Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
390
debates
43.59%
won
Topic
#5542
Believe it or accept it , atheism is a religion.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1456
rating
28
debates
58.93%
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.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Greetings, thank you.
I'm understanding that this is suspected to be a battle of definitions.
Which means what?
According to how you define things, any position is valid.
Be it that the case, no one who believes that should be opposed to anything I say here as long as everything is valid and consistent.
Are we all clear?
What and who is God in this context?
In terms of an atheist, a being that hasn't been proven to exist. No evidence that any atheist has seen, right.
This God has not been proven or disproven.
If a person chooses to believe this God does not exist, that person is an atheist.
This is based on whatever subjective cause.
Same is true for the a theist.
Neither one is more rational than the other.
The both of them are religious either in the secular realm or spiritual realm.
Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.
We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”)
This is enough for the courts to view atheism as not a neutral stance on a supreme being, God or morality for that matter.
Through the entirety of your introduction, you actually only provide one argument:
Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics
Yes, it is. That is all true except from the "code of ethics" section, as there is no such one thing for atheists.
Just because it is a body that takes a position on religion, does not make it a religion itself. As this is a debate of definitions, I will provide a variety of trusted definitions on religion.
These are just a few of the first examples of definitions, they may differ slightly from dictionary to dictionary, but one thing they all specify, is that religion is the belief or faith in gods or the divine.
Granted, you can cherry pick a definition or two to say otherwise, but the vast majority of people and dictionaries agree with my statement. That is what gives words meaning in the first place, people agreeing on the meaning. It seems, that people agree that the meaning is a believe in the divine or other worldly.
That's all there is to it. The commonly accepted definition of religion excludes atheism.
In the words of Mall, I rest my case.
*Drops Mic*
Round 2
"Just because it is a body that takes a position on religion, does not make it a religion itself. As this is a debate of definitions, I will provide a variety of trusted definitions on religion."
Like it was said, a battle of definitions.
Now you can disagree with the circuit courts. I imagine atheists typically do.
"These are just a few of the first examples of definitions, they may differ slightly from dictionary to dictionary, but one thing they all specify, is that religion is the belief or faith in gods or the divine.
Granted, you can cherry pick a definition or two to say otherwise, but the vast majority of people and dictionaries agree with my statement. That is what gives words meaning in the first place, people agreeing on the meaning. It seems, that people agree that the meaning is a believe in the divine or other worldly.
That's all there is to it. The commonly accepted definition of religion excludes atheism."
Looks like your entire argument is just touting a definition. Anybody can make a case based on a definition.
Also we don't want to make the ad populum fallacy. So this "most people agree" thing, forget that.
I drop the mic...........well I pick it back up just to not make this a second round knockout.
Since you want to specify "is that religion is the belief or faith in gods", fine.
That's just fine.
Atheists believe they're their own gods and they certainly believe in themselves and one another.
This is according to the laveyan church and bible.
Yes a god has control and power and dominance and authority. An atheist that is a person that posessesses these attributes is a god.
Even Jesus Christ states this or quotes about mankind being gods. Ironically to an extent in agreement with atheists view of themselves.
So atheists are religious, are in a religion besides this, they also believe that God in Christ as well as any other god their tenet dictates to them to believe not to exist.
So they're religious and of a religion either way you slice it. ALL a belief system which is a religion.
Oh and to satisfy and negate your point of an atheist not meeting religious qualification, the atheist believes not in a god as well as in a god.
The mic has been placed back on the stand, turned off. Nobody left in the debate auditorium . Lights have been turned off . Everybody has left the building,gone home. Debate has been over.
Like it was said, a battle of definitions.Now you can disagree with the circuit courts. I imagine atheists typically do.
You can't just appeal to authority and expect to win the debate. It's a common logical fallacy. You must provide actual evidence.
Looks like your entire argument is just touting a definition. Anybody can make a case based on a definition.
We both agreed that this entire debate depended on definitions. Also, it was not a definition. It was a multitude of many trusted definitions.
Also we don't want to make the ad populum fallacy. So this "most people agree" thing, forget that.
These definitions are from scholars and universities. I'd say we can trust there opinion.
Probably more importantly though, is that people agreeing on definitions is what gives them meaning. I can say "narflark" and it means nothing, but if I say "elephant" a large animal comes to mind. The only difference is that people agree on the meaning.
There is no getting around that the definitions of religion exclude atheism.
So now, the only argument remaining is that "atheists are gods, and they believe in themselves." This is absurd.
For my first rebuttable to this, being a battle of definitions, I shall provide several definitions from trusted sources.
Atheists do not believe they have divine powers or are deities. This is simply absurd.
Again, you must provide actual arguments instead of appealing to a source. Why does the bible say that? You can't just state that a source comes to a conclusion without providing any of the evidence on why that source came to said conclusion.
Thus far, everyone of your arguments that hasn't just been citing a source has been dismantled. Atheists do not believe in gods, and do not think themselves gods.
Round 3
"You can't just appeal to authority and expect to win the debate. It's a common logical fallacy. You must provide actual evidence."
First off refer back to my disclaimer when we're talking about what winning debates means on my topics. Whoever understands and takes away what they do and sees the truth for themselves takes their position that my position has won their understanding and or successfully has educated them on something unbeknownst prior.
Digressing from that, it's not an appeal to authority. The question that should be coming up is what evidence do the courts have .....what evidence do they have that had them to arrive at the conclusion of atheism being another religion?
This is what is to be explored and opened up and why or why would it not be dismissed?
I opened up the basis behind these rulings in the last round.
"We both agreed that this entire debate depended on definitions. Also, it was not a definition. It was a multitude of many trusted definitions."
I never made such a statement so how would I have made an agreement to a statement I never made?
I clearly mentioned not debating things surrounding a definition because you should know there's no point in debating definitions. Maybe that's what you thought going into to this. But there's no logical basis in debating definitions,why?
Definitions are subject to social colloquial preference. Now if we're not consistent with the definitions we prefer to use , then we can make rebuttal attacks on inconsistency.
"These definitions are from scholars and universities. I'd say we can trust there opinion."
Again , the ad populum fallacy and pretty much the appeal to authority fallacy. Just from a logical standpoint, people are flawed , people are not the standard. At least not on this subject.
"Probably more importantly though, is that people agreeing on definitions is what gives them meaning. I can say "narflark" and it means nothing, but if I say "elephant" a large animal comes to mind. The only difference is that people agree on the meaning."
The meaning of a word is not present due to agreement. The meaning is present when it is present. Just because you don't agree or an outside group doesn't agree, doesn't change the meaning of a word I'm using nor make it non present after I just tell you what a word means. At least when I use the term.
The term may be used in one group differently than another. One individual may use it differently than another. This is what many people haven't figured is that words and definitions are subjected. Subjected to what to whom?
To whatever or whomever. I think I said this before. How does information get into dictionaries? The lexicographers and where do they get these definitions and words from? People, what people?
Whomever people they can collect common usages and or eccentric usages. This is why the book is constantly being updated as people change colloquially from generation to generation. The dictionary is not a standard but a reference.
But the source of information are from people. This is why it makes no sense to debate over a definition. The use of a definition is subjected. The point of a definition is to further break down the words that are subject to the person using them for the purpose of what?
Communication and understanding communication. If we can understand one another with the particular words we're using, why is there purpose for debating those words? We already understand each other. I understand you use a term differently but I know what you mean. It's about knowing what you mean. Not arguing about how many agree or with what you said agrees with what's written in a book or somebody with an academic title to a name.
I digress. Let's move on .
"There is no getting around that the definitions of religion exclude atheism. "
We don't have to get around definitions. You can just acknowledge the ones that don't exclude atheism exists. Such as the ones the circuit courts in the supreme Court, laveyan church and I use.
Like I said we can have definitions that favor both of our cases. That's why I say it's no good to debate just on the basis of a definition. You can just about find and cherry pick any definition you want to suit your point.
"So now, the only argument remaining is that "atheists are gods, and they believe in themselves." This is absurd."
You can call it absurd and ridiculous and it won't change the fact that a people can believe and do believe themselves to be gods. A person can believe he is a god. You can't dictate or decide that belief for that person.
"Atheists do not believe they have divine powers or are deities. This is simply absurd."
I don't know why you're bringing this statement in this. If I never said that , this shouldn't enter. Maybe ask me what do I mean before asserting what you think something means.
I thought I mentioned the laveyan satanic Bible last round. Are you unfamiliar with it?
"Again, you must provide actual arguments instead of appealing to a source."
I don't know what you mean by appealing to a source. I mean you're citing sources. How is that not appealing to what you're citing?
Doesn't make sense .
" Why does the bible say that? You can't just state that a source comes to a conclusion without providing any of the evidence on why that source came to said conclusion."
The Bible says what it says because it was written.
"Thus far, everyone of your arguments that hasn't just been citing a source has been dismantled. Atheists do not believe in gods, and do not think themselves gods."
Then you're calling Mr. Lavey , the founder of the laveyan church a lie. Either that or just ignorant to this sect.
I'd imagine just ignorant because you assume when I say someone believes himself to be a god, it automatically means divine.
Let me break down about laveyan satanism whom are a cult of atheists. Apparently you don't know. They believe themselves to be gods as they're their own authority and in control of their lives. Something apparently the devil or Satan in the scriptures is modeling to be so they take example.
On top of that, you can't dictate to another saying it's not a religion. If an atheist is a part of a church with these beliefs , neither I or you can dictate that or try to refute or debunk that.
I rest my case.
Your main point is that my definitions are invalid, because of the appeal to people fallacy, as universities and scholars are people, so for some reason that discredits all of there expertise in language. Honestly, your argument was hard to read. There was a lot of weird grammar and nonsensical sentences.
The meaning of a word is not present due to agreement. The meaning is present when it is present. Just because you don't agree or an outside group doesn't agree, doesn't change the meaning of a word I'm using nor make it non present after I just tell you what a word means. At least when I use the term.
That doesn't make sense. It is present when it is present? That pretty obvious circular reasoning. Why is a word present in the first place?
Just because you don't agree or and outside group (a minority) doesn't agree, doesn't change the meaning of a word
That is something that is true, but then, you go on to say this:
We don't have to get around definitions. You can just acknowledge the ones that don't exclude atheism exists.
The definitions that exclude atheists are the minority.
To counter your circular reasoning, the meaning of the word is present because a majority of people agree that the words means what it does. Meanings are not present because they are just present. There is a reason they are there in the first place.
Round 4
"Your main point is that my definitions are invalid, because of the appeal to people fallacy, as universities and scholars are people, so for some reason that discredits all of there expertise in language. Honestly, your argument was hard to read. There was a lot of weird grammar and nonsensical sentences."
That's because you're not reading the argument right. I never said definitions are invalid. I don't argue that definitions are invalid. Just like opinions aren't invalid.
What I am saying so you can better understand is that an appeal to authority or popular sanction is invalid as you're making these entities the be all end all as the standard like they're minds are better or more logical when they can be just as flawed.
Your mind is not lower, theirs are higher. You can observe and verify just as them so you research on your own to see what they see , observe what they observe, witness what they witness. So you don't just rely on what they say, you also verify for yourself as your mind has just as much logical ability and assessment.
An appeal to authority is just whatever the authority says goes . When you make statements " oh they're pretty smart, intelligent and the sharpest of scholars, you're walking into fallacy.
"That doesn't make sense. It is present when it is present? That pretty obvious circular reasoning. Why is a word present in the first place?"
You've missed my point. That's why it doesn't make sense to you. My point is a definition is not valid or right because there's agreement or a popular vote. I believe that's the point you tried to make . A definition is valid once it exists and if you want to have a separate debate on that , message me , let me know, whatever.
I want to keep this more centered on topic
"That is something that is true, but then, you go on to say this:
"We don't have to get around definitions. You can just acknowledge the ones that don't exclude atheism exists."
The definitions that exclude atheists are the minority."
There is no but. It lines up with what I said. It doesn't matter if it's in the minority or majority.
A majority doesn't make it valid nor a minority. The validity is not based on that like I said.
"To counter your circular reasoning, the meaning of the word is present because a majority of people agree that the words means what it does. Meanings are not present because they are just present. There is a reason they are there in the first place."
Ok this is going into another topic. You didn't counter my other points so I guess you conceded there.
I acknowledge that there are a minority of definitions that count atheism as a religion, however, that doesn't mean they're correct. The meaning of a word comes from the shared acceptance of the definition by the people. So you're right in that there is no objective definition of religion, because some groups of people have different views. However, in the vast majority of cases, atheism is not a religion, because in a vast majority of definitions in opinions, which are what shape the meanings of words in the first place, it is not a religion.
Round 5
"I acknowledge that there are a minority of definitions that count atheism as a religion, however, that doesn't mean they're correct. "
Again definitions are subject so there is no objective right or wrong.
"The meaning of a word comes from the shared acceptance of the definition by the people. "
It does not. We've been through this. If you want to debate on that, let me know.
"So you're right in that there is no objective definition of religion, because some groups of people have different views. However, in the vast majority of cases, atheism is not a religion, because in a vast majority of definitions in opinions, which are what shape the meanings of words in the first place, it is not a religion."
No, you're appealing to the ad populum fallacy again. But I get it. It's the only rebuttal you can make.
Case closed.
So the debate as boiled down to if this:
What gives a definition its meaning? I say that a definition as value, because society agrees on that meaning.
You say that's the appeal to populum fallacy, but if the population is what decides something, not just speculate, than what they decide is right, because the majority, in this case, is determining what is right to begin with. Hope that makes sense.
We've been through this.
The only argument you've provided on this is the following: "We've been through this. "definition is valid once it exists"
A definition can't create itself. It can't just "exist." Something else has to make it. In this case, it's the people making the definition.
In ending, the definition of religion very clearly excludes atheism. Yes a definition is valid once it exists, and the definition that exists does not support your argument.
I am a religious atheist.
Pro's argument is completely illogical, rejection of a belief system(such as religion), doesn't itself become a belief system
Devotees certainly behave as if it were one!
I'll accept. This will just be a battle of definitions, and I'm fine with that.
I’ll accept after you provide a definition for religion.
Define "religion". I can argue consumerism is a religion.
I might accept, but does it really have to be 5 rounds? no more then 3 is necessary I think, and maybe 2 would even be preferable.