The Instigator
MikeNH
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
TheAmazingAtheist1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism is more rational than Theism

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 2 votes the winner is...
MikeNH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 40438
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

MikeNH

Pro

Atheism, defined as the lack of belief any god or gods exist, is more rational than theism, defined as the belief a god or gods exist. Atheism is the default position to the claim that any god or gods exist until evidence proportional to that claim is presented. Atheism is more rational than theism because there is no evidence that any deity does or has ever existed.
TheAmazingAtheist1

Con

You are correct. Christians can not provide or present any proportional evidence of God's existence. It just the faith they chose. Nobody could prove/disprove his existence.

If you were to say "I could disprove God's existence because nobody can prove it", I could say "I could prove God's existence because nobody can disprove it".
Debate Round No. 1
MikeNH

Pro

You accepted the debate to tell me I'm correct?

You then said:

"If you were to say "I could disprove God's existence because nobody can prove it", I could say "I could prove God's existence because nobody can disprove it"."

This is a red herring - not at all relevant to my specific argument presented. Anyone COULD say either of those things, and they both would be equally absurd.

You're willing to admit that atheism as described is more rational than theism? If this is the case, why would anyone want to be a theist?
TheAmazingAtheist1

Con

My argument was relevant to your specific argument. I clearly pointed out what was correct. You said "Atheism is more rational than theism because there is no evidence that any deity does or has ever existed.". So, you are defending the position that God does not exist.

Nobody though, could disprove/prove his existence.
Debate Round No. 2
MikeNH

Pro

No, you're argument is indeed not relevant to mine, and is indeed a straw-man.

"So, you are defending the position that God does not exist."

No. I NEVER took that position. There is a MASSIVE distinction between the following two claims:

1) God does not exist because there's no evidence. (your straw-man of my position)
2) I do not believe that God exists because I have been presented with no evidence. (my actual position)

This distinction is a clear and important one to realize. Let me present you with an analogy to explain this, because I have a feeling you don't understand the difference, and will ask a question after that I'd like you to answer:

1) You say you have a jar full of gumballs.
2) You claim, "There is an even number of gumballs in this jar."
3) You then ask me if I believe this claim.
4) I say I don't accept this claim because I have no evidence that would lead me to think it is true.

With this in mind, my question for you: If I do not accept your claim that "there is an even number of gumballs in the jar", is this the same thing as me saying "There is an odd number of gumballs in that jar."?

If you do NOT think it is the same, do you now understand the distinction between someone A) not accepting a claim as true, and B) accepted the opposite of the claim as true? I'll say it once again, I never even remotely implied that I make the claim that there is no god. Atheism, as I was VERY CLEAR in defining from the start, is NOT a claim that there is no god, but rather it is simply not holding that belief until evidence is presented to support it.

If you do think that those two claims are the same, then it is clear you simply don't understand how to construct logical statements. This simple distinction is the reason why verdicts in court are Guilty vs. Not-Guilty, rather than Guilty vs. Innocent. As I said, atheism is the default position, this is just like every defendant is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

The default position on ANY claim is to reject it until evidence is provided as justification. You admitted there is no evidence to support the claim that a god exists when you said, "Christians can not provide or present any proportional evidence of God's existence.", and have thus supported my argument. (I will note this isn't EXACTLY the case as I was attempting to argue against theism in general but you made the specific connection to Christianity, but I will accept that Atheism is at least more rational than Christianity as you admit there is no evidence/proof).

Feel free to send me a message if you'd like to go further with this.
TheAmazingAtheist1

Con

Alright.

So you suggest that Atheism is more rational than theism because we can not present or provide proportional evidence to support it. And so you are not going to hold that belief until we have done so.

But like I said, it is just the faith we have chosen. Nobody could prove/disprove God's existence. So therefore,

"it is simply not holding that belief until evidence is presented to support it"

Is not very logically thought. Don't believe me?

Have you ever touched, smelled, heard, seen, or tasted your brain? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocols, Science says you have no brain. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly. That's what keeps things alive and moving.

P.S. My previous arguments were posted by my brothers. They mess with my things all the time.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
Dzoni - Do you mean it's more rational than atheism?
Posted by dzoni 3 years ago
dzoni
but then agnosticism is the most rational
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
An... odd debate.

To begin with, I found S&G to be equal enough, and nobody sourced.

As to conduct--I found Con's strawmanning conduct worthy and award conduct, therefore, to Pro. I further do not like his blaming of his brothers--what was that supposed to achieve? Was that an attempt to deflect the charge of straw-manning?

As to arguments: Pro pointed out that the default position on any claim is to not believe it until given reason to believe it. Con never rebutted this except through an attempt at assertion to the contrary. While Pro's case was an assertion, it was one about the very premise of belief in things's existence. Con could have tried to rebut via an example. His example of a brain, though, was wholly insufficient to do that--Pro never asserted that the evidence must be "touch[ing] smell[ing], hear[ing], or tast[ing]" something <em>directly</em>. Con seemed to obliquely defend belief in God through indirect evidence, but certainly didn't provide any, and never refuted Pro's claim to the general principle of lack of belief in a claim until its establishment via reason.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
First you said:

"But like I said, it is just the faith we have chosen."

Then you said:

"P.S. My previous arguments were posted by my brothers. They mess with my things all the time."

Which arguments were posted by you and which weren't, and why would your brothers mess with your things if you are a 50-something year old man, as your profile claims? Also, why is your username TheAmazingAtheist1 when you are a theist?
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
Sorry, typo there I didn't mean to say I was a theist. I meant to say I am personally a agnostic atheist.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
Nzrsaa - That is simply false. Atheism and theism are positions regarding BELIEF whereas gnosticism/agnosticism are epistemological stances regarding KNOWLEDGE or claims to knowledge. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

You can be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist. I am personally an agnostic theist, in that I do not hold the belief that god(s) exist and I also do not claim to know this, and also do not necessarily know if it in fact "knowable" in an epistemological sense.. I know lots of theists, christians, deists, etc., that consider themselves agnostic.

tl;dr - atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive as they are different answers to completely different types of questions - knowledge vs. belief.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Nzrsaa
'Atheism, defined as the lack of belief any god or gods exist'
Straight off, you are wrong. Atheism is the assertion that God Does not exist.
A lack of belief is agnosticism, and definitely not atheism.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
Sorry, but that is just simply incorrect. The rejection of one belief is not the acceptable of the opposite. Just like my gumball example, you can't accept the assertion the number is even, because you have no reason to believe it is correct. That doesn't mean you MUST accept the number is odd - it's a painfully simple concept.

Atheism - derived from "a" meaning without and "theism" meaning the belief at least one god exists, means just that. It is only a single position on a single claim. I very clearly demonstrated that one is not forced to accept the opposite if they reject a claim.
Posted by chrisgaza 3 years ago
chrisgaza
the absurdity of atheism is that there is anything called not to believe, the negation of one idea means you believe in the negation of it, that is your belief, the negation of what you don't believe. atheist. Everyone believes in something, atheist are just too scared accept it
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Emily77 3 years ago
Emily77
MikeNHTheAmazingAtheist1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: CON, I've seen a few of your debates and you basically use the same argument every time. The problem is, it is a flawed argument. The reason for this is because if a doctor conducts a brain biopsy on you, then yes, you can see, touch and smell your brain. The same is true for any physical aspect of the scientific world, a world which confirms only the physically sensible. God, is not something you can ever sense in any tangible way...regardless of experimentation attempted. Your argument is a major fail. **That being said, I gave this debate to PRO because you basically confirmed him as being right through your argumentation, and then I gave him the conduct points because you turned around to blame it on your brothers.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
MikeNHTheAmazingAtheist1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.