The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
superbowl9
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Atheism is based on ignorance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
superbowl9
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,650 times Debate No: 60219
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I argue that atheism is a system of beliefs not supported or backed up by complete facts. It can be just as dogmatic as any other system. For the majority of the time, it's based on emotion and flawed arguments.

First round acceptance
superbowl9

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

I will start by saying that Atheism claims that God "probably" doesn't exist as if it were scientifically proven. No scientific evidence exists to prove that God does not exist. Neither have atheists come up with a mathematical model for their claims.

There are several reasons for attacking the Bible:

1. It's not backed up by science (many things aren't backed up by science, but from experience, no other book or belief is as attacked as much as the Bible)

2. They think it's dangerous to society (no evidence, many things are dangerous to society)

3. People don't need the Bible anymore because it's such an ancient book (Water is ancient, lets not drink water)

That being said, lets review their methods of attacking the Bible:

1. Finding contradictions within the Bible

2. Judging God as immoral

3. Claiming science and history have disproven the many claims of the Bible

4. Using various logical arguments against God's existence and character

5. Placing the Bible in the same level as other religions

I will start by exposing the flaws of each method:

1. Atheists will typically attempt to find contradictions within Scripture to show it's inconsistency, however it is nearly impossible to find a contradiction in the Bible namely because there's so many different axioms going (in 1 verse, it refers to one thing and in another, it can refer to another thing) on and the Bible must always be read in context. Of course, if you take two isolated verses, you may think you found a contradiction, but it's only because you took it out of context.

2. Many atheists will judge God as a malevolent being and claim that the Bible is full of genocide, murder, rape, violence, etc. however they lack an understanding of how God works. For example, in Exodus 20:13, it says "13 """You shall not murder [ratsach]. That is a very different term than putting to death which is muwth (Lev. 20:10). Many fail to provide a solid definition of "good" and "evil", so it is futile to attempt to use God's Law and social morals to judge him.

3. This claim is false because science has never disproven the Bible. A few examples can be found at this link (1). Archaeology itself has confirmed the Bible's historical accuracy (2).

4. Many logical arguments such as Omnipotence paradox (Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift?) in an attempt to disprove his existence, however because God cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13) he cannot defeat himself, therefore this argument is meaningless. You cannot use logic alone to discredit God because there is a very flimsy definition of God. Knowing who God is through the Bible thus creates a stronger definition consistent with the Bible's logic.

5. Atheists will most often compare the Bible to other religions asking you "Why the Bible? Why believe in the Bible? What about Buddhism? Shintoism? Islam? etc." This argument fails because not all religions are compatible in terms of belief. The Bible is one of the few religions which has a concept of faith in God, other religions don't care such as Buddhism (1). In the Bible, only those who have faith in Jesus will be saved. In Judaism, everyone can do good and be saved (3). In Buddhism and Hinduism, reincarnation is a continual process rather than a final judgement.

It's often claimed by atheists that we can be "good" without God, but i have yet to see a fully developed system based on completely rational arguments. Most of the morality i see stems from the Bible.

I have a lot more to say, so i will wait my opponent's response next round.

Sources:

1. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...

2. http://www.ucg.org...

3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
superbowl9

Con

I will start by saying that atheism is a negative claim. The burden of proof is on Christians to prove that their positive claim is valid by using evidence.

REBUTTAL

"I will start by saying that Atheism claims that God "probably" doesn't exist as if it were scientifically proven."

That's not what we say. What we say is, in response to your claim that god exists, "Give us evidence that god exists." When you fail to give us any valid evidence that god exists, we assume that he does not as there is no evidence for him, much like unicorns and leprechauns.

"No scientific evidence exists to prove that God does not exist."

Of course not, because god is an unfalsefiable hypothesis. Prove that unicorns don't exist; prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. You can't. Nobody claims they can.

"Neither have atheists come up with a mathematical model for their claims."

What?! First of all, what is a mathematical model? Second, are you proposing that we make a "model" every time we reject a positive claim? Third, we don't make any claims, we simply reject yours because it has no evidence.

I'll refute your next points number by number.

1. Yes, the Bible is not backed by science, so using it as a source is faulty. I'd think you would agree with that.

2. The Bible itself is not dangerous to society. It's when people like the Westboro Baptist Church use the Bible as a basis to be bigoted and cruel that we view these people's interpretation of the Bible as harmful to society.

3. No, nobody says this. People often discredit the Bible because it is an ancient text that supports stoning gays and sacrificing babies, which are old morals that we know better than to use in this day and age.

Onto your methods of attacking the Bible:

1. There are people who have read the Bible many times over and know all the context of the whole book. The people at SAB (Skeptic's annotated Bible) are some of them. They've found numerous contradictions that all hold up.[1] You can play the "out of context" game or the "different interpretations" card, but in the end there are undeniable contradictions in the Bible. Even Ray Comfort has admitted to a Bible contradiction[2].

2. I don't really understand your position here. You say that when god says "You shall not murder" he means something different than putting someone to death, therefore you're arguing that putting people to death is okay? What about God's genocide of almost the entire human race? Was that "putting them to death"? I'm pretty sure nobody could clarify their entire moral code to you in any amount of space or time, but it is assumed that every person holds the moral values of the society they live in. So when we as a society all agree that killing people is not correct, it is assumed that anyone you talk to from that society assumes killing is not correct unless they specify otherwise.

3. I don't claim that science has disproven the Bible, and I've not heard of any atheists who have either. There may very well be some, but I find it easier to maintain that the Bible is not divine and keep the Burden of Proof on Christians, where it should be. Make them back up their claims, don't try to disprove them.

4. So then what would you propose happens in that scenario? It is obviously impossible for an omnipotent being to exist because of contradictions such as that. You're using the Bible's logic to prove that the Bible is correct. Circular reasoning anyone?

5. That's ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that you looked at every religion before you became a Christian and then thought to yourself, "Gee, this Jesus guy sounds legit, I think I'll follow him"? Most people are indoctrinated into Christianity at birth and have never questioned their faith, so using this to show them that other people are doing the same thing is a good way to get some people to be skeptical and not just accept things that were spoon-fed to them.

Did I read that right? Are you serious? Are you really saying that all atheists are morally bad because none have proposed an entire moral compass that exists without God? Most atheists have great morals, as I'm sure most Christians do, because we get our moral standard from society and personal experience and do things that the majority of people feel are morally correct for good reasons.

ARGUMENTS

1. Atheism is a negative claim, so we don't have to do anything, Christians are the ones who have to come up with moral models, prove their beliefs, etc.

2. Even if all your claims why it is dumb to attack the Bible hold up, that does not mean being atheist is dumb, because not all atheists attack the Bible. Atheists don't need to attack the Bible, as you guys have the BoP.

3. Atheism is not based on ignorance, solely emotion, or flawed arguments. In fact, atheism is based upon looking at evidence and coming to the conclusion that there is no valid evidence for the Christian god.

Sources:
1. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
2. https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

" i will start by saying that atheism is a negative claim. The burden of proof is on Christians to prove that their positive claim is valid by using evidence."

the debate is focused on whether or not it is based on ignorance, so you cannot shift the burden of proof. you commit the fallacy of argument from ignorance in which you take the position that it's false simply because you lack knowledge of it being true.

Rebuttals :

1. My first link shows how science is confirming the Bible. Your claim that science does not back up the Bible is wrong.

2. I agree, however you fail to include all beliefs such as these regardless of whether not they're religious. the Bible teaches against what groups like the Westboro Baptist preach, so bringing that up isn't relevant.

3. You seem to accuse the Bible of supporting the death of gays and sacrifices of babies when 1.Jesus became the atonement for mankind's sins, thus abolishing the biblical death penalty 2.God punishes evil doers so that they'd turn fromsin and repent (Ezk. 18:23) 3.you brought no evidence to support that God supports killing babies. These are typical tactics done by Bible critics without fully examining the context.

My opponent commits the fallacy of chronological snobbery. It's common for people to claim that the Bible has morals which are obsolete, but I will give evidence for why this is completely false. I will begin by addressing the fundamental morals of the Bible:

Love - According to wiki, love is " a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection as well as ÂÂ"the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another.It brings positive emotions, fights stress, conflict, pain, heal, and exclude negativity. It helps you live longer and fights diseases (1).

Compassion - stimulates our pleasure centers, makes us happier to give than to receive, makes us attractive, uplifts those around you, influences others, improves health, help depression, and benefits society (2).

Lying - causes stress and harms the body (3).

The rest of the 10 commandments are also detrimental to your place in society. I can list more, but for now, these "old morals" are what you use and it's what benefits humanity to this day.

On to counter arguments:

1. I will explain why some of the claims of the Site you gave are false in relation to the Scriptures being discussed.

The site claims that God will never curse the earth in Gen. 8:21, but in Malachi 4:16, he says "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." the curse in Gen. 8:21 in Hebrew is qalal meaning to be abated in water while in Malachi, it's cherem which means accursed and prepared for destruction. Two different ideas are being conveyed, no contradiction.

Next is the claim that God creates evil (Isa 45:7) but in pm. 5:4, evil does not dwell near him. Isa. 45:5-7 is speaking of natural disasters, not moral evil .

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; 6That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, 7The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these."

Ps. 5:4 is speaking of moral evil

The site claims that homosexuality should be punished according to Lev. 20:13 and points to 1 kings 15:11-12 saying that the king sent the prostitutes away. If you read 1 Kings 15:11-15, you'll see that the Law did not apply to these temple prostitutes, thus punishment is to be given to those beloning only to Israel.

! Kings 15:11-15

"11 Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as his father David had done. 12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his ancestors had made. 13 He even deposed his grandmother Maakah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive image for the worship of Asherah. Asa cut it down and burned it in the Kidron Valley. 14 Although he did not removethe high places, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the Lord all his life. 15 He brought into the temple of theLord the silver and gold and the articles that he and his father had dedicated"

2. I'm saying that you cannot use logic alone to show a contradiction in God's moral code as ancient cultures and languages work far differently than ours. For example, God did not kill all humans (Noah and his family and others could have been spared)

3. for time purposes, I will only quote experts who say the Bible is very factual.

The Smithsonian department of Anthropology states:

"Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.” (you can write the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, Washington DC for the full text.) - See more at: http://amazingbibletimeline.com...;

Millar Burrows, an arhcaeologist writes:

"...Archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine" (4)

Your claim that the Bible is not factual is false.


4. it's not circular reasoning because I'm not trying to prove the Bible is correct by using the Bible, im showing you how your understanding of God is incorrect by examining the axioms in the Bible.you have given no logical arguments against God's existence in this debate.

5. No I haven't looked at every religion, but based on experience, I know that the Christian God exist . I think you commit the fallacy of strawman. Just because most Christians indoctrinate, doesn't mean all do. My opponent uses that logic on Christianit , not applying it to Atheism as it as also capable of indoctrination. On top of that, not all religions have the same truth value. It ceases to be the burden of proof on the part of human, but on the deities or "divine/universal" truth to demonstrate in some way, shape, or form that they are the "truth."

To address your arguments :

1. Not all Christians claim to have evidence for God, I don't take that approach thus I don't have the burden of proof as explained.

2. Not all atheists attack the Bible, but this debate is addressing the ones who do.

3. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, there is no strict definition of what an atheist believes, thus your claim seems to be an over generalization.

Sources:

1. http://psychcentral.com...

2. http://www.emmaseppala.com...

3. http://lifehacker.com...

4. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones, 1941, p 1
superbowl9

Con

Hello again.

I find a few of my opponent's arguments confusing or off-topic, so I may not be able to refute those points to their fullest, as you can't refute something you don't get.

REBUTTAL

"The debate is focused on whether or not it is based on ignorance, so you cannot shift the burden of proof. you commit the fallacy of argument from ignorance in which you take the position that it's false simply because you lack knowledge of it being true."

No. I am not trying to "shift" the burden of proof, I am showing you where it already is and responding to your claims that we don't have any evidence to prove that god doesn't exist. Atheists do not commit the argument from ignorance fallacy for this very reason, as we do not claim that we know for sure god does not exist. Nobody is saying this. Atheists hold the position that there has been no evidence presented to convince them of the existence of a god, so we live our lives as if one does not exist. To make this a bit easier to understand, describe your position on unicorns. Can you say for sure they don't exist? No? Then why don't you believe in unicorns' existence? This is our position, which inherently gives Christians the burden of proof because they must give us evidence to prove that their god exists. It is impossible to give evidence that god does not exist; that's like me asking you to give evidence that unicorns don't exist.

"My first link shows how science is confirming the Bible. Your claim that science does not back up the Bible is wrong. "

I have a couple issues with this.
1. You probably should have clarified that that source went with that statement by putting a citation next to it, otherwise people won't know what sources go with what statements.

2. You use clarifyingchristianity.com, which is biased and from as old as 1998 and uses sources from 1995.

3. Every single example shows that the Bible is consistent with science, not that science proves the Bible. Just because people knew that there were a lot of stars does not mean that they were ultra scientists.

4. This page continually resorts to semantics and fuzzy interpretations to prove itself. For example, to show that the Bible knew that there were a great many stars in the heaven, it quotes, "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me". In my book, the host of heaven is not stars, but space, wouldn't you agree?

"I agree, however you fail to include all beliefs such as these regardless of whether not they're religious. the Bible teaches against what groups like the Westboro Baptist preach, so bringing that up isn't relevant. "

Uh, no. The Westboro Baptist church follows the Bible better than you. You can't deny that they're getting their morality from scripture, which shows that this book can be interpreted in a way which gives people obviously incorrect moral codes. If god really wrote this, why would he be so mystical about it and leave things up for interpretation? Is it because he works in mysterious ways?

"You seem to accuse the Bible of supporting the death of gays and sacrifices of babies when 1.Jesus became the atonement for mankind's sins, thus abolishing the biblical death penalty 2.God punishes evil doers so that they'd turn from sin and repent (Ezk. 18:23) 3.you brought no evidence to support that God supports killing babies. These are typical tactics done by Bible critics without fully examining the context. "

You say that no more killing must occur because Jesus died for our sins, but if this is so, then why must people go to hell for their sins? I'd say going to hell is worse than being murdered, wouldn't you? Does not god kill all the firstborn in Egypt in Exodus 12? Does not god kill 42 children for calling a prophet a baldhead in 2 Kings 2:23-24? Or are my semantics just all wrong?

"My opponent commits the fallacy of chronological snobbery. It's common for people to claim that the Bible has morals which are obsolete, but I will give evidence for why this is completely false."

Ooh, chronological snobbery. I must say that I'm impressed you knew about this, but you're using it wrong. It is not chronological snobbery to say that people knew less about how the world worked the further back you go in history, it's a fact. The more time we as a human race have been around, the more things we learn and the more we develop. That's why you don't see any people with iron tools before the stone age. Your examples of good morality in the Bible are correct, the Bible does support these things. However this does not prove that the whole of the Bible is moral, rather that if one cherry-picks their morality from the Bible they can come to be a good person, as I'm sure your have done. You choose not to put homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20;27) and to wear mixed fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11) because you're only following the moral parts of the Bible you agree with, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, to use that as a basis to say that the whole Bible is morally good is incorrect.

I think your next point about SAB being wrong exemplifies my point about being able to use semantical arguments or different meanings or "god works in mysterious ways" to brush off many contradictions and interpretations you don't like. In it you say that when god says, "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity" He is talking about natural disasters and not moral evil. I find this ridiculous, as if you replace "calamity" with "natural disasters",the passage does not make sense. This is because god follows a antonym-antonym pattern, as we can see with "The One forming light and creating darkness" and "from the rising to the setting of the sun". So when we see another antonym-antonym and then Pro wants to change the definition of one of the words to something completely unrelated, we can see how that's a bit nonsensical.

"I'm saying that you cannot use logic alone to show a contradiction in God's moral code as ancient cultures and languages work far differently than ours. For example, God did not kill all humans (Noah and his family and others could have been spared)"

I still don't get what you're saying. Finding logical contradictions in the Bible casts doubt upon its validity, right? If god says "Don't kill", then kills people, is that not hypocritical? Also, are you saying that killing almost all people is acceptable?

Next you quote experts who say the Bible is factual, which I also don't see as relevant. How is that related to creationists having the BoP to prove God? Also, just because experts say something does not mean it is correct. I said that the Bible was not divine, not that it wasn't factual.

"it's not circular reasoning because I'm not trying to prove the Bible is correct by using the Bible, I'm showing you how your understanding of God is incorrect by examining the axioms in the Bible. you have given no logical arguments against God's existence in this debate."

I still don't think you get that I do not have any burden to prove that God is incorrect. I find this exasperating as it is quite an easy concept to grasp, yet so many creationists cannot grasp it. I've already explained why we do not have the burden of proof, but I'll do it again. Atheism does not claim anything. We look at your silly hypothesis and say, "No, we don't see any evidence for that, so we're not going to acknowledge something there is no evidence for." Therefore, it is up to you guys to give us some valid evidence as to why we should accept this hypothesis. I would say that you have not given any logical arguments for the existence of God in this debate.


"No I haven't looked at every religion, but based on experience, I know that the Christian God exist . I think you commit the fallacy of strawman. Just because most Christians indoctrinate, doesn't mean all do. My opponent uses that logic on Christianit , not applying it to Atheism as it as also capable of indoctrination. On top of that, not all religions have the same truth value. It ceases to be the burden of proof on the part of human, but on the deities or "divine/universal" truth to demonstrate in some way, shape, or form that they are the "truth." "

I never claimed all Christians indoctrinate, I said most do. I don't talk about atheist indoctrination because it happens far, far less than Christian or Muslim indoctrination. Your personal experience is not verifiable, and if you believe that the Christian god presented himself to you, neither you nor I can prove or disprove this. Thus this is somewhat irrelevant in proving that atheism is wrong, as you can't blame us for not taking your word for your personal experiences.

"Not all Christians claim to have evidence for God, I don't take that approach thus I don't have the burden of proof as explained."

So if you don't want to give evidence that god exists, why do you attack atheists for not believing in god when you give us no evidence he exists?

"Not all atheists attack the Bible, but this debate is addressing the ones who do."

No it isn't... the resolution is "Atheism is based on ignorance" and I don't see a mention of attacking the Bible in your opening arguments. This debate is about whether or not atheism is based on ignorance.

"Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, there is no strict definition of what an atheist believes, thus your claim seems to be an over generalization."

This may be a generalization, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an atheist who did not become an atheist this way, and this represents the majority of atheism.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

For this debate, I will fulfill my burden of proof by showing how atheism is based on ignorance rather than on knowledge and evidence most of the time. First, you commit the fallacy of circular reasoning (1).

1. I claimed atheists reject God
2. You claim atheists do not accept God because of the lack of evidence

You created an inconsistent analogy. I will explain :

1. There must be evidence for God to believe
2. Evidence requires natural observations
3. God is beyond natural and cannot be seen while unicorns can

that being said, there cannot be scientific evidence for God and he is beyond science and nature. Science does not concern itself with God (2). We can hypothetically prove unicorns exist because they are material. it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist since he is logically and philosophically able to interact with the world. in these respects, atheism is not knowledgeable of how science and God works as people constrict everything to evidence.

2. You claim it's biased, but has no relevance to what is being observed.

3. Being consistent with the Bible is being accurate.

4. The Hebrew word for hosts is tsaba which speaks of an army (3). Heaven is shamayim which is made of the atmosphere, space, planets, and stars (4). Thus from the ancient Hebrew, it is stars.

"Uh, no. The Westboro Baptist church follows the Bible better than you. You can't deny that they're getting their morality from scripture, which shows that this book can be interpreted in a way which gives people obviously incorrect moral codes"

You commit the fallacy of rhetorical question in asking " If god really wrote this, why would he be so mystical about it and leave things up for interpretation?" (5). The WestBro Baptist church does not get their morality from Scripture (John 3:16 clearly refutes their teaching that God "hates the world."

Once again, you commit the fallacy of rhetorical question asking "I'd say going to hell is worse than being murdered, wouldn't you?". You go to hell because you refuse to have faith in Jesus (John 3:18). you also go to hell because you have not received Jesus (Rev. 21:8). Pharaoh hardened his own heart and thus refused to let God's people go (Ex. 5:1-2). The point is that we are morally responsible for our own actions. The phrase baldhead in the near east meant that they wanted him dead, so God obviously had to protect him (6).

" You choose not to put homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20;27) and to wear mixed fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11) because you're only following the moral parts of the Bible you agree with"

I would give a thorough explanation if I had the time, but for now I will only explain it briefly. Leviticus is a book centered around the rules and regulations to the holiness of Israel. Though the law of moses came death, but through Jesus came grace and forgiveness of sins (John 1:17, Romans 4:15). As for the fabrics, it also has been fulfilled in Jesus (Gal. 3:24-26).

You claim there are contradictions then say that it's all "semantical arguments." You commit the fallacy of incredulity in saying " I find this ridiculous, as if you replace "calamity" with "natural disasters",the passage does not make sense" (7). You failed to show that there are contradictions.

"If god says "Don't kill", then kills people, is that not hypocritical?" That seems to be a personal attack against God, but ok. Your misusing terms. That commandment in Hebrew is actually ratsach or murder (8). Show me one verse where God uses that same term and maybe you will present a better argument.

"Next you quote experts who say the Bible is factual, which I also don't see as relevant. How is that related to creationists having the BoP to prove God? "

I did not say "God works in mysterious ways", but ok

1. You imply Christians are creationists " "
2. I'm a Christian, but not a creationist
3. Your conclusion is wrong

You commit the fallacy of one-sided assessment implicitly "just because experts say something does not mean" (9).

"I find this exasperating as it is quite an easy concept to grasp, yet so many creationists cannot grasp it"

"We look at your silly hypothesis.."

You now commit the fallacy of ad hominem or personal attacks (10). You revert back to circular reasoning.

"I never claimed all Christians indoctrinate, I said most do. I don't talk about atheist indoctrination because it happens far, far less than Christian or Muslim indoctrination."

You brought no evidence that Atheism is an exception to indoctrination. You also seem to make a generalization supporting your view of what an atheist is.

"So if you don't want to give evidence that god exists, why do you attack atheists for not believing in god when you give us no evidence he exists?"

I conclude with this:

You have failed to provide evidence and sources supporting your cases against God. You fail to demonstrate knowledge from the ancient world to better grasp the concept of the Bible and strongly attack it. You only rely on reason and logical arguments that have already been used (problem of evil, etc.). As we have seen, while i'm speaking of experience (not delving into the field of evidence), this is typically the case with atheism. I'm sure there are very smart atheists out there, but so far, these are the tactics they use. With that in mind, i rest my case that atheism is based on ignorance.

Sources:

1. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

2. http://powertochange.com...

3. http://biblehub.com...

4. http://www.bibletools.org...

5. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

6. Jamieson, R., Fausset, A., & and Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (electronic ed.)

7. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

8. http://en.wikipedia.org...

9. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

10. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
superbowl9

Con

Before I start off my final rebuttal, I have a couple things.

Pro has not fulfilled his BoP. He must prove that atheism is based upon ignorance, which he has not done. He says that some atheists do this and that, and that some atheists attack the Bible, but he has yet to show how a disbelief in the existence of a deity[1] is based upon a lack of knowledge or understanding[2].

Again, I found some of my opponents points to be a bit hard to understand, so I apologize if I am not able to refute Pro's argument in full.

REBUTTAL

"For this debate, I will fulfill my burden of proof by showing how atheism is based on ignorance rather than on knowledge and evidence most of the time."

No, not most of the time. The resolution clearly states "Atheism is based on ignorance". This means that all atheist's atheism is based on ignorance, and thus all atheists are somewhat ignorant. If you wanted to debate something else, you should have changed the resolution or called for a tie (which I still could have denied, but probably wouldn't have) because of a faulty resolution earlier in the debate.

" First, you commit the fallacy of circular reasoning.

1. I claimed atheists reject God
2. You claim atheists do not accept God because of the lack of evidence"


Okay, listing two claims, is not evidence of circular reasoning. Do you know what circular reasoning is? It's when "A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition"[3]. Firstly you did not claim that atheists reject god, you've only said "Atheism claims that God "probably" doesn't exist" and "Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God" at this point. Even if you had said what you claim to have said, my claim that atheists reject god because of lack of evidence is not a conclusion drawn from your statement, but an add-on to your statement, which cannot be connected back to your statement at all. Reject means not accept, they're synonymous. The only way this could be circular reasoning is if you took the first statement and could use the second statement to justify it (There is a lack of evidence for god because we reject god), which makes no sense. No circular reasoning here.

"1. There must be evidence for God to believe
2. Evidence requires natural observations
3. God is beyond natural and cannot be seen while unicorns can"

Really, there's natural evidence for unicorns? Where? What is it? Is there natural evidence for leprechauns and Zeus, as well? What about the flying spaghetti monster, who exists outside of the physical world? I think you must have found some evidence that the rest of the population hasn't, or you've failed to see the point of my analogy. There are plenty of things you cannot disprove, and this applies to god as well. I won't reiterate my entire point again because I've clarified it ample times, but you cannot disprove god which is why atheists, including myself, have not done so.

"That being said, there cannot be scientific evidence for God and he is beyond science and nature. Science does not concern itself with God (2). We can hypothetically prove unicorns exist because they are material. it doesn't mean that he doesn't exist since he is logically and philosophically able to interact with the world. in these respects, atheism is not knowledgeable of how science and God works as people constrict everything to evidence."

I still don't think you got the point of my hypothetical, but that's not even the worst part about this statement. You've just said that you cannot give any evidence or prove that god exists, which is exactly where any person who is not ignorant and who is skeptical would dismiss your claim, just like atheists have done. This, of course, does not prove that god does not exist, because as I have said time and time again, it is impossible to disprove god. Thus, the burden of proof is on Christians to show through some sort of evidence that their god exists, otherwise there is no reason to believe he does. If I told you that there was an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, octopus in the sky who has told all of humanity to follow him, is the burden on you to disprove that claim?

You then say that atheists don't know how science or god works, which is an irrational claim. Are you saying that 40% of scientists don't know how science works[4]?

" You claim it's biased, but has no relevance to what is being observed."

Yes, using biased sources is relevant to what is being observed, because as I showed they manipulate the evidence to fit their conclusion, and since they have not updated since the 1990s, they might not have all the evidence we now have and thus their evidence or conclusions may be flawed. It is important to use unbiased and up-to-date sources. There's also a "sources" category in the voting section, which is meant to judge reliability of sources (cough cough).

"Being consistent with the Bible is being accurate."

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that because science is consistent with the Bible that science is accurate, or that the Bible is the standard for accuracy, or that something is not accurate...? I don't know what you mean by this.

I have to stop quoting Pro here for space reasons, it'll go paragraph by paragraph from now on.

Maybe the translators should have thought of this when they were creating the English bibles, because not everybody has the time, resources, or brain power to learn Hebrew. We are quoting an English bible here, which the majority of Americans follow and which is the standard for almost all Christian religions. You could see how some people might get the wrong impression when the actual Bible they follow says one thing and you say another. Even if our modern knowledge of Hebrew is 100% accurate (which it's not because Hebrew was a dead language for a very long time[5]), the multiple definitions of words, etc. allow people like you to use semantics to "clarify" issues like these.

I think you forgot to respond to one of my quotes, as the section underneath is unrelated to it, so I'll ignore that.

You, sir, have just made up a fallacy. Despite knowing for a fact that there is no such thing as the fallacy of a rhetorical question, as rhetorical questions are used all the time by excellent scholars and are commonplace when emphasising a point, I looked at your source to find no mention of this fictional fallacy (in my opinion Pro uses "fallacies" far too much). You're talking about a loaded question, which this isn't. This is a hypothetical, as we can clearly see from "if god really wrote this". WBC gets their morality from scripture, obviously as they have stated many times. Their interpretation is so different from yours because they interpreted this scripture differently since it is so unclear.

Once again, the fallacy of rhetorical question does not exist. Once again, that was not even a rhetorical question. Once again, Pro has no idea what he's talking about. Even if baldhead is equivalent to a death threat (which I can't verify because you cite some sort of book or website and give no link or page number), why would an omnipotent god have to smite over forty children to protect one adult prophet? I find that somewhat humorous.

Weren't the ten commandments meant for the Israelites as well? Why should we follow those then? Also, you keep saying that because Jesus died we can now commit some forms of sin, which is not even remotely how it works. This you can verify by understanding better the context of the Bible.

I find this ironic, as you are the one who has failed to refute my argument that there is a contradiction because you are too busy calling my personal views on the argument the fallacy of incredulity. Anybody could simply say, "actually, I disagree that those arguments are ridiculous", like you would have done had you a real argument.

Is god killing almost everyone in the entire human race not murder? By showing that god is hypocritical, I am showing that people's attacks on the Bible are justified. Also, now who's using the argument from incredulity? "maybe you will present a better argument." Looks like god's not the only hypocritical one.

You again quote me and don't respond, interesting...

Many Christians use this as an escape route when they have been cornered by good arguments, I was using it as an example.

Do you not believe that god created at least some part of the universe? If not, you're rejecting a major part of the Bible and Christianity. Also (side note), I love how the third point is simply "your conclusion is wrong."

Again, you've misused a fallacy. You can look at Pro's source to see how as I'm lacking space. This is becoming a trend.

Wow, two misuses of fallacy with one stone. You say you're not a creationist and this wasn't specifically towards you, so it shouldn't affect you. The god hypothesis is silly, and you have yet to convince me otherwise. I see no circular reasoning anywhere.

I did not say atheists are exempt from indoctrination, as you can clearly see by reading my statement, which you seem to have failed to do.

Again you fail to respond to my quote.

For the last time. I do not need to do this because ATHEISTS DO NOT HAVE THE BOP. My arguments are sound and you have failed to disprove them. Again you're hypocritical, accusing me of generalizing then doing so yourself. You also insinuate that I am not smart which is not true and ad hominem. You've also committed the spelling error fallacy multiple times in your argument.

I have jested at Pro a couple times, but this is to lighten the mood of the debate and so I can keep my sanity. I can't be expected to take every argument seriously.

Vote Con.

Sources:
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
4. http://www.pewforum.org...
5. http://www.sbl-site.org...
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Empiren 3 years ago
Empiren
Bleh, I can't vote.

Con: Arguments/Sources.
"1. My first link shows how science is confirming the Bible. Your claim that science does not back up the Bible is wrong. "

Among MANY of his sources which were incorrectly used and for some reason he tried to strawman through them.(seriously pro? Have some decency).
http://lifehacker.com...

Pro also didn't even know the definition of Atheism, which combined with his lack of knowledge about the definition of science, kind of killed his argument.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Also, apologies to Pro for the incorrect pronoun usage; another member has been PMing me about a debate on a similar topic and I'm afraid I simply kept Pro as a 'her' and Con as a 'he'. My mistake!
Posted by superbowl9 3 years ago
superbowl9
Can I ask Pro what the ELO restriction is set too so this doesn't happen again?
Posted by superbowl9 3 years ago
superbowl9
Wow, I feel for ya. That was quite a comprehensive, well thought-out RFD.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Well, that's embarrassing. Can't vote.

Comments stand.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
RFD (1/2)

Thank you both for an intriguing debate. There were strong points on both sides, and I actually found myself wavering in my support with each successive round. You both provided very strong arguments, and at times you both also made mistakes. I'll start with the easy stuff, and move onto the argument points towards the end of my RFD.

Conduct to Pro. While normally I would overlook light jesting, I felt that in some places it detracted from your argument. Pro almost reacted in kind and this would have lead to a tie but as it stands, I have to award for ad hominem.

Spelling and grammar is obviously a clear and unambigious award to Con for articulate paragraphs and very little in the way of spelling and grammatical errors. Conversely, Pro failed to capitalise in many instances and there were glaring spelling and punctuation errors saturating her writing. Very distracting and makes understanding certain progressions in her arguments difficult. While the arguments themselves may have been valid sometimes it was hard to understand how you got there.

Sources were awarded to Pro because a larger proportion of her work was cited. While volume is not the sole criteria for judging referencing, I felt that Con left some paragraphs uncited where references would have been advantagious. What you may have considered common knowledge I felt should have been cited. With this being said: I take very strong issue with first source cited by Pro. I read through your entire source, and felt an annurism coming on. Everything that was blatantly absurd about your source, Con correctly pointed out; not only was it exceptionally biased it was littered with factual inaccuracies. I very nearly awarded Con the source points just because of this. Ultimately, Pro made up these points in other areas, but I would be very cautious about citing it again.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
RFD (2/2)

Arguments:
Both provided strong argumentation in places, but Con won not just on the basis of having stronger arguments, but because of poor argumentation by Pro. She constructed a straw man of atheism in the second round and continued to attack that during the deabte, rather than Con's illustration of the actual position of atheism. Perhaps Pro would have been able to make a much stronger case if she had been arguing against agnosticism, which is a position on knowledge. It would have been far easier to argue ignorance on this front. Pro then claimed that Con was trying to shift the burden of proof. This is completely false. Her claim is that atheism is based on ignorance, and it is up to her to demonstrate this; it is not up to Con to demonstrate the contrary, but to refute Pro's arguments.Further, as we got closer to the end, I began to build a picture of where the debate was going to end up, and took mental notes of what Con would have to do if he wanted to refute Pro's claims. He followed through with very logical and valid responses. In fact, in many instances, he elloquently demolished certain lines of Pro's enquiry so irreparably that it probably have been better if Pro had drop those points instead of scrabbling to glue them together and started from scratch with new arguments. Argumentation points clearly go to Con.

Of course, feel free to comment or PM me for clarification of anything. I've deliberately not given specific examples in my RFD on this particular debate to avoid starting a flame war in the comments section but I have noted each of the instances which led to my decisions and am happy to share them with you at your request.

Thanks for the read, and all the best in your future debates.

InnovativeEphemera
Posted by Vexorator 3 years ago
Vexorator
Alexander got it right. Truth_seeker is defining what anti-theists are, not atheists. Con showed what the definition of an atheist is and that Pro's arguments are stereotypical and flawed.

Unfortunately, I can't vote.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I suspect people will mostly just vote their bias on this one.
Posted by LiberalLogic101 3 years ago
LiberalLogic101
Pro saying that science confirms the Bible is half right.

You see, there are two different kinds of reasoning. Inductive, and deductive. Inductive reasoning is that used by Atheism, where you start from the semantics in order to prove the main point. Religion uses deductive reasoning, where you start from the main point to prove the semantics.

One could say that science confirms the Bible, but that is only when science is done with deductive reasoning, as it rarely is.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Truth_seekersuperbowl9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I am happy to expand this RFD at either debater's request. However, it seems clear to me that Pro, who had BoP, did not support the notion that Atheism is based on ignorance. The bible debates were mostly off-topic on the resolution itself. Con noted that those proposing an idea, like God, have the BoP--Pro would need to show that theism had fulfilled its BoP to make the resolution stand. (Well, as this debate was formulated, there's a slightly different way it could have gone which would have had a slightly different argument). Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
Truth_seekersuperbowl9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is such that pro must prove that atheism is based on ignorance. "lack of knowledge or information." This might seems quite true prima facie, however the rejection of a positive claim in the light of no evidence is rational, as displayed by con's analogy of the unicorn. Pro accused con of having committed logical fallacies he did not commit fallacies. Also pro seems to put forth a lot of non-topical arguments, that if successful would back up christianity some, however that does not necessarily entail that atheism would be based on ignorance. Pro also commits a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in regards to science and the bible. Maybe pro could have been the victor under another resolution, but in this one he did not affirm the resolution