Atheists are religious.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
So , atheists are or can be very religious. There's absolutely no doubt to not believing that this is controversial. This topic statement is so true particularly within a certain time of our history, it was really made so.
Now no spoilers, I don't want to give too much away. I'm hoping somebody will come along thinking they have an argument against the topic statement.
You can send a question for more information but it most likely won't be much more than what was said here.
- It is literally impossible to be religious and an atheist at the same time by definition.
- The definition of religious by the Cambridge English Dictionary is:“Having a strong belief in god or gods”
- The definition of atheist by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: “A person who does not believe in the existence of god or gods”
- Both definitions directly contradict each other, meaning that it is literally impossible to be both at one time. One cannot strongly believe in the existence of god or gods and not believe in the existence of god or gods at the same exact time.
- Directly quoting the 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. So , atheists are or can be very religious. There's absolutely no doubt to not believing that this is controversial. This topic statement is so true particularly within a certain time of our history, it was really made so. Now no spoilers, I don't want to give too much away. I'm hoping somebody will come along thinking they have an argument against the topic statement. You can send a question for more information but it most likely won't be much more than what was said here.
- It is clear that PRO is being intentionally vague. Thus, if I make a mistake quoting the three word resolution, CON must blame this on his vague description of the debate.
- “You can swap out atheist’s with the the term people”
- Not every person is an atheist. This is clearly CON trying to lessen his burden of proof and increase mine. The resolution is “Atheists are religious”, not “People are Religious”.
- CON brings up nothing actually proving the resolution, he insteads tries to lessen his burden of proof and describe the resolution vaguely and incorrectly.
Are you thinking about every single atheist that ever lived on the planet?
Don't think conventionally about a definition. Think what people have done on this planet that call themselves atheists, what organizations come to mind that they have joined?
Having a strong belief in no God makes me a strong atheist. But I won't even use that point to make the topic statement true.
No you can't be in two different positions at once. But how can you point to left and right at the same time?
Answer- two different perspectives of course.
See a theist and atheist both can believe but one believes the positive while the other trusts the negative.
Still neither here nor there. There's something else where you have to know about that would make the topic statement not false. This is like a riddle where if you thought abot it, you can see how a statement like "atheists are religious " can be made.
Not every person is religious. But people are religious and atheists are people , are they not?
What does it say at the end of the description?You conveniently don't respond to that part and also, you did accept the debate. Wait a minute, why accept a debate with vague details?Does that make sense to you?At the end of the description, it says you can send a question for more information.Don't be disingenuous please. I acknowledge that people may wish for more clarity and information.Your point is just like saying something I said after I just said it.When you make a point, don't cherry pick. Go all the way with yours.
AGAIN, why take a debate with vague details?Don't bring up this point anymore as it's like saying I'm very smart to be around a stupid person. The two don't go together. You must be a pretty vague articulator .
Alright so, atheists are religious. The Laveyan Satanists are a religious group of people. People that are atheists, hence atheists are religious.
Sure , you can't go left and right at the same time. But you can have two different perspectives at the same time.
My point, my point was that believing in no God and not believing in God means the same thing. It's all on your perspective of the thing.
It's because your head is in a box full of definitions. You have not known every atheist that ever was and what they have done to classify themselves as religious. You're not thinking this all the way through.
Then why you say "yeah"?That statement is proven true, ain't that right?
You agreed yes. It's not a statement proven false. These are correct statements.Don't get lost on the same point in the same debate.We just went over this.
f Laveyan Satanism is not a atheistic religion founded by an ATHEIST or one with atheistic views or non-theistic tenets , tell me what it is?
So Laveyan Satanism is not a religion . Upon using the Google search engine , I see the Google explanation, I see wikipedia. It's being described as an atheistic religion
This is why I don't bother with sources . You don't even understand what you may have barely read trying to have it argue for you . You have to argue with this question. In what you provided, why does it mention religious organization?They believe in self-benefit which makes it religious. It's a belief system. A religion doesn't require the belief in a true or some phony deity.
The definitions you're using contradict. It's because being in a box limits you. It closes off your mind to additional definitions to the word religion.It's good you've made no statement to deny this as it is true. You're so closed that you indicate to not reading something all the way through.To be atheist means no belief system in God. This does not mean a void in belief systems period. This is where Laveyan Satanism comes in to the station but you missed the train.
Can we say "dismissive" on your part?
So I don't believe a god exists but I believe I'm a god that exists . That's according to the satanic religion. How am I not an atheist with two perspectives of a god?I can have two perspectives period. One on no existence of God and the other on freedom of speech. To speak freely could mean to say something against atheism.
The bottom line to this debate whether you accept it, like it or not, Laveyan Satanism is a religion involving atheists.This doesn't mean a religion like christianity or judaism. Something like Buddhism if you're that concerned about comparisons. I certainly am not. This also doesn't mean an atheism is less than what it is. It doesn't mean all atheists either. That's why I made the point about knowing every kind of atheist in the world. The broad category here is atheism. When you come down to a specific atheist , possibly Anton Lavey or specific atheists that are Laveyan Satanists, now we're on atheists that are religious.
Boy that box is a mutha*****. Ok so you're just sticking with your limited view of what a religion is. I'm not arguing what an atheist is.You just have your views on religion. Even your so called sources don't agree with you .
So an atheistic religion would have religious atheists. Tomato, tamotto , dude.
The points made were not an argument in support of the topic statement. They were only responses to your statements that are based on limited views.The only argument necessary is indeed a fact you and I agree on. Laveyan Satanists are of an atheistic religion making atheists religious. Not all , not all, not all, not all and common sense should dictate not all, but atheists that have to do with Laveyan Satanism which is a religion are religious.
Laveyan Satanism is an atheistic religion.
Now when I Google this, this is what comes up.
I mean what are the tenets of this religion? You have to deny/reject all other gods outside yourself being a god.
So maybe you guys have a fixed definition of this religion. I don't know. The source provided stated Satanism is of a philosophy and religion. It says this in the very first paragraph, segment or very early on.
I won't make the charge of your denial but atheism is not less than what it is just because of this religion.
There's no effort to try to conflate atheism and theism.
Apparently religion is not always theistic though.
Laveyan Satanists are not religious. Therefore, they are atheists.
Ya can't be both at once.
Ah yes, a group that your opponent invalidated and/or disproved its very existence of nature, despite they exists. LaVeyan Satanist are not both.
The biggest proof to date of a dishonest, bias site.
The person provided a source that said there is a religion involving atheists. This is part of why it's impossible to not be secure in what I say is the truth.
Sorry for the incessant pings. I was trying to fix my vote and was having trouble. I wanted to give PRO more credit than I gave them initially in the first vote
Sorry, when I said "LaVeyan Satanists are not atheist" I mean that they weren't religious or they didn't believe in a deity.
I think he just likes to stick it to the formal debate community, personally
Well why Pro argues that? He is the same guy who said Hitler and Trump aren't racist! Both white supremacists!
Precisely. I don't consider it worth the time to debate tbh.
This is pure falsism. This is like arguing that totalitarian government practice anarchy.
I'll bite that an athiest can be religious. However, what I don't think PRO realizes is that saying "something CAN BE another thing" is very different from saying "Something IS another thing."
I really don't buy their semantics argument here either. The resolution pretty clearly means all atheists (specifically because "are" is a third person plural verb). PRO could have fixed this by simply saying "Athiests can be religious." in the resolution. Since they didn't, their BoP remains unfulfilled.
To give an overview: Pro: Prove this, Con: This definition proves this, Pro: But does it?
I would separate them according to rounds, but each round is practically a repetition of the last. The two points argued that aren't entirely semantic would be the definition of religion and atheist, and the Laveyan Satanists religiosity. Pro provides no counter sources, or even definitions beyond vague statements (that, again, aren't sourced anywhere).
As for the religiosity of Laveyan Satanists, Pro provides a non-sequitur to justify their position, which Con points out (though not citing the fallacy) and rebuts.
The rest is an assault on Con's character and the usage of "boxes" .
Sources: Pro provides zero sources (aside from citing the source that Con uses), while Con does provide sources to justify their position.
Conduct: Due to the attempted hit at Con's character with regard to an unjustified claim of closed-mindedness, cursing, intentional shifting of the goal post, etc, of Pro, I will be giving conduct to Con.