Instigator / Pro
1382
rating
444
debates
45.61%
won
Topic
#6327
Atheism is not the most rational position to take on the existence of God.
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
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Please quote exactly. Do not rephrase or reinterpret.
Answer all questions directly.
Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit.
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.
***Lucy star fire cannot accept, nor any affiliates associated with this individual that has created multiple profiles, otherwise it will be an automatic forfeit on the topic from this individual, serious debates only*****
Round 1
Greetings and thank you.
Well I take this position and I've discussed this topic live with an atheist.
Please go to address
youtube.com/@j.talkstothepeopleradio6008 and the video titled "a must see - Is slavery good?", about 40 or so minutes in, I speak with an atheist.
Throughout that duration of it, I argue that atheism is not the most rational position to take on the existence of God.
It's not the most rational, not the most logical because atheism is its own religion. This means it does allow some room for a belief system.
The atheist tried so hard to fight against it but ended up admitting that atheism is a religion and saying he believes God does not exist.
Now after the conceding, he tried to recant what he already affirmed.
You can try to push so hard that atheism is a lack of a belief. But here's what, theism is also a lack of a belief.
Neither one of these positions have 100 percent based rationale. Meaning operating on total evidence to sway , influence, decide a position.
Atheism also is not ultimately the default position on the existence of God. It is not a neutral position. It takes one side while theism takes another. Agnosticism takes the neutral ground as it takes neither side .
When you hear that discussion on YouTube, I asked a number of questions to evaluate the stance of atheism. The person stated that because there is no evidence for the existence of God, the person believes there is no God.
Utterly irrational. I won't say atheism is a totally irrational stance as a whole. It has logical qualifiers. It just not the most rational position to take on the position of God .
Nine times out of ten, it's more emotionally driven from personal experience and circumstance that deterred or swayed the atheist .
So that takes more of the rationale out , puts more of the emotion in .
Then that introduces or exposes the misotheism aspect. The questions come up of why would a God do this and that? That's wrong, I disagree, that's bad, that's evil. It turns into a vehement vitriolic opposition.
I'll conclude with this. Each atheist has his or her own story and experience. I welcome the opposing side's version. But it's more of an exclusive subjective basis than an objective one across the board.
Let me begin by addressing the heart of the debate: Is atheism the most rational stance on the existence of God?
My position is that yes, it is- and I will defend that claim both philosophically and logically.
Quoting my opponent:“Atheism is its own religion. This means it does allow some room for a belief system.”
This is a categorical misunderstanding. Atheism, in its most rational and widely accepted form, is simply a lack of belief in god/gods. It is not a belief, it is not a religion, and it has no doctrines or rituals. To label it as a religion is to mischaracterize it fundamentally- just as saying that not collecting stamps a hobby is a religion would be incorrect.
The idea that “atheism is a belief that God does not exist” is deriving a definition from the term just for the sake of the counter-argument.
-Let's call it 'Strong atheism': the claim that “God does not exist.” An intellectually arrogant claim disguised with the mantel of atheism.
-The actual term: atheism (default atheism): the absence of belief due to lack of evidence.
I am defending atheism as a single, well-defined term, which is rational. It doesn’t claim to know there is no God; it simply says: “I do not believe in a God because there is no sufficient evidence to justify belief.” This is not a belief system- this is a rational response to the current state of evidence.
My opponent argues:“Atheism also is not ultimately the default position on the existence of God… Agnosticism takes the neutral ground as it takes neither side.”
This is another misrepresentation. The default position toward any unproven claim is non-belief, not suspended judgment. When someone claims that unicorns exist, the rational default is not agnosticism, it’s disbelief until evidence is presented. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, not belief. An agnostic can be an atheist (doesn't believe) or a theist (believes), while still saying they don't know for sure. So, when my opponent says agnosticism is"neutral," that's only partially correct- it’s neutral in terms of knowledge,not belief.
To illustrate: I am agnostic in the sense that I don’t claim to know with certainty whether a god exists. But I am atheist because I see no evidence to justify belief, and therefore I don’t believe. That is a rational epistemic stance- one based on the evidentiary burden, not emotional inclination.
Again, my opponent says:“Because there is no evidence for the existence of God, the person believes there is no God. Utterly irrational.”
On the contrary- this is exactly how reason works. When a claim is made without evidence, the rational position is to 'withhold belief' (and not-" believing there is no god"). This is not irrational- it is foundational to all scientific and logical reasoning. Would my opponent say it’s irrational to disbelieve in fairies, Bigfoot,or Zeus because there is no evidence? Surely not. The same applies to the God claim. Unless and until convincing evidence is provided, non-belief is the only intellectually honest response.
My opponent adds:“Nine times out of ten, it’s more emotionally driven… Then that introduces or exposes the misotheism aspect…”
Even if this were true- which it is not for all atheists- it is irrelevant. The motivation behind a stance does not determine whether it is rational or irrational. Even if some atheists are emotionally driven, that doesn't affect the logical structure of the atheist position. We are debating the rationality of the position- not the psychology of the people who hold it.
Also, misotheism is a hatred of God- not disbelief in one. If someone hates a god, they already presume it exists. That’s incompatible with atheism. Out of our topic
In sum: The most rational position is the one most aligned with reason,logic, and the current state of evidence.
-Theism: Believes God exists without sufficient evidence.
-Agnosticism: Claims knowledge is uncertain or unavailable.
-Atheism: Lacks belief because evidence is lacking.
Of these, atheism is the most rational stance, because it demands proof before belief.
As I stated:“Logically, since there is no proof for the existence of God, the most rational position is to not believe in one… Agnosticism in my opinion is not more rational because it is more of an uncertainty about the factual state of a thesis… whereas atheism disregards any thesis which does not present proof. Logically, this is the best stance, and rationally.”
To be clear: atheism is not a dogma, religion, or belief system. It is a rational response to an unproven proposition. When we apply consistent standards of reason and evidence across all domains- whether it's gods,monsters, or any extraordinary claim- we must conclude that withholding belief in the absence of evidence is the only rational approach.
And that, by definition, is atheism.
Thank you!
Round 2
"Atheism, in its most rational and widely accepted form, is simply a lack of belief in god/gods. It is not a belief, it is not a religion, and it has no doctrines or rituals."
Ok I can just flip it with theism. Theism is simply a lack of belief in no existence of the gods of theism. It is not a belief or religious system in that and holds no doctrines or rituals in that.
See, either way you slice it, theism and atheism ultimately are not neutral positions.
They both believe in a subject. They both reject a subject purely off no evidence. Agnosticism takes neither side because it is provided no evidence to sway to either side.
"To label it as a religion is to mischaracterize it fundamentally- just as saying that not collecting stamps a hobby is a religion would be incorrect."
This is why you explain things breaking down characterization. Collecting stamps is a religion. Just depends on what is meant by the word religion. Religion is just a belief system at its core.
"The idea that “atheism is a belief that God does not exist” is deriving a definition from the term just for the sake of the counter-argument."
It's either true or false. That should be the main concern.
Atheists believe in no gods of theism.
Now that last statement there is either true or false.
"The actual term: atheism (default atheism): the absence of belief due to lack of evidence."
Let's look at this. It says "due to lack of evidence".
So in order to come to the conclusion of "due to lack of evidence", a conscious judgment has to be made in turn denying or not accepting there is whatever the subject is. Therefore eliminating a neutral stance .
The person has to have had to learn what evidence is, what evidence looks like, sensible and relevant necessary appropriate proof in order to determine validity and admissible evidence. This is the conscious effort to decide a stance making it non default non neutral.
"it simply says: “I do not believe in a God because there is no sufficient evidence to justify belief.” This is not a belief system- this is a rational response to the current state of evidence."
Atheists believe in no gods of theism.
Is that a belief system? Yes or no.
"This is another misrepresentation. The default position toward any unproven claim is non-belief, not suspended judgment. "
This is not true unless the non belief is also non disbelief as well. Meaning you don't believe or disbelieve, you are neutral. This is the separation between atheists and agnostics. Agnostics don't disbelieve while atheists do.
"When someone claims that unicorns exist, the rational default is not agnosticism, it’s disbelief until evidence is presented."
Disbelief is not neutral. Disbelief means the belief in the negative.
No disbelief and no belief simultaneously is neutral.
"Set yourself in a trap here mall. An atheist is by definition a non believer/non-theist."
Let's see how you wiggle and squirm out of this trap.
Atheists believe in no gods of theism. Is this true or false?
"Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, not belief."
There you go. Agnostic has no disbelief nor belief. Atheists have beliefs and disbeliefs.
Knowledge is completely derived from rationality. Beliefs are derived from other facets aside from rationality which is what agnosticism holds more than the other.. rationality.
"An agnostic can be an atheist (doesn't believe) or a theist (believes), while still saying they don't know for sure. So, when my opponent says agnosticism is"neutral," that's only partially correct- it’s neutral in terms of knowledge,not belief."
You said "can be". So not necessarily. I said agnostic. Period. I didn't say agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. I can respect your counter efforts but they fall short.
An agnostic purely period is neutral ground. An agnostic doesn't hold the "doesn't believe" stance like an atheist. So the atheist sways to the one side of the "doesn't believe" stance .
The agnostic strictly is in the middle of "doesn't believe" and "does believe".
We're not going to blend atheism and agnosticism together.
Agnosticism holds more rationale minus the disbelief of an atheist.
"I am agnostic in the sense that I don’t claim to know with certainty whether a god exists. But I am atheist because I see no evidence to justify belief, and therefore I don’t believe. That is a rational epistemic stance- one based on the evidentiary burden, not emotional inclination."
Yes agnostic atheism which is not up for contention. The opposing side is attempting to blend this together instead of counter arguing my actual position most likely due to it's irrefutable properties.
"On the contrary- this is exactly how reason works. When a claim is made without evidence, the rational position is to 'withhold belief' (and not-" believing there is no god"). "
Then you contradict that reason by not withholding the belief in the non existence in which that is being claimed.
I will agree that it is rational. Just not the most rational. Why???
When a claim is made of the non existence of a subject or believing in the non existence without absolute evidence, the reason to withhold belief is there in which the agnostic takes route.
Whereas the atheist takes route to disbelieve the existence of said subject without proof/takes route to believe in the non existence of said subject without proof.
"This is not irrational- it is foundational to all scientific and logical reasoning. Would my opponent say it’s irrational to disbelieve in fairies, Bigfoot,or Zeus because there is no evidence? Surely not. The same applies to the God claim. Unless and until convincing evidence is provided, non-belief is the only intellectually honest response."
You're not the first one that confuses "irrationality" with "less" or " more" or " not as".
I never said one time the words " completely irrational". This is why I encourage the opposing side to quote exactly what I say so we don't confuse the language. Don't rephrase or remix. Be exact .
"Even if this were true- which it is not for all atheists- it is irrelevant. The motivation behind a stance does not determine whether it is rational or irrational.
Even if some atheists are emotionally driven, that doesn't affect the logical structure of the atheist position. We are debating the rationality of the position- not the psychology of the people who hold it."
It is one hundred percent relevant. My position is not as or more rational. The opposing side continues to push rational versus irrational.
If the opposite side wishes to argue my stance, it is that an atheist position based on emotion or partial emotion is not equating to an agnostic scope that leaves emotion and feelings out. Why?
An agnostic for instance will not be swayed by the emotion of anger or joy which is the cause of many that are atheists.
The anger with the facets of the gods of theism help sway atheism is less rational as it has nothing to do with disproving the gods of theism. So emotions are totally relevant to this subject.
If you say it is irrelevant once more or any non engagement of the sort, this will be considered a forfeiture of the point, a dropped point and the opposing side concedes to it.
"...Also, misotheism is a hatred of God- not disbelief in one. If someone hates a god, they already presume it exists. That’s incompatible with atheism. Out of our topic"
Ok. So be it that miso theism can give rise to the basis of atheism, makes it less rational compare to the highly rational agnostics. So we can sho-nough and will tie it to this topic.
"The most rational position is the one most aligned with reason,logic, and the current state of evidence."
That's agnosticism alright. The current state of evidence is none for either side relatively ,so it's the most rational to stay in the middle ground of agnosticism.
"-Theism: Believes God exists without sufficient evidence.
-Agnosticism: Claims knowledge is uncertain or unavailable.
-Atheism: Lacks belief because evidence is lacking."
Theists believe in the gods of theism.
Atheists believe in no gods of theism .
Agnostics don't know. They don't even know to take the position to lack beliefs or gain disbeliefs due to the focus on knowledge only. They just don't know period.
This is crucial to get. While the atheist claims there is no evidence, the agnostic says the evidence could be there but it just can't be seen so where does that leave the most rational standpoint?
Inconclusive. Just don't know. Can't see, can't observe, can't know.
Atheists conclude, that the gods of theism don't exist. So they either believe that or ignorantly claim gods of theism are absolute fiction or fairy tales.
Notice the opposing side has made examples of fairy tale like examples, right.
The opposing side mentioned "fairies" which are actually fairy tale fabrications, right. Fairies and unicorns. This is the same perception of theism without proof.
"Of these, atheism is the most rational stance, because it demands proof before belief."
The reason why it's not the most rational and you're missing this like others, atheism doesn't demand proof to believe in the non existence of the gods of theism.
Due to agnostics recognizing this, they don't hold the disbelief either which makes them more rational as this is the rationale they use to evaluate both sides while atheists only hold it to one side.
Two sides are more than one side.
"Logically, since there is no proof for the existence of God, the most rational position is to not believe in one… Agnosticism in my opinion is not more rational because it is more of an uncertainty about the factual state of a thesis"
This is exactly why agnosticism is the most rational because uncertainty is the factual case. There is perhaps no known evidence but the atheists make grave error claiming there's no evidence period.
How do they know? They don't know but are not rational enough to acknowledge it unlike agnostics.
Atheists claim certainty of no evidence at all going in error calling that factual. The truth is, you don't know.
The truth is it is unknown if there is absolutely evidence or not. Just because an individual hasn't relatively experienced or observed it doesn't prove it absolutely doesn't exist. Saying there is "no evidence " period is conveying an exact absolute.
Furthermore, requiring evidence for existence of the gods of theism but not for non existence of the same lacks in rationale which does pivot into an inconsistency.
"whereas atheism disregards any thesis which does not present proof. Logically, this is the best stance, and rationally.” "
Then why not disregard the thesis and arguments to support the non existence of said subjects due to no known evidence?
The answer is in that which separates the atheist from the agnostic.
The atheist will accept one side without evidence but deny the other based on the same reasoning.
"atheism is not a dogma, religion, or belief system. It is a rational response to an unproven proposition."
Just not the most rational response due to the non existence of said subject goes unproven.
"When we apply consistent standards of reason and evidence across all domains- whether it's gods,monsters, or any extraordinary claim- we must conclude that withholding belief in the absence of evidence is the only rational approach.
And that, by definition, is atheism."
However it is not across all domains because it is not applied to the non existence of said subject.
Which I don't believe the opposing side will disagree with.
So that is atheism for sure.
Agnostics do apply across all sectors including even the premise of the non existence of said subject. Which pushes agnosticism a little further up the ladder, a few extra points on the board of rationality.
Quoting my oponent: "Ok I can just flip it with theism.Theism is simply a lack of belief in no existence of the gods of theism. It isnot a belief or religious system in that and holds no doctrines or rituals inthat."
You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of definitions. Theism is the opposite of this. Theism is the belief in a god/gods as the creator. It doesn't matter wether it is a religion or not. You brought that term up, and i countered it.
I agree that theism is not necessarily a religion but i did not imply anything like this in the first place.
Quoting again: "See, either way you slice it, theismand atheism ultimately are not neutral positions."
First, It is not about being neutral, it is about being rational.
Atheism is not neutral in terms of belief, because its stance is 'lack of belief'.
Theism is belief, it is not rational according to our debate.
When presented no evidence, the most rational position is not to believe (atheism). I make this point in my first argument.
It is not the most neutral, but it is the most rational.
Quoting: "They both believe in a subject. They both reject a subject purely off no evidence. Agnosticism takes neither sidebecause it is provided no evidence to sway to either side."
You are playing with language in a dishonest mannor.
Atheism doesn't believe in no subject. Nor does it reject one. It simply means not believing any thesis on the existence of god, on grounds of 'lack of evidence'.
Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. That is why it is not the most rational. It says we cannot know for sure but it does not tell wether one believes or not.
Quoting: "It's either true or false. That should be the main concern. Atheists believe in no gods of theism. Now that last statement there is either true or false."
One can never say wether it is true or false. Logically you cannot disprove the existence of god.
But in the mannor of a position, one can take the position of believing or not believing the thesis.
Atheism takes the rational position of not believing since there is no evidence presented.
Agnosticism (which you love) takes no position at all. It only says we cannot know for sure.
WE KNOW, WE CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE. WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT WHICH IS THE MOST RATIONAL POSITION TO TAKE.
And there are 2 positions:
Atheism: I do not believe because there is no proof
Theism: i believe even without proof
The most rational is atheism. Not believing something without evidence.
Quoting: "So in order to come to the conclusionof "due to lack ofevidence", a conscious judgmenthas to be made in turn denying or not accepting there is whatever the subjectis. Therefore eliminating a neutral stance . The person has to have had to learnwhat evidence is, what evidence looks like, sensible and relevant necessary appropriate proof in order to determine validity and admissible evidence. Thisis the conscious effort to decide a stance making it non default non neutral."
It is not a neutral stance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is the most rational one. Read the topic again!!!
The most rational stance is not neutrality. Because neutrality does not exist here. You either believe there is a god or you don't believe there is one. Not believing does not mean saying for sure that there isn't a god.
The most rational stance on the existence of god is not believing because there is no evidence.
Quoting a painful question: "Atheists believe in no gods of theism. Is that a belief system? Yes or no."
Atheists do not believe in any god due to lack of evidence.
That is not a belief system because there is no belief present there.
So, NO.
It is not a belief system because there is no belief.
Quoting another painful statement: "Meaning you don't believe or disbelieve, you are neutral. This is the separation between atheists and agnostics. Agnostics don't disbelieve while atheists do."
So by your logic: if you neither understand nor misunderstand then you are neutral.
OF COURSE NOT. YOU EITHER UNDERSTAND OR NOT. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN.
So, you either believe or not. Atheists do not. Whereas agnosticts do not tell us anything about their belief. They only tell us that they do not know the factual value.
So, agnostics might believe there is a god but do not know for sure.
Quoting: "Disbelief is not neutral. Disbelief means the belief in the negative."
This is another dishonest statement. Distorting of the english language. literally.
Disbelief means that you lack belief not that you believe the negative.
You should have looked up definitions before starting this debate.
Quoting: "Atheists believe in no gods of theism.Is this true or false?"
You repeat this question again.
That is true, atheists do not believe in gods.
You present this question in a way that implies that atheists believe there is no god. Atheists just do not believe that there is one. They do not say "there is no god". They say "I don't believe there is a god".
Quoting: "There you go. Agnostic has no disbelief nor belief. Atheists have beliefs and disbeliefs. Knowledge is completely derived fromrationality. Beliefs are derived from other facets aside from rationality whichis what agnosticism holds more than the other.. rationality."
Agnostics might have belief or disbelief. They just do not present it. The only thing they say is that they do not know if there is really a god.
Atheists say that they do not believe. This is a position.
Saying"i don't know if there really is a god" is not a position.
Rationality brings atheists to "not believe".
We don't know if agnostics believe or not. All we know is that they do not know for sure if there is a god. BUT NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE.
Quoting a weak statement: "The agnostic strictly is in the middleof "doesn't believe" and "does believe". "
How, on a real, natural, setting, can you be in the middle of that (read my previous analogy). You either believe or not.
Quoting: "Agnosticism holds more rationale minusthe disbelief of an atheist."
You do not know what atheism hold because it doesn't tell. It only says that we cannot say for sure. Everyone knows that, that's why we call it belief and not fact.
Atheism takes a real position: I DO NOT BELIEVE DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE.
Quoting: "Yes agnostic atheism which is not upfor contention. The opposing side is attempting to blend this together insteadof counter arguing my actual position most likely due to it's irrefutableproperties."
I did not do that. An agnostic can be an atheist without me trying to blend them. Your are just an asincere or agnosticsincere debater.
Quoting another dishonest statement: "When a claim is made of the nonexistence of a subject or believing in the non existence without absoluteevidence, the reason to withhold belief is there in which the agnostic takesroute."
Atheism is not the belief that there is no god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Atheists are the one that take the route of withholding belief, not agnostics!
Agnostics do not tell us nothing about wether they believe or not.
(I don't think i can hold on to the code of conduct for much longer reading to my opponents arguments)
Quoting: "If you say it is irrelevant once more or any non engagement of the sort, this will be considered a forfeiture of thepoint, a dropped point and the opposing side concedes to it."
Sure Buddy!
Quoting: "Ok. So be it that miso theism can giverise to the basis of atheism, makes it less rational compare to the highlyrational agnostics. So we can sho-nough and will tie it to this topic."
Who said that misotheism gives rise to atheism???????????
I did not say that!
You are just a dishonest debater.
Again you make this misological or agnosticological point: "Atheists believe in no gods of theism."
That is-"Not believing"- when put in your trickster dishonest terms.
Quoting the point that closes this debate: "Agnostics don't know. They don't even know to take the position to lack beliefs or gain disbeliefs due to the focus on knowledge only. They just don't know period."
If they don't know how to take a position then how can they have the most rational position???????
Thanks for making my point!
Again repeats this: "The reason why it's not the mostrational and you're missing this like others, atheism doesn't demand proof tobelieve in the non existence of the gods of theism."
Atheism do not believe in the 'non-existence'!
They just do not believe that one exists!
They do not say "God does not exist".
They say: God may or may not exist (What agnostics say) but i just do not believe he does.
So they accept that they do not know while also taking a position on wether they believe or not (unlike agnostics).
Quoting: "The atheist will accept one sidewithout evidence but deny the other based on the same reasoning."
Atheists do not believe anything until they are shown evidence.
Then, here is the fallacy. After having implied throughout the whole argument that atheists believe the "non-existence" of god, he says this:
Quote: "However it is not across all domainsbecause it is not applied to the non existence of said subject."
What?????
And ends with the thing he has rifuted for the whole argument: "Agnostics do apply across all sectorsincluding even the premise of the non existence of said subject. Which pushesagnosticism a little further up the ladder, a few extra points on the board ofrationality."
Agnostics do not say anything about the non-existence, they just say they do not know. Neither do atheists, they say that they don't know and not believe until evidence is shown!
You stick with the arguments that -"atheists believe the non-existence and agnostics say nothing about it"- for the whole argument only to betray it in the end????
I don't even know what to say.
That was a de-facto concede from my opponent.
This was painful!
Round 3
"You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of definitions. Theism is the opposite of this. Theism is the belief in a god/gods as the creator. It doesn't matter wether it is a religion or not. You brought that term up, and i countered it.
I agree that theism is not necessarily a religion but i did not imply anything like this in the first place."
My point was again the following:
"They both believe in a subject. They both reject a subject purely off no evidence. Agnosticism takes neither side because it is provided no evidence to sway to either side."
Get the point, the bottomline. Then counter that if you actually can.
"First, It is not about being neutral, it is about being rational."
Oh it is positively absolutely about being neutral. Being neutral on this subject is the mosttttt rational spot. It's beautiful, it's absolutely lovely.
"Atheism is not neutral in terms of belief, because its stance is 'lack of belief'.
Theism is belief, it is not rational according to our debate.
When presented no evidence, the most rational position is not to believe (atheism). I make this point in my first argument.
It is not the most neutral, but it is the most rational."
Atheism is a belief system like theism so neither are neutral at all and not the most rational positions. Now I'm going to leave it there because the circles are beginning to start.
"You are playing with language in a dishonest mannor. "
Every instance you make a statement like this , it is not a rebuttal. You either refute the point or concede.
"Atheism doesn't believe in no subject. Nor does it reject one. It simply means not believing any thesis on the existence of god, on grounds of 'lack of evidence'."
Do atheists reject the gods of theism or accept them?
Please pick one or the other or forfeit.
"Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. That is why it is not the most rational. It says we cannot know for sure but it does not tell wether one believes or not."
This is a non sequitur. Knowledge stems from rationale. To say something is on knowledge but not the most rational when that something has knowledge while another doesn't but claimed to be more rational is fallacious.
Like saying the doctor has the knowledge on the cure, you don't see the evidence so you don't believe and you're more rational than the doctor.
Totally fallacious.
"One can never say wether it is true or false. Logically you cannot disprove the existence of god.
But in the mannor of a position, one can take the position of believing or not believing the thesis.
Atheism takes the rational position of not believing since there is no evidence presented.
Agnosticism (which you love) takes no position at all. It only says we cannot know for sure.
WE KNOW, WE CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE. WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT WHICH IS THE MOST RATIONAL POSITION TO TAKE.
And there are 2 positions:
Atheism: I do not believe because there is no proof
Theism: i believe even without proof
The most rational is atheism. Not believing something without evidence."
I already explained enough about agnosticism to be a broken record.
Just gonna put it like this or you either forfeit without selecting one of the required options.
Which one is a true statement that applies to atheists:
Atheists believe in the gods of theism.
Atheists believe in no gods of theism.
Remember the debate stipulation:
Answer all questions directly.
"It is not a neutral stance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is the most rational one. Read the topic again!!!
The most rational stance is not neutrality. Because neutrality does not exist here. You either believe there is a god or you don't believe there is one. Not believing does not mean saying for sure that there isn't a god.
The most rational stance on the existence of god is not believing because there is no evidence. "
You have not PROVEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. That is your claim and your decision you have made to negate it to being a neutral position. You HAVE DECIDED THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AND CHOOSSSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AND CHOOSSSE TO BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS OF THEISM.
Which is the opposite side NOT THE MIDDLE GROUND. CHOOSING THE SIDE THAT SAYS YOU DON'T BELIEVE IS THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THEISM, NOT THE MIDDLE GROUND.
THE MIDDLE GROUND IS NO BELIEF, NOT BELIEVING NOR NOR NOR NOR NOR BELIEVING IN THE NEGATIVE WHICH IS THE SAME AS DISBELIEF.
AGNOSTICISM HAS NO BELIEF NORRRR DISBELIEF. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS ATHEISM.
Atheists lack of belief is not the same as the agnostics. What atheists lacks equates to having the exact opposite. The exact opposite is the belief in the negative.
Theists lack of belief equates to having the exact opposite. The exact opposite is the belief in the positive.
The agnostics being unsure of where they lack is not the exact opposite of any of these. It's half full/half empty when it comes to theists and atheists. Same container or glass whether you wish to look at it half full or half empty. It's the same system of subject with opposite ends.
The agnostics unsurety doesn't equate to the disbelief because nothing has swayed them either way. THEY.....SWAY....TO.... NEITHER..... NEITHER....NEITHER.....SIDE .
Atheists apparently have been swayed into disbelief.
I had to break this down to you as many of you are not getting the distinctions here between atheism and everything else.
Saying neutrality doesn't exist is also fallacious. You've been preaching atheism is neutral by saying not the most neutral so now you're negating your own self. There isn't just you believe and don't believe. Otherwise, AGNOSTICISM wouldn't exist.
"Atheists do not believe in any god due to lack of evidence.
That is not a belief system because there is no belief present there.
So, NO.
It is not a belief system because there is no belief."
You see here folks. The opposite side has made shipwreck.
I asked is it a belief system of atheists to believe in no gods of theism.
The response was NO. Now folks, how does believing in something not constitute being a BELIEF system?
The keyword is "belief". You believe in a subject which consists of that manifesting systemic structure. The system is called a belief system because you indeed systemize with core belief. You are the core adding the belief.
Now the opposing side tries to dance around this moving the goalpost outside the question asked.
I'm willing to wager, if I was to ask about theists that do not believe in no existence of the gods of theism, is that a belief system, the opposite side would say yes making double shipwreck.
"So by your logic: if you neither understand nor misunderstand then you are neutral.
OF COURSE NOT. YOU EITHER UNDERSTAND OR NOT. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN."
Sure I can take the position of being unsure. People can't be unsure,is that right?
No . Again, this is why agnostics exist. They're the "unsure" folks. Atheists are sure in believing no gods of theism exists.
Agnostics .....just ..... don't......know.
So you ask somebody ,do you understand or don't you understand?
The person says " I just don't know"(middle ground).
Do you understand? Apparently not.
You're pushing so hard that it can't be a middle ground because that would be the most rational position because there's no evidence on either side. But in order to accomplish in a desperate attempt to be right, you push the delusion that agnosticism and being on the fence doesn't really exist. You eliminate that facet, so now we just have two facets of theism and atheism and you push your strongest points against theism which the topic is not even propping up theism at all .
"So, you either believe or not. Atheists do not. Whereas agnosticts do not tell us anything about their belief. They only tell us that they do not know the factual value.
So, agnostics might believe there is a god but do not know for sure. "
Case and point. The opposite side is pushing the delusion that there is no middle ground and "I don't know" response to the question on the gods of theism. Saying that agnostics might be theists talking some "agnostics might believe there is a god".
See you got to do this conflating, cloudy the positions in order to make your position appear accurate.
If the opposite side was honest or the most rational, the opposing side wouldn't be arguing atheism over agnosticism.
I'm going to say this again people. Atheism rejects the existence of the gods of theism due to no known evidence while accepting the non existence of the gods of theism due to no known evidence.
Not only is that conflicted but how is that more rational than saying there is no evidence known for either side, I'm not swaying to atheism or theism?
Once more . Very important to note here from me out of all that has been said if you take nothing else away from this topic. Register the following:
I'm going to say this again people. Atheism rejects the existence of the gods of theism due to no known evidence while accepting the non existence of the gods of theism due to no known evidence.
Not only is that conflicted but how is that more rational than saying there is no evidence known for either side, I'm not swaying to atheism or theism?
Rationale pertains to the facts, to validity and reasoning. Using reasoning for one side and rejecting that very same reasoning for the other side, you just negated your very reasoning. You just rejected your own rationality.
Agnostics don't reject the same reasoning, they hold it consistently. They keep it. If I keep something you also have and you lose what I kept, I have more of it than you do. Obviously so and especially so when you negate it and lose it .
"This is another dishonest statement. Distorting of the english language. literally.
Disbelief means that you lack belief not that you believe the negative.
You should have looked up definitions before starting this debate."
The issue is not on definitions. The issue is you don't understand or get or believe that people believe things don't exist.
Furthermore it is knowing what I mean by the terms I'm using. Not what anybody else says . You're debating me, not anybody other than.
So people believe in things that don't exist or believe things that will not occur.
Just like I can say I believe such and such team is going to lose the game tonight. Losing the game is the negative. It is the absence of winning. Get it .
I believe you are broke. You have no money. It is the absence of which. Get it . Get it .
You believe no gods of theism exists. That is the negative. An absence or non existence.
So believing in the negative is not contrary to disbelieving. They are two sides of the same coin .
Whether you want to say a half full or half empty container, whichever you think fits your narrative better, it doesn't make a difference. It's still the same container.
So an agnostic doesn't believe (in the positive) nor disbelieve (in the negative), nor presence or absence of the gods of theism.
The agnostic doesn't believe nor disbelieve so where does he or she land having no belief while saying not having no belief at the same time?
Neutral.
Not characterized in any of those labels but neutral.
You've been fighting this whole time that atheism is disbelieving in the positive. That is not contrary to believing in the negative. It's one in the same.
You continuing to say " lack of belief" , "lack of belief", "lack of belief".
I can say the lack of belief that theists have. It doesn't change that the line between the three categories is only the one that says it doesn't know including it doesn't know what to believe either.
You can't apply this to atheists because they claim there is no evidence period for the gods of theism. So they should have evidence for the non existence of them.
They don't have evidence so they can only believe there are no gods of theism. They have to believe this behind possibly being unaware of evidence that they may not be able to see for the positive.
"You repeat this question again.
That is true, atheists do not believe in gods.
You present this question in a way that implies that atheists believe there is no god. Atheists just do not believe that there is one. They do not say "there is no god". They say "I don't believe there is a god". "
You notice the opposing side will try to compromise with the debate stipulations of answering directly but will try to contextualize with adding things that will appear consistent with the opposing case.
However, once you give the direct answer, it doesn't help you.
You still respond " true " to the statement that atheists believe in no gods of theism.
Thus agreeing or conceding the belief aspect of atheism. No implications necessary .
Not only do atheists believe this without evidence but opt to allow belief in that reduces rationale in comparison to one that is just beholden to evidence alone.
"Agnostics might have belief or disbelief. They just do not present it. The only thing they say is that they do not know if there is really a god.
Atheists say that they do not believe. This is a position.
Saying"i don't know if there really is a god" is not a position.
Rationality brings atheists to "not believe".
We don't know if agnostics believe or not. All we know is that they do not know for sure if there is a god. BUT NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE."
The agnostics I'm talking about neither believe nor disbelieve, have no belief or not a "no belief " stance at the same time.
The ones that have a belief or may have it in the gods of theism, or whatever you're talking about, I'm not speaking of them. I made this clear in the introduction.
So you have to argue based on my position.
Now the atheists that say "I believe there are no gods of theism " due to no evidence that they have not seen, this does not include the evidence that they could just be unaware of. So it is a very weak basis.
As the expression goes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, what else is there in contribution that sways the atheist?
Something misunderstood, a disagreement with the nature of the gods of theism and perhaps emotionally and subjective experience driven and so forth.
"How, on a real, natural, setting, can you be in the middle of that (read my previous analogy). You either believe or not."
How you say?
It's called I don't know. Yes there are people that just don't know. I don't know whether it's going to rain. You don't believe it's going to rain. This other person believes it will. I don't know what to believe, what not and that is my current stance.
That is on a real, in which way to be inconclusive, indeterminate on rain, gods of theism and any purported evidence therein.
"You do not know what atheism hold because it doesn't tell. It only says that we cannot say for sure. Everyone knows that, that's why we call it belief and not fact.
Atheism takes a real position: I DO NOT BELIEVE DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE."
Why don't atheists ever harp on no evidence known to disprove the gods of theism?
Why do they and or/you accept and believe these gods don't exist without proof?
What makes you stop at atheism and not evolve up to agnosticism?
You don't reject the premise of these gods not existing, right. An atheist will not reject with evidence but with none. An atheist will not reject this in spite of no evidence to support the rejection, hence you don't choose to graduate to agnosticism.
"I did not do that. An agnostic can be an atheist without me trying to blend them. Your are just an asincere or agnosticsincere debater. "
My position is purely on agnostics for the record. It is my position to separate agnostics and atheists. Now if you don't wish to separate them and cannot argue points on agnostics, that is a forfeiture.
"Atheism is not the belief that there is no god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Instant replay from the opposing side :
"That is true"
I also want to remind us that this was the answer to the "true" or "false" question that ASKED FOR NOTHING ELSE BUT TRUE OR FALSE. So all that extra junk added " but this " and the "but that", nah save it for a monologue or something.
The opposite side simply directly said to the statement: atheists believe in no gods of theism
The opposite side states : "That is true"
Why is the opposite side fighting against this so hard?
The opposing side confirmed it's a true statement.
You're contradicting yourself making your own self look bad. You already agreed that it is true that atheists believe in no gods of theism.
We're not saying they believe in gods of theism. We're saying they believe in no gods of theism.
That second statement is not a false statement there. You agreed to it. You're fighting against the agreement with me. That's why you're going back and forth.
Atheism is a belief system just the same.
Here's your issue. Instead of focusing on "belief system", focus on CONTEXT. You're getting all tripped up over the word "belief". The keyword is not "belief", it is context.
Just like we can say theists lack the belief in the non existence of gods of theism.
Is that a true or false statement?
You'd miss the point not understanding what is being said and say "false, theists don't lack belief". Get your eyes off the word "belief" and draw them to context my friend.
"Atheists are the one that take the route of withholding belief, not agnostics!
Agnostics do not tell us nothing about wether they believe or not."
They tell us nothing because they have nothing to do with belief nor disbelief. They don't have surety of withholding disbelief or belief either unlike atheists that have been swayed to that surety. The agnostics are unable to move being locked in neutral having nothing to do with either side of the atheists and theists.
"(I don't think i can hold on to the code of conduct for much longer reading to my opponents arguments)"
This shows whether you're really built for debating. It's going to get ugly, it's not going to be pretty, pleasant, tasteful, daisies and rainbows. Arguing is going to be combative, with undesirable traits and language. Arguing is fighting with words. Can get dirty, nasty, abrasive, etc.
Expect all this inside this arena .
"Sure Buddy!"
I'm sure no counterpoint and rebuttal here. Good.
"Who said that misotheism gives rise to atheism???????????
I did not say that!
You are just a dishonest debater."
You are a debater of poor reading comprehension. I never said you said it. I'm saying it. Not every statement I make is not going to be my own. If I didn't specifically say you said it, don't treat it as such.
"Again you make this misological or agnosticological point: "Atheists believe in no gods of theism."
That is-"Not believing"- when put in your trickster dishonest terms."
Well you must of agreed to the so called dishonest trick.
Instant replay from the opposing side :
"That is true"
So is it true because it's the truth or where you being dishonest upon making this statement?
"Atheists believe in no gods of theism."
You said that was true, come on.
No backpedaling.
"If they don't know how to take a position then how can they have the most rational position???????
Thanks for making my point!"
Poor reading comprehension continues. Then you ask a question without actually getting my answer.
So was this rhetorical so you can't face the immediate refutation?
How am I making your point when you missed mine I'm about to check you on?
I didn't say "they don't know how to take a position" period.
I said the following: "They don't even know to take the position to lack beliefs or gain disbeliefs due to the focus on knowledge only.
You took what I said, chopped it in half in your question which the answer was there in my statement. At least ....to the complete question anyway which would be how do agnostics not know to take the position to have no beliefs in the positive/beliefs in the negative. They don't know to lack or gain because it's all about knowledge.
Check this out. Atheists DON'T EVEN HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE that the gods of theism don't exist but yet take the position anyway (less rational) to lack the belief or gain the belief in the non existence, same thing.
"Atheism do not believe in the 'non-existence'!
They just do not believe that one exists!"
Whoa, you know what, let's get to the bottom of this. I take a different direction. I like to communicate and engage and not just go in circles with repetitive points. Let's open up some cross examination here.
When you make the two statements like these, what is fundamentally in essence supposed to be the difference between them in essence, bottomline, basically?
"They do not say "God does not exist".
They say: God may or may not exist (What agnostics say) but i just do not believe he does.
So they accept that they do not know while also taking a position on wether they believe or not (unlike agnostics)."
Is it because atheists don't typically say one of the statements, do you just not like one of them or not like to say one versus the other?
I mean so what. Go ahead and answer all that please.
"Atheists do not believe anything until they are shown evidence."
They believe gods of theism don't exist without evidence. Hold on, I put it this way. They lack the belief thereof without evidence of non existence.
See I lack the belief in things because there is actually evidence for the non existence of them things. Say for instance, nothing in the house or money in the bank. There is actual evidence I can measure of that negative.
There is no measure I know of that can be applied to the gods of theism so they HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN.
I don't know about you but I'm having fun with this. Gotta have fun with debating my friend. Better off that way .
"Then, here is the fallacy. After having implied throughout the whole argument that atheists believe the "non-existence" of god, he says this:
Quote: "However it is not across all domainsbecause it is not applied to the non existence of said subject."
What?????
And ends with the thing he has rifuted for the whole argument: "Agnostics do apply across all sectorsincluding even the premise of the non existence of said subject. Which pushesagnosticism a little further up the ladder, a few extra points on the board ofrationality."
Agnostics do not say anything about the non-existence, they just say they do not know. Neither do atheists, they say that they don't know and not believe until evidence is shown!"
You just ended with my point.
"Agnostics do not say anything about the non-existence, they just say they do not know.
Neither do atheists, they say that they don't know and not believe until evidence is shown"
You say agnostics say they don't know. But then you stop there. Atheists take it a step further reducing the rationale with disbelief/belief in the negative.
That's all. You just made the distinction where the rationale is reduced. There's no evidence disproving said subject so there should not be any disbelief.
You don't know or are in the middle because there's is no weight of proof either side. If there is nothing on either side, either scenario could be true so my stance would be neither no belief nor disbelief.
Disbelief again what I mean, belief in the negative as the two coincide.
"You stick with the arguments that -"atheists believe the non-existence and agnostics say nothing about it"- for the whole argument only to betray it in the end????
I don't even know what to say."
I'm going to say this again people. Atheism rejects the existence of the gods of theism due to no known evidence while accepting the non existence of the gods of theism due to no known evidence.
Not only is that conflicted but how is that more rational than saying there is no evidence known for either side, I'm not swaying to atheism or theism?
Rationale pertains to the facts, to validity and reasoning. Using reasoning for one side and rejecting that very same reasoning for the other side, you just negates your very reasoning. You just reject your own rationality.
Agnostics doesn't reject the same reasoning, they hold it consistently. They keep it. If I keep something and you lose what I kept, I have more of it than you do. Obviously so and especially so when you negate it and lose it .
That was a de-facto concede from my opponent."
"This was painful!"
Hey, no pain no gain. If you can't take the heat, stay out the kitchen. This is not a la la land pleasant skip through the tulips. Debating is battling. It's a battle field.
After you getting beat up and battered with my points, oh yes it's going to be painful for you.
“This is a non sequitur. Knowledgestems from rationale. To say something is on knowledge but not the mostrational when that something has knowledge while another doesn't but claimed tobe more rational is fallacious.”
My opponent is either unwell or dishonest.
Agnosticism I say, is a positionon knowledge. Not because agnostics know whether there is a god or not. But because they do not know. And that is their position.
To say that they do not know.
Atheists on the other hand, also do not know. But they go a step further and say that they also do not believe.
Since there is not evidence then not believing is the most rational position.
Agnosticism says nothing about belief but only that we cannot know.
Then how can we know what position agnostics take? No one knows whether there is a god or not.
But what we need rationally, is to say whether one believes or not.
And atheists do not. Due to lack of evidence. That is the most rational position to take.
Saying we do not know if there is a god or not (what agnostics do), is not a position because no one knows if there is a god or not.
The positions one can take are in terms of belief. To believe or not to believe.
Agnostics tell us nothing about this.
Theists say they believe without evidence.
Atheists say they do not believe due to lack of evidence.
Thus, atheists hold the most rational position here.
LOOOOLLLLL. HE SAYS THIS:
“You have not PROVEN THERE IS NOEVIDENCE”
How can one prove there is no evidence dear sir? There just isn’t any.
I am not going to reply to every nonsense you write because they are just unintelligent remarks.
I am going to close with this:
This debate Is clear to be centered between agnosticism and atheism.
Which of them is the most rational position to take on the existence of God?
To take a position on the existence of god, when presented the thesis, one would have to choose between: Exists or does not exist.
Agnostics say that they do not know. That is understandable but not a position.
Atheists say that they also do not know. Understandable since no one can know anything for sure.
But atheists go a step further and say that they also do not believe there is a god.
None of them tell us whether there is a god or not. Because no one can tell.
But only one of them goes to the bottom of it and tells us their position.
And that is the atheist.
Admitting both the lack of knowledge and the lack of belief.
When presented no evidence, that is the most rational position to take.
Round 4
The opposite side is giving up.
Not coming back this round doing much swinging.
Those arms getting heavy and tired Mr . T.
"How can one prove there is no evidence dear sir? There just isn’t any.
I am not going to reply to every nonsense you write because they are just unintelligent remarks. "
The opposite side agrees and concedes that it is not proven that the gods of theism don't exist .
This is another way of saying "yeah I can't prove it ".
The opposite side as well as other atheists think it's the most rational to think that JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN EVIDENCE, THEREFORE THERE ABSOLUTELY IS NONE .
NOT THE MOST RATIONAL.
Perhaps the most asinine.
You say there is no evidence. You say it. It's according to you. Just because you have not seen it, doesn't mean it does not exist.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
This is what you're not getting so you can't get why the agnostics understand this and supercede the rationale of the atheists.
"Atheists say that they also do not know. Understandable since no one can know anything for sure."
But what makes the difference? Why are atheists who do not know of evidence existing or not are characterized with the lack of belief while agnostics don't fit that characterization ?
Are you claiming that atheists are more rational than agnostics by not believing without knowing evidence could be present?
Remember, no answer is a forfeit . Which speaks for itself last round.
If I don't know of any evidence existing for the rain , why would I not believe it's going to rain when I have no cause to?
Just because I have no cause to think that it will, it doesn't automatically create a concocted magic cause that it won't either.
This is your logic you've been spewing all debate long and you represent the atheist's folly well. That's why you took this topic. You took your position on this topic based on this folly I have demonstrated of you that you think is the most rational.
As to be expected, you're poorly mistaken.
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
My apologies for grammatic mistakes.
"Lucy star fire cannot accept, nor any affiliates associated with this individual that has created multiple profiles, otherwise it will be an automatic forfeit on the topic from this individual, serious debates only"
i just had a debate with that user and sent him a friend request as it was my first debate here. Do not think that i am affiliated with him in any way.
definition of god?