THBT: Atheism is, on balance more reasonable than Christianity.

YOU: "If you’re interested, I wouldn’t mind doing a debate on the definition of atheism. I would defend the lack of belief definition and take full BoP. Would have to be next month though, about to all but disappear for a few weeks."

Sounds good. Let's work on getting a debate going then.

ME: "Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required."

YOU: "Again, there is no such thing as an atheistic morality."

Yes, in a sense, I agree there is no such thing as atheistic morality unless the atheist borrows from a theistic worldview in making sense of it. That is, the atheist cannot justify why something is good or bad, right or wrong from a materialistic or naturalistic foundation without invoking preference or might makes right. He borrows from the Christian worldview to make sense of qualitative values and virtues.

ME: "Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required."

YOU: "Again, there is no such thing as an atheistic morality."

As an atheist or a person representing that position, do you know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil? You suggested you did with your argument for gratuitous evil. That is a MORAL argument. Are you saying that someone who denies or lacks belief in God and the supernatural also lacks morality? I argue with you unless you BORROW from the position! I argued that the atheist could not justify the moral good. Therefore your position on morality is not more reasonable than the Christians. The whole idea of the debate was to show that, on balance, atheism was more reasonable than Christianity. Instead, you showed science of the gaps (scientism) in your speculative scenarios about the A and B-series of time, special relativity, without much sourcing as to how you arrived at such ideas???

For instance, you quote or borrow from Einstein but provide no sourcing as to where you got the quote or ideas:

"Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity supports the B-Theory of time and refutes the A-theory, on the following grounds;

General Relativity (GR) depicts a universe where time is an axis in a 4-dimensional, block universe.
Special relativity (SR) holds true that the laws of physics are the same, regardless of the frame of reference. This means that people can disagree on the present moment but are all equally correct."

No source???

Again, and again, you provide no source reference. Here is another example:

"p1: If the universe is caused, the A-series of time is true

This premise is valid via truism and CORROBORATEDD by Dr Craig."

What is the context? How do I know you did not lift this out of context?

***

ME: "Hitler preferred to kill Jews. How was that right? Why should I believe what you say as good is good? "

YOU: "Because Hitler's actions did not conform to the accepted definition of what morality and good is."

Why are the "accepted definitions" good and the German society accepted Hitler's GOOD (killing Jews and other undesirables)? If Hitler had won the war, would the accepted definition still have been "good?" Good in your statement implies majority - accepted definition - from who? Why is their definition any better than Hitler's if there is no objective, ultimate standard? Provide one. You seem to think that majority rules, a fallacious argument from authority.

ME: "You made a correlation between God and witchdoctors, both here and in the debate, which I showed was not sound because the analogy or similarity has minimal comparison in regards to evidence"

YOU: "Like I said, the correlation was about 1) who bears the burden and 2) does utilizing the lack of an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous. Adding evidence would, in my analogy, be akin to the witch producing evidence. If that is done, it should be considered. However, my point is that saying "there's no other sound option" is a terrible argument."

I was asking you, as an atheist, or one representing that position, to provide a sound option, otherwise how can you say atheism, on balance, is more reasonable than Christianity? Instead, you compared the burden of proof of atheism to a witch-doctor and add this,

"It is obviously more appropriate to approach God in the second way[that is the witchdoctor example you provided], as we have clearly not "ticked off all the balls"." [*]

Your previous statement was,

"Both utilize elimination as their method of proof, yet their veracity are vastly different. The distinction lies in the fact that the first has quantifiable options, whilst the second does not."

The second does not. Then you compare God to the second [*]. That is simply not true.

Thus, as I said, you made a poor correlation between God and witchdoctory that I showed was not warranted. Christianity has remarkable evidence. Some quack in the bush claiming a cure for polio does not. You purposely took an extreme example that lacked evidence to showcase your point while comparing it to God.

And the idea that atheism is ONLY a lack of belief is preposterous. Tell that to the multitudes of atheists online every day. The biggest proponents of atheism show it is far more than merely or only a lack of belief in God. These atheists who are in denial or say they lack belief use materialism, humanism, and their own minds as the standard for all things. And they have elaborate worldviews built on naturalism. Remember, once you deny God as the reason for the universe you insert reasons from the natural realm and/or your limited mindset.

Even you, in one of your other debates on the existence of God argued for a shared burden of proof, and gave an excellent argument as to why that was necessary. Suddenly you are disputing the atheist has a burden for his ontology, cosmology, morality, and epistemology.

"You made a correlation between God and witchdoctors, both here and in the debate, which I showed was not sound because the analogy or similarity has minimal comparison in regards to evidence"

Like I said, the correlation was about 1) who bears the burden and 2) does utilizing the lack of an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous. Adding evidence would, in my analogy, be akin to the witch producing evidence. If that is done, it should be considered. However, my point is that saying "there's no other sound option" is a terrible argument.

"Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required"

Again, there is no such thing as an atheistic morality.

"Hitler preferred to kill Jews. How was that right? Why should I believe what you say as good is good? "

Because Hitler's actions did not conform to the accepted definition of what morality and good is.

YOU: "Again I must reiterate, the debate about morals is a different debate (which we can have). This debate regards Theism v. Atheism. There is no such thing as an atheistic moral view just as how there is not an a-witchest view on morality."

Yes, I would like to have that debate, but I am debating Skepticalone on the same topic first.

The debate about morality/morals was part of our debate I used in showing that the Christian position was more reasonable than the atheist position on morality. Once you deny or lack belief in God or gods, you do not have a proper foundation for morality. It just becomes personal and group PREFERENCE. How is such preference right? It just is, especially if we are nothing more than chemical, biological machines, governed by chance and determinism. Hitler preferred to kill Jews. How was that right? Why should I believe what you say as good is good? Because you say it? And once you use qualifiers like "BETTER," the standard comes into question. What is your best? How do you ever arrive at best? If there are no fixed and ultimate standards, these qualitative values become meaningless. It just depends on who thinks what and can enforce their preference. How is that good?
The same goes for gratuitous evil. You stated, " If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils," and also, "a GE is a type of evil of which creates no good." If God does not exist, you would still have to explain gratuitous evil. You never did. I asked what your standard for GE was? Why is it anything other than a human preference? I asked you what was the necessary standard to identify and account for gratuitous evil. Indeed, the history of dictatorship and authoritarian governments failed to identify some of the atrocities as gratuitously evil that you identified and pinned on the biblical God. I asked you to produce your standard to see how you come up with such thinking, and also, why are you charging a God you do not believe in with gratuitous evil?

YOU: "It doesn't matter that there is no cure for Covid - however, when one proposes that they have a cure (just like how you propose the existence of God), you bear the burden of justifying such claim."

YOU: "The analogy which I proposed in no way regards the veracity of Christianity - it merely attempts to show who bears the burden. Would you agree that, in the analogy I provided, the witches "proof" for their cure is not satisfactory? Do you agree that proposing an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous?"

You made a correlation between God and witchdoctors, both here and in the debate, which I showed was not sound because the analogy or similarity has minimal comparison in regards to evidence. I laid out the biblical evidence to support God, a written revelation backed by prophecy, internal and external evidence that confirmed the truthfulness of the Word. Secular or external sources confirmed people, places, events. I ask you to show compelling evidence for your claims to establish the analogies were a valid comparison. Why? You made a claim. Do you not have a burden to substantiate it? Do you think that just because you can state something it then makes it true???

YOU: "The element which rationalises my morals are epistemologically unjustified presuppositions. There must reach a point in which I make an axiomatic claim which tautologically cannot be justified. The same applies for you, merely, your axiom is, I presume, that God is the maxim which is good."

Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required. Yet, you make claims that the biblical God practices gratuitous evil. I asked you to justify that. You presented an argument for gratuitous evil yet provided no standard to justify that it was what you claimed it to be, other than your opinion. Big deal. Why is your opinion true? I provided what was necessary for moral values. You mostly ignored my argument. It went hand-in-hand with the biblical argument (evidence). Therefore, my position was more reasonable than yours. You felt that it was justified just because you could make such a statement (gratuitous evil). I explained that God had a purpose for permitting evil, that good would come of it. I presented you with the free will defence that you ignored. I provided you with the fact that the Bible said these people God was bringing judgment on deserved it for their evil practices. I presented that God will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place. And I gave you verses to back up my claims. You ignored my explanations. I gave you reasoned explanations, yet you could not provide why your charges or your standards were actually so.

The analogy which I proposed in no way regards the veracity of Christinaty - it merely attempts to show who bears the burden. Would you agree that, in the analogy I provided, the witches “proof” for their cure is not satisfactory? Do you agree that proposing an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous?

The element which rationalises my morals are epistemologically unjustified presuppositions. There must reach a point in which I make an axiomatic claim which tautologically cannot be justified. The same applies for you, merely, your axiom is, I presume, that God is the maxim which is good.

Again I must reiterate, the debate about morals is a different debate (which we can have). This debate regards Theism v. Atheism. There is no such thing as an atheistic moral view just as how there is not an a-witchest view on morality.

I find it humorous you dedicated an entire comment for one point but didn't understand the basis for the point.

If something cannot come from nothing, than God could not have come from nothing.

“Nope, once the definition is changed you want me to say nothing of it. That is what it boils done to.”

The definition wasn’t changed, it was laid out in the description *before* you accepted the debate.

“ A lack of belief in God means that you have to fill the supernatural gap with…”

This is literally redefining basic English. A lack of X simply means that X is not present. It does not mean Y, or Z, or A, or… or… or…

If we were talking about a true dichotomy then you would be correct. But your argument is a false dichotomy because you incorrectly define theism/atheism as answers to god’s existence rather than descriptions of one’s position on the issue.

A few basics here that need to be addressed;

1. Good either exists or he does not exist. There is no middle ground.

This is not a disputable claim, it’s the third law of logic. Please Google it if you need to.

2. Point number one is a statement in regards to the actual answer to the question of whether a god exists. Theism and atheism do not address the actual answer, they a address the subject of belief. In other words, it addresses one’s *mindset* towards that proposition.

3. Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can for example be an agnostic atheist. Theism/atheism address belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism address knowledge, specifically whether one’s position on whether god’s existence is knowable.

People try to redefine what an agnostic is all the time, and so dictionaries had to take that into account, but that’s why we again go back to the definitions laid out at the start of the debate.

I’d like to respond to your claims below but before I do, can we agree on the basics here first?

YOU: "Haven't been reading but I'll briefly chime in. Imagine that we are in 2020, where COVID is in its full swing. No one has a cure to the virus. Now, suppose that a witch doctor with her fishbone suggests that she has a cure to the virus. Of course, with such a preposterous claim, evidence ought to be introduced. But then, the witch doctor states "you have no sound alternative, therefore, my proposition is sound". My stance is that proposing an alternative and utilizing the lack of a sound option is erroneous. It doesn't matter that there is no cure for Covid - however, when one proposes that they have a cure (just like how you propose the existence of God), you bear the burden of justifying such claim."

The analogy fails. You are proposing that the evidence for Christianity is the same or similar to this witchdoctor quackery. That is not the case. There is plenty of evidence for Christianity, as I showed in the debate. The moral argument is not something you made sense of as an atheist. The argument from the Bible is another evidence you largely ignored.

Once again, your argument for gratuitous evil (a moral argument) had a lot to be desired. First off, you are making moral claims without justifying how your standard is sufficient. Why is what you think as gratuitously evil actually so? Because you say so? Or do you have a standard that sufficiently explains right and wrong, good and evil? You never showed you could justify your standard or even had one. Second, how can a God the atheist says he has no belief in be evil???

I was hoping you would disclose these things but you did not and neglected my concerns.

Glad to hear from you! I will check back in on Saturday. Busy week babysitting the grandkids during March break.

Haven't been reading but I'll briefly chime in. Imagine that we are in 2020, where COVID is in its full swing. No one has a cure to the virus. Now, suppose that a witch doctor with her fishbone suggests that she has a cure to the virus. Of course, with such a preposterous claim, evidence ought to be introduced. But then, the witch doctor states "you have no sound alternative, therefore, my proposition is sound". My stance is that proposing an alternative and utilizing the lack of a sound option is erroneous. It doesn't matter that there is no cure for Covid - however, when one proposes that they have a cure (just like how you propose the existence of God), you bear the burden of justifying such claim.

ME: "No, it does not because, as I pointed out, that is not all atheism is, just a lack of belief in God. You have to bring in a whole slew of beliefs to explain existence by denying God, as I pointed out."

COMP: "I am not fully atheist or religious in belief, so I don't necessarily have a proper answer to this claim, however, it is in my judgement that a higher ratio of PRO atheist beliefs to CON atheist beliefs would be a way to decide if one is atheist."

I'm not sure what you mean?

ME: "Why??? Are you the debate police? Do you decide what I can and can't say regarding the debate after the debate has finished? Are you trying to censor my discussion and my justification of why I feel the vote missed the point? Am I not free to comment?"

COMP: "Not at all! I simply wanted to point out that, even if you were justified on this, moderators aren't able to change the debate after it's finished, so there's no use in putting in this much effort to rebuttals."

Moderators do it when they believe a vote is unreasonable, but that is not the point here. It wasn't as blatantly obvious that he favoured one position over another. I wanted to express my views on his vote, why I felt he was looking at it from a biased position, the same position that causes many atheists and deniers of God to say that atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in God or gods. While it can be a lack of belief, it is also many other things. Atheists have all kinds of beliefs that arise from looking at the world, the universe, life, existence from a natural rather than natural/supernatural position. They rule out the supernatural. Everything is explained from inside the box (the box being the universe).

ME: "Scientists argue that the universe had a beginning, including time, space, and matter. Therefore the cause of that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As a contingent being, you seem to fill in the gaps by science (really scientism) of the gaps by your denial or lack of evidence for God."

COMP: "The infinitely small [1] chance of [2] a atom being created that compresses itself and [3] explodes to create [4] a fully functional universe, is [5] STILL more likely than a fully conscious, fully complete, all powerful deity appearing out of mid-air. [6] There will always be knowledge locked away from us, and there is no use filling that hole with stories, [7] in the form of the Bible, [8] WHICH have been proved to be written CENTURIES after they were supposed to happen."

[1] You are using chance as a creative agent, not a mathematical probability. What ability does chance as a creative force have to do anything? Chance has no ability, no intentionality, no agency.

[2] Where did the atom come from? Science investigates causality. What caused the atom? The BB is the effect. Einstein (reluctantly) and others believe that space, time, and matter had a beginning.

If nothing existed before space, time, and matter, how can something exist from NOTHING? What kind of logical absurdity is that? What is nothing? Is it something? If the physical realm began to exist, then it was caused by something non-physical. Time can't be infinite. It has a beginning. You can't measure something eternal. If you started counting to infinity, you would never get there. There would be no less infinite numerals left than when you first began. How would you get to the present from infinity? The eternal is outside something that started to. God transcends time.

[3] What was there to cause the explosion? Something that does not exist cannot create itself. If time, space, matter came into existence, they need a cause.

[4] Again, what is the agency to do this? Why would a random, chance happenstance create purpose and order from chaos? Again, without a mind behind the universe, there is NO reason.

[5] Says who? The universe has to have a sufficient explanation for its existence. How does a mindless, uncaring nothing give such an explanation? If the universe were eternal, existing in the B-series of time, it still doesn't explain its ability to do things. Not only this, but the universe appears fine-tuned for life and existence. We can DISCOVER laws that do not depend upon us for their existence. We don't invent these laws; we discover them. We are not necessary for their existence. They exist despite us. Why? You, as a human, make and obey laws other human beings put in place. They are put in place by intelligent minds. Why not for the universe, too? Why can we describe things in mathematical precision? It takes minds to do maths. It takes minds to reason. Why should we be able to reason and find answers if the universe is a chance product? NO reason. Things just happen. No reason they should continue to occur in an orderly pattern or fashion. Yet they do. The uniformity of nature is the reason we can do science. We can predict because things continue to happen in a repetitive manner. How does that happen by chance happenstance? If I roll a six once, what are the chances it will happen a second time, a million times in a row, and continually without intent and agency (I.e., SOMEONE fixing the dice)?

[6] The only reason you can discover knowledge is that truth is to be found. Why would that be so in a willy-nilly chance happenstance universe? NO reason. Yet you continually find reasons. Go figure.

[7] The Bible gives reasons that make sense. We, as human beings, were created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, we are conscious, rational, intelligent beings who can create, design, and reason why. A mindless, chance universe is not conscious, mindful, reasoning, intelligent. One DNA cell has enough information in it to be mind-boggling. From the microscopic to the macroscopic, everything points to intelligence. You, indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking, do not consider this.

[8] I challenge you to show me that statement of yours is true.

YOU: So what? If atheism is a belief system, as you admit, and if it denies God is the cause, then it must have a natural cause for the universe and everything in existence. Once you reject the supernatural as a plausible explanation, all that is left is the natural. Therefore, everything that exists you try to explain from within the box (i.e., the universe). Not only this, but you do not have a sufficient cause for the universe if you believe it began to exist. Scientists speculate in all kinds of theories of what might have happened if a blind, indifferent chance is the maker. It just doesn't make sense. You need a necessary, self-existent (eternal), non-physical/immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, intelligent, revealing Creator to make sense of the universe. Scientists argue that the universe had a beginning, including time, space, and matter. Therefore the cause of that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As a contingent being, you seem to fill in the gaps by science (really scientism) of the gaps by your denial or lack of evidence for God

ME:
The infinitely small chance of a atom being created that compresses itself and explodes to create a fully functional universe, is STILL more likely than a fully conscious, fully complete, all powerful deity appearing out of mid-air. There will always be knowledge locked away from us, and there is no use filling that hole with stories, in the form of the Bible, WHICH have been proved to be written CENTURIES after they were supposed to happen.

YOU: No, it does not because, as I pointed out, that is not all atheism is, just a lack of belief in God. You have to bring in a whole slew of beliefs to explain existence by denying God, as I pointed out.

ME: I am not fully atheist or religious in belief, so I don't necessarily have a proper answer to this claim, however, it is in my judgement that a higher ratio of PRO atheist beliefs to CON atheist beliefs would be a way to decide if one is atheist.

YOU: Why??? Are you the debate police? Do you decide what I can and can't say regarding the debate after the debate has finished? Are you trying to censor my discussion and my justification of why I feel the vote missed the point? Am I not free to comment?

Not at all! I simply wanted to point out that, even if you were justified on this, moderators aren't able to change the debate after it's finished, so there's no use in putting in this much effort to rebuttals.

You: "What is so difficult about that? Why MUST people commit themselves to answering this question in your view?"

Are you an atheist or agnostic?

"History and Etymology for atheism
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

a - without/against
theos - god

"Atheism is in the broadest sense a rejection of any belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities and any statements to the contrary are false ones.[1][2][5][6] This is not to be confused with 'negative atheism' (or agnosticism) which declares that there is no evidence or knowledge about gods or god and thus has no belief in reference to a God or gods.[7] It is an important distinction because young children are not 'atheists' simply because they have no view on God or gods. The infant would have no evidence for any view on the topic. The English term 'atheist' was used at least as early as the sixteenth century and atheistic ideas and their influence have a longer history."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Note - a rejection of God or gods.
Note - specifically, "no deities" and any statement to the contrary is FALSE.

YOU: "BTW it's not that I'm ignoring the rest of your posts, it's because I am here going back and forth with you as a judge in this debate and being that I cast the deciding vote against you I feel like that should be the focus here. I would love to address the rest but it's not relevant to my vote and I just don't have the time to go point by point right now. I would gladly discuss these other points at a later time when I have more time to spare."

The vote is cast. It is pasted. I am pointing out why I believe it was a misjudgment on your part from my point of view. I wanted to hear your justification. I also wanted a discussion on the debate. I still do not believe PRos viewpoint was more reasonable. I don't think he can provide a sufficient warrant to justify his position in three of his four arguments, and the fourth was doubtful. In answering my arguments, I believe he also failed.

As for it being relevant, I don't think you can make sense of the existence of humanity, life, the universe, morality, etc., without first presupposing God. I invite you to try. IMO, when you judge, you bring hidden presuppositions into the mix. How do I know that? Because no one is neutral.

ME: "I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief"

YOU: "Are you really being serious?"

Yes.

***

YOU: "Please explain the difference between "a lack of belief" and "only a lack of belief.""

A lack of belief in God means that you have to fill the supernatural gap with the natural in explaining anything to do with origins, morality, existence, etc. Thus, atheism is a worldview that tries to explain existence, origins, morality from a naturalistic frame of mind.

ONLY a lack of belief does not include any other beliefs. Basically, 'only' signifies that atheism is NOTHING MORE than disbelief in God or gods. That is not all it is, for it explains the world, the universe, everything by natural causes. Remember, once you deny the supernatural God or gods, what is left? Not only this, but atheists on this site and elsewhere argue against and deny the God of Christianity. That is a belief in itself too. You can't argue against something unless you believe in something else as the cause or explanation. And atheists argue against God.

***

ME: "So, lack of belief or denial of God or gods leaves you with a naturalistic system of BELIEF as the answer, or your mind and perhaps an illusion. Would you disagree?"

YOU: "Yes.

YOU: "God either exists or he does not exist. There is no other option."

Or you exist, and everything is a figment of your imagination, and the universe is just an illusion you create because you are lonely with yourself. But this position is not well defended. I agree, either God or random chance happenstance, no other sensible options, and without God, how sensible is the explanation of existence?

***

YOU: "Belief does not work the same way. There are longer just two possibilities, there are three: you can either believe God exists, believe god does not exist, or remain undecided on what to believe. The latter is a middle ground which does not exist within the actual answer to the question.

One who remains undecided does not have to fill the "gap" with anything. They can simply recognize that they have no rational way to explain existence and leave it at that."

***

One who remains undecided is an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist is without God. An agnostic is not sure. The definition has of atheism has been redefined to include soft and hard atheism. Weak atheism is just another word for agnosticism, IMO. An agnostic does not know. Initially, the atheist believed they knew there was no God. Both atheists and agnostics live life as if God does not exist.

Your Words:
"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."

***

Those were the words Bones used to describe atheism in the Description.

***

"Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief."

***

These were the words Bones used in the R1.

***

ME: "Is atheism ONLY a lack of belief? No, it is not. I had a right to respond and dispute his claim significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief. I could have gotten into the word's history and what it meant more than I did, but my interest was in refuting "ONLY" a lack of belief. It is a belief system in its own right."

***
My argument in my R1 was that atheism is a worldview. If you lack belief in God, you have a belief in something else to explain existence, origins, morality, and My response to Bones R1 that preceded my argument stating atheism was ONLY a lack of belief was to say, no, that is incorrect. That is not all atheism is. By lacking belief in God, you explain and believe that nature, your mind and other contingent minds, and materialism are sufficient in understanding the universe and things in it. Do you deny this?

***

ME: "It is a belief system in its own right"

YOU: "Are you serious? The definition he mentioned was a lack of belief in God or Gods. Despite it being a separate belief system, the term "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in a spiritual entity."

***

So what? If atheism is a belief system, as you admit, and if it denies God is the cause, then it must have a natural cause for the universe and everything in existence. Once you reject the supernatural as a plausible explanation, all that is left is the natural. Therefore, everything that exists you try to explain from within the box (i.e., the universe). Not only this, but you do not have a sufficient cause for the universe if you believe it began to exist. Scientists speculate in all kinds of theories of what might have happened if a blind, indifferent chance is the maker. It just doesn't make sense. You need a necessary, self-existent (eternal), non-physical/immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, intelligent, revealing Creator to make sense of the universe. Scientists argue that the universe had a beginning, including time, space, and matter. Therefore the cause of that must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As a contingent being, you seem to fill in the gaps by science (really scientism) of the gaps by your denial or lack of evidence for God.

***

YOU: "As well as this, the change in sentence structure JUSTIFIES the use of "only a lack of belief" instead of "a lack of belief."

No, it does not because, as I pointed out, that is not all atheism is, just a lack of belief in God. You have to bring in a whole slew of beliefs to explain existence by denying God, as I pointed out.

***

YOU: "Even if you can justify any of this, the debates over. If you're salty, go rematch him with an updated description and definitions."

Why??? Are you the debate police? Do you decide what I can and can't say regarding the debate after the debate has finished? Are you trying to censor my discussion and my justification of why I feel the vote missed the point? Am I not free to comment?

Your Words:
"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."

"Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief."

Is atheism ONLY a lack of belief? No, it is not. I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief. I could have gotten into the word's history and what it meant more than I did, but my interest was in refuting "ONLY" a lack of belief. It is a belief system in its own right.

"It is a belief system in it's own right"
Are you serious? The definition he mentioned was a lack of belief in God or Gods. Despite it being a separate belief system, the term "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in a spiritual entity.

As well as this, the change in sentence structure JUSTIFIES the use of "only a lack of belief" instead of "a lack of belief."

Even if you can justify any of this, the debates over. If you're salty, go rematch him with an updated description and definitions.

“ I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief”

Are you really being serious?

Please explain the difference between “a lack of belief” and “only a lack of belief”.

“ So, lack of belief or denial of God or gods leaves you with a naturalistic system of BELIEF as the answer, or your mind and perhaps an illusion. Would you disagree?”

Yes.

God either exists or he does not exist. There is no other option.

Belief does not work the same way. There are longer just two possibilities, there are three: you can either believe God exists, believe god does not exist, or remain undecided on what to believe. The latter is a middle ground which does not exist within the actual answer to the question.

One who remains undecided does not have to fill the “gap” with anything. They can simply recognize that they have no rational way to explain existence and leave it at that.

What is so difficult about that? Why MUST people commit themselves to answering this question in your view?

BTW it’s not that I’m ignoring the rest of your posts, it’s because I am here going back and forth with you as a judge in this debate and being that I cast the deciding vote against you I feel like that should be the focus here. I would love to address the rest but it’s not relevant to my vote and I just don’t have the time to go point by point right now. I would gladly discuss these other points at a later time when I have more time to spare.

ME: “ He avoids making sense of these questions while representing the atheistic position of lack of belief in God or gods.”

YOU: "Like I eluded to in my RFD and below, once the definition of atheism established in the terms of the debate is accepted, all of these arguments become moot. Pro doesn’t have to explain morality because there is nothing about a lack of belief in a god that would burden one to do so.

***

Nope, once the definition is changed you want me to say nothing of it. That is what it boils done to.

***

YOU: "I understand that you vehemently disagree with the definition, but you’re allowing your personal opinion of what the definition should be cloud your entire perception of the problem I’m pointing out to you. Accept just for one second, just for the sake of argument that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief… what is Pro’s burden in this debate?"

***

Yes, I do disagree. I explained what a worldview was and why atheism qualifies. Yes, I agreed, it can be a lack of belief, but much more of the time it is a denial. Atheists certainly live their life as if God does not exist. They look for explanations excluding God for their existence.

As for my personal opinion, do the facts match it or not? Answer my last post by justifying the facts do not. Are you an atheist? I think you used to be, but I see that you have no profile description. If an atheist, then do you have beliefs about the world, the universe, your existence, and the existence of humanity? Do those explanations entail a purely natural explanation? If not, what else?

*****

ME: “By denying God or gods, they fill the gap with other explanations or else they are complete dummies. So they have beliefs that do not look to God or gods as an explanation.”

YOU: "You are again confusing atheists with atheism. I can show you countless examples of Christians using Christianity to justify all kinds of irrational and horrible things. That doesn’t make those things part of Christianity."

Nope. Not in its original sense. An atheist is different from an agnostic or theist. He denies (lives without - 'a') the existence of God, or gods. He claims there is no God or gods. An agnostic is not sure? He also lives as if there is no God or gods. A theist affirms God or gods. While both the Christian and the atheist can live counter to their beliefs and hold all kinds of counter and irrational beliefs and act on them, the atheist has a belief - he does not believe in God or gods. And with such a belief, it necessarily leads to other beliefs. So, in effect, the atheist has all kinds of beliefs that he has to hold to attempt to make sense of existence that does not include God or gods. All kinds. IMO, you just don't like the label and neither do others, thus, in recent years the atheist community has taken to redefine the meaning. That way they can avoid the burden of proof. But, in effect, they live as if God does not exist, they think and explain without reference to God, all the while arguing for His lack of existence, complaining about how unjust He is, but never explaining how justice and meaning come from an amoral, uncaring universe. If there is no purpose to life then ultimately what difference does it make how you live it? How do you determine right from such a meaningless universe? Is it actually right, or just your preference? If there is no ultimate standard what makes your preference any more right than anyone else's?

ME: "I refuted that ONLY throughout the whole debate."

YOU: "You can't refute the terms and conditions agreed to before the debate."

***************************************************************************

Did Pro change the definition in his R1?
Here is the definition -

"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."

Here is what Pro argued in R1 -

"Notice that Atheism is only a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief."

Is atheism ONLY a lack of belief? No, it is not. I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief. I could have gotten into the word's history and what it meant more than I did, but my interest was in refuting "ONLY" a lack of belief. It is a belief system in its own right.

When you deny God or gods, you fill the gap with another BELIEF system, usually naturalism. Atheists have BELIEFS about Christians' same things - origins, morality, truth, knowledge, etc. Instead of God as an explanation, it is usually filled with naturalistic answers alone. There are only a handful of possibilities/explanations for why the universe exists (and subsequently us), 1—God, random chance happenstance, or 3. an illusion. Care to list other means that make sense of the universe? So once you jettison God, you are left with the other two (which I argue can't make sense of things, they just pose as if they can), or perhaps you would like to propose something else? So, lack of belief or denial of God or gods leaves you with a naturalistic system of BELIEF as the answer, or your mind and perhaps an illusion. Would you disagree?

So try and make sense of existence without a personal, necessary, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal, immutable God as the most reasonable explanation. That is what the atheist attempts. He is seldom called on it since the gatekeeper of societies prevents serious discussion by ridicule, propaganda, misrepresentation, banding together, and a host of other issues, IMO.

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up. There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus' historical existence. Hence Atheism is more reasonable.

Reach out to me if you want to do it. Like I said, I’m going to be away for about a month with little to no activity here so I’ll probably be back regularly on the site by around mid April

“ I refuted that ONLY throughout the whole debate”

You can’t refute the terms and conditions agreed to before the debate.

“ He avoids making sense of these questions while representing the atheistic position of lack of belief in God or gods.”

Like I eluded to in my RFD and below, once the definition of atheism established in the terms of the debate is accepted, all of these arguments become moot. Pro doesn’t have to explain morality because there is nothing about a lack of belief in a god that would burden one to do so.

I understand that you vehemently disagree with the definition, but you’re allowing your personal opinion of what the definition should be cloud your entire perception of the problem I’m pointing out to you. Accept just for one second, just for the sake of argument that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief… what is Pro’s burden in this debate?

“By denying God or gods, they fill the gap with other explanations or else they are complete dummies. So they have beliefs that do not look to God or gods as an explanation.”

You are again confusing atheists with atheism. I can show you countless examples of Christians using Christianity to justify all kinds of irrational and horrible things. That doesn’t make those things part of Christianity.

Let me put it another way. As an atheist, does he believe in ontology, cosmology, origins, and morality? If so, he has a worldview that looks at life, usually from a naturalistic or materialistic point of view. I would list a whole slew of atheists as my examples. By denying God or gods, they fill the gap with other explanations or else they are complete dummies. So they have beliefs that do not look to God or gods as an explanation. They don't lack beliefs on these fronts. They argue mostly from naturalism, which engulfs empiricism (the five senses), materialism (matter is the fundamental substance of all things), secular humanism (the human as the measure), physicalism (the physical is all there is), scientism (science is the only method and only authoritative in determining anything as proof).

The title of the debate is, "Atheism is, on balance, more reasonable than Christianity."

"Atheism is," meaning atheists have a BoP.

Atheism is (on balance) more reasonable than Christianity. That is the prime contention.

Then Pro, representing the atheist position, continually says that he has no BoP, that the ONLY thing atheism is ONLY lack of belief in God or gods. That is not all atheism is, and Pro demonstrates that by making arguments from cosmology, ontology, morality, and origins. Those areas of debate delve into the questions of truth, authority, and epistemology, among other things. How does Pro know these things? He must have beliefs that oppose the beliefs in God or gods to construct a worldview that is different from Christianity. He does just that.

D_R: "It defines "Christianity," "more reasonable," and then "atheism.""

Notice the definitions given by PGA and the ones provided by Bones to clarify some terms and the general ones. Notice that Pro defines atheism as "A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods." Now notice in R1 Pro sheds off his BoP, per the title, and also redefines the definition of atheism to be, "Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science. It is simply a lack of belief." I refuted that ONLY throughout the whole debate. Once one denies God or gods, what is left to believe in other than materialism and nature or, as Pro pointed out, solipsism, and once you go there, I question the authority of the solipsist, among other things. Who would be Pros' ultimate authority without God or gods?

How did Pro answer my questions on morality and the problem of evil? How should Pro live as an atheist if there is no purpose for life? He believes in how to do this, but they don't answer why something is good in an amoral uncaring universe. Why is his OPINION or PREFERENCE any BETTER than mine? He never establishes there is truth or an objective moral standard. He avoids making sense of these questions while representing the atheistic position of lack of belief in God or gods. He avoids any burden of proof. He never gives his standard for determining gratuitous evil or even what that means. His definition in the Description is a definition for evil, not gratuitous evil. Does he think they are precisely the same? Who is his authority on gratuitous evil? He never identifies one. Is it himself? Does he think he is necessary for determining what is RIGHT and GOOD? No, he just throws out these terms then denies that he has any BoP as an atheist. We know Pro is not necessary for rights and the good if they existed before he did. Only personal beings have authority, so who is his ultimate authority? He avoids identifying it while representing the atheistic position. He never identifies his standard and why it is good or better. Better than what? There is no refers there. He just throws out these terms and avoids a BoP. Does he think that is more reasonable while representing atheism?

D_R, yes, I am interested in debating the meaning of atheism, but I have a pending debate with Skepticalone first. I might consider doing two at once. Let me think about it.

If you’re interested, I wouldn’t mind doing a debate on the definition of atheism. I would defend the lack of belief definition and take full BoP. Would have to be next month though, about to all but disappear for a few weeks.

The definition is in the description of the debate under general terms. It defines “Christianity”, “more reasonable”, and then “atheism”. The definition provided is “A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods”. I don’t know what background conversation you guys may have had, but that’s all the judges have to go by so you need to read it carefully before accepting the debate.

That turned out to be crucial here because it determined what Pro is supposed to be defending in this debate, which was not a world view but rather a rejection of one very specific claim - “god exists”.

It really is that simple, I can see you vehemently disagree with that definition of atheism, but that’s the definition according to this debate.

BoP and lack of belief:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QepTGHiSSn4

Final,

The scope of the debate was defined in the heading, "Atheism, is on balance, more reasonable than theism."

Besides his four arguments, what reasons did Pro give to suggest atheism was more reasonable than theism? He denied he even had a position all when while arguing for a position. And when he replied to my four lines of evidence that Christianity was more reasonable, did he show that it was not the case? No, he avoided explaining his standard for morality, how he arrives at gratuitous evil, that his view of Occam's Razor on naturalism versus Christianity was correct, that his AKCA could be true if Special Relativity was incorrect, or in fact even if his view on time was true. Einstein and others stated that time, matter, and space had a beginning. The ontological argument as he stated it in his syllogism fell on its face too, IMO.

Continuing,

So, as Frank Turek pointed out, in the link above, atheism.
1. If atheism is merely or ONLY a lack of belief the atheist offers no evidence against God. (This is not true, as I pointed out)
2. Trees, rocks, etc., also qualify. They lack belief too. 'Only' applies to them.
3. Most atheists try to explain the world and existence, as did Bones, representing the atheist position all the while arguing that an atheist
does not have a position other than only their lack of belief in God or gods.
4. "They believe in certain theories to explain reality without God" (as shown by Bones in our debate). Atheists still try to explain reality, as did Bones.
5. Atheists usually express a POSITIVE belief in materialism, naturalism, secular humanism, empiricism, science (really scientism), physicalism, etc., in explaining reality. They, as atheists, don't lack a belief in materialism or these other isms listed. They flock to these beliefs.
6. Having no BoP is nonsense. Atheists not only identify what they believe are deficiencies in theism (I.e., on this debate forum I think of Stephen), but they also make the case for naturalism/materialism/empiricism in their arguments (I think of many others, including you, D_R). Once God is jettisoned, they either come from a position of their own minds as sufficient for truth and what is, or they rely on materialism and the natural realm, expressed through subjective beings. They look for the answers within the box as to why the box is there.
https://crossexamined.org/atheism-lack-belief-god/

[3] Nope. Everything is off the table once the definition is changed to ONLY a lack of belief. Pro was trying to avoid his commitment to a BoP by stating "a lack of belief in God or gods." But when he said ONLY I rebuked his statement by opening up what atheism actually is, and how the definition and the atheist, before it became embarrassing to admit it, were adamantly denying God or gods, especially the Christian God because a movement, the Enlightenment and Age of Reason thought humanity could explain existence without reference to God or gods. Humanity became the measure of all things. This thought pattern is not new; it happened with Adam in the Garden when the serpent asked, "Did God really say?" and by disobeying God, Adam (and humanity) opened their minds to evil.

As I pointed out in the debate, the atheist cannot explain or justify evil. And Bones never gave a sufficient reason for gratuitous evil. To think that someone like Hitler, in all he did, did not suffer the same kind of pain he put others through. It is not equal justice. Equal justice is an eye for an eye, life for life. In fact, the atheist cannot explain morality. That is why it is safer to hide behind "merely a lack of belief." In this way, there is no accountability for what he believes.

Bones, in this very debate, presented a naturalistic belief system as representing the atheist.

Thanks for the reply, D_R!

ME: "Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?"

YOU: "Pro never argued in favor of any particular worldview. Every argument he made was in refutation of theistic claims. [1]

I understand your frustration in feeling like you were duped into a shared BoP debate only to be left having to prove your worldview while your opponent just gets to swat it down and not make any claims himself. The single biggest mistake you made was accepting the terms of the debate which clearly define atheism as a lack of belief. Once that happens the only thing Pro has to demonstrate is the reasonableness of not accepting god as defined. [2]

As I strive to be objective in this debate and I see that perhaps the single biggest contention in this debate centers around the definition of atheism, the only thing I can do is see what the rules state and apply it. And once "lack of belief" is established, that renders nearly half of your case moot. [3]

It's always a shame when good debates go off on two different pages, but it's on the participants to know the rules they agreed to and engage within them.

*****************************************

[1] In Pros' very first round, under the subtopic 'Atheism' stated, "Notice that Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief..." That is simply not the case. That statement changed the definition of atheism before I had made any arguments and needed expounding on.

[2] Again, Pro decided in his 1st round of the debate that he would not be accountable for anything other than his four topics. In his previous debates, I rightly pointed out that Pro had very well explained what the BoP is, yet was unwilling to follow it here. Pro also tried to justify atheism as nothing more than a lack of belief in God or gods by analogies to fairies and celestial teapots. I rightly pointed out that each argument needed to be evaluated on its own evidence.

Remember, the term ONLY a lack of belief is not true, and it needs to be flushed out. I found this gem today, but it mirrors my views in many ways of what I presented in the debate, probably because many Christian apologists share ideas or have pat answers to these questions. Here is the link - https://crossexamined.org/atheism-lack-belief-god/

Some of my sources for these ideas on atheism came from the influence of other Christian apologists such as Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Samples, Ronald Nash, John Frame, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Greg Koukle, Peter Kreeft, Jim Wallace, J.P. Moreland, Edward Feser, Norn Geisler, R.C. Sproul, Nancy Pearcey, Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, Andy Bannister and many others, including some of the early church fathers. Andy Bannister's book, The Atheist Who Didn't Exist, went into much detail about why atheism is more than ONLY a lack of belief. Many atheistic books and websites include materialism as a necessary belief for any thinking atheist. Of course, just like Christianity, some atheists work on blind faith. I recognize that. They haven't examined why they believe what they do or the evidence for the Christian God. They blindly accept the credentials of others without examining how these people arrived at such a BELIEF. As I said, if you reject God or gods, then for the thinker, there needs to be an explanation that uses nature or the natural realm to explain our existence and the important things of life, the things that constitute a worldview. There are only a few explanations of why we are here when you get through all the bull. 1) A necessary self-existing being created us. 2) Nature is responsible (i.e., random, chance happenstance). 3) This is an illusion. Of course, some people just don't care. When you examine these three positions, two are unreasonable, and only one is justifiable - the Christian God.

Thank you. I appreciate your feedback, whether for or against.

This one's next on my list, guys, sorry for not getting to it during the voting period. Should have it done by the end of the weekend.

Forgot to tag you…

“Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?”

Pro never argued in favor of any particular worldview. Every argument he made was in refutation of theistic claims.

I understand your frustration in feeling like you were duped into a shared BoP debate only to be left having to prove your worldview while your opponent just gets to swat it down and not make any claims himself. The single biggest mistake you made was accepting the terms of the debate which clearly define atheism as a lack of belief. Once that happens the only thing Pro has to demonstrate is the reasonableness of not accepting god as defined.

As I strive to be objective in this debate and I see that perhaps the single biggest contention in this debate centers around the definition of atheism, the only thing I can do is see what the rules state and apply it. And once “lack of belief” is established, that renders nearly half of your case moot.

It’s always a shame when good debates go off on two different pages, but it’s on the participants to know the rules they agreed to and engage within them.

“ Again, it proves atheism is a worldview. Pro has filled his lack of belief in God with many other beliefs. Once he jettisoned God or gods, he was forced to look upon existence in a naturalistic framework.”

That’s just not true. One does not have to accept the claim “god does not exist” in order to not accept the claim “god exists”. They can instead just say “I don’t know if there’s a god”.

Even if one accepts other claims such as materialism, that doesn’t make materialism, atheism. That just makes one an atheist who *also* accepts materialism.

I don’t have time to respond to the rest. If there’s anything in particular you want a response on let me know.

D_R: "This was a fantastic debate which both participants deserve credit for, it's shame that only one side could win but that's just how it works."

There is another possibility, a draw.

D_R: "The resolution being debated here is that Atheism is on balance more reasonable than Christianity. Each participant lead their argument with 4 different points to substantiate their position, so my first step is to sort through each participant's arguments to determine which if any should be awarded."

Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?

R1: "Immediately, the nature of this debate becomes clear - this is a conversation whereby a lack of belief is judged against a belief..."

Again, if atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods...period, what is most reasonable about it on the eight topics of discussion and contention? How can Pro offer these four as reasons if it is nothing but disbelief in God? Again, it proves atheism is a worldview. Pro has filled his lack of belief in God with many other beliefs. Once he jettisoned God or gods, he was forced to look upon existence in a naturalistic framework.

R1: "Notice that Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief - it is not an oath to materialism, objective morality or even science."

Only? If the supernatural is ruled out, what does Pro have left as a choice in explaining existence? Again, he is working from his subjective mind, or that of other subjective minds, on philosophical issues no one witnessed and no one can repeat. At the same time while denying God ( his disbelief in God) he MUST then believe in something else. His whole worldview is forced into naturalism, pantheism/panentheism (the universe as conscious, rocks, living things, everything is part of this whole), or solipsism, but there are no personal Beings or beings responsible. Thus, he is working from a position of random, chance, unreasoning happenstance, not intent and purpose (his AKCA is left without intent or purpose), while he finds meaning and purpose from everything he looks at. Is that more reasonable than the Christian or theist position?

R1: "Thus, questions such as "how did the universe begin," or "does objective morality exist" are not important, as an atheist does not tautologically prescribe to any particular belief in these questions."

Again, if lack of belief in God or gods is all atheism is, how can Pro, representing atheism in this debate, make more sense or show atheism is more reasonable in the other areas of discussion? That boggles my mind.

R1: "I assert that the "problems" with the atheistic worldview are not actually problems and that voters ought only to consider the solution provided by Christianity as this is most harmonious with the scientific method."

In the scientific method, in order for a hypothesis to be successful, experimenters must prove that the hypothesis is true by showing that it can make testable predictions, not by showing that alternatives are faulty."

It is not science that determines but scientists who come with biases and preconceived ideologies. They interpret the information. It does not come already interpreted for them. The data says nothing; scientists do.

R1: "This is known as the God of the Gaps, which is the theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence."

What about the science of the gaps? Pros theological perspective is that because science has not and cannot prove God, it is taken as evidence that God does not exist. Thus, supernaturalism is ruled out, and science examines everything from a naturalistic position. Again, there is a gap in the scientist's knowledge. It is also a position in which if it is not scientific evidence, it cannot be evidence (scientism). Some things are self-evident (another example, the laws of logic). Notice that Pro used philosophical arguments, like the anti-Kalam Cosmological argument, to state his "therefore God does not exist," while his premises were in question about their truthfulness.

R1: "What my opponent needs to do is to support his thesis, not disprove others."

In this debate, there is the affirmative and the negative. Not only that, the very fact is that scientists also use anomalies to disprove a theory, as stated by Carl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. The greater the anomalies, the greater the probability that the theory will be discarded for one with fewer inconsistencies.

D_R: "One other thing that stood out to me is that Pro consistently quoted philosophers expressing various ideas and concepts to which Con responded by attacking the bias of said philosophers. This is a clear way to lose an argument. The person being quoted is irrelevant to the point being made. Con should have engaged in the point, doing otherwise comes off as a red herring."

First off, no one is neutral. We all have biases. I was pointing out those biases from the sources Pro was using. These guys, especially Hitchen, had a beef with Christianity. Pro charged me as using ad homs here, without a lick of evidence against my position. Did he provide evidence to the contrary? No, he just stated it. And why do you think my position was irrelevant? In a court of law, the character of the eyewitness is very often brought into question. I was doing the same thing here. Then you charged me with not engaging in the point. I did.

On Russell's teapot argument, I presented two counter-arguments. 1) The analogy fails because the evidence for Christianity and the biblical God is vast compared to Russell's teapot analogy. The evidence holds together consistently, too, from the biblical manuscripts. 2) The one less God argument. Pro used the same kind of example with afairism, the one less God argument. That is to say, because the argument for the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, or the celestial teapot are reasons to doubt any are true; they are not on a par with the evidence for a biblical God. Each case needs to be examined on the merits of its own evidence or lack thereof. I gave adequate reasons on why Christianity rings true. Its ability to explain origins, morality, truth, logic far outseed anything Pro offered for the atheistic standpoint. Its internal and external evidence is also consistent with what we know. I gave the example of prophecy as an example. 1) The manuscripts show evidence they were written before the facts. The facts happened. When Jesus forecast the destruction of the temple and OT system, these things happened as foretold. Pro failed to engage much on this subject to show his position more reasonable.

D_R: "If Con wanted to argue against the definition of atheism he should not have accepted the debate as it was constructed, so I see no other option than to give Pro this section because this undercuts a significant portion of Con’s arguments in this debate."

No. In LUQs, I argued for atheism as a worldview, that Pro actually held a position on all these topics of debate. Pro instead turned it into an issue by stating atheism is not belief but lack of belief. What then was he arguing about in representing the atheist position??? Here is what he said in R1:

"Immediately, the nature of this debate becomes clear - this is a conversation whereby a lack of belief is judged against a belief."

How can you judge a lack of belief? What would he then be arguing for???

What Pro was trying to do from the start was avoid explaining his position and putting all the burden on my position. Thus, he did not have to explain anything and he avoided so many of my concerns in doing so. I did not think that such a position was at all reasonable. I, as a Christian, gave adequate explanations. They were plausible and they made sense of morality, evil, ontology, origins.

Before he made any other arguments he attacked the BoP. That was how he introduced his position and atheism was next. Yet, IMO, he failed to show how atheism was more reasonable in at least six of the eight points. I dropped arguing for logic based on the shortage of space, plus I felt the rest of the arguments I presented were adequate.

I welcome your discussion.

While I appreciate Double_R taking the time to vote, I will continue my disagreements which I want to express to others to consider what was not said or noticed in the vote. Please note, I do this after the voting period is over so as not to bias the vote beforehand:

D-R: "Cons 4 arguments consisted of the LUQ, biblical evidence, morality, and logic. With regards to the LUQ I think con argued his views well but this became one of the biggest contentions in the debate… what is atheism? Both sides in my view spent way too much time on this point. As a judge my first actions to settle such a dispute is to look at the definitions at the start of the debate where it clearly defines atheism as "a lack of belief". If Con wanted to argue against the definition of atheism he should not have accepted the debate as it was constructed, so I see no other option than to give Pro this section because this undercuts a significant portion of Con's arguments in this debate. With regards to the other three points, both sides argued their positions well so I consider each of these neutral."

The problem came when Pro insisted that atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in God or gods, not a worldview or system of thinking. Yes, it starts as a denial or disbelief in God or gods, but it carries way further than that. Here is how it was defined in the Description:
"Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods."

I did my best to establish atheism as a worldview, which was important during the debate because Pro was arguing from the position of atheism as more reasonable than Christianity. In other debates on the existence of God, Pro argued the BoP was shared. Not so in this debate, even though he stated his burden of proof was only in his four arguments, not on other claims. Even here, he never justified how he knew something was gratuitously evil by pointing to a reasonable standard. He just stated it was gratuitous evil from a position of neutrality. He charged God (the OT) with such evil. What was his standard for "gratuitous" evil? He defined evil in the Description, not "gratuitous evil." How did he recognize something as such? He never justified he had an adequate explanation. In my moral argument, Pro failed to explain how something could be morally good or evil when it was in a state of flux based on no unchanging, fixed necessary standard. Why were his thoughts any "better" than my opposing thoughts? He never justified they were because his preferences were not adequate. Thus, my Christian position was more reasonable than the one he represented as an atheist.

Pro was making statements on life's ultimate questions, the AKCA, the ontological argument, gratuitous evil, from his atheist position while saying he had no position except one, the lack of belief in God or gods. I explained that to disbelieve or DENY God was to look at these ultimate questions mostly from a naturalistic position. The position from solipsism does not wash well either. Here was Pro trying to avoid any accountability for his position that represented atheism by saying he had no position as an atheist, or at least representing that position. At the same time, Pro was presenting a position. Is that most reasonable? Is it reasonable at all? His atheist position could not justify his points nor adequately refute mine. IMO, his strongest argument was the AKCA. The rest I felt I countered sufficiently to be more reasonable than his. With the AKCA I cut one leg off the stool. That was, I attacked the position of Special Relativity and questioned whether what we were looking at was science or was it philosophical scientism? If my memory serves correctly, Pro did not follow up on the scientism aspect.

Pro failed to be accountable by repeatedly stating the same theme, "There is not an "atheist" position on questions like these." Only on questions like that? At other times Pro, representing atheism, stated several positions.

While I thank Double-R for voting, I disagree with many of his assessments. For instance:

D-R: "On the other hand, the gratuitous evil argument in my estimation stands. Pro did a good job of explaining that if God is omnibenevolent, there would be *no* evil, but Con accepted in the debate that God *uses* evil to achieve good. The only reason an all good God would need to use evil to achieve good is if he were not in control of his circumstances, but God in this debate is being defined as all powerful, so this exception is a clear contradiction of logic. Point to Pro."

On God's omnibenevolence, I argued, 1) God has a purpose for allowing evil, that greater good would come from it, not that He is the doer of evil.
2) God's permissive will gives His creation, the human, free will or volition to decide. God did not create humans as mere robots. This is an important point in who does evil. 3) God places the man in Eden and gives him a choice to eat of any tree in the Garden, except one. If the man eats of this tree, he will know both good and EVIL. His disobedience will create a rift before the holy and pure God. The man chooses to eat the fruit. 4) God holds the human being accountable for evil acts when He judges evil after physical death. 5) God will not take an innocent human life without restoring it to a better place. 6) How does the atheist account for evil if we are biological machines? 7) How can Pro reference evil without referencing the good? 8) What is Pros' ultimate standard in determining what is evil? Is it relative? 9) How does Pro, without God, account for justice? Do you feel Hitler gets his just reward in an atheistic system of thought? 10) I explained that the human is the one doing the gratuitous evil via his free will. How is this not a reasonable explanation? And how does Pro even know there is such a thing as gratuitous evil without first referencing what is necessary for such evil, an unchanging standard of reference. Pro never says. How is that more reasonable? Remember, this debate is about which view is more reasonable in explaining, atheism or Christianity. Pros statement, " Good is not necessary for the identification of evil, one can merely compare X act with neutrality," is nonsensical. How can someone judge something as evil unless he first knows what is the good? Do I get an answer to that? Pros analogy of the deer fell short, as I explained in R3. 11) The Is/Ought problem is brushed off. If there is no intelligent Designer behind the universe, then how does what something does make that evil. It is just doing its random chance actions for no reason. Reason requires intention. The 'whys' require causality and uniformity. I also argued in R3 how Pro misstated my argument that he called a strawman, that evil is addressed by a good God, that without God, evil is whatever Pro chooses to make it because it is relative. The perpetrator, such as Hitler, never gets equal punishment in the atheistic mind. Thus, I argue my argument was way better. Pro could not justify his position. He did not have the means to do so and he made a poor attempt at doing so. Thus, I disagree with Double-R's assessment.

Thanks for the feedback!

I can't get through this debate, but from how far I got into it, I'll give a few impressions...

BoP:
Back and forth on this rarely holds my interest in debates... Pro wants con to have primary BoP, yet this is clearly setup as a comparative debate. He advances this notion by mocking unfalsifiable beliefs. Con's counter to this includes an attack on the source for "his liberal view on sex and marriage did not coincide with the Christian worldview"; which is a poor tactic to try to refute it as it merely distracts from the issues in question...
I really like the setup for this debate having pre-agreed argument lines, among them this was not included, and it does not merit equal consideration to them.
Both debaters will obviously reach minimal BoP for their ideas to be taken seriously. Granted, a whole debate could be had on who has BoP.

Contention I: Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument
Such a loaded bit like this, should probably be its own debate. Also, hard for this to go anywhere we haven't read a dozen times over. I assume pro will list a bunch of scientists and their conclusion, and con will pull the Jesus card.
Pro operates as predicted...
Con, please do better at organizing arguments. Any voter needs to follow eight distinct contentions, through three rounds, each round being up to 50K characters. We should be able to type "Kalam" into the search bar to find your rebuttals. I get shortening it down to "AKCA," however, the first time you do that you should expand it like so: 'Anti-Kalam Cosmological argument (AKCA).' That said, you make some very good points on the limits of science and the remaining unknowns.
A lot of the problem I generally see with this whole line, is it feels like an invite for voters to vote their bias, without touching on which is "more fair and practical" which I believe should be the core focus of this debate given the resolution and definitions.

Anyways, it's very late, and I'm off to bed. Best of luck to you both.

would be a pity to have this debate go into a no vote tie.

The Christian would answer the opposite, so who is right? Christians argue that science points the other way, that is, towards belief in God. A random chance universe lacks intentionality, purpose, and sufficient explanation for the uniformity of nature and nature's laws. Frank Turek, Stealing from God shows how many atheistic arguments fail. He shows that atheists can't live by the same standards they impose on Christians.

A good refutation of Con's origins of the Universe is in the book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, where physicist Victor Stenger argues that science has advanced sufficiently to make a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. He invites readers to put their minds—and the scientific method—to work to test this claim.

After evaluating all the scientific evidence—the studies done by reputable institutions on the power of prayer; the writings of philosophers who have puzzled over the problem of God and of good and evil; the efforts of biblical scholars to prove the accuracy of holy scriptures; and the work of biologists, geologists, and astronomers looking for clues to a creator on Earth and in the cosmos—Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. He convincingly shows that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but scientific observations actually point to his nonexistence.