Atheism is the default position
Debate Rounds (3)
First round is for acceptance only.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists.
The whole basis of my opponents one and only argument is that because children are born without a belief in a god, they are automatically atheists. Here are 2 rebuttals to my opponents argument. (The burden is on the affirmative to prove the resolution true beyond a reasonable doubt).
Rebuttal 1: We do not know what a baby might know. Simple as that. Do we have any proof that a baby is incapable of believing in a god? Babies everywhere know who their mother is, and often respond to their voice in a calm way (their voice calms them down). The child gives the mother their unconditional love and trust, and isn't that the exact same as what people do in a religion? And even if you still aren't persuaded by my rebuttal, here is
Rebuttal 2: Children are agnostic, not atheists. An agnostic is someone who does not know whether or not a god exists. An atheist is someone who is sure that there is no god. These are two distinct categories that cannot be grouped. Baby is a blank slate, knowing nothing and not having opinions on anything. They simply do not know. That is what an agnostics belief is, that there could be a god, but they don't have enough evidence to declare themselves an atheist or a theist either way.
We are talking about atheism, not agnosticism.
The debate is: "Atheism is the default position"
My opponent falsely claims, "These are two distinct categories that cannot be grouped."
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. In other words, you can prove a baby is agnostic, but that still has NOTHING to do with whether a baby is an atheist or not. The baby, could, in fact, be an agnostic atheist (both). They can be grouped.
My opponent is trying to shift the burden of proof by asking "Do we have any proof that a baby is incapable of believing in a god?" You don't prove a negative. You must prove the baby is capable, in order to win this debate. The lack of proof that a baby is incapable, isn't proof that babies are capable of believing in a god.
For the assertion that, "babies are capable of believing in a god", to be true, the baby would have to first have an understanding of what a god is.
I invite my opponent to prove by scientific means, that a baby can comprehend what a god is and then choose to believe in it. Without that proof, he has lost this debate. Instead, he admits "We do not know what a baby might know"
The fact that my opponent admits, "Baby is a blank slate, knowing nothing and not having opinions on anything."
PROVES that the baby lacks the belief in a God, which by our agreed upon definition, makes the baby an atheist.
We agreed upon a definition of atheism. Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God"
Now my opponent wants to re-define what we agreed upon by claiming, "An atheist is someone who is sure that there is no god."
Lacking the belief in a god doesn't make you sure of it. An atheist, under the agreed upon definition, doesn't claim there is no god. They aren't making any claims at all.
My opponent is trying to cheat by agreeing to one definition and then attempting to change the definition agreed upon, half way through the debate!
My opponent also falsely claims "they (babies) don't have enough evidence to declare themselves an atheist"
The LACK of a belief does not require anything. That's why atheism is the default position.
You are an atheist before you declare yourself anything. You don't need evidence to call yourself an atheist.
My opponent failed in this debate. He falsely assumed that atheism and agnosticism were mutually exclusive terms and tried to prove a baby is agnostic. Since the terms are NOT mutually exclusive, proving a baby to be agnostic or not has no bearing on whether the baby is an atheist or not. Proving a baby to be agnostic does NOT prove a baby is not an atheist.
My opponent also tried to re-define the agreed upon definition of atheism.
My opponent also admitted that "Baby is a blank slate, knowing nothing and not having opinions on anything." By admitting that, he has lost the debate. If a baby knows nothing, it lacks the belief in a god, which makes the baby an atheist, proving atheism is the default position.
I want to thank my opponent for trying.
flame4321x forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.