CreateDebate


Debate Info

64
59
Atheism is logical Theism is more logical
Debate Score:123
Arguments:121
Total Votes:132
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Atheism is logical (56)
 
 Theism is more logical (53)

Debate Creator

Beastt(43) pic



Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?

Many theists claim that it's logical to believe in a god (or gods), while most atheists would suggest that atheism is consistent with the evidence (or lack of evidence), making it the more rational and logical position.

Atheism is logical

Side Score: 64
VS.

Theism is more logical

Side Score: 59
3 points

Atheism is basically a position on one question and that is whether there is a god or not .

Theists seem to think if an Atheist cannot explain how it all started then his position is disingenuous ; this is not the case at all as it's the most genuine and honest approach to take .

Billions of believers say there is a god yet not one of them can provide one shred of solid evidence to support such a claim , the only way they know of god is through the bible which is an error filled and contradictory book from start to finish .

It's totally irrational to believe the claim god exists yet fulfills none of the criteria of existent things as in a god has never been seen , heard or touched yet believers say they have a ' relationship ' with him .

If say the Christian god exists why can he not show himself ?

If all his followers totally believe in him how would showing himself ruin that relationship ?

Side: Atheism is logical
TzarPepe(237) Disputed
1 point

The evidence is clear when you understand what "God" means.

God is defined by merriam-webster as "The supreme and/or ultimate reality"

Supreme is defined by merriam-webster as "highest in rank or authority" or "highest in degree or quality"

Ultimate is defined by merriam-webster as "the best or most extreme of its kind" or "basic, fundamental" or "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"

Reality is defined by merriam-webster as "The quality or state of being real"

~~~~

God is real by definition. Therefore, it is nonsensical to deny God. In fact, God isn't just defined as being real, but God is defined as being real in the truest sense of the word. So real in fact, that if you say "there is no God" you automatically invalidate any other claims of truth that you may make.

To hammer things home, lets go to the Oxford

Oxford defines God as the "supreme being"

Supreme is defined as "Highest in rank or authority".

Being is defined as "Existence".

It means the same thing in Oxford.

~~~

The existence of God is a given. It isn't something that should even be up for debate.

Side: Theism is more logical
Dermot(3653) Disputed
1 point

Evidence ? There is none , and I don't believe in a god so attempting to ' understand ' a god is ridiculous.

Regards a dictionary stating what constitutes a god so what ?

Yours is just one of thousands of different attempts by believers at defining what they think god is all meaningless nonsense not wothy of serious contemplation

Side: Atheism is logical
UpForDebate(11) Disputed
1 point

Yes, no one these days has seen, heard, or touched God, But atheism has just as much evidence as Creationism (Maybe even less). So, I want you to give me one piece of evidence that shows atheism is true.

Side: Theism is more logical
2 points

In any case where a claim is tested for veracity, the only verifiable test is that of evidence. When we find no objective evidence to support a claim, we find in favor of the null conclusion. For example; we have many suggested entities for which we have no evidence, including fairies, Leprechauns, gremlins, unicorns, and mermaids. And in each example, the common response is to note the lack of evidenced to support the existence of each suggested entity, and therefore conclude that they do not exist. However, religion has remained very popular while the concept of a god (or gods), appears to be just as devoid of objective evidence as for any of the other suggested examples, which most of us would give little more than a second thought before concluding non-existence.

So concluding that God does exist is a case of special-pleading. Being a more popular belief, does not mean that it's more logical, or more likely.

Side: Atheism is logical
TzarPepe(237) Disputed
1 point

The evidence is clear when you understand what "God" means.

God is defined by merriam-webster as "The supreme and/or ultimate reality"

Supreme is defined by merriam-webster as "highest in rank or authority" or "highest in degree or quality"

Ultimate is defined by merriam-webster as "the best or most extreme of its kind" or "basic, fundamental" or "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"

Reality is defined by merriam-webster as "The quality or state of being real"

~~~~

God is real by definition. Therefore, it is nonsensical to deny God. In fact, God isn't just defined as being real, but God is defined as being real in the truest sense of the word. So real in fact, that if you say "there is no God" you automatically invalidate any other claims of truth that you may make.

To hammer things home, lets go to the Oxford

Oxford defines God as the "supreme being"

Supreme is defined as "Highest in rank or authority".

Being is defined as "Existence".

It means the same thing in Oxford.

~~~

The existence of God is a given. It isn't something that should even be up for debate.

Side: Theism is more logical
Jace(4506) Disputed
1 point

The question remains, though, whether it is logical to disbelieve in unicorns and gremlins either (rather than to abstain from a belief in either direction). It may be reasonable to disbelieve, but whether it is logical is another matter.

Side: Theism is more logical
2 points

Atheism isn't logical at all. Agnosticism is logical. This for example:-

atheism is consistent with the evidence (or lack of evidence)

Isn't logical because absence of evidence isn't the same thing as evidence of absence.

Side: Atheism is logical
Mack(292) Clarified
2 points

Let's define terms, because atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

(Note that when I use the word agnostic I am referring to somebody who says they don't know if God exists, rather than one who says it's not possible to know if God exists)

There are four common possibilities:

1. Gnostic theist: Believes there is a god(s), and is certain of this.

2. Agnostic theist: Believes there is a god(s), but is uncertain of this.

3. Gnostic atheist: Lacks belief in a god(s), and is certain there isn't one.

4. Agnostic atheist: Lacks belief in a god(s), but doesn't know for sure.

I get what you are saying, but this is only applicable to number 3, not 4, which most atheists are.

Side: Atheism is logical
1 point

Thanks for saying it! (One of the shortcomings of this format is that it leaves only two choices, and often both are unsupportable.)

How is it so hard for people to admit that they have no evidence and no possible way to know?

Side: Atheism is logical
Dermot(3653) Clarified
1 point

The atheist stance to me is perfectly supportable ,most Atheists do not claim with absolute certainty or absolute knowledge that they know there is not a god which is a common misconception. However, they do say that they do not have a belief in a god at least in relative terms because everything we understand about the universe and how it functions and operates does not imply a god exists. Supernatural phenomena such as the belief in a god have not met the burden of proof because they have not been demonstrably demonstrated and verified with empirical evidence. You do not go about life assuming things exist and then require these things to be disproven before you dismiss them. If you were to go about life this way you would end up believing everything you were told. Instead you should assume that things do not exist until these things have first been demonstrably demonstrated or discovered to be true.

Just because something is possible does not mean it's probable

Side: Atheism is logical
TzarPepe(237) Disputed
1 point

It is logical to be agnostic about the ultimate reality, but it isn't logical to be agnostic about the existence of ultimate reality.

Do you believe there is such a thing as truth? If so, you believe in God.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

Side: Theism is more logical
2 points

The burden of proof for the existence of a God falls wholly on theists. An Atheist's position is simply that any claim that has no basis or evidence can be dismissed until it is backed.

There is no reason for anyone to believe in something unless it can be demonstrated or backed by concrete evidence, and as far as anyone could tell, there isn't anything that explicitly points to the existence of a divine entity besides wishful thinking or suspicious anecdotes.

Side: Atheism is logical
UpForDebate(11) Disputed
1 point

There is more evidence that shows God exists. Atheism has no evidence supporting it, so why do you believe something is so irrelevant?

Side: Theism is more logical
Jace(4506) Disputed
1 point

That depends upon whether dismissal is enacted as an absence of belief or an active disbelief. In the case of the latter, a respective positive claim has been made in response to the original positive claim that god(s) exist(s). While there is little motivation for an atheist of the latter variety to fulfill their burden of proof when the theist does not do so, that does not mean there is no burden of proof.

Side: Atheism is logical
1 point

Atheism is basically a position on one question and that is whether there is a god or not .

Theists seem to think if an Atheist cannot explain how it all started then his position is disingenuous ; this is not the case at all as it's the most genuine and honest approach to take .

Billions of believers say there is a god yet not one of them can provide one shred of solid evidence to support such a claim , the only way they know of god is through the bible which is an error filled and contradictory book from start to finish .

It's totally irrational to believe the claim god exists yet fulfills none of the criteria of existent things as in a god has never been seen , heard or touched yet believers say they have a ' relationship ' with him .

If say the Christian god exists why can he not show himself ?

If all his followers totally believe in him how would showing himself ruin that relationship ?

Side: Atheism is logical
TzarPepe(237) Disputed
1 point

Definition of superstition courtesy of merriam-webster

1 a :a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

b :an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 :a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

~~~

Definition of god

1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality: such as

a :the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

~~~~

The Ultimate Reality is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe, the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness. It's about The Truth.

Do you recognize The Ultimate Reality as being God? Do you recognize The Supreme Reality as being God? Do you recognize The Necessary Existence? Do you recognize The Singularity?

Do you believe in this God? How could you not? Isn't it obvious that God has given you everything? Do you deny this God?

Side: Theism is more logical
Dermot(3653) Disputed
1 point

But I keep telling you I don't believe in god so you may define the term anyway you wish it's still nonsense ; regarding superstitious well that's you going on your much loved definitions .......

an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

Side: Atheism is logical

I'm not an atheist myself, however it's undeniable that atheism is the far more logical position.

Atheism looks at science, and scientific explanations; as we know, science is a direct path to the truth.

Theism, on the other hand, relies massively on faith and I dare say the "hope" that there is a God.

Science beats faith in the "logical" department. I neither believe or disbelieve however, so don't mistake this as an argument for the non-existence of God; it is not.

Side: Atheism is logical
TzarPepe(237) Disputed
1 point

Definition of "god" courtesy of merriam-webster

1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality: such as

a :the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

The ultimate reality is indeed worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe, the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness.

Existing happens to be a defining characteristic of the supreme reality. There is nothing logical or scientific about denying God. Of course a God denier wouldn't know what they are talking about, they have adopted the position of one who is in denial of ultimate reality.

That means they don't even believe in truth. They are telling you right off the bat that they are lying. They don't even know it.

Make no mistake, God has been proven to exist. Nothing has greater scientific confirmation.

Side: Theism is more logical
NicolasCage(362) Disputed
1 point

Make no mistake, God has been proven to exist. Nothing has greater scientific confirmation.

Has he? That's quite a remarkable find! Would you care to show me the proof?

("proof" in this instance does not include the argument that "the proof is all around you!", by the way.)

Side: Atheism is logical
1 point

Until I see logic on the side of theism I will "believe" the side that shows the MOST logic. There is only one side that does, so, I am ATHEISTIC. Simple.

(No, "scum60", not ME, the decision.)

Side: Atheism is logical
outlaw60(8861) Clarified
1 point

Ol' Crazy AL i don't think i wayed in on the debate did i ?????

Side: Atheism is logical
AlofRI(1794) Clarified
1 point

Just anticipating your usual irrationalism, O.K.?

I'm back to "crazy"?? What happened to "insane"? It sounded much more intellectual. Oh, well, we have to make considerations for mindset. I'll wait for your ridiculousness next time, okay, Scum?? Didn't mean to upstage (or upset) you. We have to be careful when dealing with the mentally challenged, I realize that ... my mistake.

Your friend .. Ol' Crazy Al, signing off ... with apologies.

Side: Atheism is logical
Libertarian5(13) Disputed
1 point

Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/01/mounting-evidence-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

One of the most established facts about the book of mormon is that Joseph smith did posses the plates. 11 official witnesses, and several unofficial witnesses. None of them, throughout their entire lives, denied it. They all confirmed it every chance the got. I’m not kidding, you can do research on these people from the day they say them to the day they died, and none of them ever denied it. Even after a few of them left the church, they still said that they saw them, never once saying that it didn’t happen.

What we also know now is that several ancient documents have been preserved the same way that Joseph Smith found them. The Copper Scroll and other items found by the dead sea are almost a complete parallel, and coincidentally around the same time the book of mormon was placed underground. Several of documents of the same fashon have been found in hillsides to preserve the right before millitary disaster for future generations. But how would joseph Smith had known that?

The book of mormon also claims to be written in “reformed egyptian’, and according to historians this means modified egyptian characters, and we now know that several ancient documents have been written precisely in that fashon. But how would Joseph Smith have known that?

The title page of the Book of Mormon claims that it was translated “through the power of God”, and this is exactly what would have had to happen. Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith woud have to have written 8.5 pages a day.

Additionally, there is no evidence that joseph Smith did very much reading at all before the book of mormon appeared. He may not have even owned a bible at the time of the translation. He spent most of his childhood doing farm and landwork, and revieved at most a few months of schooling. Even his own mother said that he was much less inclined to read books that her other children. His wife in the late 1820s said that he “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. … The larger part of this labor [of translation] was done [in] my presence and where I could see and know what was being done. … During no part of it did Joseph Smith have any [manuscripts] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metalic [sic] plates which I knew he had.” 15 “If,” “he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.” Many anti Mormon claims say that, oh, Joseph smith just made up the entire book, perfectly what a teenager with an immagination would write. This is completely wrong. Anybody who reads the Book of Mormon will confirm that an illiterate teenager could most definately not write a book like the book of Mormon. His wife also said that joseph Smith, after an interuption, could just start reading again. No asking, ‘where was i again?”, or “What was the last sentence I said?”.

I qoute lds.org, “And research shows that the book does not seem to fit the culture of early 19th-century America. There is little of the military romanticism of Joseph Smith’s America. Instead, we see grimly realistic portrayals of war’s devastation and suffering. And in the story of the Gadianton robbers we have a detailed, realistic portrayal of a prolonged guerrilla struggle—lacking any trace of fife and drum, uniforms, or parades—published well over a century before the guerrilla theorists of the 20th century put pens to paper.”

The Book of Mormon’s description of Jerusalem are strangely accurate, and a reaserch proresses everything said beomes more and more possible. The name Saria, Lehi’s wife, has been found on documents of ancient egypt. And the name Nephi belongs to the exact time and place of the time the story takes place. But how would Joseph Smith have known this?

Nephi’s visoin is deeply rooted in near eastern symbolism. and , hi predictions are strikingly acurate. His description of Columbus, “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” With the publication of Columbas’s private “Book of Prophecies”, quoting lds.org, “He said he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and he was eager not only to spread Christianity but to fulfill biblical prophecies. Among his favorite passages were John 10:16, with its reference to “other sheep,” and the passages of Isaiah concerning the people on the “isles of the sea.” 25 These are the very passages that the Book of Mormon applies to itself.” But how would Joseph Smith have known this?

Additionally, Nephi’s description of his families journey across the Arbian pennensula is strikingly accurate. But nobody, not even any 19th centery schollar could have known about this.

Side: Theism is more logical
TzarPepe(237) Disputed
1 point

Definition of theism

:belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

~~~~

Definition of god courtesy of merriam-webster

1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality: such as

a :the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

~~~~~

Theism is faith in ultimate reality.

To clarify...

Definition of faith courtesy of merriam-webster

"something that is believed especially with strong conviction"

~~~~

Atheism is defined by merriam-webster as

Definition of atheism

1 a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2 archaic :godlessness especially in conduct :ungodliness, wickedness

~~~~

Notice that the definition does not actually include the word "God" in it. It uses the word "god". If you do not believe in "God", there can be no "God", only "god" or "gods".

Atheism is not logical. In fact, atheism completely undermines logic. The atheist does not actually believe in truth. To say, "I do not believe in God" is to say, "I do not believe in truth". All assertions are rendered arbitrary.

Atheism cannot be more logical than theism, as the position of atheism is fundamentally a denial of logic.

Side: Theism is more logical

Although, if the alternative is theism then atheism is definitely more logical, given the relative probabilities involved.

Side: Atheism is logical
UpForDebate(11) Disputed
2 points

Give me one solid piece of evidence proving atheism. If it is so logical, then surely you can.

Side: Theism is more logical
Dermot(3653) Disputed
1 point

I don't have to " prove " atheism the burden of proof is with you as you made the affirmative claim

Side: Atheism is logical

I myself am not an atheist, however I can see the logic from this point of view. Thus, I am not going to go "God says, this that and the other." Atheists have a right to their opinion without being persecuted as all else do. Besides, some people need more tangible truth, and to be honest Christ gave us none. The Bible was written by humanity not God and we have no physical proof of his existence. I personally avoid the Bible due to its offensive nature. EX: Comments on homosexuals. I study scripture from almost all cultures, including Jew, Islamic, Buddhist, and even Hindu. There is knowledge and wisdom in every culture. With a God or not.

Side: Atheism is logical

I myself am not an atheist, however I can see the logic from this point of view. Thus, I am not going to go "God says, this that and the other." Atheists have a right to their opinion without being persecuted as all else do. Besides, some people need more tangible truth, and to be honest Christ gave us none. The Bible was written by humanity not God and we have no physical proof of his existence. I personally avoid the Bible due to its offensive nature. EX: Comments on homosexuals. I study scripture from almost all cultures, including Jew, Islamic, Buddhist, and even Hindu. There is knowledge and wisdom in every culture. With a God or not.

It sounds like you are more a scholar of religion than a follower of it.

Side: Atheism is logical

What is most logical, that just 1 out of some 3-4000 religions on earth is true and the rest are false? or that ALL of them are false?

God is also an unfalsifiable concept by definition so the only logical approach to an unfalsifiable concept is agnosticism and suspension of belief.

Side: Atheism is logical
1 point

As I understand it there are thousands of planets in our universe capable of supporting Life as we know it. Do they all worship the same God? and did Jesus the Sun of God visit Bethlehem on all these planets?

Side: Atheism is logical
UpForDebate(11) Disputed
2 points

Supporting life. We never said that they did have life on them. And even if they did, we also don't know that they are intelligent life forms. (Intelligent enough to believe in a God or not).

Side: Theism is more logical

Atheism is more logical because theists are making an affirmative claim which they cannot support with material evidence. There's an old saying which applies about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

However, atheism itself is not entirely logical because the possibility of God does still exist, regardless of its lack of evidence. Unfortunately, there is no way one can answer an unanswerable yes or no question while remaining logical. Personally, I identify as agnostic, but I reject all religion and consider myself to lean very heavily towards atheism, due to what I view as the relative probabilities involved that either side is correct.

Side: Atheism is logical
2 points

Theists choose God because they believe in him. Many atheists choose no God because they get to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. There is no moral accountability in atheism. Theists choose God for a logical reason. Atheists choose no God simply because they don't want there to be a God or because they don't want moral accountability.

Most atheists also believe in evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but science has found more evidence supporting creationism/creation science than it has for evolution. If we have not found any evidence pointing towards evolution, then it is not logical to still believe in it. If we have found evidence supporting creationism/creation science then it would be illogical to not even consider it.

Side: Theism is more logical
Beastt(43) Disputed
1 point

I'm quite familiar with William Lane Craig and his arguments. Let me begin by pointing out that nearly all of his public debates begin with him stating that he will not attempt to support the Christian God, or the Bible. And yet, he identifies as a Christian. From there he can be counted upon to dive into the Kalam Cosmological Argument which fails from the very beginning, and thus provides a false conclusion. The argument begins by putting forth the following premises;

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

2. The universe began to exist;

It is then claimed that the universe therefore has a cause. But the premises are faulty from the very start. Science holds that the universe - as we know it - began to exist about 13.72 billion years ago through an event known as Big Bang. But Big Bang doesn't begin with a state of nothingness. There are several flavors of Big Bang Cosmology, each of which starts with a singularity, or brane worlds, or the component of what we might consider to be "nothing", which gives it weight. And this weight property of nothingness has been fully confirmed. What has not been confirmed is that a true state of nothingness - devoid even of weight - can actually exist. Attempts at producing such a state have all failed, with virtual particles popping into and out of the produced void, at a frantic rate.

Big Bang is not a creation event. It is a transformation event known as a "phase transition". Nothing comes into existence from non-existence and we have no evidence whatsoever of any state of absolute nothingness. This is an imaginary state which exists in the minds of theists, simply to allow them to proclaim that their God has actually done something. So Craig (who is borrowing an argument), is ignoring the fact that we have no examples of creation, no evidence of creation, and that creation itself would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

His argument - which you have borrowed - therefore fails the test of logic. It fails on both premises. Why must something have a cause, simply because it begins to exist? And how can anything begin to exist? It's nothing more than an appeal to magic. And why would this only apply to things which BEGIN TO EXIST? That's a bit of special pleading - which again is an appeal to a fallacy.

Side: Atheism is logical

We've got similar names, is that an indication we might have similar ideologies?

Side: Atheism is logical
1 point

Or we could just start off by addressing the obvious.

https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/

Side: Theism is more logical
1 point

I agree that this 'William Lane Craig' is a hair's breadth away from total lunacy, and when you see him debate you can not help hating the guy. You have to stop watching so that you can calm down enough to not want to slap him across the face with a stocking full of shite. Atheism is, by far, the most logical stance.

Side: Atheism is logical
1 point

Hello b:

Being logical is like being pregnant.. You either ARE, or you're NOT.. Believing, all by itself, is logical.. It's what humans do. WHAT one believes in is another matter..

excon

Side: Theism is more logical
Beastt(43) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, when we choose beliefs, they should be on the basis of the objective evidence - all known objective evidence. Theists, however, have been taught that they should choose evidence on the basis of their beliefs, rather than choosing their beliefs on the basis of evidence.

And that kind of disingenuous methodology can lead to the support of any claim. As an example, they could decide that Christians are less likely to develop cancer. Since the statistics don't bear that out, they simply reject the statistical evidence. Instead they list a number of Christians they know personally who haven't had cancer, and try to find the names of some atheists who have. And because that selective evidence agrees with their pre-conceived conclusion, they accept it. This is exactly what flat-Earthers do, and they're nearly all simply cult-member spin-offs of Christianity. But that's another topic.

Side: Atheism is logical
excon(4021) Disputed
1 point

To clarify, when we choose beliefs, they should be on the basis of the objective evidence

So you say..

But, whether the evidence IS objective is the subject of another debate.. That one BELIEVES, no matter what it IS that they believe in, is what humans do, and is highly logical..

excon

Side: Atheism is logical
Jace(4506) Disputed
1 point

That humans believe is not proof that it is logical to do so, anymore than humans being illogical would be logical just because it's what we do.

Side: Atheism is logical

Atheists say there is no other material other than the physical. I only feel air(heavy enough to feel), you add hydrogen and it becomes heavier ; water, add colour it has more physical material definition.

But are there substances lighter than air? yes.

Well, is that the limit? who knows?

I know. The faster a body radiates/vibrates,(such as boiling and evaporation), gradually it loses some amount of physical opaque qualities to translucent, transparent, then invisible.

There are conscious intelligent beings radiating at high speeds even escaping light and they have their own light like a glow worm.

That is the level of body speed they were made naturally.

However, they have control over their speed.

They can penetrate or stay in any slower radiating material like walls,trees, animals/human bodies, plastics, woods etc.

If they slow down over 2000 times their radiation speed, we will see them.

Yet they will still be stronger than us.

Yes they also feel slow at times if they choose to ignore the human nature because they are able see each other too as in a state of solid enough for them to attack each other just like humans are slow enough for each other.

I feel radiation in my body, don't you?

It increases when you are usually angry.

In this situation of faster radiation, you turn to be stronger, faster than how you usually react.

You smash, lift,push etc heavy things you couldn't have if you weren't angry

The human body happens to be one of the most slowest radiating mateials in the universe. If light is faster than our slow radiating eye balls, how can we see what is faster than light especially if it's a concious entity of higher intelligence than man.

The human body is an earth space suit.

Human ourselves are like them but can come to self realisation if we achieve astral projection and we will be unlimited in abilities except to one, the creator with a stronger material.

We penetrate and stayed in a slower radiating material we call our bodies(full of filthy sweetness that weakens our real selves)

Our real selve strength tries to show up when we get angry.

We should study light, and advancement of cameras.

The more intelligent should further advance to astral projection.

Atheism isn't logical

Side: Theism is more logical
AveSatanas(4205) Disputed
1 point

Atheists dont say there is only the physical. They say there is only the NATURAL. So yes there are substances lighter than air. but theyre natural substances. We test these things with science.

All you did was list off a bunch of natural processes and their natural properties.

How is that evidence for the supernatural?

Side: Atheism is logical
jeffreyone(1114) Disputed
1 point

Ok you are arguing based on book knowledge which is mostly true(yaay!! mummy will be proud of you),

but primitive to my experience(not me alone) and knowledge(i don't how many others know in common).

Side: Theism is more logical
Jace(4506) Disputed
1 point

Atheists say there is no god. Everything else you've added is extraneous and not inherent to the position in the least.

Side: Atheism is logical
1 point

First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning. In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily conducive to survival. In other words, truth only promotes survival under certain circumstances. I would add that a complex knowledge of physics and philosophy does not promote survival in any way. I would even posit that it does the opposite. So why should we trust our 'cogent' arguments? Maybe we should not. However, if we choose to trust our reasoning, it should be to reason that God exists, because the predicate for studying the stars was in order to apprehend God's works. Is it reasonable to dissociate our reasoning of the universe from the presupposition that God exists? I think not. After all, the scientific movement would likely not have happened without a religious foundation. Thus, reasoning would not have developed if not for theism. A common argument proposed by atheists is that the universe can be derived from nothing. I find this to be a straw man, because to make this argument, one must redefine nothing to mean condensed anti particles and particles. This is clearly not nothing. I would propose that God fills the role well as the first cause, because he, hypothetically, is immaterial and timeless. Only a being beyond time could create time, and only a being beyond space could create space. Moreover, the argument that something came from nothing creates the problem of infinite regression. What created that 'nothing.' If that can be answered, what created that? All of this being said, science should still be approached from an atheistic perspective, and values should not be imposed on large masses with little or no basis for the assumptions that they are founded on. But this is predominantly a metaphysical argument, and thus it goes beyond mere science.

Side: Theism is more logical
Quantumhead(896) Disputed
1 point

theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning

You laughable halfwit. Theism is predicated on reason in the same way that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are predicated on reason. Making shit up because you can't explain the reality you live in is the opposite of reason, dopey.

Side: Atheism is logical
jeffreyone(1114) Disputed
1 point

In which religious book is santa claus?.....

You are a really bad act at the pretence of an intelligent debater.

Keep practising.......you might get there

Side: Theism is more logical
seanB(339) Disputed
1 point

You are so stupid.

First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning.

All reasoning is subjective. Humans arbitrate reasoning. All evidence points to this. There is no evidence to the contrary.

In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival.

It isn't arbitrarily determined. Biochemistry naturally makes complex molecules.

You are just rambling bullshit. All of it.

Side: Atheism is logical
Jace(4506) Disputed
1 point

While I'm sympathetic to your argument that, vis a vis an evolutionary standard, we may not always want to be reasonable... that does not mean that it is atheism is illogical. It just means that if atheism is logical then it may not always be in our interests to be atheists.

As for your claim that reasoning would not have developed if not for theism, that's an incredible stretch. Reasoning is a separate cognitive process from the faith disposition, and while they may interrelate there's no inherent causal relation supported by any evidence.

Side: Atheism is logical

Being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I hear the other side of this argument a lot. What separates our church from other churches? We have evidence.

Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/01/mounting-evidence-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

One of the most established facts about the book of mormon is that Joseph smith did posses the plates. 11 official witnesses, and several unofficial witnesses. None of them, throughout their entire lives, denied it. They all confirmed it every chance the got. I’m not kidding, you can do research on these people from the day they say them to the day they died, and none of them ever denied it. Even after a few of them left the church, they still said that they saw them, never once saying that it didn’t happen.

What we also know now is that several ancient documents have been preserved the same way that Joseph Smith found them. The Copper Scroll and other items found by the dead sea are almost a complete parallel, and coincidentally around the same time the book of mormon was placed underground. Several of documents of the same fashon have been found in hillsides to preserve the right before millitary disaster for future generations. But how would joseph Smith had known that?

The book of mormon also claims to be written in “reformed egyptian’, and according to historians this means modified egyptian characters, and we now know that several ancient documents have been written precisely in that fashon. But how would Joseph Smith have known that?

The title page of the Book of Mormon claims that it was translated “through the power of God”, and this is exactly what would have had to happen. Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith woud have to have written 8.5 pages a day.

Additionally, there is no evidence that joseph Smith did very much reading at all before the book of mormon appeared. He may not have even owned a bible at the time of the translation. He spent most of his childhood doing farm and landwork, and revieved at most a few months of schooling. Even his own mother said that he was much less inclined to read books that her other children. His wife in the late 1820s said that he “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. … The larger part of this labor [of translation] was done [in] my presence and where I could see and know what was being done. … During no part of it did Joseph Smith have any [manuscripts] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metalic [sic] plates which I knew he had.” 15 “If,” “he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.” Many anti Mormon claims say that, oh, Joseph smith just made up the entire book, perfectly what a teenager with an immagination would write. This is completely wrong. Anybody who reads the Book of Mormon will confirm that an illiterate teenager could most definately not write a book like the book of Mormon. His wife also said that joseph Smith, after an interuption, could just start reading again. No asking, ‘where was i again?”, or “What was the last sentence I said?”.

I qoute lds.org, “And research shows that the book does not seem to fit the culture of early 19th-century America. There is little of the military romanticism of Joseph Smith’s America. Instead, we see grimly realistic portrayals of war’s devastation and suffering. And in the story of the Gadianton robbers we have a detailed, realistic portrayal of a prolonged guerrilla struggle—lacking any trace of fife and drum, uniforms, or parades—published well over a century before the guerrilla theorists of the 20th century put pens to paper.”

The Book of Mormon’s description of Jerusalem are strangely accurate, and a reaserch proresses everything said beomes more and more possible. The name Saria, Lehi’s wife, has been found on documents of ancient egypt. And the name Nephi belongs to the exact time and place of the time the story takes place. But how would Joseph Smith have known this?

Nephi’s visoin is deeply rooted in near eastern symbolism. and , hi predictions are strikingly acurate. His description of Columbus, “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” With the publication of Columbas’s private “Book of Prophecies”, quoting lds.org, “He said he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and he was eager not only to spread Christianity but to fulfill biblical prophecies. Among his favorite passages were John 10:16, with its reference to “other sheep,” and the passages of Isaiah concerning the people on the “isles of the sea.” 25 These are the very passages that the Book of Mormon applies to itself.” But how would Joseph Smith have known this?

Additionally, Nephi’s description of his families journey across the Arbian pennensula is strikingly accurate. But nobody, not even any 19th centery schollar could have known about this.

Lack of evidence? I don't think so.

Side: Theism is more logical
1 point

My argument is simple, the chance of a Jesus fulfilling all the old testament prophecies is as likely as a person choosing a marked, yet undetectable quarter, if Texas was covered in two layers of quarters. Furthermore, the pharasies did not deny Jesus's miracles, at the risk of being stoned to death, but instead claimed demonic influence.

Side: Theism is more logical
1 point

if you have heard of Pascal's wager you know that he said that if you believe in God and atheism is correct, you lose practically nothing, but if you are an atheist, and God is real, you suffer eternal damnation.

Side: Theism is more logical
Dermot(3653) Disputed
1 point

Pascal's wager is incredibly lame , you're a believer yet if you've picked the wrong God and Allah is the one true God he will consign you also to a lake of fire

Side: Atheism is logical
1 point

Definition of atheism

1 a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

~~~~

The important thing to note here is that the definition of atheism does not use the word "God" with a capital "G", but "god" with a lower case "g".

Atheists who deny God with a capital G are absolutely foolish, because the God they are denying is by Merriam-Webster's definition, "The supreme and/or ultimate reality". To deny such an entity is preposterous.

Little "g" god on the other hand is defined by Merriam-Webster as...

"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship"

Without knowing how to recognize these beings, it would be very easy to dismiss these gods as nonexistent. Surely they do exist, but they are by nature created beings.

Another definition from Merriam-Webster that might be easier to grab on to is...

"a powerful ruler"

It takes less discernment to observe the fact that there are "powerful rulers" in the world. In that sense, there are clearly gods, and atheism is the denial of these gods.

So while atheism by definition does not in fact deny The One True God as most atheists themselves seem to believe, it does deny the existence of lesser created gods. The fact that these "gods" are created does not make them any less existent than whoever is making the opinion that those gods do not exist.

Is atheism a logical stance? I would say that atheism can be logical, that is, coming from valid reasoning, so long as the atheism in question does not deny God with a capital G. To deny "God" with a capital "G" is to undermine the validity of any statement you make. If you do not believe in "God", that means that you do not believe in the existence of truth. If truth does not exist, none of the claims you make pertaining to the truth could be correct.

It is illogical to deny the existence of God, but it can be logical to deny the existence of gods.

That all said, logic is not what determines truth.

Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

Theism, specifically the belief in "God" with a capital "G", is the most logical stance you could have on anything. In fact, logic ceases to have any value without God.

You can build an entire tree of logic off of faulty premises, and all of the conclusions you come up with will be logical and reasonable. However, being built off of faulty premises, the entire tree of logic is flawed. To base an entire tree of logic off of the premise that God does not exist undermines the validity of the entire tree of logic. In fact, without God, logic is in itself illogical.

God Saves. The Truth is what sets you free.

Side: Theism is more logical
1 point

The evidence is clear when you understand what "God" means.

God is defined by merriam-webster as "The supreme and/or ultimate reality"

Supreme is defined by merriam-webster as "highest in rank or authority" or "highest in degree or quality"

Ultimate is defined by merriam-webster as "the best or most extreme of its kind" or "basic, fundamental" or "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"

Reality is defined by merriam-webster as "The quality or state of being real"

~~~~

God is real by definition. Therefore, it is nonsensical to deny God. In fact, God isn't just defined as being real, but God is defined as being real in the truest sense of the word. So real in fact, that if you say "there is no God" you automatically invalidate any other claims of truth that you may make.

To hammer things home, lets go to the Oxford

Oxford defines God as the "supreme being"

Supreme is defined as "Highest in rank or authority".

Being is defined as "Existence".

It means the same thing in Oxford.

~~~

The existence of God is a given. It isn't something that should even be up for debate.

Side: Theism is more logical
1 point

It is easy to see that our universe had a designer. I mean, take Constance for example. earth is the only know place to support human, animal, and plant life. Also, the earth is in the perfect position and it has the perfect amount of gasses. Oxygen, there is just enough of it to keep us breathing, but not igniting. Another thing, going back to how perfectly placed the earth is. If it were and closer or further from the sun, it could not sustain human life.

Side: Theism is more logical