Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5789
Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis.
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
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
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
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.
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
"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.
Direct responses
The title is "the Christian God cannot be real".Now that's a bold assertive claim, no evidence given whatsoever for it.
Given the title of the debate, as well as the debate content, I retract my previous comment. Your opponent's argument doesn't suffer from needlessly being specific to Christianity, or being needlessly gnostic. Given that the opponent's PRO debate is a gnostic atheistic claim specific to Christianity, he argues it with a gnostic atheistic stance specific to Christianity.
Yes it was poorly worded. Many times people don't say exactly what they meant.
One wonders how poorly worded it was if I was able guess the argument's correct interpretation even before reading it.
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.
I believe you've either opted to not read or elected to ignore what I had written under Types of Atheists , Agnostic vs Atheist , Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite and the relevant follow ups to them in Addressing the opening
Either way, your argument suffers from not addressing them. Now I'll elaborate on how these already properly address what you've written here.
Every person eventually will believe, disbelieve or becomes undecided (agnostic) about this matter based on personal experience.
This usage of agnostic, implying that a believer and a disbeliever are mutually exclusive from an agnostic, is an incorrect usage of the term.
Not only is agnostic not mutually exclusive with atheist, as previously demonstrated under Types of Atheists and Agnostic vs Atheist. Agnostic is not mutually exclusive with theist either. Whether or not you're undecided in your belief or disbelief has no bearing on if you're agnostic or not and vice-versa.
Either group believes what they believe and I challenge anybody that says atheism is not a religion.
Atheism is not a religion, both by definition and by nature, atheism is one of the most common ways an individual can be without religion. I look forward to reading the contents of your challenge.
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.
Having already established what an agnostic atheist is, I will now demonstrate further what is wrong with this outlook.
The Burden of Proof
The problem is that due to the nature of the claims, the playing field is inherently not level.
Let's take in note the criminal legal system. In a court of law, it isn't an equal measure of seeing which of the prosecution or the defense that is able to lay down the more impressive pile of evidence. The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution. Indeed the defense side have their own claim, the claim of "not guilty", however that is a dismissive claim. You'll also take note that it's "guilty or not guilty" and not "guilty or innocent". The defense does not necessarily aim to provide a solid alibi or something that shows the defendant couldn't have done what they're accused of, that they're innocent. Their aim simply is to dismiss the prosecution's claim. To dismiss the notion that the prosecution's claim is a given fact beyond reasonable doubt, that they're not guilty.
I said this not as proof in and of itself. Theological debate and the legal system are two different things. I said this in order to further demonstrate what has been said in part 1 of my argument. The stance of an agnostic atheist is inherently dismissive, dismissive of the gnostic theist, of the religious. And so by extension the burden of proof lies not him but does lie on the opposition.
Another way to put it is agnostic atheism *is* the neutral ground.
Round 3
"Given the title of the debate, as well as the debate content, I retract my previous comment. Your opponent's argument doesn't suffer from needlessly being specific to Christianity, or being needlessly gnostic. Given that the opponent's PRO debate is a gnostic atheistic claim specific to Christianity, he argues it with a gnostic atheistic stance specific to Christianity."
The person I debated actually tried to argue that because there are what are perceived to be contradictions disproves the spirit of God.
The person thinks that disproves God. First off, let's say there were actually contradictions, that technically still doesn't disprove. Others understood that because inconsistent writings about me doesn't disprove me. But those that voted were more likely atheists themselves as this is most likely a majority atheist liberal site .
So it's much dishonesty on this site back to back. There is nothing that anybody has done to disprove God because as far as I know, nobody can see a spirit. A spirit is invisible. So how are you going to disprove that?
So the argument about contradictions is a very weak argument, illogical argument. It is a very weak point if not the weakest.
The person's argument went like this.
According to the biblical scriptures, God is perfect so therefore a book inspired by a perfect God would have a perfect book or books .
But who's calling it imperfect?
A person in that person's opinion claims it's imperfect.
The person had to prove it was imperfect. Now because the credibility of the person being able to determine a true contradiction was questionable, that person could no longer qualify.
Due to one perceived contradiction actually being retracted and the accuser admitted the retraction, the person's credibility was then shot and inadmissible.
The person did not want to accept the disqualification. But how can I look at you as reliable after being wrong just once?
See because, once is too many already. I can't rely on your judgement at all. If you're wrong about one, you can be wrong about the rest. All of the rest were explained as not being contradictions as well as the one the person conceded to.
But for some reason, the person just couldn't allow any more conceding. The person couldn't let anymore slide. The voters knew or ignored the single conceding and still believed the spirit of God was disproven. But it is incredibly ignorant to think you've disproven what you can't even see . How foolish?
As the scripture say "thou fool".
"One wonders how poorly worded it was if I was able guess the argument's correct interpretation even before reading it."
Ok , let me ask you then. When something has contradictions, are they imperfect contradictions or perfect contractions ?
"This usage of agnostic, implying that a believer and a disbeliever are mutually exclusive from an agnostic, is an incorrect usage of the term.
Not only is agnostic not mutually exclusive with atheist, as previously demonstrated under Types of Atheists and Agnostic vs Atheist. Agnostic is not mutually exclusive with theist either. Whether or not you're undecided in your belief or disbelief has no bearing on if you're agnostic or not and vice-versa."
Well what do you call a person who is undecided in this case?
"Atheism is not a religion, both by definition and by nature, atheism is one of the most common ways an individual can be without religion. I look forward to reading the contents of your challenge."
Atheism is a set of beliefs like any other religion. As a matter of fact , a religion called laveyan satanism was founded by atheism. It has a bible and laveyan church.
Atheists believe there is no God. Atheists have faith there is no God. They have to require faith because there is no evidence known to disprove what they believe is not real. So they trust that God does not exist anyway. When you have no evidence for something but accept it as is, that is a belief so atheism qualifies.
I won't even mentioned what the supreme courts and circuit courts have ruled it as.
Atheism is a religion and there is no such thing as separation of church and state. I'll throw that in there. Typically theists agree.
"The Burden of Proof"
The burden or onus is on part of where the claim asserted as fact comes. If you assert that God is real, provide the evidence. If you assert that God is not real, provide your evidence.
If you state what you believe, there is no onus there. What you believe is what you believe. You're telling a person what you believe in. You're not declaring something is actually real. You just believe that it is and obviously with beliefs you leave room for possible change or that you could be believing in what could be wrong.
Answering questions
In this section I will give direct answers to the questions posed by my opponent. If I have an argument against the premise of the question, I will quote it and respond to it again with said argument under Direct Responses and potentially other sections of my argument if they're featured there.
Ok , let me ask you then. When something has contradictions, are they imperfect contradictions or perfect contractions ?
That depends actually. "When something has contradictions" does not specify whether the contradictions are imperfect or perfect.
When something has contradictions, the contradictions could be either. They could be perfect contradictions or imperfect contradictions. I'll elaborate further on this under Perfect and Imperfect Contradictions
Well what do you call a person who is undecided in this case?
An Atheist. In most (if not all) cases I'd consider such a person an atheist, at least at his current state. I will go more over this under Undecided vs Atheism
Relevant Arguments
Given that my opponent went extensively into a topic I believe adds nothing to this debate, but wish to still address just in case my belief is wrong and it is relevant. I shall split my sections accordingly for the reader's convenience.
Direct Responses
Addressing Laveyan Satanism
Atheism is a set of beliefs like any other religion. As a matter of fact , a religion called laveyan satanism was founded by atheism. It has a bible and laveyan church.
Laveyan Satanism is indeed something that puts in display a rare example where one can be without believe in any God or deity and identify themselves as "religious" at the same time.
But that is what it is, an outlier. Firstly, it can it be argued that Laveyan Satanism is not truly a religion, as they do not truly believe in the existence of Satan, but rather use him a symbol against Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. Laveyan Satanism is atheistic Satanism [1] as opposed to theistic Satanism [2].
But more importantly to this topic, Laveyan Satanism does not represent all of atheism, or even most of it. To say that atheism is religious because all Laveyans are atheists requires similar logic as saying Islam is terrorism (or promotes terrorism) because most terrorists are Muslim. Or that flat earth is Christian because most flat earthers are Christian.
Let us say for the sake of argument that most terrorism in the world is committed by (people who identify as) Muslims. That wouldn't mean that Islam is terrorism or that Islam promotes terrorism or that becoming a Muslim makes you become a terrorist. Because even if, let's say hypothetically for the sake of argument, 80% of terrorists were Muslim. It doesn't change the fact that less than 1% of Muslims are terrorist.
And taking the case to Laveyan Satanists, even if you take that hypothetical 80% and raise it to 100%. (Which would make sense given that Laveyan Satanism is atheistic Satanism). Even if 100% of Laveyan Satanists were atheists. That doesn't mean that becoming an atheist makes you a Laveyanist, or any kind of Satanist for that matter. Nor does it change the fact that less than 1% of people who are atheists are Satanists.
Additionally this does not contradict my statement. Atheism is one of the most common ways one can be without religion, and an outlier doesn't change this. A person becoming or identifying as atheist is commonly paired with the trait of lacking the formal following of a religion.
Furthermore, in most cases Laveyan Satanism takes the position of the Gnostic Atheist (or the strong Agnostic in some cases) and finds a method to drift even further away from God. I am not inclined to defend the potential for reasonableness of the position of the Laveyan Satanist or the Gnostic Atheist for that matter. However, you need to do more than attacking a sub-category of a sub-category of Atheism to show that, no matter what form it takes, atheism is unreasonable.
Undecided vs Atheism
Well what do you call a person who is undecided in this case?Atheists believe there is no God. Atheists have faith there is no God. They have to require faith because there is no evidence known to disprove what they believe is not real. So they trust that God does not exist anyway. When you have no evidence for something but accept it as is, that is a belief so atheism qualifies.
This has already been addressed under Types of Atheists , Agnostic vs Atheist and Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite. To summarize, for the agnostic atheist, there is no believe or faith that there is no God. There simply is absent the belief in God.
For the prior question you mentioned, what is a person who is undecided on whether to identify as a theist or an atheist. At that moment, that person is an atheist. He might not hold the conscious thought "I don't know enough evidence/information to conclude that God exists."
Even then, that person, at least for the moment, is an Atheist. The belief in God is absent. This might be a sub-category of the weak agnostic atheist that is even yet weaker than a weak agnostic atheist who identifies as atheist. But it still falls under the umbrella of Atheism due to having the fundamental qualification of lacking a belief in God.
To explain the concept more, let us say you are in an island, or in some way secluded from society. It is impossible for you to know about Christianity or Islam as no one has introduced them to you.
Given that you do not know Christianity, while it is not something you actively claim is false as you do not even know it exists. It would still be the case that Christianity is absent from you. In the natural state Christianity is absent from you. And the same is true for Islam, and Judaism, and even Laveyan Satanism is not exempt from this.
If, after learning about these religions, you become Christian you *become* Christian. If you become Muslim, you *become* Muslim. Even if without a formal religion if you become a theist you *become* a theist, whether its a gnostic or agnostic one.
You don't *become* atheist, because you already are. Atheist is the default state, the original position. And likewise it is the default return position as well. For example, if you were Christian, and then you stop being Christian (and lets assume stop being a theist as well), you end up as an Atheist. If you were Muslim and you stop being Muslim, you end up as an Atheist. The only way for you to go from Christian to Muslim, is if, in addition for you to stop being Christian, you *become* Muslim. And the same is true for going from Muslim to Christian. However in order to end up in the atheist position after leaving a religion or leaving theism, you don't need to *become* an Atheist. You already are one the moment belief is absent from you.
And while I am at it, while I am a Muslim and I would disagree with an atheist, even the weak agnostic, and urge them to follow God. I am also, by the nature of my religion, an active gnostic denier (or more accurately, affirmer of the opposite) of other religions. If someone grew up worshiping Egyptian gods, and then later in his life he left religion. While I would say that he's still got further to go to find God, I would at least pleasantly say that he is moving in the right direction.
Now it is true that atheism still has its own brand of philosophies, thoughts and common arguments that you could learn about. And it is possible to *become* a stronger brand of atheist. Such as the more broad Gnostic atheist, or even more specific branches of that such as an anti-Christian, or an atheistic Satanist. Those are forms of atheism where *becoming* happens, and where indeed you take on the position of asserting claims. However this is not necessary to be an atheist. You can be an atheist without holding such positions.
The burden or onus is on part of where the claim asserted as fact comes. If you assert that God is real, provide the evidence. If you assert that God is not real, provide your evidence.
This also has already been mostly addressed under Types of Atheists , Agnostic vs Atheist and Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite, and further elaborated on under The Burden of Proof. And continuing on what I'd written above this quote. While the broad umbrella of atheism can include positions that assert claims, this is not necessary to be an atheist. Your arguments continue to attack the position of the gnostic atheist and occasionally the strong agnostic atheist.
You are making counter-arguments to arguments I have not made. This is part of how, even while responding directly to The Burden of Proof you do not address it or the foundation its built upon.
Atheism is a religion and there is no such thing as separation of church and state. I'll throw that in there. Typically theists agree.
Given that you're throwing that in there without much more elaboration or supporting reasoning beyond what people (or theists) typically think. This is argumentum ad populum. Your claim needs more substance.
I won't even mentioned what the supreme courts and circuit courts have ruled it as.
Do you mean "circus courts"? And could you elaborate further on this?
Not Very Relevant Arguments
These are bullet points I think are not very relevant to the argument at hand. But will address anyway just in case my judgement of their relevancy is wrong. Most of them have to do with this debate, I'll link it for your convenience.
Direct Responses
Ok , let me ask you then. When something has contradictions, are they imperfect contradictions or perfect contractions ?
The premise of the question is faulty, your opponent even explained it themselves. They did not say imperfect contradictions, they said contradictions are imperfect, as a shorthand for 'contradictions are an imperfect trait'. It is in the same way as saying "Fast food is unhealthy", it does not mean that fast food, the item itself, suffers from bad health, even though that is a possible grammatical interpretation, but rather that the consumption of fast food is unhealthy for the consumer. With the same exact grammatical pattern, "contradictions are imperfect" does not mean that contradictions, the item itself, suffers from imperfection, but rather that the possession of contradiction makes the possessor imperfect.
"Mistakes are bad" is another such example where the same logic can be applied.
The person I debated actually tried to argue that because there are what are perceived to be contradictions disproves the spirit of God.The person thinks that disproves God. First off, let's say there were actually contradictions, that technically still doesn't disprove.
Actually their argument were specific to the Abrahamic God. While indeed it is impossible for me or anyone to prove that no form of God exists. I potentially could specifically prove false a contradictory God. (Or at least, prove false the claim that the words in the holy book attributed to him were written by him)
Let us say for example, that the Egyptian god Ra is perfect, and that in the book of Ra, Ra says that 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 = 5. (and let's say for the sake of argument that the book of Ra was perfectly preserved). This is more than a contradiction with our knowledge and/or science, this is an internal inconsistency. And in such an example, I can affirmatively claim that I can prove, with confidence, the Ra (as we know him) does not exist.
Now while it is not an argument beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is still an argument beyond reasonable doubt, for example you could say "well, the book was fabricated, but maybe a god called Ra with most of those traits we know him by still exists". That is an imaginatively possible argument, but not a reasonable one to make.
And you are correct that ultimately, the contradictions are perceived, all of our arguments are the products of our interpretation. However I'd also argue that its not unreasonable to say that you might've fell short in your attempts to convey that said perception was false.
The person had to prove it was imperfect. Now because the credibility of the person being able to determine a true contradiction was questionable, that person could no longer qualify.Due to one perceived contradiction actually being retracted and the accuser admitted the retraction, the person's credibility was then shot and inadmissible.The person did not want to accept the disqualification. But how can I look at you as reliable after being wrong just once?See because, once is too many already. I can't rely on your judgement at all. If you're wrong about one, you can be wrong about the rest. All of the rest were explained as not being contradictions as well as the one the person conceded to.
Here your argument suffers from a leap in logic. You are correct in saying the mistake of your opponent is evidence that their judgement is in question, their credibility damaged, and that they can be wrong about the rest. In fact I'd argue this is the case about everyone anyone even prior to one making a mistake, that they could be wrong. That there needs to be more than just their say so to support their position.
That said, you leap from this position into the conclusion that your opponent's credibility is shot and inadmissible, that they are disqualified. That because they were wrong about something they claimed a contradiction, all their claims of contradictions should be discarded regardless of substance, information, reasoning or context.
You perform the fallacy fallacy, that because a claim was shown to be false, all similar claims should be discarded.
Indeed I made a similar argument against you under The 9-5 is modern day slavery. But I was careful in my wording, I'd said that, while your false examination of "prisoner" and "prisoner of war" as interchangeable, does not outright mean you *must* be wrong about everything else you claim interchangeable. It at the very least is evidence that your say so, on its own, should not enough, that there needs to be more substance to your argument and that its not, and should be, a matter of pure perception.
Your credibility is not completely shot and inadmissible, but your credibility and perception, is not enough on its own as the sole and entire basis for an argument, and for what are or aren't interchangeable. The same goes for your opponent, their needs more than their say so to believe their contradictions are true. But that doesn't mean that they are wrong by default regardless of argument substance.
Perfect and Imperfect Contradictions
I'll elaborate on what I think "imperfect contradictions" and "perfect contradictions" could mean in this context.
They could be imperfect contradictions, as in, the contradictions pointed out are not outright perfect, they're not (claimed to be) completely indisputable, there's room for explaining away the contradiction and showing that there wasn't an inconsistency. The contradiction has the potential of being a true one or a false one.
They could be perfect contradictions, as in, the contradictions are outright perfect, they're as completely clear as "Mark killed Alex in France" and "Jones killed Alex in Japan". They're (claimed to be) completely indisputable with no room for explaining why there isn't an inconsistency. (If the claim is true) The contradiction has no potential of being a false one.
Bit of a personal addendum to this, I'd even go further to argue that a claim for a perfect contradiction, in many cases, would be an exercise in arrogance.
Sources
Round 4
"An Atheist. In most (if not all) cases I'd consider such a person an atheist, at least at his current state. I will go more over this under Undecided vs Atheism"
Ok that is what you consider a person that does not know whether to believe in God or not. From my experience of hearing atheists, they describe themselves as somebody that believe there is no God. Never have I heard an atheist say he or she doesn't know or is undecided.
So I refer to people that don't know or undecided as agnostic. I have heard a person say he doesn't know but leans to disbelief anyway so he took on the title agnostic atheist.
"But that is what it is, an outlier. Firstly, it can it be argued that Laveyan Satanism is not truly a religion, as they do not truly believe in the existence of Satan, but rather use him a symbol against Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. Laveyan Satanism is atheistic Satanism [1] as opposed to theistic Satanism [2]."
It is still a religion or belief system in the principle of self autonomy authority however. So you can look at it as no belief in the spirit of God or any other spirit but the spirit of the atheists themselves as their own authority and deity, see.
"But more importantly to this topic, Laveyan Satanism does not represent all of atheism, or even most of it. To say that atheism is religious because all Laveyans are atheists requires similar logic as saying Islam is terrorism (or promotes terrorism) because most terrorists are Muslim. Or that flat earth is Christian because most flat earthers are Christian."
You have to understand what laveyan satanism truly represents. It is the belief in being your own judge and god just as what Lucifer, Satan , whatever wished to aspire to. Every atheist that believes in no judge higher than that of man, the atheist believes the power alone in man. Make their own decisions, judge their morality, reward and punishment. So they practice what they believe like a religion and this is how it spills over into society, ruler ship, ordinance, law and government.
"Atheism is one of the most common ways one can be without religion, and an outlier doesn't change this. A person becoming or identifying as atheist is commonly paired with the trait of lacking the formal following of a religion."
Atheists have faith there are no gods. That's religious.
"However, you need to do more than attacking a sub-category of a sub-category of Atheism to show that, no matter what form it takes, atheism is unreasonable."
Atheism is just another religion like all the others. Laveyan satanism is a religion.
"To summarize, for the agnostic atheist, there is no believe or faith that there is no God. There simply is absent the belief in God."
Well also to summarize for the atheist period, there is a presence in believing there is no god.
To accept something as true without evidence is a belief system.
"The belief in God is absent."
The belief in no god is present. True or false.
If you say false, you're saying the opposite is true which there is no belief in no god existing which the two negatives make a positive saying the atheist believes in god which contradicts.
If you say true, then you concede that atheism qualifies as a faith.
Either direction you walk, you will hit a dead end rebuttal.
"You don't *become* atheist, because you already are. Atheist is the default state, the original position."
You say I am an atheist already. So a baby is an atheist , a rock is an atheist because they lack the belief in a god. What about those that have decided to believe there is no god? Is that a neutral or default position of choice?
How can it be default when a decision was made to choose what to believe or disbelieve? This is the facet that you're not giving your attention to. See, the topic says " Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis."
You've clearly have not argued against this because there's no rebuttal. You believe something, you have faith in it. No doubt or guess work about it and simply because there's no evidence is not a strong position because there are many things that appear to not be evident but the possibility is not exhausted.
"For example, if you were Christian, and then you stop being Christian (and lets assume stop being a theist as well), you end up as an Atheist. If you were Muslim and you stop being Muslim, you end up as an Atheist."
This proves again that atheism , the facet I'm dealing with at least is not default. Why? You had to decide to start believing there is no god . First you started to stop believing there is no existence of god, you became theist. Then you decided again. An agnostic is neutral as the person can't go either way. A theist doesn't believe there is no existence while an atheist believes there is no existence.
"If you were Muslim and you stop being Muslim, you end up as an Atheist. The only way for you to go from Christian to Muslim, is if, in addition for you to stop being Christian, you *become* Muslim. And the same is true for going from Muslim to Christian. However in order to end up in the atheist position after leaving a religion or leaving theism, you don't need to *become* an Atheist. You already are one the moment belief is absent from you."
This does not make sense. In order to be different from one thing to another , you become that thing. So if I was a theist , then now I'm an atheist. How can I be something I wasn't before without becoming that something now?
Becoming means changing. If you say I'm already a thing by default so I never have to become it, that contradicts the nature of fundamentally different things. I can't be an atheist of God while be a theist of the same God, same God. So I would become something I wasn't previously. I wasn't a theist or atheist before , I didn't have or I did have whatever applicable beliefs and they've changed or become something different.
"Now it is true that atheism still has its own brand of philosophies"
"philosophies" (belief systems)
"Given that you're throwing that in there without much more elaboration or supporting reasoning beyond what people (or theists) typically think. This is argumentum ad populum. Your claim needs more substance."
It's not really an argument. It is like saying people typically travel, drive cars. It's a take it or leave it general statement. To use your terminology, you are an "outlier" as a theist on atheism.
"Do you mean "circus courts"? And could you elaborate further on this?"
Courts have ruled atheism to be considered a religion. At least in the United States.
"The premise of the question is faulty, your opponent even explained it themselves. They did not say imperfect contradictions, they said contradictions are imperfect, as a shorthand for 'contradictions are an imperfect trait'. It is in the same way as saying "Fast food is unhealthy", it does not mean that fast food, the item itself, suffers from bad health, even though that is a possible grammatical interpretation, but rather that the consumption of fast food is unhealthy for the consumer. With the same exact grammatical pattern, "contradictions are imperfect" does not mean that contradictions, the item itself, suffers from imperfection, but rather that the possession of contradiction makes the possessor imperfect.
"Mistakes are bad" is another such example where the same logic can be applied."
What does perfect mean? Without mistakes, right. Without anything wrong. So if find something wrong with a thing to do what it is supposed to do, that function is non existent. Something wrong with a tire, it will not function as it will or would. So in order for a contradiction to function as it would, there'd be nothing wrong with it. Again , just poor wording by the opposing side of that debate. It is just that plain.
The wording was intended to be contradictions in a imperfect book. Not imperfect contradictions in a book. See how that's worded consistently with the opposing side's position of that debate.
"Let us say for example, that the Egyptian god Ra is perfect, and that in the book of Ra, Ra says that 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 = 5. (and let's say for the sake of argument that the book of Ra was perfectly preserved).
This is more than a contradiction with our knowledge and/or science, this is an internal inconsistency. And in such an example, I can affirmatively claim that I can prove, with confidence, the Ra (as we know him) does not exist.
Now while it is not an argument beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is still an argument beyond reasonable doubt, for example you could say "well, the book was fabricated, but maybe a god called Ra with most of those traits we know him by still exists". That is an imaginatively possible argument, but not a reasonable one to make."
You have not dis-proven a negative in this case. You have not proven a negative and or a spirit to be false. You have not proven who physically wrote the writings did not make a flaw. You have not proven you understood context of what you read. You have not proven the text you received was not manipulated, corrupted, etc. or if you were actually mentally coherent at the time of research.
All of these scenarios have not been ruled out. So not only anybody that tries at this starting point claiming to have proved god false and all this is still on the table left inconclusive or unresolved is fallacious. Not to mention no where near disproving an entity not visible to demonstrate not existing.
This is what I'm saying. You can't disprove the spirit. All you can do is critique and criticize writings. That is all man has left to play with because atheists can't disprove a spirit, they've convinced themselves that all there is sufficient to do is critique writings they can't contemplate and because of that charge false contradictions.
At the end of it, if you haven't proved a spirit to be false, you're no more closer to evidence than understanding the writings you're vilifying. Now you being a theist , you think fumbling with the Quran is going to disprove Allah? Do you actually believe in Allah because Qur'an writings make sense to you?
There are many things in the holy scriptures Christians or true holiness folks are yet to understand and may appear conflicting to. It doesn't actually change the shape of their faith. By that logic if it did , all should be atheists. That's a point as well. Many atheists become atheists because of their problems in being puzzled by the sacred writings calling them contradictions while others remain theists in spite of . Just figure that.
"And you are correct that ultimately, the contradictions are perceived, all of our arguments are the products of our interpretation. However I'd also argue that its not unreasonable to say that you might've fell short in your attempts to convey that said perception was false."
Since you mentioned perception, it is always the perception of the opposing side to see whatever I say is not presented strongly enough leaving you to be no exception.
"Here your argument suffers from a leap in logic. You are correct in saying the mistake of your opponent is evidence that their judgement is in question, their credibility damaged, and that they can be wrong about the rest. In fact I'd argue this is the case about everyone anyone even prior to one making a mistake, that they could be wrong. That there needs to be more than just their say so to support their position.
That said, you leap from this position into the conclusion that your opponent's credibility is shot and inadmissible, that they are disqualified. That because they were wrong about something they claimed a contradiction, all their claims of contradictions should be discarded regardless of substance, information, reasoning or context.
You perform the fallacy fallacy, that because a claim was shown to be false, all similar claims should be discarded."
Think of it this way. It's not a "leap". It's a " go no further until your misjudgment can be rectified ". We don't have to discard, but we can't go no further. Now the opposing side of that debate conceded so at that juncture, reconciliation appears to be not happening.
See in other words, if a person has truly done the research on what was read, the person would of had a rebuttal to my rebuttal that presented a non contradiction point proving it back to be a contradiction again perhaps more so solidifying that it's not a perceived contradiction with a stronger counter rebuttal. But the person couldn't do that . The person I believe admitted the person's lack of knowledge on the scriptures. So that's a red flag right there in terms of why the scriptures appear conflicting to that person. The person is just plain ignorant.
"while your false examination of "prisoner" and "prisoner of war" as interchangeable, does not outright mean you *must* be wrong about everything else you claim interchangeable. It at the very least is evidence that your say so, on its own, should not enough, that there needs to be more substance to your argument and that its not, and should be, a matter of pure perception."
False equivalency and I didn't say anything about "must be wrong about everything else". I said inadmissible. I believe that's what I said which means disqualification.
"Your credibility is not completely shot and inadmissible, but your credibility and perception, is not enough on its own as the sole and entire basis for an argument, and for what are or aren't interchangeable. The same goes for your opponent, their needs more than their say so to believe their contradictions are true. But that doesn't mean that they are wrong by default regardless of argument substance."
That's your decision to decide not to argue inadmission. It is illogical to trust anyone making a judgment of a contradiction when they are faulty on one and admit they lack knowledge of what they're reading. All these are read flags and is completely naive to think not .
The following is directly quoted from the other debate.
"That's a good argument, I will drop that point. I know it's shocking, but I haven't read the bible as much as you"
Here the person admits the lack of reading the scripture. Just based on this alone, if somebody knows less than me because I demonstrated texts the person wasn't prepared for, would I not be a qualified judge over this person for what is an actual contradiction?
Again, because the lack of knowledge was there on one supposed contradiction, why wouldn't it be a lack for the others?
It would be a lack because all the other supposed contradictions received the same biblically based explanation/explanation that was not ruled out. The opposing side just went in circles and rejected the explanations instead of finding ways to disprove them.
If you don't believe the opposing side from that topic disproved Allah, you shouldn't be supporting what the person said. What the person said was no evidence which is pretty weak to take the position of atheism.
For you to say you don't have to take the position of atheism and that you are that by default, then that debate was pointless and things used to try to prove God false are pointless. Why try to prove something to take a position on when you've already taken it without proving?
A moot point and futile move.
Answering Questions
What about those that have decided to believe there is no god? Is that a neutral or default position of choice?
Depends on what "believe there is no god" means. If we're talking about the gnostic atheist then no, that isn't a neutral or default position. If we're talking about the weak agnostic atheist then yes, that'd be a neutral or default position. (the strong agnostic is up in the air. I'd personally say he doesn't belong to the default position even if theologically he stays there)
How can it be default when a decision was made to choose what to believe or disbelieve?
Because the decision is not (necessarily) one of subscribing to atheism. The decision is not about whether you stay atheist or not. It is about whether you convert to Christianity or not when presented it or you read about it, whether to convert to Islam or not when presented it, same for other religions, and even potentially secularly, whether you elect to believe a God in this universe exists or not.
It is not necessary for atheism itself to be part of the decision making process for you to be atheist.
This applies even to the weak agnostic atheist (who admittedly, is a bit stronger on average than his sub-category the undecided atheist), because the weak agnostic's decision to stay in the default position, is not born from reasoning that regards directly to the strength of staying in his spot. Due to the absence of reasoning or information that regards moving to another position, like Christianity, Islam or secular theism.
So if I was a theist , then now I'm an atheist. How can I be something I wasn't before without becoming that something now?
Because you don't need to move to atheism (or to the thinking of atheism) to be one. If you were theist, all that would be needed is for you to become not theist.
Technically you still 'become' atheist even in this process. But what I mean by *become* and it not necessarily applying to atheism is that, you don't need to actively move yourself into the position of atheism. Simply by lacking a position of believe, which potentially involves moving yourself out of a position of theism if you have one, do you end up landing in the position of atheism.
The belief in no god is present. True or false.
False for the agnostic atheist, true for the gnostic atheist.
Relevant Arguments
I will continue to split my arguments into points I consider relevant and points I consider not so for the same reasons described in my previous round's argument.
Direct Responses
Ok that is what you consider a person that does not know whether to believe in God or not. From my experience of hearing atheists, they describe themselves as somebody that believe there is no God. Never have I heard an atheist say he or she doesn't know or is undecided.So I refer to people that don't know or undecided as agnostic. I have heard a person say he doesn't know but leans to disbelief anyway so he took on the title agnostic atheist.
If we're presenting personal anecdotes I'll present mine. Most of my non-religious friends say they don't know and use atheist or agnostic atheist when identifying oneself. Those fell under, what for the purpose of this debate is the weak agnostic atheist. Only two people ever among them I've known were gnostic atheists.
You have to understand what laveyan satanism truly represents.Every atheist that believes in no judge higher than that of man, the atheist believes the power alone in man.
You attempt to make the connection but still miss the point. People can believe in western Judeo-Christian values without needing to be Christian or Jewish.
Indeed laveyan satanists might believe "man is superior because laveyan said so", akin to religious worship. However again, that does not represent atheists or atheism. Most atheists don't have that belief or even know who Lavey is in the first place.
Furthermore, while laveyan satanism might actively encourage the things you described, atheism doesn't. Atheism does not actively encourage anything at all. The atheist might, compared to the Christian or the Muslim, be less likely to have "theft is wrong" and "murder is wrong" as fundamental moral axioms. But that is not because atheism discourages this, its because atheism lacks the encouragement Christianity and Islam has for them.
And even more beyond that, levayan satanism represents more than what you've described, among which it actively encourages and promotes hedonism and sinfulness, it promotes the 7 sins as positive character traits.
Atheists have faith there are no gods. That's religious.
The agnostic atheist does not, refer back to my lectures about both types of the agnostic atheist for the elaboration as to why. And your response does not at all properly address what you're responding to.
Atheism is just another religion like all the others. Laveyan satanism is a religion.
If you're saying "A is true since B is true", then you are performing a form of "affirming the consequent" that is already addressed by the very thing you're responding to. Laveyan Satanism is a sub-category of gnostic atheism, which in itself is a sub-category of atheism.
If you're not saying "A is true since B is true" then you're simply reiterating your view without addressing what you're responding to or adding anything to the argument.
Well also to summarize for the atheist period, there is a presence in believing there is no god.
There isn't. This is already explained under many sections but most prominently under Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite
The belief in no god is present. True or false.If you say false, you're saying the opposite is true which there is no belief in no god existing which the two negatives make a positive saying the atheist believes in god which contradicts.If you say true, then you concede that atheism qualifies as a faith.
You make a false connection. Saying that something is false is not the same as saying the opposite is true, this is already addressed under several sections including the fittingly named Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite
Lacking the belief that no god exists doesn't mean that you believe God exists. All it means is you're not a gnostic atheist. The double negative logic does not apply here.
The belief in no god can be false and the belief in god can be false as well, both at the same time without contradiction.
And beyond this, this potentially contradicts your prior statements of, what you'd call the "agnostic" (let's set aside your misunderstanding of what agnosticism means), as being a reasonable position. Given what you've ruled regarding the conditions for "The belief in no god is present", that both true or false are unreasonable conditions to have. One wonders what condition you think the "agnostic" in your terminology has. Because if true then you'd conclude that the agnostic follows a belief system (or more in line with what you said, concede that agnosticism qualifies as a faith), and if false you'd conclude the opposite is true and via the double negative logic agnostic believes in God. This exact same line of logic you use to try to corner the lack of belief atheist into a belief system regardless of the answer can have your term of the "agnostic" land into the same pitfall.
I'll ask directly. For the agnostic the belief in no god is present. True or false?
This does not make sense. In order to be different from one thing to another , you become that thing. So if I was a theist , then now I'm an atheist. How can I be something I wasn't before without becoming that something now?
Clearly you've missed the point in regards to what I've said. When I say *become*, I am referring to directly changing into.
The answer is in the very thing you responded to, if you were a theist, then now you're an atheist. You can be an atheist without actively making the effort to move into the atheist position because all that is needed is to move out of the theist position. This is what I mean by atheist is also the default return position. It is the default position you return to or end up in if you lack other positions. If you wish to be completely lingually stringent, you can become atheist without needing to directly *become* atheist. "I believe in no Gods" never needs to be a cognitive part of the thought process.
Maybe this will help. Think of Unemployment. In order to be unemployed, all you need to be is without a job. Everyone starts out unemployed. Let's say you became an engineer. Now you're no longer unemployed by virtue of having a job. Now for you to go back to being unemployed, you don't need to directly actively *become* unemployed to indirectly be (or become) unemployed, all that's needed is for you to stop being an engineer. If you want to become a doctor, you need to *become* a doctor, you can't just simply land into it by quitting from your prior line of work.
Of course unemployment is not exactly the same as atheism, you could be fired from your job and some other differences exist. But hopefully this has demonstrated more understandably what I mean by "default position" and "default return position".
Courts have ruled atheism to be considered a religion. At least in the United States.
Can you provide your evidence or source?
This proves again that atheism , the facet I'm dealing with at least is not default. Why? You had to decide to start believing there is no god . First you started to stop believing there is no existence of god, you became theist. Then you decided again. An agnostic is neutral as the person can't go either way. A theist doesn't believe there is no existence while an atheist believes there is no existence.
There is so much wrong with this let's break it down.
This proves again that atheism , the facet I'm dealing with at least is not default. Why?
The facet you're dealing with includes the agnostic atheist, this is due to our agreement prior to the debate which I elaborated on under Opening context
You had to decide to start believing there is no god .
No you don't. This is addressed under Types of Atheists and its follow ups. (2)
First you started to stop believing there is no existence of god, you became theist.
Becoming theist is not merely the absence of the gnostic atheist viewpoint. Becoming a theist requires believing in God. (1)
An agnostic is neutral as the person can't go either way.
You reiterate your false use of the word agnostic, already explained under Agnostic vs Atheist
A theist doesn't believe there is no existence while an atheist believes there is no existence.
Responses (1) and (2) address the first and second half of this statement respectively.
The focus of the debate
How can it be default when a decision was made to choose what to believe or disbelieve? This is the facet that you're not giving your attention to. See, the topic says " Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis."You've clearly have not argued against this because there's no rebuttal. You believe something, you have faith in it. No doubt or guess work about it and simply because there's no evidence is not a strong position because there are many things that appear to not be evident but the possibility is not exhausted.
I have been arguing against it this whole time, however I shall make it more clear and make clear why the agnostic atheist position is included in that and why this follows.
The agreed upon premise
Firstly, while the topic title might say Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis. The context behind Opening context establishes why "Atheists that believe no God exists" that is told in the topic title can include the agnostic atheist.
When you had invited me to this debate with the topic title, I had posted the comment you and people can read in the comments section. Asking that by "Atheists that believe no God exists" whether you were talking about the gnostic atheist, the strong agnostic atheist, the weak agnostic atheist, all of them(any that would fit the broader umbrella term) or a different specific type of atheist.
You answered "All types". Under no (reasonably) uncertain terms had you not only agreed to all types of Atheists, but had also ,as a result of what you were directly responding to, agreed that the 3 types I'd named and described are included under that umbrella and in regards to what "Atheists that believe no God exists" refers to.
Lack of rebuttal
The reason there isn't (or is rarely) a defense specifically geared to defending the position of the non-believer is because you've never attacked the position of the reasonability of the (weak) non-believer. You've always been attacking the position of the opposite-believer (and sometimes the strong non-believer). Your arguments have been not against the position of lack of belief but rather against the premise itself, arguing that it representing a part of atheism is faulty.
Like in your true or false question, you don't attempt to demonstrate that lack of belief is unreasonable. You attempt to demonstrate that lack of belief *is* belief.
But now that you've asked for an explanation for this. It is time for me to elaborate on why Ending up in the weak agnostic position due to a lack of evidence is reasonable.
Reasonable lack of evidence
Given the Opening context further elaborated on by The agreed upon premise. Among the positions you argue are a weak basis if their only argument is lack of evidence, I will argue for the reasonability of ending up in the weak agnostic position as a result of lack of evidence.
Plenty was already addressed under The Burden of Proof, however I will add further.
When a person is first presented with a question in mind "Does God exist?", he has several choices he can make, and even after making the choice he can always make a different choice later on. Those choices can vary from "No", "Yes" , "Maybe" , "Maybe not" , "I don't know" , "Yes, and it is the God whose words are in the Bible today" , "Yes and it is the God whose words are in the Quran today", and several other possible choices.
What qualifies within what would make you end up as an agnostic atheist is when you either give a weak "No", or an "I don't know", or the responses in between such as "Maybe" and "Maybe not". As long as your answer does not include a "Yes". (Being undecided and refusing to give any answer at all is the even weaker form of agnostic atheist we'd previously talked about when you asked what an undecided is)
Theft and Defamation
Now here's a case example. A complete stranger comes to me, Max, he says that Alex stole from him 500 dollars. He wishes to make an arrest against Alex for theft and asks that I believe him and for my support. Now being that I have no evidence of this other than Max's own testimony, that I don't have enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt, I decide to disbelieve Max's claim due to my lack of belief in it.
Now after we depart, Alex comes to me and he says that Max is spreading lies about him. That Max is falsely accusing him of theft. He wishes to make an arrest against Max for defamation of character and asks that I believe him and for my support. Now being that I have no evidence of this other than Alex's own testimony, that I don't have enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt, I decide to disbelieve Alex's claim due to my lack of belief in it.
I did not believe there is enough evidence (that I could personally examine) that Alex committed theft, or that Max committed defamation of character. So I simply decided to disbelieve both claims. It is possible that the evidence exists and that it is findable, maybe the police can find it, the possibility is not exhausted. But with the information at hand in my current position, I decide not to personally provide support for either side due to a lack of evidence from my personal perception.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
This is a classic from the atheist playbook. The flying spaghetti monster is a man made being/deity/something invented for the promotion of atheist rhetoric. Obviously nobody believe such a monster exists and that's the point.
Now, the funny thing is, despite the flying spaghetti monster being admittingly conjured up from imagination and fiction. It is possible that there exists in our universe, by sheer coincidence, a flying spaghetti monster exactly as described by the people who invented him. The flying spaghetti monster *could* exist, as you've said, the possibility is not exhausted.
However, a not exhausted imaginable possibility does not mean that disbelieving it, or dismissing it is unreasonable. When asked "Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster"(and not "do you know whether the flying spaghetti monster exists or doesn't exist"), my answer is "no" because I don't enough evidence or information to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the flying spaghetti monster exists in order for me to personally believe in it. The possibility is not exhausted, but its not unreasonable to disbelieve.
Reasonable lack of evidence pt.2
"Beyond reasonable doubt" means by its very own definition, evidence/reasoning strong enough that any doubt that might yet exist is unreasonable. That its unreasonable to disbelieve it. And likewise, the absence of "Beyond reasonable doubt" would mean that there exists doubt that is reasonable. Going by the premise of "Beyond reasonable doubt". Unless the argument for theism is made with strong enough evidence/reasoning/info that it can qualify as a claim that is "Beyond reasonable doubt", there exists doubt against it that is reasonable. Doubt that is not an unreasonable (and by extension, not a weak) basis for disbelieve.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Theology
Here I defend the usage of the premise of 'Beyond reasonable doubt' in matters of theology. Including in regards to dismissing claims not sufficiently enough supported by evidence.
Admittedly, and ironically enough, the motivation lies in part with my pure and honest belief in Islam as the true message of God and the one true faith. I want people to find God. And I personally believe that the only (or best) way they can do that is through Islam. And I imagined two worlds, a world where people act theologically without the premise of 'Beyond reasonable doubt', and a world where people act theologically with the premise of 'Beyond reasonable doubt'.
Without the premise we have less atheists, in fact we might even have no atheists at all. But people join religions without needing strong reasoning to believe that its message was the one sent by God. And by extension the truthfulness of the message of a religion has less bearing on how likely it is to be selected by someone. There will be a higher likelihood of people who join religions on a whim. And people who join Islam or Christianity lightly will leave it (for another religion) on just as lightly of a premise. Even if blind faith (or semi-blind faith, with weak evidence) lands some people in our faiths, it doesn't have a strong foundation of keeping them there.
With the premise we have more atheists, and less people join religions. But when they do, they do so on needing strong reasoning, a strong foundation for their belief. And by extension the truthfulness of the message of a religion has more bearing, not only on how likely it is to be selected by someone, but also on how likely someone who grew up under that religion is going to leave it. More people are going to leave false religions and works of fiction. And while we might end with less overall theists. I'd argue that the number of people of join the one true faith will be larger under this premise. And also under this premise they'll be more likely to stay under that faith.
The foundation of Islam came with telling people not to believe in something simply because it was tradition or taught to them since childhood. The greatest enemy of Islam was not atheism, it was polytheism.
I believe that finding the one true faith, being more likely to find the one true faith, requires the mechanism 'Beyond reasonable doubt' to be in play. For religion to have the burden of proof. For weak agnostic atheism to be the default position. And that necessitates viewing the personally perceived lack of enough evidence (for 'beyond a reasonable doubt) as better than a weak basis for holding the agnostic atheist viewpoint.
And even, even, in a universe where Islam is not the true message of God, my sentiment still applies. I believe 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the mechanism under which we're most likely to strongly arrive at the one true faith.
Not Very Relevant Arguments
This mostly involves talking about another debate Mall had with someone else.
Direct Responses
So if find something wrong with a thing to do what it is supposed to do, that function is non existent. Something wrong with a tire, it will not function as it will or would.
Not only are you incorrect, the example fails. Imperfect does not mean the function is completely non existent. And an imperfect tire doesn't mean it won't keep my bike steady and going. It just means that its not perfect.
The wording was intended to be contradictions in a imperfect book. Not imperfect contradictions in a book. See how that's worded consistently with the opposing side's position of that debate.
But your opponent never said "imperfect contradictions". He said "contradictions are imperfect". Which I'd already explained in the statement you responded to why it makes sense in the same way as "Fast food is unhealthy" and "Mistakes are bad" intuitively make sense.
Again, one has to wonder how I was able to immediately arrive (even without first reading your opponent's argument) at the correct interpretation of your opponent's argument if the correct interpretation was so elusive due to faulty wording.
False equivalency and I didn't say anything about "must be wrong about everything else". I said inadmissible. I believe that's what I said which means disqualification.
You're just going to utter false equivalency without elaborating on why or how that's the case? I at least elaborated on how the comparison make sense.
Also I didn't say "must be wrong about everything else", I said "must be wrong about everything else that has to do with [x]". And if that changes nothing then could you then elaborate on what it is exactly you meant by disqualification then?
At the end of it, if you haven't proved a spirit to be false, you're no more closer to evidence than understanding the writings you're vilifying. Now you being a theist , you think fumbling with the Quran is going to disprove Allah? Do you actually believe in Allah because Qur'an writings make sense to you?
If a sufficiently enough argument beyond reasonable doubt is made that the Quran is imperfect. Then that would sufficiently prove that the Quran (that we have) was not written by God. Which would be enough reason for me to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the God (Allah) that is exactly described in the Quran does not exist in this universe....ok, technically, since the Bible and Torah share the same God. Those would need to also be shown imperfect beyond reasonable doubt as well. I convey this sentiment more easily under The Flying Spaghetti Monster pt.2
And I do believe in Allah because of the Quran, the Quran is my own personal evidence of his existence. I do not wish to further elaborate on or defend this position as that could be a whole debate topic on its own. (And one I do not currently wish to participate in). I am merely answering your question.
Since you mentioned perception, it is always the perception of the opposing side to see whatever I say is not presented strongly enough leaving you to be no exception.
Funny enough, even within the parameters of an opposition debate, this is not always true. "whatever I say" is not the case, even demonstrably in regards to my debates against you. On the topic of 9-5 and slavery I did not dispute that people have to use money to live. And in the current topic, I did not dispute that the gnostic atheist stance is an unreasonable one. (Especially if one arrives at the gnostic atheist stance from lack of evidence)
Hell, in the topic that we are referring to, your opponent's concession that one of their contradictions was unfounded is another example of humble concession.
See in other words, if a person has truly done the research on what was read, the person would of had a rebuttal to my rebuttal that presented a non contradiction point proving it back to be a contradiction again perhaps more so solidifying that it's not a perceived contradiction with a stronger counter rebuttal.
Why does he have to make a rebuttal against *all* of your counterpoints?
If what you mean to say is "if he had truly done his research he wouldn't have made that mistake in the first place", that's not true. People who put in serious effort still make mistakes.
If what you mean to say is "this demonstrates we can't rely solely on the credibility of his research" which cycles back to the argument you responded to. Just like credibility of the researcher on its is not enough to prove an argument. Damage of credibility is not enough to disprove it either. You are continuing to perform the genetic fallacy.
Here the person admits the lack of reading the scripture. Just based on this alone, if somebody knows less than me because I demonstrated texts the person wasn't prepared for, would I not be a qualified judge over this person for what is an actual contradiction?
Indeed isolated from any other context or argument substance, you are a more qualified judge of the bible than your opponent, and probably more than myself as well. By virtue of having read it more and having more experience with it.
But the argument is not isolated to the credibility of the people making the argument. You're performing Ad hominem and Appeal to authority at the same time.
It would be a lack because all the other supposed contradictions received the same biblically based explanation/explanation that was not ruled out.
This is fallacy of composition. You're reaching the conclusion that he made an error in perceiving a contradiction, we should come to the conclusion that he made an error in his other proposed contradictions.
If you don't believe the opposing side from that topic disproved Allah, you shouldn't be supporting what the person said.
I am not supporting that your opposition's argument was true. I am opposing the notion that his mistake is good enough evidence on its own to counter his whole argument. And his arguments were specific to the Bible.
What the person said was no evidence which is pretty weak to take the position of atheism.
The argument your opponent was making wasn't (merely) atheist, it was anti-Christian. It is different from our current debate.
For you to say you don't have to take the position of atheism and that you are that by default, then that debate was pointless and things used to try to prove God false are pointless. Why try to prove something to take a position on when you've already taken it without proving?
Because the agnostic atheist position is different from the anti-Christian position. The anti-Christian position that your opponent held needs to satisfy the burden of proof.
Sufficient enough proof for a negative
You have not dis-proven a negative in this case. You have not proven a negative and or a spirit to be false. You have not proven who physically wrote the writings did not make a flaw. You have not proven you understood context of what you read. You have not proven the text you received was not manipulated, corrupted, etc. or if you were actually mentally coherent at the time of research.
You'll notice that most, if not all these points have already been addressed in exactly what you've responded to, but I'll elaborate. Even if a conceivable enough grasping at straw arguments could be made for the existence of something. For the negative of a spirit. Sufficient enough argument 'beyond reasonable doubt' can be made to prove that negative, I present to you:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster pt.2
Now previously under The Flying Spaghetti Monster I had used the fictional deity to convey lack of 'Beyond reasonable doubt' in its existence to arrive to the conclusion that you should dismiss the existence of a deity.
Here, I will use that same deity to convey the presence of 'Beyond reasonable doubt' in its non-existence to arrive to the conclusion that you should conclude in a the non-existence of a specific deity.
In this case the argument is simple. This is a parody "church", the founders of this "belief" admittedly created this as fiction same as sleeping beauty or snow white were written. This alone is evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a specific deity that falls under the descriptions that fit the flying spaghetti monster does not exist
There still exists imaginable arguments for how such a deity could existence, a sheer coincidence is possible. However that possibility and these arguments are unreasonable. Unreasonable enough that one can positively with intellectual confidence conclude affirmatively that the non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster is true
A bit more imaginable arguments can be made for Ra, as people actually once worshipped him. However he also I would say, falls under the umbrella of specific deities we can affirmatively argue the non-existence of.
To be clear, specific to the God of the Bible, I do not agree with the conclusion he doesn't exist, in fact as a Muslim I could not as he is the same God who made the Quran, I believe the opposite conclusion is the truth.
However I would disagree that he is unreasonably unfalsifiable even in the case of the Quran, Bible and Torah all being (reasonably enough) falsified. And I do not agree that 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' renders 'beyond reasonable doubt' pointless.
Round 5
"Depends on what "believe there is no god" means. If we're talking about the gnostic atheist then no, that isn't a neutral or default position. If we're talking about the weak agnostic atheist then yes, that'd be a neutral or default position. (the strong agnostic is up in the air. I'd personally say he doesn't belong to the default position even if theologically he stays there)"
Deciding to believe there is no God which the word " deciding " was the key word to focus on , therefore it is not a neutral position to take so "no, that isn't a neutral or default position" was the correct and only necessary response.
What does believe mean? I think we've gone over that in this subject. Yeah my head slamming into the wall. The God in the context of this topic, is spirit. So the atheist that decides to accept without evidence that this spirit is false is not a neutral move. You're not born naturally making this decision. Furthermore that is a weak basis I've made clear by now .
"Because the decision is not (necessarily) one of subscribing to atheism. The decision is not about whether you stay atheist or not. It is about whether you convert to Christianity or not when presented it or you read about it, whether to convert to Islam or not when presented it, same for other religions, and even potentially secularly, whether you elect to believe a God in this universe exists or not."
See you're avoiding the scenario to avoid rebuttal. The decision I'm talking about is deciding to be atheist and converting to it. It is another religion one can decide to take on.
"It is not necessary for atheism itself to be part of the decision making process for you to be atheist."
My response to this and the following that I will even quote is your response:
"no, that isn't a neutral or default position"
"Because you don't need to move to atheism (or to the thinking of atheism) to be one. If you were theist, all that would be needed is for you to become not theist."
You are going roundabout here and conflicting. Becoming "not theist" is what an atheist would be. An atheist is not theist. The truth is right there and you're avoiding it or just not realizing you're saying what I'm saying indirectly going roundabout trying not to solidify my point at the same time.
"Technically you still 'become' atheist even in this process. But what I mean by *become* and it not necessarily applying to atheism is that, you don't need to actively move yourself into the position of atheism. Simply by lacking a position of believe, which potentially involves moving yourself out of a position of theism if you have one, do you end up landing in the position of atheism."
You're backpedaling here. See now you directly say you become atheist. A person as an atheist have beliefs as a theist does. So you move from one set of beliefs to another. One involves god , the other doesn't.
"true for the gnostic atheist."
True, just true. Atheists believe in no gods. (Exception of his or herself being one)
"However again, that does not represent atheists or atheism. Most atheists don't have that belief or even know who Lavey is in the first place."
You're still missing the point. Forget about Mr. Lavey himself. My point is on the principle of man believing in himself alone. That is any atheist because there is no belief in a god higher than that of himself. Are you getting what I am saying?
"And even more beyond that, levayan satanism represents more than what you've described, among which it actively encourages and promotes hedonism and sinfulness, it promotes the 7 sins as positive character traits."
That's what man believing in himself is. His own pleasure and morality. It's not more , it's all encompassed in that. If you wish to debate Levayan Satanism as a niche only in part of the atheist community, send me please a message , not a comment , a message.
"The agnostic atheist does not, refer back to my lectures about both types of the agnostic atheist for the elaboration as to why. And your response does not at all properly address what you're responding to."
Your response in agreement: "true for the gnostic atheist."
The topic statement is: "Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis."
Atheists that believe no God exists
So there right there , we have the context of atheists right there in this debate. Now when you go away from that, you are guilty of moving the goal post. You move the goal post when you add all these other facets saying "not this, well not that". That's not up for contention. Not arguing that.
"If you're saying "A is true since B is true", then you are performing a form of "affirming the consequent" that is already addressed by the very thing you're responding to. Laveyan Satanism is a sub-category of gnostic atheism, which in itself is a sub-category of atheism.
If you're not saying "A is true since B is true" then you're simply reiterating your view without addressing what you're responding to or adding anything to the argument."
Even you agree that atheists are religious and atheism is a religion. You do the subcategory thing and all that and you work your way around to what I'm talking about.
"I'll ask directly. For the agnostic the belief in no god is present. True or false?"
I could answer this but you completely ducked out my true or false request but we're at the end so I'll let it go. I've made my point.
"You can be an atheist without actively making the effort to move into the atheist position because all that is needed is to move out of the theist position. This is what I mean by atheist is also the default return position. It is the default position you return to or end up in if you lack other positions. If you wish to be completely lingually stringent, you can become atheist without needing to directly *become* atheist. "I believe in no Gods" never needs to be a cognitive part of the thought process."
I believe I argued on this point . I feel I'll just be repeating myself so I'll leave this also alone.
"Maybe this will help. Think of Unemployment. In order to be unemployed, all you need to be is without a job. Everyone starts out unemployed. Let's say you became an engineer. Now you're no longer unemployed by virtue of having a job. Now for you to go back to being unemployed, you don't need to directly actively *become* unemployed to indirectly be (or become) unemployed, all that's needed is for you to stop being an engineer. If you want to become a doctor, you need to *become* a doctor, you can't just simply land into it by quitting from your prior line of work.
Of course unemployment is not exactly the same as atheism, you could be fired from your job and some other differences exist. But hopefully this has demonstrated more understandably what I mean by "default position" and "default return position".
My point in this topic is about deciding and becoming atheist. To match your example, it's those that have decided to lose their jobs and make the decisions to be unemployed. I believe you deliberately avoiding this as the context of this topic. Again the topic title : Atheists that believe no God.........
So that's an affirmative statement. You continue to drive the topic to just " lack of belief " which can be the indirect way of saying "believing in". But what you're talking about is just ignorance or non thought or incognizance of a person. But if you read and understand the topic carefully, we're passed that stage of an ignorant person's life.
"Of course unemployment is not exactly the same as atheism, you could be fired from your job and some other differences exist. But hopefully this has demonstrated more understandably what I mean by "default position" and "default return position". "
Ok so here is where your point falls apart or where your understanding of what I'm saying is lost. You don't return to a default position because the position is not the same. When you lacked beliefs period , all beliefs , you can technically fall under a label called atheism just based on a broad definition alone. The broad definition - lack of belief in god . You lacked all beliefs or just about all at one point so just by lacking beliefs, that would include one in god so you can be called an atheist, rocks can be called atheists, tomatoes can be called atheists, paper , fire are atheists, etc. But, however, when you are deliberately deciding to lack a belief or believe in whatever it is where god to not be in the equation, that position is not the same position. Why? The basis is different. You are not an atheist because you are ignorant. You are an atheist because you are religious. You've come across teachings , secular teachings and have adopted dogmas and philosophies, namely what I've been saying in this topic, no evidence of god. The default position you're talking about doesn't have that basis nor any basis as that person is ignorant to what would make a basis or what lack of evidence is because the person has no awareness and a non thought of it all.
This is the distinguishing I'm driving home to you.
"Can you provide your evidence or source?"
Evidence like what? Something that you can read that I haven't written? Are you going to believe what somebody else wrote over me?
What makes that person more credible?
On top of that you already agree atheism is a religion depending on whatever so called subcategory you prefer to ascribe to it.
That's all you're really asking for. A source so called is just what somebody else has written to prove the person telling you the information isn't lying.
You don't believe me. Message me and I will tell you where to look it up for yourself.
All I was required to do for this topic was to only prove the weak basis for being an atheist was. Not what is an atheist or what is atheism or what is laveyan satanism. Yes we had all the little side bars but you really didn't argue much against the topic itself.
"The facet you're dealing with includes the agnostic atheist, this is due to our agreement prior to the debate which I elaborated on under Opening context"
The facet I'm dealing with is right in line with the topic statement. We don't just throw topic statements/questions out over here. The answers you were looking for about the topic are in the topic itself. We're not twisting it up or moving from that goal post.
"No you don't. This is addressed under Types of Atheists and its follow ups. (2)"
I here charge you moving away from the goal post.
"Becoming a theist requires believing in God."
Don't preach to the choir. Preach to your atheist friends.
"You reiterate your false use of the word agnostic,"
It's not false. I'm being truthful on how I use the word. I don't tell you how to use words, return me the same respect.
"When you had invited me to this debate with the topic title, I had posted the comment you and people can read in the comments section. Asking that by "Atheists that believe no God exists" whether you were talking about the gnostic atheist, the strong agnostic atheist, the weak agnostic atheist, all of them(any that would fit the broader umbrella term) or a different specific type of atheist.
You answered "All types". Under no (reasonably) uncertain terms had you not only agreed to all types of Atheists, but had also ,as a result of what you were directly responding to, agreed that the 3 types I'd named and described are included under that umbrella and in regards to what "Atheists that believe no God exists" refers to."
All types of atheists still have to be the ones that decide to believe based on a the basis I stated . We're not talking about ignorant people lacking all beliefs or a majority to include beliefs on god whom you can technically call atheists. That topic statement is worded the way it is with no wiggle room. Really , the topic should be sufficient to answer the preliminary questions you had. The topic is not broad but very very very specific.
"The reason there isn't (or is rarely) a defense specifically geared to defending the position of the non-believer is because you've never attacked the position of the reasonability of the (weak) non-believer. You've always been attacking the position of the opposite-believer (and sometimes the strong non-believer). Your arguments have been not against the position of lack of belief but rather against the premise itself, arguing that it representing a part of atheism is faulty.
Like in your true or false question, you don't attempt to demonstrate that lack of belief is unreasonable. You attempt to demonstrate that lack of belief *is* belief.
But now that you've asked for an explanation for this. It is time for me to elaborate on why Ending up in the weak agnostic position due to a lack of evidence is reasonable."
All I've argued and dealt with is the topic statement as is. But I appreciate your participation.
"Not only are you incorrect, the example fails. Imperfect does not mean the function is completely non existent. And an imperfect tire doesn't mean it won't keep my bike steady and going. It just means that its not perfect."
It doesn't fail if you're honest with how I explained my example. Just about anybody can take details and twist it up to favor their case. If you're going to argue a biblical contradiction and say it's not perfect, now there is an existing flaw in it that challenges its solidarity to be a true contradiction which is partially conceding that it isn't a contradiction. If it was a perfect contradiction, there'd be no debate.
"But your opponent never said "imperfect contradictions". He said "contradictions are imperfect". Which I'd already explained in the statement you responded to why it makes sense in the same way as "Fast food is unhealthy" and "Mistakes are bad" intuitively make sense.
Again, one has to wonder how I was able to immediately arrive (even without first reading your opponent's argument) at the correct interpretation of your opponent's argument if the correct interpretation was so elusive due to faulty wording."
It's ok you're the opposing side , fight me on this as well. You're good. It's all good.
"You're just going to utter false equivalency without elaborating on why or how that's the case? I at least elaborated on how the comparison make sense.
Also I didn't say "must be wrong about everything else", I said "must be wrong about everything else that has to do with [x]". And if that changes nothing then could you then elaborate on what it is exactly you meant by disqualification then?"
Already have. Read back over this debate where I talked about credibility and judgments of contradictions. I'm not going to argue in circles . I just don't do that.
"If a sufficiently enough argument beyond reasonable doubt is made that the Quran is imperfect. Then that would sufficiently prove that the Quran (that we have) was not written by God. Which would be enough reason for me to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the God (Allah) that is exactly described in the Quran does not exist in this universe....ok, technically, since the Bible and Torah share the same God. Those would need to also be shown imperfect beyond reasonable doubt as well. I convey this sentiment more easily under The Flying Spaghetti Monster pt.2
And I do believe in Allah because of the Quran, the Quran is my own personal evidence of his existence. I do not wish to further elaborate on or defend this position as that could be a whole debate topic on its own. (And one I do not currently wish to participate in). I am merely answering your question."
Your faith is questionable. I'll leave it there.
"Why does he have to make a rebuttal against *all* of your counterpoints?"
The person's credibility was shot whether either of you accept it or not. With your belief in the Quran over the bible perhaps, maybe you can't accept it.
"Indeed isolated from any other context or argument substance, you are a more qualified judge of the bible than your opponent, and probably more than myself as well. By virtue of having read it more and having more experience with it.
But the argument is not isolated to the credibility of the people making the argument. You're performing Ad hominem and Appeal to authority at the same time."
You can call facts ad hominems because the fact is that person's credibility was shot and the person indirectly admitted it by omitting the lack of biblical knowledge.
"You're reaching the conclusion that he made an error in perceiving a contradiction, we should come to the conclusion that he made an error in his other proposed contradictions."
The person did not successfully refute my explanations , the person was in error.
"I am not supporting that your opposition's argument was true. I am opposing the notion that his mistake is good enough evidence on its own to counter his whole argument. And his arguments were specific to the Bible."
You don't get it right now but take some time and consider. As the scriptures say, consider what I say that the Lord will give you understanding.
"The anti-Christian position that your opponent held needs to satisfy the burden of proof."
Do you not know that people become atheists based on what the person tried to argue regarding so called biblical contradictions?
You have to get understanding of this.
"You'll notice that most, if not all these points have already been addressed in exactly what you've responded to, but I'll elaborate. Even if a conceivable enough grasping at straw arguments could be made for the existence of something. For the negative of a spirit. Sufficient enough argument 'beyond reasonable doubt' can be made to prove that negative, I present to you:"
You have not disproved all those things I mentioned. It doesn't matter how many thought experiments you can contrive. Simple reason being is you don't know all things. Especially things unseen , things you were not there to witness yourself. It's very silly when man comes along trying to judge matters outside his existence , his knowledge , beyond his understanding. Trying to critique sacred writings he had nothing to do with boasting "this is right , that is wrong , I know more than those who made these writings. Don't believe the writings, nor what it says is invisible you can't see and see what is not there without being able to see it actually being not there."
As the scriptures say, "the fool has said in his heart, there is no god". As the scriptures say "thou fool".
Great discussion , let's do it again.
Argument Summary
Normally this is where my final argument goes, but given that my opponent can not respond to it. And, the fact that most things my opponent has said are already addressed by points and arguments I've previously made. My round 5 argument will instead be dedicated to going over the debate.
The more relevant section
Once again I'll split the section into what goes and doesn't go into the other debate Mall participated in in case the audience is not interested and wants an easier reading experience.
"The Atheist that Con defends is not the one referred to in the debate topic"
My opponent lays several arguments as to the invalidity of the very nature of my argument for the weak agnostic atheist.
"The debate is about an atheist that decides"
This argument has two halves, one is that his argument is not about the original fully theologically empty atheist (rocks, tomatoes, babies born, people stranded in an island). And other is that the argument refers to "no evidence" being the reason/basis behind the decision. Along with accusations that I am attempting to shift the goal post.
However, the first half is in folly because due to the nature of what I wrote under Agnostic vs Atheist, Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite, Reasonable lack of evidence, Reasonable lack of evidence pt.2, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Theology. The agnostic atheist position I am referring to in this debate, is one that makes a decision, or technically several decisions (if presented with several potential faiths and/or belief systems). Not necessarily a decision to stay atheist no matter what, but at least one of dismissing the faiths and/or belief systems presented to him thus far.
I am not talking about rocks or babies. The reason I mentioned the original position was not to present that starting point, in and of itself, as the atheist referred to in the debate topic. I go more into the reasoning behind that in my explanation under "Atheism is not the default position" further below.
The second half is also in folly because "no evidence" (or more specifically, "not enough evidence to satisfy beyond reasonable doubt") as a basis is both specifically presented and defended under Weak Agnostic Atheist:, The Burden of Proof, Reasonable lack of evidence pt.2 and Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Theology. My points do not lack featuring the argument that "lack of evidence is not a weak basis in being an atheist"
Finally, the combination of those two features of the atheist in the debate topic exist during my example scenarios under Theft and Defamation, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Demonstrating that in positions in which a decision to personally dismiss a presented claim on the basis of lack of evidence, such a decision can be reasonable to arrive at, and such a basis is not necessarily a weak basis for that decision to be built upon.
"Atheism is not the default position"
Similarly connected to parts of the prior argument. My opponent argues that, while rocks and fire can technically be "atheist", these are not the atheists in the debate topic. The atheists that make a decision (or decisions), by virtue of the decision making process, can not be those whose position can be described as a default position.
While as I previously said, the atheist position I am defending the reasonability of is not that of rocks or fire, explained above under "The debate is about an atheist that decides". The reason I presented the original position, the default position, and the default return position in the argument is to demonstrate that, while the debate topic atheist does not maintain the pre-theology lack of awareness aspect that the original position has when one is presented with a faith or belief system. (or even just the idea of becoming theist without religion), and with the decision of whether to subscribe to it or not. Using the "lack of sufficient evidence" basis to maintain your lack of belief found in the original position ends you up in the default position. Or in the default return position if you were previously theist. As I demonstrated under Undecided vs Atheism, and further supported under Reasonable lack of evidence, Reasonable lack of evidence pt.2, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Theology.
You do indeed make a decision, but you don't (necessarily) make a decision with atheism itself as part of the cognitive process. In the case of you starting out in the original position, you are not even (necessarily) directly making the decision to stay in place, but rather you are making the decision to dismiss moving into the alternative proposed position. For example when presented the Bible, you do not necessarily decide cognitively to stay in the original position, you decide to dismiss the Bible, to not move to it.
And in the case of being brought up under a religion or belief system. For example if you were brought up a Buddhist. You do not (necessarily) decide to intentionally move to the location of 'Atheist', you only need to decide to leave the position of Buddhism. And the lack of alternative destinations will naturally land you in the position of atheist even if that were not your cognitively intended path. This also was already explained under Undecided vs Atheism
"Pay attention to the topic name"
While the opponent uses 'Atheists that believe no God exists' to demonstrate that. Intuitively this should come to reason that the debate topic refers to the gnostic atheist. I have countered that by putting into attention the Opening context, and elaborating on it with The agreed upon premise. Specifying that I was not merely asking you for the broad definition of atheist, but specifically for what can qualify as 'Atheists that believe no God exists'
While my opponent made a response to this, his response is built upon the reasonings of "The debate is about an atheist that decides" and "Atheism is not the default position". Reasonings that I had already demonstrated in prior arguments are in error, and further explained above under "The debate is about an atheist that decides" and "Atheism is not the default position"
The natural conclusion of the sum of my argument would be that I was arguing about a person who ends up at the agnostic atheist position as a result of decision(s) on the basis of lack of (sufficient) evidence.
"The topic refers (only) to the gnostic position"
Built upon the argument of "Pay attention to the topic name", my opponent argues, similarly to the reasoning under "The debate is about an atheist that decides", that a person who decides to not believe in God must be one that positively affirms the non-existence of god.
However, due to the faults presented in "Pay attention to the topic name", my opponent's assumed premise is left with little foundation left. And is already counter-explained under Types of Atheists, and Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite
"The true version of the unemployment analogy"
My opponent attempts to counter my unemployment analogy by explaining how it'd truly be presented. Under the justifications of "Pay attention to the topic name". However given the reasonings I gave prior above, what I am describing would fit the equivalent analogy of someone who currently rejects the job offers so far presented to him and/or decided to currently quit his job, without necessarily having the life of unemployment as part of his cognitive decision making. Or having made the committed decision to stay unemployed.
Atheists that believe no God can be Able-bodied person that has no job. A man can decide to refuse/quit the current job offers/jobs available to him without actively deciding to become/stay unemployed. We can replace "due to lack of (sufficient) evidence" with "due to lack of (sufficient) benefits"
"Atheism is Religion/Religious
My opponent emphatically asserts that atheism is a religion under the following premises.
"Laveyan Satanism represents the spirit of atheism"
My opponent argues that Laveyan Satanism promotes the (alleged) atheist tenet of man believing himself(due to a lack of belief in God as the ultimate judge). And that man believing himself by extension also means his pleasure and morality (or believing in his pleasure and morality). And that that falls perfectly in line with Laveyan Satanism's active promotion of the hedonistic and sinful lifestyles and of viewing the 7 deadly sins as desirable. That "It's not more". That Laveyan Satanism is merely the things atheism promotes put into religious form.
However, not only does this argument, even in the theoretical case of being true, fall short of supporting my opponent's original premise that atheism is religion/religious, due to my explanation under my 'round 4' Direct Responses, the second response, where I said that for the same reasons you can hold (and even promote) Judeo-Christian values without being Jewish or Christian. You can hold a hedonistic sin chasing lifestyle without being a Satanist.
But additionally to that, the argument itself is false because it jumps to conclusions and makes false connections, as I'd previously explained under that same second response, Atheism does not *have* the moral axiom of "Greed is good" or "Lust is good" like Laveyan Satanism does, it merely lacks the promotion of "Greed is bad" and "Lust is bad" that Christianity and Islam have. And to conclude, under the basis of not having a higher judge, that since you believe in yourself (or mankind) as the judge of morality (if any), you by extension promote your own pleasure and morality, and by extension of that, promote hedonism and sinning. To do that is to perform several disconnected leaps in logic (not just one leap in logic) without a sufficient foundation to support them.
Firstly, not believing in God does not necessarily mean believing in yourself first, or even in mankind. It is possible to either have the belief that morality is relative, or that you don't have the answer to the nature of morality.
Secondly, believing in yourself does not mean believing in (or promoting) your pleasure. You can believe in yourself and your own decision making without your pleasure needing to be top priority (or even one of the priorities. You could have different priorities such leading a disciplined life or becoming a productive member of society.
Thirdly, believing in yourself does not mean believing in (or promoting) your morality. believing in yourself does not necessarily mean that you believe whatever your personal answer for "what is morality?" is objectively true beyond doubt. You can follow your own moral code, without believing that that moral code is the objectively correct one.
Fourthly, having your pleasure as a top priority does not mean chasing a hedonistic lifestyle or promoting the 7 deadly sins or sinning in general. You can have pleasure (or enjoying a pleasurable life) as a top priority while also, being one who comes to the conclusion that vices such as wrath, envy or pride will lead you to a less pleasurable sadder lifestyle. That a hedonistic lifestyle is a lifestyle of ruin.
You make several leaps with "A is B" and "B is C" and "C is D" without sufficiently supporting any of the connections.
Admittedly contrary to the Argument Summary theme of the rest of this argument, this is a new counter-argument I am making as opposed to an explanation of previously existing arguments. I hope still that my argument is valid enough to stand and that the conclusions born from these leap in logic connections are dismissed as insufficient.
"You do the subcategory thing and you work your way around to what I'm talking about"
My opponent argues that since I agree that Laveyan Satanism(a religion) is atheism, atheists are religious and atheism is religion. That my usage of subcategories as identifiers of Laveyan Satanism's relation to atheism supports his thesis.
However, as already explained in the very thing my opponent responded to, he performs the "affirming the consequent" logical fallacy, a fallacy in which he uses the fact "In all cases where A is true, B must also be true" in order to support the argument "Since B is true, A must be true". "A" being "That person is a Laveyan Satanist", and "B" being "That person is an atheist". It additionally for those same reasons, and the opponent's lack of elaboration or backing up his claim, it suffers from the argument of composition logical fallacy.
And being that the sub-category relation is an exclusively one directional relation (In which the mirror reverse argument, "In all cases where B is true, A must also be true", is not always true), not only does their sub-category relation fail to affirm your stance. It disproves your stance additionally.
"You are avoiding the scenario"
My opponent argues that I have either avoided, or failed to address the scenario. The scenario being Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis. However, his reasonings for this are lacking and insufficient.
"I don't need to provide what is an Atheist or what is Atheism"
My opponent argues that he does not need to do these things, and that I spend to much time on things that are not the debate topic. However given that one of the beginning key foundations of my argument for the reasonability of the atheist is Types of Atheists (more on this under "You spend too little time on the main issue"). "What is an atheist" or more accurately, "What atheist can qualify for the debate topic" is a very relevant question to the debate topic. And my opponent's lack of commitment to providing support for his claims (These claims being "Atheists are religious" and "Atheism is religion") makes these claims weaker and dismissible. Especially given the counter arguments I've provided against these premises. Including but not limited to what I wrote under Addressing Laveyan Satanism and Undecided vs Atheism
"You spend too little time on the main issue"
My opponent says that my side of the argument is lacking in what is important to the main topic at hand. But this could not be further from the truth. While I do not know for sure whether I am right or I am not right. I do know that I have written substantially on the main matter. Here are the key points and how they relate to each other thus leading to my conclusion:
The Final Conclusion:
Types of Atheists provides the definition for 3 possible sub-categories of atheism and Opening context justifies the premise of these definitions and why it is fitting that "Atheists that believe no God exists" in the topic title can refer to any of these 3 sub-categories as defined and The agreed upon premise further elaborates on this. Agnostic vs Atheist and Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite further elaborate on the differences between these 3 types of atheisms, especially in regards to how they respond when presented with a religion or theism and the reasoning behind that response. Parts of Addressing the opening and Closing statement explain why only the weak agnostic position needs to be defended in order to show that the possibility of a reasonable not weak in basis atheist stance disproves the notion that no evidence is a weak basis for the atheists described in the topic title.
The Burden of Proof defends the reasonability of the agnostic atheist as well as the reasonability of "due to no evidence" in the debate topic title. Undecided vs Atheism presents the argument of the default position in order to provide further support to the burden of proof. The thesis that atheism is religious potentially puts the default position notion under threat, so Addressing Laveyan Satanism is used to challenge that thesis. Reasonable lack of evidence and Reasonable lack of evidence pt.2 introduce the premise of "Beyond reasonable doubt" as a decision making mechanism behind the debate topic atheist. Theft and Defamation and The Flying Spaghetti Monster provide examples of "Beyond reasonable doubt" being used as a decision making mechanism. Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Theology provides reason and motivation for having "Beyond reasonable doubt" as the primary decision making mechanism when it comes to matters of theology and further elaborates that "due to no evidence known" can reasonably mean "due to insufficient enough evidence known for there to not be any more reasonable doubt".
The sum of all of this together leads to the final claim that, " 'due to no evidence known' is not necessarily always a weak basis for the atheist described in the topic title to arrive to his conclusion".
A great majority of what I wrote that was not under Not Very Relevant Arguments is not only connected to my final claim addressing the debate topic, but also a part of it. With some of this, at best, being contested, and other parts such as Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Theology being left completely unaddressed. I personally believe that the sum of my arguments holds enough strength to dismiss my opponent's main topic PRO claim.
Contradictions
Here I point out, or at least make a claim for, internal inconsistencies within my opponent's argument.
Becoming "not theist" is what an atheist would be. An atheist is not theist.
This binary dichotomy my opponent presents, that if you're not a theist then you're an atheist, that you are either a theist or an atheist, while it is not one that I disagree with, it is internally inconsistent with my opponent's prior classification of the "agnostic" as a person who is neither theist nor atheist. The very existence of this classification of "agnostic" contradicts my opponent's binary dichotomy.
I could answer this but you completely ducked out my true or false request but we're at the end so I'll let it go. I've made my point.
Even when you don't answer, the same argument you made against atheism can be used on agnosticism. I only need to copy/paste what you said and replace atheism with agnosticism.
The belief in no god is present. True or false.
If you say false, you're saying the opposite is true which there is no belief in no god existing which the two negatives make a positive saying the agnostic believes in god which contradicts.
If you say true, then you concede that agnosticism qualifies as a faith.
Both of these conclusions, that the agnostic believes in god, or that agnosticism qualifies as a faith, contradicts your personal classification of agnostic and agnosticism. The applicability of this logic against agnosticism in that matter, combined with how you define agnosticism, shows another internal inconsistency in your argument.
Blatantly False
The following are statements so blatantly false I believe there is little room for argument.
I could answer this but you completely ducked out my true or false request but we're at the end so I'll let it go. I've made my point.
This could not be further from the truth. Not only can a direct answer to your true or false request be found in my Round 4 argument under Answering Questions. It is the 4th answer.
But even more unbelievably, this direct answer is one you had directly responded to when you said "True, just true". You respond to my direct question while simultaneously deny its existence within the same argument round.
All I've argued and dealt with is the topic statement as is. But I appreciate your participation.
This is flatly false, you have continued to engage with arguments contained in The less relevant section. Namely arguments that have to do with "falsifying the bible with evidence", when the current debate topic is about lack of evidence.
The less relevant section
Here I provide counter-arguments also in the style of Argument Summary via mostly arguments I've already made. But in regards to the (I personally believe) less relevant bullet points of this debate.
"Imperfect contradictions are invalid"
My opponent makes the argument that were a contradiction perfect (and perceived as such) then there would be no room for debate. This is true. However my opponent then says that a contradiction that is not perfect, that is to say an imperfect contradiction, concedes (partially) to not being a contradiction, and uses this as support to his original thesis that imperfect contradictions are not contradictions.
This falls into a false dichotomy, that the only contradictions that exist are perfect 'no room for debate' contradictions, and flawed inherently dismissible contradictions. Contradictions that are true with no room for debate, and contradictions that are false with no (or little) room for debate. My opponent fails to take into consideration the existence of claims of contradictions that are neither so perfect so leave no room for debate, nor so flawed that they can be easily dismissed upon a glance. Potential contradictions, for which the name "imperfect contradictions" can also be fitting. Already explained under Perfect and Imperfect Contradictions and not responded to.
"You don't know everything"
My opponent argues that since we can't know everything, we can never know for sure enough information to be able to disprove a negative spirit, an unfalsifiable claim. However this exact argument I had already responded to under Sufficient enough proof for a negative and The Flying Spaghetti Monster pt.2 conveying that, even if "beyond a shadow of a doubt" can not be reached, "beyond reasonable doubt can". My opponent does not properly address this and merely responds by repeating the same argument doing argumentum ad nauseam.
"Shot credibility"
My opponent argues that because his debate opponent made a mistake about contradictions. The rest of their contradiction claims should be dismissed due to the unreliability of that person's personal judgement.
And while this would indeed mean that such judgement can no longer suffice (not that it ever did) as lone evidence to support the claim of contradictions. My opponent takes this a step further to say that we should conclude, without context or examination of the text itself, that the other contradiction claims are false.
My opponent performs 'ad hominem' due to focus on the debater rather than their argument, 'Appeal to authority' due to arguing that I should judge a debate solely (or mostly) by debater experience and knowledge with the debate topic (in this case the bible), and 'fallacy of composition' due to concluding that, if one of a person's contradiction claims are false, we should conclude that the rest are false also. When these logical fallacies are explained, my opponent either ignores them, or flatly denying it with "You can call facts ad hominems" with the only follow-up being re-iteration of already addressed arguments ad nauseam.
My callout of these fallacies happens at 'Round 4' in Direct Responses under Not Very Relevant Arguments , it is the 7th and 8th responses there.
Empty Statements
The following are empty statements that are either claims without backing. Or are comments that don't add anything to the debate. I have writing space so why not address them.
I believe I argued on this point . I feel I'll just be repeating myself so I'll leave this also alone.
Technically not as empty as the other statements. But not only does this potentially suffer from reiterating an addressed argument without elaboration or support. My opponent suffers from his lack of named argument structure due to making it more difficult for us to find the specific prior argument(s) my opponent is referring to.
Evidence like what? Something that you can read that I haven't written? Are you going to believe what somebody else wrote over me?
You made a claim about official court rulings. Official court rulings have documents and records. This direct interaction is an instance where asking for a source is very reasonable and failing to provide one, but maintaining the claim, is very unreasonable.
Don't preach to the choir. Preach to your atheist friends.
You might need to read what you responded to again. I don't think anyone, theist or atheist, will argue that theists believe in God.
It's not false. I'm being truthful on how I use the word. I don't tell you how to use words, return me the same respect.
This is a claim without backing, other than personal usage, you yourself have demonstrated why relying solely on a person's reliability is folly.
It's ok you're the opposing side , fight me on this as well. You're good. It's all good.
This adds nothing to the debate.
Already have. Read back over this debate where I talked about credibility and judgments of contradictions. I'm not going to argue in circles . I just don't do that.
This also suffers from potential ad nauseam and a lack of named argument structure
Your faith is questionable. I'll leave it there.
This adds nothing to the debate.
The person's credibility was shot whether either of you accept it or not. With your belief in the Quran over the bible perhaps, maybe you can't accept it.
This suffers from a lighter form of ad hominem. Instead of addressing my argument itself, you present the possibility that I am biased due to my faith.
The person did not successfully refute my explanations , the person was in error.
This claim is made without backing.
You don't get it right now but take some time and consider. As the scriptures say, consider what I say that the Lord will give you understanding.
I too pray to God that I can gain understanding where I come up short. That said your sermon adds nothing to the argument and does not address what it is responding to.
As the scriptures say, "the fool has said in his heart, there is no god". As the scriptures say "thou fool"
This sermon also serves no purpose.
Final words
If you skipped to the end and wish for a more brief reading experience, go to The Final Conclusion: for the most important part of my argument. Support for it is provided in the paragraphs prior to it. And in the Named argument titles I reference in it (such as Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Theology for example), which I hope provides a more convenient way of re-reading the referenced arguments via ctrl+f
In whichever way you elect to consume this debate, you hope that you've had an enjoyable and/or informative time reading it. And I hope both for Mall, and for the readers, that as a fundamentalist god fearing Muslim, my representation of the mantle of atheism was not disappointing nor lacking in energy and enthusiasm.
Not that relevant to the argument. But I can't believe that "how can I look at you as reliable after being wrong just once?" and "once is too many already." are legitimately sentences written unironically in an argument. This is normally the kind of thing you expect to see in a straw man.
Watching you slam your head into a wall over and over is getting boring, so I’ll cut this short:
Oxford’s Dictionary describes Atheism as “The disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods.
It describes religion as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.”
I don’t care what you personally define these as, nor what some random internet troll defines them as, but so far the world has agreed that Atheism is definitively not a religion.
If you would like to discuss the actual question in the title, I can explain how that is a terrible statement, but that has been bugging me this whole time.
I am surprised by this invitation, but gladly so. I was under the impression that our previous encounter was unpleasant to you.
I would like to say first that I am a Muslim, so while I am perfectly willing to adopt the mantle of atheism (to the best of my abilities) to be your opponent. I wished to convey this first in case you personally wished to debate an actual atheist on this topic. Otherwise if my being religious is not an issue to you then we are all good in this regard.
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?