Everybody believes in a worldview!

For this final round, I will finish my round 3 rebuttal of Con’s round 2 defense. I will then address certain key points regarding his round 3 segment, and then finish with my conclusion. 3’rd round rebuttal Part 2 of 2Con’s defense on his 2nd contention presupposes that children, or the uneducated would not likely have a worldview. No evidence is given for this. In fact I gave contrary evidence that the uneducated are more religious than the educated. Con also talks about the involuntary actions our body does to sustain life and how it is not a belief system, rather it causes the actions and beliefs of man. Again this is another presupposition that religion (God) is not true, and in stead was just an agreement for life’s justification by an evolving man. Even still this argument does nothing to show that an abstract thinking individual would not have a worldview. As for the “brainwashed,” Con here is stating an adopted belief system is invalid because it wasn’t conceived by the individual. Or perhaps it is unless it passes this imaginary line from belief to brainwashing. Again even if this were true, it doesn’t take away the fact that the individual possesses a world view. Con’s last defense on his 3rd contention is also false. If one were apathetic to religion they still hold a worldview. It would most likely leave one self at the center of the worldview. Self promotion and survival to all different degrees would be the most likely governing factor in this worldview. Key pointsThe abstract mind:I will show Con’s interpretation of an abstract thinking mind is incorrect. To be self-aware as an infant, or a mentally handicapped person, can demonstrate their ability to function physically in this world. However it does not mean they can conceive of themselves being apart of a larger picture consisting of their existence in a world, or the universe itself. To be self-aware does not mean abstract thinking. Being self-aware by showing the ability to function to sustain life is not the same as having abstract thought. The ability to ponder the question: “do I exist, and if so why do I exist,” and other metaphysical issues is the ability of a mind capable of abstract thought. So yes, infants and the severely mentally handicapped are excluded from my premises. I think this is also taking away from the obvious intent of the debate, but since I didn’t make it clear I will defend it. The Skeptic:From what I am understanding is that Con states that an absolute truth is possible, however remaining a skeptic might continually unfold a newer truth. As an analogy one who is counting to infinity admits that infinity does exist, but will always be counting without ever reaching it. I understand this, however when it pertains to a worldview it only shows one will have a worldview until he finds a more true worldview to replace the prior. Conclusion and ThanksIn this debate I have demonstrated to the best of my ability that an individual, capable of conceiving the concept “I exist,” has a worldview. I have demonstrated that stating “I don’t believe in any worldview” does not subtract from the reality that one actually has a worldview, rather is an attempt to remove a label. I have shown that an absolute truth is not necessary to have a belief, that relative truths can sustain a belief and create a worldview. I have shown how a committed skeptic who believes in always maintaining there is no absolute truth in search of a higher truth still maintains a worldview, even though the skeptic is willing to abandon it for a new one when a more plausible reality is presented. In conclusion I state that since my 2 premises are true, the conclusion is true.I want to state in no way did I mean anything to be taken as personal attacks as I’m a firm believer in intellectual debate minus emotion. Thank you for reading and voting on this debate. Thanks to AgencyOfMan for being such a well rounded debater in manner and tact.