The Instigator
chipmonk
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sapere_aude
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheism is a lie

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 698 times Debate No: 87354
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

chipmonk

Pro

Construct 1
Premise1 : If no one knows if God exists or not
Premise2: And somebody claims to KNOW
Conclusion: That person is a liar.

Premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs
Premise 2: Believers believe God exists, without valid evidence.
Conclusion: Believers are not liars

Construct 2
Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve based on lack of evidence and contradictory counter evidence (science).
Premise 2: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs.
Conclusion: Atheists claim to know the truth about God's existence.

Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.
sapere_aude

Con

Construct 1
Premise1 : If no one knows if God exists or not
Premise2: And somebody claims to KNOW
Conclusion: That person is a liar.

I agree with.

Premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs
Premise 2: Believers believe God exists, without valid evidence.
Conclusion: Believers are not liars

The proper conclusion would be that believers are liars

For construct 2 I agree with the first premise but I say "don't accept claims of a god" rather than disbelieve. Premise 2 is repeat of before but the conclusion is totally wrong. The atheist has simply not accepted the God claim as true but that not does not mean it's false either. It's like in a court room. You might be found not guilty but that doesn't mean your innocent. Atheism is a rejection of a claim not an assertion of a claim. Atheists are uncovienved. That does not mean that they may not be convince if provided good evidence just not convinced at the moment.

Construct 2
Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve based on lack of evidence and contradictory counter evidence (science).
Premise 2: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs.
Conclusion: Atheists claim to know the truth about God's existence.
Debate Round No. 1
chipmonk

Pro

I apologize for not typing out the proper titles to each construct. It should have been three, as below. So you disagree with the second and third construct, or so it seems. As well as my final conclusion.

Construct 1
Premise1 : If no one knows if God exists or not
Premise2: And somebody claims to KNOW
Conclusion: That person is a liar.

Construct 2
Premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs
Premise 2: Believers believe God exists, without valid evidence.
Conclusion: Believers are not liars

Construct 3
Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve based on lack of evidence and contradictory counter evidence (science).
Premise 2: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs.
Conclusion: Atheists claim to know the truth about God's existence.

Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.

However, you have not adequately provided any reasoning or logic behind you presenting the opposite opinion. My opinion and argument that believers are NOT liars, are based upon a logical deduction of the two premises and the construct that follow before. First, IF someone claims to KNOW, they are a liar.... Second, believers do not claim to KNOW. They only assert that they BELIEVE. and to BELIEVE is not the same as to to KNOW. Therefore, one can logically conclude that even if the religion itself is a lie, the person who believes in the lie, is not a liar.

However, in order to disbelieve a claim one can do so in two ways. based on evidence or out of ignorance. If one disbelieves a claim, based on ignorance, then that disbelief is not a lie. It's just a suspension of judgement, due to the inability to understand the claim. However, in this case the claimant can say "i can't believe!" but they cannot justifiably say "i KNOW you are wrong." Because their disbelief is based off of ignorance, rather than evidence. How could one KNOW if they are ignorant regarding the topic?"

But claims that they disbelieve based on evidence (or even lack thereof), one is automatically making the assumption that they do not simply disbelieve the claim, they disbelieve based on some newly acquired KNOWLEDGE (ie. contradictory evidence.), or lack of the appropriate evidence (ie. lack of evidence), as if they KNOW what the appropriate evidence would even be. They need God to present evidence for them to believe, but even if they had evidence they would not be able to recognize it. Here atheists rely on the idea that "If God was all-knowing, he would know what would convince little ol' ME." However, this argument in itself is also illogical or based on the faulty assumption, that the little ol' atheist knows everything that the all-knowing God knows, and therefore what the all-knowing God ought to do.

So even though the atheist may preface many of their arguments with a meaningless "I don't know." immediately every word following that sentence would be plenty of statements assuming knowledge.
sapere_aude

Con

Right now I am address your arguments which are flawed in themselves and their conclusion just in the matter of how logic works. I will first address this before offering my counter argument. An argument can be illogical or logical. If it is illogical it can be dismissed until revised to be logical. If the argument is logical then it is an argument to debate. Now just because an argument is logical does not mean it is correct. An argument can be logical but incorrect. For construct 1 premise 1 and 2 lead to the conclusion. It is a logical argument. Which I also find convincing. Now with construct 2, premise 1 and premise 2 are not relate and lead to no conclusion. In premise 1 you are talking about knowing and in premise 2 you are talking about belief with no relation between premise 1 and premise 2 the conclusion is defended and there for is illogical. A better argument might be premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs. Premise 2 belief does not need evidence. Conclusion: belief does not equal knowing. Construct 2 is more two statements and an assertion than an argument. Or a better conclusion for construct 2 might be believers don"t know there is a god. The argument does not prove that believers are not liars. Now with construct 3 premise 1 states that atheists don"t believe which is very different than knowing. Not being convince something is true is not an automatic denial of a claim. Basically what an atheist has is doubt. There not convinced of the claim of a god based on the lack of evidence to prove the claim. They would be convinced if there was sufficient evidence but the one making the claim has not meet their burden of proof to convince them that the claim is true. When a person makes a claim they must give sufficient evidence for the claim to be accepted. Now with the construct 3 it almost proves the opposite conclusion. Premise 2 states that to know is to have valid evidence for their belief. And in premise 1 the atheist does have evidence to the contrary of the god claim and the lack of evidence is also evidence of the none truth of the claim because of something is real it should leave some evidence. now this is not conclusive but is a more justification for doubt of the truth of the claim. So because the atheist has valid evidence they would in construct 3 argument be justified to believe there is no god. But of course as state before atheists are not convinced by the god claim. They lack belief. Not the same as knowing that a god does not exist. So ultimately your final conclusion is in error.

"First, IF someone claims to KNOW, they are a liar.... Second, believers do not claim to KNOW. They only assert that they BELIEVE. and to BELIEVE is not the same as to KNOW. Therefore, one can logically conclude that even if the religion itself is a lie, the person who believes in the lie, is not a liar."
Now this argument is logical and I do agree with the conclusion. Your argument is stated much better here. However, this argument could be said of either atheists or believers. Yes, there are some atheists and some believers who claim to know that god exists or does not exist and it is true they be wrong because no one can "know". But believers usually tend to believe. Now whether its justified or not is a different debate. Now for atheists most simply doubt. They don"t "know" or claim to know whether god exists or not they are simply don"t find the claim supported enough by evidence to accept yet.

Your argument on disbelieve I completely reject. To disbelieve is simply to not be convince of a claim. It is not saying the claim is not true it is simply saying it is not convinced it is true. If a person did not accept a claim and believe it to be false, then they would be rejecting the claim. Fully stating the falseness of the claim.

"So even though the atheist may preface many of their arguments with a meaningless "I don't know." immediately every word following that sentence would be plenty of statements assuming knowledge."

An "I don"t know" is not meaningless. There are things that we as humans are not sure about we don"t KNOW everything. It could even be argued that we don"t KNOW anything. To not know something is not claiming knowledge it is the exact opposite. It is the stating the lack of knowledge. Its saying there is not enough information to make a reasonable conclusion that is most likely to lead me to the truth.
Debate Round No. 2
chipmonk

Pro

Con has said that something can be logical, but incorrect. Yet fails to provide any specific examples where something is logically true, yet turns out to be false. If something is logically true, and we find it to make logical sense, the under all circumstances would the claim be true. Such as the claim that Believers cannot be liars for believing.

If a believer also became a preacher, evangelist, or vocal messenger of his supposed beliefs, that believer risks becoming a liar, if his beliefs turned out to be false. However, it must be recognized that the moment a believer begins to preach, they are a preacher rather than a believer, and generally speaking most believers do not preach with conviction or agenda, nor do they carry interest in swaying non-interested parties. Thus, generally speaking, the majority of believers can be found to be entirely innocent of claim that "They claim to KNOW if God exists or not." Which indicates the intellectual dishonesty of the atheistic worldview and catch phrase slogans that demand evidence from people who profess beliefs, and have not truly (or logically) professed knowledge. Knowledge being beliefs supported by testable evidence allowing for prediction.

Con also believes my logical conclusion is not valid because my premises deal with different states of mentality. Knowledge and belief. However, it is my argument that knowledge and beliefs are related, but that they are also contingent upon one another. Which is also stated in my first premise, which as accepted (however unwittingly) by my opponent. The ordering of the premises is irrelevant. and you would find they are identical to each other in both construct 2&3. The premise "To KNOW is to have valid evidence for your BELIEFS." Which I feel is a perfectly fair definition of knowledge, is identical in both constructs ,and could just as well be premise 1, for both constructs. The conclusion for construct 2 is that believers do not claim to know. Construct 3 states that Disbelievers (namely Atheists) do lay claim to knowledge, evidence, counter evidence, or the absence of reliable and conclusive evidence they would find acceptable. The subtle implication here is that the Atheist retains the knowledge necessary to decisively reject all God claims up to this point in history, deeming them ALL untrue. Atheist's claim to know, that IF God existed, they would have recognized evidence for it. However, much of this position comes from the atheist's misunderstanding of history, as well as the role of religion, while completely discounting the vast changes in human psychology over extended periods of time. They assert that because of the limited understanding of ancient civilizations, all of them were simply brainwashed. However, they fail to recognize that throughout history God has never been defined clearly enough to dictate what this evidence would or should look like, should we discover any.

The question really is not about knowledge. But about what is deserving of being called "valid" evidence. Valid evidence is what is required for knowledge. Atheists demand valid evidence for God, and base their disbelief on the absence to said "valid evidence." However, one must not lose sight that without providing an objective means of understanding the subject of their study, no evidence that they gather can ever be valid...at least not in any scientific or empirical sense of the word. All evidence would become inherently subjective. The subject (ie. God, gods, big bang) has not been defined so as to be made objective.

Again, my argument is that ATHEISM IS A LIE. The ideology in itself is irrational, perhaps even more so than a literal fundamentalist. The only method of sustaining an illogical belief system is through doctrinal mantras. Such as the mantra of Huxley the "agnostic atheist." Where you say you don't know because there is no evidence, it also assumes that you know what evidence should even look like. The REASON for your lack of knowledge, is founded upon the lack of evidence and failure of the "supposed existence" to provide adequate evidence for their existence. Thus your "i dont know" is not really a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of evidence that leads to disbelief or rejection. As you admitted, you have not seen any evidence to make you believe the claims are true. The falsehood is that you claim to know what this evidence would be. Yet Con fails to propose any valid or rational examples of said valid evidence, while basing her rejection of the claim upon it. In short, her disbelief is based on her claim that she KNOWS if God would exist or not, after reviewing the claims and the evidence to this point. The argument is not that she is claiming to never change her mind. The argument is that at this point in time, (which should be the only time that matters to this debate and discourse,) by nature of her atheistic ideology, she is claiming to know if God exists or not.
sapere_aude

Con

Premise 1: men in Minnesota wear beards
Premise 2: Paul is from Minnesota
Conclusion: Paul has a beard
Is a perfectly logical statement but if Paul is a man without a beard than it is also false. Is an example of a logical but untrue statement.
"If a believer also became a preacher, evangelist, or vocal messenger of his supposed beliefs, that believer risks becoming a liar, if his beliefs turned out to be false. However, it must be recognized that the moment a believer begins to preach, they are a preacher rather than a believer, and generally speaking most believers do not preach with conviction or agenda, nor do they carry interest in swaying non-interested parties. Thus, generally speaking, the majority of believers can be found to be entirely innocent of claim that "They claim to KNOW if God exists or not." Which indicates the intellectual dishonesty of the atheistic worldview and catch phrase slogans that demand evidence from people who profess beliefs, and have not truly (or logically) professed knowledge. Knowledge being beliefs supported by testable evidence allowing for prediction."
Is really false. Weather a person keeps their beliefs to themselves or not has no bearing on the validity of their beliefs. A preacher and a believer can be one in the same. A preacher is merely a believer who either teaches their belief or try to convince others of their beliefs. And the statement that believers don"t try to preach is almost laughable. Talk to any believer and they will bring god into the conversation at some point. And tell them you don"t believe or of a different religion the majority will try to convert you. Believe me I am an atheist I would know. Not to mention most churches have an outreach program and missionary works to convert people. The bible even tells people to go out and make new believers.
Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
Psalms 96:3
"Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples."

Anyone can believe whatever they want to believe but if they don"t have good reasons or evidence then the belief is not supported and does not need to be taken seriously by others and especially should not be used to make big life decisions that may affect others. For another person to accept that claim as reasonable that person would need evidence.

Beliefs " is a claim or idea that is accepted

Knowledge " is a belief that is supported by evidence

Certainty " absolute no doubt of a claim as far as we can know anything.

Faith " is a belief that is not supported by evidence

I don"t know " is not accepting or rejecting a belief because there is not enough information to decide.

Disbelief " is not being convince of a belief due to lack of evidence to support it and the presence of evidence against it.

Rejection " claiming a belief is false with certainty

I have to accept knowledge in order to be logical but I do not need to accept faith. I can reject knowledge but then I would be illogical. A believer or an atheist can claim to know that there either is a god or there is not a god and both of them would be wrong. No one knows if there is a god or not. All we have to go on is the evidence to decide whether there is most likely a god or not and the evidence show that there is either no god or most likely no god. There is no proof that he does exist and plenty of proof that he is not there. One would merely have to define what god is in order to test the claim of that god in order to find evidence. Once we know what god is defined as for any given person than we know what to look for to proven his presence or absence.

"Again, my argument is that ATHEISM IS A LIE. The ideology in itself is irrational, perhaps even more so than a literal fundamentalist. The only method of sustaining an illogical belief system is through doctrinal mantras. Such as the mantra of Huxley the "agnostic atheist." Where you say you don't know because there is no evidence, it also assumes that you know what evidence should even look like. The REASON for your lack of knowledge, is founded upon the lack of evidence and failure of the "supposed existence" to provide adequate evidence for their existence. Thus your "I don"t know" is not really a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of evidence that leads to disbelief or rejection. As you admitted, you have not seen any evidence to make you believe the claims are true. The falsehood is that you claim to know what this evidence would be. Yet Con fails to propose any valid or rational examples of said valid evidence, while basing her rejection of the claim upon it. In short, her disbelief is based on her claim that she KNOWS if God would exist or not, after reviewing the claims and the evidence to this point. The argument is not that she is claiming to never change her mind. The argument is that at this point in time, (which should be the only time that matters to this debate and discourse,) by nature of her atheistic ideology, she is claiming to know if God exists or not."

By this logic which I do not agree with even believers would be making the same claim of knowing. And if they did find evidence how would they know what to look for to prove god was real.
Debate Round No. 3
chipmonk

Pro

Con's logic is not perfectly logical.

Premise 1 of con's logic is not necessarily true. Which is why Con's logic fails. It is not "perfectly logical". It is only incorreect.

Also. I never said believers dont express their beliefs, or "TRY" to preach. I said believers are not preachers. And even preachers never claim to KnOW. Even when they verbally say "i know God exists," since its only an expression of their belief, it can be easily assumed they dont know, and only believe. Which is why atheists are able say that they dont believe. This is also an expression of their belief.

However, it is important to note, when the atheists say that they disbelieve something, they are actually making a claim to knowledge. The reason for that is, when atheists say they disbelieve they provide reasons. They also claim that their reasons are tantamount to scientific evidence. And if we define knowledge as being beliefs that are well supported by evidence, then one can rightly gather that atheists are assuming to have knowledge about God, and therefore can say that he is unlikely to exist. Without knowing who or what God is, you cannot say it is likely or unlikely he that God does anything. If someone did say something about God , but at the same time says he doesn't know anything about God, we could easily call that person liar. We could easily call that person liar.

Weighing scientific evidence, or knowledge, over Faith is probably an appropriate choice and most life situations , where a pragmatic or scientific approach is possible. But to say that you disregard faith entirely, is also another lie. Doesn't everyone have faith in humanity? Doesn't con have faith that he or she is loved? Doesn't she have faith That love even exists? Or does she disbelieving love too? Faith is required for love because it cannot be proven.
sapere_aude

Con

Premise 1: men in Minnesota wear beards
Premise 2: Paul is from Minnesota
Conclusion: Paul has a beard

Based on the argument it is logical to assume that Paul has a beard. Now of course it is possible that you are wrong and Paul does not have a beard. Certain areas can have trends and fashions. Now does everyone follow them no but premise 1 as an example is a potentially true statement.
"Also. I never said believers don"t express their beliefs, or "TRY" to preach. I said believers are not preachers. And even preachers never claim to Know. Even when they verbally say "I know God exists," since it"s only an expression of their belief, it can be easily assumed they don"t know, and only believe."
So a believer is not able to honestly make a claim to knowledge of a deity weather its true or false because for them to say they know god exists is only an expression. Yet when atheists say it there somehow actually making a claim of knowledge sounds more like you want one side to be justified and the other to be in error when anyone claiming to have knowledge of a god or lack of god weather a believer or atheist would be wrong since no one knows for sure whether or not a god exists.

"However, it is important to note, when the atheists say that they disbelieve something, they are actually making a claim to knowledge. The reason for that is, when atheists say they disbelieve they provide reasons. They also claim that their reasons are tantamount to scientific evidence. And if we define knowledge as being beliefs that are well supported by evidence, then one can rightly gather that atheists are assuming to have knowledge about God, and therefore can say that he is unlikely to exist."
Atheist are not convinced there is a god because there is no evidence to support that such a being exists. Now an atheist may even have reason to doubt the claim because of evidence suggesting that a god is not there. One need only describes a deity to figure out if there is evidence of a god. Take for example a creation god. A deity that created everything. We know through scientific evidence that a need for this god is not there and there is nothing to suggest a deity like being had a hand in it. Unless you simply contribute the name god to physics but that is just giving the name to what is the real cause rather than the real cause being contributed to the idea of a deity. Now this may be a claim to knowledge because it is a belief supported by evidence. It is not an absolute claim definitively saying one way or the other just simply providing evidence for one side or the other. Which is perfectly justified to make the best decision one can on the topic. There is a difference between saying 100% there is or is not a god and providing evidence to say this is way there is most likely a god or not a god. And if the evidence of one side wins out more than the other. The side with the best evidence is the best choice at the moment to determine what is most likely true until new or better evidence can be found.

"But to say that you disregard faith entirely, is also another lie. Doesn't everyone have faith in humanity? Doesn't con have faith that he or she is loved? Doesn't she have faith That love even exists? Or does she disbelieve love too? Faith is required for love because it cannot be proven."
I do disregard faith as being completely useless tool in finding truth. Faith provided no way of telling a truth from a lie or what is most likely from what is unlikely. Unlike science, knowledge and reasoning. I do not have faith in humanity I have history and personal experience and the experience of others to tell me that people can to great and wonderful things but can also do every wretched thing. That despite hard times humans pull through. I do not need to have faith in this I have evidence that tells me it is possible. I don"t need faith that I am loved I can test and find evidence. Does the person say they love me? Do they want to spend time with me? Do they put me first? Do they use me? Etc., etc. I can never know for 100% but based on the evidence I can make a good guess on weather I am loved or not. Same can be said of love in general. I can read about love, talk to people who claim to be in love and read studies done on love and how it works biologically and psychologically. I don"t need faith. Love can be proven people sometimes even ask people to prove their love by marring them or by giving or doing others tasks or signs of love. Faith is not needed and is far inferior to evidence and knowledge when it comes to the search for truth.
Debate Round No. 4
chipmonk

Pro

As i have already stated, your first premises "men in minnesota wear beards." Is not a necessarily true statement. Its a weak premise that One does not have to accept as absolutely true. The logic I presented began with necessarily true premises." "No one can actually know if God exists or not." This is an absolutely true premise. That leads to a deductive conclusion that is also becomes absolutely true, given the premises are true.

Between the atheist and the believer, which do you see always acting like the other is "lacking knowledge?" And which do you ssee say the other is "lacking faith." There is a critical difference between why people believe and say they know God exists, and why people disbelieve and say they dont know if God exists. The critical difference is that we all know by logic and axiomatically, that if God exists.."no one can really KNOW if God exists." So the believer though he says he "knows" also logically understands he must "believe" and that his knowledge cannot be proven. The disbeliever also knows axiomatically, no one can really know if God exists or not. Yet has taken a leap of faith in stating "i do not believe God exists." Either position atheist or believer requires Faith to some degree, in the absence of absolute knowledge of God's existence. In short, you have faith God doesnt exist therefore live your life as if he did not.

But an atheist doesnt like the sound of that, so they enjoy truning the burden of proof to one side of the argument. The theists are somehow responsible for convincing atheists into their religion. When thought about for more than a second, one sees how absurd this idea is. The theists make claims sure. But their claims , true or false, should not and does not have any bearing on whether or not God exists. The ability of humans to accurately describe Or define God is entirely irrelevant to God's existence. God could exist, and the whole world can be wrong about who or what God is.

The claim about God existing or not does not come from a theist. The claim is an inherent question that begs the truth, due to your very existence. Hence, you asked "where did i come from?" And the answer was "God." It is an internal and psychological question for the self. God IS "the first cause." And this is not a new definition proposed. It is the most fundamental and basic definition of God. Just because YOU have other imaginary notions about what God is, does not make God exist , not exist or change his existence. And if no one has ever known God or seen Him, how do you expect ANY one to define his properties for you to test?

As you mention yourself, first you need to imagine a God ir deity to test and validate, given the available evidence. The key word here is that YOU are IMAGINING what God is, THEN based on your imagination you test if he exists or not. You did not test or valudate thr "first cause" (you dont even know what the first cause is!!!!). All you have done was confirm that the God u imagined is unlikely to exist. And just becsuse someone says "God is our Savior." Or "God is eternal and merciful." That doesnt give u much of a definition to KNOW exactly what kind of evidnce to look for when testing if the REaL God exists or not. You still have no idea who or what God is, even with all biblical descriptions put together.

So basically. As the famous Noam Chomsky put it..."what is it that you don't believe in?"

The atheist argument is a strawman fallacy. A lie in itself. A circular reasoning based on a bad premise.
That premise is that the atheist believes he KNOWS who or what God is, and can define God in his mind, so as to say God most likely doesnt exist. But is the God the atheist thinks doesnt exist, the actual God of the universe.

Con's final paragraph only solidifies my point, my logic, and my win. Atheism is a lie. In practice, by logic, and in all honesty.

She says "i dont need faith that I am loved, becsuse I have evidence to test." Con claims she doesnt need to believe she is loved because she KNoWs she is loved. Faith is unnecessary. Although many atheists will support this view, the idea is entirely irrational and lacking in semtantic value whatsoever. Her tests and evidnce would be things like "do they spend time with me? Do they put me first?" As her empirical tests for love? Impossible! This also shows her complete lack of understanding in scienctific concepts, practice as well as conditions for a scientifically significant test. These are not tests that allow us to know if she is loved by any meaningful measures. Maybe she is being used, but she doesnt know it because her mom always put her first and spends time with her. How does she know her mom is not just waiting for her to ripen so her mom can eat her for dinner when the time is right. How does she know she is not on the Truman Show and her mom isnt her real mom. The fake mom would show all superficial signs of love like "spending time, putting her first, etc.". Does this in ANY way , scientifically or logically PROVE she is loved? No. It does not. She believes it.
sapere_aude

Con

If a claim is made such as "there is a god" it is the responsibility of the person who is making the calm to back that claim up with evidence before the claim should be reasonably be accepted or even taken seriously. If we did not do this than any claim no matter how false would be accepted as truth first and then have to be disproven. The burden of proof falls to the one making the claim which are believers. If a god especially any god that created the universe or is like the deity described by Judeo-Christians should have some evidence. Yes, there may not be absolute proof unless he did exist and showed himself but there should be clues. Like tracking an animal. The animal may not be in your field of vision but the animal should leave some sign of his presence there if he was there. So if there is no evidence left behind and there are scientific explanations for things usually described to god. Than the evidence points more towards there being no god. Just because we can"t know absolutely doesn"t mean that based on the evidence we can"t make an educated guess about what is most likely true.
"In short, you have faith God doesn"t exist therefore live your life as if he did not."
I don"t have faith that he does not exist I have no reason to believe he does and there is a difference.

"The claim about God existing or not does not come from atheist. The claim is an inherent question that begs the truth, due to your very existence. Hence, you asked "where did I come from?" And the answer was "God." It is an internal and psychological question for the self. God IS "the first cause." And this is not a new definition proposed. It is the most fundamental and basic definition of God. Just because YOU have other imaginary notions about what God is, does not make God exist, not exist or change his existence. And if no one has ever known God or seen Him, how do you expect ANY one to define his properties for you to test?"
Now if we describe god as merely being the first cause than god becomes nothing more than another name for the big bang. He would not necessarily have any other characteristics we usually describe to the character of god and we would have evidence of his existence and we could know that he did exist. However, that is obviously not the god we usually thing of when we think of god. If god is not anything like we imagine and he is something that just existed unless he had some interaction or effect on us (which we could test) than the fact of his existence would be relevant to us. We would not interact or be affected by him and whether he was there or not is irrelevant especially since we could not prove him one way or the other. We can never know anything absolutely but we do have evidence that that can help us know what is most likely true. I want to thank my opponent for the debate and their time.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ZachZimmey// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: ZachZimmey

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a restatement of two point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by jglass841 11 months ago
jglass841
It was rhetorical. I was merely using unicorns as an example. In reality, unicorns have more evidence going for them than religion. Atheists do not claim to know everything, but religions claim to have answers. They show no proof for those answers, and atheists can point out many contradictions in the Christian bible. Deuteronomy 3, for instance.
Posted by chipmonk 11 months ago
chipmonk
@whineymagician...cool story bro
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 11 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
to policydebator, one blog does not speak for all atheist. and to @chipmonk the term your looking for when you say no one can really know god exist would be called an unfalsiable paradox, but being on the side that thinks he doesn't exist isn't a leap as you put it. some could consider the stance of a god existing as the crazy one.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
Stonehe4rt
http://www.johnkettler.com...
http://www.gods-and-monsters.com...

Just like Dragons of the past, Unicorns are something that has been believed in all throughout the world, and the funny thing is, they weren't considered myths for their time, but fact. The idea a Horse could have a horn is not really crazy, Their are HUMANS who have mutations and can grow Horns! So why can't a horse? Why couldn't there have been a reptile that could redirect its methane out its mouth and have the electric charge of an eel, using those two things anything could breathe fire! So are Dragons impossible? Are Unicorns impossible? I don't believe so. Logically, there are more species we havent found then we have found. So why think something you haven't seen doesnt exist? Its crazy to think that the world is limited to what you know now, if that was the case then you would still have the mind of an infant. Then you can look at the past, Pyramids and Stone Monoliths, Some people say Aliens helped with that ect... Maybe, or maybe Humans had the Technology and we went into a dark age. Within a couple thousand years any metal we have today would rust away. Though we do sometimes find things like Microchips, Brass Bells, Nails all around the world petrified in stone dating back to 6 Million years ago. So that proves we had technology or something did. Nowadays people try to mix DNA of animals, like the Spidersilk, Silkworm + Spider. So by this logic, you can see that its reasonable to believe Unicorns did exist, Hence by your logic it is also Reasonable to have Religion.

:)
Posted by jglass841 12 months ago
jglass841
You have as much evidence for religion as you do unicorns.
Posted by matt8800 12 months ago
matt8800
Even if Atheism was false, does "lie" = false statement?

The definition of Atheism is going to be problematic for Pro also. Con hasn't done round 2 yet but I can already see she is not going to miss that one.
Posted by missmedic 12 months ago
missmedic
Pragmatic atheism is the rejection of belief in gods because belief in gods is unnecessary for any pragmatic, important part of one's life. Pragmatic atheism is derived from the application of the philosophy of Pragmatism to the question of whether any gods exist. It does not positively assert that any gods do or do not exist; instead, pragmatic atheism asserts that their existence simply does not matter.
Pragmatic atheism thus finds that the proposition "at least one god exists" is false and/or meaningless because the application of such a proposition to one's life does not "work" " or at least does not create any meaningful difference in one's life as opposed to not applying it.
If there's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, then there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods. Therefore, atheism should be adopted for purely pragmatic reasons.
Posted by Policydebaterspydir 12 months ago
Policydebaterspydir
Hey open sesame, just type this into a search engine: do athiests claim to know there is no god?

you will find many websites such as this one, www.patheos.com/blogs/.../2014/09/i-know-there-is-no-god/, which point to the fact that athiests do claim that there is no God.
Posted by Plicked 12 months ago
Plicked
Construct 2
Premise 1: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs
Premise 2: Believers believe God exists, without valid evidence.
Conclusion: Believers are not liars

In the case of people who believe in a god but don't claim to know, that sounds more like a deist position. In that case, there's really nothing to talk about. If a believer puts even a pinky toe into the water when it comes to describing god's characteristics or relaying what god wants us to do on Sunday, it becomes a knowledge claim.

Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve based on lack of evidence and contradictory counter evidence (science).
Premise 2: To know is to have valid evidence for your beliefs.
Conclusion: Atheists claim to know the truth about God's existence.
Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.

If all Atheists claimed to know that god (depending on the definition) doesn't exist, sure. In this case it's equivalent to saying, "I know there are no planets in the universe that have alien life." It's a statement that would require a LOT of evidence to begin supporting it. But in fact not ALL atheists are claiming god(s) don't exist, they're rejecting the claims of existence, WHICH MEANS atheists are not making a knowledge claim WHICH MEANS they are not claiming to know.

You're attempting to paint with too broad of brush. You could improve your final conclusion by adding (Strong) Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.