I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists. This is evidenced by the:
a. Beginning of the universe (Cosmological Argument)
b. Design of the universe (Teleological Argument/
Anthropic Principle)
c. Design of life (Teleological Argument)
d. Moral Law (Moral Argument)
4. If God exists, then miracles are possible.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as
acts of God to confirm a word from God).
6. The New Testament is historically reliable. This is evidenced
by:
a. Early testimony
b. Eyewitness testimony
c. Uninvented (authentic) testimony
d. Eyewitnesses who were not deceived
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about himself;
b. His sinless life and miraculous deeds;
c. His prediction and accomplishment of his resurrection.
9. Therefore, Jesus is God.
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and
anything opposed to it is false).
I see my opponent does not make any definitions. So let’s start:
Atheism: “a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods”
Faith: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”
Truth: “the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth
The resolution:
Given the definitions, the most charitable interpretation of the resolution is that “Atheism requires you to believe something without proof to some substantial degree.”
At its most basic level, as my definition shows, Atheism is not a positive belief but a lack of belief in God.
As faith requires a belief in something - the idea that atheism - which is a lack of belief in God - requires some sort of belief, is wholly incorrect and given the definitions the resolution is clearly refuted.
What do you need to have faith in to be an Atheist?
One main implication my opponent makes is that assuming that to be an Atheist you must believe some specific fact or condition - for which there is no evidence.
I ask my opponent, exactly what is it that you think Atheists believe without proof?
One of the main accusations of faith, regard to human and universal origins. Let me cover this:
Human Origins:
It does not require faith to believe that human being evolved from a universal common ancestor that lived 3 billion years ago. The reason for this is that there is substantial evidence that this is the case. Fossils evidence[1], including hundreds of transitional forms between major animal groups[2]; genetic evidence showing clear patterns of descent[3]; and morphological evidence in the form of taxonomy[4], Attavisms[5] and vestigiality[6]. Together with the fact we see evolution occurring today allows us to be convinced via evidence that human beings came to be through a process of evolution.
Universal Origins
Another common misconception is that Atheists are required to believe the universe “came from nothing”.
At its root, Theists believe that God just exists, with no precursor or cause.
Even if this particular claim is true: the idea that believing that universal laws of physics can exist without external cause seems to require MUCH less faith than believing that a transcendental superbeing, with a mind and personality can simply “exist” without being caused.
How could something with a mind exist without being created; what does God exist in? The number of unknowns that must be believed is greater than that of Atheists - so at its core - requires more faith.
Even then, most Atheists do not “believe” the universe exists without cause, they simply conclude it as the simplest explanation. It’s supported by tentative facts - such as quantum theory disobeying the laws of logic[7], and that it appears possible for something to come from nothing at a quantum level.[8]
Ideas like the Multiverse are not believed on faith - they are mostly place holders until more evidence comes in : an interesting hypothesis that invite testing.
In terms of universal origins the main issue is that we have no empirical data, and no real evidence to indicate how the universe was created or came about.
While I have ideas about what is possible or not in terms of the universe, the truth is that I don’t know: I have no evidence for which I can assess claims against reality - so I do not know how the universe came to be.
Not knowing is the most honest answer that can be given to this particular question - and requires no faith.
Capital A Atheism.
Even capital A Atheism - Atheism whereby individuals actively conclude Gods do not exist - does not require faith, or to hold that position without proof or evidence.
Such conclusions are based on a solid logical footing:
1.) There is no direct evidence of the existence of any Gods.
2.) Contradictions and incongruities of human religions (such as indefinite time in hell based upon finite crimes; or factual statements about science described in the Bible being incorrect), indicate their human origins.
3.) Cargo Cults, and manufactured religions indicating human desire to provide explanations involving the supernatural of things they cannot explain themselves, further indicating religion is not supernatural but part of the human social psychology.[9]
4.) Multiple individuals having supernatural religious experiences, but from disparate and mutually exclusive religions that cannot both be right indicating that personal experience of God is likely due to human psychology rather than anything supernatural.
The above - and others clearly show there is a solid basis for presume that the very notion and concept of God was invented by humans, and has no basis in fact.
Rebuttals:
It is true that the theistic God exists. This is evidenced by the:
a. Beginning of the universe (Cosmological Argument)
b. Design of the universe (Teleological Argument/ Anthropic Principle)
c. Design of life (Teleological Argument)
d. Moral Law (Moral Argument)
Pro offers no argument to justify these claims. Why do these things “prove” that God exists?
Even if these were true, how would Atheists not being convinced by this argument require any faith?
The New Testament is historically reliable. This is evidenced by:
a. Early testimony
b. Eyewitness testimony
c. Uninvented (authentic) testimony
d. Eyewitnesses who were not deceived
Again, Pro offers no argument to justify this claims. What is this early testimony and eyewitness testimony? How does he verify the testimony is authentic. How does he know eyewitnesses we’re not deceived?
Most importantly, how does pro use the claim that the bible mentions historical events, and that other sources mention general events in the Bible to justify that all the miraculous and supernatural claims the bible makes that were not recorded by any other sources?
In reality - the Bible may contain factual historical events or even reference people who were living. This does not automatically mean that all the fantastic stories about God, miracles, magic, and the supernatural should be accepted on their face without any subsequent corroboration.
This should be obvious: the historical existence of Troy, the war, King Agamemnon does not mean we should take Zeus’s existence and participation as true either.[10]
As before, the resolution is important: even if these were all true true, how would Atheists not being convinced by this argument require faith?
Jesus’ claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about himself;
b. His sinless life and miraculous deeds;
c. His prediction and accomplishment of his resurrection.
Again, pro offers no actual argument for me to refute. Importantly, this suffers the same issue as pros previous point. These points are predicated on the bible being true, which itself is only based on taking the supernatural claims of the Bible on face value without any corroboration.
As before, even if these were all true true, how would Atheists not being convinced by this argument require faith?
Conclusion:
Pro offers no reasons as to why he considers Atheism to require faith at all - leave along requiring higher amounts than Christianity and other religions.
I have pointed our his positions suffer from lack of argument, no justification and key issues.
I have pointed out that with key definitions it is reasonable to conclude atheism doesn’t require faith. Even when considering the major unanswered questions of the universe, it can be concluded that Atheism requires no faith there either.
Further, I have also provided a key reason why disbelieving in God doesn’t require faith either.
In summary, it is clear that Atheism does not require faith in any position held, and so the resolution is clearly negated.
Sources:
[1] https://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-5-evolution-and-biodi/51-evidence-for-evolution/fossil-record.html
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/
[3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-biology#ref1115228
[5] https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/atavism-embryology-development-and-evolution-843
[6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
[7] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/6546462/The-10-weirdest-physics-facts-from-relativity-to-quantum-physics.html
[8] https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-make-something-from-nothing-with-virtual-particles
[9] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
- Amino acids, nucleotides and Vesicles (cell precursors) can spontaneously form.[20][21][22]
- RNA can self assemble into chains on [23]
- vesicles can be made to divide just by internal pressure from rna chains within [24]
- RNA chains can be made to catalyze their own replication[25]
- Basic mechanisms of generating proteins can arise from simpler origins.[26]
Pro has lifted his entire last three rounds argument from the book. “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” By Normal L Giesslar.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=3zrgdXIeRtwC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=This+is+the+theory+that+suggests+the+universe+has+been+expanding+and+contracting+forever.+This+helps+its+proponents+avoid+a+definite+beginning.+But+the+problems+with+this+theory+are+numerous,+and+for+those+reasons+it+has+fallen+out+of+favor.&source=bl&ots=UzDumMrFTv&sig=ACfU3U2f9T2tSQg-0euXXIX5tsU3yLomOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPlre1mbfiAhVjmuAKHQHNDmAQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=This%20is%20the%20theory%20that%20suggests%20the%20universe%20has%20been%20expanding%20and%20contracting%20forever.%20This%20helps%20its%20proponents%20avoid%20a%20definite%20beginning.%20But%20the%20problems%20with%20this%20theory%20are%20numerous%2C%20and%20for%20those%20reasons%20it%20has%20fallen%20out%20of%20favor.&f=false
I am supposed to be arguing against pro, not an author.
This is clear pro arguing in bad faith, and warrants not only a conduct violation, but warrants all of these arguments to be dismissed as irrelevant.
2.) Pro drops everything.
Pro drops the entirety of my argument from the previous two rounds.
Pro drops that assuming humans evolved, and life was not created requires no faith.
If pro had read my previous round, he would have seen the section “why does the universe exist” - this points out clearly why athiesm requires less faith than theism when it comes to the origins of the universe. Pro has dropped this, and each other argument.
I extend all these arguments across the board.
Pro also has not addressed any of the issues of biblical historicity - I extend these too.
3.) Origin of the universe
Pros entire last round was solely relating to the universe having a beginning (which I agree with and is thus moot), the reason why this requires no more faith than theism is covered in my previous round and I extend this again.
Additionally though: pros plagiarized statement indicates that somehow the Bible “predicted” the beginning of the universe.
This is flat out false.
Genesis 1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”
Genesis 2 and 3 says “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV
The bible stated that earth and “the heavens” were created in the beginning, then afterwards light was created.
In reality, light came first, then the heavens, then more light, then the earth.
The bible doesn’t appear predict any real observable science: what pro is doing is more a post hoc rationalization.
This is yet another reason that atheism requires less faith: atheists are allowed to follow the facts, and it’s not required to twist itself into knots in order to validate inaccurate and incorrect stories.
Conclusion:
Pro hasn’t posted an argument. He is copy pasting from a book. Voters should treat these arguments as invalid, and ignore all of them.
Pro has not addressed any arguments I have made so far, in evolution, the origin of the universe, and hasn’t answered any specific argument that demonstrates atheism requires less faith.
Pro drops all arguments relating to intelligent design, specified complexity, and biblical historicity.
From all of this, pros position is wholly untenable, and con has clearly and irrefutably shown that being an atheist requires less faith than being a theist.
Pros first, second and third round are all plagurized from the following book:
https://books.google.ca/books/about/I_Don_t_Have_Enough_Faith_to_Be_an_Athei.html?id=FPmV30uX1_4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y
Page 28: is pros opening round
Pro lifts his round 2 from Page 39 (self defeating truth), 57 (hume and Kant)
Pro lifts his round 3 from chapter 3, starting at page 73.
Pro clearly plagiarizes his entire argument verbatim.
I'd like to thank both opponents for this debate.
PLAGIARISM:
Pro has plagiarized part of their argument, that's poor conduct!