Instigator / Pro
1
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5712
Atheism is in no way the most logical stance to take on the existence of god(s). Absolutely not.
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end 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
1
1442
rating
47
debates
55.32%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Thank you. Thank you readers.
Agnosticism is the most logical based view on the existence of God(s).
Agnosticism is the position of not knowing whether the existence of any god is fact.
Speaking of fact, that brings us to logic. See, logic deals with the principles of validity.
One's thinking on what is valid and according to it is what is logical in accordance to logical rules;rules of logic.
What is valid is factual. For instance, an invalid passcode is an incorrect passcode, a fictitious passcode.
An agnostic for example says it is unknown of any god existing because it is not fact. That's logical.
This agnostic is concerned with facts only.
Therefore any position going by something aside from that is not based on only logic but is rationed or has a ratio of other elements besides facts.
Compared to this agnostic, this agnostic has a ratio basis of 100% facts.
Which would be more than a ration let's say of a 80% basis on facts mixed with a percentage that is based on beliefs/disbeliefs(atheism).
So because this agnostic is operating solely from facts, what one does know and can know , it leaves the agnostic in a neutral position or the "I don't know" position. Not swayed to believe there is no existence of any god. Not swayed to believe there is an existence of any god.
The agnostic is not swayed either way. When asking the agnostics, do they believe in any god? They say they don't know.
Ask them do they lack a belief in any god?
They say, "I don't know" because they're in a neutral position.
There are no facts to sway them in the positive nor negative.
Now I've heard it argued that the "I don't know" position is irrational.
Perhaps the opposing side will elaborate on this portion being in the negative. The way facts work and evidence, when there is no evidence for some thing, you know not of that something being true.
In this case, to opt not to believe is influenced by something other than facts presented. It is not the default position.
Argument 1:
I would like to begin by saying that some, like Pro, take the position that atheism is not the most logical approach to the existence of Gods while agnosticism is. This view is contradictory. The terms "Atheism" and "agnosticism" are not mutually exclusive. Both ideologies have opinions on the concepts of deities. Atheism, by definition, lacks belief in Gods, while agnosticism is the position that belief in said Gods cannot be proven. Therefore, someone can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Contrary to the pro's claim. Atheism is not only a very logical position to take, but it is so logical that it can fit within the framework of other equally valid positions such as agnosticism, which Pro themselves acknowledge as a logical position to take.
Argument 2:
Pro claims that being logical leads to being factual and thus agnosticism is "100" percent factual. However, this claim is nothing more than a logical fallacy on Pro's part. Logic and fact are not always in agreement of each other. It may be true that logical reasoning can at times lead to factual conclusions. Nevertheless, there are also times where logical arguments can be based on false premises. Additionally, Agnosticism itself is an ideology that centers on the uncertainty of its principles and lack of factual information. Thus, to claim that agnostics are factual in their beliefs with no margin for error goes against the very idea of being agnostic.
Argument 3:
One of the major themes of Pro's argument seems to be that they think atheism takes the position that we (atheists) know for fact Gods are not real and thus require proof of it. However, this understanding of atheism is wrong. The atheistic position on God is to simply not believe one is real.
The only reason theists and people like Pro take issue with this framework is because their understanding of the world is: "Believe something is true, then justify it with logic, then it must be true." However, atheists operate in a completely different framework. Our framework is, "Be skeptical of everything, wait until something can be proven, and if it is proven, then believe it."
So, it is not that atheists take the position of knowledge and thus have the burden of proof. It that we doubt everything at first before we give something a chance whereas others presume things to be true before seeing the evidence. Thus, they carry the burden of proof, and they can't prove their Gods at this current time. Atheists are in fact completely justified in their stance as it is the same framework that the American justice system takes when it comes to fighting crime.
Does the law assume you are guilty before your day in court? No, in fact it requires that you be proven to have committed a crime. Most of us would not disagree with the framework that a person's guilt must be proven and never assumed. Therefore. if you subscribe to the logic that the existence of guilt must be securitized and validated before you believe it, you cannot say atheists are illogical for saying the same thing about God.
rebuttal's:
So because this agnostic is operating solely from facts, what one does know and can know , it leaves the agnostic in a neutral position or the "I don't know" position. Not swayed to believe there is no existence of any god. Not swayed to believe there is an existence of any god.
One cannot operate on "Facts" if their position is also that they do not know anything. Pro has to decide if he's saying that agnostics operate on fact because their beliefs IE that God is unknown, and unknowable is true. In which case, they are proving atheism is indeed a logical position to take since it doesn't go against the line of thinking. Or if he's saying that agnostics are instead operating on the premise of ignorance, which would mean they aren't operating on facts and atheism would again be just as valid since atheism operates on a position of ignorance as well.
The agnostic is not swayed either way. When asking the agnostics, do they believe in any god? They say they don't know.Ask them do they lack a belief in any god?They say, "I don't know" because they're in a neutral position.
This argument is only true if you are talking to self-identifying agnostics ONLY. However, since their agnostic theists and atheists in the world, it is false to say that agnosticism is a totally neutral position.
Now I've heard it argued that the "I don't know" position is irrational. Perhaps the opposing side will elaborate on this portion being in the negative. The way facts work and evidence, when there is no evidence for something, you know not of that something being true. In this case, to opt not to believe is influenced by something other than facts presented. It is not the default position.
While I agree that taking the position, "I do not know" is not an irrational position in of itself, that's a point Pro was better off not mentioning. Neither atheists nor agnostics claim to know if God is real or not. It is in fact theists who take the position of knowledge and would indeed find the idea of claiming to not know if God is real to be irrational.
Conclusion:
Pro's argument against atheism is extremely weak and contradictory. They are arguing that both agnosticism and atheism are two different ideologies when that is not entirely true. Furthermore, they try to argue that agnostics are a superior in ideology to atheists because they are somehow factual despite pro also admitting that agnostics, like atheists, take the position of not knowing any Gods to be real. Atheism is a very logical position to take and is not in conflict with agnosticism.
Round 2
I'm going to see if the opposing side is willing to engage. If not, the opposing side is pushing towards forfeiting.
I believe this individual doesn't care to face engagement to avoid refutation but I could be wrong.
Like in many professional debates I've heard there's a thing called cross examination.
Here we go.
Being that atheism is a lack of belief in God due to perhaps let's say no evidence that's known of, could it be possible that God exists even without evidence?
Without even knowing anything about the evidence, isn't it logical that God could still exist?
If you didn't get those questions, I'm going to put it this way.
Either way , do your utmost honest effort to answer all questions with an applicable direct yes or no following if desired , an explanation or elaboration.
There could be evidence for God existing. You just don't know about it. You haven't seen it.
Could it be true that God exists anyway?
Is it possible unbeknownst to you, to anyone?
Being that I said anyone, those who supposedly have evidence, it is possible that you're just unaware of them having it and it hasn't been presented to you, is that right?
You may be aware of the claim, but it has not been yet verified.
Ok, I'll be looking for those answers next.
Opening:
While it's impossible to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God, basing your beliefs solely on faith without any supporting evidence is different from the logical approach used in science and philosophy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the absence of that evidence, it's reasonable to conclude that a higher power might not exist.
My opponent is presenting hypothetical scenarios that don't hold up under scrutiny. Claiming that someone could have evidence without knowing it contradicts the basic definition of evidence. Similarly, suggesting that something exists without any possibility of proof undermines rational thought and inquiry. While faith-based beliefs are understandable, it's important to differentiate them from logical arguments based on evidence and reason.
First argument:
My opponent has asserted that atheism is illogical, but they haven't provided any evidence or reasoning to support that claim. Simply stating that atheism is illogical doesn't make it true. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate the flaws in the atheistic position.
Furthermore, my opponent's previous suggestion that agnosticism is a more logical position than atheism is incorrect. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses the epistemological aspect of belief (the question of knowledge), while atheism addresses the ontological aspect (the question of existence). Therefore, their attempt to discredit atheism by promoting agnosticism falls flat.
Second Argument:
My opponent is attempting to dictate the terms of this debate, demanding specific answers that fit their preferred narrative. A productive conversation requires an open exchange of ideas, even when we disagree. Refusing to engage with alternative viewpoints hinders our ability to understand complex issues. Their behavior demonstrates a clear unwillingness to engage in a genuine dialogue or understanding. Their actions reveal a lack of sincerity in their stated goal of seeking knowledge through debate.
Furthermore, if my opponent chooses to withdraw from the debate, it will be due to their own unwillingness to engage with challenging ideas, not because of any actions on my part. I condemn their attempt to avoid the arguments I've presented simply because they're unprepared to defend their position
Conclusion:
In conclusion, my opponent has failed to present a convincing argument for why atheism is illogical. They have asserted that atheism is flawed without providing any evidence or sound reasoning to support their claim. It's reasonable to conclude that the existence of a deity requires evidence, and in the absence of that evidence, atheism is a logical position. My opponent's attempts to discredit atheism have been unsuccessful. Their behavior throughout this debate demonstrates a lack of preparation and a fundamental inability to construct a coherent argument. Their threats to leave the debate further highlight their unwillingness to engage in a meaningful intellectual exchange.
Round 3
Please make my prediction false.
Did I truly predict the opposing will not engage?
Was my prediction correct ?
My arguments get strengthened off of the opposing side's answers.
If the opposing will not engage, the opposing simply forfeits the debate.
You're refusing to debate. This is a debate and your opposer is debating you with cross examination.
Other individuals can handle my challenges with challenging questions. We are to believe you can't. No. You're evading.
If your case is as strong as you tout , it'll be able to answer these questions remaining consistent so.....speak up.
Being that atheism is a lack of belief in God due to perhaps let's say no evidence that's known of, could it be possible that God exists even without evidence?
Without even knowing anything about the evidence, isn't it logical that God could still exist?
Could it be true that God exists anyway?
Is it possible unbeknownst to you, to anyone?
Being that I said anyone, those who supposedly have evidence, it is possible that you're just unaware of them having it and it hasn't been presented to you, is that right?
Opening:
Pro is now claiming that I am refusing to debate despite the fact they are refusing to acknowledge my points that prove atheism is a logical position to have on the debate of God's existence. Pro has not addressed or refuted my arguments. While it can be argued in logic that God could be real despite no evidence being present, logic can justify any opinion and thus is not a good argument. While Pro may be right that atheism is a lack of belief due to no evidence, they did not provide any reason for why such a stance is illogical.
First argument:
In order for Pro to prove atheism is illogical, they must adhere to the definition of illogical and demonstrate that atheism falls into such a category. Alternatively, Pro must prove atheism's incompatibility with logical reasoning. Without meeting these criteria, Pro's argument lacks a foundation. Pro's failure to address these points weakens their stance on the debate.
Additionally, not believing in what cannot be proven can never be argued as illogical because accepting something on face value without evidence is not supported by logical reasoning. Thus, it is more logical to maintain skepticism until proof is provided. Atheism stands as the pinnacle of skepticism, embodying the principle of questioning beliefs without evidence. It champions the stance that without proof, maintaining a non-belief is the most logical approach. Atheism is not illogical, despite Pro's claim. Pro has failed to present any counterarguments that effectively challenge the logical stance atheism holds. It's Pro who is attempting to evade the debate by introducing unfounded claims they cannot substantiate.
Second argument:
While Pro argues that undiscovered evidence of God's existence might exist, this argument is deeply flawed because they cannot prove such a claim to be factual. Therefore, their assertion lacks the concrete evidence required to challenge the logical stance of atheism. Undiscovered evidence, by its nature, is unknown and cannot be counted as concrete evidence. Pro relies on logical fallacies and baseless speculation, arguing on possibilities that lack substantiation. Therefore, their argument in that regard is invalid.
Conclusion:
Pro has not contributed any substantial arguments to the debate thus far. They have failed to address my points or present any credible challenges to atheism. Until Pro provides a legitimate attack on atheism that is worthy of recognition, there is no further need to delve deeper into the debate. Pro's reliance on speculation and logical fallacies does not constitute a valid argument. Consequently, I will refrain from continuing the discussion until Pro steps up with a more robust challenge.
Round 4
I'm reiterating my last post with some editing as the server to this website continued to error while trying to publish the draft and a new draft
couldn't be made due to the error.
So for the record, I'll repost with a some edited
details I wanted to get across.
Please make my prediction false.
Did I truly predict the opposing will not engage?
Was my prediction correct ?
My arguments get strengthened off of the
opposing side's answers.
The opposing side wishes for me to respond to
the opposing arguments.
My responses are the questions to the opposing
side. "Oh questions are not arguments."
I repeat again : My arguments get strengthened
off of the opposing side's answers.
I believe the opposing side is well aware of this and will not help to strengthen my side in addition to the opposing case to dig a refuted hole for or
trap inescapable .
If the opposing side will not engage, the
opposing side simply forfeits the debate.
You're refusing to debate. This is a debate and your opposer is debating you with cross
examination.
Other individuals can handle my challenges with challenging questions. We are to believe you
can't. No. You're evading.
If your case is as strong as you tout , it'll be able to answer these questions remaining consistent
in your favor so.....speak up.
Being that atheism is a lack of belief in God due to perhaps let's say no evidence that's known of,
could it be possible that God exists even without evidence?
Without even knowing anything about the
evidence, isn't it logical that God could still exist?
Could it be true that God exists anyway?
Is it possible unbeknownst to you, to anyone?
Being that I said anyone, those who supposedly have evidence, it is possible that you're just unaware of them having it and it hasn't been presented
to you, is that right?
The opposing side is refusing to engage. The opposing side wishes not to make answers that would self refute .
While the opposing is in forfeit mode, I'm going to speak to another debate topic where people actually believed God is or was proven false or not to exist.
Now it is very logical to take the position that something doesn't exist because of evidence.
It is illogical to take the position that something doesn't exist without evidence.
In this case , how do you prove a negative?
The person's best argument was according to that person, inconsistent writings.
There are many inconsistent writings about me on this platform. It doesn't mean I don't exist .
An entity or figure that is negative is not necessarily absent but undetectable.
Like in a medical test, some elements or the intended elements to be tested for may not be picked up. It doesn't prove non existence. By such element not being detected, it may appear absent.
That's how it is regarded with the Spirit of God. But the absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of of absence. Something can be thing present but you can't see it.
This is why when atheists say there is no evidence period, that's flawed and illogical. There is no evidence that they see. It can be there unseen.
This is where agnostics comes in and say they don't know because they acknowledge what they can't see can be there thus proving a more sound basis.
This is what my questions to the opposing side was surrounding with the lack of observable evidence in God's existence.
The opposing side knows there's no evidence to us to prove God doesn't exist so why logically disbelieve he doesn't when there can be just the same evidence unseen to us that he does?
See the logic. The agnostics see that but if the opposing side addresses that in an answer well.....we see why those questions are not dealt with.
Forfeited
Round 5
Case closed. The opposing side forfeited my questions thus in turn forfeited the debate knowing the truthful answers to those questions would debunk the opposing case .
When you debate, be prepared to answer the questions that challenge you back . You accepted the challenge, step up to it.
Forfeited
