Instigator / Pro
Mall's avatar
Mall
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#5789

Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the contender.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
God
Religion
atheist
evidence
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
1500
rating
3
debates
33.33%
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.

Send a message for questions on the topic.

Round 1
Mall's avatar
Mall
Pro
#1
Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis.

Many atheists I hear often say, they believe no god exists because there's no evidence.

First of all, what is the proof there's no evidence?

Something doesn't non exist by no evidence.

Many of these atheists argue that you can't prove a negative.

The spirit of god is a negative. There is nothing that we know of that can help us detect the spirit of god.

God is an invisible spirit, immaterial, non physical, not natural. So what kind of evidence are we going to be able to use with those traits? Evidence on this side of the realm works for the opposite of that.

But if you think about it, if we go with not being able to prove a negative, then we're still left with not disproving the existence of god. So not believing on god just because of this evidence issue, it's insufficient.

The most logical stance is agnosticism. Atheism is more of a religion. I know atheists tend to resist this but atheists are highly religious.

Somebody might say, atheists are secular. The government, the state and politics are all secular. But because atheists are religious, there's no such thing as separation of church and state or religion and state.

Atheists believe god , the spirit doesn't exist due to a subjective experience much like a theist. Their positioning is more belief based than rationale based. If it was more rationally based, there'd be no sway to belief or disbelief.

Atheists have to have faith that the spirit isn't real. There's no evidence that the spirit isn't real. So the atheist has to accept the spirit isn't real . An atheist says she or he is convinced there is no god due to a lack of "evidence". This is worthless considering that it's only a lack thereof based on what they know. An atheist is not convinced there is a god and yet can still be wrong with evidence not seen yet while no evidence to prove there is no spirit. Do we see how thin and weak the basis is ?

It be like saying the opposing side didn't exist just because I don't have evidence of the opposing side's existence. I have no evidence of any future individuals I will potentially debate on this platform. It doesn't mean they don't exist automatically.

The atheists argument is simply " I cannot see you, hear you,etc." according to them anyway, so therefore they don't believe or be as erroneous to say there is no god.

You can't see me. You can't see what I'm doing. There is no evidence of what I'm doing. Outside of manipulating a device to communicate these letters, there is no evidence that you can see. Therefore it means automatically or proves I'm not doing anything besides. No it doesn't mean that.

But this is the logic of the atheists. Very weak logic to the point of error. Atheists are atheists due to a personal experience that has affected them so. Most likely a negative experience that has impacted them to take position of there being no spirit of god. If the spirit of god doesn't make sense to them, then therefore the spirit doesn't exist.

Another topic I was participating in, the opposing side believed and argued that according to the opposing side , there were perceived biblical contradictions. This was supposed to prove that the spirit of god that the book speaks about doesn't exist. This is fallacious but people believed in the weak logic. You can have multiple conflicting writings about me and yet I exist. Just fallacious and weak. The opposing side admitted that the book doesn't have contradictions when the person stated it had imperfect contradictions.

If the contradiction is imperfect, it is not complete and is not a contradiction. The opposing side attempted to back pedal out of this as the person knew the person went in error. The person tried to clean it up and rephrase. But then reiterated the conflicting statement again.

Let me pull some of the points from that topic and paste them here:

 The opposing side :    "Premise 3: The Bible has Contradictions
Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect"

 My responses :  So imperfect contradictions means what? No contradictions at all .

 The opposing side :    "Conclusion: At least one of the previous Premises must be false."

 My responses :    I'll follow this up with the following:

 The opposing side :     "Premise 3: The Bible has Contradictions
Premise 4: Contradictions are Imperfect"

 My responses :   Take your choice . Either the scripture has contradictions or it doesn't. Which has to be proven either way.

The opposing side : "The Bible has contradictions and contradictions are imperfect, so either the Bible is not his word, which doesn’t make him Christian god, or he isn’t real."


My responses : Either the book has contradictions (perfect) or it doesn't(imperfect).

Stating it has contradictions but they're imperfect contradictions in of itself is a contradiction. Matter of fact , it's a perfect contradicted statement.


This is part of what was stated. Much of the debate was me explaining what weren't actually contradictions and what the opposing side refused to accept.

The opposing side did admit one perceived contradiction was definitely wrong. Which discredited the opposing side of that topic to be qualified to judge what is actually a contradiction. Of course the opposing side denied this and would not accept any of the other accusations on supposed contradictions being false.

I understand . When you argue for your position you have a defensive wall up. You're not open to learning which I believe the opposing side admitted to as well which was problematic.

I'll close here. We have a shorter time to respond to points so not to go on in great length. Although I imagine you the opposing side in this topic has plenty of time to use granted the unique circumstances.



Hero1000's avatar
Hero1000
Con
#2
Thank you for inviting me to this debate Mall.

Opening context

I believe it is important for me to first convey some pre-debate context. Prior to accepting the debate I had asked some questions to Mall, most of which you can read in my first post in the comments section.

In regards to the question

Additionally, I wanted to ask about an elaboration regarding the atheists framed in the topic title. "Atheists that believe no God exists".
Are we talking about Atheists in general, any that would fit under the broader umbrella term?
Are we talking about the Gnostic atheist? An atheist that actively proclaims through evidence, reasoning, or whatever other means/motives that "God does not exist" is an actively true statement. ("I know that aliens do not exist in outer-space")
Are we talking about the Agnostic strong atheist? An atheist that dismisses claims of God's existence by actively proclaiming that "Evidence that God exists doesn't exist" is an actively true statement. ("I dismiss that aliens exist, because I know that we'll never have enough information to conclude that aliens exist in outer-space")
Are we talking about the Agnostic weak atheist? An atheist that personally dismisses claims of God's existence. Not actively proclaiming "Evidence that God exists doesn't exist" is a true statement. But coming to their own current dismissive conclusion because they are not personally aware of the evidence (or sufficient reasoning) that God exists. If such evidence and/or reasoning does indeed exist. ("I dismiss that aliens exist, because at present I am unaware of sufficient information of their existence, if such information exists")
Or are we talking about a specific brand of Atheist not described (or only partially described) by my previous examples? 
my opponent had answered me with "All types" in private messaging.

Normally I do not disclose private correspondence, but I believe this bit of context was important to share and is not inappropriate to disclose, I beg for your forgiveness if you believe otherwise.


Types of Atheists

Before we continue, I wish to talk about the different categories of atheist that lie under the umbrella term. A brief summary of them is displayed in my pre-debate questions, but I shall re-tread that ground for clarity's sake and to set up the stage.


Gnostic Atheist:

The gnostic atheist is an atheist who is sure, or at least very confident, in the conclusion about God he'd reached, that conclusion being that God does not exist.
Assuming that the person in question has no qualms with gambling, if there was a bet on whether or not God exists, and in this theoretical scenario it could be ensured that the bet is fair and factual, the gnostic atheist would bet money that God does not exist.

Strong Agnostic Atheist:

The strong agnostic atheist is an atheist who does not know whether or not God exists, but is sure, or at least very confident, in the conclusion about the evidence/information he'd reached, that conclusion being that there currently does not exist enough evidence to intellectually satisfy the conclusion that God exists.
Assuming the person in question has no qualms with gambling, if there was a bet on whether or not God exists, the strong agnostic atheist would not bet money that God does not exist. (Unless they were feeling lucky about their guess)
However, if there was a bet on whether or not sufficient evidence to intellectually reach the conclusion that God exists and is available to us. (available as in, the evidence doesn't exist on another planet lightyears away from us) and in this theoretical scenario it could be ensured that the bet is fair and factual. The strong agnostic atheist would bet money that such evidence does not sufficiently exist.

Note: Some in this group additionally believe the evidence will never exist, those are an even stronger form of agnostic atheist.

Weak Agnostic Atheist:

The weak agnostic atheist is an atheist who does not know whether or not God exists, and is not sure whether or not there exists sufficient available evidence to come to a conclusion either way.
Assuming the person in question has no qualms with gambling. Not only would the weak agnostic atheist refuse to bet money that God doesn't exist. He would also refuse to bet money that sufficient evidence doesn't currently exist and/or is not available. (Unless he was feeling lucky for gambling's sake in either scenario)


Agnostic vs Atheist

Here I further elaborate on and justify the premises I've held under Types of Atheists

The most logical stance is agnosticism. Atheism is more of a religion. I know atheists tend to resist this but atheists are highly religious.
With this statement, as well as the overlaying atmosphere of my opponent's opening statement, the assumption seems to be that Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive, but this couldn't be further from the truth.

The reason behind this is because gnosticism and theism deal in two different aspects of theology. Gnosticism deals with the question of knowledge, theism deals with the question of belief. (specifically, whether or not you believe a God (or Gods) exist)

When asked "Do you believe in God?", the atheist would answer "no". The theist would answer "yes".
When asked "Do you know you're right?", the agnostic would answer "no". The gnostic would answer "yes".

This diagram further demonstrates the interaction between the two concepts.



Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite


A further nuance to elaborate on regarding theism and the question of belief. Is that while theism deals directly in the question "Do you believe in God?", it doesn't not deal directly in "Do you believe God does not exist?"

The three types of Atheist I mentioned, the gnostic atheist, the strong agnostic atheist and the weak agnostic atheist. When asked with the question "Do you believe in God?", all 3 of them will give the same answer "no"

However, if instead they're asked "Do you believe God does not exist?". The strong and weak agnostic atheists will answer "no". While the gnostic atheist will answer "yes".

The distinction between theism and atheism deals in whether the belief exists or not. It does not (on its own) deal in whether the not believing comes from a lack of belief, or a belief in the opposite.

Lack of belief is not believing in the opposite, especially given that believing in the opposite is a belief in and of itself.


Addressing the opening

Something doesn't non exist by no evidence.
This is correct, 'lack of evidence' is a fundamentally dismissive argument, not an assertive one. Lack of evidence can not be used in favor of a gnostic argument.

Likewise this counter-point you raise addresses the gnostic atheist, but not the other two types of atheists I've mentioned.

First of all, what is the proof there's no evidence?
There isn't. The implied claim behind your question is correct as well. Said implied claim being "it is impossible to prove that there'll never be evidence" if I understand it correctly. We can never know for sure what information or evidence (or even reasoning) we might or might not find at our disposal in the future.

Likewise, this counter-point you raise addresses the stronger variant of the strong agnostic atheist. It doesn't address all strong agnostic atheists or weak atheists.

So not believing on god just because of this evidence issue, it's insufficient.
Their positioning is more belief based than rationale based. If it was more rationally based, there'd be no sway to belief or disbelief.
The majority of your opening statement elaborates on and repeats this point.

Most of your issues here trace back to mistaking gnostic atheism (and sometimes, very strong agnostic atheism) with atheism as a whole.

For example with those two statements you treat "believing in god" and "not believing in god" as two opposite ends equally distant from the middle position. (Or the neutral position, or the zero position). And likewise you do the same in regards to talking about sway to belief and sway to disbelief.

But here is the bit of nuance your oversimplification misses out on. "Not believing in" or "disbelief" does not always mean "believing in the opposite of". Indeed some atheists have this belief in the opposite of, but the majority of your argument only addresses those atheists. It does not address atheism as a whole or atheists in general. I go a bit more on this under Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite

Elaborating further on this, I would say it is more accurate to picture it that "belief" is on one end of the axis, "belief in the opposite of" is on the opposite end of the axis, and "disbelief" lies squarely in the middle. That one would start lacking belief in something until there is reason provided to change his position.

The spirit of god is a negative. There is nothing that we know of that can help us detect the spirit of god.
I find the consequences of the implications of this statement (and statements that support this) troubling.

If God himself, or the spirit of god, is completely undeterminable by human examination. Then not only would that leave the question of "does god exist" logically unanswerable.

But this would, even more troublingly, make it so that it is impossible to intellectually conclude which religion most accurately represents God and/or which holy book is most correctly the words of God. It would, at least according to my understanding of your argument, be completely and utterly a matter of faith. That at least from an intellectual point of view, people would have as much reason to adopt Christianity or Islam and worship God as they would to worship Zeus or Odin.

This might be my personal bias, but I do not wish to believe that Islam stands on the same intellectual level as ancient Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology.

I will not currently make the argument that I know the intellectual evidence to conclude if God exists is at our disposal. I will however argue, that we should be wary of any assertive claims to the opposite. And additionally point out, that ironically enough the claim that God is inherently unfindable goes line in line with the argument of the stronger variant of the strong agnostic atheist.

Let me pull some of the points from that topic and paste them here:
I request a link or the name of the debate topic so that I and the readers could further examine it for context.

If the contradiction is imperfect, it is not complete and is not a contradiction. The opposing side attempted to back pedal out of this as the person knew the person went in error. The person tried to clean it up and rephrase. But then reiterated the conflicting statement again.
To the best of my understanding. I don't think the contradictions themselves are what were being argued as imperfect. I believe the argument is "the book is imperfect because it has contradictions" (and that this might've been incorrectly shortened to "imperfect contradictions" by your opponent)

And while indeed imperfect writing about you or me doesn't mean that you or I don't exist. The Abrahamic God is described to be perfect (and by extension his message) so imperfections in his message/book would render said book not the (completely) true words of God. Thus damaging the credibility of the claim that the God that said those words exists.

I am only deciphering here, even at its best version, your opponent's argument (if it was about the exact same debate topic) would suffer from being specific to Christianity (if they were talking about the bible). It sounds like a gnostic atheist argument for "God of the bible would be internally contradictory so he can not exist". I could say more but I wish not to before having more context of the debate you mentioned at my disposal.


Closing statement

I will close out by saying that I have little interest in defending the viewpoint of the gnostic atheist, and or even the strong agnostic atheist most of the time.

I will generally contend that, as long as the stance of the weak agnostic atheist can remain "not unreasonable",  the stance of disbelieving God's existence due to no evidence known is not a weak stance. And that the basis for it is not weak. (despite how ironically funny it is that the weak atheist have the word "weak" in his name)


Questions

Do you believe there can be a strong basis for atheism? If not then why not? And if yes then what is that basis?
Round 2
Mall's avatar
Mall
Pro
#3
"I request a link or the name of the debate topic so that I and the readers could further examine it for context."

You forgot already. I don't do the links in all like that.

You can go on my profile page under finished debates. The title is "the Christian God cannot be real".

Now that's a bold assertive claim, no evidence given whatsoever for it.

"I believe the argument is "the book is imperfect because it has contradictions" (and that this might've been incorrectly shortened to "imperfect contradictions" by your opponent)"

Yes it was poorly worded. Many times people don't say exactly what they meant. If I would say that something has contradictions in what is not perfect, that's what they are. They're not imperfect contradictions. They still have to be perfect to be legitimate contradictions.

Then the person admitted one charged contradiction was incorrect altogether.

"Do you believe there can be a strong basis for atheism? If not then why not? And if yes then what is that basis?"

No. It's a neutral ground. There's is about as much evidence for the existence of the spirit of God as there isn't if you follow what I mean.

Every person eventually will believe, disbelieve or becomes undecided (agnostic) about this matter based on personal experience.

If there was a stronger pull to one side or the other, most likely, all these other religions would fade. But an atheist can provide no more a stronger argument than a theist can provide his.

Either group believes what they believe and I challenge anybody that says atheism is not a religion.




Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet