Instigator / Con
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#3607
Your best argument for any person to be an atheist
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 26,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
2
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
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.
Just plain and simple. What is your best argument to be an atheist?
What could you offer as an argument ideally I suppose for yourself, myself, anybody else to be an atheist?
Is it the strongest?
Is it totally non-debunkable?
Let's see.
Questions about the topic, please leave a comment or send a message.
Round 1
Pro
#2
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Since this is a 5 round debate, I will take the round to interpret the resolution and lay some essential groundwork, as this debate is unorthodox and needs a standard by which we can evaluate the winner or loser respectively.
- The resolution proposes "your best argument for any person to be an atheist." I suggest the most reasonable way to evaluate this is for me to play the advocate role of the mentioned position and, as stated, simply present what I believe to be my best argument for the topic.
- Mall shall propose an argument that is supposedly better than my argument and we shall engage with one another in deliberation upon which argument is indeed, the best. I propose the debate shall be judged accordingly. Weighing my argument against whether or not Mall has demonstrated a better one.
Round 2
Pro
#4
Overview
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Dropped. Extend.
- The resolution is not even a proposition, (a statement that can be proven true or falsified). Instead, the object of the debate becomes the presentation of my best argument for atheism. To evaluate this, we can judge the debate on your critique of my argument with a better one.
I. Argument
- My case is simple. The strongest or most compelling/convincing argument for atheism is a logical attack on the existence of a monotheistic God of the three largest religions predicated under such (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). It is, as you may know, called the problem of evil.
The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.
- I will simply quote Plato Stanford for its syllogistic format, and we can get into the deliberation upon it in the next round.
- p1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- p2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- p3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- p4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- p5. Evil exists.
- p6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
- c. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
- I believe this to be the most compelling argument for atheism because it appears to people's sense of reality as well as their personal moral convictions rather than making any broad ontological or metaphysical critique. It is a logical structure that only seeks to present it as unreasonable to believe in the existence of God. It is a reduction argument that many of the most prominent theists continue to struggle with to this day, thus, I label it accordingly.
Round 3
Con
#5
"I will simply quote Plato Stanford for its syllogistic format, and we can get into the deliberation upon it in the next round.
p1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
p2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
p3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
p4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
p5. Evil exists.
p6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
c. Therefore, God doesn’t exist."
So your best argument, best....is not evidence but based on some form of reasoning.
Based on what someone else thinks at that.
You do realize what was said is based on what man thinks about God or a deity.
I could question, rebut each line of a statement made but it wouldn't make sense to argue about a person's opinion.
A person comes up with their view about a deity and will say if that deity fails to meet their or that criteria, then that deity must not exist.
But I guess that's why it's not evidence, just perhaps an elaborate thought process .
Who's to say the deity has to or will conform to logic?
This is why atheism is held just as another religion. There's no evidence but just a belief that a deity doesn't exist based on personal thoughts.
At the end of this debate, I'll tell you what is actually the best and only argument you can make on being an atheist and or would influence anybody to become one.
Pro
#6
Overview
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework. I encourage voters to observe this and vote accordingly.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Extend.
- Fairly establishing continuity with my overview. First, we can note that pro is yet to provide a better argument as consistent with my unchallenged framework.
- Pro's burden is to simply provide his best argument, and if every round of the debate is waived subsequently, pro currently has won the debate. Con needs to somehow falsify my argument presented as my best one. Granted, I have provided an avenue for this: the presentation of a better one, which will de-facto become my new best argument if decided so by the voters to fulfill the most rudimentary interpretation of the resolution.
I. Argument
- Pro has dropped every premise of my "best argument," even admitting he would not respond to it. Thus, he has dropped the argument. Extend.
II. Other
So your best argument, best....is not evidence but based on some form of reasoning.
- Logic and deductive reasoning are both evidence
Based on what someone else thinks at that.
- All of science is based on the work of others, I don't see a problem here. Not what someone else thinks, but what someone else has evidenced, better said. This is no different than citing the works of Isaac Newton or Stephen Hawking.
You do realize what was said is based on what man thinks about God or a deity.
- It is based on logical findings.
I could question, rebut each line of a statement made but it wouldn't make sense to argue about a person's opinion.
- Logic isn't an opinion.
Who's to say the deity has to or will conform to logic?
- Because definitionally God is God? I will just quote Bill Pratt here:
It is extremely important to note that humans could never know anything about God without the laws of logic. Without the laws of logic, God could exist and not exist, God could not be God, God could be good and non-good (evil), and so forth on and on. Logic is essential to our knowing God.
- Otherwise would be an admission that you can not even logically prove that God exists on the theistic side which essentially contradicts every theist. The point of the argument is to engage with theistic deductions and showcase them to be logically untenable.
Round 4
Con
#7
"All of science is based on the work of others, I don't see a problem here. Not what someone else thinks, but what someone else has evidenced, better said. This is no different than citing the works of Isaac Newton or Stephen Hawking."
Ok so apparently we have evidence that proves something. Something like what? Well the non-existence of God.
Are you saying the this has been proven?
"It is based on logical findings."
Until you present evidence, it's what someone thinks. This kind of rhetoric is feeding into the delusion of atheists. All your selling is the same delusion to believe something because someone, namely a scientist said it.
"Logic isn't an opinion. "
Until you present evidence, it's opinion.
"Who's to say the deity has to or will conform to logic?"
"Because definitionally God is God? I will just quote Bill Pratt here:"
Who's to say, Mr. Pratt? Is that who's to say?
Why is this based on what this person thinks?
You're quoting what somebody thinks.
If an almighty superior being is subject to conform to a somewhat mighty inferior person's thinking or logic as you continue to call it and push, where's your evidence that a deity has to do that, will do that, would do that?
If you don't know the answer to that, just say so. A lot people get stumped off that question.
"Otherwise would be an admission that you can not even logically prove that God exists on the theistic side which essentially contradicts every theist. The point of the argument is to engage with theistic deductions and showcase them to be logically untenable. "
There is no evidence for the existence of God. There is no evidence for the existence of No God.
If you have evidence, that's the best argument you can make. Opinions, theories and dogmas aren't evidence.
Pro
#8
Overview
- Pro does not challenge my framework, meaning he accepts it.
- Extend all arguments.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Extend.
I. Argument
- Dropped. Extend.
II. Other
All of science is based on the work of others, I don't see a problem here. Not what someone else thinks, but what someone else has evidenced, better said. This is no different than citing the works of Isaac Newton or Stephen Hawking.Ok so apparently we have evidence that proves something. Something like what? Well the non-existence of God.
- How does this even connect to what was previously informed, I am sure we shall never know. The evidence has been presented in the problem of evil syllogism (see from previous round: logical evidence)
Until you present evidence, it's what someone thinks. This kind of rhetoric is feeding into the delusion of atheists. All your selling is the same delusion to believe something because someone, namely a scientist said it.
- The evidence has been presented, however, I don't mind if you fail to read it. In addition, scientists inform us of all of their findings. The same goes for philosophers, they inform us of their logical findings.
Logic isn't an opinion.Until you present evidence, it's opinion.
- Logic still...isn't an opinion. Also, you can go back and read round two for the evidence, as well as the subsequent round.
Who's to say, Mr. Pratt? Is that who's to say?Why is this based on what this person thinks?
- It is explained simply by the theologian mentioned. If God is God, he must conform to logic otherwise he could be both God and not God, and he could be himself and not himself, etc.
There is no evidence for the existence of God. There is no evidence for the existence of No God.
- Unsubstantiated claim
Round 5
Con
#9
"How does this even connect to what was previously informed, I am sure we shall never know. The evidence has been presented in the problem of evil syllogism (see from previous round: logical evidence)"
This is the bottomline you should be tackling or driving home. At the end of the day, you agree there is no evidence for the absence of any existing deity.
So if there is no evidence, key terms "no evidence", what are we left with?
Not evidence, but what?
Ideas, possibilities, suggestions which are not the same as proof. It doesn't matter if we're 99 percent sure with a likelihood that something is the case.
That one percent chance to counter everything we thought can rip it all to shreds.
All thought experiments, thought processes are torn down.
"The evidence has been presented, however, I don't mind if you fail to read it. In addition, scientists inform us of all of their findings. The same goes for philosophers, they inform us of their logical findings."
Evidence of what?
You just said something you're sure of that we won't ever know like an agnostic by the way.
"Logic still...isn't an opinion. "
That is correct.
"It is explained simply by the theologian mentioned. "
Ok some explanation but if it's not actually evidence, no sense in introducing it .
"Unsubstantiated claim"
What is not sufficiently clear about "no evidence for the existence and non-existence of God "?
It seems like we are going back and forth on something that is futile to do.
There is no evidence. Are you saying there is or isn't? If you know of any, please share it with the rest of the world to end these debates about religion, creationism and so forth.
Put an end to religions altogether because faiths are no longer necessary when I just have the empirical knowledge.
When we don't know of any evidence, it's not evidence, no proof exists.
So to get back to the epicenter of this, the best argument for anybody to be an atheist.
So what is the universal argument to be made and really an explanation for any person, keyword any person is or would be an atheist/theist?
Why is it either or , an atheist/theist?
That is because the reason is universal for this.
The question is about any person. How do we have a one size fits all in one answer when every individual is different with a different thought process?
My reason for being what I am or what can convince can or will vary from the next.
So each person will have something enough for them. It's subjective, there is no objective pitch you can throw. Otherwise we'd just be talking about evidence, sharing proof with folks. But there is none for either side.
Each person will have their unique reasons most likely relating to life experiences that have made them decide on their beliefs.
Pro
#10
Overview
- As a brief note, I mistakenly used pro instead of con to reference my opponent and I apologize for any confusion that may have arisen from it previously. I typically am used to the instigator holding the pro position in an obvious light. As such:
- Con does not challenge my framework, meaning he accepts it.
- Extend all arguments.
- As this is the concluding round, we need to evaluate the parameters of this debate. First, con at this point has not contested the framing of our debate, meaning that as he has not presented a better argument for atheism, he has already failed to meet the baseline for our debate. Con even fails to respond to my argument, even openly refusing to do so. As he drops it, he has created a simple decision for the voters. Mall goes as far as to argue that logic is someone's opinion and that all the evidence I provided actually doesn't exist. Peculiar...but not the compelling case for people capable of reading our debate.
x. Interpretation of the resolution
- Extend.
I. Argument
- Dropped. Extend.
II. Other
At the end of the day, you agree there is no evidence for the absence of any existing deity.
- Pro has shown evidence from as early as round two and has agreed to no such thing. Perhaps this agreement took place in con's head.
- Note that logical evidence as cited, includes deductive reasoning that pertains an falls within he laws of logic. Con as typical, makes his arguments by repeating what he has said and covering his hears (in this case, his eyes).
Ok some explanation but if it's not actually evidence, no sense in introducing it .
- (See logical evidence)
- In conclusion, pro drops my argument, has not provided a better one (which is the object of our debate), drops my rebuttals (we have consistently shown that logical evidence is a relevant classification and Mall continues to say there is no evidence).
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Novice gave a best argument to be an atheist... I don't know how Mall could even win this debate... -.-
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Out of all Pro's arguments, there are at least 1 argument for justifying that a person could be theist. Pro did not prove that it wasn't an argument about theism. Out of all these arguments, there must be a best one. The existence of such hands Pro the win because the topic is proven true the instant 1 argument satisfying the criteria is presented.
Who has become an atheist from this debate?
Those are the accurate votes .
See if you can do me a favor, I have two other debates like this (your best argument for...) that are running out of time. What is your prerogative on voting on them as well? I remembered you voted on a few of them already.
When it comes to winning a debate here, I put forth the following.
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.
That's all. It's the popular versus the unpopular echo chamber. But this is a school. One day somebody somewhere, with something will click.
You are making debates harder to win as yourself, mall. You are arguing that Pro's proof is unsound when in fact as long as one is brought up, Pro wins.
Organized religion is nothing more than a cult. Regardless of the denomination. It directs, implores, demands, and conveys a measure of "obedience" to the respective religion.
Throughout human history, every religion has been used as an excuse (reason) to justify killing in the name of their deity.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=religion+violence+book&iar=shopping&iax=shopping&ia=shopping
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more-focus-areas/resources/killing-in-the-name-of-god/
Mormon males and their violence towards women, subjugating them to their personal sexual desires via polygamy is abhorrent.
https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/tv/2441841/netflix-murder-among-mormons-true-story-salt-lake-city/
Understanding that organized religion is a creation of man, the very first version of mass hysteria and propaganda through threats of violence and fear of said violence, was monotheism.
Take religion out of your life and just be a good, law-abiding human being and life is great.