Instigator / Pro
2
1382
rating
467
debates
46.68%
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
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
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
0
1561
rating
116
debates
57.76%
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.
Forfeited
Round 3
Na na na na na.....Na na na na na....hey hey hey hey goodbye.
Forfeited
Round 4
Case closo amigo.
Forfeited
there is much evidence and its common sense. atheism is easily disproved. can anything create itself? NO. Can anything be created out of nothing? NO. Have we ever seen it happen ever???? ....No. when you see a book or some man made object in the desert or anywhere would you assume it's been created? Yes, and in fact every single time without even thinking about it. when we see a book we see work put into it and beauty and we know it was created. same with the earth. we see it and know it has a creator. Especially since its so much more amazing then a book or a car. and its complex and beautiful beyond what we could ever make. The bible says in psalm 19:1: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." And is it not true? It is. romans 1: 18-20 says: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." here we see what humans do, they suppress the truth because they hate god and rebel in their natural sinful human nature that we see everywhere in the world today including in children, atrocities, and our very selfish attitudes.