Instigator / Pro
4
1519
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#2161

Resolved: Atheists have a burden of proof

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

Debate Format:
Round One: Introduction and Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Recapitulation and Conclusion

Definitions:
Atheism- "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
The burden of Proof- "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge"
(Both definitions from Merriam Webster)

-->
@Intelligence_06

I'll probably revisit this debate resolution at some point in the future and come at it with revised arguments.

-->
@CalebEr

Make a new one. This is what you do when you aren't satisfied.

-->
@Username
@Intelligence_06

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. I'm not used to debating to win haha

-->
@CalebEr

While I appreciate your honesty and morality, winning debates is the way here and you don't have to be right.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1103/the-earth-is-flat

This debate has the winner producing a flawed argument. You can win everything as long you believe your argument wins. But if you think your argument simply doesn't win then you can do your thing. Virtuoso concedes frequently because of your mentality.

-->
@CalebEr

I'd recommend that you debate to win, not to be right. That way you can go back on your positions without having to concede debates; many people change their minds on something after they debate it and that doesn't mean they lose. Debates end with the final round. :)

-->
@dustryder

I've been thinking about it a lot over the past few days and I think that there are just too many holes, as well as some misapplications of the CP. This debate facilitated some interesting discussions between me and some others, and some of the things they mentioned led me to think of other things that my argument simply could not stand up against.

And yes, according to the source I posted, only A and O statements can be contraposed. "I lack belief in the existence of God" is neither an A, nor an O statement. Another thing that I was struggling with was the fact that when we negate a term in logic, typically we aren't talking about the non-existence of that thing. So for instance, when I say "all non-mammals are non-dogs", I'm not using "non-mammal" to denote the non-existence of mammals, but rather that which are not mammals. Similarly, when we contrapose "i lack belief in God" and get "Non-God is my belief", we should not infer that "non-God" is being used to denote the non-existence of God, but rather that which is not God. So the contraposition of the initial statement does not imply a belief in the non-existence of God, but rather belief in that which is not God. In other words, if the atheist is believing in something, he is not believing in God.

I don't concede the debate's resolution. I still think that atheists have a burden of proof. But the support I gave for that contention has become, in my eyes, untenable.

-->
@CalebEr

Honestly, you should've just let the voters decide. As an aside, have you realised that the prepositions that you've used are not valid?

-->
@BearMan

Thank you for voting.

I concede this debate to my opponent. I no longer find the arguments I posed to be tenable. There are just too many holes and absurdities that I've come to realize the argument cannot escape.

-->
@CalebEr

I have met the guy who has argued with you on that question. He is backwardseden and his insults lost conduct. I had tried a lot to make him respectful, but he just can't. I have learned to stay away from him.

And of course, I try. I didn't do the best but at least that is the most I can deliver here.

-->
@Intelligence_06

You did great, especially for someone who hasn't considered this question that deeply before. Most people that I argue about this with end up fulminating and calling me an idiot. I'm thankful that you and I were able to have a graceful discussion. Thanks again for participating!

-->
@fauxlaw

Technically all debates that don't have any forfeited rounds will be in the "Quality Debates" section. But yes, this was a good debate.

-->
@fauxlaw

My brain is tired as hell. I mean, PRO just made me good at arguing something that I have never even thought of. However, I think I am the more adapting one since PRO is the one that is supposed to know a lot of this subject.

To date, this has been an excellent debate waged by both participants. I predict, regardless of outcome, that this debate will earn mention as a "quality debate."

Final arguments ready in 24 hours. Drafting begins now as I gain new inspiration. What is the new inspiration? I won't tell you guys until it is time.

-->
@CalebEr

It seems like you are pretty experienced and you are probably over 18 years old. I have noticed that you have less pressure writing your arguments compared to me.

-->
@CalebEr

Thank you for responding.

Thanks again to my opponent. We had a great debate! Glad I got to participate.

Oh, I had to forgot something. So 4 is a belief but 3 isn't.

-->
@CalebEr

You know what I am, and if you don't, I would probably take only 1-3 hours to draft a single argument, and everything else is either wastage of time of irrelevant useful stuff. There are 7 days in the time that I have, and I won't dedicate even 10% of them to only this discourse.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Don't worry about the time. Quality is better than speed!

Aside from everything I've already outlined, I don't believe that "I find a lack of fun in stamp collecting" results in an absurd contrapostive. Since stamp collecting decreases the average amount of fun that you're having, it must also be true that refraining from stamp collecting results in the increase in the average amount of fun you're having. In my opinion, there's nothing inherently contradictory or absurd about this.

But as I've stated, this is simply irrelevant. Even if his statement resulted in an absurdity, that would not affect my statement. That I why I chose not to include this point in my rebuttal.

-->
@Barney
@CalebEr

I think I need to think about this one. New argument arriving in probably more than 3 days.

-->
@CalebEr

nice

-->
@Barney

Thanks! I'm really enjoying myself. Debating is a passion of mine

-->
@CalebEr

Congrats on getting this much community interest in your first debate.

It might take 1-6 days for me to evolve an actual argument, so be patient guys.

-->
@dustryder

I lack belief (~P) in the Existence of God (Q)
Please note that P and Q are just placeholders- you can switch them out with other letters if you want.

-->
@CalebEr

What are the propositions P and Q in "I lack a belief in the existence of God"?

-->
@RationalMadman

He may have ignored your question because he expects that if you're going to pull out your gun, he expects you to use it. Don't just talk about debating; either do it or don't. Talking about it is just premature efactulation.

-->
@CalebEr

you ignored my question because you fear the answer.

-->
@CalebEr

Do you want me to help Con here? If it's fine with you then I can reveal it.

-->
@PressF4Respect

"You are utterly wrong in every way, but I'm not gonna bother pointing out why."

Classic memes, bud

-->
@CalebEr

Nice attempt at sleight of hand. Sadly, it's wrong (not going to tell Con how though, since spectators are supposed to be impartial).

-->
@fauxlaw

I suppose I would agree with you there. What I meant was that all beliefs accept certain propositions as true, not that all beliefs adhere to true propositions. Thanks for pointing that out!

-->
@CalebEr

I disagree with your statement about belief: "Beliefs are therefore inherently propositional; they all accept the truth of certain propositions. This means that all beliefs make claims about the nature of reality," particularly with regard to "...they all accept the truth of certain propositions." I don't think belief is required to accept any truth. This is what separates belief from truth. The curious thing about belief, as opposed to truth, is that belief does not require one to do anything about it. I can believe there are blue na'vi [see movie, Avatar], but I am not compelled to do anything about that belief; it makes no demands on me for justification.

-->
@CalebEr

Are you running nihilism or solipsism? If not, I can win as Con.

-->
@Barney

Thanks, I'll be sure to take a look

-->
@CalebEr

Welcome to the site. 10k is the dealt, and it gets pretty long if actually used. 30k is the maximum, which any voter is likely going to have to heavily skim (honestly, by 20k that is almost assured).

One resource which may be very useful for you:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt

-->
@Barney

Whoops, I didn't mean to set the character limit that high. I'm new to this site.

The BoP of this debate rests on PRO right?

-->
@CalebEr

I would ask why, but you've set a massive character limit to show that why. Good luck.

-->
@Barney

Atheists have a burden to fulfill in proving that all the gods they lack belief in do not exist.

-->
@CalebEr

In what sense?