Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#3505
The debate is a tie on "Atheism is simply a lack of belief".
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 25,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
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.
Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang.
You can't silence me. Freedom of speech, everybody has a voice.
They wanted to silence Christ Jesus, the prophets, ministers moved by the HOLY SPIRIT. Protesters, activists, Malcolm X, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, Martin Luther King Jr. , Bruce Lee. Even adding D.J. Trump to it.
You may not like what someone has to say but it doesn't justify negating their voice. They have a voice, they have an opinion, they have thoughts, they have facts and understanding.
Take what you can and learn from it. Don't throw it away. Take what you can learn from it. Seek understanding. How does one do that?
Questions and answers.
The debate "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" which can be found on this site was a draw between the two opposing sides. So appropriately, the vote of neutrality is applicable.
I'll leave it there because I can add more but I'll save it.
Any lack of understanding, any questions, leave a comment or send a message.
I do ask, please attempt to communicate with me and try to get full understanding of what is being said during this exchange.
Round 1
The debate "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" gets a vote of neutrality.
I'll explain that. Anything you have a misunderstanding about, I'll try to explain.
Let us be open to communication. Whether there's a misunderstanding or confusion, ask questions. Don't be combative. It's a debate which is a dispute.
Not a fight. We're not going to war.
The debate that took place is parallel to a discussion about Atheism being a religion.
It can be argued that Atheism is a religion.
Based on what?
Based on a way that a person may argue from a particular perspective.
So my view is Atheism is not a religion due to having no beliefs about God.
Any religion concerns itself with beliefs.
So therefore, Atheism is not a religion.
You say Atheism is a religion due to consisting of a belief about God.
So is Atheism in absence of a belief or in presence of?
The question is, an existing, non-existing belief of what?
See the emphasis is not so much the "belief" part alone but what is that belief or disbelief connected to.
Do you follow so far?
So I argue a lack of a belief, while you argue a belief.
Each side has a negative which means without.
No (negative) belief in God versus a belief in no (negative) God.
An argument can be made on both sides but run parallel. Tomato or tomayto, tomahto, half full, half empty.
In summary, no contradiction means no disagreement means in agreement.
Resolved: The debate is a tie on "Atheism is simply a lack of belief".
Burden of proof
- As typical, "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove" [1]. So we conclude that pro holds the full burden of proof with the absence of any other clause etc.
Overview
- Pro is arguing and must prove without any remaining form of reasonable doubt that this debate is a tie. Now I could argue that PGA2.0 won the debate, or that Double_R won the debate. Ultimately if it is uncertain as to whether this is a tie or not, I still have won the debate because Mall's proposition remains simply unproven.
- The full resolution of the debate reads "the definition of atheism should be accepted as merely a lack of belief in a god'"
Constructive Case
- As this is a four-round debate I will use this round primarily for opening statements and rebuttals to pro. Remember if I simply refute pro's arguments and provide none of my own I have also won this debate, however, that is no fun and I will expand on my constructive case.
- As stated in my opening case I could argue that either side on the resolution won the debate and I will be arguing in the next round that PGA2.0 is the rightful winner of this debate.
Rebuttal
- Firstly pro goes on a stream of points on whether or not atheism is a religion. I can dismiss them all as none of them are relevant to our debate on whether "atheism is simply a lack of belief" is a tie or not.
- Here is pro's main argument for the debate being a tie. To summarize pro's case is a syllogistic form:
- p1. A debate upon a proposition that has no inherent disagreement is an inherent tie.
- p2. This proposition has no inherent disagreement
- c. This debate is an inherent tie
- I of course will reject p2. Why? Because it is incoherent. A proposition in itself as defined in propositional logic is "a statement that can be either true or false." A proposition must have a true or false value that confers inherent disagreement, otherwise, it would not be a proposition. It is self-evident that the statement "the definition of atheism should be accepted as merely a lack of belief in a god'" is a proposition with two respective sides. It either is or is not the case that atheism should be accepted this way.
Each side has a negative which means without.No (negative) belief in God versus a belief in no (negative) God.An argument can be made on both sides but run parallel. Tomato or tomayto, tomahto, half full, half empty.In summary, no contradiction means no disagreement means in agreement.
- Contrary to pro's implication, a logical contradiction is "the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S" [2]. Pro does not appear to be referring to a logical contradiction that would be expressed in the context of an individual's propositions, what pro is saying here is simply that there is no disagreement.
- But pro and con disagree on how the definition of atheism should be accepted. Pro believes atheism confers no active beliefs while con believes that atheists actively believe that no gods exist.
- Pro also falsely compares these two statements and uses negative in an incorrect way. Negative means "consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features." It is pro who argues based on the negative or absence of belief. Con argues positively on the presence of belief. The existence of god is irrelevant to this debate, the meaning of atheism is being deliberated upon.
- And thus pro's arguments have been sufficiently disproven.
Conclusion
- Mall does not argue on specific points of the debate but that the debate has no inherent disagreement. I have refuted his argument showing that the use of language is being debated and not the condition of God's existence. Therefore Mall has not proven our resolution to be true.
Sources
- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
- https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/
- https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/
Round 2
Let's get down to some actual attempt at refutation.
"Firstly pro goes on a stream of points on whether or not atheism is a religion. I can dismiss them all as none of them are relevant to our debate on whether "atheism is simply a lack of belief" is a tie or not. "
In other words you have no refutation. The points can't be refuted. You'll be tied up in a web of contradiction.
Let's see where there is some actual refuting attempts. Stating technicalities, rules of argument fallacies, I can do nothing with that. Quoting rules isn't an argument.
Let's look at this statement you made.
"Pro also falsely compares these two statements and uses negative in an incorrect way. "
What do you mean by "falsely compares"?
"Negative means "consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features."
Preaching to the choir. Let's look at what I stated. I don't believe you had a rebuttal to that but ran from it .
"Each side has a negative which means without.
No (negative) belief in God versus a belief in no (negative) God."
This is what I stated. Where's the comparison?
I indicated where it is in parentheses to make this extremely simple to understand.
Each position, side, view has a negative aspect. How can this not be compared?
" It is pro who argues based on the negative or absence of belief. Con argues positively on the presence of belief."
I think here you're trying to say the two positions are in disagreement based on the absence versus presence of belief.
Those two terms "belief " and "disbelief " in and of themselves are not in agreement.
But remember what I said. The emphasis is not so much on "belief " but what the belief is connected to.
This is why if you say an atheist believes there is no God, it's not contradicting or disagreeable to the statement of an atheist not having a belief in God.
Either way, God is not in the equation.
Don't just focus on the words "belief" or "disbelief". Look at the entire position, the position as a whole.
The debate "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" is really just simply a semantic debate.
Trying to argue over the single word "belief".
It makes no difference of the word until how it is used in context.
It's the context, context, context, context.
Likewise, if I say I am a theist and that means I don't believe that Allah doesn't exist, what am I saying indirectly?
The statement made has a double negative like in math, a negative integer with a negative gets a positive.
That's really beside the main point. The essence here is looking at the whole picture, the context .
"And thus pro's arguments have been sufficiently disproven. "
Negative, they have not. It appears your argument is guilty of the same fallacy or error. You're isolating the word belief when it's a part tied to an entire position.
Due to the commonality, I just exposed it's tomato, tomahto, half full, half empty type rhetoric.
To be intellectually dishonest with that all because one person doesn't want to define atheism using the word "belief", you and others that co-sign just misrepresent.
"Mall does not argue on specific points of the debate but that the debate has no inherent disagreement. "
Since folks are crying about this so much, let's give the baby its bottle.
Let's look at a point or something said in the debate.
"In this debate I will establish why atheism should be accepted merely as a lack of belief in a god, as opposed to an active belief in the non existence of any gods. "
This was taken from the first round of that debate " Atheism is simply a lack of a belief ".
The person is pointing out that they are arguing for the semantic expression of a lack of belief or no belief in a god. So the opposing side as indicated is on the side of belief in no god(s) or a lack thereof(deities).
The "opposing" side is not opposing to the conclusive position.
They're opposed in arguing the semantics. But it makes no difference in bottom line interpretation.
I never said atheism is not simply the lack of a belief in God . Saying atheism is simply the belief in the non-existence of God in no way contradicts that.
" I have refuted his argument showing that the use of language is being debated and not the condition of God's existence."
You either have been misunderstanding what I've been arguing or are dishonest.
You state the use of language is being debated. I just said that the debate was a semantic debate.
But the positions have agreement.
Do you not know what this debate I created was about?
The positions are in agreement. There's trivial argument over particular words but when it's all said in done, no matter which words, either would be correct as the context is still what it is.
The main thing you should take away from all this is the context. No matter which preference of words one wants to use, in summary, it's what they're conveying.
It's the matter of use in context.
Constructive case
- As I stated, I will be arguing that PGA2.0 won the debate in question here.
- Quite simply, the debate is resolved "the definition of atheism should be accepted as merely a lack of belief in a god."
- Double_R makes a case based on negations. Theism according to them is a belief that gods exist and thus the logical negation is disbelief that gods exist or a lack of belief. However pro does not do a great job in separating the statement "I do not believe in X," from the statement "I believe that X does not exist." He hardly makes an attempt to do so in round one.
- PGA2.0 capitalizes on this very well. His best argument is on Richard Dawkin's measure of belief which shows the different degrees of ontology to which the strong atheist affirms that God does not exist. Double_R's response to this was very underwhelming: "con needs to make his own arguments, not link us to Wokeupbug."
- Con successfully creates a relevant distinction between atheism and agnosticism winning the points from arguments. Pro simply drops this telling con not to cite sources presumably. Ultimately as PGA cited many credible sources throughout the debate, compared to the 0 that pro used, PGA wins both the sources points as well.
- I will be expanding on specific points subsequently, but as I have already refuted Mall's case and he holds the burden of evidence, I have won the debate as of now.
Rebuttal
For some notes:
- Mall does not deny that the resolution is a proposition. This is good as denying such would be utterly embarrassing.
- If Mall does not deny the resolution is a proposition, Mall does not deny that the resolution can be true or false.
- I will syllogize my argument concerning Mall's case and I ask pro to reject a premise or identify a logical problem within it.
- p1. The resolution R (the definition of atheism should be accepted as merely a lack of belief in a god) is a proposition.
- p2. A proposition can be true or false (definition of a proposition).
- p3. If one side of a debate argues for the truth of a proposition and the other side argues for the falsity of the same proposition, there is inherent disagreement.
- p4. The instigator argued for the truth of the R and the contender argued for the falsity of R.
- c. There is inherent disagreement within the debate.
"Firstly pro goes on a stream of points on whether or not atheism is a religion. I can dismiss them all as none of them are relevant to our debate on whether "atheism is simply a lack of belief" is a tie or not. "In other words, you have no refutation. The points can't be refuted. You'll be tied up in a web of contradiction.
- They are irrelevant points. Whether or not you think Atheism is a religion doesn't matter in the context of our debate or the debate we are analyzing.
Those two terms "belief " and "disbelief " in and of themselves are not in agreement.
- Mall here openly concedes the fundamental disagreement within the debate. Everything else he says, I will show to be irrelevant.
This is why if you say an atheist believes there is no God, it's not contradicting or disagreeable to the statement of an atheist not having a belief in God.
- This is irrelevant to the resolution. PGA2.0 and Double_R are not debating the atheist's ontological perspective on God.
- They are debating how this should best linguistically be accepted.
- Ultimately, whether or not the atheistic view precludes God's existence, in reality, is not being debated. This is commonplace. What is being debated is whether atheism should be accepted as:
a. A lack of belief in god(s)
b. The belief that no god(s) exist
- As we saw above, Mall concedes the disagreement within the debate.
- He seems to be arguing that both positions can still have the same ontological perspective on God's existence in reality, but that's irrelevant. What is being contested is how this perspective should be accepted definitionally.
Conclusion
- Mall's argument for this debate being a tie has essentially fallen apart. Why is that? Because Mall isn't arguing it is a tie based on what is actually being debated.
- He is arguing it is a tie based on the fact that both classifications of Atheism can rule out the existence of God, when what is being debated is the presence of belief and how atheism should be accepted.
- Mall has effectively failed to meet his burden of proof. He has not made an argument as to why this debate is a tie.
Round 3
"They are irrelevant points. Whether or not you think Atheism is a religion doesn't matter in the context of our debate or the debate we are analyzing."
You have no refutation. All you can say , "it doesn't matter", "it's irrelevant", "it doesn't matter".
I don't believe you even understand the point of others and myself saying that atheism is a religion. Remember what we say, it's all based on a perspective.
Does the perspective have validity?
You have to be willing to hear out the person's case to know. Question it to test for validity. See if it holds water.
When you investigate, challenge a subject like a scientist, you research, you question. When you're biased, you're dismissive and you're closed to the case.
"Those two terms "belief " and "disbelief " in and of themselves are not in agreement."
"Mall here openly concedes the fundamental disagreement within the debate. Everything else he says, I will show to be irrelevant. "
What is the debate here I created about?
This response you made is indicating something you are not understanding. I'll be generous leaving it at. Something you're not understanding.
I going to explain again, that this debate and the debate related to this one is not solely so much the emphasis on those two terms.
I never said "belief" and "disbelief" are the same and now I'm backpedaling.
I can't believe this thing is ultra complicated for you.
This is why you should be asking questions to get an understanding.
But what it appears is you carry on with the wrong information whether you care or not just to try to evade possible error on your part .
It's the belief/disbelief tied to a subject.
When you put two and two together, it comes out the same.
Two one dollar bills are not the same as eight quarters. However when you add up the value like adding up someone's entire position, it equals the same in equivalent value.
If you really don't follow by this point, I have to highly suspect you're rejecting to.
I reflect back on perspectives. My left is a right. It's not invalid being that it is from the perspective of your right.
North and south contradict not based on respective points of view.
"This is why if you say an atheist believes there is no God, it's not contradicting or disagreeable to the statement of an atheist not having a belief in God."
"This is irrelevant to the resolution."
No refutation. Everytime you say irrelevant such as this, my points are valid I know.
"They are debating how this should best linguistically be accepted. "
Preaching to the choir. We know, everybody and they momma know it was a semantic debate.
I'm saying again, regardless of the way one wants to express their position, they do not conflict. So there is no right or wrong, no one view that is valid and the other is not.
"What is being debated is whether atheism should be accepted as:
a. A lack of belief in god(s)
b. The belief that no god(s) exist "
It should be accepted as either form of expression you choose. It should be accepted as a lack of a belief in God. It should be accepted as a belief in a lack of an existence of God.
How can we have both? There is no, no, no ,no conflict between the two. No problem. Define atheism whichever which a way of these. No problem.
"As we saw above, Mall concedes the disagreement within the debate."
False charge.
"He seems to be arguing that both positions can still have the same ontological perspective on God's existence in reality, but that's irrelevant."
No refutation from you.
"What is being contested is how this perspective should be accepted definitionally. "
Right and it makes no difference because one is not valid over the other . That point has been explained and proven repetitiously.
See one side on that debate was arguing what should be based on something. But one side doesn't have anything valid over the other to make it a required sole verbatim expression in favor of that side.
Hence it was a draw exchange.
"Mall's argument for this debate being a tie has essentially fallen apart. Why is that? Because Mall isn't arguing it is a tie based on what is actually being debated.
He is arguing it is a tie based on the fact that both classifications of Atheism can rule out the existence of God, when what is being debated is the presence of belief and how atheism should be accepted.
Mall has effectively failed to meet his burden of proof. He has not made an argument as to why this debate is a tie."
So I'll wrap this up with a basic simple analogy.
Hopefully at this point, the opposing side of this debate has a better understanding and is open to understand what I'm saying this debate round.
You and I can argue that this glass of water content can be defined in opposing expressions.
The glass only has a 50 percent contained mass of water.
I argue that this glass of water is to be defined only as half empty. That is the valid basis to say it should be defined as a negative or absence of material.
You argue the exact opposite. It should be defined as half full due to the positive or presence of material.
Why are both expressions equivalent in meaning or value?
The fullness thereof concerning the container is indicated with the term "half" expressing the other part of the container which has a negative or absence of substance/material.
Overview
- It's clear Mall has no actual argument or just doesn't understand that he is talking about something irrelevant to the debate in question and this debate.
Constructive case
- Dropped. Extend
Syllogistic argument
- Dropped. Extend
- My argument is in logical form so all Mall needs to do is reject a premise and poevide reasoning for such
Rebuttal
- Everything Mall says is just a repeat of what he said in the previous round. The debate in question is not on the ontological nature of God, but how a human perception of God's ontological nature should be accepted in society.
- Extend all previous rebuttals.
Water analogy
I argue that this glass of water is to be defined only as half empty. That is the valid basis to say it should be defined as a negative or absence of material. You argue the exact opposite. It should be defined as half full due to the positive or presence of material.
- Yes, this is the debate in question. How a principle should be accepted, not the theory itself. However the analogy doesn't represent this debate perfectly; one is on the basis of a metaphysical assessment and one is a purely material one.
- So regardless…the hypothetical literally goes against Mall's point. The existence of the subject is not being debated, how a view on said existence should be evaluated is.
- A proposition that affrims or negates upon a way the glass of water should be accepted/classified is still a statement with true or false value rhat cna be affirmed or contended against.
"Irelevant"
- I won't really address Mall implying that I can't dismiss things that have literally nothing to do with our resolution. I encourage the instigator to refrain from wasting his time.
Conclusion
How can we have both? There is no, no, no ,no conflict between the two. No problem. Define atheism whichever which a way of these. No problem
- This is Mall's essential argument, repeated for the third time after being refuted.
- There is conflict in that one confers a proactive belief and one does not but implies an absence of belief.
- Mall can think the debate is a waste of time, or he can disagree that this is a subject that should be debated, but that doesn't mean anything substantial.
- We aren't debating your opinion about the debate proposition, we are debating whether or not it was a tie.
Round 4
If this debate is not the epitome of something going over somebody's head, no other example exists.
The person says I'm repeating points and I see no refutations for them.
When you have to repeat something, the person is struggling to comprehend that something to hear or accept the facts.
Now I've used the most simplistic of illustrations.
I don't see where it was acknowledged that you were wrong about me being unaware that it was a semantic debate.
It indeed was .
I don't have a refutation to the point that one side of that debate was not valid over the other.
This is because it's true. You thought that this debate I created was about the two terms "belief" and "disbelief" being in agreement.
You run too fast in the risk of goalpost moving.
I think I've made everything clear. I'm not going to beat a dead horse and I don't need to go in circles here.
That debate was a tie. If people would take their fingers out of their ears so to speak, they can get what I'm saying in two seconds.
Constructive case
- Dropped.
- Extend.
Syllogistic argument
- Dropped.
- Extend.
All Rebuttals
- Dropped.
- Extend.
- We are debating whether or not this debate was a tie.
- Pro holds the entire burden of evidence.
- Pro dropped my argument that PGA2.0 won entirely and repeats himself on something irrelevant to the debate making an easy decision for the voters.
Believing there is no God and not believing there is do not conflict but harmonize.
Isn't there a Presidential review of debate topics?
If trying to have a debate in defense of one of your votes, the debate should have a resolution scope of just that, instead of the outcome of the whole debate.
You get all pissy that your lack of an even coherent RFD kept getting your vote taken down, and so you turn your vote into a debate topic?
I don't know if that is what he means, but this should not be a hard debate based on this. The resolution is not a debate that exists.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3403-atheism-is-simply-a-lack-of-belief
In that case, I will ask: what debate are you referring to?
Please stop making "leave it in the comment" as something mandatory. We opportunists, seeing an unclear topic, will just use that point to defeat you instead of pointing it out. Please make your argument clearer or just make one that is bare undefeatable. If your weapon is flawed, your opponent won't tell you to repair it, they will smash it to pieces.
There is no debate called that. Please stop arguing unwinnable topics.