A weak basis for atheism.....
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
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.
So you're an atheist because there is no evidence that you see of God existing. So therefore, you believe God doesn't exist.
This is not much of a justification meaning not a good enough reason. If the sole basis was truly that, it be a very weak position. It's highly likely, that once fully thought out, there is something else there that is more reasonable .
But the "no evidence" excuse does little to nothing to substantiate.
Quite simply using this principle, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", you'll have to think harder in this context.
So with this in mind, how is the reason being of "no evidence" being worth much of anything?
Now this doesn't mean that you can't maintain a weak position as such. These positions exist alright but the topic statement is not false.
Please comment or send a message for questions and clarity.
- Fact - A point of data that is objectively verifiable 
- Evidence - A body of facts that are personally indicative of, or exclusively concordant with, one conclusion above all others 
- We could reserve belief in the magical elf until some fact indicates its possible.
- We can believe in the elf without reservation, on insufficient evidence.
"Now we can interpret evidence to mean whatever that appeals to our senses."
" If it doesn't make contact with our senses, it's not real to us. That's true, yes and no. Now we're getting into the perspective of reality. As we can see in court systems, there's use of witnesses, third party arbitration to share the reality or evidence that is very real with the party that says it's not real to them."
"So this thing gets deep and we have to look at this on a grand scale."
- Scientific Theory - a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation 
- Magic - The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces
- Real - having objective independent existence
- Hypothesis - A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"' But i digress, the point is that when we think rationally, gods are automatically thrown into the not-proven category with every other mythological character from every other work of fiction that has ever been produced, in the first step.'So are you saying all gods have been proven to have been made up ?"
"You've misunderstood when I said dealing with the supernatural. I didn't mean that as a real proven thing. We're dealing with the subject of it. If we understand the claim of God, I'll just call it a claim for now, this entity is supposed to be supernatural. That just means something outside of nature laws. See we have to be sure we're working with the correct premise of something. The premise is not about a natural thing that can be experimented with like many natural things."
"'If god is defined to be non-physical and undetectable, untested and untestable, therefore unfalsifiable: then what bearing on reality does that proposition have? 'I think you're asking what does it amount to.Well for right now it's just a result of many folks clapping their hands on Sundays. You know, religion, pretty much. See it hasn't a thing to do with evidence. It's just a belief to accept or deny. So when somebody mentions or calls for evidence, it's uncalled for with faith leaders and memberSo again , a weak approach or perhaps inappropriate to something that doesn't fit into the rules of science, evidence, experiments , etc."
"' Why would it be more reasonable to believe without reservation that there is an extraneous, superfluous agent just outside of our perception; rather than simply reserve belief until there is something more than baseless assertions.'Looks like this is asking why is it more logical to believe in a God than not."
- Belief without reservation, on insufficient evidence, is prone to self deception.
- Reservation of belief allows possibilities to be explored without predetermined conclusions about what reality should be.
"This is false. Evidence is a body of facts that indicate a specific conclusion. "How do we know it's fact without it contacting our senses?
"That is direct evidence that the Theory is correct. There's nothing to interpret about that evidence."The theory is still in itself just that. It's not proof of anything.
It is true that your perception of reality is true to you. It is evident to you until proven otherwise. This can get very convoluted because evidence is only available as much as our consciousness allows. That includes scientists, anybody that is able to have an awareness of the world. So really try to understand what I'm saying to not confuse it simply with everyone having their own personal experiences.
"The gods you mentioned, have they been proven to have been made up?"
"You can say you believe in a god because you see no evidence for there not being one. I can say I believe no gods exist as I see no evidence. Neither of these are substantial. They're an explanation for our positions, but we need more to go on."
"The default position or neutral place in this matter is agnosticism. As mentioned, there is not enough strength to pull to either side. A god can be as much true as much false based on what we know. The fact is , we don't know. WE DO NOT KNOW. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that because that is the truth."
"This just goes back to what I said. There is not enough strength on either side of the spectrum. You can face that reality or not. Your disbelief is no more of a powerful basis than my belief."
"Sure , is theory fact? All you've said was that a theory is true. But yet still a theory. Don't confuse theory and fact together. A true theory just means you're on the right track so far. When something has been ultimately proven, it's no longer called a theory, it's a fact."
"Well it just goes back to that proverbial tree in the forest. If the evidence of it is not available to my awareness, I SIMPLY have no evidence of the existence of that tree do I? So therefore it doesn't exist. At least to me it doesn't, the tree doesn't exist. It doesn't exist , that is until perhaps it now exists to you. So now you can tell me all about that tree. Now I discover that it does exist and has existed even when I received no evidence for it. But again, I only know this now because it's existence was made known to you. It's physical nature contacted your senses. Is that true or false?"
"That includes all the scientists that ever were as well. We're all saying because there is no evidence of this tree, that's super top notch of a case for a disbelief in its existence. But yet, there is just as a much strong possibility it does exist regardless of all us seeing no evidence."
"I don't think I have an answer . I haven't given it much thought. So if an entity hasn't been proven or disproven, what's the most logical position to take in this case?If you say disbelieve , you have to show that is more logical, more of a stronger case to disbelieve than to believe when the case to make against or for IS THE SAME."