Instigator / Pro
0
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Topic
#5900
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
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
1584
rating
29
debates
70.69%
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
I'm gonna start off with an initial argument, and then I'll move into rebuttals.
First off, I want to define atheism, because you'd be surprised at how many people actually get it wrong. Quoting from American Atheists, " To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." I agree with this definition. To clear, I'm not arguing that it is most rational to be convinced that God is impossible, that's ridiculous. No one can claim to know the absolute reality of the world, and so I can't definitively disprove the existence of God. I only aim to prove in this debate that is it more likely that God does not exist as opposed to the proposition that he does.
Side note: I assume by "rational" you mean "most likely to be the truth". Because of Pascal's Wager and other philosophical problems, you could argue that even if atheism is more likely to be the truth, it's better to believe in God anyways. I don't think that's what you meant, but I'm just clarifying right now.
I also want to define God. This one is pretty simple, God is a Omniscient, Omnipotent, and all-loving being. Do those work for definitions?
Moving on to arguments, to borrow from one of my favorite philosophy books about the nature of likelihood and reason, for something to be likely it must have five qualities. It must be testable, fruitful, wide-scoping, simple, and conservative. An explanation for reality doesn't have to meet all of these criteria, but it is a better explanation if it meets more of them than other explanations. Let's run the proposition of atheism as opposed to theism through these five tests.
For the first two, theism is testable but I would argue it is not fruitful. You can run any number of tests right now to see if an all-powerful being exists, and I'll even do one right now. I'll ask God to change the color of my computer to pink right before my eyes. Guess what? It didn't work. Now I'm not saying this completely disproves the existence of God. You could come up with any number of reasons for why God didn't change the color of my computer, the question is are those more reasonable than God not existing? No, they are not. I invite you to explain why my computer cannot change color, because I will be able to demonstrate why my answer (of God not being real, therefore he cannot make my computer pink) is the more likely one. Atheism is the better explanation for the monochromatic color of my computer than any you can come up with, because by Occam's Razor, it's the simplest.
Third, there is wide-scoping. Both of our positions pass this test as both Theism and Atheism can explain just about every aspect of human existence and life as a whole. However the key difference is in how they answer these questions. Most of the arguments for Atheism are just philosophical questions, so I'll pose a few of these to you right now.
Why does an all loving God allow pain?
Why does God not communicate with me when I reach out to him?
Why does God sometimes actively cause pain in natural phenomenon such as fires and hurricanes?
Theists usually have long winded and rambling answers to these questions, while Atheists can simply answer: "God does not exist". Now I'm not saying this means Atheists are 100% correct, It just means they are more likely to be correct. BTW, I would love to hear your answers to some of these questions, then we can see which is more likely.
I've already been going over the fourth point "Simple" so I'll keep it short. Simple just means that the explanation for reality doesn't invoke new entities or forces, which I've already shown that Theism does and Atheism does not.
Finally, conservative just means that the explanation already adheres with what we already know about the universe, and both pass this test so I'll skip it unless you want to come back to it.
So that's my basic argument. Theism is less likely than Atheism because it raises lots of questions which are hard to answer. Atheists can't answer those questions simply which theists cannot. To end, I'll just pose a few more questions to you, and we can decide which are more likely.
Is it more likely that an all-loving God created evil so that humans could be tested and find accomplishment, or that he simply doesn't exist.
Is it more likely that God created humans with the capacity to feel pain, or that he doesn't exist.
Is it more likely that God stays hidden and in the process causes wars about his true nature for some divine reason, or that he simply doesn't exist.
Is it more likely that God doesn't communicate with people who want a relationship with him for some weird divine reason, or that he simply doesn't exist.
If you don't respond to each of these you're basically letting my point stand, and remember that you don't just have to answer these questions, that would be easy. Your answer has to make more logical sense and be more likely that my answer, which is simply that God doesn't exist.
One last thing before I go to rebuttals, I'd like to briefly mention my favorite argument for Atheism, religious displacement. Basically, If God is all loving, and loves every one of his creations equally, then why are you more likely to have a divine visit if you live in a different country. For example, Thailand is about 92% Atheist. On the other end, India has a 99% rate of people saying that they are religious when polled.
If a god existed, you would expect to find that he has revealed himself to people indiscriminately of nationality, but clearly that is not true.
Another addition to this puzzle is the variety of religions around the world. If there was an all loving god, it would make sense for him to reveal himself equally to people regardless of race and location. If that were true, you would expect all major religions to arrive at roughly the same idea. They might get some minor things different, but as we see today, there are so many different religions with so many different beliefs. I find it hard to believe that a perfectly loving god would allow this.
With that done, let's move on to rebuttals.
Rebuttals
Well I take this position and I've discussed this topic live with an atheist. Please go to addressyoutube.com/@j.talkstothepeopleradio6008 and the video titled "a must see - Is slavery good?", about 40 or so minutes in, I speak with an atheist.
Sorry, but I don't think I'm going to watch the video, just as it kinda goes against the format of the debate here. If the video is only there anecdotally, then that's fine, but I'm just going to address your written arguments.
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.
First, it's obviously not, it's a philosophy and a worldview. Atheism quite literally means A(non) Theism(Religion), or Non-Religion. It would contradict the word itself to say that it's a religion. As the famous saying goes, if Atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Second, this has no actual effect on the debate. Atheism can be logical or illogical despite it being a religion, which it still isn't.
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.
Okay, but that person is not me. Argue against me, don't predict what I'm going to say based on what other Atheists have argued in the past.
Neither one of these positions have 100 percent based rationale. Meaning operating on total evidence to sway , influence, decide a position.
I don't really understand. I get that lots of ideologies use feelings and other tactics to sway people, but I doubt either of us are going to try that. We are both going to try and prove our side using only logic, so it doesn't matter if other people on our sides use emotion instead.
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 .
And I've never tried to dispute that.
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.
Once again, that person is not me. The lack of evidence is part of my disbelief in God, but as I've shown before, there are other reasons. Don't try and predict my argument, wait for it.
To elaborate on the lack of evidence point, if I told you I had a friend named Paul, but every time you tried to meet him he was somehow not there, you would get skeptical after a while. That's not to say Paul can't exist, it's just after years of not meeting him, it seems more likely that he doesn't exist rather than the opposite.
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.
Okay, I have yet to see any actual argument proving your point yet. You've just made unsupported claims about Atheists that aren't true about all of them. I've provided perfectly logical reasoning, now you should use logic to dismantle my argument too. I'll use logic against yours when you provide it.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"I also want to define God. This one is pretty simple, God is a Omniscient, Omnipotent, and all-loving being. Do those work for definitions?"
I suppose that is really up to the atheist and even agnostic being that they're the ones saying what they don't know about or believe in.
"If you don't respond to each of these you're basically letting my point stand, and remember that you don't just have to answer these questions, that would be easy. Your answer has to make more logical sense and be more likely that my answer, which is simply that God doesn't exist."
I'm trying to get the relevance so I'm not doing futile things. Are these so called questions meant to prove the likelihood of God not existing or proving that atheism is the most rational stance to take on God or both one in the same?
Are these so called questions supposed to demonstrate that atheism is the most rational?
See, because a theist could make up questions to that appear rational that nobody will answer perhaps accurately because no one truly knows the true answers to make theism appear the most logical so, that is my response.
The real question is, what is the proof that God does not exist that causes that atheist, the God according to him or her doesn't believe exists?
You can talk about likelihood and probability all day. It's just speculation because you actually are not presenting evidence. You're giving a subterfuge with this likelihood rhetoric.
If this is your argument, you further solidified that agnosticism is more rational than atheism as it is concerned with only evidence, not likelihood.
"If a god existed, you would expect to find that he has revealed himself to people indiscriminately of nationality, but clearly that is not true. "
There still is no proof known that God according to the atheist does not exist .
Let me ask , what is more rational or logical, to believe something exists because of evidence or believe something exists due to high likelihood of it existing?
Just state one or the other please.
"Sorry, but I don't think I'm going to watch the video, just as it kinda goes against the format of the debate here. If the video is only there anecdotally, then that's fine, but I'm just going to address your written arguments."
You can at least listen and give your thoughts. No harm in that. Let's interact comrade
"As the famous saying goes, if Atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby. "
Sure, not doing things and doing others is a hobby. Atheism means without theism, right. So whatever that makes a theist a theist , atheism doesn't have to make the atheist a theist.
A theist is not one that believes God does not exist. What makes a theist is not having the belief that God does not exist . So an atheist is without that tenet and therefore believes God doesn't exist.
Basically by those questions so called , you posed, the "if this" questions, the "if that" questions, is cause to believe God is most likely not to exist by conjuring up all these "what ifs" .
"Second, this has no actual effect on the debate. Atheism can be logical or illogical despite it being a religion, which it still isn't."
I pretty much laid out the basis and explained how the atheistic position is not the most logical. I didn't argue towards illogical or logical in that binary framework. It wasn't one or the other. I don't know if you misunderstood thinking my position says it's illogical, yours says it is logical, no. Then you offered another example of a weak basis solidifying my point with your likelihood argument.
If atheism isn't a religion, theism isn't anything to do with religions.
"Okay, but that person is not me. Argue against me, don't predict what I'm going to say based on what other Atheists have argued in the past."
No the atheist argued like you're doing. That's why I say go listen to the video.
"I don't really understand. I get that lots of ideologies use feelings and other tactics to sway people, but I doubt either of us are going to try that. We are both going to try and prove our side using only logic, so it doesn't matter if other people on our sides use emotion instead."
Nobody known has proven God according to the atheist to not exist . Nobody has proven it using the Bible, not using the Bible and etc. Not even the topic anyway.
"And I've never tried to dispute that. "
Ok well the neutral side is the most rational stance to take.
"Once again, that person is not me. The lack of evidence is part of my disbelief in God, but as I've shown before, there are other reasons. Don't try and predict my argument, wait for it. "
Yes just like that person, the "no evidence " basis.
"To elaborate on the lack of evidence point, if I told you I had a friend named Paul, but every time you tried to meet him he was somehow not there, you would get skeptical after a while. That's not to say Paul can't exist, it's just after years of not meeting him, it seems more likely that he doesn't exist rather than the opposite."
But no evidence is given that the person doesn't exist. Evidence and likelihood are not synonymous. We gotta get that registered.
Rethink this with disbelieving in something. I don't care how high that likelihood is, you can still be wrong on the negative and the positive is actually true.
Evidence is more rational than likelihood here .
"Okay, I have yet to see any actual argument proving your point yet. You've just made unsupported claims about Atheists that aren't true about all of them. I've provided perfectly logical reasoning, now you should use logic to dismantle my argument too. I'll use logic against yours when you provide it."
You know, you are being what one of those atheists I've spoken with was being.
I won't directly say it out of avoiding offense but I'll give you a hint. Check out the video atheist refutes himself in less than 30 minutes.
Con
#4
"I also want to define God. This one is pretty simple, God is a Omniscient, Omnipotent, and all-loving being. Do those work for definitions?"I suppose that is really up to the atheist and even agnostic being that they're the ones saying what they don't know about or believe in.
So do they work or not? We can't even have a debate if we don't define our term here, especially with something like God that can vary from person to person. If you don't give me definitions to work with I won't be able to argue anything, or even participate in the debate.
I'm trying to get the relevance so I'm not doing futile things. Are these so called questions meant to prove the likelihood of God not existing or proving that atheism is the most rational stance to take on God or both one in the same?Are these so called questions supposed to demonstrate that atheism is the most rational?
Yes, and you're supposed to demonstrate how they are wrong, or at least unlikely. Are you going to?
See, because a theist could make up questions to that appear rational that nobody will answer perhaps accurately because no one truly knows the true answers to make theism appear the most logical so, that is my response.
Okay, then make up those questions so I can debate against them. That's what this whole debate is, so lets do it, lets debate. Also, like I expected you provided no answer to my questions, so for the purpose of the debate they are allowed to stand. For anyone voting, please take note of this.
The real question is, what is the proof that God does not exist that causes that atheist, the God according to him or her doesn't believe exists?
Well according to the resolution of this debate, I don't need that. I don't need absolute proof of anything, and I don't claim to have it. I only have syllogisms that demonstrate how it is more likely for atheism to be the correct world view, and that's all I need. The resolution is not "Atheism must be incorrect" or vice versa, it's that "Atheism is not the most rational take". For something to be rational, it doesn't need to be 100% indisputable, it just has to be likely.
There still is no proof known that God according to the atheist does not exist .
Once again, I don't need any. I don't have to prove my side correct, I just have to prove it most rational.
Let me ask , what is more rational or logical, to believe something exists because of evidence or believe something exists due to high likelihood of it existing?Just state one or the other please.
Those are just the same thing. Something has a high likelihood because of evidence for it. I see evidence that God does not exist so I believe there is a high likelihood he does not exist, and so I don't waste time praying to him. Does that make sense?
You can at least listen and give your thoughts. No harm in that. Let's interact comrade
I'll listen to it if you want me to just because, but not as part of the debate. Your arguments should be completely written, not spoken.
Sure, not doing things and doing others is a hobby. Atheism means without theism, right. So whatever that makes a theist a theist , atheism doesn't have to make the atheist a theist.A theist is not one that believes God does not exist. What makes a theist is not having the belief that God does not exist . So an atheist is without that tenet and therefore believes God doesn't exist.
I agree with this completely. Atheist do not believe in God, and Theists do. While almost all theists are part of a religion, neither is a religion in itself, they are both just competing ideologies.
Basically by those questions so called , you posed, the "if this" questions, the "if that" questions, is cause to believe God is most likely not to exist by conjuring up all these "what ifs" .
Yes, God is most likely not to exist because of thought experiments I created or brought up. Now address them please.
If atheism isn't a religion, theism isn't anything to do with religions.
Yes, while most theists are part of religions, theism is not a religion, it's a belief system.
Nobody known has proven God according to the atheist to not exist . Nobody has proven it using the Bible, not using the Bible and etc. Not even the topic anyway.
And neither of us are trying to do that. We're both just trying to show how our sides are more logical.
Yes just like that person, the "no evidence " basis.
That's not even my entire argument. Yes some of it was about the lack of evidence, but some of it was about how an All-loving God allows evil, and other logical contradiction in the nature of God. Please read my argument and don't assume I will make the same arguments as other people. Also, you never even stated how this is a bias. You've just named my argument and said it was wrong, I see no reasoning whatsoever.
But no evidence is given that the person doesn't exist. Evidence and likelihood are not synonymous. We gotta get that registered.
Well likelihood stems from evidence. If there is a lack of evidence (which there is), then something is unlikely, not impossible. I don't need evidence that God doesn't exist because I don't need to completely prove that he doesn't exist. I just need to prove that it's rational that he doesn't exist.
Rethink this with disbelieving in something. I don't care how high that likelihood is, you can still be wrong on the negative and the positive is actually true.
Yes, but I don't need to be 100% right. For the millionth time, I don't need to prove anything, I just need to demonstrate how my side is more rational.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"So do they work or not? We can't even have a debate if we don't define our term here, especially with something like God that can vary from person to person. If you don't give me definitions to work with I won't be able to argue anything, or even participate in the debate."
I leave it up to you.
I'm arguing concerning the position of atheism.
Do we know what theism is?
It be the opposite wouldn't it?
Shouldn't really be an issue.
God can mean so many different things because of all the different religions so it's based on the atheist of what he or she is an atheist of.
An atheist is an atheist because he or she believes something is the case without proof.
That's all I have to argue. Now if you know how to debunk what I just said, come on with it.
"Yes, and you're supposed to demonstrate how they are wrong, or at least unlikely. Are you going to?"
No I'm not dealing with anything other than proof. Now if you don't have proof that God doesn't exist according to the atheist you're talking to which may include yourself, you and any other atheist believes that God does not exist without evidence of it. Not by likelihood but by evidence you would be the most rational.
I want this to sink in for at least the audience.
Not by likelihood but by evidence you would be the most rational.
Not by likelihood but by evidence you would be the most rational.
Not by likelihood but by evidence you would be the most rational.
Not by likelihood but by evidence you would be the most rational.
That is my position and that is the topic . Hopefully that's clearer to you now. It's not about likelihood or probability. All this probability rhetoric is a clear sign there is no evidence that can be presented to disprove God according to said atheist. Now, again you don't have an onus in this topic to prove the non-existence of said subject. You just have to concede that no proof can be presented.
Then once you acknowledge that, acknowledge the belief without evidence is not as rational as having the belief based on presented evidence.
That's the core of the debate right there. It doesn't get any better than that.
"Okay, then make up those questions so I can debate against them. That's what this whole debate is, so lets do it, lets debate. Also, like I expected you provided no answer to my questions, so for the purpose of the debate they are allowed to stand. For anyone voting, please take note of this."
No that is not the debate. You have that interpretation, I'm sorry. To the non biased audience on this site, take notice.
"Well according to the resolution of this debate, I don't need that. I don't need absolute proof of anything, and I don't claim to have it. I only have syllogisms that demonstrate how it is more likely for atheism to be the correct world view, and that's all I need. The resolution is not "Atheism must be incorrect" or vice versa, it's that "Atheism is not the most rational take". For something to be rational, it doesn't need to be 100% indisputable, it just has to be likely."
Ok so the opposing side is indirectly conceding that no evidence can be presented. So here's the question to progress this along. Being that there is no evidence presented for the non existence of God according to the atheist, is your basis to believe God doesn't exist, likelihood?
"Once again, I don't need any. I don't have to prove my side correct, I just have to prove it most rational."
Ok we'll see about that by you answering yes or no to the question above : Being that there is no evidence presented for the non existence of God according to the atheist, is your basis to believe God doesn't exist, likelihood?
"Those are just the same thing. Something has a high likelihood because of evidence for it. I see evidence that God does not exist so I believe there is a high likelihood he does not exist, and so I don't waste time praying to him. Does that make sense?"
Likelihood has nothing to do with it once evidence is known. I think you're confused on what we're talking about here. God's existence according to the atheist has not be proven false. So what is it that you specifically opt to do? You argue probability as the next best thing, right. Something that is close as possible to proving God according to the atheist doesn't exist without actually proving it . So when said subject has not been proven false , you contradict yourself saying high probability or whatever probability is evidence of falsity.
We're not talking about proving a probability or demonstrating a probability. That's because even while demonstrating a probability, that's all you have at the end of the day , probability, not certainty.
Let's not confuse probability and certainty up.
When a weather person reports the likelihood of rain, the rain is not being proven to fall. Otherwise weather people would always be with certainty 100 percent correct. What only proves rain to fall is the actual falling of rain.
"I see evidence that God does not exist so I believe there is a high likelihood he does not exist, and so I don't waste time praying to him. Does that make sense?"
No that doesn't make sense. You have it all backwards. You see evidence, that eliminates the point of likelihood. Likelihood is about the possibility of , not what actually is .
"I'll listen to it if you want me to just because, but not as part of the debate. Your arguments should be completely written, not spoken."
I'm just giving you and the audience context of your own position and how I'll debunk it.
"I agree with this completely. Atheist do not believe in God, and Theists do. While almost all theists are part of a religion, neither is a religion in itself, they are both just competing ideologies."
I don't know about competing but contrasting faiths, sure.
"Yes, God is most likely not to exist because of thought experiments I created or brought up. Now address them please."
My address is this, they don't prove God according to the atheist doesn't exist. They're ideas, opinionated suggestions, thought processes for possibilities but not actualities. The likelihood of me living tomorrow is not proof of me living tomorrow.
"Yes, while most theists are part of religions, theism is not a religion, it's a belief system."
Religions are belief systems.
"That's not even my entire argument. Yes some of it was about the lack of evidence, but some of it was about how an All-loving God allows evil, and other logical contradiction in the nature of God. Please read my argument and don't assume I will make the same arguments as other people. Also, you never even stated how this is a bias. You've just named my argument and said it was wrong, I see no reasoning whatsoever."
I don't believe I ever said "wrong". I will argue that it's weak and not as rational. But you say it is to you, the most rational so what else can I say? I just ask those questions to you and counter and demonstrate my side based on those answers.
"Well likelihood stems from evidence. If there is a lack of evidence (which there is), then something is unlikely, not impossible. I don't need evidence that God doesn't exist because I don't need to completely prove that he doesn't exist. I just need to prove that it's rational that he doesn't exist."
Likelihood and evidence are not the same thing. It doesn't matter how likely something is when you can still be wrong of that something actually being the case.
I ask again, is having evidence more rational as a basis than looking at likelihood to prove something?
"Yes, but I don't need to be 100% right. For the millionth time, I don't need to prove anything, I just need to demonstrate how my side is more rational."
It's not about need. It's about what's more rational. If I can be right period versus suggesting what could be right, which would be more rational if the whole idea is truth?
There's a difference in what is right and arguing about what could be right .
Con
#6
I leave it up to you. I'm arguing concerning the position of atheism. Do we know what theism is?It be the opposite wouldn't it? Shouldn't really be an issue.
Okay, I'll take that to mean you accept my definitions.
An atheist is an atheist because he or she believes something is the case without proof.That's all I have to argue. Now if you know how to debunk what I just said, come on with it.
I chose not to believe in many things due to a lack of proof, but the reason I don't believe in God is because of the logical contradiction in his nature I mentioned before. Don't straw man my argument, read it and take it apart.
No I'm not dealing with anything other than proof.
As am I
Now if you don't have proof that God doesn't exist according to the atheist you're talking to which may include yourself, you and any other atheist believes that God does not exist without evidence of it.
You're right, I have no proof God does not exist, but you don't have proof to show that your side is correct either. However neither of us need it. The debate is simply about which viewpoint is more rational, and something doesn't need to be true to be rational.
Not by likelihood but by evidence you would be the most rational.
Yup, I provided evidence. For example, a Good God would not allow needless suffering in the world. That's part of my evidence. That evidence shows how my side is more likely, and thus more rational. I can't keep doing this debate if you refuse to actually participate, so I'm not going to put much more effort into my arguments until you follow suit.
Then once you acknowledge that, acknowledge the belief without evidence is not as rational as having the belief based on presented evidence.
"Yup, I provided evidence. For example, a Good God would not allow needless suffering in the world. That's part of my evidence. That evidence shows how my side is more likely, and thus more rational. I can't keep doing this debate if you refuse to actually participate, so I'm not going to put much more effort into my arguments until you follow suit."
Likelihood and evidence are not the same thing. It doesn't matter how likely something is when you can still be wrong of that something actually being the case.
"You're right, I have no proof God does not exist, but you don't have proof to show that your side is correct either. However neither of us need it. The debate is simply about which viewpoint is more rational, and something doesn't need to be true to be rational. "
Ok so the opposing side is indirectly conceding that no evidence can be presented. So here's the question to progress this along. Being that there is no evidence presented for the non existence of God according to the atheist, is your basis to believe God doesn't exist, likelihood?
Yes. If there is evidence showing something is likely, I believe in it. If there is evidence showing something is unlikely, then I don't believe in it. I could be wrong, but I am acting rationally, and that's all I need.
No that doesn't make sense. You have it all backwards. You see evidence, that eliminates the point of likelihood. Likelihood is about the possibility of , not what actually is .
Yes. Something is rational if it is likely. What word don't you understand.
I'm just giving you and the audience context of your own position and how I'll debunk it.
So debunk it.
My address is this, they don't prove God according to the atheist doesn't exist. They're ideas, opinionated suggestions, thought processes for possibilities but not actualities. The likelihood of me living tomorrow is not proof of me living tomorrow.
Yes, but if it's likely that you will live tomorrow, is it rational that you will live tomorrow. I don't need to prove anything, AS PER THE RESOLUTION. I only have to show how my side is more rational, which I have.
Religions are belief systems.
But belief systems are not always religions. It's a square rectangle thing.
It's not about need. It's about what's more rational. If I can be right period versus suggesting what could be right, which would be more rational if the whole idea is truth?
Okay, show how you are 100% right.
Conclusion
Normally I save this for the last round, but If my opponent keeps up their current patterns, this might be the last round I post. My opponent has repeatedly strawmanned my arguments by saying that I don't believe in God simply due to a lack of evidence. I've tried saying that this isn't true, but they have not listened. I posted many opening argument, all of which have gone unresponded to. My opponent has not provided any actual argument or syllogisms to demonstrate their point either, they simply keep repeating the falsehood that I disbelieve in God because of lack of evidence, and repeating that I need evidence, not likelihood, which I have provided both. This is probably my last argument, so I will willingly take the loss of the conduct point. For these reasons though I believe I have won arguments. Sources and Legibility should go unawarded.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"I chose not to believe in many things due to a lack of proof, but the reason I don't believe in God is because of the logical contradiction in his nature I mentioned before. Don't straw man my argument, read it and take it apart."
Ok here is the first part I'm taking off. The part about contradiction does not prove God according to the atheist not existing. Next layer is that without actual evidence, it is not as rational as if you had evidence to believe. Next part coming off is that being you mentioned contradiction, it's a contradiction to believe something other than God according to the atheist exists because of evidence but when it comes to the belief in no God according to the atheist, you believe without evidence.
Now I've completely dismantled your flimsy contraption which very little effort was required from my side as it was falling apart with your futile attempts to hold it together.
Now I already suspect the biases will be coming from the audience but I'll continue on and leave my final remarks in the comments as usual.
"You're right, I have no proof God does not exist, but you don't have proof to show that your side is correct either. However neither of us need it. The debate is simply about which viewpoint is more rational, and something doesn't need to be true to be rational. "
What is my side that is not correct?
Also, something that is true is more rational to go by than something that is not or not proven to be. One thing to be harping on, is more more more more or most rational .
"Yup, I provided evidence. For example, a Good God would not allow needless suffering in the world. That's part of my evidence. That evidence shows how my side is more likely, and thus more rational. I can't keep doing this debate if you refuse to actually participate, so I'm not going to put much more effort into my arguments until you follow suit."
See how your point falls apart on its own. You say here you provided evidence right after you said you have no proof.
"You're right, I have no proof God does not exist"
My suit against you has you dropping all the charges on this case you failed to prove in court.
You barely have a leg to stand on so you continue to reiterate conflicted points as you can't present anything stronger.
"Yes...... but I am acting rationally, and that's all I need."
That's all you need you say. So if actual evidence was presented to actually prove a case to be instead of looking at the likelihood of the said case to be, would you not base your position off that actual proof instead?
"Yes. Something is rational if it is likely. What word don't you understand."
It's not what word but I'll add the following words which is what the topic is about. It is more rational to base by evidence than likelihood. It's not whether likelihood is rational or not. It's not whether atheism is rational or not. This is not rational versus irrational. It is rational versus more or most rational.
It is rational versus more or most rational.
It is rational versus more or most rational.
It is rational versus more or most rational.
So what word don't you understand there?
"So debunk it."
So answer this question and I'll show you: So if actual evidence was presented to actually prove a case to be instead of looking at the likelihood of the said case to be, would you not base your position off that actual proof instead?
"Yes, but if it's likely that you will live tomorrow, is it rational that you will live tomorrow. I don't need to prove anything, AS PER THE RESOLUTION. I only have to show how my side is more rational, which I have."
It is rational versus more or most rational. So far you're arguing what is just rational.
"But belief systems are not always religions. It's a square rectangle thing."
It's a matter of perspective. Not really up for contention. People that are religious have beliefs. People that have beliefs practice what they believe as religions.
"Okay, show how you are 100% right."
This is not a rhetorical question. Please answer the following:
"If I can be right period versus suggesting what could be right, which would be more rational if the whole idea is truth?"
Which one is more rational in being?
"Conclusion"
The true conclusion is, you're conflicting yourself.
I rest my case .
Con
#8
Ok here is the first part I'm taking off. The part about contradiction does not prove God according to the atheist not existing.
Yes it does. A four sided triangle cannot exist because of the contradiction in its nature.
Next layer is that without actual evidence, it is not as rational as if you had evidence to believe.
Yes, as stated a million times before, I wholeheartedly agree. However I have evidence, so actually address it please.
Next part coming off is that being you mentioned contradiction, it's a contradiction to believe something other than God according to the atheist exists because of evidence but when it comes to the belief in no God according to the atheist, you believe without evidence.
No, I have evidence to support my conclusion, please look at it. I believe my position based on evidence whether you say so or not.
Also, something that is true is more rational to go by than something that is not or not proven to be.
Yes
See how your point falls apart on its own. You say here you provided evidence right after you said you have no proof.
I have no 100% indisputable proof, but I don't need any. I have evidence showing that my side is more likely, and thus more rational. Show me some of yours, because I have yet to see it.
That's all you need you say. So if actual evidence was presented to actually prove a case to be instead of looking at the likelihood of the said case to be, would you not base your position off that actual proof instead?
Yes, show me the evidence.
It is more rational to base by evidence than likelihood.
My likelihood is based on evidence
It's not whether likelihood is rational or not.
If it is likely to flip a coin on heads, is it then rational to predict that it will land on heads? I'll answer for you, yes.
It's not whether atheism is rational or not. This is not rational versus irrational.
I quote from the title of the debate "Atheism is not the most rational position to take on the existence of God."
It is rational versus more or most rational.
Yes
So what word don't you understand there?
I understand all of them
So if actual evidence was presented to actually prove a case to be instead of looking at the likelihood of the said case to be, would you not base your position off that actual proof instead?
Yes, show me the actual evidence and the proof
"Okay, show how you are 100% right."This is not a rhetorical question. Please answer the following:"If I can be right period versus suggesting what could be right, which would be more rational if the whole idea is truth?"Which one is more rational in being?
I answered that last round, but I'll do it again. It would be better to be right period. Now this is not a rhetorical question, please answer the following: How are you right period?
Round 5
Pro
#9
"Yes it does. A four sided triangle cannot exist because of the contradiction in its nature."
In this case, the nature of a triangle is already known. You don't know what exactly the nature of God according to any atheist is. You can invent one and dismantle it like a straw man.
But how can you disprove what you don't know?
You can't.
I rest my case .
"Yes, as stated a million times before, I wholeheartedly agree. However I have evidence, so actually address it please."
You have evidence of your made up God, how about that? But what about any other God according to the atheist you don't know about?
You have not presented evidence for non existence of them , well , because you don't know what evidence to produce for them. You don't know what to present for what you don't know about, that be illogical and ridiculous.
So here's where the opposing side agrees and not just agrees but wholeheartedly concedes that in a position of most rationality, it be more logical having evidence as a basis than likelihood leaving atheism not the most rational position granted that's what you're arguing for in a position atheism, right.
You also say a million times before so this debate was over a million times over and over again in needless circles then.
The opposing sides agrees having actual evidence is more rational but has been arguing likelihood which is irrelevant and has been arguing it as evidence which it is not either. Furthermore as to why evidence is more of a rational basis it is because it actually proves the subject and likelihood does not.
Yet the opposing side is unnecessarily pushing something that is not even an equivalent nor the topic but agrees not an equivalent to be pushed or argued for.
Just unstable and incoherent on the opposing side's part. I believe the opposing side has gotten lost and off track several times during this exchange confusing the argument for what is rational versus most rational.
"No, I have evidence to support my conclusion, please look at it. I believe my position based on evidence whether you say so or not."
Right, the one you made up doesn't exist because you made that one up. Which still proves my point that you agree to . Having actual evidence is more rational than likelihood.
"Yes"
Yes so you agree with me. That's really the end of the debate. That's all I was saying. This could of been your first and only statement in round 2. I guess you didn't really know what the topic truly entailed. That or played dumb.
"I have no 100% indisputable proof, but I don't need any. I have evidence showing that my side is more likely, and thus more rational. Show me some of yours, because I have yet to see it."
There is no splitting hairs here. You either have proof or you don't . Anything that is less than 100 percent is not proof. Something is either proven or it is not. If you say "well it's 95 percent proven", guess what, whatever you're looking to prove has not been proven. If you have proof of something, it is always indisputable. There is no such thing as disputable proof. I think I said before , once you have evidence, all you can do at that point is either accept it or deny reality.
My proof is what you said that agrees with me and the topic statement. You agreed twice so far from the last round: "Yes, as stated a million times before, I wholeheartedly agree"
So it was actually a million times that you agreed and conceded. What statement of mine did you acquiesce to?
"Next layer is that without actual evidence, it is not as rational as if you had evidence to believe."
So you agree that actual evidence is more rational and you admitted first that you have no proof.
"You're right, I have no proof God does not exist"
Don't try to split hairs and combinate the semantics. Just straightforward on its face , accept what you said. You have no proof in your position based on the context of this statement. Which acknowledges that likelihood is not proof based upon the same. Otherwise you're caught in contradiction. Don't try to back pedal out of it now with the word salad splitting hairs. It is what it is. You don't have proof in your position. You can prove you have or why you come to a conclusion of the probability or likelihood you've reached. That is one thing. The actual proof of no God is another. Don't conflate or confuse the two. The position of atheism is no God according to it. It is not the position of the likelihood of no God according to it. The two are matters of proof for two different aspects. The aspect of God according to the atheist existing or not is in question, not the likelihood. As said over and over, likelihood gets us no where to actually proving God not to be , according to the atheist.
Then second you admitted "I have no 100% indisputable proof".
Which is just another way of saying without all the word salad, you have no proof. Otherwise you conflict your first statement.
I'm just taking everything you're saying in consistency. So once you get to your so called opposing arguments, they turn against you and crumble.
"Yes, show me the evidence."
The evidence is the answer you gave. You continue to back up my point. Don't let this go over your head.
Pay attention to the question.
I asked ,"So if actual evidence was presented to actually prove a case to be instead of looking at the likelihood of the said case to be, would you not base your position off that actual proof instead?"
You said yes to basing your position off of actual evidence because why? It is more rational to have like I been saying. It doesn't matter what evidence I have or providing a particular evidence. That's not the point. The point is the principle that holding actual evidence versus anything else such as likelihood is more rational. But you've been arguing likelihood as the most rational contradicting yourself because you said "I just have to prove it most rational."
But you should of said "no" to this question I asked based on what you been arguing because that would be the most rational. Likelihood, not actual evidence. Really read this section over again carefully.
"My likelihood is based on evidence"
But it is not evidence for no God existing according to atheism like I said . I've already made the distinction. I have a suspicion that you know this distinction but you're being pretentious or in delusion holding on to a false dichotomy where by omission you said "yes" to what would be more rational to hold. I've noticed this that you continue to bounce back and forth from asserting "this is evidence"..." this is rational ".... " I have no proof/evidence for this"...."but have evidence for that " (off topic I may add). So you're doing much of this ad hoc, argument of convenience, moving the goal post type of arguing. It is so evident when this occurs when facing refutation.
"If it is likely to flip a coin on heads, is it then rational to predict that it will land on heads? I'll answer for you, yes."
See here you go again. Before I even get to this statement after making the point, you present an example of what I'm talking about. I'm not making this up. You demonstrate this over and over with getting the goal off the topic. You ask about what is "rational". I'm not arguing about what is rational. I don't know if it's just a habit of yours but it's a detail of distinction you keep leaving out and it is demonstrated in this question you asked.
I and you have agreed about what is most rational, most , most , most ,most, most ,most. Just register that to the point you're dreaming about the word " most". We've agreed on that and that's what I've been arguing.
So to flip it back on topic, no pun intended, it is most rational to have actual evidence of what side the coin will land on after being flipped if you hold the position it will land on that particular side versus anything else, let alone probability.
That is my position this whole entire debate. This is why you're arguing with me. It's because you can't seem to maintain consistency in what we're talking about. Notice, as soon as you acknowledge your agreement and not deny the consistency of what I'm saying , you say you agree and apparently a million times, so you've agreed multiple times . But it wasn't when you've gone off track and went the direction of inconsistency just by that last example of the question you gave. Which was on a rhetorical nature. See, you conveniently respond to your own question thinking you've solidified a point to avoid refutation. But it was more or less a straw man of the topic. You setting up a false dilemma/problem to solve for yourself.
" I quote from the title of the debate "Atheism is not the most rational position to take on the existence of God." "
It does not say "Atheism is not the rational position" but I've cited you several times trying to argue what is rational . Quote the title, well and good. Not any good to of you not to adhere to it.
"Yes, show me the actual evidence and the proof"
"Now this is not a rhetorical question, please answer the following: How are you right period?"
By your agreement.
"Yes, show me the evidence."
The evidence is the answer you gave. You continue to back up my point. Don't let this go over your head.
Pay attention to the question.
I asked ,"So if actual evidence was presented to actually prove a case to be instead of looking at the likelihood of the said case to be, would you not base your position off that actual proof instead?"
You said yes to basing your position off of actual evidence because why? It is more rational to have like I been saying. It doesn't matter what evidence I have or providing a particular evidence. That's not the point. The point is the principle that holding actual evidence versus anything else such as likelihood is more rational. But you've been arguing likelihood as the most rational contradicting yourself because you said "I just have to prove it most rational."
But you should of said "no" to this question I asked based on what you been arguing because that would be the most rational. Likelihood, not actual evidence. Really read this section over again carefully.
You don't even realize you supported my case. Just by saying yes. You just made an example why people avoid questions to avoid refutation. You walked right into it.
Case closed..thanks for your participation.
Con
#10
In this case, the nature of a triangle is already known. You don't know what exactly the nature of God according to any atheist is. You can invent one and dismantle it like a straw man. But how can you disprove what you don't know? You can't.
Well by the definition that you accepted, God must be all-loving, so I do know some of his nature, and that's the only part I need to know, the part that contradicts. Besides that though, I don't even need to prove there is a logical contradiction (which there is, and I have proven) in the nature of God (which you accepted), I just need to prove that he is unlikely, and thus irrational to believe in (as stipulated by your resolution). I believe I've done that well in my first statement.
You have evidence of your made up God, how about that? But what about any other God according to the atheist you don't know about?
This is why I don't normally accept debates without definitions. I tried to define God in my argument, but you were super resistant to it, and now we can't debate because we don't know what we're debating. However at the beginning of your third round you did say you would leave the definitions up to me, so I took that to mean you accepted my definition of God. So do you accept my definition or not? I guess that's a rhetorical question because you can't answer, so I'll just use this to highlight to the voters another problem with your argument, you never explicitly say what we are even arguing about.
Also, you didn't address my argument once again after my repeated asking that you do, so you will still lose this debate, seeing as you haven't debated.
You have not presented evidence for non existence of them
I have
You don't know what to present for what you don't know about, that be illogical and ridiculous.
Exactly, you haven't provided definitions, so how do I know what to argue against?
Right, the one you made up doesn't exist because you made that one up. Which still proves my point that you agree to . Having actual evidence is more rational than likelihood.
Yes, I came up with evidence to prove my point, look at it.
There is no splitting hairs here. You either have proof or you don't .
I don't and I don't need it
Anything that is less than 100 percent is not proof. Something is either proven or it is not. If you say "well it's 95 percent proven", guess what, whatever you're looking to prove has not been proven. If you have proof of something, it is always indisputable. There is no such thing as disputable proof. I think I said before , once you have evidence, all you can do at that point is either accept it or deny reality.
Yes
So it was actually a million times that you agreed and conceded. What statement of mine did you acquiesce to?
That proof is more reliable than likelihood
So you agree that actual evidence is more rational and you admitted first that you have no proof.
Yes. I have evidence, not proof, but I don't need proof. I need to show how my side is rational with evidence, not proof (as per the resolution). You have neither.
Don't try to split hairs and combinate the semantics.
When have I done that.
Just straightforward on its face , accept what you said. You have no proof in your position based on the context of this statement.
Yes, but I don't need proof
Don't try to back pedal out of it now with the word salad splitting hairs.
When did I do that
It is what it is.
It is
As said over and over, likelihood gets us no where to actually proving God not to be , according to the atheist.
Have you read the title of this debate? Neither of us has to prove anything, we just need to show how our side is rational, which I have and you have not. You cannot be asking me to "prove" things when you have yet to do so yourself.
Which is just another way of saying without all the word salad, you have no proof.
Yes
Otherwise you conflict your first statement.
What is my first statement? When did I claim to have proof?
The evidence is the answer you gave. You continue to back up my point. Don't let this go over your head.
Soooo... you don't have any. You could have just said that.
But you've been arguing likelihood as the most rational contradicting yourself
I have not, I have been arguing that likelihood is the next best in the case of no absolute proof, of which neither of us have any
Likelihood, not actual evidence
Likelihood based on evidence
But it is not evidence for no God existing according to atheism like I said
It is
I've noticed this that you continue to bounce back and forth from asserting "this is evidence"..." this is rational
What's the difference? If there is a lot of evidence, then something is rational. I have provided a lot of evidence, thus my side is rational. Now look at the evidence and discredit it or argue against it. That's what a debate is.
So you're doing much of this ad hoc, argument of convenience, moving the goal post type of arguing.
I can't move goalposts that you never set or agreed too.
You ask about what is "rational". I'm not arguing about what is rational.
Okay, I'm done. Seriously dude, read your own debate title. I can't believe you wasted my time and energy so much with this and you didn't even pay attention to what you wrote in the title.
It does not say "Atheism is not the rational position"
It does.
but I've cited you several times trying to argue what is rational .
Because it's the resolution
By your agreement.
I never agreed that you are right about the resolution. Look carefully at what I admitted
The evidence is the answer you gave. You continue to back up my point. Don't let this go over your head.
I agreed that proof is better than likelihood. I asked you to show me the proof. You said the proof is my admittance that proof is better than likelihood. What am I
missing?
I'm not gonna waste more time writing a conclusion. Thanks so much to anyone voting on this for destroying their brain cells reading this non-debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con won this debate for a few reasons. Although first I will mention the weakness in Con's argument regarding the heart of the debate.
Pro was correct in saying that the resolution was not "whether or not atheism was rational" but was rather "whether or not atheism was the most rational". A small distinction but an important one regardless. Con failed to address this especially during the final round of debate.
That said, as per the arguments said and given by Pro and Con I believe that Con had a stronger case for Atheism being the most rational than Pro had for it not being the most rational, this is for the following reasons.
Pro did not argue for a position more rational than the atheist's. He briefly mentioned the Agnostic position, and how it relies more on evidence, but failed to elaborate on this point. As it stands Con presented a more rational stance than any stance Pro seriously argued for.
Pro left the definition of God to Con and refused to engage in it. This either leaves the nature of the definition up to Pro's judgement, or it leaves it up in the air which hurts the quality of the overall debate, which would put Pro in a poor light.
Con provided, given the definitions of God he proposed that Con did not challenge, a compelling argument as to the contradiction in God's nature.
Pro's failure to understand and put value into circumstantial evidence at the absence of absolute proof. While indeed as Pro states, likelihood is not nearly as good as certainty, Pro fails to provide a counter-example of an argument based from certainty or proof, and Pro fails to make a compelling argument as to why likelihood isn't the best argument if certainty does not exist. Furthermore Pro continues to confuse evidence with proof, mistakenly determining that if it isn't 100% proof, then that it isn't evidence.
Pro briefly mentions that agnosticism relies on evidence and/or proof, but does not elaborate on or provide what that evidence is.
As everything stands, Con provided a rational argument for the Atheist position, and Pro failed to provide a more rational argument for an alternative position(including the agnostic position briefly mentioned). As a result of this, I have to conclude that, within the confines of this debate, the Atheist position was the most rational position on the existence of God presented.
In regards to my vote. I wish to say that personally I am of the position that theism is the most rational position to take on the existence of God. I am a staunch Muslim. So as far as the debate topic is concerned I would be on Pro's side. The reason I voted the way I did is because I truly believe within the confines of this debate Con made the better argument.
I did not mention this in my vote text as I felt it wasn't relevant, so I decided to instead make the comment about it here.
"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 ."
Feels a bit off seeing Mall use my argument as one of his examples of "Here are arguments by atheists that don't work", but maybe a different person used it against Mall as well, someone who is an atheist.
You said that Atheism is essentially its own religion or at least a belief system, I think that is a disingenuous take and as Moozer325 says (paraphrased), it is the absence of belief. At the end of the day it is semantics but It tells me that you are going into the argument with zero intention of changing your mind, If you don't offer the appearance of an open mind you will likely fail to change the mind of others. Interesting topic all the same and I will try to get round to watching the video linked for a more detailed perspective.