The Instigator
belle
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
GeoLaureate8
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Strong Atheism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 9 votes the winner is...
GeoLaureate8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,587 times Debate No: 12411
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (9)

 

belle

Pro

I would like to thank Geo for agreeing to debate this topic with me. I ask only that you-tube videos not be considered a form of argument or rebuttal. I don't have the patience :P

I will define the two terms and await Geo's acceptance. The debate proper should begin in round two.

Weak Atheism: Lack of belief in god. Generally this position entails agnosticism as to whether there could be *some* god, but also an explicit rejection of most conceptions of him in conjunction with extreme doubt in relation to others

Strong Atheism: Belief that there is NO god; that the statement "there is at least one god" is false. Generally such people would contend that it is impossible for god to exist, but I will let Geo clarify his position on that point.

I will be arguing that strong atheism makes claims that cannot be supported by either reason or evidence and thus must be rejected.
GeoLaureate8

Con

.
.
.

----> I N T R O D U C T I O N <----

I'd like to thank belle for instigating this debate. It appears that my opponent is leaving the first round open for introductions, definitions, and clarifications, so that is what I will start off with.

I accept my opponent's definitions, but would like to amend and make clarifications on the position of Strong Atheism.

Strong Atheism: "Strong atheism is the position that we should affirm the non-existence of a God or gods. It is a position about reality, that there are no referents to "God" out there." [1]

Strong Atheism does not imply absolute certainty. [2] It asserts a confidence akin to the confidence in Newton's Law of Gravity or the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing in science, nor rational thinking can be asserted with 100% certainty because that would require an unrealistic, extraordinary level and means of knowledge that no rational person can claim. However, we are still warranted to make claims about reality such as "gravity exists," "the Universe is expanding," and likewise "there is no God."

I await my opponent's opening argument.

Sources:

[1] http://www.strongatheism.net...
[2] http://www.strongatheism.net...
Debate Round No. 1
belle

Pro

I hate to turn this into a debate about semantics, but it appears my opponent has accepted under false pretenses. In the forum discussion that prompted this debate he said:

"Weak Atheist: Its possible that God exists, but no evidence yet.

Strong Atheist: God cannot exist. Impossible.

I'm proud to be a Strong Atheist!"[1]

He also said:

""I do not believe that God does not exist... I know for sure." - Osho

That's my stance, and no its not contradictory."[2]

I challenged him on the basis of statements such as those. His current definition is little more than a cop out. In fact, if you consider what my definition of weak atheism and his definition of strong atheism imply, they are nearly identical. Both would affirm that because the evidence for god is largely lacking, he most likely does not exist. Both would affirm that we cannot state with certainty that there is no god. If we accept Geo's definition, the resolution becomes "Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Itself". In other words- nonsense. If he didn't want to defend the statements he made above, he shouldn't have accepted the debate.

There are also further problems with his explanation. In his round he claims that "Nothing in science, nor rational thinking can be asserted with 100% certainty" as the basis for his change. Unless he wishes to invalidate logic completely, that statement is false. I can say with absolute certainty that a square circle doesn't exist, for example. Indeed, his source makes the same assertion later on[3], even though he cited it in his round to support the claim that nothing can be proven with certainty. Not only is Geo contradicting his earlier statements, but his source itself is contradictory.

For all these reasons, I reject Geo's definition of strong atheism in favor of my own, unless he can provide a persuasive argument to the contrary. Until such a time, I see no point in making any other arguments.

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.debate.org...
3. http://www.strongatheism.net...
GeoLaureate8

Con

----> C L A R I F I C A T I O N S <----

Contrary to my opponents implications, I never once asserted 100% certainty. This also does not contradict my prior statements. I can claim that I know God doesn't exist, while simultaneously accepting the fact that 100% certainty isn't realistic.

Nothing I said in the forums contradicts the form of Strong Atheism presented in the first round.

When I say that it is impossible for God to exist, I am appealing to logic. However, there are people who assert that logic and scientific laws aren't universal, or don't apply before the Big Bang so I can't say with 100% certainty that that's not the case. This small nuance is why I can't posit 100% certainty.

So disregarding that absurd notion, I can still say that I KNOW God does not exist and that his existence is impossible, by accepting reason and logic as the universal standard.

Another clarification that needs to be made is that we are talking about the traditional God as believed by the majority of the worlds population. There is no need to refute the people who say the sun is God or the Universe is God because obviously these things exist. Such labeling is equivocation and does not require me to refute those positions. People can choose to deify many things and call it God, but my position only applies to God as defined by theologians.

All that being said, I will uphold my opponents request to defend the statements I made in the forums.

So my position is thus. Epistemically, given that reason and logic are applicable universally, I know that God does not exist.

----> C A S E - F O R - S T R O N G - A T H E I S M <----

This debate is about which position is philosophically superior. For a position to be philosophically superior, it must be in compliance with logic and reason, as well as consistent with the evidence. If it is lacking in reason and logic, it is not philosophically superior.

Weak Atheism takes the position that it's possible that God exists, but there is no evidence for a God, and thus lacks the belief in God.

Strong Atheism says that actually, it's not possible that God exists, and there's logical reasons and scientific evidence against his very existence.

My opponent believes that it's possible for God to exist, so I will demonstrate instead that God can't exist. I will, as such, list logical, scientific, and philosophical reasons why God can't exist.

----> L O G I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <----

*The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument*

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

Given this logical argument, I can say that I know logically that God does not exist.

----> S C I E N T I F I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <----

*Argument from Quantum Physics*

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

Given this argument, I know that scientifically, God cannot exist.

----> P H I L O S O P H I C A L - R E A S O N S <----

One of my personal intuitive reasons for rejecting God is summed up nicely by Stephen Hawking:

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the Universe. If the Universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a Creator?" - Stephen Hawking [1]

A finite Universe is inconceivable. If the Universe is infinite and boundless, it could not have been created by a God. In order for the Universe to have been created, it had to have a beginning and must be finite. If God is infinite, and he created an infinite Universe, we have a contradiction. Two things cannot simultaneously be infinite.

----> F I N A L - N O T E <----

I am certain that my opponent believes that naturalism is true and that the Argument from Evil works. If this is the case, shouldn't my opponent already concede that God doesn't and can't exist, and thus concede the Strong Atheist position? If my opponent concedes the Argument from Evil, then she concedes that Strong Atheism is philosophically superior. If she accepts naturalism to be true, at the very least she accepts that there is no God.

----> C O N C L U S I O N <-----

I have effectively demonstrated that Strong Atheism is philosophically superior to Weak Atheism and provided philosophical and scientific justifications for Strong Atheism.

I await my opponent's response

Sources:

http://atheism.about.com...
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
http://www.strongatheism.net...

[1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Debate Round No. 2
belle

Pro

First off, if "philosophically superior" implies, in part, compliance in logic and reason, then there is no reason for your disclaimer that we can't know anything with 100% certainty because some people don't accept logic and reason. Your understanding of the resolution makes it clear that logic and reason apply within the context of the debate. However, that is just a side issue. The bulk of your arguments are addressed below.

<--LOGIC-->

p1- Theres nothing about the traditional Judeo-Christian god that requires he be transcendent.

p2- Again, omnipresence isn't required. The traditional Judeo-Christian god, as presented in the bible and in popular discourse, is obviously always looking over the shoulders of his disciples, in some cases even able to read their thoughts at all times. However, as far as we know, this planet is the entire extent of Christianity. We could be the lone intelligence in the universe. Thus god need not be omnipresent but simply capable of monitoring us at all times.

p3-5- Even granted the first two premises, why must a being exist only within space and time OR beyond space and time? There must be some boundary between them. Can god not exist on both sides of the boundary? My opponent has provided no reasoning to explain why these propositions are mutually exclusive.

Overall I find most, if not all, of the premises in this argument lacking. Unless my opponent can defend them adequately this argument fails.

<--SCIENCE-->

p1- See my objections to the logical argument. Omni-anything is not a requirement of the Judeo-Christian god. Extreme quantities of any and all qualities is sufficient

p2-4- My opponent offers one interpretation of quantum uncertainty and the observer effect. It is a somewhat mystical interpretation. However, the basis for the observer effect is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that you cannot know a particle's position and velocity exactly. The more precisely you know one, the less precisely you know the other. This is the origin of quantum uncertainties to begin with. Consider how we measure the velocity and position of particles- we bounce things off of them, usually photons. With larger objects, the added energy is so small that it makes no difference whatsoever. With subatomic particles, however, the added energy actually makes a noticeable difference in the properties in question. If you measure the position precisely you interfere with the velocity and vice-versa. Thus, quantum wave functions collapse upon measurement because we gain more specific knowledge in that area, while losing it in another area. Since god is not measuring these particles, but simply knows everything about them through mystical means, the observer effect would not hold for him. Even if Geo is granted his conception of the observer effect, it is irrelevant. Granting that all quantum wave functions are collapsed from the point of view of god, it doesn't follow that we share that knowledge, or that OUR measurements should be different based on his knowledge.

Again, unless my opponent can salvage his premises this argument fails.

<--PHILOSOPHY-->

First, it has been shown that the universe is not closed [1]. Second, again, god need not be infinite, and furthermore there is no reason why multiple infinities cannot exist. There are larger and smaller infinities. There are positive and negative infinities. If such things are possible there is no basis to deny multiple infinities existing.

<--FINAL NOTES-->

The logical argument from evil fails. The evidential argument from evil is successful only in proving that god probably does not exist, which is what I affirm as a weak atheist. I accept that it is extremely unlikely god exists, but I do not claim to know this, because there is really no way to acquire such knowledge.

The arguments my opponent has presented make unwarranted assumptions about the nature of god. They affirm extreme properties in him that are not actually inherent in the popular Judeo-Christian conception. Unless he can give such assumptions warrant, he has failed to show the logical or evidential basis for strong atheism.
GeoLaureate8

Con

.
.
.

----> L O G I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <----

Important note: The monotheistic God's necessary attributes are the four Omnis of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. [1]

P1: My opponent asserts that the traditional God is not required to be transcendent. However, the traditional God created the world and because of this, he is necessarily transcendent. God created time and space so he transcends time and space. He exists outside of creation. And even despite this fact, it is the traditional belief that God is transcendent.

P2: She asserts that omnipresence isn't required, but this sounds like a copout. The God that is most widely believed, we all know is the four "Omni's" and omnipresence is one of them. She also brings up that the Bible only refers to God watching over the people of this planet and not necessarily present everywhere in the Universe. This is outright false and is not supported by Biblical scripture. In fact, the exact opposite is true as seen here:

"God is everywhere. We cannot escape His presence." (Ps. 139:7-12)

"God fills the heaven and earth." (Jer. 23:23-24)

So, this automatically refutes her assertion. It is made clear that God is present everywhere in the Universe.

P3-5: My opponent asks why transcendence and omnipresence are mutually exclusive. The answer is because transcendence means that a being can't be present anywhere in space (as asserted in P3). Transcendence is "the concept of being entirely above the created Universe" [2] and transcends space and time. If he's above space and time and can't exist anywhere in space, he can't be simultaneously everywhere in space. Either he's everywhere or he transcends space and time.

Therefore, this God has contradictory qualities and can't exist.

----> S C I E N T I F I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <----

P1: My opponent seems to use another copout definition bending of God. The traditional monotheist God that is the most widely believed is the four Omnis as clarified earlier.

Also, the Bible confirms explicitly that God does indeed observe all things at once.

"There is no creature hidden from God's sight. ALL THINGS ARE NAKED AND OPENED TO HIS SIGHT." (Heb. 4:13)

P2-4: Pro confuses the observer effect with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which is a common mistake. [3] The principle merely involves the precision we may measure the position and momentum of a particle. It's not the actual observer effect itself, but it is directly related.

Nothing she said refutes that observation collapses quantum superpositions. In fact, in quantum mechanics, it is experimentally true that observation does collapse superposition. "If the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once." [4]

Quantum physicist, Dr. Michio Kaku has stated that "At present, every experiment has verified the [observation effect]." (Hyperspace, pg. 261)

This scientific argument has not been refuted. It has been affirmed that God is observing everything, it is affirmed that observation collapses quantum superpositions, and it is true that not all superpositions are collapsed. Therefore, God's all-encompassing observation has not collapsed all superpositions, and thus does not exist.

----> P H I L O S O P H I C A L - R E A S O N S <----

My opponent asserts that God need not be infinite, yet it is commonly believed by most that God is infinite (which is also implied by his omnipresence.) I brought up that the Universe can't be infinite while God is separate and simultaneously infinite as well. Being infinite means being "unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space; unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless." [5] Two separate things cannot both possess these qualities. In order for two things to be separate, they can't overlap or be one with each other. Only one thing can be infinite.

----> C O N C L U S I O N <----

My logical and scientific arguments still stand and I can still rightfully assert that I know God does not exist.

Thank you for reading.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
belle

Pro

First off I want to thank Geo for this debate. It's definitely exceeded my expectations in terms of excitement and engagement.

Unfortunately, in no way does the Wikipedia article entitled "Monotheism" prove, or even assert, as far as I can
tell, that a monotheistic god *requires* the four omni's. I can see why my opponent would make this claim, as it makes his job (justifying the claim that he knows no god exists) a lot easier. However, that is simply proving a certain type of god doesn't exist (which I agree with- a god possessing the "omnis" cannot exist). However, a God not possessing them is possible and therefore can't be eliminated so easily. To claim by fiat that god must posses them is yet another attempt by my opponent to avoid defending the statements made in the forums. Again, I agree 100% that a god possessing all four "omni" traits is impossible. This debate has greater scope than that.

<---MOAR LOGIC--->

Granting my opponent that some form of transcendence is necessary, insofar as god is not identical to the universe or subsumed within it, that is still no justification for god being completely seperate from it. Asyour bible quotes show, he was never considered to be. Transcendence does not have to mean that a being cannot exist anywhere in space. Premise three, in asserting such, fails. Imagine, for example, how a sphere would appear in a 2-dimensional universe. Some cross section of it would appear in this "flatland" while the majority of it would still exist outside of it, thus "transcending" flatland. Theres no reason this can't be the case with god in a 3-d universe, although it is obviously a lot harder for us to picture. As my opponent has provided no reasoning to back up his assertion regarding transcendence meaning entirely seperate, there is no reason to accept it. Again, he is trying to define god out of existence by fiat. *IF* god must be both omnipresent and transcendent, and *IF* transcendence must mean completely seperate from the universe, then sure, that god cannot exist. However, there is no reason to assume that such a god is the only possible one, or even the most popular conception.

<---MOAR SCIENCE--->

If my opponent would read his own sources, he would see that, while my mention of the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle may have been superfluous, my analysis was still for the most part accurate:

"A commonly debated use of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schr�dinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed. However, most quantum physicists,[who?] in resolving Schr�dinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense."[1]

This becomes clear when we read about the most famous experiment done confirming the observer effect, the double slit experiment. Without an "observer" electrons shot one by one at the double slit set up STILL formed an interference pattern on the other side. Observe what happens next:

"physicists put up a measuring device – an observer – next to the plate to see which [slit] the electron really went through. Amazingly, the electrons returned to behaving like particles again, creating two vertical lines on the back wall. The simple act of observing the quantum world actually changed the outcome!"[2]

The measuring device, which physically interfered with the electron, caused the quantum superpositions to collapse. God would have no need for measuring devices or to interact with the electron at all. He could simply "know" that it was in a state of quantum superposition (or its particular location, depending on your interpretation of the physics). In either case, god's knowledge would NOT effect our measurements here on earth.

Geo wants to imply that some heretofore unknown force emanating from consciousness is able to somehow effect particles, whereas I offer a much more sober interpretation supported by the data. The act of observation (by humans) requires physical interference and it is this interference that collapses quantum superpositions. God would have no need to interfere with the particles; he could simply "know" because he's god. Therefore god's knowledge would not cause an observer effect at all.

<---MOAR PHILOSOPHY--->

Again, Geo has ignored my statements in favor of his own interpretations of the facts, again to his advantage. Indeed, infinity is meant to be "without limit" or "without boundary". It would seem that two infinite beings could not coexist. However, in physics "the symbol for infinity is used [...] simply as a shorthand for 'very big number'" [3] In other words, when a physicist says the universe may be infinite, they mean that they don't know how big it is. That's it. In math, there can be positive and negative infinities, as well as larger and smaller ones [4] The commonsense intuition about infinity to which he appeals is not the concept used in technical fields. If you add to that the fact that there's no reason for god to be infinite either (except, again, Geo's fiat) you find that you cannot logically disprove god this way. Its impossible for god to exist if you define god and the universe to be infinite in the sense that geo wants. That's it. But its not enough to disprove any possible god or even the majority of them since as far as I know neither god nor the universe are defined as infinite the way he defines them in normal discourse.

<---CONCLUDING REMARKS--->

Geo has made a valiant effort in proving that some conceptions of god are impossible. However, this is *not* sufficient for strong atheism. A weak atheist would agree completely that some conceptions of god are impossible, and indeed I do. The difference between the two is that strong atheism asserts that there is no god. Period. However, throughout the course of this debate, I have shown that changing the purported attributes of god only slightly completely invalidates the arguments proving him to be impossible, and thus making the strong atheism position untenable. While we can rightly say we know that a god possessing the aforementioned "omni" powers does not exist, we cannot say the same about a merely extremely powerful god who mostly leaves us alone. A strong atheist has no knowledge of whether or not such a god exists, and yet his position requires he know such a god does not exist. In requiring a claim to unjustified (and unjustifiable!) knowledge, the strong atheist position clearly less grounded in reason and evidence than the weak atheist position.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(physics)
2. http://quantumphysics.suite101.com...
3. http://books.google.com...
4. http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu...
GeoLaureate8

Con

Pro tries to squeeze out of the omni God and dismisses Wikipedia as a valid source. Fair enough, because I have backing by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God." [1] Furthermore, it states: "God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections." [2] It seems obvious that if other versions of God don't possess these great qualities, then they're simply lacking and not suited to be called "God."

My opponent has also conceded that a God possessing all four omni's can't exist. She says that I am supposed to refute more Gods than that; but I already clarified this earlier in the debate. I was not going to refute other versions of "God" because they simply can't be called "God." For example, the Pantheists who say the Universe is God, that's not a God I have to refute. As the philosopher Coleridge said, "Everything God, and no God, are identical positions." [3]

----> L O G I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <----

Pro mentions a 3D sphere that exists in flatland, while also transcending it. However, God isn't said to exist in another higher dimension, but rather, God exists outside of time and space and is outside of the Universe.

My opponent tries to assert that God can exist both outside time and space as well as within space. However, this cannot be possible given that the Creator is separate from the creation. If the God existed outside space and in space, this would bring about an impossible situation where the Creator is also inside the creation that he created. The only way transcendence makes sense is if God exists outside of, and separate from his creation.

She also concedes this argument by saying: "*IF* god must be both omnipresent and transcendent, and *IF* transcendence must mean completely separate from the universe, then sure, that God cannot exist."

----> S C I E N T I F I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <----

My opponents whole contention here is that the measuring device physically interfered with the election going through the slit. However, her own source did not state this and in fact, supports my position. It said: "physicists put up a measuring device – an observer – NEXT TO THE PLATE to see which [slit] the electron really went through. Amazingly, the electrons returned to behaving like particles again, creating two vertical lines on the back wall. THE SIMPLE ACT OF OBSERVING THE QUANTUM WORLD ACTUALLY CHANGED THE OUTCOME!" So no, the measuring device did not physically interfere.

Her own source confirmed that merely the act of observation collapsed the wave property of the electrons. This fact confirms that observation collapses quantum superpositions as asserted by my argument.

The rest of her argument was based on the false notion that physical interference collapses superposition, as opposed to observation, so those points really hold no weight.

----> P H I L O S O P H I C A L - R E A S O N S <----

Pro's contention is dealing with infinity as a number, but God is not a number. He is not numerically infinite, he is spatially infinite in that he is boundless, limitless, and expands in all directions infinitely. Given this, there cannot be a spatially infinite God and a spatially infinite Universe. These notions are directly in conflict and simply not compatible to exist simultaneously with each other.

----> C O N C L U S I O N <----

My opponent essentially concedes the argument by stating right off the bat that the God with four omnis is NOT possible and CANNOT exist. That is the traditional God that I clarified in the earlier rounds and she essentially agrees with the Strong Atheist position. Her only gripe is that I don't account for lesser beings, but lesser beings aren't the "greatest conceivable being" now are they.

Thank you for reading.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Theists believe in god.
Atheists don't.

Atheists can be subdivided:
Strong atheists believe gods exist.
Weak atheists don't. (Weak atheists are neither theists nor strong atheists, so they believe neither that god does exist nor that he doesn't. You can think of them as "fence sitters" if you want; though that is inexact in many cases, it captures the idea that they are between the theists and the strong atheists.)

: Weak Atheism: Lack of belief in god.

That's atheism, not weak atheism. All atheists, weak and strong, lack belief in gods.

: Generally this position entails agnosticism as to whether there could be *some* god, but also an
: explicit rejection of most conceptions of him in conjunction with extreme doubt in relation to others

Eh. The position is that you don't believe god exists, and you don't believe god doesn't exist. Some individual weak atheists believe those other things, but some don't. Babies, for instance, don't explicitly reject any conception of gods, but they are weak atheists because they are neither strong atheists nor theists.

: Strong Atheism: "Strong atheism is the position that we should affirm the non-existence of a God
: or gods.

Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods. Anyone who believes this is a strong atheist, regardless of what he believes we should or shouldn't affirm.

: Strong Atheism does not imply absolute certainty.

Right. Some strong atheists are gnostic, but many are not.

: It asserts a confidence akin to the confidence in Newton's Law of Gravity or the First Law of
: Thermodynamics.

No, it's just believing that god doesn't exist. Some people believe more easily than others. Some may believe things on a mere 51% probability. If you believe that gods do not exist, then you are a strong atheist, regardless of whether you have less confidence in gods' nonexistence than you have in gravity and thermodynamics. "My mom told me that god is just a fairy tale, so ther
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
i am.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
How? Are you a weak atheist?
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
geo, you talked some amount of nonsense in this debate.
Posted by omelet 6 years ago
omelet
Geo: Sorry for the late response.

> Strong Atheism: "Strong atheism is the position that we should affirm the non-existence of a God or gods. It is a position about reality, that there are no referents to "God" out there."

That's a belief claim, Geo. In the part of the debate when you specifically defined it, you did not specify 100% certainty of the position. For instance, I have a position that's an affirmation of the Big Bang as a model of the early universe. However, that doesn't mean I think I know that that's how it went down, or that it can't have happened any other way.

You also specifically said: "Strong Atheism does not imply absolute certainty" and similar things many times, which begs the question - if you think knowledge is not 100% certain, then what separates knowledge from belief?

Worse still, you go on to claim to logically disprove a god, which actually WOULD produce 100% knowledge of its nonexistence. You're not arguing that a god is very unlikely, you're arguing that a god CAN'T exist. You are arguing a knowledge claim, even though your definition is a belief claim and you constantly say you're not sure about your conclusion. This is caused by your odd definition of knowledge [not certain] and the resulting equivocation of knowledge and belief.
Posted by SexyLatina 6 years ago
SexyLatina
I typically prefer the definitions given first. So, belle should have specified if the issue could be important.
Posted by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
This debate seemed to come down to whether or not god had those omni traits, which I believe Con proved that god has to. I remember from philosophy 101 that god HAS to have those traits in order to even be considered god. Belle made some great arguments but if god has to have all of those omnis then I think Con's arguments proved how a god by that standard (the required standard) is impossible or rather why strong atheism prevails as a theory.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@omelet

I said that a strong atheist *knows* there is no God.
Posted by omelet 6 years ago
omelet
I would have voted for CON, but he kept changing his mind on whether Strong Atheism is a belief ["I believe that no gods exist"] or something far more certain ["A god existing is an impossibility"].
Posted by unlikely 6 years ago
unlikely
The interesting thing is looking back on these debates when weve finally rid ourselves of this stone age nonsense belief in mithras/ isis/ jehovah or whoever is your fave.....
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 6 years ago
SexyLatina
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by hauki20 6 years ago
hauki20
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Dorb 6 years ago
Dorb
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by nickjack 6 years ago
nickjack
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by omelet 6 years ago
omelet
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Ayedewynn 6 years ago
Ayedewynn
belleGeoLaureate8Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06