"Atheism is true" somehow translates to 'a being (definitely not a god though) created...er, uh, *simulated* everything'?
This was a frustrating debate to read.
"According to theologians and exegetes"
Pardon, please allow me to gently point out you must cherry pick from Muslim theologians and exegetes for your original statement to be true. If we surveyed the full width and breadth of theologians, the identity of an NB (if one exists) would be unclear.
This looks like a fun debate. Good luck to all!
We'll see about that. 馃槈
One round, eh? 馃槄
>Reported Vote: JenKiggans2026 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote lacks an analysis of the arguments from both debaters and will be removed. Please update to show a broader consideration for the merits of both sides. Thank you.
---JenKiggans2026's former vote---
Voted for: con
Con did much better in basing their argument on a solid foundation. Con brought into perspective a clever and insightful analogy to portray the literal and physical impossibility of a true infinite set in the real world. Although providing some interesting and even convincing arguments, Pro seemed unable to really solidify their side with an absolute.
>Reported Vote: NoAhLeEcLaRk // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze
>Reason for Mod Action:
Addresses an argument or arguments made in the debate but does not weigh arguments from each side against each other.
---NoAhLeEcLaRk's former vote---
Voted for: con
I agree with the con, There has been no place in America where a mass shooting hasn't taken place, therefore that means that schools will still have mass shootings, and these damn lock down drills ain't doing anything if kids are still dying
(wasn't much in the debate to give any detailed vote)
>Reported Vote: NoAhLeEcLaRk // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote lacks analysis of the arguments from both debaters. Please update to show a broader consideration of the merits of both sides.
---NoAhLeEcLaRk's former vote---
Voted for: pro
As a Christian I believe what the pro is saying is the most valid, you can't have a religion without having the faith in something that literally builds it up to its name. Simple as that
>Reported Vote: ShtLp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze
>Reason for Mod Action:
ShtLp
---ShtLp's former vote---
Voted for: pro
Con never provided any scripture that defends their claim. At best from their references you can say that god does not want us to sin, but not that we never will. There's even a verse that says anyone who says that they have no sin is a liar and the truth is not in him.
The vote lacks an analysis of the arguments from both debaters and will be removed. Please update it to show a broader consideration of the merits of both sides. Thank you.
Sure thing! Ill try to keep up! 馃榿
Thanks for taking the time to vote!
Thanks for voting.
"I mean I'm fine with them voting"
馃憤 It should be all or none (has the option to vote) just to be consistent.
That doesnt change the fact that the reasoning for a RB vote is also applicable to the debaters.
That being said, I suspect Kohai and Whiteflame would not vote because of an obvious conflict of interest...which is also applicable to RB.
"Given that this trial is based on interests, it's a weird thing to say Remy's interests don't matter."
By the same reasoning, we should have prosecution and defense vote as well.
Imagine being a juror for your own trial. It does seem like a slight conflict of interest.
Meh.
"If you say "one should lack belief in God", then you are making a positive claim which needs proof."
No one is saying that.
"Saying "I lack belief in God" is not a claim which disproves "God exists", so it's irrelevant to debate."
"Lack of belief in gods" is not an ontological claim. "God exists" is an ontological claim. Pro contends both positions are identical. You and I disagree. 馃槈
"The only way to tear down some claim is to make a claim regarding it."
You're using 'claim' very loosely. The 'claim' that counters is not a standalone statement regarding the world. It is a response. These are not the same. One would not exist if it weren't for the other.
"Lack of belief in God does not contradict with "God exists",
Of course it doesn't鈥攖hat is a category error on your part. 'God exists' is an ontological claim about reality, while a lack of belief is an epistemic state regarding one's own knowledge.
You could have said 'atheism is a claim or it is not a claim'. ('Atheism is a claim or not a true claim' is not a true dichotomy.)
Ive already agreed general atheism is not a claim. This does not in any way preclude it from logic or debate. There are innumerable debates where one person defends a proposition and another tries to tear it down. In these cases, only one side argues a claim.
Is this tautology meant to be relevant to something?
Also, substantive truth claims are not required for logic to be applicable.
Agreed. Atheism isnt a claim (at least not by default) and does not require evidence.
Hmmm, you bring up a point - maybe debates should have a proposition to set the scope of the arguments...oh, wait, they do! 馃ぃ
In all sincerety, I appreciate your comments. They are bound to increase traffic here.
That is a meta view and goes far beyond the scope of the proposition. The debate was about specific groups of people, none of which were explicitly the participants in the debate.
