Points: 10

Reading The Old Testament Cover to Cover is The Fastest Way to Become an Atheist.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Points: 20
Description
Full BoP for me.
Round 1
Published:
So my argument is pretty straightforward. 

If one was to research causes for deconversion, you will see a mass of varied reasons why people deconvert. 

Christians will have different opinions on why in contrasts to secular critics. 

All of the given reasons are valid in the right context, so neither side is wrong on the reason, but rather what place it falls in the stats. 

There is one underline theme in most of these scenarios. 

Education. 

"But wait?  Didn't you say it was The Bible?" -- Unspecified Person. 

Ahh, but this is where we have to look to where the cause leads. 


I'm sure all of know a well educated Christian, I know plenty myself, so they definitely exist.  I don't think any of them are converting anytime soon. 

So it still goes deeper than just education. 

When people give accounts of why they deconverted, They always talk about how the religion wasn't what they thought it was.  They thought god was loving and had a perfect plan that made perfect sense.  A lot of people will do mental backflips to defend Bible verses.  But at some point, they realize they can't defend their claims truthfully and this is often the first step to their deconversion. 


Therefore, in the light of this information. 

I claim that The Old Testament, with it's contradictory verses the most common cause of the process of deconversion.

Your floor 
Published:
The fastest way to become an atheist is to be born to atheist parents who force it upon you from a young age.

The fastest way for anyone who wasn't raised believing strongly in OT (which will include NT-heavy sects of Christianity) to become atheist is to doubt that the God of their religion makes sense and/or is real.

The fastest way for anyone who is a Jew or OT-reading individual who is beginning to, or currently believes strongly in, the OT is to shut the book before reading it cover to cover and go 'I don't care what's inside there, I doubt God anyway'.

The fastest way for someone who wants to be an atheist but also to fully consider the OT Bible as true is to stop just before the last page's last word and doubt it anyway without having read it cover to cover.

Someone who reads the OT cover to cover will find that the fastest way to become atheist was to never have read the damn book in the first place or considered it.

Someone who is a non-Christian and non-Jew who reads the OT cover to cover may also find it's the fastest way to become a Theist.


Round 2
Published:
The fastest way to become an atheist is to be born to atheist parents who force it upon you from a young age.

The fastest way for anyone who wasn't raised believing strongly in OT (which will include NT-heavy sects of Christianity) to become atheist is to doubt that the God of their religion makes sense and/or is real.

The fastest way for anyone who is a Jew or OT-reading individual who is beginning to, or currently believes strongly in, the OT is to shut the book before reading it cover to cover and go 'I don't care what's inside there, I doubt God anyway'.

The fastest way for someone who wants to be an atheist but also to fully consider the OT Bible as true is to stop just before the last page's last word and doubt it anyway without having read it cover to cover.

Someone who reads the OT cover to cover will find that the fastest way to become atheist was to never have read the damn book in the first place or considered it.

Someone who is a non-Christian and non-Jew who reads the OT cover to cover may also find it's the fastest way to become a Theist.
False


This refutes everything you just said.  Look in the R1 argument for Pro. 



Furthermore, you're just using hyperbolic hypothetical scenarios.  I made a normative argument.  So you're basically making mouth noise at this point. 


Please present a real argument instead of this nonsense.  You might have well said:

The fastest way to become an atheist is to trip of a bible and break your nose and know that god wasn't real. 
You're debating in bad faith and not trying to  approach the argument rationally you mad man. 


Oh now I get them name =P


Your floor.  Although I know you think the floor is the matrix.  Your "blah"
Published:
Fast: moving or happening quickly, or able to move or happen quickly
Quickly: after only a very short time
Become: to start to be
Atheist: someone who does not believe in any God or gods

I will repeat my Round One arguments one by one and cement this win home.

The fastest way to become an atheist is to be born to atheist parents who force it upon you from a young age.
We are even arguably all born atheist, so now I will add that at birth you cannot 'believe' in God as you can't even make sense of creation in the first place, right? That fits the definition of an atheist just fine. Even if we concede that babies are too agnostic to be 'agnostic atheists' I did just explain that the fastest way for 'any human' to become atheist is to be raised into it from birth as we are most susceptible to beliefs without questioning when we are young and on top of that we are 'fastest' in terms of 'from existing as a human being' to 'being an atheist' fastest speed-wise via this method.


If we take these 2 articles ^^ and their message and research and flip Theism and religious upbringing to be atheism and agnostic upbringing, the same level of persuading the children can and will work in reverse since it isn't about the children needing a faith that drives them joining the parent's religion, it's them wanting their parents to approve of them.

Children develop morality differently as they age (the rapidness of this development is probably higher in more intelligent humans but that's for another debate). I could also bring the fact that it's been objectively proven that females are easier to persuade than males and that mentally disabled people are easier to persuade but this would neither take away from my case nor add all that much either, after all if females read the OT and their friends like it too then the resolution would backfire on Pro supporting this quote of mine:

Someone who is a non-Christian and non-Jew who reads the OT cover to cover may also find it's the fastest way to become a Theist.
Nonetheless, I'll not bring up the females and the mentally disabled because that's not only a little 'offensive' but it's not even a direct insult or anything to do with this debate since they just as easily refuse to (or struggle to, especially in the case of the mentally disabled) read and comprehend the OT start to finish and frankly it will have less effect on them as they are more persuaded by social pressure than anything else so I guess I can extend my point 1 to say not just parental pressure to be atheist but combined with social pressure.

I'll just give some sources here.

Children incorporating parental morality more as they grow towards adolescence but less past that point:

McLeod, S. (2015). Piaget's Theory of Moral Development | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget-moral.html [Accessed 8 Apr. 2019].
^ This uses the following references within it:
References


The other points I brought in Round 1 as joke-seeming as they are are less of a joke than to say that the single fastest way to become an atheist is to read the OT Bible cover to cover.
Round 3
Published:
Since my opponent merely repeated his round 1 argument (by his own admission)  that means I have nothing new to say. 


Here is my proof 



Good debate
Published:
i will like to kiss the bride.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: "The fastest way to become an atheist is to be born to atheist parents who force it upon you from a young age."
I don't think I need to say any-more.
>Reason for Mod Action: Unfortunately, the voter does need to say more. The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps.
************************************************************************
#9
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thanks for the input and subsequent vote.
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I don't know a single atheist who has read the entire OT. The fastest way for someone who was never born an atheist is just to read select bible verses that show what the bible is.
#7
Added:
actually, the fastest way for a person to be an atheist is for God to not reveal to them the knowledge of himself. Which could be at any point in life. But it takes only a moment for that will or knowledge to slip from a persons mind. Or to never be considered in their will.
rational action hits on it slightly, the bible says that we are born "Without knowledge of God" and "There is none that seek God." Therefore just leaving them as is is the quickest way to let them believe there is no God, because it takes a drawling of God to persuade a person there is a God.
However, this is all assumed that atheism is applicable to God of the bible. There are many who believe in other Gods even after first reading the bible or even before knowing how to read.
#6
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I would say that there is a difference between active disbelief after acquiring knowledge and a lack of beliefs due to a lack of knowledge.
So no, babies aren't atheists, any more than they are Republicans or Democrats.
#5
Added:
I find that babies, or at least newborns, don't have any social constructs, especially something like a complex anthropomorphized Supreme Power. If you are familiar with Plato's Theory of Forms, they haven't made any forms for them to judge reality by.
#4
Added:
--> @K_Michael
It depends on how one defines atheist. If you take the literal "without god belief" meaning, then technically yes. But we can never know for sure. For all we know, ever baby is born a theist and worships their parents. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Are you considered an atheist at birth? Does a lack of any belief constitute a negative belief? If I was somehow raised without ever being introduced to the concept of (a) Supreme Being(s), would I be considered an atheist?
#2
Added:
I find that too many become atheists based on a 15 minute Youtube video.
#1
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro's plan is doomed from formulation.
Pro's R1 suggests that the claim should read "Reading all of the OT is one way to become an atheist" or perhaps OT "is an effective way to become an Atheist." The last line of Pro's argument offers that OT reading is "the most common cause" of atheism, which may be close to Pro's intent but is equally unwarranted. The condition Pro has self-obligated to prove is "fastest." That's a problem for Pro because reading OT is time consuming and difficult and his terms are all undefined.
What is becoming an atheist anyway? Are people who have never heard of God atheists? If somebody holds a gun to your head and says, "Renounce your God" and you do, are you a momentary atheist? Isn't that faster than reading the Bible?
Con wisely jumps into the breach. A child born to atheists may be defined as an atheist at the moment of birth without effort. Lack of interest is offered as less effort than reading the Bible.
Pro fails to prove his plan for achieving atheism is faster than Con and Pro does not seem to recognize the threat in Con's counter. Pro accuses Con of debating in bad faith but this voter considers Con's approach sufficiently credible and Con's round2 double-down should have forced a detailed defense of OT reading as "faster' and improving the terms of the claim. Unfortunately, Pro just claims repetition.
Pro made a big claim without definitions or sources or specific examples or sharing the burden or rules limiting counterarguments, leaving many approaches open for Con. Con neatly offered a few ways to achieve atheism faster than reading one very long and difficult book and Pro never offered a refutation. Arguments to Con.
Sources to Con for using a few and also because the only links Pro offered were to this debate, leaving me wondering if this was meant to look like some kind of sourcing.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Ralph accepted the full BoP in the description.
In round 1, Ralph argued that the contradictions in the Bible are the quickest way to make a Christian lose his faith. RM argued that not being indoctrinated (i.e. never having read the Bible in the first place) is a faster way to become an atheist and that questioning the faith before reading it “cover to cover”, as the resolution states, is quicker as well. Ralph responded by pointing out that RM is debating in bad faith, which is likely true, but RM’s arguments are convincing and this debate was extremely hard to win for Pro due to the unfortunate formulation of the resolution and the acceptance of the sole BoP. RM restated and supported his opening arguments with further definitions and explanations which were however unnecessary as Ralph did not respond to them again and instead pointed to his own opening arguments. In the end, RM's argument being born to atheistic parents and/or losing faith just before reading the last sentence of the Bible, were not refuted sufficiently and convincing.
Bad faith debating? Probably. Successful bad faith debating? In my opinion, yes.
Conduct even, both debaters behaved reasonably, the bad faith from RM, in this case, does not constitute bad conduct in my opinion as Ralph shot himself in the foot by choosing the debate resolution and accepting the whole BoP. Had RM been the creator of this debate I would have awarded conduct to Ralph.
S&G even, both debater's arguments were comprehensible.
Sources even, RM presented sources that supported his points regarding susceptibility to irrational beliefs in early childhood while Ralph presented none but these sources had no significant impact on the debate outcome
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct: con clearly doesn’t argue in good faith - in this case I side with pro. Con simply attempts to make a semantic play for the points, which clearly wasn’t the debate that pro intended to have. However pro gets snippy and petulant - and this makes things a bit closer - but I view this sort of semantic knit picking as particularly odious.
Arguments: the resolution is clearly a bit tongue in cheek, and if it was clearly spelled out as a resolution as such I may have considered cons argument as valid. However cons semantic attack is too loosely coupled to the intent of the debate and my reading of the resolution for me to accept it unless con gives me a clear harm in terms of accepting what the resolution meant. As I can imagine a series of plausible methods of victory for con, and has pro took on burden of proof - I can’t see any reason not to accept the resolution as I would reasonably interpret it. Specifically that con is talking about deconversion.
This means con doesn’t offer a valid argument against the resolution.
At this point, i look at the debate description, then look at pro accepting burden of proof.
I look at the arguments, talking about the Old Testament being the “most common cause of conversion”, which doesn’t seem to be cover the specifics of the resolution either.
I also look at the justification - and feel that pro merely claims that the Old Testament is the most common cause - and doesn’t appear to warrant the claim that the Old Testament specifically is the not common cause. If the argument appealed to intuition I would have granted this as burden of proof.
So much as I hate awarding points to semantic trickery like this - pro didn’t do enough to meet the minimal burden of proof he set for himself, and as such I am forced to award this to RM by default.