Instigator / Pro
5
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Topic
#2455
Atheists are religious.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
BearMan
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1615
rating
16
debates
93.75%
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.
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Now I'm going to give you a chance with trying to prove the topic statement false.
Now with a topic statement such as this, if you read it too fast without giving much thought to it, it can be saying something you think it's saying but really is not.
So I'm going to guide you on the right path with this statement.
First off , what kind of statement is it? It's a broad statement. It doesn't give a specified number in a group. It mentions a group and something that applies within that group.
But how about the application to each individual? What does it come down to making a judgment there?
Secondly, you can swap out "atheists" with the term "people". The topic statement would still remain non-fallacious.
That's it for now. Just think about how can this be true of a statement. What is out there that we know of in which makes this statement true?
Think about it first, see what you come up with.
Con
#2
Resolved: Atheists are Religious
- 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”[1]
- The definition of atheist by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: “A person who does not believe in the existence of god or gods”[2]
- 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.
- Rebuttal:
- 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.[3] 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.
- Sourcing
Round 2
Pro
#3
"It is literally impossible to be religious and an atheist at the same time by definition."
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?
"The definition of religious by the Cambridge English Dictionary is:“Having a strong belief in god or gods”[1]"
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.
"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."
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 about it, you can see how a statement like "atheists are religious " can be made.
Just like the riddle of what's always coming but never gets here. That would be the future of tomorrow as the future can never be present.
"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."
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.
"Not every person is an atheist."
Not every person is religious. But people are religious and atheists are people , are they not?
You're tripping over your own shoe lace with sorting out correct broad statements.
"CON brings up nothing actually proving the resolution, he insteads tries to lessen his burden of proof and describe the resolution vaguely and incorrectly."
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 .
So now before I get to what makes the topic statement true , let me say all the points I've made so far although not needed, was to help guide you in where your arguments tried to go.
Alright so, atheists are religious. The Laveyan Satanists are a religious group of people. People that are atheists, hence atheists are religious.
Very straightforward and when you see a broad statement, run with it and assume it means the most conventional sense in all the world, well this is the way folks fail at answering riddles.
Your mind is locked tight into a box. This can hinder many thought processes to keep many things within low superficial face value.
Con
#4
Are you thinking about every single atheist that ever lived on the planet?
It is possible to convert to a religion when you are atheist. But it is impossible to be religious while you are an atheist, because of the definition. So, yes.
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?
You haven't provided anything by saying this. The literal definition of atheist is to not be religious.
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.
That doesn't effectively refute anything I said.
No you can't be in two different positions at once. But how can you point to left and right at the same time?
You can point left and right at the same time because you have two hands. If you had one hand, it'd be impossible. You have one brain, you can't be two things at once, if they directly contradict each other.
Answer- two different perspectives of course.
You're missing the point here. It is literally impossible to be BOTH things at once. You can't believe in no god and believe in gods at one time.
See a theist and atheist both can believe but one believes the positive while the other trusts the negative.
No, an atheist does not believe in god, so no they can't believe if they are an atheist.
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.
I don't see what you're trying to get at here. It is false by definition, there isn't a possible way you can be the two at once.
Not every person is religious. But people are religious and atheists are people , are they not?
Yeah but that really doesn't prove anything.
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.
You admit to being vague, and I'm still wrong? All I said is that it isn't my fault that some things are unclear, because you are being intentionally vague.
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 .
Once again, you are refuting something that really wasn't the point of the statement. You were trying to lessen what you were trying to prove by saying that you can replace "atheists" with "people"
Alright so, atheists are religious. The Laveyan Satanists are a religious group of people. People that are atheists, hence atheists are religious.
The Laveyan Satanists are not atheist. You literally haven't proved a single thing.
CONCLUSION:
PRO does not prove his side of the statement. The gist of what he said, if I can accurately read through the mush of his unclear writing is that: "People are religious, people are also atheists, therefore Atheists are Religious". Which is very wrong. The people that are religious are in a separate group of people than the people who are atheists.
My argument:
-Atheists can't be religious because the definitions contradict each other
PRO's argument:
-People are religious, and people are also atheists. Hence, atheists are religious (this is false, it's a illogical fallacy)
Round 3
Pro
#5
"It is possible to convert to a religion when you are atheist. But it is impossible to be religious while you are an atheist, because of the definition. So, yes."
You should see now why this is false based on what I revealed the last round.
"You haven't provided anything by saying this. The literal definition of atheist is to not be religious."
Get out of that box!
"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.
That doesn't effectively refute anything I said."
Then you acknowledge that an atheist can technically be classified as having a belief system.
"You can point left and right at the same time because you have two hands. If you had one hand, it'd be impossible. You have one brain, you can't be two things at once, if they directly contradict each other."
Sure , you can't go left and right at the same time. But you can have two different perspectives at the same time.
"You're missing the point here. It is literally impossible to be BOTH things at once. You can't believe in no god and believe in gods at one 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.
"No, an atheist does not believe in god, so no they can't believe if they are an atheist."
Right an atheist believes in no God.
"I don't see what you're trying to get at here. It is false by definition, there isn't a possible way you can be the two at once."
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.
"Not every person is religious. But people are religious and atheists are people , are they not?
Yeah but that really doesn't prove anything."
Then why you say "yeah"?
That statement is proven true, ain't that right?
"You admit to being vague, and I'm still wrong? All I said is that it isn't my fault that some things are unclear, because you are being intentionally vague."
What did I just say? When something is unclear, you do what ?
That thing that you do, why didn't you do it? Why? Why ? Why?
Your deflection does not go unnoticed.
"Once again, you are refuting something that really wasn't the point of the statement. You were trying to lessen what you were trying to prove by saying that you can replace "atheists" with "people" "
" "Not every person is religious. But people are religious and atheists are people , are they not?
Yeah but that really doesn't prove anything." "
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.
"The Laveyan Satanists are not atheist. You literally haven't proved a single thing."
Oh so what where they?
"PRO does not prove his side of the statement. The gist of what he said, if I can accurately read through the mush of his unclear writing is that: "People are religious, people are also atheists, therefore Atheists are Religious". Which is very wrong. The people that are religious are in a separate group of people than the people who are atheists.
My argument:
-Atheists can't be religious because the definitions contradict each other
PRO's argument:
-People are religious, and people are also atheists. Hence, atheists are religious (this is false, it's a illogical fallacy)"
" "Not every person is religious. But people are religious and atheists are people , are they not?
Yeah but that really doesn't prove anything" "
You agreed yes to this so quit being phony.
If 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?
Con
#6
Sorry for the misconception, like I outlined in the comments I meant LaVeyan Satanists weren't religious, my brain was pretty fogged up at the moment.
So why aren't LaVeyan Satanists religious? Notice how the definition of religious does not mean you have a religion. LaVeyan Satanists are atheists by definition because they don't believe in Satan, rather they believe in self-benefit. (https://theisticsatanism.wikia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism)
Essentially what PRO covers in this round is that I should "get out of that box!", even though the definitions contradict each other. Every single religion that you bring up that classifies as atheistic, by literal definition the followers of that religion are not religious. The definition of religious is not to have a religion, rather to believe god, gods or deities.
Mostly what PRO says does not refute anything I say, rather he pushes an unclear argument within mushed writing.
Rebuttals:
Sure , you can't go left and right at the same time. But you can have two different perspectives at the same time.
If you would have two perspectives, by definition you are not an atheist.
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.
So? This doesn't fulfill your burden of proof.
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.
I do know that every single atheist that ever lived was not religious when they were an atheist, because that is the literal definition of atheist.
Then why you say "yeah"?That statement is proven true, ain't that right?
The statement is true, but how it relates to your case is unclear.
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.
Again, it's true, but it doesn't prove your case. If I said "Hello is a term used for greeting" the statement would be true, but it doesn't prove my case and the link to my case is unclear.
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?
Covered.
PRO has brought up one case of religion being atheistic. CON has effectively refuted this by saying that the definition of religious does not include having a religion but believing in God or gods. Since LaVeyan Satanists don't actually believe in any of those things, they are a special case of an atheistic religion.
PRO also brings up statements that don't prove his case and the relationship to his argument is unclear. PRO's formatting is also very confusing as sometimes it seems as he has conceded which he has not.
PRO has not fulfilled his burden of proof, if he does not in the remaining rounds, CON claims the victory.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"Sorry for the misconception, like I outlined in the comments I meant LaVeyan Satanists weren't religious, my brain was pretty fogged up at the moment."
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
"So why aren't LaVeyan Satanists religious? Notice how the definition of religious does not mean you have a religion. LaVeyan Satanists are atheists by definition because they don't believe in Satan, rather they believe in self-benefit. (https://theisticsatanism.wikia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism)"
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.
"Essentially what PRO covers in this round is that I should "get out of that box!", even though the definitions contradict each other. Every single religion that you bring up that classifies as atheistic, by literal definition the followers of that religion are not religious. The definition of religious is not to have a religion, rather to believe god, gods or deities."
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.
"Mostly what PRO says does not refute anything I say, rather he pushes an unclear argument within mushed writing. "
Can we say "dismissive" on your part?
"If you would have two perspectives, by definition you are not an atheist.
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.
"So? This doesn't fulfill your burden of proof."
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.
"I do know that every single atheist that ever lived was not religious when they were an atheist, because that is the literal definition of atheist."
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 .
"The statement is true, but how it relates to your case is unclear."
Well with a limited view and understanding, yes things will be unclear to you.
"Again, it's true, but it doesn't prove your case. If I said "Hello is a term used for greeting" the statement would be true, but it doesn't prove my case and the link to my case is unclear."
Your so called source proves my case. So much appreciated on that.
"Covered."
What poor coverage it is. Tell me why the source you tried to use to argue for your case mentioned Satanism as a religion and philosophy?
"PRO has brought up one case of religion being atheistic. CON has effectively refuted this by saying that the definition of religious does not include having a religion but believing in God or gods. Since LaVeyan Satanists don't actually believe in any of those things, they are a special case of an atheistic religion. "
You contradicted yourself with saying "an atheistic religion" here and earlier saying "Laveyan Satanists weren't religious".
So an atheistic religion would have religious atheists. Tomato, tamotto , dude.
"PRO also brings up statements that don't prove his case and the relationship to his argument is unclear. PRO's formatting is also very confusing as sometimes it seems as he has conceded which he has not."
Allow me to reiterate this of which you seemed to have missed.
"So now before I get to what makes the topic statement true , let me say all the points I've made so far although not needed, was to help guide you in where your arguments tried to go."
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.
Con
#8
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
Notice that I have never said it wasn't a religion. I said the people following it are not religious.
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.
PRO attacks my sources while he hasn't provided a single one. A belief system is a religion. But having a religion does not mean you are religious. Believing in a god or gods make you religious. Here is an excerpt from the text I provided:
" Unlike Theistic Satanism, LaVeyan Satanism does not involve the literal worship of any being other than the self, but rather uses "Satan" as a symbol of carnality and earthly values"
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.
You haven't provided any other definitions that don't contradict besides your own which are false. In fact, you cannot bring any other definitions up or it will be considered unfair as I cannot respond to it.
Can we say "dismissive" on your part?
No, you relyed on one atheistic religion, which I have proven to have been not religious. PRO's goal is to prove that LaVeyan Satanism's followers are religious, NOT LaVeyan Satanism is a religion.
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.
LaVeyan satanism does not worship yourself as a god. You are sadly misled. If you believe in a god, you are not an atheist.
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.
The bottom line for this debate is that LaVeyan Satanists are not religious, even though they follow a religion. The definition of religious never covers "having a religion" rather it covers belief in "god or gods". You have been proving the wrong thing.
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 .
LET ME MAKE MYSELF CLEAR. PRO hasn't pointed out once where the sources disagreed with me. I haven't said LaVeyan Satanism isn't a religion, I just said they weren't religious. THESE are two DIFFERENT things.
Voters, please dismiss PRO saying the box is a "mutha*****". Analyze the arguments instead.
So an atheistic religion would have religious atheists. Tomato, tamotto , dude.
No. (COVERED)
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.
False again. I have agreed that LaVeyan Satanism is a religion involving atheists. BUT, I have not agreed that LaVeyan Satanists are religious. Once again, having a religion does not mean you are religious.
Conclusion:
CON has proved that atheists can physically not be able to religious at the same time that they are atheist. PRO says that the very existence of "LaVeyan Satanism" makes some atheists religious. CON refutes this by saying the definition of religious is not to have a religion.
CON has fulfilled his burden of proof using facts and definitions. PRO has fabricated his proofs using his own biased definitions.
Vote Con!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
To give an overview: Pro: Prove this, Con: This definition proves this, Pro: But does it?
Arguments:
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.
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
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!
Yare yare daze.
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.
Not going to go after the low-hanging fruit this time around...that said, I'm curious why PRO argues this.