any sort of coherent religious belief system. It is, by definition, a lack of belief in a deity. Now as for "the belief in atheist Dogma," it's not very clear what exactly you're referring to. It would be clearer if you defined that term."

Your entire paragraph, directly above, is atheist Dogma.

"The final characteristic of mental disorders to be found in the above definition is that they are "typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning.""
That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails."

""calling atheists "demonic.""
I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.
"As per the definition of atheist, nothing is inherently demonic about all atheists."
I never made that statement either, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist."

Take a look at this quote from your OP: "a believer in atheist Dogma would be so demonic." You definitely did claim that."

Yes, I did, and it is a fact.

"" that no god or gods exist to claiming that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist."
I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.
"This is an inaccurate analogy."
The analogy in your straw man may or may not be accurate, but it was not my analogy. My actual analogy, however, is 100% accurate."

You claimed that "The atheist may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence..""

Oops -- my mistake. I honestly meant to write "The believer in atheist Dogma may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence."

Please forgive my minor semantic error in that one sentence, and please accept that I meant to write the corrected version.

In fact, there is no such thing as an atheist, so yes, I admit that was my mistake. =)

"Also, if atheists don't exist, as you claimed later, why write about what the atheist would claim?"

Because of a minor semantic error on my part. My main point stands, however, and I have already corrected the error in that one single sentence, directly above.

""The existence of a deity isn't falsifiable; it can't be proved or disproved."
Yes it can."

"You may believe"

I have no beliefs, actually.

" it is not possible to objectively prove such a thing."

I never claimed it was, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" the existence of a deity cannot be objectively proven."

I never claimed it could, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"" The existence of the Statue of Liberty, on the other hand, can be proved or disproved by simply going to New York and observing if it is there or not."

God can also be proved by observation. In fact, millions of people have done this very thing before. Therefore, this analogy does indeed hold up."

God can be objectively observed and verified.

"A deity cannot be objectively observed."

I never claimed that one could, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" Even if you believe that you have observed a deity, you cannot prove that it is a deity."

I never made either claim, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

Also, it is a patently incorrect and illogical statement, just as much as the following statement would also be patently incorrect and illogical:

"Even if you believe that you have observed a Statue of Liberty, you cannot prove that it is a Statue of Liberty."

(Please note that the above statement is not my actual stance in this debate -- I am only using it as an example to demonstrate how ridiculous and unfounded your above statement about God was).

""My opponent then states that because atheists don't have any objective basis for morality, they end up committing "horrible activities." "
I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist.
" There is no evidence that being an atheist leads to such behaviors."
I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist."

Here is a quote from your OP: "Because it fails as a worldview to provide the basis for objective moral values, the belief in atheist Dogma inevitably leads to corruption of moral character, which naturally leads to such horrible activities as..." You do make that claim.

Yes, I did, and it is true.

""in my research, I was unable to find such a definition for insanity."
That statement of yours falls under the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance."

"Call it ignorance if you want."

It is ignorance: Your personal inability to either find or understand what "insanity" means is neither valid evidence for your side nor a valid refutation of my side -- it is merely your logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance."

The definitions that you provided were almost all invalid (except one), but all the definitions that I provided are valid.

You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Biancardi

Con

During this round, I shall be refuting some statements from my opponent.

""I am an atheist"
No you aren't: There is no such thing as an atheist."

Quite frankly, there IS such a thing as an atheist. Like I stated in the previous round, I am an atheist. That in and of itself proves the existence of atheists. You cannot simply claim that atheists do not exist. That is an unfounded claim. There must be evidence or an explanation for your claim to hold up.

"The subject of the debate is the belief in atheist Dogma."

Yes, but what IS "atheist Dogma?" Up until a few sentences after that, you had not even attempted to define "atheist Dogma."

"The phrase "the belief in atheist Dogma" refers to the religion that YOU follow.
All of your statements in this debate are atheist Dogma -- the belief in atheist Dogma is your own personal faith-based and unsupported religious belief.
The belief in atheist Dogma refers to the religion that YOU follow."

I follow no religion. I don't believe in any god, gods, or higher powers. Therefore, your definition of "atheist Dogma" fails. It hinges upon something that doesn't exist; it hinges upon my religion, but I don't have a religion. Also, this debate is not the right place to discuss whether anyone's beliefs are "unsupported" or not.

"Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid evidence and invalid evidence.
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the meaningful and the meaningless."

This is, quite frankly, irrelevant. What you personally believe about the role of your deity in our intellectual process is not relevant to this debate.

"Your entire paragraph, directly above, is atheist Dogma."

This is a rather unfounded claim. Also, how exactly is that relevant?

"Yes, I did, and it is a fact."

Then why did you deny it?

"Oops -- my mistake. I honestly meant to write "The believer in atheist Dogma may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence."
Please forgive my minor semantic error in that one sentence, and please accept that I meant to write the corrected version."

I can forgive an honest mistake. However, what point is this trying to make? What makes that claim any different?

"I have no beliefs, actually."

Well it's hardly relevant to this debate, but you clearly believe in God, judging from your statements.

"I never claimed it was, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.
I never claimed it could, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part."

I never claimed that you did claim that. It was simply part of my refutation to something you said.

"God can be objectively observed and verified."

There is an inherent problem with this. Even if you can observe God, you can't objectively verify it. There is no way of knowing if you what you observe is true.

After this, my opponent claims two straw men that are actually just parts of my refutation. I won't quote then simply to save space.

"Even if you believe you have observed a Statue of Liberty, you cannot prove that it is a Statue of Liberty."

This is not much of an issue with physical things because we humans have a good sense of physical vision. However, we don't have quite the same sense of spiritual vision. You could be observing God. You could also be observing a different god. You could also be observing a ghost. You just can't prove what it is.

My opponent then goes on about his definition of insanity. I would say that it is an invalid definition, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument. He defines insanity as behavior out of the range of normalcy. However, things like being left handed are outside the range of normalcy. We don't consider that to be insanity, though. So, that definition fails.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

There is no such thing as an atheist, actually.

My opponent wrote:

The subject of the debate is the belief in atheist Dogma.

All of your statements in this debate were atheist Dogma.

The phrase "the belief in atheist Dogma" refers to the religion that YOU follow.

All of your statements in this debate are atheist Dogma -- the belief in atheist Dogma is your own personal faith-based and unsupported religious belief.

The belief in atheist Dogma refers to the religion that YOU follow.

"I follow no religion"

Yes, you do -- the religion you follow is the belief in atheist Dogma.

"Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid evidence and invalid evidence.

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the meaningful and the meaningless."

Those statements are both true.

"you clearly believe in God,"

I have no beliefs, actually -- you are the only one of the two of us that harbors any beliefs or disbeliefs about God.

"Even if you can observe God, you can't objectively verify it."

Yes, we can. Also, without God, nobody could objectively verify anything.

" There is no way of knowing if you what you observe is true."

If you actually have no way of knowing whether or not what you observe is true, then you are personally unqualified to engage in any debate, including this one. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

"However, we don't have quite the same sense of spiritual vision."

If you actually lack spiritual vision, then any and all statements that you may personally produce about God, whether positive or negative, must necessarily be unreliable.

" You could be observing God."

That is true.

" You could also be observing a different god."

There is only one God. You are a polytheist, but your polytheistic belief system is false. (Polytheism is actually a subset of the belief in atheist Dogma).

"You just can't prove what it is."

Yes, I can.

"I would say that it is an invalid definition"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between a valid definition and an invalid one.

"He defines insanity as behavior out of the range of normalcy."

I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

I won this debate handily: Thanks for your time! =)
Biancardi

Con

During this round, I shall be continuing to refute some statements from my opponent.

""I follow no religion"
Yes, you do -- the religion you follow is the belief in atheist Dogma."

I don't wish to be rude, but when did you get the right to tell me what my religion is? I follow no religion. I have no religion. End of story.

""Even if you can observe God, you can't objectively verify it."
Yes, we can. Also, without God, nobody could objectively verify anything."

Like I explained last round, there is no way to know with certainty if you have observed or communicated with a god. Even if you believe you have, there is no objective measure to determine if you are correct. Humans are physical creatures; we can determine and see things physically. However, we don't have the same spiritual sense. Also, like I have stated numerous times, your beliefs about the role of the deity you believe in are not relevant to this debate.

"If you actually have no way of knowing whether or not what you observe is true, then you are personally unqualified to engage in any debate, including this one."

I never stated that it is impossible to know whether or not you observe in any case is true, so this is a misrepresentation of my argument, also known as a straw man logical fallacy. I stated that it is not possible to determine if what you observe is true regarding deities and gods. This is because our minds mess with us. For example, even if I believe some higher power is communicating with me, I can't determine with certainty that my mind isn't simply playing tricks on me. Now, this doesn't mean I am unqualified to engage in debate. I can verify many things about the world. Some things, however, are simply out of the reach of us humans, at least for the time being.

"If you actually lack spiritual vision, then any and all statements that you may personally produce about God, whether positive or negative, must necessarily be unreliable."

That's more or less the point I was making. My argument was that our observations about higher powers are inherently unreliable.

"There is only one God."

That is your personal belief, and you are entitled to it. However, it means nothing in debate. Additionally, it is not relevant.

"You are a polytheist, but your polytheistic belief system is false. (Polytheism is actually a subset of the belief in atheist Dogma)."

No, I am not a polytheist. As I have stated before, I am an atheist. However, I am open-minded. I am open to the idea of any god or gods if sufficient evidence could be provided. As for polytheism being of subset of atheist dogma, that simply makes no sense. Atheism, and hence any dogma that could potentially go with it, is inherently a lack of belief in any gods. This does not just include the god you believe in; it includes all gods. Atheists are not polytheists.

"Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between a valid definition and an invalid one."

Statements like this, regardless of if they are true or not, are not relevant to this debate.

""He defines insanity as behavior out of the range of normalcy."
I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part."

Here is a quote from your OP: "In fact, most psychologists define "insanity" as displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy." As you can see, I did paraphrase, hence why I didn't have quotation marks when I stated that. However, you definitely did say that, so it is not a straw man.

"I won this debate handily: Thanks for your time! =)"

Well, possible unfortunately for you, you do not determine who wins or loses this debate. Thank you for your time as well, though. I always enjoy a good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 41 through 50 records.
Posted by NDECD1441 3 years ago
NDECD1441
Yours
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
No, it's really not my problem, because I don't give a crap whether you're able to debate anyone or not, you ignorant, whiny little douchebag:

Again -- whose problem is it?
Posted by NDECD1441 3 years ago
NDECD1441
Yours.

BwaHahhahahahaha
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
No, it's really not my problem, because I don't give a crap whether you're able to debate anyone or not, you ignorant, whiny little douchebag:

Again -- whose problem is it?
Posted by EnchantedPlatinum 3 years ago
EnchantedPlatinum
Yours. You purposefully selected certain criteria and thus exclude people from debating you. I would like to see the conditions which you set, by the way.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Whose problem is that?
Posted by byaka2013 3 years ago
byaka2013
I want to debate but don't match criteria
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
I don't make it a practice to engage with two-legged animals that post comments under my debates.
Posted by Bluepaintcan123 3 years ago
Bluepaintcan123
Purushadasa, how long do you plan on keeping this up? Do you like trolling people?
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
FanboyMctroll
You just did hahaha

BURN!!!!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaBiancardiTied
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:07 

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