Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Atheism and theism are both reliant on faith

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
8,000
Contender / Con
0
1587
rating
10
debates
80.0%
won
Description
~ 257 / 5,000

Islam is a theistic religion
Buddhism is an atheistic religion

Atheism and theism constantly compete,

I want to prove that under no circumstances can any of them claim superiority if they are distilled from their respective world views

8 000 characters

Round 1
Pro
Con thank you for participating

Setting up the rules

First I want to make it clear that theism and atheism, if not specified by using the appropriate name, are not a part of a religion. Religions exist which are based on "God" and religions exist based on an impersonal ultimate reality. Some religions like Buddhism believe there is no God, others again believe that gods have been created by an impersonal force. If God does not exist then Buddhism will be correct, but not necessarily their stories and doctrines. One cannot attack atheism by pointing fingers at Buddhist traditions or stories that simply do not fit reality. Similarly, an attack on theism that is basically just pointing fingers at Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc misconceptions will not have any weight in this debate. If the basic idea of Christianity is correct, it does not automatically mean that the world was created in six days, as that theory is an interpretation of the text that can vary from believer to believer. Both truths and lies give rise to myths, as even scientific facts give rise to public myths in the 21st century. We will ignore polytheism in this debate as it does not offer any new evidence or arguments.

The definition of atheism as "rejection or ignorance of religion" will not work in this case. If we used that definition all secular theists would indeed be atheists.


Definitions:

Secular: "Not involved in a religious discussion or practise"

Theism: "The idea that the ultimate reality is personal" 

Atheism: "The idea that the ultimate reality is impersonal"

Agnosticism: "The rejection of taking a stance for either theism or atheism due to a lack of personally convincing evidence"

Evidence: "Any fact, personal experience, collective experience or argument that support a certain idea"

Ultimate reality: "The cause which effect was the creation of our universe"



Different kinds of belief:

Belief: "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. "

Clearly, this definition from Google shows us that anything we know, think, have faith in or agree upon, are all based on belief. Belief in itself is necessary for anything we do, we cannot even debate without believing that truth and logic exists. Science is based on the belief that the universe is logical, humans rational and our senses able to extract real information. Belief with more and better evidence gets more believers, and that is why the earth is round not flat according to modern science.

One can believe in Santa Claus, in black holes, atoms, oneself or even truth. There are many different types of belief. Even the most solid scientific theories require belief in order to affect human lives. If nobody believed in atoms, they would still exist. On the contrary, all humans could "know" that atoms were indivisible based on science until science proved that atoms can be divided, literally dropping a truth bomb. Furthermore, I could point at example after example where humans trusted and believed in the knowledge that they thought to be accurate and true. However, just because knowledge requires belief and is often proved wrong, we still trust it because it is the most accurate tool we have for understanding reality.

Other kinds of belief, like religion, can also be backed up by evidence. But this kind of belief is different in nature because different religious groups use different kinds of evidence. Thus for the sake of the debate facts will remain "observations about reality", while knowledge will have a special definition. Knowledge: "A belief held by the majority of a population regardless of their world view", in other words, knowledge is an idea so strong that nearly anyone would agree with it, and which all experts agree on. Otherwise, two groups like atheists and theists would not operate with the same knowledge, this would obviously create a self-reinforcing gap between them. Sadly that is what has happened in reality.

When it comes down to deciding what faith means, many disagree. The definitions range from "believing in religious doctrines without proof" to "Trusting in someone or something based on experience". Instead, I want to suggest we use the definition below. Again remember that we have stripped both atheism and theism away from their respective religions, that is why the definitions above must be sidestepped for this debate. Without any religious practises faith would still exist.

=> Faith: "Trusting ones own personal opinion about a topic that lacks definitive evidence".

Using this definition we ensure that A. It is a personal choice or preference - B. It is an opinion and could be based on ignorance and prejudice, personal experience, group mentality or studying the topic - C. It is based on trust - D. There is no definitive answer proven correct, in other words, true knowledge according to my definition is not present. If we reject A then free will is not real. If we reject B then faith does not include making a claim. If we reject C we reject the only part of the definition agreed upon, and the only thing that distinguishes faith in God from opinion about Donald Trump. If we reject D then it is no longer faith but knowledge. My definition also puts an end to the age-old argument, if faith is the acceptance of an idea or rejection of it without evidence. Any trusted opinion is faith. "Trusted", in this case, does not mean taking risks because of it, but rather to feel sure that it is correct.



Why we cannot change the definition:

If you insist on using the definition: "accepting an idea without proof", we will come nowhere, we would be stuck. That definition would by definition make this debate impossible, as using that definition we could argue forever whether or not rejecting an idea is the same as accepting the idea that other ideas are wrong or whether accepting an idea would be equal to rejecting the idea that rejecting the idea would be a good idea or whether God is a requirement and you cannot reject him without putting another idea into place effectively making atheism the acceptance of the idea that rejecting that idea as theism does was a bad idea from the start. Believe me, I used a long time to write that down and it should be possible to follow : ) Basically, the point is: That definition would destroy this debate by being easy to w



Presenting the problem with today's view:

Since you are against my topic sentence you represent the idea that religions are based on faith, while atheism, namely the rejection of religion, is based on science and reasoning. This easily leads one to the idea that an atheist is a neutral, rational and objective observer of the world while religious people are blinded by doctrines and traditions. It is true that "secular" people have a greater chance of being rational, objective and truth-seeking, as opposed to people that rely on the good old truths that are religious doctrines. However, secular people are not necessarily atheists, they are also agnostics, theists and deists. By no stretch of the imagination could one claim that just being sceptical towards religion or being free-thinking makes one an atheist. Having that sorted out of the way, if secular theism can be called blind faith by secular theists, what makes secular atheism the only non-faith?




My argument:
Assuming we agree on the definition of faith I stated above.
  1. The ultimate reality must be either personal, impersonal or nonexistent - no absolute evidence exist for either option
  2. Theism claims it is personal, Atheism claims it is impersonal, Agnosticism does not claim
  3. Both theism and atheism are blind faiths
Since neither of them makes any scientific claim, they cannot be tested. Thus both theism and atheism are reliant on faith.
This is true until they are incorporated into broader world views, neither of them can be disproven in their theoretical forms.


My argument proves that the burden of proof is yours. 

=> Can you prove that atheism is not reliant on faith while theism is?



Con
  Thank you Benjamin for this debate. Since we are to determine who has faith and in what way, some kritiking will be necessary. 

DEFINITIONS:

The following are definitions provided by my opponent that require revision:

Theism: "The idea that the ultimate reality is personal" 

Atheism: "The idea that the ultimate reality is impersonal"

Agnosticism: "The rejection of taking a stance for either theism or atheism due to a lack of personally convincing evidence"

Evidence: "Any fact, personal experience, collective experience or argument that support a certain idea"

Ultimate reality: "The cause which effect was the creation of our universe"
...
Knowledge: "A belief held by the majority of a population regardless of their world view"

1. Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.[1]
2. Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[2]
3. Agnostic(ism): A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. [3]
4. Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. [4]
5. Ultimate Reality something that is the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality [5].
6. Gnostic: Relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge
7. Knowledge: Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.[8]

  Firstly, the fact that my opponent has no sources for his definitions necessarily means that he may define anything as anything to fit whatever it is he is trying to "prove." Aside from this, his defining of Ultimate Reality is one cornerstone of his argument. The way he defines it, he assumes the burden of proving that the Universe was caused, and furthermore, that this cause was a god. He doesn't define "personal" or "impersonal" and so his loose definitions to stuff a straw man representation of what Atheism is, make a little more plausible the idea that Atheism requires faith. However, the opposite is true. Agnosticism is the knowledge claim and modifies the category of Atheist or Theist. Therefore, one may be a Gnostic Theist, a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist. 

  An important quality of knowledge is that it can be demonstrated. The flat earth isn't knowledge because it isn't demonstrable, and evidently not true.

  There are two definitions of faith, the colloquial one and the religious one:

  • Faith (colloquial) - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
  • Faith (religious) - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
  When we are discussing god, we are always using the religious definition of faith. Atheism does not require belief in god, so Atheism does not require faith.

_____

  • a- : prefix, meaning "not" [6][7]
  In the case of theism, one is either a theist, or they are not. Atheist is simply the state of not being a theist. Anyone who is not a theist is automatically an atheist by default. As a matter of fact, any monotheist is necessarily an atheist to every other possible god, without needing faith. One does not have to declare themselves a Gnostic Atheist (claiming knowledge that a particular god does not exist) in order to be an atheist. Therefore, Atheism does not require faith.

_____

REBUTTALS

"...while atheism, namely the rejection of religion, is based on science and reasoning."
  Atheism says nothing about science, although science can often lead one to become an atheist.

"The ultimate reality must be either personal, impersonal or nonexistent..."
  The way he defines it, my opponent has given no reason to believe that the "ultimate Reality," as he uses the term, is separated from "god." He uses them interchangeably. If one believes in god, they are not an atheist. So if one believes in a god, but that that god is "impersonal" or just doesn't interfere with the universe, then that person would be a deist, not an atheist. My opponent conflates Deism and Atheism in this way.

"Ultimate reality: "The cause which effect was the creation of our universe""
"Theism: "The idea that the ultimate reality is personal" 
"Atheism: "The idea that the ultimate reality is impersonal""
"Since neither of them makes any scientific claim, they cannot be tested. Thus both theism and atheism are reliant on faith."
  Theism, as myself and my opponent have laid out, requires a positive claim that a god exists and that he started the universe. That interaction between god and the initial expansion is a scientific claim. It does not require faith to reserve belief in that positive claim until there is some evidence to indicate the hypothesis "god exists" is explanative of the universe's beginning. Therefore, Atheism does not require faith.

_____

  CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, the burden of proof is on my opponent to show that reservation of belief and not being a theist are somehow reliant on faith. He has so far failed to meet that burden, instead providing vague, loaded definitions so that he may falsely conflate Deism and Atheism.



[6] https://www.etymonline.com/word/a- usage 3 is the one relevant to the term "atheism"



Round 2
Pro
How your definition undermines the debate:

  Firstly, the fact that my opponent has no sources for his definitions necessarily means that he may define anything as anything to fit whatever it is he is trying to "prove."
I gave a clear explanation for every choice. I did not try to "prove" a point by changing the definitions. If I wanted to do that I could instead have used many words to do the same thing. The truth is, no word has an absolute or innate meaning. One can define words however one may want, the only important thing is COHERENCE and the fact we both know them. I had to twist some definitions in order to create a coherent set of rules we both follow, I did not by definition end the debate in my own favour. 

The reason I changed the definitions, is that they are biased towards atheism. I predicted this would be the result of the current set of definitions:
This easily leads one to the idea that an atheist is a neutral, rational and objective observer of the world while religious people are blinded by doctrines and traditions.

Does Con's dictionary definitions allow this debate, or has someone  "claimed intellectual superiority" in it by twisting the definitions?

There are two definitions of faith, the colloquial one and the religious one:

  • Faith (colloquial) - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
  • Faith (religious) - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
  When we are discussing god, we are always using the religious definition of faith. Atheism does not require belief in god, so Atheism does not require faith.
The "religious" definition, there is no reason to have such a thing. We do not need a religious definition of other words like "fact, belief, idea, etc..."



The first one is a good definition, we could use that in our debate.



But the second one shows a ridiculous amount of bias when you factor in the length of the sentence. 

First of all, there are countless definitions, not one, so this one is not special in particular.
I had a clear intention by making my own definitions, but even you had a reason to choose exactly this one. 

The implications the definition would carry:
  • Faith is "strong belief". This is not always correct, a weak belief in theism or religion is possible. 
  • Faith is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
  • Faith only applies to non-atheistic world views.
  • Theism is falsely labelled as necessarily being strong and or religious.
  • None of the things that would actually be stupid unproven ideas has been included: flat earth theory, magic, the multiverse, etc...
  • Faith is depicted as an entirely religious concept
  • Intellectual or weak theism would not be based on faith - we both disagree on this point

The author shows ignorance for the definition of belief. A strong belief can indeed be based on proof, and also apply to everything humans think or know.


According to the definitions Con wants to use, faith means a stupid idea without any evidence or argument, and a thing one is apprehended into.

If that was in fact the definition of faith, nobody has faith, as any adult has the capacity to think freely of a reason to have faith.
It is obvious that the writer of this particular definition wanted to abuse the Christian term "have faith in God" in order to label theism as idiotic.

Also, it contradicts itself:

  1. Theism is based on faith - we agree on that one
  2. Faith is a strong belief in God or religious doctrines based not on proof but religious apprehension
  3. Theism is based on a strong belief in theism based not on proof but apprehension
Of course, theism is based on theism, the laws of logic are still active even if you believe in a God. This definition adds nothing of value, it is just labelling an entire group of intellectual theists as both religious and apprehended, as well as insulting the majority of the inhabitants of the earth. Let us not forget, we are talking about theism and atheism in their pure form, distilled from religion.

What about secular thinkers raised as atheists, when they adopt theism after intense thought? FAITH
What about atheists that were raised to be atheists? NOT FAITH

It is not me that is twisting the definitions in order to "prove a point". Either it is you Con, but I believe not, or the people that wrote such a thing with a clear intention.

"Those that control language, control ideas. Those that control ideas, control people."
This definition cannot even work to describe theism, and is far from able to allow this debate to happen.

I made my own definition, suitable to host this debate:
Trusting ones own personal opinion about a topic that lacks definitive evidence
This is a far superior definition for this debate:
  • Trust implies it is a strong belief about something important.
  • Personal implies it is a question that individuals, not societies, answer.
  • Opinion implies that evidence exists from both sides.
    • Opinions are backed up by experience.
    • Opinions are backed up by both false and true information.
    • Opinions are affected by the people around you, but you make your own conclusion.
  • This definition does not insult more than 2/3 of the planet's population.
  • This definition does not render the statement "theism is based on faith" as circular reasoning.
  • This definition does not end the debate before it even begun, it does not "prove a point"







Reestablishing the debate:

Your claim about the debate is wrong

 we are to determine who has faith and in what way
First of all, you failed to read the description

Islam is a theistic religion, Buddhism is an atheistic religion

Atheism and theism constantly compete,
I want to prove that under no circumstances can any of them claim superiority if they are distilled from their respective world views
and my point about belief

Clearly, this definition from Google shows us that anything we know, think, have faith in or agree upon, are all based on belief.
If Con would give any thought to my argument beyond the definitions, you would have seen that I gave a clear explanation for every change I made to any of the concepts used. I made an appeal to logic by choosing COHERENT definitions that made sense when applied to the rest of the definitions. I used all of my space connecting them together and providing the reasons why we should use those definitions. If Con wants to change a definition, he must explain why he thinks we should do that. Con did not provide any reason, however, he simply made an appeal to authority by providing the official definitions. The authority Con used...
... he may define anything as anything to fit whatever it is he is trying to "prove."
Nobody should respect such an authority (dictionary) with regards to controversial words. Concepts, not words, have innate meaning. 
Additionally, Con chose different dictionaries for different words. None of us has the correct definitions, cause there are none.

The goal of this debate is not to argue over the definitions of faith, atheism and so forth.

The goal is to show that neither theism nor atheism can claim intellectual superiority. 

Con cannot insist on us using his definitions after this rebuttal.

According to Con's definition, atheism is by definition intellectually superior.

If Con does not accept the definitions or give sufficient and logical reasons why it is "necessary" to change any of them, Con has given up.


Rebuttal
  An important quality of knowledge is that it can be demonstrated.
No, I know that is not true, prove me wrong
Also, Knowledge is always wrong, you know : )

Beginning of the actual debate
He uses them interchangeably
No.

There is a major difference: free will defines only a God

The universe has not existed forever, so the ultimate reality caused it (my claim of faith).

  • Any claim about this thing would be called faith - both theistic and atheistic
  • Impersonal ultimate reality: Multiverse, Karma, Randomness, The universe, etc
  • Personal ultimate reality: God, gods, spirit etc (basically the same thing)


Con
  Thank you for your response. This is on my phone during lunch, so forgive my brevity.

  First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the absolutely essential point that Gnostic and Agnostic are knowledge claims that modify the category of Atheist or Theist. This allows for Agnostic Atheists, the existence of which defeats my opponent's arguments on its own merit since it is a category of Atheism that requires no faith.

  My opponent has also dropped the fact that his argument attacks deism, not atheism. And that his conception of atheism is a straw man of what atheism actually means.

  Secondly, my opponent's argument rest on redefining already well defined terms to describe something they are not. I provided well established definitions from the oxford english dictionary with no vagueness about them. The only term that came from a different dictionary was "ultimate reality" which I sourced to Miriam webster.

  My opponent claims that my definitions undermine the debate, but really they just undermine his arguments because his arguments depend on redefining words that already have established definitions to construct a straw man to attack. While words may not have inherent meaning, they do typically have established meanings. I say we should go with the well established and agreed upon definitions that accurately and clearly state the meaning of the words, as opposed to my opponents vague, loaded, reconstructed definitions.

1
"The "religious" definition, there is no reason to have such a thing."
  The reason there is a separation of definitions for the word faith is because the word is used differently in religious contexts than it is used colloquially. "We walk by faith and not by sight" is very different than the statement, "I have faith in my wife." Context is everything. It's the same reason  there are multiple definitions of the word "fall." Because the context the word is used in changes it's meaning. 

"The implications the definition would carry:
Faith is "strong belief". This is not always correct, a weak belief in theism or religion is possible. 
Faith is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Faith only applies to non-atheistic world views.
Theism is falsely labelled as necessarily being strong and or religious.
None of the things that would actually be stupid unproven ideas has been included: flat earth theory, magic, the multiverse, etc...
Faith is depicted as an entirely religious concept
Intellectual or weak theism would not be based on faith - we both disagree on this point"
A. Faith is not listed as a "strong belief" only. It's specifically the strong belief in a god or gods when used in religious contexts. But my opponent doesn't specify what a "weak" belief in god is, so perhaps he is referring to Agnostic Theism, where one claims belief in a god but admits that it cannot be known. This would of course fit the definition perfectly.
B. In the religious context, yes, there is not proof of god, so there must be spiritual apprehension in it's stead.
C. Religious faith does only apply to religious believers. Since an atheist does not believe in a god or gods, then the definition is not applicable to atheists. 
D. Faith is only labeled as religious when the word is being used in a religious context. 
E. Disproven ideas are replaced with newer models of reality. This is a null point.
F. Now you're getting it. Religious faith is a religious concept.
G. Agnostic Theism still positively claims a god just like gnostic Theism, only Agnostic Theism admits there is no proof. Therefore both forms of Theism fit perfectly in line with my definition.

"The author shows ignorance for the definition of belief."
  Except that I allowed your definition of belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

  This definition fits perfectly with the one I provided. It is my opponent who is putting his ignorance on display. Ignorance of his own definitions. 

It is obvious that the writer of this particular definition wanted to abuse the Christian term "have faith in God" in order to label theism as idiotic.
  The writer of this definition is Oxford University where many theist live and work. This definition has been agreed upon by academics of all stripes and religious backgrounds. That's why it's in the OED.

"According to the definitions Con wants to use, faith means a stupid idea without any evidence or argument, and a thing one is apprehended into"
  Apprehension here means: understanding or grasp. And I didn't claim religious faith was stupid, that's my opponent's straw man. I do claim however, that there is not proof to back belief in god or gods, so it is necessarily a spiritual idea.

2.
"I made an appeal to logic by choosing COHERENT definitions that made sense when applied to the rest of the definitions. "
  My opponent has made an appeal to a straw man fallacy by attempting to redefine atheism to mean deism so that he can project his own religious faith onto the straw man of "atheism" and falsy compare them. His argument is a straw man fallacy, fallacy of false equivalence, and a fallacy of projection. His definitions are incoherent for the following reasons:

A. The basis of his definitions are "ultimate reality." But his definition of ultimate reality is so loaded that he assumes two burdens of proof that I listed above. And so vague that he can use it interchangeably with God.
B. His redefinitions no longer describe the things he is trying to attack (namely atheism), rendering them a straw man. 

3.
"The goal of this debate is not to argue over the definitions of faith, atheism and so forth.

The goal is to show that neither theism nor atheism can claim intellectual superiority. "
  Here my opponent is trying to change the resolution from "Atheism and Theism are both reliant on faith," to "atheism is not intellectual superior to Theism." This is absolutely a semantic debate since your definitions are so terribly misleading. I'm not claiming the intellectual superiority of atheism, simply that it doesn't require religious faith. 

"If Con does not accept the definitions or give sufficient and logical reasons why it is "necessary" to change any of them, Con has given up"
  Ha! No way man, I can say the same thing. If my opponent continues to use fallacious, loaded, and otherwise false definitions, he has given up. Get outta here with that.

4. 
"There is a major difference: free will defines only a God"
This doesn't make any sense, so perhaps my opponent will elaborate on the perceived link here ,in his response.

"The universe has not existed forever, so the ultimate reality caused it (my claim of faith)."
  Prove that an "ultimate reality" caused the universe. Also, my opponent disregards my point that the idea of a "before" the singularity is incoherent. My opponent baselessly asserts that the universe was caused and claims he knows what caused it, but completely fails to justify how the idea of a time before the singularity is meaningless.

  Knowledge is demonstrable because you can demonstrate what you know to actually factually true. Otherwise it can't be called knowledge.

  In conclusion, my opponent's arguments are all fallacies, building upon fallacies. He ignores my rebuttals to his points and touts the same refuted ideas as before. My definitions are coherent, describe what they actually are meant to describe, and trivially dismiss my opponents faulty notion that "atheists require faith." He also dropped that the prefix "a-" alone casts atheism as simply the lack of Theism. My opponent is an atheist to every other god that has ever been concieved and he doesn't need faith for that. He simply is "not zoroastrian" and "not a believer in zeus" and is an atheist towards zoroastrian gods and zeus without invoking any kind of faith whatsoever.

I'm out of space and time. So over to pro! Hope this isn't too misspelled.
Round 3
Pro
  Secondly, my opponent's argument rest on redefining already well defined terms to describe something they are not
First, I want to say that I accept cons definitions, as he would never actually debate me if I did not do so. He made that clear last round. I would also like to say that I will take all of his criticism, in order to get on with the debate. I will not answer his criticism directly, but I admit some of it was deserved, I should not make up definitions unless totally necessary.


Let me prove that theism and atheism are both equally reliant on faith, even if con's definitions are used.

I'm not claiming the intellectual superiority of atheism, simply that it doesn't require religious faith. 
WOW.
I clearly wrote both in the description and my first argument that we are NOT talking about religion, but atheism and theism. "God" does not point to theism generally, it points towards the Judeo-Christian God. There are theists that do not believe in "God", just like there are atheists that do not worship Buddha. My opponent is clearly making a straw man of this entire debate, by claiming that "faith" only applies to religion. As we know at least two definitions exist, one about human relationships and one religious. My opponent wants to force me to use this definition of faith:

Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
In other words, only religions require faith. Cons entire argument relies on the idea that theism is religious while atheism is not. If we compare theism and atheism, using his definition of faith, neither of them require faith. Thus, according to the oxford dictionary that he used, atheism and theism are equally reliant on faith, aka not at all. He is rejecting the base idea of this debate, that we are discussing not religion but the ideas of theism and atheism taken separately from religion.

 I want to highlight the fact that if we use his definitions, the title is indeed correct by definition:

1. Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, (especially) belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.[1]
 
2. Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[2]
 
Faith (religious) - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Theism is not a religious belief, and atheism is not a religious belief. They might be part of religions, but they can easily exist independently.

Con claimed victoriously:

I do claim however, that there is not proof to back belief in god or gods, so it is necessarily a spiritual idea.
Well well well, how did he come to this conclusion. There is no proof to back an idea, that idea must 100% be a spiritual idea. First up, you are not telling me what a "spiritual" idea is. I believe that I have a mind that is beyond matter, but has no evidence, this idea is clearly a spiritual idea if we are to take con seriously. Now, this spiritual idea is not based on religious apprehension, and I actually have subjective and almost objective proof in philosophy (it's complicated, read yourself). Thus I have a spiritual idea that is not reliant on faith, all can be grounded on your definitions and explanations. 

I know that I am making a straw man right now, but there is nothing in cons rhetoric to suggest that belief in the tooth fairy require faith, but God does apparently.





Atheism does not require religious faith - according to you? How does Buddhism not require religious faith? They believe in no God and no gods. It does, and thus an atheistic Buddhist require faith. How does "atheism" require faith in this situation, by his own definition?

The answer is simple, atheism does not mean secular atheism, it means to have a world view where one believes God or gods does not exist. 


My opponent was calling my definition of atheism a straw man fallacy, but let us check his definition.

Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[2]
According to his own definition, atheism is either 1. Disbelief, or 2. Lack of faith. Only the first one is relevant here, as he clearly despises the second one, judging by his counterargument. Now, what does "disbelief mean? It is my turn to use a dictionary against cons fallacies.

Disbelief:

-Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
 
-Lack of faith.
 
In other words, atheism is either 1. Lack of faith, or 2. a. lack of faith/b. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
Since he has himself denied that atheism is lack of faith, this is what we get as a final result:

"Atheism is the inability or refusal to accept that God is true or real"

To con, I would now kindly ask: Now, how do you like it when your side is being ridiculed and bullied by the oxford dictionary???

I would like to show a quote of his:

  Except that I allowed your definition of belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Now, this becomes even funnier. He clearly did not like it when I hinted at atheism being "lack of faith". He disagreed, wanting us to believe that lack of faith implies the existence of what's lacking. Now when I use his definitions, he cannot deny they "imply" the existence of God.

According to con, atheism does not require faith, and as such, his claim can be perfectly translated into this:

  1. Atheism: the inability or refusal to accept that God is true or real does not require "faith"
  2. Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe, does require "faith"
  3. Therefore, theism and atheism are NOT equally reliant on "faith"
I fail to see where theism is reliant on faith? Yes, we have come to the real juice, con hides his premise that theism is innately religious, under this line:

I'm not claiming the intellectual superiority of atheism, simply that it doesn't require religious faith. 
In other words, he makes an exertion: theism DOES require religious faith, while atheism does not. Remember, if neither requires faith, they are still equal.


Cons straw man fallacy is comparing secular, scientific atheism to an indoctrinated, apprehended theism so that he can put his claim upon them: atheism does not require faith, but theism does because only theism is "religious". His definition literally claims: "only religions require faith, but also secular, nonreligious and intellectual theism." If anything is a straw man, this argument con made is exactly that.

He is making a straw man fallacy, namely that we are comparing religious theism to atheism, and uses that to attack my argument. His definition clearly shows us that "Islam and atheism are not equally reliant on faith", but it cannot be used in this debate, as we are not talking about religions.


Yes, he clearly forgot we are not talking about religion. Religions are based on different ideologies. Religions like Judaism and Islam are built on theism, while others, like Buddhism or new age, are built on an atheistic world view. In that case, both religious atheism and theism are based on faith.



My opponent claims that:

He also dropped that the prefix "a-" alone casts atheism as simply the lack of Theism. My opponent is an atheist to every other god that has ever been concieved and he doesn't need faith for that.
What con is doing here, is definitely the strangest thing I ever heard.
I agree I do not need faith for rejecting all other gods, or, do I? 

In fact, the only reason I do not need faith to reject Zeus is that I already have faith in God, you only need to use faith once, to chose your "truth".
Without faith, anything is possible.


Every human must have faith, so they can reject some options.

The theory that the earth is flat is less conspiratory than the theory that it does not exist.
-Punchline

Con
  Thank you for your response.

Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. [1]

  My opponent persistently stumbles over his own words in his response, validating my position several times. The argument I have presented is simple. Since a claim of any god or gods existing is necessarily a positive claim, then that claim needs evidence that is positively indicative of or exclusively concordant with, that conclusion. The logical position is to reserve belief in that positive claim until some fact indicates it's even possible, rather than believe it on no evidence. 

  Additionally, the claim that a god or gods exist is necessarily a religious claim. Since Theism positively affirms a god or god's existence, it necessarily requires religious faith.  Atheism requires no faith, as it simply doesn't accept the proposition Theism puts forth. Some say they can know, other say they can't know, but Atheism doesn't require faith. 
_____

REBUTTALS

1.
"My opponent is clearly making a straw man of this entire debate, by claiming that "faith" only applies to religion."
  This is not a my argument, because I have specified why the second definition is the applicable one to the context of this discussion, since theism is necessarily a religious claim affirming belief in a god or gods.  Theism fractals into different sects, but Theism is by definition a religious claim.

2.
"In other words, only religions require faith."
"Theism is not a religious belief, and atheism is not a religious belief. "
  My definition did not say only religions require faith, but instead that religious faith can be in the doctrines of a religion, or faith in god. Therefore, since Theism positively affirms belief in god on faith, then it is religious faith.

3. 
"Well well well, how did he come to this conclusion. There is no proof to back an idea, that idea must 100% be a spiritual idea. First up, you are not telling me what a "spiritual" idea is."
Spiritual: 1.Relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. [2]
                    2. Relating to religion or religious belief. [2]

  Since the idea of a god or gods existing is necessarily a religious claim, and theism is that claim, then Theism is a religious claim. If Theism is a religious claim, then it is, by definition, a spiritual claim. 

"I believe that I have a mind that is beyond matter, but has no evidence, this idea is clearly a spiritual idea if we are to take con seriously."
  If you believe that the "mind," whatever that is, is not material or physical, then yes, it would be a spiritual idea.

"I know that I am making a straw man right now, but there is nothing in cons rhetoric to suggest that belief in the tooth fairy require faith, but God does apparently"
  I argue that reservation in the positive claim, "tooth fairy exists" is the same logical step when confronted with the positive claim "god exists." This one make one Athoothfairyist I guess lol, or "without belief in the tooth fairy."

4.
" How does Buddhism not require religious faith?"
  That would be for you to demonstrate, because I haven't claimed they do.

"The answer is simple, atheism does not mean secular atheism, it means to have a world view where one believes God or gods does not exist. "
  I have already addressed that Atheism is the default position if one is being rational, and if a worldview is a "A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.[3]" Then it requires a positive affirmation. Since Atheism can be both the rejection of the positive claim, or the reservation of belief in a positive claim, but neither make a positive claim, then it is not a worldview. 

"My opponent was calling my definition of atheism a straw man fallacy, but let us check his definition...In other words, atheism is either 1. Lack of faith, or 2. a. lack of faith/b. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real."
  Lack: The state of being without or not having enough of something [4]

  By my opponent's own admission, the state of not being a Theist, means one lacks a belief in Theism. That lack is labeled Atheism. No worldview, and more importantly, no faith required.

  My opponent's attempt at a rebuttal lists two definitions of atheism, and then selects only the second one to quote like it proves his point. The fact is that one can reject a positive claim on the basis of it being baseless (like the claim god exists) without invoking any faith whatsoever.

5.
"Yes, we have come to the real juice, con hides his premise that theism is innately religious, under this line:"

I'm not claiming the intellectual superiority of atheism, simply that it doesn't require religious faith. 
"In other words, he makes an exertion: theism DOES require religious faith, while atheism does not. Remember, if neither requires faith, they are still equal."
  I am not hiding anything, I argue plainly that Theism is a religious claim requiring religious faith, while atheism is the state of not having those beliefs.

  This aside, if they require equally no faith, then my opponent has explicitly conceded the resolution that "Theism and Atheism are both reliant on faith."

"Cons straw man fallacy is comparing secular, scientific atheism to an indoctrinated, apprehended theism so that he can put his claim upon them..."
  Of course I never claimed that Theism had to be indoctrinated. Only that Theism has no evidence which is why it requires faith. There is no such thing as non-religious theism.

6.
"What con is doing here, is definitely the strangest thing I ever heard.
I agree I do not need faith for rejecting all other gods, or, do I? 

In fact, the only reason I do not need faith to reject Zeus is that I already have faith in God, you only need to use faith once, to chose your "truth".
Without faith, anything is possible.

Every human must have faith, so they can reject some options."
  Actually faith is necessarily the predicate for believing anything you can imagine. Also, faith in a particular god does not rule out the claim "Zeus Exists," but by virtue of my opponent claiming he rejects belief in Zeus makes him an Atheist to Zeus. That rejection is not based on a "positive disbelief" as my opponent has been touting Atheism is, thus rendering his own arguments null.


Round 4
Pro
Thank you, Con.

Some critique must be awarded to you, sorry.

Have you forgotten what this debate is about: secular theism and atheism -- faith not religious faith -- intelectual superiority does not exist for any of them

My opponent has turned this debate into a mess where he can call theism religious while we are talking about secular theism.




REBUTTALS AND COUNTERARGUMENTS:


My definition did not say only religions require faith, but instead that religious faith can be in the doctrines of a religion, or faith in god.
That does not make any sense. He claims that religious faith can be in faith in God. He tries to bend the definition, but his twisting made it incorrect.
This is the definition of religious faith:
"Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
Con claims that theism is religious faith. But according to his original definition, only a strong belief in God from spiritual apprehension can be called "religious theism". My opponent is denying his own definition in order to label nonreligious theism as religious. This is not fair play, Mr Con, stop breaking the rules.



  That would be for you to demonstrate
I do not need to do that. The fact that the Buddhist world view is both religious and atheistic totally destroys my opponent's assumption about religion vs world view. Cons argument is based on the idea that atheism is not based on religious faith. I have clearly shown that both atheism and theism require faith and give rise to secular and religious world views. Thus, neither theism nor atheism is religious in nature, but both require faith, either colloquial, religious or the philosophical one which should exist.



 it would be a spiritual idea.
Con makes it clear that any spiritual (nonphysical), the idea is a religious one. Basically, he claims that if any person believes in their own individual existence as the mind, they are religious. According to con, all humans are either religious or ultra sceptical. Readers, con claims that your own existence is a religious, spiritually apprehended idea.



Theism is by definition a religious claim.
FALSE. Not according to your own definitions: 
Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
 
Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods...
Con is making some very critical mistakes by making that claim. The first one is to ignore that religion requires worship and doctrines which are not innately a part of theism. The second mistake is forgetting that everyone believes in at least one "a superhuman controlling power": the laws of physics. Atheists and theists just disagree on what power created the universe, and if it was created or not. Any claim regarding this topic requires faith, just like how rejecting the idea of an infinite universe requires faith.



   If Theism is a religious claim, then it is, by definition, a spiritual claim. 
Con just said that theism was religious because it was spiritual. Now he is claiming that theism is spiritual because it is religious. Circle-argumentation confirmed.



Atheism is the default position if one is being rational
No, it is not, it is just a groundless claim that Con makes. As I previously said, the belief that the earth is flat is more rational than the belief that the earth does not exist. The same principle can be applied to the ultimate reality. Clearly, the belief in God is better than to not believe anything, at least you acknowledge the law of cause and effect. Even science accept a bad theory until a better one arrives. The problem with the ultimate reality is that we never get a better theory. Not having ANY faith is the least rational position, as one would need to ignore the question instead of trying to answer it. 



There is no such thing as non-religious theism.
Incorrect. Theism is a part of some religions, but can also exist independently. Is my opponent lying, ignorant or making a mistake here?



he rejects belief in Zeus makes him an Atheist to Zeus
Incorrect. Atheism is rejecting ALL God or gods. One cannot be an atheist to only one god, my opponent is clearly superior at contradicting himself and his definitions.



  Actually faith is necessarily the predicate for believing anything you can imagine.
Correct. Both atheism and theism are based on faith. 



The fact is that one can reject a positive claim on the basis of it being baseless (like the claim god exists) without invoking any faith whatsoever.
God is one of few good explanations for the existence of our reality and is thus not baseless. The theory that the earth is flat is not baseless either, people had reasons to believe that, and if anybody claimed the earth was not flat without evidence, THEY would have been the irrational ones. Atheism has no proof against God and has no better theory, so it is probably based on even more (regular) faith. Again, atheism requires either another truth to believe in or they do not believe in anything, either way, the options to theism all require either a different faith or a total absence of faith in anything.



Theism fractals into different sects
Finally, Con admitted his defeat. Theism is not religious, but many of the sects are. The same is true for atheism, it is not religious, but sects like Buddhism and communism are. As such, we know that both atheism and theism "may" involve religious faith, depending on which sect you are a part of. But both theism and atheism require normal faith, even if we talk about secular theists and secular atheists.



I argue plainly that Theism is a religious claim requiring religious faith, while atheism is the state of not having those beliefs.
Con is comparing a theistic sect, which requires religious faith, with the atheistic umbrella, which does not. I could use the same type of argumentation and prove that the atheist Adolph Hitler was evil while Christians are not - but this type of argument is flawed and dishonest. Con is however indeed hiding this, by ignoring the obvious fact that "religious faith" also applies to many atheistic world views. Actually, if we apply his definition of religion, any person with any opinion relly on religious faith, since everyone believes in some greater force than humans.



neither make a positive claim, then it is not a worldview. 
Neither atheism nor theism are world views, but every single one of their sects are world views based on different amounts of faith.



ARGUMENTS

Con is cheating
I clearly wrote in the description that we talk about atheism and theism outside of religion. My opponent ignores this major point of discussion, using "faith" to label theism as religious despite the obvious limits of this debate: secular atheism and secular theism. But I had to answer him as he attacked me, so he forced me to use his false premise. Con is basically cheating in this regard, steering the debate out of the actual topic.


World views:
  • All worldviews require faith
  • Theism and atheism are umbrellas that together hold all possible world views
  • Theism and atheism do require faith 

Explanations:
  • All effects require a cause
  • Multiple causes could explain our universe
  • Rejecting any of them requires faith
Ultimate truth:
  • The ultimate truth can not be removed, only swapped out
  • God is the ultimate truth
  • If one does not believe in God one must have a new ultimate truth (or be irrational)



CONCLUSION:

My opponent has made incoherent arguments, he has not properly met my arguments and he has repeatedly changed his rhetoric to defend them by hiding them.

My arguments are still standing while his counterarguments are not valid.

He has tried to drag the debate into the realm of religion.

His argument is based upon assumptions that have not clearly been established and that contradict his definitions.




My arguments still reign supreme, it does not matter how my opponent tries to twist the debate, I am still winning.
Back to you Con.

Sorry for the critique I gave you.
Con
  Thank you for your response. Between my opponent's baseless accusations of cheating, and his arrogant declarations of victory, he contradicts himself.
My opponent claims: 

"All worldviews require faith.
Theism and atheism are umbrellas that together hold all possible world views.
Theism and atheism do require faith. "
but contradicts himself:

"Neither atheism nor theism are world views..."
"Con is comparing a theistic sect, which requires religious faith, with the atheistic umbrella, which does not."
_____

REBUTTALS

1. My opponent accuses me of twisting a definition.
""Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
Con claims that theism is religious faith. But according to his original definition, only a strong belief in God from spiritual apprehension can be called "religious theism"."
  My opponent seems to completely miss that the definition separates the two qualifiers with the word "or." So no twisting of the definition necessary, Theism is inherently religious in its use of faith as it posits belief in a god that is not based on proof.

2.
"he fact that the Buddhist world view is both religious and atheistic totally destroys my opponent's assumption about religion vs world view."
  I haven't argued that religions are necessarily theistic, but instead that Theism is necessarily religious. The fact that there are Non-Theistic Religions does not hurt this point.

3. Con persists in his train of illogic with a blatant strawman:
" Readers, con claims that your own existence is a religious, spiritually apprehended idea."
  Of course this is not my case. One's existence can be independently and objectively verified. God cannot be. This is a null point.

4. My opponent claims Theism is not religious.
"The first one is to ignore that religion requires worship and doctrines which are not innately a part of theism. The second mistake is forgetting that everyone believes in at least one "a superhuman controlling power": the laws of physics."
  I argue that even if one is a Theist and not a member of organized religion, that person is still invoking religious faith by nature of being a Theist. Religious faith requires strong belief in god or gods, and since god or gods are not based on evidence, then it necessarily has to be religious faith.

  Secondly, calling the Laws of Physics a "superhuman controlling power" is totally misleading. The Laws of Physics are just properties of matter that are codified into language. If matter interacted differently, then the Laws of Physics would be different. Additionally, this attributes an anthropomorphic quality to the way the universe operates, which is misleading in it's own right. The universe does not "care" about the affairs of people, and it's operations are not "superhuman," they just are the way they are and we don't always fully understand them. 

5.
"Con just said that theism was religious because it was spiritual. Now he is claiming that theism is spiritual because it is religious."
  I am arguing that religious faith is based on spiritual apprehension. Spiritual and religious mean essentially the same thing in this context and they can be used interchangeably and the mean essentially the same thing. Not circular, English just has a lot of words to describe the same things sometimes.

6.
"'Atheism is the default position if one is being rational'
No, it is not, it is just a groundless claim that Con makes. "
  I will justify this further. Suppose a person makes a positive claim that a supernatural god exists, but they have no evidence. We are faced with essentially three options: 

1. We could reserve belief in the supernatural god until some fact indicates its possible. - Agnostic Atheism
2. We can believe in the supernatural god without reservation, on insufficient evidence. - Theism
3. We can reject belief in the supernatural god as inevident. - Gnostic Atheism

  I argue that the option of Agnostic Atheism is the default position if one is being rational. My opponent constantly attacks Gnostic Atheism as having faith, but ignores Agnostic Atheism completely.

"As I previously said, the belief that the earth is flat is more rational than the belief that the earth does not exist. The same principle can be applied to the ultimate reality. Clearly, the belief in God is better than to not believe anything, at least you acknowledge the law of cause and effect."
  My opponent has failed to meet my challenge to prove that an Ultimate causal reality exists; and further failed to meet my refutation: "...my opponent disregards my point that the idea of a "before" the singularity is incoherent. My opponent baselessly asserts that the universe was caused and claims he knows what caused it, but completely fails to justify how the idea of a time before the singularity is meaningless." In short, my opponent cannot justify applying the concept of cause and effect where time words are meaningless.

7.
"Theism is a part of some religions, but can also exist independently. "
  Theism necessarily positively affirms the existence of a god or gods with no evidence. Therefore, Theism in its purest form is still reliant on religious faith.

8.
" Atheism is rejecting ALL God or gods. One cannot be an atheist to only one god..."
  Except that it isn't. Atheism is the only word that describes your position towards Zeus or Marduk. My opponent lacks belief in the existence of every god except the one he prefers.

9.
"Both atheism and theism are based on faith. "
  Theism is, but Atheism requires no faith because it requires no belief. One can simply reserve belief and be an Atheist.

" But both theism and atheism require normal faith, even if we talk about secular theists and secular atheists...I clearly wrote in the description that we talk about atheism and theism outside of religion."
  The only definition of faith that is applicable to the question of a god or gods is the religious definition, because it is now being used in a religious context. Since Atheism and Theism are exclusively claims about god, or the lack thereof, then this context demands the religious definition to be applied, not the colloquial one.

10.
"God is one of few good explanations for the existence of our reality and is thus not baseless."
"The ultimate truth can not be removed, only swapped out.
God is the ultimate truth"
  Except that it is a non-explanation. If you cannot explain the mechanism, you do not have an explanation. This is fundamentally a god of the gaps fallacy. 

  Notice that my opponent just asserts that the Ultimate truth exists without justification; and further states that God, whatever that means, is the "ultimate truth," again without justification.

11. Just a side note:
"I could use the same type of argumentation and prove that the atheist Adolph Hitler was evil while Christians are not..."
  Hitler was a Christian. [2][3]

_____

CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, my opponent contradicts himself, misreads definitions, asserts as fact that which is not evidently true, and has not even attempted to meet my refutations of his fundamental assumptions. I have shown over and over that Agnostic Atheism specifically requires no faith and Theism always must. I would argue further that Gnostic Theism doesn't either, but the existence of Agnostic Atheism alone defeats my opponent's resolve. 





[2] https://greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf - p.154 he calls the jews a disgrace to god's creation.
[3] https://www.warmilitaria.it/en/buckles/521-buckle-gott-mit-uns.html - nazi belt buckle with "god with us" in Deutsch on it.
Round 5
Pro
Thank you, Con


DEFENSE:

he contradicts himself
Every argument you make Con, I need to use your new definition to push back.


My opponent has failed to meet my challenge to prove that an Ultimate causal reality exists;
Its an axiom: something exist - something never comes from nothing - so, therefore, something existed forever, even if time has no meaning.

misreads definitions
You mean that we disagree. I will stick with the classical interpretation that only religions require religious faith.


states that God, whatever that means, is the "ultimate truth," again without justification.
Con, stop taking my words out of context. I said that God was the ultimate reality so that you could insert your own belief or disbelief. Are atheists more rational just because they do not try to think about the truth? According to you - yes!




REBUTTALS:

  Hitler was a Christian.
A deist at most - also, remember Mao and Stalin. The point was to illustrate how good your argument was - not much.




calling the Laws of Physics a "superhuman controlling power" is totally misleading
The universe and its forces ARE superhuman (not supernatural), they control our lives. Even if we studied  God using science, we would still call him superhuman.





 My opponent lacks belief in the existence of every god except the one he prefers.
Zeuz was not the ultimate reality, he was created. All monotheists believe in the same type of ultimate reality, its just their description of him that is different.





  Except that it is a non-explanation
Explanations can differ in detail. "God made it" is only a God in the holes argument if used instead of science. Science cannot study what lies beyond the big bang.




my opponent disregards my point that the idea of a "before" the singularity is incoherent
Incorrect - I agree. But something started our universe, either a previous iteration of our universe, a multiverse, God, etc. This is the ultimate reality.




Theism in its purest form is still reliant on religious faith
I clearly debunked that claim by using your definitions. You used circle argumentation by defining theism, spiritual and religious on each other in a circle. 

they can be used interchangeably
COME ON MAN - spiritual and religious can be used interchangeably? Now you are the one that wants to twist the definitions, they are not the same as you claim.




Religious faith requires strong belief in god or gods
Do you remember Buddhism? No, you did not. Cons statement is blatantly false according to the oxford definition.
Religion is a social phenomenon-therefore "spiritual apprehension"[1]




  Theism necessarily positively affirms the existence of a god or gods with no evidence. Therefore, Theism in its purest form is still reliant on religious faith.
Fist of all, evidence for God exists as well as evidence against him - but all evidence regarding God is personal, there is no scientific answer - its kind of the point.




Atheism is the only word that describes your position towards Zeus or Marduk
Incorrect, read the definition of atheism. Anyways, let us assume this is true:

My opponent lacks belief in the existence of every god except the one he prefers.
What? Theism is not belief in God, but rather a disbelief in every other possibility. So according to Cons new rhetoric, theism does not require positive faith. According to my opponent, I disbelieve every god except The Lord. As such, I do not need to believe in God, so my theism is not based on religious faith but rather atheism -1x atheism. Reader, do you understand how silly Cons arguments are starting to become? He switches position every time he writes an argument.

 Atheism requires no faith because it requires no belief
Let me make that same argument:

"Theism requires no faith because it requires no belief. Theists simply disbelieve everything except for God or gods." 
Benjamin
Do you see the hypocrisy of this argument? You should.  If theism is reliant on faith, so is atheism, as they can both be expressed by either positive or negative claims.




"faith" ... it is now being used in a religious contex
I STATED IN THE DESCRIPTION THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION - RELIGIONS REQUIRE SOCIAL BONDS AND MULTIPLE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES.[1]
My opponent just claimed out of nowhere: "theism requires religious faith" - in contrast to both the definition and the common sense. Only religions require religious faith for fucks sake. Oops - sorry. I apologize for that sudden burst of rage.




I have shown over and over that Agnostic Atheism specifically requires no faith and Theism always must
Agnosticism strongly believes that nothing can be known about the ultimate reality. 
Is this a "spiritual" claim? Yes!
Is this a claim lacking evidence? Yes! 

Agnosticism is an unproven spiritual claim about the ultimate reality
Agnosticism requires religious faith - according to cons reasoning that makes theism a religious claim without being a religion.



asserts as fact that which is not evidently true
Do you mean what science has not studied? It's evident that something exists and that some things have always been -  like the fact that "something exists".
Next.

refutations of his fundamental assumptions
Do you mean the laws of logic? Among them: "anything that starts to exist has a cause outside of itself." The universe started and has thus a cause, The ultimate reality!

If you cannot explain the mechanism, you do not have an explanation.
Is "gravity" an invalid explanation for why things fall? According to Con - indeed it is. Another nonsensical argument from Con.




SUMMARY:

My general argument:
  • The ultimate reality objectively exists - as I have proven using logic. It might be God, it might be karma, it might be the multiverse or something else.
  • We cannot study the ultimate reality but we can study this universe to look for clues.
  • Many philosophical arguments have been made by theists and atheists - but no side can get the upper hand.
  • Agnostics believe that God cannot be known - they make a claim about the ultimate reality without evidence.
  • Gnostics believe that God can be known - they make a claim about the ultimate reality without evidence.
  • So both Gnosticism and Agnosticism require faith.
  • Theism and Atheism are umbrellas that content all world views
  • Any world view requires faith
  • If you have no world view you are not alive
  • So any atheist or theist is a part of a world view, and as such, everyone requires faith if they believe in anything
  • Both theism and atheism are divided into sects, some of which are religious because they worship and create doctrines.
BOTH THEISM AND ATHEISM REQUIRES FAITH, AND SOME SECTS EVEN REQUIRE RELIGIOUS FAITH.


Cons counterarguments:
  • Theism requires religious faith because it is a religious claim
  • Theism is a religious claim because it is a spiritual claim
  • Theism is a spiritual claim because it requires religious faith.
  • Atheism is not theism thus requires no faith.
  • etc

Cons strategy has been to continually bombard this same statement: "Theism is based on religious faith"

When in reality, the definitions prove him wrong:

Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
 
Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods...
So theism is not religious, nor is it based on religious faith BY DEFINITION


Theism is by definition a religious claim.
You guessed it, Con disagrees.


There is no such thing as non-religious theism.

Yet he called Adolph Hitler a Christian because of a slogan on a coin. Why is the nonreligious Adolph a theist dear Sum1Hugme?


"If an illogical thing existed - despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing - it would ignore the laws of logic - and it would be Cons argument"


I will let my opponent end with a truth bomb:

  Actually faith is necessarily the predicate for believing anything you can imagine.


Vote Pro - since facts don't care about your feelings 

Nice debating you Sum1hugme. See you later.


SOURCES:
Con
  Thank you Benjamin for this debate.

CONCLUSION

  From the beginning, my opponent has sought to muddy definitions in an attempt to make his falsism that "Atheism requires faith" a little more tenable. I have established that when it comes to the god claim, the religious context, and therefore definition, of faith applies. I have also established that it requires no faith to reserve belief in an unsupported positive claim like, "god exists." My opponent conceded until the very final round that "Gnosticism" and "Agnosticism" are knowledge claims that modify the category of Theist or Atheist. My opponent drops that Agnostic Atheism requires no faith, thus defeating his already frail stance. 

  My opponent asserts that the "Ultimate Reality" caused the Universe's initial expansion, but he concedes that time words are meaningless when spacetime is condensed into a point of infinite curvature (singularity). This concession completely undermines his assertion that Cause and Effect apply to the origin of the Universe since Cause and Effect requires the cause to come before the effect, and "before" is  a time word. By this admission, my opponent has conceded that their fundamental assumption that, "the ultimate reality objectively exists," is meaningless. 

  Between his hand-waving dismissals of devastating points against his case, my opponent has also dropped his blatant self-contradiction that I opened with last round.

"All worldviews require faith.
Theism and atheism are umbrellas that together hold all possible world views.
Theism and atheism do require faith. "
but contradicts himself:

"Neither atheism nor theism are world views..."
"Con is comparing a theistic sect, which requires religious faith, with the atheistic umbrella, which does not.""
__________

REBUTTALS

1.
"Is "gravity" an invalid explanation for why things fall? "
  Insofar as the theory of gravity makes accurate, novel predictions of future data (which it has), then it has great explanatory power as  a model of "why things fall" and "why mass attracts mass." The mathematical formulations of Theories of Gravity (Newton's and Einstein's to be specific) consistently accurately predict phenomena relating to gravitational attraction. We can also think of Gravity as the displacement of spacetime, with the mass of the object determining the amount of displacement, and the resulting gravitational attraction.

  We can contrast the two idea my opponent so haphazardly tried to conflate as being equally explanative.

Gravity - Testable, explains physical phenomena, may be fundamentally composed of a quantum of gravity (the graviton), has detectable waves.
God - Not testable, explains no physical phenomena, has no discernable mechanism.

  These are not even close to comparable.

2.
"...so my theism is not based on religious faith but rather atheism"
  Of course that isn't what I said. I argue that Atheism towards other gods is an unavoidable side effect of choosing a Theistic god to have faith in. This is a weak attempt by my opponent to straw-man my argument so that he can claim I am the one being shifty.

3.
"Do you remember Buddhism?"
  Buddhism is a non-theistic Religion. It therefore doesn't require religious faith because it doesn't posit a god's existence. This is a mute point.

4.
" You used circle argumentation by defining theism, spiritual and religious on each other in a circle. "
  Nope, "Religious" and "Religion" are used differently in this debate as my opponent has failed to realize. The term religious has been used to describe the faith claim that is made by Theism as a concept. There are religions that fractal from Theism and Polytheism, but the claim "god exists" is necessarily a statement of religious faith, not colloquial faith. 

5.
""God made it" is only a God in the holes argument if used instead of science."
  My opponent's claim from the beginning has been a scientific one, that he plugs our ignorance of with "god." My opponent's fundamental claim is that the Ultimate Reality Exists and it caused the Universe to start expanding. That is a scientific claim about a physical phenomenon. Since my opponent cannot justify either that this idea has any meaning at all, or that anything actually did cause the big bang, or even that this cause should be called "ultimate Reality," then my opponent is committing a god of the gaps fallacy.

"Science cannot study what lies beyond the big bang."
  Assuming that even has any meaning, this further cements that he is plugging gaps of scientific ignorance with "god."

6.
"The universe and its forces ARE superhuman (not supernatural), they control our lives."
  My opponent drops that this anthropomorphic conception of the laws of nature is fundamentally misleading. He further drops that Laws of Nature are simply properties of matter, codified into language. 

"Even if we studied  God using science, we would still call him superhuman."
  Maybe. I mean, even if god made himself known visibly, he could be some bug-eyed tentacle monster. In which case, "human" doesn't really apply, even though it may be "super." This doesn't refute that the Laws of Nature are not "superhuman controlling powers." This point by my opponent also further cements the fact that he uses the term "ultimate reality" and "god" interchangeably. 

7. Side note, continued:
"Why is the nonreligious Adolph a theist dear Sum1Hugme?"
  Well my dear benjamin, If you had actually looked at the links you would have read where Hitler said, "Ofcourse, one doesn't discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the moderninventors of this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of thebeauty of God's image in His creation. - p.154"

"Yet he called Adolph Hitler a Christian because of a slogan on a coin."
  This was to further the side point. It wasn't a coin, it was a Nazi belt buckle with "Gott Mit Uns" which translates to "God With Us."

8. Finally,
I will let my opponent end with a truth bomb:

  Actually faith is necessarily the predicate for believing anything you can imagine.
  My opponent may have misunderstood. I was saying that Faith is necessarily the predicate for make-believe.


VOTE CON!