Atheism and theism are both reliant on faith
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
- The ultimate reality must be either personal, impersonal or nonexistent - no absolute evidence exist for either option
- Theism claims it is personal, Atheism claims it is impersonal, Agnosticism does not claim
- Both theism and atheism are blind faiths
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"
- 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.
- a- : prefix, meaning "not" [6][7]
"...while atheism, namely the rejection of religion, is based on science and reasoning."
"The ultimate reality must be either personal, impersonal or nonexistent..."
"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."
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."
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.
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.
- 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
- Theism is based on faith - we agree on that one
- Faith is a strong belief in God or religious doctrines based not on proof but religious apprehension
- Theism is based on a strong belief in theism based not on proof but apprehension
"Those that control language, control ideas. Those that control ideas, control people."
Trusting ones own personal opinion about a topic that lacks definitive evidence
- 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"
we are to determine who has faith and in what way
Islam is a theistic religion, Buddhism is an atheistic religionAtheism 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
Clearly, this definition from Google shows us that anything we know, think, have faith in or agree upon, are all based on belief.
... he may define anything as anything to fit whatever it is he is trying to "prove."
No, I know that is not true, prove me wrongAlso, Knowledge is always wrong, you know : )
He uses them interchangeably
- 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)
"The "religious" definition, there is no reason to have such a thing."
"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 conceptIntellectual or weak theism would not be based on faith - we both disagree on this point"
"The author shows ignorance for the definition of belief."
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.
"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"
"I made an appeal to logic by choosing COHERENT definitions that made sense when applied to the rest of the definitions. "
"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. "
"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"
"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)."
Secondly, my opponent's argument rest on redefining already well defined terms to describe something they are not
I'm not claiming the intellectual superiority of atheism, simply that it doesn't require religious faith.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
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.
I do claim however, that there is not proof to back belief in god or gods, so it is necessarily a spiritual idea.
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.[2]
Disbelief:-Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.-Lack of faith.https://www.lexico.com/definition/disbelief - his source
Except that I allowed your definition of belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
- Atheism: the inability or refusal to accept that God is true or real does not require "faith"
- Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe, does require "faith"
- Therefore, theism and atheism are NOT equally reliant on "faith"
I'm not claiming the intellectual superiority of atheism, simply that it doesn't require religious 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.
The theory that the earth is flat is less conspiratory than the theory that it does not exist.-Punchline
"My opponent is clearly making a straw man of this entire debate, by claiming that "faith" only applies to religion."
"In other words, only religions require faith.""Theism is not a religious belief, and atheism is not a religious belief. "
"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."
"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"
" How does Buddhism not require religious faith?"
"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...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."
"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..."
"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."
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.
"Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
That would be for you to demonstrate
it would be a spiritual idea.
Theism is by definition a religious claim.
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...
If Theism is a religious claim, then it is, by definition, a spiritual claim.
Atheism is the default position if one is being rational
There is no such thing as non-religious theism.
he rejects belief in Zeus makes him an Atheist to Zeus
Actually faith is necessarily the predicate for believing anything you can imagine.
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.
Theism fractals into different sects
I argue plainly that Theism is a religious claim requiring religious faith, while atheism is the state of not having those beliefs.
neither make a positive claim, then it is not a worldview.
- All worldviews require faith
- Theism and atheism are umbrellas that together hold all possible world views
- Theism and atheism do require faith
- All effects require a cause
- Multiple causes could explain our universe
- Rejecting any of them requires faith
- 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)
"All worldviews require faith.Theism and atheism are umbrellas that together hold all possible world views.Theism and atheism do require faith. "
"Neither atheism nor theism are world views...""Con is comparing a theistic sect, which requires religious faith, with the atheistic umbrella, which does not."
""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"."
"he fact that the Buddhist world view is both religious and atheistic totally destroys my opponent's assumption about religion vs world view."
" Readers, con claims that your own existence is a religious, spiritually apprehended idea."
"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."
"Con just said that theism was religious because it was spiritual. Now he is claiming that theism is spiritual because it is religious."
"'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."
"Theism is a part of some religions, but can also exist independently. "
" Atheism is rejecting ALL God or gods. One cannot be an atheist to only one god..."
"Both atheism and theism are based on faith. "
" 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."
"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"
"I could use the same type of argumentation and prove that the atheist Adolph Hitler was evil while Christians are not..."
he contradicts himself
My opponent has failed to meet my challenge to prove that an Ultimate causal reality exists;
misreads definitions
states that God, whatever that means, is the "ultimate truth," again without justification.
Hitler was a Christian.
calling the Laws of Physics a "superhuman controlling power" is totally misleading
My opponent lacks belief in the existence of every god except the one he prefers.
Except that it is a non-explanation
my opponent disregards my point that the idea of a "before" the singularity is incoherent
Theism in its purest form is still reliant on religious faith
they can be used interchangeably
Religious faith requires strong belief in god or gods
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.
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.
Atheism requires no faith because it requires no belief
"Theism requires no faith because it requires no belief. Theists simply disbelieve everything except for God or gods."Benjamin
"faith" ... it is now being used in a religious contex
I have shown over and over that Agnostic Atheism specifically requires no faith and Theism always must
asserts as fact that which is not evidently true
refutations of his fundamental assumptions
If you cannot explain the mechanism, you do not have an explanation.
- 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.
- 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
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...
Theism is by definition a religious claim.
There is no such thing as non-religious theism.
Actually faith is necessarily the predicate for believing anything you can imagine.
"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.""
"Is "gravity" an invalid explanation for why things fall? "
"...so my theism is not based on religious faith but rather atheism"
"Do you remember Buddhism?"
" You used circle argumentation by defining theism, spiritual and religious on each other in a circle. "
""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."
"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."
"Why is the nonreligious Adolph a theist dear Sum1Hugme?"
"Yet he called Adolph Hitler a Christian because of a slogan on a coin."
I will let my opponent end with a truth bomb:Actually faith is necessarily the predicate for believing anything you can imagine.
Since the Initiator did not offer his definitions in the Description, which otherwise would have made them available to potential opponents to negotiate prior to the start of the debate, they become appropriately subject to rebuttal by Pro’s opponent, which is exactly what occurred in R1, and continued through the balance of the rounds. This debate became little more than a back-and-forth of definitions, thereby spoiling what could have been an interesting debate. It wasn’t.
Argument: Pro’s definitions listed in R1 were apparently developed as points pf argument since no sourcing was offered to sustain them as stated. Con took up the challenge as debate points offering sourced definitions. In R2, Con states: “My opponent’s argument rests on re-defining already well defined terms.” Pro ‘rebuts’ in R3: “First, I want to say that I agree with Con’s definitions…” thereby defeating his own argument relative to definitions. As the debate centered on definitions, this voter determines that Con wins the argument criteria on that pro admission, alone. However, Pro reverses his own argument in R1 by first stating: “…theism and atheism, if not specified by using the appropriate name, are not a part of a religion.” That’s debatable, but I do not judge on that statement, alone, but by what follows [again, by pro, R1] “…religions exist based on an impersonal ultimate reality.” In this statement, Pro does not use an ‘appropriate” religious name, such as Catholic, or protestant, or Judaism, or Islam, but is generic, but then offers in his definitions, “Theism; ‘The idea that the ultimate reality is personal,” but, again, considers theism in a generic sense. This is a contradictory argument, and thus fails. I need go no further; Con wins the argument criteria simply by his rebuttal of definitions.
Sources: Pro offers no sourcing for his argument points by his own attempt to convince by logical argument. This is a valid option to sourcing scholastic citation, but, as the above reversal describes, Pro does not present a consistent logic to his argument. Further, by agreement to Con’s definitions, which are sourced, Con wins the source criteria.
S&G: Both opponents offer intelligible arguments. Tie
Conduct: Both opponents offered good conduct to one another. Tie.
Topicality - that is the hurdle that must be overcome by both debaters whenever there are competing definitions of a word at play. Con explains, and receives no valid rebuttal, about why their definitions are accurate and Pros are not. Add on the fact that Pro admitted to making up their own definitions in order to make the debate feasible and we start to see the giant cracks in Pros argument. They are dependent on their definitions.... which are admittedly made up to support their position. Con points out, rightly so, that if an argument is invalidated by the proper definitions, that means the argument is not correct, at least in its current form. Furthermore, Con fulfills their burden with a simple definition which Pro fails to address coherently.
Essentially Pro had to prove that both atheism and theism are contingent on faith, or that faith was the *only* way to get to either conclusion. That's what "reliant" means. Con pointed out that Pro never completed their bop, though obviously not in the same words, the argument that Pro attempts does no work in convincing me of the resolution, even if I were to buy some of the more arbuable definitions, there are lots that Con completely demolished, like faith and how it was necessarily religious.
Con wins by a lot I'd say.
Because no rounds were forfeited
Bruh, this popped up in the "quality debate" section. I don't think my first debate really is all that great if you know what I mean. Why is it considered "quality"?
"...spoiling what could have been an interesting debate, it wasn't." That made me lol.
Thank you for voting.
Thanks
Yes, I will vote on this debate in a couple of days, I promise. As for suggestions, I'll keep that separate from this debate in comments. I'll PM.
You seem to be an expert on these kinds of matters.
Would you like to vote? Maybe even give me some tips on how to win this kind of debate?
Thank you for voting
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Thank you too.
I have learned a thing or two from you this debate.
Thank you for this debate.
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.
COULD YOU NOT HAVE TOLD THAT EARLIER? YOU USE "RELIGIOUS FAITH" AND THEISM INTERCHANGIABLY.
Well then I assume atheism is not religious the same way Buddhism is not religious. This is definately a fallacy
I want to point out that no actual burst of rage happened during my last argument.
My bad, I meant to say ,"...Gnostic Athiesm doesn't either..." In the final paragraph
Yes, yes I can.
Ok then, but since it is a semantics issue, as you said, can you accept us having a unified definition?
If you don't, your victory will be based on which dictionary one uses.
Can you actually argue against my argument?
I'd rather drag this out until I lose than mar my record with a no vote tie in a rated debate
The only way I will stop is if you formally concede. Otherwise, I'm always gunning for the win.
Can we agree that we both claim "we stop this debate - do not vote" as the answer for the last two rounds?
Also, here is a link to the forum, if you wish to debate chilly:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2706-atheism-and-theism-are-both-reliant-on-faith
Well I'm gonna post my round 2 and then it's up to you if you want to keep going or concede.
Ok, we end this debate. But how?
(also, we could have a debate in the forums that is not too long, and not about the semantics but "essence" of faith)
Ok, we end this debate. But how?
(also, we could have a debate in the forums that is not too long, and not about the semantics but "essence" of faith)
Feel free to concede the debate. I don't really want to have a long long debate about this topic in the forums though, mainly because the resolve is a semantic issue.
Could we move this debate to the forums?
It seems hard to pull it off in this competition envoroment.
source for my faith definitions, sorry
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/faith
Lol "late"... Waiting until the last second is my specialty
Sorry for being late, I thought it was posted
Could you change the reply time to at lest a couple more days? I'm pretty sure 1 day is impossible as most of us are from different timezones.
People on this debate platform seem to actually care about debating in a good manner, cool.
Only one day to reply?
So the resolution is really more like "atheism and theism both use faith equally" or atheism and theism are both faiths."?
Uh huh, yeah, I definitely disagree, but I'm already in a couple debates I want to at least finish one before I accept anything else.
I will only focus on showing that they are both faiths
Are you saying that you'll be arguing all of these? That seems quite a large burden of proof. Especially with the tight character limit
Both are claims about the ultimate reality
Both cannot be proven scientifically
Both have been the starting point for religion
Both grow mostly by convincing others and not through reproduction
Both are based on blind faith until they are incorporated into a broader world view
etc
Equal in what way? Education? Doctrinal length? Practices?
Think of it as a challenge.
We will not debate too broadly, but rather specifically.
I will increase the word limit to 8 thousand, ok?
Increase the world limit to 20 000 and i may consider taking this debate. Unless having a low character to work with is the challenge...
There's a typo in the topic btw