theism is atheism, both are wrong
Debate Rounds (3)
atheism=no=opposite yes position
agnostic=i dont know=maybe
Hello. I would like to start by saying that I believe you have misrepresented the key terms of the debate. Your explanation of "theism" is fine enough by my standards, but your assertion that the atheist's position that no god or gods exist ("atheism=no=opposite yes position") isn't really true. It is impossible to technically disprove the existence of anything, including unicorns, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus. However, one can use logical and empirical reasoning to deduce that there is a lack of evidence to support those beliefs. This is different from making the positive claim that they don't exist-- it is simply saying that the differing claim has a lack of evidence. Agnosticism answers a different question entirely-- whether or not someone "knows" if gods exist. To put it simply, the atheist answers "Is there evidence to support belief in a god or gods?" and the agnostic answers "Do you know if there is a god or gods?" The atheist answers his question with "no," which logically leads to a lack of belief. Why believe in a god that there is a lack of evidence to support (according to the atheist)? Only the strongest type of atheist will assert that no gods exist for certain, but this type of atheist is rare, extreme, and can't really prove his point. Overall, atheism isn't as extreme as theism, because atheism has no dogma, tenants, or doctrine. Agnosticism is a question of personal or societal knowledge, and almost all agnostics are technically atheists (except for the religious agnostic, who grants that there is no evidence to back his position, which is purely by faith), and almost all atheists are agnostic (except for the strongest type of atheist, who asserts that no gods exist, instead of a lack of evidence). At large, it isn't sound to equate the extremity of theism and atheism. The theist has the burden of proof, while the atheist does not.
My definition of atheism came straight from https://atheists.org...
so an agnostic believes that i have no fingers on my hand.. no agnostic is simply the i dont know position, maybe you are showing 3 fingers behind your back vi, maybe not
no agnostic atheist or theist can exist.. maybe is not yes or no
are you saying i am not showing any fingers behind my back?
so, what position does the gay have saying no vi, you are not holding 3 or any fingers behind your back?
This makes absolutely no sense to me, or to anyone who speaks English. I have stated and restated my position, yet you ignore it. Your initial definition of atheism was wrong, yet you continue to use it. Once more. An atheist does NOT say "No god or gods exist." He DOES say "There is a LACK OF EVIDENCE to support a belief in god or gods." There is a difference. Therefore, the theist's position is more extreme, in making a pretty wild claim. The atheist is simply challenging the claim. I repeat, the atheist is NOT saying god doesn't exist. So, it isn't a "guessing game." The atheist examines the evidence and says we need more. I will try to communicate why I believe there is a lack of evidence.
Why is there a lack of evidence? I will say concisely that pretty much the only evidence presented by theists is anecdotal, god of the gaps, or the Bible, none of which is convincing enough to me or other atheists. Anecdotal evidence doesn't work because it's biased and differs from person to person because each person has a different experience. Also, conflicting religions give similar stories, showing that the anecdote doesn't really prove anything. God of the gaps never proves God's existence; all it does is point out holes in science, which are being filled. A lack of an answer does not mean that God did it. Moreover, the Bible has many conflicting and/or impossible claims, and it contains a circular argument. "The Bible is divine because it was ordained by God, and we know about God through the Bible." There are probably other points brought up by theists, but what I'm saying is that we need more. Maybe if we weren't a speck in the universe, made out of the most common elements there are...
I'm pointing out a lack of evidence, not a belief that God doesn't exist. The theist's assertion that he DOES exist is more extreme and carries the burden of proof.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate