The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Xenoth
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

atheism=a religion, like an opposing 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 1 vote the winner is...
Xenoth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 100259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Xenoth

Con

To come to the conclusion whether or not atheism is a religion, we must first have the definitions of both atheism and religion. I will be using the Oxford dictionary for my definitions.

Religion: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
Atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
As you can see, both aren't compatible. How does one not believe in a god or goddess but yet believe and worship a metaphysical being?
Also you say that it is an "opposing religion." Could you clarify that after your rebuttal?

And as always, good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

disbelief is not lack of belief, lack of belief is the agnostic position

theists disbelieve each others gods

religion=to rely on, while self is one
Xenoth

Con

So your logic is that as atheists don't believe in the other gods, they fit your definition of theists?
Theists believe in a religion and a god. But what God does atheism have? From what I understand you say one's self. Well that's completely wrong. The term for this is self religion, coined by Paul Heelas.
Also to find out what religion is we need to find out what religion (this is assuming atheism is not a religion, just to make it easier to compare atheism and beliefs that are widely accepted as religions.)

Creation ministries international made a list like so:
1. Narrative
2. Experiential (An experience before the creation of the religion)
3. Hierarchies and a power structure
4. Doctrinal (Beliefs and doctrines)
5. Ethical
6. Ritual
7. Material

Narrative:
Atheism definetly has a narrative. An oversimplified version would be this: The big bang occured and life started, later resulting in us evolving into homo sapiens through thousands of years. Again, this is a highly oversimplified version.

Experiential:
There isn't really a moment where atheism was formed, but modem atheism could be said as starting when Charles Darwin embarked on his voyage on the HMS Beagle.

Social:
Atheism, as far as I know doesn't have a definitive and obvious hierarchy (like how Catholics have the Pope, preists, cardinals, etc.)
It could be said that Marxist and Stalinists countries had an atheist hierarchy (the government) but this is a bit of a stretch.

Doctrinal:
Atheists usually follow the humanist manifesto and other secular manifestos so I would say yes, we would have some doctrines.

Ethical:
In most cases atheists are moral relativists or utilitarians but really there is no mutually agreed upon morality system (like the Christians 10 commandments or pastafarians "8 I'd rather you didn't")

Rituals:
As far as I know we don't have any rituals... That would be weird.

Materials:
This refers to objects or places created for the religion (many of which are considered holy or sacred, such as temples, mosques, churches, synagogues, etc.)

So.. Let's just to a quick run down:
Narrative? Yep (Y)
Experiential? Ehhh.. Kind of. (Y)
Social Hierarchies? No. (N)
Doctrinal? Yes. (Y)
Ethical? No. (N)
Rituals? No. (N)
Materials? No. (N)

And.. It's a tie.
As it doesn't meet all of them (which religions do), it would be hard to see atheism is a religion. Are they similar? Yes. Are they the same? Definetly not.

Reference:
http://creation.mobi...
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

atheism has an opposite god

for eksample, one can believe in the christian god without disbelieving the muslim god
Xenoth

Con

First, I would like to congratulate you on such an interesting view point. Now on to what we are here to do: debate!

First, I have to say that your logic is honestly confusing, so I'll try to make sense of it as best as I can.

You claim that "one can believe in the Christian god without disbelieving in the Muslim god"
This would mean you would believe they are the same god. This would simply not make much logical sense, but yes you could.
You also claim that atheism has an "opposite god."
I have never heard this term before so the opposite of a god, it seems would either be:
1. No god, which means you admit that atheism isn't a religion,
or
2. A demon, which contradicts the definition of atheism (not believing in any supernatural being, which a demon is.)

As you can see,
Pro has used confusing logic, has used incorrect spelling ("eksample"), has not used correct grammar (he didn't capitalizing his words nor use punctuation), and has made little attempt to prove me wrong.

For these reasons I ask you to please vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: paintballvet18// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Spelling: Pro- "eksample" Arguments: Again, Pro doesn't actually argue anything. Con refutes nothingness and therefore wins. Sources: Con 1-0 Pro on source count

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. It must be clear that the arguments of one side are difficult to understand as a result of mistakes made in S&G. Merely pointing out a single spelling mistake doesn"t show that this is true. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. While pointing out that one side didn"t argue is sufficient, the voter is still required to assess the other and show that their arguments were relevant to their side of the debate. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side provides sources, the voter is still required to assess the relevance of those sources in the RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
nah its okay, good debate
Posted by Xenoth 1 year ago
Xenoth
We could continue the debate if you'd like..
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
didnt get anywhere
Posted by Xenoth 1 year ago
Xenoth
That was an interesting debate, vi_spex. Good job.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
cant*
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
vi_spexXenothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's first round saying, "ye" doesn't help judges because the resolution of the debate is never explained. Therefore, S&G swings Con because judges don't understand Pro's stance. Argument: Same point as above- Pro doesn't ever clarify what he's arguing for, so we must vote Con because of Con's Round 2 that thoroughly refutes the lack of a deity in atheism. Therefore, Con wins S&G and Args.