The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
The Contender
Death23
Con (against)

Implicit atheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Death23 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 347 times Debate No: 97054
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (41)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

I'm doing this debate again since my previous debater forfeited.

I'll first define implicit and explicit atheism as provided by wikipedia:
"Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). 'Implicit atheism' is defined as 'the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it', while 'explicit atheism' is 'the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it'.[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further." [1]

In addition, there are two different types of explicit atheism. There are strong and weak explicit atheists. Strong explicit atheists assert that no god exists, weak ones reject the belief in deity. Implicit atheists are often called "agnostics", and have not rejected the belief in deity.

I'll accept a debate from either an explicit atheist or any type of theist.

The primary reason why I see implicit atheism as the position that makes most sense, is because there is a lack of evidence one way or the other in terms of whether a god exists. If there is no evidence a god exists and there is no evidence a god does not exist, why would it make sense to have a stance at all? The default position is therefore, to have a lack of belief one way or the other.

I'll leave my first argument at this for now, and will continue once an opponent has accepted.

Source:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Death23

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

Since I already argued in my first round and my opponent didn't, I'll waste this round, but my opponent should post their argument for either theism or explicit atheism.
Death23

Con

My opponent has pointed toward the lack of direct evidence one way or another as an indication of uncertainty as to the existence or non-existence of a god.

There are certain types of claims which we can be confident are false even though there isn't evidence for them one way or the other. The existence of the flying spaghetti monster, Russell's teapot, leprechauns and invisible pink unicorns are some examples. The existence of a god falls in to the same category as these other claims. We can be similarly confident as to god's non-existence.

Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Pro

Well, I would like to point out that an invisible pink unicorn is contradictory and that's why one doesn't exist. If it's invisible, it has no color to it so it can't be pink. As for the other examples, we can be confident those things do not exist on the earth since we have likely searched sufficiently on the earth and found evidence they do not exist, however when it comes to the universe as a whole, it would be too early to conclude leprechauns, the flying spaghetti monster, etc do not exist. Just because it seems like a no-brainer that something doesn't exist doesn't in fact mean that something does not exist.

Let's take the earth for a moment. Several millennia ago it would have been a no-brainer to believe the earth was flat. It was a no-brainer to believe that an earth which was globular is non-existent since people's experiences told them the earth appeared to be flat since they couldn't get far enough away from the earth to see it is in fact a globe and didn't have the math to figure it out yet. However, those people have been proven to be wrong. The correct position would have been to have no position at all about the earth's shape until we were able to see the earth as a whole. Thus, the correct position to take on leprechauns, flying spaghetti monster, etc is no position, unless we are talking about the earth. We can conclude that no such creatures exist on the earth, for the reason I've said before in that we've likely sufficiently searched for evidence and found none of their existence on earth. The same can be said of a god: we've sufficiently found evidence of a god not existing on earth so we can conclude this god does not come on earth or directly interact with people on earth.

I'd like to point out, that the gods we find silly to believe in are ones that most humans claim to exist. The Abrahamic god can be concluded not to exist because in order for it to exist, everything written about it has to be true and there are so many contradictions in the Bible, Torah, and Quran that it can't possibly exist with how it is written about them. However, I would to also point out that a deistic god isn't such a silly belief now is it? Would you claim that a god which doesn't interact with humanity, and merely created the universe is such a silly belief? Maybe you can conclude that because we have yet to find evidence of such a god, but we've also not found evidence to the non-existence of such a god.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 2 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
@Death23 sure, we could do that. Feel free to make a debate against me if you wish.
Posted by Death23 2 weeks ago
Death23
Sorry mate been traveling. We could repost our arguments in another debate if you'd like so that this can be finished.
Posted by Death23 2 weeks ago
Death23
The number of people who believe a claim does not distinguish it. Many people have believed many claims that are silly objectively. Mythologies provide some good examples.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
Troll confirmed.
Posted by insurgentnation 2 weeks ago
insurgentnation
I don't know about any of y'all but has anyone ever heard someone claim that flying spaghetti monsters or pink unicorns are actually real, that is not mentally unstable. I will give you, many people that follow religion are in fact loony, but I would say the vast majority of them are actually mentally stable. Given that the things you named are overwhelmingly held as imaginary, there is no comparison of those to the belief in our father. In fact I would give you as I stated earlier the actual reality of our Father's existence is much more probable than his non-existence. To use your own words against you again, "It's not a proper analogy".
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
Do you have a reading disability? There is no reason why a person of sound mind should have difficulty understanding anything I've said. Now I suspect you are resorting to trolling since you have no logical rebuttal.
Posted by insurgentnation 2 weeks ago
insurgentnation
Please chime in also if you believe that I have completely refuted any and all of the so called arguments made by the jon, which by chance I am currently sitting on.
Posted by insurgentnation 2 weeks ago
insurgentnation
If someone other than the Shaun feels like there is anything he said that still needs to be addressed, please chime in and let me know where I completely misunderstood any of his blathering.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
@insurgentnation, Labeling my responses illogical and refusing to give evidence as to how they are illogical is a cop out. No one is going to bother providing you with a reasonable and serious argument if they see you will simply label them illogical and walk away when they do not agree with you. I understand that you feel deep down to your core that you are right, but throwing a fit and running away is not the mature way to handle it when you can not prove your belief to be a fact. It irritates you also that I give my responses in a smartass manner. Though, I would argue that my statements would hold the same validity regardless of the manner in which I presented them.
Posted by insurgentnation 2 weeks ago
insurgentnation
Poke away, I enjoy reading your responses, I find them quite comical. That is not to say I will respond to them if they still aren't coherent(logical being the main point behind coherent, they are in fact orderly and quite consistent).
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.