CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
13
Atheism is logical Theism is more logical
Debate Score:38
Arguments:45
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Atheism is logical (20)
 
 Theism is more logical (13)

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: 25
VS.

Theism is more logical

Side Score: 13
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
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
2 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
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(254) 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(2915) 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

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
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(8867) Clarified
1 point

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

Side: Atheism is logical
AlofRI(1695) 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(12) 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

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

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

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
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(3325) 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
1 point

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(4117) 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(914) 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
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(935) 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
seanB(338) 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

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