Is atheism weak or strong as a religion?

Con will defend that atheism is a strong religion, and I will defend that atheism isnt a strong religion.

Round 1

1 of 1

SatanLucy

Pro #1

Answer these questions:

Is atheism a religion?

Is atheism a strong religion?

If atheism is a religion, what are its beliefs?

Are cats atheists?

Failure to answer any of these questions means my opponent forfeits.

1. Definitions

A “religion” is a system that includes at least the following essential components:

Belief in one or more supernatural entities or transcendent realities.
Ritual or devotional practices oriented toward those entities or realities.
Normative authority (doctrines, dogmas, or revealed truths) derived from the supernatural.

Definition 2 (Atheism).

“Atheism” is:

The absence of belief in any deity (minimal atheism), or
The disbelief in the existence of any deity (strong atheism).

Definition 3 (Strong religion).

A “strong religion” is a religion that:

Satisfies R1–R3, and
Possesses a robust, coherent structure of doctrines, rituals, and supernatural claims.

2. Axioms

Nothing can satisfy condition R1 (belief in supernatural entities) while simultaneously denying all supernatural entities.

Axiom 2.

If X fails to meet a necessary condition of category C, then X is not a member of category C.

Axiom 3.

No set can be “strongly F” if it is not even “F”.

3. Argument

Premise 1:

By Definition 2 (A1), atheism denies or lacks belief in all supernatural deities.

Premise 2:

By Definition 1 (R1), religion necessarily requires belief in at least one supernatural entity.

From Premise 1 and Premise 2:

Atheism fails R1.

From Axiom 2:

If atheism fails R1, it cannot be a religion.

Therefore:

Atheism is not a religion.

From Axiom 3:

If atheism is not a religion, it cannot be a strong religion.

Atheism is not a strong religion because, by definition and logical necessity, it is not a religion at all.

It fails the necessary supernatural-belief condition (R1), and by basic category logic (Axiom 2 and 3), anything that is not a religion cannot be a strong one.

LancelotDuLac

Con #2

This bait and switch are the kind of tactics that demonstrate how SatanLucy is in reality, a competent debater. I appreciate the level of thought that goes into being a trickster.

However, despite the cleverness of the plan. There is one crucial detail that SatanLucy overlooked.

He was perhaps expecting me to kritik the resolution as "atheism not being a religion semantically," so he baited me into accepting the debate and pulled the trick first, thinking I walked into a trap.

Unfortunately for Pro, I never had any intention of doing that.

Suffice it to say, this kritik fails on account for several reasons.:

The resolution makes it clear that Pro and I have already conceded that atheism is a religion, so for him to argue against that is self-refuting. Which means I win by default if he is successful.
If Pro believed atheism wasn't a religion, why would he take the position that it is in his resolution?

First and foremost, there are several definitions of religion. The one SatanLucy used is an example, but it's not possible to use that definition for this debate, as SatanLucy correctly pointed out.

Therefore, I am forced to play my hand.:

Religion - A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Atheism - Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.

China's government promotes and encourages atheism, making it ideal to a whole nation of people. Which thus emphasizes its popularity. Some popular atheists include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens. So on and so forth. It is a continuous cycle of growth and expansion. These famous people have written books of their own, which have gained their own followers of atheists.

Given the popularity of atheism both as a concept, and a worldview. It is therefore a strong religion.

Fruit_Inspector

#20

--> @SatanLucy

What specifically did I add to the debate?

melcharaz

#19

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Thats the topic rubric.
Voting rubric is designed for ultra, but there is nothing wrong with using it in rated or unrated if you are able to.

SomeDebatePerson

#18

--> @melcharaz

I think it’s only for ultrarated debates.

melcharaz

#17

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Voting rubric updated.

5:Votes based on a framework provided in the debate, or, if none was given, weighs arguments case by case.

6:If disagreeing with the debate's framing, the voter clearly establishes why their interpretation is more faithful and how it influences their vote.

SatanLucy

#16

--> @Fruit_Inspector

"Just learn from your mistake"

Why dont you learn from mistake then? Quote correctly, not add to debate.

Fruit_Inspector

#15

--> @SatanLucy

Perhaps you should consider that you didn't frame your debate well. Had the topic been, "Is atheism a strong religion?", I would have been more inclined to vote in your favor. Just learn from your mistake and move on instead of accusing people of lying because they didn't vote for you.

SatanLucy

#14

"If you think I lied or was unfair, report it."

I am not going to report your vote. Your vote was based on a lie, but if I report, there is no point I know, because no good votes were cast anyway so not worthy to report a bad vote.

Fruit_Inspector

#13

--> @SatanLucy

If you think I lied or was unfair, report it. I was clear in my vote and I am happy to comply with a moderator's judgment.

SatanLucy

#12

--> @Fruit_Inspector

"I said that something was implied"

So no such claim was made, you lied in your vote and cast vote based on something you made up. If you want to vote that way, fine, you vote. You keep your vote.

Fruit_Inspector

#11

--> @SatanLucy

I never said a claim was made. I said that something was implied, which you did intentionally. If you didn't want the voter to make a judgment based on that parameter, you should not have included it in the topic.

SatanLucy

#10

"the topic implies that PRO is arguing that atheism a weak religion"

No, no such claim was made anywhere in topic. the topic asked a question, the description told who argues what.

SatanLucy

--> @SomeDebatePerson

It would make sure that there is at least 1 good vote on my debates.

SomeDebatePerson

--> @SatanLucy

That wouldn’t make sense. I mean, wouldn’t both people just vote for themselves anyway? People could use this to lose on purpose, like you maybe.

SatanLucy

they should enable us to vote on our own debates on this site.

LancelotDuLac

--> @SomeDebatePerson

These debates are not meant to be taken seriously. This has been his style for two years.

SomeDebatePerson

Another one of his debates where he tries to make it impossible for the contender to win.

Instead of each person presenting evidence for each side, he instead attempts to trap his opponent with false logic.

SomeDebatePerson

These one round debates are even worse than the two round debates.

LancelotDuLac

--> @melcharaz

Troll debate.

melcharaz

The heckdoes strong mean? Dont pull the same move you did to lynch.

Mal

One round knockout.

Ultracrepidarian

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Pro's sole argument of atheism not being a religion is effectively dismantled by the negative, meaning they not meet their burden of proof. Thus, con wins!

Fruit_Inspector

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

When the instigator creates weak parameters for a debate, the voter is left to use their best judgment. While only "a strong religion" is mentioned in the description, the topic implies that PRO is arguing that atheism a weak religion. Nothing was explicitly stated otherwise.

PRO completely failed to meet any burden of proof that atheism is a weak religion. By arguing that atheism is not a religion, PRO actually refuted their implied position. If atheism is not a religion, it is also not a weak religion.

CON was the only one who argued in favor of their position that atheism is a strong religion. Therefore, CON wins.

SomeDebatePerson

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

This debate was titled “Is atheism weak or strong as a religion?”, which implies that atheism is a religion.

Pro seems to have misread his own resolution. He did follow the description. (We’re probably gonna need to decide what to do when the description contradicts the resolution.)

Pro argues that since atheism is the lack of a belief in any deity, it is not a religion. If pro wanted to use this logic, he should probably have also said “Even if atheism were a religion, it could not be strong because…” After all this, is a one round debate, so what would pro have expect other than con to say that atheism is indeed a religion?

Con points out that this seems to contradict the agreed-on resolution. Con picks a new definition of religion that atheism can fit. Con then argues atheism is strong since it grows and is popular. Con probably should have gave more reasons and better reasons too (I personally don’t find them strong), but it still works since pro did not follow the resolution of the debate or present any argument other than atheism is not even a religion.

Con wins!

Round 1

1. Definitions

Definition 2 (Atheism).

Definition 3 (Strong religion).

2. Axioms

Axiom 2.

Axiom 3.

3. Argument

Premise 1:

Premise 2:

From Premise 1 and Premise 2:

From Axiom 2:

Therefore:

From Axiom 3:

New comment