Instigator / Pro
1
1389
rating
408
debates
44.24%
won
Topic
#5895
Atheism is not the most rational position to take on the existence of God.
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
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1439
rating
10
debates
30.0%
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.
Please do not accept if you foresee yourself not having time to participate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Greetings and thank you.
Well I take this position and I've discussed this topic live with an atheist.
Please go to address
youtube.com/@j.talkstothepeopleradio6008 and the video titled "a must see - Is slavery good?", about 40 or so minutes in, I speak with an atheist.
Throughout that duration of it, I argue that atheism is not the most rational position to take on the existence of God.
It's not the most rational, not the most logical because atheism is its own religion. This means it does allow some room for a belief system.
The atheist tried so hard to fight against it but ended up admitting that atheism is a religion and saying he believes God does not exist.
Now after the conceding, he tried to recant what he already affirmed.
You can try to push so hard that atheism is a lack of a belief. But here's what, theism is also a lack of a belief.
Neither one of these positions have 100 percent based rationale. Meaning operating on total evidence to sway , influence, decide a position.
Atheism also is not ultimately the default position on the existence of God. It is not a neutral position. It takes one side while theism takes another. Agnosticism takes the neutral ground as it takes neither side .
When you hear that discussion on YouTube, I asked a number of questions to evaluate the stance of atheism. The person stated that because there is no evidence for the existence of God, the person believes there is no God.
Utterly irrational. I won't say atheism is a totally irrational stance as a whole. It has logical qualifiers. It just not the most rational position to take on the position of God .
Nine times out of ten, it's more emotionally driven from personal experience and circumstance that deterred or swayed the atheist .
So that takes more of the rationale out , puts more of the emotion in .
Then that introduces or exposes the misotheism aspect. The questions come up of why would a God do this and that? That's wrong, I disagree, that's bad, that's evil. It turns into a vehement vitriolic opposition.
I'll conclude with this. Each atheist has his or her own story and experience. I welcome the opposing side's version. But it's more of an exclusive subjective basis than an objective one across the board.
Con
#2
Some definitions I suggest
"having reason or understanding"
"a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning"
"a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Rebuttals
My understanding of the debate
I went to the video mentioned by Pro in Round 1,
And found what I take to be their position,
That Agnosticism is more Rational than Atheism, that Agnosticism is more Logical than Atheism,
Because Pro takes "atheism is its own religion."
I understand some people take that stance, and will accept it, 'provided in this debate Agnosticism is also defined as a religion.
Atheism and Theism
"Neither one of these positions have 100 percent based rationale. Meaning operating on total evidence to sway , influence, decide a position."
A statement I dispute, and wait to hear evidence for.
Nor can I see how Agnosticism is 100 percent rationale based. Dogma is Dogma, one can force and individual into Agnosticism.
I argue the 'Conclusions of Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism are what is being debated, not the aforementioned as 'Methods.
"Nine times out of ten, it's more emotionally driven from personal experience and circumstance that deterred or swayed the atheist ."
A statistic statement I dispute, and wait to hear evidence for.
Emotions is a common part of the human drive,
I argue that Agnosticism is not free of this.
A lack of 'care towards a question, can lead to a lack of observation or research.
When one comes across information, one generally comes to conclusions, likelihoods, appropriate actions.
If a boy tells you there is a wolf, a person comes to conclusions, and even when they are unsure, they lean towards maybe so or maybe not.
Weak Theism, Weak Atheism.
They investigate, and coming upon stronger evidence of a fire or not, often results in Strong Theism, Strong Atheism.
To have 'no opinion, to not think the fire is even possible in knowing. . .
I argue as 'some Atheists might come to Atheist out of trauma,
Some Agnostics might come to Agnosticism out of laziness, and lack of care.
Arguments
(A) When a boy tells you there is a wolf in the backyard,
One considers the context,
Do I live in a place that has wolves?
Has the boy frequently lied or been wrong about the wolf?
Could it be a dog?
Atheism often have a 'focus on evidence and logic.
Ideally it does not follow a scripture of believe,
Or an indecisive one never knows.
As courts may follow a rule of Beyond a reasonable doubt, so too Atheism.
Just because something 'could be, does not make it reasonable to hold said position.
(B) Past Arguments, Actions, and Definitions of Gods
Arguably make various Gods unlikely to exist.
Or to be Powered/Exist in the ways claimed, Thus not Gods.
(C) The Unknowable Experiences and Evidences of Others
If I can't 'know their experiences, I can't heavily rely upon them in Rational Calculations,
Like Anecdotal Evidence, Unknown or Unknowable Evidence is weaker than the Concrete Evidence one Knows.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I don't see any rebuttals from the opposite side even though I noticed the title ... rebuttals.
Much was "I'm waiting for evidence".
Without any actual rebuttals, I'm bound to regurgitate the previous round.
Questions are a beauty to use because they actually drive the direction of a topic, debate, discussion.
Is it not evident that when an agnostic person does not know whether a spirit of God exists or not due to no evidence either way, therefore does not know what to believe, whether to believe or disbelieve , is that not rational?
Yes or no would you say?
Is it not evident that when an atheist person does not know whether a spirit of God exists or not due to no evidence either way, therefore has decided to disbelieve or have a lack of a belief, is that equivalently rational to the position in the previous position I outlined in the question?
Yes or no would you say?
If you say yes, you'll have to expound and demonstrate how. Feel free, be encouraged to use illustrations, everyday examples of how the two equate.
Next question. The question I posed concerning the agnostic person, as described in that illustration, does that person have a faith or belief system there?
If you say yes .....right ....go ahead and expound.
To use an old school slang, that's where it's at.
That is the core of where we're going.
Con
#4
Evidence/Rational Question
I'm going to say your question is flawed, because if there were 'no evidence, then we would not know of the concept.
Apathy, that's what I am arguing your Agnosticism is.
Of what evidence one has, one must make do with what one has, and actively 'choose.
If I look about myself in the dark night of the woods,
If I've heard of a mountain lion in the area, see a couple glowing eyes,
It's a rational enough to take the position that it is a mountain lion, and get somewhere safe.
I'd consider it a 'more rational human action, than to say, well it 'could be another animal, so I shall do nothing.
If there are no known reports of mountain lions and it's a more urban area where they've been dead for hundreds of years.
If one sees no glowing eyes and only 'feels that human dread of dark,
More rational to think it's not,
If you thought there likely 'could be a mountain lion, then you ought not stay there.
Agnosticism, an attempt to never be wrong.
Agnosticism ignores the practical human reaction,
If there truly was 'no evidence, we would not be aware of the situation,
But because we are 'aware of evidence For and Contrary,
We come to likely conclusions, mindsets, and actions.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"I'm going to say your question is flawed, because if there were 'no evidence, then we would not know of the concept."
I'm going to answer for you. You avoided the questions.
Is it not evident that when an agnostic person does not know whether a spirit of God exists or not due to no evidence either way, therefore does not know what to believe, whether to believe or disbelieve , is that not rational?
Yes. It is evident or has been proven that when an agnostic does not know whether the spirit of God exists, the agnostic says he or she doesn't disbelieve or believe.
This is because the agnostic is looking for evidence for either side, see. Do you understand this thus far?
Is it not evident that when an atheist person does not know whether a spirit of God exists or not due to no evidence either way, therefore has decided to disbelieve or have a lack of a belief, is that equivalently rational to the position in the previous position I outlined in the question?
Yes it is evident or proven because an atheist has said this and I've given you the video information where an atheist has affirmed that because there is no evidence for the existence of God he lacks the belief or disbelieves.
This is without evidence of God not existing. That is what makes it not equivalent. You didn't answer these questions to avoid rebuttal.
The opposing side ducked out of these straightforward questions just as that atheist did in the video where after some pressing, he finally he admitted he believed in no God without evidence while refusing to believe there is God due to no evidence.
Using the same standard demonstrated to be a double standard, hence why the agnostic is more rational not using a double standard as such.
Do you have any questions for me ?
Con
#6
Specific Claims
I don't agree that there is no evidence either way.
If there is no evidence for God, then there is no evidence reason to 'believe in God.
Why claim to be 'Agnostic about it, when one's 'actions in life 'show what one 'believes?
Even 'if there were no evidence that God did not exist,
If there were no evidence 'of it existing, then there is no reason to have belief, and one can slip nicely into disbelief.
But of course there 'is evidence against,
When a Creationist claims the Earth is younger than various science testing claims it to be, such is 'evidence against believing in that 'specific God.
The Atheist does not 'necessarily need evidence, BoP rests on the one making the claim, many would argue.
Agnostic Looking For Evidence
The evidence for the Atheist is the 'lack of evidence by the specific claim.
If someone says there is fire, they are making a claim,
If there is no smoke, evidence towards there not being a fire.
There is not preset expectations of fire.
If I say there is no fire,
Then people say well 'yeah,
There is no evidence of one,
They don't ask, where is your evidence of this Non Fire?
The evidence is by the lack of fire.
There is much material and apparent material world causes.
If a door suddenly shuts in the house,
The BoP is higher on the person claiming ghost, not the person claiming wind.
If you want to be obtuse about it, then we have evidence of doors being shut by wind and air pressure,
But I can 'imagine someone obtuse saying, well yes there was wind and air pressure, but you can't prove the ghost didn't cause that wind or air pressure.
I ask the Ghost claimer for evidence, and they argue the BoP is on us both,
I don't agree, I 'have my material explanation.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"I don't agree that there is no evidence either way.
If there is no evidence for God, then there is no evidence reason to 'believe in God.
Why claim to be 'Agnostic about it, when one's 'actions in life 'show what one 'believes?"
I don't agree either. I said there is no evidence known .
That means known about or aware of. I'm going to use the same standard.
The standard : If there is no evidence for God, then there is no evidence reason to 'believe in God.
If there is no evidence for no God, then there is no evidence reason to 'disbelieve in God.
I'm going to tweak it a bit.
If there is no evidence known for God, then there is no evidence known as the basis for a reason to 'believe in God.
If there is no evidence known for no God, then there is no evidence known as the basis for a reason to 'disbelieve in God.
Is there any question?
You claim or affirm the agnostic position when you neither believe or disbelieve in God. Atheists disbelieve, agnostics don't lack the belief, nor uphold one, they're in-between that.
Why are they fence straddlers? They don't know what to believe or disbelieve so the position is "I don't know".
Is there any question?
I want to help the opposing side. Let's learn together.
"Even 'if there were no evidence that God did not exist,
If there were no evidence 'of it existing, then there is no reason to have belief, and one can slip nicely into disbelief.
But of course there 'is evidence against,"
There is no evidence that you presented that there is no God so why disbelieve?
It should be plain and simple at this point. You believe something exists based on evidence. So for you to believe something doesn't exist without evidence isn't as rational , let alone it being a contradiction.
"The Atheist does not 'necessarily need evidence, BoP rests on the one making the claim, many would argue."
I agree that when the atheist makes the claim or asserts that God doesn't exist, the onus is on that person to support the assertion.
"If I say there is no fire,
Then people say well 'yeah,
There is no evidence of one,
They don't ask, where is your evidence of this Non Fire?"
There is evidence of no fire when there is no fire. Fire is a physical manifested element that can be detected to exist and not exist.
But something or an element that can exist and you not detecting it doesn't necessarily mean there is no evidence. It just means no evidence known or detected like I been saying.
Just because there is no receipt, proof of sale that you can see, doesn't prove that I didn't purchase what I have.
So we can produce evidence of there being no fire in a given space but can you produce evidence for no God existing in any space?
So far , none has been presented and the atheist community goes off of faith that there is no God anyway.
"The evidence is by the lack of fire."
Now what's the evidence there's a lack of God?
Remember the receipt example or even think of the tree in the forest that you may not hear falling but did fall.
The issue you will have is that not seeing the fire is not the same as not seeing God because God is not a physical manifestation in nature.
So saying you can't see God so God is not evident is fallacious. That's why the God debate will continue and continue and continue and continue.
"There is much material and apparent material world causes.
If a door suddenly shuts in the house,
The BoP is higher on the person claiming ghost, not the person claiming wind.
If you want to be obtuse about it, then we have evidence of doors being shut by wind and air pressure,
But I can 'imagine someone obtuse saying, well yes there was wind and air pressure, but you can't prove the ghost didn't cause that wind or air pressure.
I ask the Ghost claimer for evidence, and they argue the BoP is on us both,
I don't agree, I 'have my material explanation."
The problem is, is a ghost material?
Is a spirit material and is God material?
You're able to prove material with material.
You can prove the fire when it's there and when it's not because it is evident to you what the material elements are that have to be present for it to be a fire.
Likewise with wind , a door, alllll material.
You don't have to disprove God. But because you haven't, why believe God doesn't exist?
Oh because there's no evidence you may say. But you require evidence to believe that God does exist so to believe God does not without evidence is problematic, let alone a weak less rational basis than a person that would use evidence as a basis for either belief.
Con
#8
1 Marbles
If I have a bag of blue and yellow marbles 50/50,
There is no evidence that one randomly picked ought to be one color over the other.
But if I have a bag of blue marbles that I haven't looked in, in a while, and was accessible to others,
One could claim that there is no evidence that the current bag does 'not hold a yellow marble,
Since someone 'could have put in a yellow one when we were not looking.
But if there is no evidence or likely reason for someone to have put in a yellow marble, then there is no reason to be agnostic about it,
Probability says that it just has blue marbles,
The evidence for there not being a yellow marble in the bag, is human behavior and expectation,
One wouldn't put the odds as a 50/50 for there being a yellow marble in the bag.
If the odds are 99999/1 there being blue marbles in the bag, then being 'Agnostic about it is not rational.
Oh sure, people can 'always think there's the possibility, but their 'actions show their true thoughts. And one action would be saying that 50/50 odds would be dumb. They 'aren't Agnostic in the marble bag example, because that would be irrational.
2 Evidence
Everyone commonly 'knows of the evidence,
Must I bring you a cup of water to proof water exists?
People 'already see cups of water all the time.
People already see claims of God actions frequently false, such as lightning.
If someone claims we can know their God by X action, and we show through science that X action was preformed by nature, not X God,
Then it is evidence against said God existing.
If someone says Bob is the guy who delivers the mail, and we show that no, it's Dave,
Then the someone says, oh well Bob tells Dave to deliver the mail,
And we show that no, Rick tells Dave to deliver the mail,
'All we have to do is remove the arguments for.
The evidence against, 'is the removal of evidence for.
3 Bob
If there is no Bob,
Then someone claims there 'is a Bob,
Evidence does 'not rely on me to prove Bob doesn't exist.
And as Gods seem to 'always have specific characteristics, and must be introduced to people, they could not have existed to said person beforehand.
God is the new and exceptional claim.
Not the lack of God.
4 Expect
If something is not known, detected, or deduced, it is irrational to think it exists.
If I say I am a Nigerian Prince, and need you to send me money, but that I am trustworthy, you would expect some proof.
It would be irrational to 'just believe me,
'Especially with the number of scammers one can encounter in the world.
5 Proof
God is 'commonly claimed by various religions to have physically acted in the world,
If one detects a lack of said physical actions now or past,
Then it is rational to not believe in said God.
You mentioned elements earlier,
The table of elements now exists https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/periodic-table/,
It exists 'by physical proof, is 'rational to believe 'by physical proofs.
6 Bigfoot
I don't need to look in my closet for evidence that a monster does not dwell in it,
Even if I heard growling, my first thought would be a natural beast such as a racoon.
The evidence is the lack of evidence of said monster,
The evidence is all the probable and expected natural phenomena.
It is irrational to believe in something out of expectations and proofs, such as Bigfoot,
The out of the ordinary is the one needing proof, as the ordinary's proof is already there all the time.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Don't quite get the point with the marbles illustration. As far as I grasp agnosticism has nothing to do with that.
Moving on.
"Everyone commonly 'knows of the evidence,
Must I bring you a cup of water to proof water exists?
People 'already see cups of water all the time.
People already see claims of God actions frequently false, such as lightning."
Yes you must bring me water when I don't know it exists as not everyone knows it does. Particularly newborns, infants and toddlers.
Not everyone but people yes have evidence of water but don't have evidence of God not existing. But just because you don't see evidence for the existence of God , it really doesn't prove or is to be taken as evidence of the negative.
This should be an old worn out cliche at this point. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Even with the water example, just because I see no evidence of water, doesn't prove water doesn't exist. By that logic because people that have yet started crawling haven't seen water to recognize, water doesn't exist period.
"If someone says Bob is the guy who delivers the mail, and we show that no, it's Dave,
Then the someone says, oh well Bob tells Dave to deliver the mail,
And we show that no, Rick tells Dave to deliver the mail,
'All we have to do is remove the arguments for.
The evidence against, 'is the removal of evidence for."
So these are two individuals you can see, right. It's not the same as trying to prove a negative doesn't exist because it's negative. People that you can see you always have a positive identity of first to know when the absence truly is present so you can work your process of elimination or verification of positive qualities.
What are the qualities of an invisible God you can verify and eliminate as being present or absent?
Absolutely none. At least none presented here.
"If there is no Bob,
Then someone claims there 'is a Bob,
Evidence does 'not rely on me to prove Bob doesn't exist."
You can prove any physical person doesn't exist once you have positive identifiers and qualifiers.
As we know, we have nothing of that of God.
"If something is not known, detected, or deduced, it is irrational to think it exists."
Then that means all of us are irrational believing in thinking there'll be a tomorrow making plans for it and all like that would be irrational.
Going to the store would be irrational because we don't know if that store or any place is there. There are many things not known or detected but could very well be there.
By your logic of course. I'm not saying it is irrational. I'm not saying atheism is irrational. I'm saying it is not as rational and based from your perspective, you don't have a firm grip on what constitutes evidence so it's even harder from your view to see the deficiency in rationality.
All I'm saying, it is rational to believe something when you have evidence, right.
But......you believe God doesn't exist which would be something without evidence.
Which slacks in rationality and where agnosticism picks up the slack is holding the thought process believing God exists on evidence/believing God doesn't exist on evidence.
The one that moves by just evidence or along with it versus just a belief has more rationale as rationality flows with logic, with what is valid, true, the facts, the truth.
"If I say I am a Nigerian Prince, and need you to send me money, but that I am trustworthy, you would expect some proof.
It would be irrational to 'just believe me,
'Especially with the number of scammers one can encounter in the world."
Fail to see the relevancy of this topic believing God does not exist without evidence. It appears you agree about evidence is closer to rationale than pure belief but yet atheists will believe God does not exist without evidence of the non existence.
"God is 'commonly claimed by various religions to have physically acted in the world,
If one detects a lack of said physical actions now or past,
Then it is rational to not believe in said God."
Doesn't disprove God's existence. You have not witness the physical manifested acts . Just because I didn't see something happen , doesn't mean something didn't happen.
You can say it is rational to not believe but not the most rational.
"You mentioned elements earlier,
The table of elements now exists https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/periodic-table/,
It exists 'by physical proof, is 'rational to believe 'by physical proofs."
Ok well unto these proofs have been presented to you, it doesn't automatically disprove the subject either.
From this thought process you're spewing, this is why you throw out agnosticism and go into the more deficit position of atheism.
"I don't need to look in my closet for evidence that a monster does not dwell in it,
Even if I heard growling, my first thought would be a natural beast such as a racoon."
You're still comparing physical things to immaterial.
The science and formula doesn't work the same. But when you don't think outside the box of this, you continue to falsely equivocate.
"The evidence is the lack of evidence of said monster,
The evidence is all the probable and expected natural phenomena."
Ok and to the supernatural phenomena, then what?
Well we don't know. To be completely rational, we don't know about God. But to take a belief system instead of just staying neutral, you are decreasing the rationality out in comparison.
"It is irrational to believe in something out of expectations and proofs, such as Bigfoot,
The out of the ordinary is the one needing proof, as the ordinary's proof is already there all the time."
Well you can say it's irrational to believe in something out of the expectation of the absence of evidence is actually the evidence of absence but I don't say it is irrational, just not as rational.
Good exchange comrade.
Con
#10
Common evidence argument
Most people have heard or read of doctrines that claim X God/s to be the cause of X.
When a cause other than X God/s is shown, then this is evidence against said X God/s.
As a key feature of their definition was being the cause of X,
Thus said specifically defined X God/s do not exist.
Bob,
No one see's Bob,
One is unable to find evidence of Bob,
One see's people's claims for why Bob exists, to frequently be false/mistaken,
One then distrusts all of said individuals claims about this so called Bob,
Said individual is how one first 'heard of Bob,
It is more reasonable to disbelieve in this Bob, than to think 'maybe.
Even 'if one thinks maybe, one isn't going to write Bob a paycheck, thus showing where one's true position stands.
Tomorrow
Is a concept, and description of events,
Something detected and deduced.
It is 'unlikely that an asteroid will destroy the Earth Tomorrow.
One has seen the suns rise and fall thousands of times,
Has read that it has occurred millions of times,
It is a well evidenced and understood phenomenon.
Store
The store is something we have detected and deduced to exist,
We have 'been 'there before.
The store 'could close, or burn down in a fire,
But such situations are outliers or take time,
If 50 years passed when we last went or read of the store in the newspaper, being Agnostic about it being there, would 'then become rational.
Nigerian Prince
It is an extraordinary claim,
One asks for proof,
One does not ask for proof that they are 'not a Nigerian Prince.
Though one 'gets said proof they are not, by common sense and history,
It is more likely one is being scammed than contacted by a Nigerian Prince, so one defaults to disbelief,
History shows it's use in scams.
It is more rational disbelieve, to ask for evidence, then to act or believe maybe.
Now and Past
If we do not detect evidence in some form,
There is little 'reason to believe in it.
I have no reason to believe that Bob Washington, instead of George Washington was America's first president.
For I have never heard or read of Bob Washington.
Even if someone 'claims Bob Washington was the first president, I have little reason to believe them unless they can produce evidence.
I don't need to produce evidence of their nonexistence, as I have evidence for 'George Washington. and there is a lack of evidence for Bob Washington.
Elements
The table of elements is well documented and backed by well trusted authorities on the subject.
What authorities are there for God/s?
Monster in the Closet
I'm a Materialist.
If a religion claims their God is a 'Being acted thus on the Material World,
Then it is fair to use Materialist Deduction methods.
You never defined God/s,
God/s have frequently been described being responsible for Material phenomenon,
Or to have acted on the Material world.
I see no reason for my 'not to use physical and material reasoning.
Supernatural Phenomena and Bigfoot
All the times we have found rational phenomena for previously unknown phenomena.
There 'is no supernatural phenomena, for if something 'occurs it is phenomena, there is only known and unknown.
There is no reason to take 'extraordinary unproven phenomena as the answer,
When proven normal common more likely phenomena exists.
It's 'irrational to assume the extraordinary to be equally as likely.
Closing thoughts
I don't really 'like musing on the existence of God, myself.
I've made up my mind, and I find it makes me a bit sad at times.
I'm more interested in the use of various Religious views in Game Theory or Art.
Still, I didn't like the idea of refusing a PM debate challenge,
And arguably it 'is worth checking, testing, and vocalizing my beliefs, that I might see what and why I believe.
I thought your exchange good as well.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
I can't really give eitehr side a point. Here is why:
Starting with round 1
Pro's main weakness is that they assert that Atheism is a religion and use a you tube video to establish that just by having an individual atheist agree with them. That is anecdotal evidence at best and does not clearly define atheism as a religion. Con brilliantly counters by providing evidence that proves atheism is a disbelief ideology, which would cement the fact atheism is not a religion. However, Con then bizarrely agrees to call atheism a religion so long as agnosticism can be defined as such. This is a mistake because not only can agnostics fall under religion (agnostic theism) but also undermines the fact that atheism is not a practice of faith.
Round 2:
This round really irked me because pro simply just continues arguing (absurdly) that somehow you can an agnostic mindset and claim its rational but then turn around and claim that a similar mindset under atheism is somehow irrational. Con also doesn't sway me to their side since they argue that the concept of God would not exist if there were truly no evidence, which makes no sense to me. For example, there is no evidence for vampires and yet we can still understand the concept despite no evidence existing.
Round 3:
Pro just wastes time asking a question over again, accuses Con of an unfounded double standard that somehow is supposed to make agnosticism more rational. Con for their part states that there is evidence against god, but their reasoning seems backward to me. While I agree completely with Con that the one who makes the claim of God is the person who is required to show proof, the assertion that there is evidence against something that already is not established is inconstant. If your stance is: "Something is not true until it is proven" You cannot at the same time say, "Hey, not only is this not proven, but I have evidence to show it nis fake." You are then putting the burden of proof on yourself despite previously saying its not.
Round 4:
Pro's assertion that if people have no evidence then we can't argue God is real or not real has some measure of logic to it. It may be true that in the realm of theory one cannot say there is or isn't a God at all. However, when put in the scope of evidence vs none-evidence. It is completely valid to say, "I don't believe you unless you have evidence." Pro's twisted logic would have us instead say, "We have no evidence that what your saying is true, but we also don't have evidence to say its false either...SO...Well assume your telling the truth." The problems that come with that line of thinkin are obvious to all of us.
For Con, while I do find myself somewhat agreeing with them in terms of saying "If a religion claims God did it, and we have no evidence then there's no reason to believe in said God." However, at the same tine, I do not agree that its irrational to think something might be true even if there's no evidence. Speculation can be a completely reasonable position if one does it by clearly defining it as what they think and not what they know.
Round 5:
Pro unprofessionally ignores an analogy form Con and then moves on. I take that as a concession in my view. pros water analogy also lacks weight because they are again making the absurd claim that if something does not exist then there should be evidence for it and then yet denies that the lack evidence proves something does not exist. The reason why this framework is so out of whack is because Pro is essentially pulling a double standard where they ask for evidence that by its very nature physically can't be shown due to the fact it doesn't exist and then uses this physically impossible task to say you can't prove none existence. Its ridiculous and ultimately self defeating.
As for Con. I am again in agreement partially that if no one sees Bob or find evidence it would be completely reasonable to not take this "Bob" character seriously and maybe not believe he is real. What I think I can't agree with and think this ultimately negates this agreement is that Con takes its a step to far and calls it irrational to say Bob might exist despite no evidence of him. While certainly it would be absurd to be expected to believe when presented with the claim that someone or something for a fact is real despite no evidence. It is not absurd to believe someone might be real despite no evidence as long as someone clarifies its simply their opinion and not a fact.
Therefore, neither gets my vote despite me being in partial agreement with Con on certain areas.
Thanks for voting,
Round 1
Well, I think it's a matter of semantics, what makes something a religion,
Plus the site I used to define Atheism had,
"b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
Said site also had Agnostic defined as
"1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"
The source I used for definitions at a glance, has Atheism as more a religion than Agnosticism.
I could have looked around more for other online definitions, but I like Merriam Webster well enough.
Round 2
I think the concept of vampires existing 'is evidence towards their existing.
Not 'good enough evidence for me, but if there were no talked of concept of vampires, then I think there would be less evidence.
. . . Excepting of course the concept of X existing that we know nothing of.
But I also think we only 'get concepts 'through evidence.
I am doubtful of people's ability to be 'completely original in their imagination.
Still, I admit I didn't think all that much of my own argument, and did not think I posted it well.
Round 3
Wouldn't there 'have to be evidence against even an unproven claim?
A person claims X, so they often have burden of proof,
They claim evidence or reasoning for X,
Doesn't a person refute said claim of X by stating why evidence and reasoning for X is not sufficient for them?
I suppose I don't get why there can only be a lack of evidence,
And not an amount of evidence against a claim.
Round 4
I think people can have rational reasons to believe in God or not, people 'do have different life experiences.
But if one is as rational, cold and calculating as a robot, I think Atheism fits such better.
. . . I also don't think that rational and cold calculation are everything for humans, whether Theist or Atheist.
Round 5
Fair enough,
It's more or less possible that X exists in various scenarios.
Which is why people fall into 'degrees of how hard they hold beliefs I suppose.
If we know x action has done by nature, but we do not know why?
And some x action science do not know at all and consider them supernatural which simply means science does not know about it.
Science do not know about many things how, when, why and where.
The biggest question science cannot answer is why.