Atheists are religious.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have completed the debates, there voting periods just aren't up.
How can you vote when you completed no debates?
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.
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.
"Atheists are religious. " but then "So , atheists are or can be very religious."
Bock Bock Bock Bock Bock
Wanna?