|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||2 weeks ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||347 times||Debate No:||97054|
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'. 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." 
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.
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.
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.