Instigator / Pro
10
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#2412
You are born as an atheist *not* .
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
26
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
You cannot be born an atheist. Atheism takes knowledge that is to know what you're rejecting or disbelieving . Many make the mistake starting with the faulty understanding or premise that a newborn starts off as an atheist so therefore it's the default or neutral position. Atheism is a lack of a belief and babies appropriately enough don't have beliefs to begin with coming into the world.
The fault in that line of reasoning goes back to the definition of atheism. It's not only a lack of a belief but no belief in God. In order for me to not believe in something, I have to know what it is or what it amounts to.
If you were to ask me, do I believe in support of the such and such amendment, I can't be honest with a yay or nay. I don't know what it is or if even I'm directly , indirectly doing something , saying something in practice of it.
A lack of belief or knowledge does not automatically mean I'm negative or in rejection.
I can be a committed vegetarian caught with a conflicting diet. You may say "You're no vegetarian. That cuisine was fixed with the oil of animal product."
I'm doing something unknowingly. That is rejection unbeknownst to me. But I wouldn't tell you I reject whatever it is. I wouldn't know whatever it is I'm supposedly or apparently rejecting inadvertently.
I don't believe this is controversial. But in case somebody thinks there's an argument against it, come forth with it here and now.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
Round 1
You cannot be born an atheist. Atheism takes knowledge that is to know what you're rejecting or disbelieving . Many make the mistake starting with the faulty understanding or premise that a newborn starts off as an atheist so therefore it's the default or neutral position. Atheism is a lack of a belief and babies appropriately enough don't have beliefs to begin with coming into the world.
The fault in that line of reasoning goes back to the definition of atheism. It's not only a lack of a belief but no belief in God. In order for me to not believe in something, I have to know what it is or what it amounts to.
If you were to ask me, do I believe in support of the such and such amendment, I can't be honest with a yay or nay. I don't know what it is or if even I'm directly , indirectly doing something , saying something in practice of it.
I'm doing something unknowingly. That is rejection unbeknownst to me. But I wouldn't tell you I reject whatever it is. I wouldn't know whatever it is I'm supposedly or apparently rejecting inadvertently.
The fault in that line of reasoning goes back to the definition of atheism. It's not only a lack of a belief but no belief in God. In order for me to not believe in something, I have to know what it is or what it amounts to.
If you were to ask me, do I believe in support of the such and such amendment, I can't be honest with a yay or nay. I don't know what it is or if even I'm directly , indirectly doing something , saying something in practice of it.
A lack of belief or knowledge does not automatically mean I'm negative or in rejection.
I can be a committed vegetarian caught with a conflicting diet. You may say "You're no vegetarian. That cuisine was fixed with the oil of animal product."
I'm doing something unknowingly. That is rejection unbeknownst to me. But I wouldn't tell you I reject whatever it is. I wouldn't know whatever it is I'm supposedly or apparently rejecting inadvertently.
Definition of atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism
Definition of atheism1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any godsb: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Someone who is just born cannot even fathom what God is, let alone believe in him/her/it.
Additionally, I am sure that one rebuttal to my stance will be that the very young are the most susceptible to persuasion and have very high imagination. So, naturally they may actually believe in a god very easily right?
If you believe in the Buddhist god just as easily as the Christian one and believe in both just as easy as an atheist reality, you are not not an atheist. You are merely entertaining a plethora of ideas in your head that will lead to you equally disbelieving all gods other than the one your family and peers peer pressure you into.
This said, we are talking about absolute babies when they are born, not even young people. Babies can't even form words in their brain and don't even possess the linguistic capacity to fathom what God is let alone entertain the emotional depth and logical coherence to apply those emotions to strongly believe in said God.
I will see what Pro says back to this.
Round 2
"Someone who is just born cannot even fathom what God is, let alone believe in him/her/it."
Exactly right, you're on the right track at this point here .
Upon using the Google search engine,atheism is synonymous with disbelief.
How can someone believe or disbelieve something that they haven't learned about and has yet to understand?
Whether we've learned this or not by now, atheism and theism are positions that one can choose from. The newborn is in the middle. Why so? The newborn has not learned the concept of doubt or questioning yet which is what disbelief is. No concept or idea at least not right out of the womb in this subject.
"Additionally, I am sure that one rebuttal to my stance will be that the very young are the most susceptible to persuasion and have very high imagination. So, naturally they may actually believe in a god very easily right?"
I would take this case by case as skepticism happens differently with each individual at a different age.
"If you believe in the Buddhist god just as easily as the Christian one and believe in both just as easy as an atheist reality, you are not not an atheist. You are merely entertaining a plethora of ideas in your head that will lead to you equally disbelieving all gods other than the one your family and peers peer pressure you into."
This once more comes down to the individual. You'd have to ask each individual on the basis of their belief and disbelief. Let them explain the reason for their position.
"This said, we are talking about absolute babies when they are born, not even young people. Babies can't even form words in their brain and don't even possess the linguistic capacity to fathom what God is let alone entertain the emotional depth and logical coherence to apply those emotions to strongly believe in said God."
You know, I think we're in harmonious stances. By not having logical coherence, whether under development or just beginning, theres no grounds for a weak, lukewarm, strong belief in God or belief in no God.
Just think, a newborn would have to understand of what not having evidence is to explain the reason in holding the belief in there being no God.
So basically, we're getting down to knowledge as the description has said. There's little to no knowledge about anything in a newborn's mind.
Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning where you arrive at a specific conclusion by examining two other premises or ideas. Syllogism derives from the Greek word syllogismos, meaning conclusion or inference.
Some syllogisms contain three components:
- Major Premise
- Minor Premise
- Conclusion
P1 = Major Premise
P2 = Minor Premise
C = Conclusion
P1: To believe in something requires the ability to imagine/contemplate/fathom it.
P2: If something cannot believe in something, it lacks belief in that thing
C1: If something cannot imagine/contemplate/fathom something, it lacks belief in that thing.
--
P1: C1
P2: Newborn babies cannot imagine/contemplate/fathom God.
C2: Newborn babies lack belief in God.
--
P1: C2
P2: A lack of belief in God qualified one as an atheist.
C3: Newborn babies are atheists.
I will like to see Pro counter any of these syllogisms or the link between them. Pro has explicitly agreed with me that we are born incapable of deep thought and contemplation of a concept such as God and Theism.
Round 3
This is where the problem is. I see now that as the debate goes on, it's a problematic topic.
It's problematic because the position the person takes is all based on the definition they're using.
I want you to really address my points and not repeat yourself. Attempt to answer the questions .
I understand the definition of atheism for you is the lack of belief. Does that mean disbelief?
When you use the Google search engine to look up the word "disbelief", you'll see the synonym "atheism".
So what is disbelief? Has to do with rejecting or refusing. How does a newborn know about refusing the belief in the existence of God ?
Is it not true that the lack of a belief in God means believing that God doesn't exist?
But the newborn lacks beliefs. They couldn't believe a god doesn't exist.
The fact is, they hold no beliefs or disbeliefs.
This is why an agnostic is not an atheist. They hold no disbeliefs. When you make the definition of atheism as broad as you're doing , everything that simply is void of a belief in God is by that broad definition an atheist. A rock, a stop sign, a tree, a car, fruit, animals, newborn babies, pencils, etc.
All of these things are absent of beliefs. So by that logic , all of them are atheists.
"I will like to see Pro counter any of these syllogisms or the link between them. Pro has explicitly agreed with me that we are born incapable of deep thought and contemplation of a concept such as God and Theism."
You're saying there is a basis needed to believe something but no basis to disbelieve something.
I can't have a lack of a belief in the such and such amendment as I don't know what that amendment is. I don't know what constitutes not believing in support of it.
I can't believe a movie is no good if I haven't seen it. If I haven't seen it, there's no basis for me to believe it's good or believe it's not good.
Although I have no belief it's good, that's true. The problem is, you stop right there and say "whoomp there it is". But I'm in effort to get you to see it's not the default. I also have no disbelief, that is also true.
I make a broad definition of vegetarian. Anything that eats no meat is vegetarian. I'm a meat eater and vegetarian at once. My skin, hair, eyes, nails, ears, etc. consume no meat.
Now you can get confused about what I'm saying just using a single word. We need definitions that will suffice distinguishment in order to not have a confusing language. The more specified, the better.
So the foundation , context of the debate topic is in the description. In accordance with that description, the topic statement is valid. Atheism is a position taken to disbelieve. What does that mean? When you hold no belief of a god, you don't accept the belief in a god. When you don't accept something, you reject it. That's how you're able to not accept something which inanimate objects and newborn babies don't have that ability to do so.
Pro is arguing that we are not born as gnostic atheists but rather as agnostic atheists. Con agrees to this.
Round 4
A newborn baby can be an atheist like a television can be an atheist.
A newborn baby can't be an atheist like you and I. As mentioned in the description, it takes knowledge to decide to reject or refuse to accept something as true on any given basis.
Say on the basis of no evidence or the big bang theory , the newborn has yet to notice what a bang is versus a clapping sound .
Forfeited
Round 5
Lastly to this topic is the idea of an atheist. You don't think of a leaf, apple, car or camera or any inanimate object as being atheists.
No more than it's thought about of a shoe lace being vegetarian simply because it doesn't consume meat.
Many of these things aren't functional to taking a religious stand as it's inapplicable.
But if I'm just something simply because I exist without a particular quality, the conflation makes a conundrum or two.
Does a theist that loses their memory, consciousness or become comatose become an atheist without objection to becoming so, without a conscious choice by them?
This gets down to individual knowledge and judgment sort of like the age of consent.
A child or newborn doesn't know what it means to consent or be a rejecting atheist apparently.
Just because we don't think of Televisions and inanimate objects like a rock as atheists doesn't mean they aren't.
Babies have brains and those brains lack belief in God, which Pro wholeheartedly agrees to, checkmate.
I see you changed your profile picture, very good!
Sure, whatever you say.
That's because they ask tough questions and try to have a conversation, and the liberals retreat into their feelings when they don't have anything to back up their claims
Did so, what I see is deep sadistic relishing in triggering liberals into frustration and sadness from right wing YouTubers and newspeople. I barely see the same from the Left
Literally look up any youtube video. Or look at the protesters and rioters. Conservatives like to have dialogue and free speech, liberals shut it down.
Right wingers yell profanities and severely hurtful insults to others far more readily than leftists, outside of rap. No idea where you're inventing these things but I'd like to see the data.
No idea where you got the idea that it's exclusively on the left. Trump's entire campaign and debate strategy is what you said the left do.
I don't admire a lot of leftist points of views either. However, when I talk about tolerance sarcastically, I'm referencing a very large group of people on the left who refuse to have conversations with conservatives and talk about their views, and instead we just see insults and name-calling and hate. In fact, this is almost exclusively on the left. You will hardly ever see conservatives unwilling to have a conversation about their views, nonetheless yell meaningless profanities and insults.
I can see what your saying about people paying attention when you use that profile picture, but I think it can only go so far, and only works somewhat on the internet. People will be a lot less open-minded to your views if the first thing they see is "f*ck you for voting Trump." This especially would be a turn off in real life. It could be more useful to get their attention and discuss issues with you, but it would most likely manifest into trying to win a debate rather than a friendly discussion.
It's very subjective what one considers to be offensive or how they take something. That's why I don't think freedom of speech should have any limitations even if it is deemed offensive or hurtful. I can 100% disagree if a person is supporting white supremacy and calling black people or minority groups as a waste of human life, but I 100% support their free speech rights to that opinion.
Of course I'd be willing to discuss your views. My problem is the propensity of the further right's usage of that "Freedom of Speech". Particularly when they use it to abuse the disadvantaged, discriminated, and harmed individuals.
Besides, what you call 'tolerance' is just a word game. I genuinely tolerate Trump supporters and all their hypocrisy and stupidity, what I don't do is admire it or consider it morally valid.
I think they need to have their minds opened up and that they only respond to insults (after all, Trump literally debates by 100% insults 0% logic). So saying 'fuck you for voting Trump' actually is a good thing to do to them, it makes them even pay you some attention and listen to what you have to say.
Fair enough
I will reason with a Trump supporter but I don't want to waste too much time and energy on the impossible if you catch my drift.
If they're genuinely openminded and I got some time to spare, I'll talk with them about politics.
I'm simply saying that there is nothing you are achieving by that. Conservatives laugh at leftists when they just can't stand a different opinion. I said nothing about the 1st amendment, I'm a conservative, of course I love the constitution. If anyone, it's the leftists silencing free speech with people they disagree with.
"will not allow harmful rhetoric towards the discriminated minorities without contradiction."
So if you believe that's what people think, then you have no problem with having a conversation with them to actually understand what they believe? Perfect! I love productive discussions and free speech.
My money is on RM in this one.
I agree..... I dont like that you're right in this case, but you are
He will use a different definition of tolerance that means we should tolerate corruption and injustice.
Yes, I see no issue with me exercising my right to tolerated free speech in saying 'fuck you' to thoss who voted Trump. Are you against the First Amendment?
Or... you know,
Tolerate: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
RationalMadman means that progressives and social democrats will not allow harmful rhetoric towards the discriminated minorities without contradiction.
ah, so in other words: "We don't tolerate people who disagree with us politically. Screaming "f*ck half the country who voted" is a very necessary way to achieve progress as a country👍"
When Social Democrats and Progressives say that they support tolerance in society, they mean that they want everyone in the society to accept one another and give each other a fair, humane chance to be healthy and prosper. It would make no sense to wholeheartedly 'tolerate' the political factions that act against this outcome. I do tolerate their existence, but I don't need to tolerate their genuine regime.
Tolerating systemic intolerance and segregation is more of an idiotic paradoxical position than the reverse. This becomes very clear wgen you actually understand what tolerance is.
Con has a very tolerant profile picture 😂
Well you are born not believing in God, which is the definition of atheism. Atheism is any person that doesn't believe in God.
Just what are you arguing for?
If Pro can just make his resolution a "little" more clear, then it might be possible. Kritiking the resolution is a scum move, but to a resolution this unclear it is viable.