Instigator / Pro
1382
rating
453
debates
46.14%
won
Topic
#6397
Atheists and theists are religious alike.
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
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Please quote exactly. Do not rephrase or reinterpret.
Answer all questions directly.
Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit.
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.
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.
Atheists and theists can both be religious.
Let me begin by clarifying something essential: WORDS MATTER, especially when we are trying to reach "constructive value" as the Pro wisely aims for. So let's deal directly and clearly with the claim.
The Core Misstep: Conflating "Belief" with "Religion"
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.
This quote contains two key assumptions:
- Faith = religion
- Lack of belief = belief in the opposite
Both are logically and semantically flawed.
Faith ≠ Religion
Faith is a component of many religions, but religion is a broader institutional and sociocultural phenomenon. Religion involves:
- Sacred texts
- Rituals
- Priesthoods or clergy
- Sacred spaces
- Shared community worship
- Mythologies
A person can have faith in something and not be religious (like faith in democracy, friendship, or oneself). Just as not every political ideology is a religion, not every belief is religious.
Rejecting a claim without sufficient evidence is not "faith" but skepticism. That is what atheism, in its most common form, is: the absence of belief in deities due to lack of evidence.
Strawman Fallacy: Redefining Atheism to Make It Fit
Atheists, all atheists ultimately, the folks that mature to make a decision make a decision to believe what theists don't believe in.
This is a semantic reversal that does not hold under good analysis..
If theists believe X exists, and atheists do not believe X exists, IS NOT the same as claiming the opposite with religious conviction. Atheism is not a belief that gods do not exist (that would be "strong atheism"). Many atheists are agnostic atheists, who simply lack belief in deities.
Your definition assumes all atheists claim to know there are no gods and this is not how most atheists self-identify. This is a category error, equating "lack of belief" with "belief in the opposite."
If theists believe X exists, and atheists do not believe X exists, IS NOT the same as claiming the opposite with religious conviction. Atheism is not a belief that gods do not exist (that would be "strong atheism"). Many atheists are agnostic atheists, who simply lack belief in deities.
Your definition assumes all atheists claim to know there are no gods and this is not how most atheists self-identify. This is a category error, equating "lack of belief" with "belief in the opposite."
The False Equivalence: Secularism ≠ Religion
The U.S. courts declared atheism as a stance taken on deity, a religion. Which makes atheism a secular religion of course.
First: legal definitions ≠ philosophical definitions. The U.S. courts ruled atheism is protected like religion under the First Amendment , not because it is a religion, but because it deserves equal protection. This is a legal protection, not a definitional classification.
A religion requires belief in the sacred, ritual, and supernatural metaphysics. Atheism, in its basic form, has none of these.
A religion requires belief in the sacred, ritual, and supernatural metaphysics. Atheism, in its basic form, has none of these.
Also, I'm mexican so I can prove this by comparing with Mexican law.
In México, the concept of religion is defined under Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público (LARCP). A “religious association” is one that worships a deity or set of spiritual doctrines with sacred rites. Atheism does not fit this structure, and is not recognized as a religion under Mexican law.
Instead, Mexican law recognizes the freedom of belief and conscience, including the right not to believe in any religion (Article 24, Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos). Atheism is protected and not because it's a religion, but because belief or non-belief are both individual rights.
Its demonstrated :
- In the U.S. , atheism is protected like religion, but not defined as religion.
- In México, atheism is explicitly distinct from religion, though equally protected under law.
Irrelevant Red Herrings
Another point about atheists… they're satanists.Satanism is the religion… that encourages faith in yourself.Atheists joined a cult in satanism.
This is not just factually wrong, it is misleading.
Most atheists are not satanists. LaVeyan Satanism is not theistic; it is atheistic performance-art philosophy, and only a small minority of atheists identify with it. Conflating the two is as illogical as claiming all Christians are Westboro Baptists.
In debate, this is called a red herring (a distraction with emotional weight but no logical link.) And to be fair, your descriptions fit better for modern liberal-capitalist ideology than for atheism or Satanism. But that's not the point of the debate.
Burden of Proof and Asymmetry
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.
Let me be more precise.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (like, “God exists”). An atheist saying "I do not believe your claim because you have not provided evidence" is not taking a religious position, it's taking a rational, default epistemological stance.
By this logic, someone who doesn’t believe in unicorns is "religious" about unicorn non-existence. But no one treats that as religion, since non-belief is not a faith claim.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (like, “God exists”). An atheist saying "I do not believe your claim because you have not provided evidence" is not taking a religious position, it's taking a rational, default epistemological stance.
By this logic, someone who doesn’t believe in unicorns is "religious" about unicorn non-existence. But no one treats that as religion, since non-belief is not a faith claim.
So...
Religions are structured systems of belief involving the supernatural, rituals, and dogmas. Atheism is the absence of one particular belief (the belief in gods. That is not a religion.)
Trying to define atheism as religion is not just semantically dishonest, also dilutes the meaning of both terms. And worse, it confuses those seeking clarity.
Let us elevate the discourse and respect the definitions, and the minds of those listening.
Trying to define atheism as religion is not just semantically dishonest, also dilutes the meaning of both terms. And worse, it confuses those seeking clarity.
Let us elevate the discourse and respect the definitions, and the minds of those listening.
Round 2
"Religion involves:
- Sacred texts
- Rituals
- Priesthoods or clergy
- Sacred spaces
- Shared community worship
- Mythologies"
We are going to have this foundational disagreement right out the gate. Religion at its core is a belief system. Beliefs are subjective.
This means it is whatever it is based on the subjective party. So if the person says " this is my religion and what I believe in" , who are you to argue against somebody else's opinion of what he or she practices in tandem and encompassing their lifestyle?
You are someone not qualified because it is not subjected to you.
Now even according to your subjective measure of religion, the laveyan satanism fits that. They have their own bible, regarded as sacred and respected. They have their own rituals or routines.
A space for atheist priests and what they believe, the myth of Satan according to them and it is a shared community as there's more than one atheist in that camp.
Thereby even with your definition, atheists qualify as religious as qualify under what I've said, those that have a belief system.
"A person can have faith in something and not be religious (like faith in democracy, friendship, or oneself). Just as not every political ideology is a religion, not every belief is religious.
Rejecting a claim without sufficient evidence is not "faith" but skepticism. That is what atheism, in its most common form, is: the absence of belief in deities due to lack of evidence."
A person can this , that and the third to include saying being religious about anything he or she says. They can do something religiously , watch something religiously and so forth. It is the practice they believe in period.
Now here's the question and remember the stipulation of answering directly.
True or false.
Atheists believe in no gods of theism.
A true or false selection is required.
"Atheism is not a belief that gods do not exist (that would be "strong atheism"). "
You're still calling it atheism. I don't care whatever adjectives you want to prefer. If you want to say strong, powerful, super, outstanding, it's still atheism.
So trying to argue atheism doesn't exist with the definition with a belief in no gods of theism, then turnaround still using the term "atheism" to apply to it is futile.
If you're going to say atheists don't have the belief that the gods of theism don't exist, guess what, you're making them agree with theists that lack the same belief. So you're going into error there.
You agree that it's still atheism. Being finicky over the adjectives is moot because the topic just puts it as atheists in general. So it applies to whom it applies to regardless.
Atheists that believe have that belief system which is a religious system like any other religious system of any theist.
Bottomline agreement from the opposing side to make note of :
"Atheism is not a belief that gods do not exist (that would be "strong atheism"). "
I agree, it's still atheism, yes.
"Your definition assumes all atheists claim to know there are no gods and this is not how most atheists self-identify. This is a category error, equating "lack of belief" with "belief in the opposite.""
Well you're assuming that it "assumes" that. I'm making no assumptions. What is in the text that you see is what you get.
You already admitted that atheism applies to what I've been saying so you done nearly ended this debate with that conceding. So atheists believe there are no gods of theism.
I didn't say they know there are no gods of theism. That's your assumption if you have read that into what I've said. I didn't say anything about atheist agnostics or agnostics atheists. That shouldn't be part of the debate.
I didn't even say all atheists. That's another suspected assumption.
Slow down and carefully read and quote and respond only to the words you read. So you don't misquote, misinterpret and strawman.
These are the rules to keep you from running into one fallacy after another.
"A religion requires belief in the sacred, ritual, and supernatural metaphysics. Atheism, in its basic form, has none of these."
Religion is not exclusive to this. Atheists do believe in sacred things however such as the laveyan principles.
"A “religious association” is one that worships a deity or set of spiritual doctrines with sacred rites Atheism does not fit this structure"
It does fit. The person is the deity and many define themselves as spiritual and believing in sacred principles.
Religions are not just beliefs in the unseen.
"Atheism is protected and not because it's a religion"
Ok it can be protected not for the reason of being a religion. As you said "it's a religion".
"This is not just factually wrong, it is misleading.
Most atheists are not satanists. LaVeyan Satanism is not theistic; it is atheistic performance-art philosophy, and only a small minority of atheists identify with it. Conflating the two is as illogical as claiming all Christians are Westboro Baptists."
Totally misunderstanding my point. Satanism doesn't need theism to be a religion. You do not need theism to be a religion. Religion first of all, is a personal, subjective freedom. The one that can dictate what it is for him or herself is the one practicing it for themselves. So if a person says this is my religion, it is the religion of that person.
Also, all there is needed to be a religion is a belief system at the very least.
Also, I never said "all anybody". That is an easy assumption people make.
"Let me be more precise.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (like, “God exists”). An atheist saying "I do not believe your claim because you have not provided evidence" is not taking a religious position, it's taking a rational, default epistemological stance.
By this logic, someone who doesn’t believe in unicorns is "religious" about unicorn non-existence. But no one treats that as religion, since non-belief is not a faith claim."
To have a non belief in the positive of something is the opposing equivalent of a belief in the negative.
So I don't believe you will win the game. Which translates to I believe you will lose the game. There is no absence of belief, faith, religion entirely contrary to what you've thought you've understood.
"Religions are structured systems of belief involving the supernatural, rituals, and dogmas. Atheism is the absence of one particular belief (the belief in gods. That is not a religion.)
Trying to define atheism as religion is not just semantically dishonest, also dilutes the meaning of both terms. And worse, it confuses those seeking clarity.
Let us elevate the discourse and respect the definitions, and the minds of those listening."
"Atheism is protected and not because it's a religion"
This is what you said.
You said it is a religion. It's just not protected because it's a religion.
So it's either a mixture of being disingenuous or very careless with your phrased points.
"Atheism is not a belief that gods do not exist (that would be "strong atheism"). "
Here you're telling us what one thing is not as opposed to what another is. Which that "another" is still referred to as atheism. You just put an adjective with it .
Whatever adjectives you like, you still referenced atheism.
So it seems you're delving all over the place not having a stable confident approach on one stance.
Which is making you appear to compromise with brings about conceding because the reality can't be denied that not believing in the presence is believing in the absence.
Same thing.
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Case closed.
Not published yet