Instigator / Pro

Mall

1479

rating

204

debates

31.13%

won

Topic

#2456

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

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora

Tags

Religion

Parameters

Publication date: 10.05.2020 01:38PM
Last updated date: 10.19.2020 11:13PM
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

seldiora

1417

rating

158

debates

32.59%

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

Mall

10.06.2020 12:58PM

Pro

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.

seldiora

10.06.2020 01:19PM

Con

From Merriam Webster, Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

Religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

Because atheists do not believe in a deity, they are not religious. Case closed.

Round 2

Mall

10.07.2020 10:43PM

Pro

"Because atheists do not believe in a deity, they are not religious. Case closed."

Why didn't you think beyond the conventional setup and definition?

Whenever something appears to be simple in what's supposed to be a very critical, elaborate platform, be very cautious.

Atheists are religious. That's a true statement according to the following at least. The Laveyan Satanists are a religious group of people. People that are atheists, hence atheists are religious.

Now, case closed.

seldiora

10.07.2020 11:10PM

Con

Satanist are only one group of people. They do not consist of all existing atheists. Therefore you cannot apply the statement to all atheists.

Round 3

Mall

10.08.2020 01:12PM

Pro

"Satanist are only one group of people. They do not consist of all existing atheists. Therefore you cannot apply the statement to all atheists."

You're a 1000% right. That's why I was very careful in not saying all atheists are religious.

seldiora

10.08.2020 01:20PM

Con

The problem lies in the resolution. It's stated that atheists are religious, and offers no exceptions. Even if Mall can prove that atheists can simultaneously be religious, the amount that straddle this absurd line are few and far in between, as it is practically impossible to believe in no god and believe in a god. Even Satanists is highly up to interpretation. A site notes "Satanist is a broad and varied category: some are theistic and believe in the existence of a literal Satan, while others use Lucifer as the original symbol of resistance and bringer of enlightenment to humankind. " (https://library.bc.edu/answerwall/2020/03/09/what-exactly-are-satanists/)

But since atheist once again means that they do not believe in a deity, that means they only believe in the set of belief that Satan offers, not Satan himself. As you can see there's the clear difference, and atheists are not religious. The very definitions contradict each other.

Round 4

Mall

10.09.2020 09:52AM

Pro

I'll put it this way so not to complicate and add unnecessary things.

Atheist = singular

Atheists =plural

The "s" on the end only indicates more than one atheist upon speaking of the noun.

So this does not say all . To specify an all-inclusive nature , the context would have to say so or the statement has to specify somewhere in there.

This is just like when you say people drive cars or people ride the bus. The context is well known that not all people do one or the other or both. When say people, we mean more than one. There's no specified number.

So it's the same when phrasing the noun as atheists.

When you say there are people in the building or at the park or outside my house, don't assume all people of the planet.

So that includes Laveyan Satanism. Laveyan Satanism is a religion.

So the topic statement was just a broad way of speaking or making a generalization.

It would be incorrect if the statement said this applies to each person. But it disregards the exceptions to apply a truth to an inexact number in a group or subject.

So Laveyan Satanists are religious people due to joining a religion and they are atheists. So therefore , we do have a such thing as religious atheists.

If you just throw out the thought of application to each person, you can follow this quite well .

seldiora

10.09.2020 12:30PM

Con

Pro has given zero sources while I have proved two types of satanism that put a hole in his argument. Remember his argument must apply for most if not all atheists. If I said humans run faster than 25 mph there are only a handful of people who fit that description and is a misleading representation of average human running speed. As self proclaimed atheists who believe in a deity are self contradictory and nearly nil, atheists are not religious.

Ancap460

10.19.2020 11:13PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

I have completed the debates, there voting periods just aren't up.

Intelligence_06

10.19.2020 05:29AM

-->

@Ancap460

How can you vote when you completed no debates?

Mall

10.16.2020 12:49PM

Rather, what I read is not what others read.

I guess the opposing argument is , don't believe what you read. Don't even believe the founder of the religion's book.

Mall

10.16.2020 12:46PM

According to those that think so, Laveyan Satanism is not a religion involving Atheists.

I guess what I read online and in dictionaries is not others read.
Doesn't make it any less than true.

Death23

10.12.2020 05:13PM

"Atheists are religious. " but then "So , atheists are or can be very religious."

Bock Bock Bock Bock Bock

Intelligence_06

10.05.2020 01:41PM

-->

@seldiora

Wanna?

Intelligence_06

10.14.2020 10:54PM

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:

By definition, Pro automatically loses. It is impossible to prove such a feat.

Con brought up definitions which disproved Pro. Pro then used "Satanists could be atheists", which does not account for all atheists and/or all religious folks. Con then used that satanists are actually not atheists so Pro will have no ground to stand on. Overall, Con won. No atheists are religious by definition.

Ancap460

10.12.2020 05:09PM

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:

The entire debate came down to one issue, Con's definition of religious. This debate was completely focused on two definition based issues. One, do you have to prove all atheists or at least two. This issue was warranted on both sides, but it didn't end up mattering because of the second definition issue. Con defined religious as believing in a deity and atheists don't. Pro challenges this with satanism, but con answers this easily by saying it's the values of satan, not existence of satan himself. Easy Con vote at that point.

Pro: Tip to get better, if there is a definition given that is designed to exclude your idea, try to create a counter definition and then say why your definition is better for the debate and how their definition limits the fairness and education of the debate round.

Con: Tip to get better, don't just rely on this definition based argument, because it's a really easy point for Pro to win that religion is faith, not deity, in which case you lose because atheists have to have faith in the lack of religion. He didn't do that, so he lost, but you don't put all your eggs in one basket. Make at least one other argument if you have the word count.

Theweakeredge

10.12.2020 01:40PM

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:

From their last debate, Pro's argument has improved, but not enough to fulfill their BoP.

I agree with MisterChris, that the resolution does imply all, and a simple resolution name change would easily fix the debate. Regardless I am in agreeance with Con, they did indeed refute all of Pro's claims.

For this reason I'm giving the argument to Con.

MisterChris

10.10.2020 02:42AM

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:

PRO did a bit better here. To the point I'll bite that an athiest can be religious. However, what I don't think they realize 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. 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.