Instigator / Pro
1382
rating
445
debates
45.73%
won
Topic
#6285
Atheists and theists can both be religious.
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Atheists and theists can both be religious.
Atheists, all atheists ultimately, the folks that mature to make a decision make a decision to believe what theists don't believe in.
Which theists lack the belief in a non existence of the gods they're religious of.
So the atheist will take a religious faithful position that those gods don't exist.
Now without evidence that will show these gods don't exist, atheists will believe anyway that they don't.
That does take faith which what ultimately what religion amounts to.
Anything that you don't know, you either have to accept or believe in or be neutral on.
In this case, being neutral is more rationale based between theism and atheism as being neutral, you don't take a belief system in either step of direction.
Another point about atheists which is not a main point because it doesn't apply to all in the same way, they're satanists.
Atheists joined a cult in satanism. Now this belief system doesn't apply to all atheists in the same way.
But in what way indirectly you might ask?
Satanism is the religion and belief system that encourages just the faith in yourself. You believe yourself as a god, ruler, authority and chief principle source of conduct , "morality"( do's and don'ts) of one's life, philosophy and code.
Now this is all what all atheist persons have to eventually decide themselves, tailor and fashion accordingly to lifestyle preference granted they live long enough on planet earth.
You make the decision to reject any what you can call "higher power" you see.
Another point, not major, is the decision made by the courts. Although I believe just the U.S. courts declared atheism as a stance taken on deity, a religion.
Which makes atheism a secular religion of course. At least compared to those that have a spiritual one.
Which solidifies there no true separation of church/religion and state anywhere.
Never will you have the void of a belief system in government. Yes, this is true.
As a political person, political atheist, according to your worldview, personal views, personal beliefs in how to live your life, you will vote for a government that pushes policies to promote the same.
Now some will argue that there is no such thing as atheism . That is simply based on the reasoning that there is a final arbiter, judge, adjudicator in the life of all human beings. Thus making atheism another religion.
It is in atheism that contains the most weakest basis to be an atheist ultimately on the account of not seeing subjective evidence. Whereas the atheist wishes to see evidence to believe in the gods of theism but is satisfied in believing in no gods of theism without evidence at the same time.
There are other factors that cause atheism and the element of evidence is not the focal point.
You have atheists that perhaps are more convicted than others to be so bold and assert there are no gods of theism. This is again, without evidence, it's funny.
Just to avoid being classified as a faith, they come boldly foolish.
Speech: Response to the Claim "Atheists and theists can both be religious"
Let me briefly outline the main argument of my opponent:
There is no evidence that God or gods do not exist — therefore, atheists simply believe in the absence of God, which makes them believers. And since my opponent equates belief with religion, this supposedly makes atheists religious.
1. Вurden of proof
There is an obvious counterargument:
The burden of proof lies on the one making a positive claim.
The positive claim here is “God exists”.
We all begin as natural atheists (without belief in gods), and we adopt specific positions as we become familiar with the theories and beliefs presentin our social environment.
Some people say, “God exists,” others say, “God does not exist.” But you may choose not to believe the first not because the second convinced you, but simply because the first was not convincing enough.
Let’s recall the famous analogy of Russell’s teapot: somewhere in space, perhaps orbiting Jupiter (or wherever you like), a small porcelain teapot is floating. I don’t believe in it. Does that mean I believe in its nonexistence? The absurdity of the claim illustrates that the person asserting the existence of the teapot bears the burden of proof. And this applies not only to absurd claims but to any positive claim — whether it’s “God definitely exists” or “God definitely does not exist.”
Yes, if I were to insist that the teapot definitely doesn’t exist, I would also need to provide evidence. But the shared understanding of the absurdity of such a claim relieves me of that burden in practice.
2. Neutrality and weak atheism.
My opponent correctly stated that being neutral is the most rational position in this matter.
I would argue, based on the above, that the most neutral position is actually atheism — specifically weak atheism.
Even if, from childhood, you rejected all theoriesand claims on this topic, you would remain an atheist in this sense: without belief in gods.
3. On mixing up belief and religion
Now let’s address the confusion between belief and religion.
These are different concepts.
- My opponent’s first argument is about belief.
- The second argument is about religion.
There are various definitions of religion, but one thing is clear:
Religion does not necessarily mean belief(especially belief in gods). It is important to clarify this, because my opponent’s core argument revolves around the concept of belief (with religion only appearing at the end,equated with belief without justification). Therefore, the debate should focus primarily on belief. I will address the second argument (about religion) briefly, just to point out certain errors.
4. On LaVeyan Satanism
LaVeyan Satanism (an atheistic form of Satanism) can indeed be called a religion — but it is not a belief in gods.
Even my opponent admitted that not all atheists join this religion.
This means not all atheists are religious.
An atheist can be religious (just as a theist can be non-religious if they believe in God but do not belong to anycongregation, community, or denomination).
5. On court rulings
Regarding the court decision that recognized atheism as a religion:
It is not up to a court to resolve philosophical matters.
Formally, this was likely done to ensure equal rights for believers and atheists — but this has no philosophical significance.
And again, religion ≠ belief.
6. On strong and weak atheismI partially agree with my opponent that some atheists are more convinced of God’s nonexistence than others.
Atheists are conventionally divided into weak ands trong:
- Strong atheists not only lack belief but claim that gods definitely do not exist.
- Weak atheists simply lack belief in gods without asserting certainty of their nonexistence.
The line between belief, theory, and knowledge is often blurry, since all these beginwith axioms that we must accept on faith to some extent.
However, this line exists — and in my view, the atheist position can at leastfall within the realm of theory, and not necessarily within faith.
Conclusion
Atheism, especially in its weak form, represents the most neutral and rationalstance until sufficient evidence is provided for the existence of gods.
Equating atheism with religion by conflating belief and religion is a logicalerror that distracts from meaningful discussion.
Round 2
Please be sure to quote my exact wording to respond to it.
Much appreciated.
"The positive claim here is “God exists”."
The positive claim also is God doesn't exist. Works both ways.
Now each person is different. There are those that don't make any claim but just has a belief and you ultimately have to decide to believe things if you can't just know them to be true or remain neutral when you become of a mature mind.
I'll add on as a counter to the next point.
"We all begin as natural atheists (without belief in gods), and we adopt specific positions as we become familiar with the theories and beliefs presentin our social environment."
When you say we all begin, that's speaking of the immature mind. So the clarity is expounded that ultimately , the mature individual has to come to a decision where you naturally make one on the existence of gods theists don't believe don't exist.
Which transfers atheism to a non default position.
This is the atheism where you reject theism consciously.
Which makes the difference between a person being an atheist and a rock being an atheist. The two are atheists for different causes .
"My opponent correctly stated that being neutral is the most rational position in this matter.
I would argue, based on the above, that the most neutral position is actually atheism — specifically weak atheism.
Even if, from childhood, you rejected all theoriesand claims on this topic, you would remain an atheist in this sense: without belief in gods."
This is incorrect. The only neutral position is agnosticism. Agnosticism takes neither stance. Both atheism and theism take positive or negative stances depending on context.
I already explained about the ultimate inevitable decision to take a stance. This is why one becomes a theist, becomes atheist(unlike the rock) or agnostic.
"LaVeyan Satanism (an atheistic form of Satanism) can indeed be called a religion — but it is not a belief in gods.
Even my opponent admitted that not all atheists join this religion.
This means not all atheists are religious.
An atheist can be religious (just as a theist can be non-religious if they believe in God but do not belong to anycongregation, community, or denomination)."
It actually is the belief in gods. Question is, who are the gods? The atheists themselves. They take on and aspire what it means to be head of their own lives as an authority.
"Regarding the court decision that recognized atheism as a religion:
It is not up to a court to resolve philosophical matters.
Formally, this was likely done to ensure equal rights for believers and atheists — but this has no philosophical significance."
The point on the courts was to explain why they made the decision they did about atheism.
Atheism is another belief system, religious system, etc. It is not a neutral system.
"Atheism, especially in its weak form, represents the most neutral and rationalstance until sufficient evidence is provided for the existence of gods.
Equating atheism with religion by conflating belief and religion is a logicalerror that distracts from meaningful discussion."
This could not be true because of agnosticism which is not the same so atheism cannot be the most rational. An atheist that is willing to accept that the gods of theism do not exist based on no evidence versus being neutral due to no evidence on either side is the most rational.
On top of that, agnosticism holds no belief nor disbelief so it is more if not 100 percent fact based. No belief elements involved.
In common usage, there is a notion of theists, atheists, and agnostics, who occupy an intermediate position. However, for further discussion, we need to clarify the terminology for the sake of clarity. The terms will be defined specifically in the context of our debate.
Faith is the acceptance of something as true without sufficient (or complete) proof. Accepting something as true with sufficient (in the thinker’s opinion) grounds is called knowledge.
Belief (conviction) is confidence in a certain claims, which can be based on either, faith or knowledge (knowledge—in the thinker’s opinion)
I note that in the first round, I used the term "belief" strictly in the sense of "confidence in a certain statement based on faith." However, after superficially exploring this topic, I have concluded that in the context of our debate, "belief" is precisely what I described it as above. Going forward, I will use the terms "belief" and "conviction" interchangeably.
Theism is the belief that God (in a general sense) exists. A thinker who is convinced of God’s existence is a theist.
Atheism is the lack of belief that God exists. A thinker who is not convinced of God’s existence is an atheist. Atheism is divided into weak and strong forms. The division is based on belief in the opposite claim—“God does not exist.”
Strong atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Weak atheism is the lack of belief that God does not exist.
A popular notion holds that atheism is the belief that God does not exist. However, this does not align with modern philosophical terminology. As we see, this describes strong atheism, which is only one of the two categories of atheists.
Gnosticism is the belief that the thinker’s position regarding God’s existence is knowledge. A theist-gnostic would say, “I know that God exists.” An atheist-gnostic would say, “I know that God does not exist.”
Here, I note that an atheist-gnostic is a strong atheist, as knowing that God does not exist is a belief.
Agnosticism is the belief that the thinker’s position regarding God’s existence is not knowledge. A theist-agnostic would say, “I am convinced that God exists, but I cannot say that I know this.” An atheist-agnostic would say, “I am not convinced that God exists, and I do not know whether He exists or not.”
Here, I note that an atheist-agnostic can be either strong or weak, because, while both do not know whether God exists, belief can be based not only on knowledge but also on faith. Weak atheist-agnostics would say, “I am not convinced that God exists, and I am also not convinced that God does not exist.” Strong atheist-agnostics would say, “I am not convinced that God exists. I am also convinced that God does not exist, but I cannot say that I know this.” The belief of the latter is faith, but this is only a portion of all atheists.
As we see, the concepts of atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. We also see that the position “I am neither a theist nor an atheist” is impossible unless we assume a third state beyond belief in the statement “God exists” and the lack of belief in this statement (considering that the lack of belief does not imply belief in the opposite and allows for a lack of belief in anything regarding this question). We also see that all weak atheists are agnostics, while strong atheists can be either agnostics or gnostics.
Now, armed with a clear system of terms, let's go through the opponent's arguments.
"The positive claim also is God doesn't exist. Works both ways."
I already mentioned this in the first round and reiterated it here. But I will emphasize again that atheism is not defined by belief in the claim “God does not exist,” but by the lack of belief in the claim “God exists.”
"Now each person is different. There are those that don't make any claim but just has a belief and you ultimately have to decide to believe things if you can't just know them to be true or remain neutral when you become of a mature mind."
The opponent suggests that a neutral position (the lack of belief in both claims, “God exists” and “God does not exist”) is possible.
"When you say we all begin, that's speaking of the immature mind. So the clarity is expounded that ultimately , the mature individual has to come to a decision where you naturally make one on the existence of gods theists don't believe don't exist.Which transfers atheism to a non default position.This is the atheism where you reject theism consciously."
Theists don’t believe in the non-existence of gods—this is an attempt to present the positive claim “God exists” as a rejection of the positive claim “God does not exist.” But this is not what pertains to theists. It is also the position of weak atheists. By “non-default position,” presumably, the opponent means a positive claims, which, according to the definitions I provided above, pertains to theists and strong atheists. The opponent’s argument does not prove that atheism inherently involves a positive claim.
"This is incorrect. The only neutral position is agnosticism. Agnosticism takes neither stance. Both atheism and theism take positive or negative stances depending on context.I already explained about the ultimate inevitable decision to take a stance. This is why one becomes a theist, becomes atheist (unlike the rock) or agnostic."
Some people prefer not to call themselves atheists precisely because of the notion that atheism is a belief in the absence of God. But this is not the case.
- To be an atheist, one does not need to make any positive claims.
- Every person who does not have the belief that “God exists” is an atheist.
- Agnosticism is not a position regarding the belief that “God exists.” It is an epistemological position regarding the nature of this belief, namely, “I do not know.”Thus, yes: as an infant, you are an atheist. As you grow up, you are an atheist. When you hear about God, you are an atheist. If you don’t know whether God exists, you are an atheist. You are not an atheist only when you are convinced that God exists.
"It actually is the belief in gods. Question is, who are the gods? The atheists themselves. They take on and aspire what it means to be head of their own lives as an authority."
Even acknowledging the statement that Satanism is a belief in gods does not make the statement that religion = belief, or that all atheists = Satanists, true. I will not now take on the role of an apologist for Satanism as a religion without belief, as I am not familiar with this religion myself. This is not relevant to the topic of our debate.
"The point on the courts was to explain why they made the decision they did about atheism.Atheism is another belief system, religious system, etc. It is not a neutral system."
"This could not be true because of agnosticism which is not the same so atheism cannot be the most rational. An atheist that is willing to accept that the gods of theism do not exist based on no evidence versus being neutral due to no evidence on either side is the most rational.On top of that, agnosticism holds no belief nor disbelief so it is more if not 100 percent fact based. No belief elements involved."
Well, we have returned to our disagreement in understanding the terms. I assume that the agnostic in the opponent’s understanding is equivalent to the weak atheist in my understanding. I yield the floor to find out.
Round 3
"But I will emphasize again that atheism is not defined by belief in the claim “God does not exist,” but by the lack of belief in the claim “God exists.”"
Same difference my friend. If you require expounding and demonstration on that, say so.
"The opponent suggests that a neutral position (the lack of belief in both claims, “God exists” and “God does not exist”) is possible."
This doesn't necessarily have to be classified as a lack of a belief or having no belief but just indeterminate on such.
"Theists don’t believe in the non-existence of gods—this is an attempt to present the positive claim “God exists” as a rejection of the positive claim “God does not exist.” But this is not what pertains to theists. "
Which statement is true about theists.
Theists don't believe in the absence of the gods of theism.
Theists believe in the absence of the gods of theism.
Only one of those statements are consistent and has a connection with the belief in the gods of theism.
"It is also the position of weak atheists. By “non-default position,” presumably, the opponent means a positive claims, which, according to the definitions I provided above, pertains to theists and strong atheists. The opponent’s argument does not prove that atheism inherently involves a positive claim."
This may be hard to understand so I'm to reiterate my points and explain them clearly as possible.
Ultimately, atheism evolves during the lifetime of a person. As a person grows, he or she learns, get educated regarding the world around them, yes. They began to think , speak and act logically, critically, empirically and socially, yes.
During the education process which never ceases unless some mental debilitation sets in, questions and answers occur. Do you follow so far?
This is the conscious phenomenon going on where you witness, they witness their own, your own observations, questions and the answers to the questions.
These questions surround history, the world you live in, the process of nature, the physical, the natural and of course of the non physical, the origins there of to the end purpose.
So a question of one's own existence spikes curiosity and postulate and you come to a conclusion. This is all advertently put together.
You're not non cognizant anymore prior to the maturity of the reasoning you're receiving.
I challenge the opposing side to prove people will remain oblivious to higher learning. So we have all these ideologies, philosophies and theories.
You ultimately have to come to a decision on life, the purpose of life, your purpose of life, what is after life and what is related to that.
The question of how did I get here is me right there making a deliberate decision. The agnostics do not and they adopt neutrality on the question.
Are we getting this?
"Some people prefer not to call themselves atheists precisely because of the notion that atheism is a belief in the absence of God. But this is not the case."
It is true that atheists shy away owning their beliefs about the gods of theism. Beliefs about them . I didn't say in them. Just nip that right there before you get it twisted.
It sounds like they have a faith which is not a bad or wrong or incorrect assessment.
Just the opposing side of the spectrum, no more rational than theists in often cases.
"To be an atheist, one does not need to make any positive claims."
Alright, to be a theist, the theist doesn't have to make any positive claims or claims at all. The person can just simply live life without arguing with anybody.
"Every person who does not have the belief that “God exists” is an atheist.
Agnosticism is not a position regarding the belief that “God exists.” It is an epistemological position regarding the nature of this belief, namely, “I do not know.”Thus, yes: as an infant, you are an atheist. "
Like I said, there's the atheist like a rock and there's the atheist that fits the topic.
"As you grow up, you are an atheist. When you hear about God, you are an atheist. If you don’t know whether God exists, you are an atheist. You are not an atheist only when you are convinced that God exists."
The question is, is there a difference between a rock that can technically be classified as an atheist versus a mature person that is one?
"Even acknowledging the statement that Satanism is a belief in gods does not make the statement that religion = belief, or that all atheists = Satanists, true. I will not now take on the role of an apologist for Satanism as a religion without belief, as I am not familiar with this religion myself. This is not relevant to the topic of our debate."
It still remains to be proven that atheists if you want to say all or just more than one, don't believe in their self authority over any other moral ruler, moral giver, law ruler and giver . That's all satanism is in essence.
If it's not relevant you think , don't address it, skip pass it please.
Audience, satanism is another facet of a belief system by atheists .
"The fact that a court made such a decision does not prove the court’s motives. The motives I mentioned have not been refuted. The motives you mentioned have not been proven.
Even if it were somehow established that the court truly believed that “Atheism is another belief system, religious system, etc. It is not a neutral system,” the court’s opinion, once again, holds no weight in a philosophical sense."
Good because we're not discussing philosophy but reality. The courts agree with my position, not yours.
The reality is that atheists believe there are no gods of theism and I challenge the opposing side that they don't. I double dare an attempt to say not so .
"Well, we have returned to our disagreement in understanding the terms. I assume that the agnostic in the opponent’s understanding is equivalent to the weak atheist in my understanding. I yield the floor to find out."
There's the agnostic, the theist and the atheist for the sake of my position and the topic. I don't chop it up any further than that with these other subsets and subcategories.
Nice and straight. There's the agnostic, the theist and the atheist.
Let's go over my position on the three and see if there's any inconsistency within the position.
The person that believes in no gods of theism, that person is an atheist. Now I offer the opportunity for the opposing side to an elect a different term per preference.
A person that believes in no gods of theism, if you don't want to call that person an atheist, let me know the term you like and I'll take that term , translate it to the term I use and then communicating with you about it, translate it back.
See, it's not really the terms that you should get bogged down with but the core essence of the positions .
There's three positions I'm pointing out in my position and explaining one is the most rational out of the three. Now maybe you can't accept the names of those positions as is, fine. We don't have to get tied down with that. Just dealing with the essence of those positions which is expected to be analyzed first and foremost. Whatever you want to call it, what is the position saying? What is it standing for?
It stands for this ,it means that, it amounts to the other, etc.
So I went over the position in which is called atheism.
Next up, the person that believes in the gods of theism due to disbelieving in the non existence of them, that person is a theist.
The person that does not know whether to even belief or disbelieve due to no evidence for the positive or negative side, is just that. The person doesn't know. Whom is called an agnostic.
Atheism and theism can fit belief systems. The agnostics are indeterminate on belief systems and cannot be correctly characterized with anything related to belief systems.
Again, just because atheists have faith, religions of their own, doesn't mean they have the gods of theism as a part of that.
I understand people make synonymous and exclusive - religion, theism and gods of theism. We can even lump deism in there.
But religion is just a belief system. That's why there's no separation of church/religion and state.
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
"I will not now take on the role of an apologist for Satanism as a religion without belief" - I made a mistake. Instead of the word belief, i meant faith
Set yourself in a trap here mall. An atheist is by definition a non believer/non-theist.