Overall, there is a greater amount of logical evidence to support atheism than religions.
Yes.
Side Score: 66
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 22
|
|
|
|
|
The only evidence required to be an Atheist is the lack of evidence for people claiming that there is a God. By your logic the only evidence required to be a Theist is the lack of evidence for people claiming there is no god. It's pretty logical to not believe in something until proper evidence is presented. It is logical, but not reality. There are plenty of people believing all kinds of things; in addition, those things might have overwhelming evidence to support it, have overwhelming evidence to prove it false, or altogether have little to no evidence to prove it either way. 338 days ago | Side: No.
By your logic the only evidence required to be a Theist is the lack of evidence for people claiming there is no god. His logic doesn't work both ways when one side is claiming that something invisible and intangible exists, and the opposition is asking for proof. It is logical, but not reality. There are plenty of people believing all kinds of things...* A fair point, but there are degrees of ridiculousness when it comes to believing in something. For example, I believe that New York city exists, despite having never been there or seen it, but there is a reasonable amount of evidence to support the existence of New York city in my mind. I can meet New Yorkers, I can see their sports team come to play locally, I can see pictures of the city or hear about it on the news. God doesn't have half that in support for his existence, which is why believing in him is more ridiculous than believing in New York. 338 days ago | Side: Yes.
Let me see if I can make this really, really simple. Your attempt at reverse logic equals. "I believe magical unicorns are eating my missing socks in Narnia. You cannot prove magical unicorns are not eating my missing socks in Narnia. Your lack of proof this is not happening = it is happening." Pygs logic is. "There is not proof magical unicorns are eating my missing socks in Narnia. Therefore they likely aren't eating my missing socks in Narnia." It is not equivalent. 337 days ago | Side: Yes.
There doesn't need to be evidence to support a non-position, the burden of proof lies with the theists. But there are several paradoxes and problems (could god make a rock so big he can't lift it, is god omnipotent enough to change his omnipotent mind, evil and suffering etc.) which suggest there is no personal god as described by most theists. 338 days ago | Side: Yes.
There doesn't need to be evidence to support a non-position Atheism is not a non-position. Being agnostic is more like a non-position. Atheism by definition is an active opposing belief in god. From www.thefreedictionary.com, atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. That being said the "burden of proof" also applies to atheists. But there are several paradoxes and problems While your statement has truth to it, it is a narrow perspective where other factors might negate the paradoxes. Maybe God exists but he doesn't give a $%&# so it doesn't matter if he changes his omnipotent mind or not. Maybe our limited minds cannot fathom the dimension or the "physical" realm in which god lives where the size of a rock doesn't matter. Maybe god created aspects of this universe just to see what would happen because he is not omnipotent but he knows a lot more about this realm than we do and wants to learn more. 338 days ago | Side: No.
No, atheist comes from the Greek atheos, meaning literally "without god". This means that atheism is not an active position, just a non recognition of a positive assertion. You are either a theist or you aren't. If you accept that a theistic god exists, you are a theist. If you don't accept that a theistic god exists, you are an atheist. Most people who use the label "agnostic" are also atheists. Agnosticism and gnosticism describes knowledge, atheism and theism describe belief. They are not different positions on the same spectrum. If you are sure about what you believe, you are gnostic, if you are unsure, you are agnostic. If you believe positively there is a god, you are a theist, if you don't, you are an atheist. You ignored the part of the definition where it says "disbelief in or denial of existence of god or gods". An atheist may actively believe there is no god, but most just don't believe in god. Maybe God exists but he doesn't give a $%&# so it doesn't matter if he changes his omnipotent mind or not. Maybe our limited minds cannot fathom the dimension or the "physical" realm in which god lives where the size of a rock doesn't matter. Also, saying that God doesn't give a shit about changing his mind, you are simply ignoring the paradox. The point is, could he? There's no answer, it's a paradox. The same with the rock, if God is omnipotent, he can materialise in physical form, in which case, the paradox applies. You can't really ignore it. These, and the problem of suffering, show that God is not omnipotent or omniscient, if he exists at all. the "burden of proof" also applies to atheists. This is ridiculous. The burden of proof applies to the one making a positive claim, not the one who doesn't make any claim. Do I have the burden of proof that Santa isn't real? Do I have to provide evidence for why I don't believe in leprechauns? In fact, by that logic, you have the burden of proof to dismiss everything you don't believe in.
Supporting Evidence:
Wikipedia article explaining the definition of atheist quite well
(en.wikipedia.org)
338 days ago | Side: Yes.
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god/gods. If you lack belief in unicorns, you do not need to prove that unicorns don't exist. I think you're misunderstanding the burden of proof: Theists are the ones making a claim that something exists, therefore they should support that claim. Atheists are saying that god does not exist or that there is no reason to believe a god/gods exist. If you are not making a positive claim about reality you do not need to provide evidence. Why should someone believe a god exists just because there could be a slight possibility that we can't comprehend which allows a god to exist? If so, then you might as well believe in all gods, unicorns and anything else that people can imagine. It is a narrow perspective on your part to try and justify everything so it suits your position. Either a god exists or not. The universe includes everything that exists, and to exist requires being part of the universe in a physical sense. If you want to invent a realm in which god can exist, by all means go ahead. Just realize that in your paragraph you used the word "maybe" 3 times, but you never said that maybe god doesn't exist. 338 days ago | Side: Yes.
Whenever a theist tries to use gaps in our knowledge to prove God, I simply ask what their great-great-great grandfather's name was. Of course they say they don't know, to which I reply something like this, "Was his name God? Of course not. He did exist, you are proof of that, and he must have had a name. So you know there is an answer to the question, you just don't know it right now. You could do do some research or talk to your relatives to try to find the answer, but quite possibly you will never know. Science is always trying to further our understanding of the universe and they discover and learn more about it everyday. But some things may be lost to the mysteries of time, like your ancestor's name. You see, sometimes we don't know the answer to a question, and it's OK to admit that. What's not OK is to assume that 'God' is an acceptable fill-in-the-blank answer for anything you can't explain." 337 days ago | Side: Yes.
As obvious as it usually is, I'll give you some anyway; http://www.opposingviews.com/i/ http:// 338 days ago | Side: Yes.
This was considerably less true 50 years ago, and even less 100 and 200 years ago. Modern scientists, however, are living in an environment where the belief in religion isn't necessary to understand the world, and a lot of modern philosophies stem from sociology and psychology rather than wishful thinking. 338 days ago | Side: Yes.
How many people believe something, no matter what their qualifications, never is proof of anything. There cannot be a scientific discussion of the existence of God because it is not a testable hypothesis and therefore there isn't any specific qualification that scientists would have to determine whether or not Theism or Atheism is more or less valid. 338 days ago | Side: Yes.
There is no evidence to support the biblical God, or Jesus. None, zero. Why do good things happen to bad people, and vice versa? Why does a coin sometimes land on heads, and sometimes on tails? Random chance. Add to that the fact that bad people are more willing to step on others to get ahead and it's simply no wonder why bad people often seem to get a better deal. Why does the bible contradict itself? Why does God's behavior seem erratic? Because it's a collection of stories written by many authors over hundreds of years. When the writer wants God to be merciful, God is merciful. When the writer hates women, God hates women. An perfect being would not contradict itself, wouldn't create a flawed suffering, wouldn't be vain, selfish, or stupid. But people are all of those things, and people created God in their image. Why don't the historical parts of the bible match up with the historical texts of the nations mentioned? Because it's simply a story. Nobody wrote about Jesus' miracles because he never performed any. Nobody wrote about the exodus because there wasn't one. Note that I am talking about independent, corroborative evidence, not the writings of the bible itself. I'm sure you understand how the bible is no more evidence for God's existence than The Sorcerer's Stone is evidence for Harry Potter's existence. Julius Caesar lived around the same time as Jesus. Hundreds of separate people wrote about him, his family, and his actions in diaries and personal letters and official government documents such as census and military records. The nations he waged war with have records of those wars and describe him. Paintings and statues from the time period depicting him clearly show the same man. He had descendants, his family was well documented. There is no evidence of a historical Jesus. None at all. 337 days ago | Side: Yes.
I am not sure what side i fit onto more... I am not an athiest, I believe in God, however I don't believe in any religions. I also am open to the idea of there being more than one God. I believe in Evolution but I believe God was the reason for it. 335 days ago | Side: Yes.
Sort of. Gnostic atheists? It is a stalemate. The Atheist cannot prove, at least by certain definitions that God is not an option, but the theist can't logically prove that God is the only option. However, without proof of the claim that God does indeed exist, the atheist is taking the more logical stance. Agnostic atheists? This isn't even a valid question since they have nothing to support. We are in the default position, any movement beyond this position is to make an unverifiable claim. So the logic surrounds us and supports our skepticism, but with no claim to back, it does not need to be invoked. 335 days ago | Side: Yes.
|
There is just no chance of evolution happening in the first place. If you believe that all life is the result of random mutations and processes, then the chance of a simple 200 part biological system has the chance of 1 in 200 factoral (mathematically expressed as 200!) the numerical answer being 10^375. Thus, there is only 1 in 10^375 chance of a 200 part system being randomly mutated on the first trial. 338 days ago | Side: No.
There's an estimated 8.7 million species on the planet. Each species contains millions of permutations of genetic differences--more than 8 trillion perfectly valid genetic sequences. This is only including life still around today--which also happens to be the most complex. Your math would make sense assuming there is only one way for life to exist-this is obviously the opposite of the truth and the shallowness of your vision to realize that indicates you haven't thought this 'argument' through at all: "On the first trial" also defeats your entire argument since that has never happened and no one ever claims it has except Creationists (everything working perfectly on the first go, a meaningless expression since it would require knowledge of a massive amount of failures). Life has had 3.5 billion years to evolve, and hundreds of trillions of generations. Since your entire statement is hinged on the exact opposite of this statement, not only is your statement fallacious (see first paragraph), it's not even relevant. 338 days ago | Side: Yes.
1. Its no more random than any natural process guided by natural laws. 2. Look into cellural automation: http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/ They show how simple rules can create complex behavior, which an anaylisis such as yours would find unlikly, but if it took in to consideration the rules, would find sometype of growth or movement very likly. Theorectically there is an infiniate number of possibilities, and a percentage of those allow for life(a percentage of infinity is infinity eh?). Life is guarenteed. 337 days ago | Side: Yes.
One cannot disprove a god in the same way that one cannot disprove a tiny invisible teapot orbiting Saturn. But simply being unable to disprove something does not mean that the likelihood of the thing existing are 50/50. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you can claim God exists without proving it, I can deny his existence just as easily. The onus is on the believers to provide the proof. And in the case of the biblical God (with a capital G), it can and has been conclusively disproven. Muslims, Jews, and Christians just prefer to ignore the proof. 337 days ago | Side: Yes.
You cannot disprove God, because there's not a necessary implication that it would affect anything, which would be semantically equivalent to him not existing; of course, we can't even rule out that there was no interference as this would require quantum analysis of every particle at all times. It's not reasonable for it to be as such, but it's unreasonable to say it's undeniably false. 306 days ago | Side: No.
Overall, there is a greater amount of evidence to support religion than there is to support atheism. There is archaeological evidence to support the Bible's reliability, including evidence of people that lived in the age when the Bible was created, evidence of locations in the bible that have been discovered to exist, and various legal documents. [1] Several verses in the bible regard legal matters in the fact that had there been more than two witness, an accusation could be considered. These regard the bible verses of Revelation 11:3, and several other verses.
Supporting Evidence:
[1] http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php
(www.facingthechallenge.org)
338 days ago | Side: No.
Perhaps I can provide one link more substantial then Srom's. There is archaeological evidence to support the validity of the historical elements of the Bible: 338 days ago | Side: No.
If you go to http://clarifyingchristianity.com/ Here is biological evidence http://www.answersingenesis. Here is astronimical evidence http://www.reasons.org/articles/ 338 days ago | Side: No.
Well, logically no omnipotent, omnipresent being capable of creating a universe and life would reveal the knowledge behind it to a bunch of monkeys... They wouldn't understand. If I were a deity I'd just say "Yeah I made it, all by myself. Only took me a week. Now be good or I'll spank you." After giving humans the mental capacity to figure it out for themselves of course. And what religions are we even talking about? I'm sure there are some that don't exactly attempt to disprove science, New Age Spiritualism, Pantheism, Omnism, the list goes on, but it would all really be different names for the same thing. Just suggesting that evidence to support science isn't evidence to support atheism. In fact discovering that there is a means to creating a universe, in the case of the "god" particle, only reinforces the idea that we have a creator somewhere, somewhen. 337 days ago | Side: No.
|
