Instigator / Pro
1389
rating
433
debates
45.38%
won
Topic
#6155
The lack of evidence for the existence of God is one of if not the weakest reasons or reason to be an atheist.
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1539
rating
104
debates
59.13%
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.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
The lack of evidence for the existence of God is one of if not the weakest reasons or reason to be an atheist.
This topic is partially discussed in a video on J. Talk to the People YouTube channel. A video titled "a must see, is slavery neutral?"
Agnosticism is the most logical based view on the existence of God(s).
Agnosticism is the position of not knowing whether the existence of any god is fact.
Speaking of fact, that brings us to logic. See, logic deals with the principles of validity.
One's thinking on what is valid and according to it is what is logical in accordance to logical rules;rules of logic.
What is valid is factual. For instance, an invalid passcode is an incorrect passcode, a fictitious passcode.
An agnostic for example says it is unknown of any god existing because it is not fact. That's logical.
This agnostic is concerned with facts only.
Therefore any position going by something aside from that is not based on only logic but is rationed or has a ratio of other elements besides facts.
Compared to this agnostic, this agnostic has a ratio basis of 100% facts.
Which would be more than a ration let's say of a 80% basis on facts mixed with a percentage that is based on beliefs/disbeliefs(atheism).
So because this agnostic is operating solely from facts, what one does know and can know , it leaves the agnostic in a neutral position or the "I don't know" position. Not swayed to believe there is no existence of any god. Not swayed to believe there is an existence of any god.
The agnostic is not swayed either way. When asking the agnostics, do they believe in any god? They say they don't know.
Ask them do they lack a belief in any god?
They say, "I don't know" because they're in a neutral position.
There are no facts to sway them in the positive nor negative.
Now I've heard it argued that the "I don't know" position is irrational.
Perhaps the opposing side will elaborate on this portion being in the negative. The way facts work and evidence, when there is no evidence for some thing, you know not of that something being true.
In this case, to opt not to believe is influenced by something other than facts presented. It is not the default position.
Atheism, atheists decide that God is not real. Any God they say there is no evidence for . Speaking absolutely is already erroneous in and of itself.
There is no evidence for the non existence of such spirit or spirits.
So saying one is an atheist because of this is not strong enough to decide to be an atheist.
There are other things that contribute such as upbringing, perhaps culture, social circles, personal discord, emotion, negative experiences, etc.
Even education, where the bias is towards how persuasive secular scholars, scientists, biologists are.
Now we can explore every one of this latter points. If the opposing side wishes to question or explain further on a particular point, follow up in the subsequent round.
An atheist I was in discussion with touted over over, there is no evidence, there is no evidence. I proved and made clear, there is no evidence to that atheist.
There could be evidence unbeknownst so logically this would steer one from a disbelief being honest with the possibilities.
I also had the atheist concede that he had faith in the non existence of God.
You have to really trust that there's no God or accept there is none without nothing assuring you that there absolutely no creator of all the universe.
If there is no conclusive evidence for God but there are reasons to think there might be a God, agnosticism or agnostic-atheism is more reasonable than full atheism.
However if there is no evidence (i.e basis) to even claim that God MIGHT exist then full blown extreme atheism is the logical response.
However if there is no evidence (i.e basis) to even claim that God MIGHT exist then full blown extreme atheism is the logical response.
Round 2
"If there is no conclusive evidence for God but there are reasons to think there might be a God, agnosticism or agnostic-atheism is more reasonable than full atheism."
Right, atheism is the least reasonable to use your word, least rational position to take .
"However if there is no evidence (i.e basis) to even claim that God MIGHT exist then full blown extreme atheism is the logical response."
If there is no evidence for the existence of God, it means there is evidence for no existence of God.
Saying there is no evidence is an absolute statement so it would have to be backed with......right.... evidence.
So based on that point, atheism would not only be more rational, but there be no need for believing no spirit of God exists. The person just knows, not believes, but knows at that point. That is if the non existence has been proven.
So we're in agreement.
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet