CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
9
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:15
Arguments:14
Total Votes:15
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (5)
 
 Disagree (9)

Debate Creator

Apollo(1608) pic



Most people aren't knowledgeable enough to call themselves theists or atheists.

Nowawadays, every touts their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). But I am willing to bet, the majority of them have no concrete reason to believe what the believe. I doubt most Christians have heard of the Problem of Evl/Hell, Perfecr design, Occam's razor, God of the Gaps, etc. And I'm willing to bet most atheists haven't heard of the Cosmological argument, Kalam, etc. or even any atheistic arguments to back up their beliefs. 

In all honesty, I have no reason to believe in God outside of personal experience (which is fallable and subjective). Sure there are a plethora of logical arguments to back my beliefs, but there are as many to the contrary, as well. Logic can't contradict itself (last time I checked). I can't refute most them, and the average atheist cant refute the theist arguments. 

Yet everyone claims to be "right."

Am I crazy or are most people's beliefs (mine included) illogical because of lack of evidence (not the lack of its existence but ignorance of it).

Agree

Side Score: 6
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 9
2 points

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter." Winston Churchill

The same can be said about any topic as well.

Side: agree

Yup, mob rule isn't always pretty. The same can be applied to this topic. Although I'm sure the theist following is much larger than the atheist (globally, that is), it seems that the common person seems to believe whatever science says. If I walked out butt naked and started saying the moon was made of cheese, then I doubt anyone would believe me. However, if Stephen Hawking claimed this to be the case, I would say most people would at least give the theory a chance. The "common" man seems to just follow one with higher authority.

To summarise, the uneducated "sheep" claim to be atheist because they follow the educated "shepherd", when in fact they haven't discovered enough to distinguish themselves from being agnostic. Just my hypothesis anyway.

Side: agree
1 point

To Atheist is merely to disregard a certain thing that people are claiming are real.

To it's most moderate sense, Atheism is just skepticism. We just have yet to hear anything convincing enough to say that God's real.

I understand that some Atheists can be stupid (Bill Maher), but that doesn't really mean that they aren't justified in their disbeliefs.

Everyone should be a skeptic. This would mean that Theists would be rational in their belief, for clearly personal experiences can not be refuted (usually). If they truly felt that some divine shit happened, there's no reason to doubt themselves. They truly believe it.

An Atheist would make no sense if he believed that divine things have happened to him.

But being either Atheist or Theist shouldn't have to be about whether you've studied enough on philosophy. It should just be if you believe in one thing or the other. The Philosophy is important for being... smart. But it isn't necessary for having a belief (of course, in order to back your beliefs you'd need to argue for it, but most people don't even like to really be convincing... they just believe and nothing we say can make them change their mind... they're true Theists, because theism just requires a belief in God)

maybe too long of an explanation, but i just wanted to be really really thorough.

Side: Disagree
Apollo(1608) Disputed
1 point

Atheism goes past skepticism all the way to disbelief. That is merely the other side of the same coin. Objectively, agnosticism is the only logical position.

Side: agree
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

No. We all disbelieve a lot of things merely because no evidence has been provided.

It's not making a statement that "God doesn't exist". It's just seeing a lack of any reason to believe in something. You either believe or you don't. I don't believe that God, without a doubt, doesn't exist. But I don't believe that he does.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Agnosticism is the enshrinement of ignorance. Saying the claim is possible or correct without objective evidence means the status quo is the logical position. God has not been proven or supported, so pleading incompetence is by no means the logical position.

Side: Disagree
1 point

I disagree. I am an atheist because I regard the theist position as a more difficult one to hold. Occam's razor disposes of the need to invoke a God. Agnosticism is the position where one does not make a valued judgement either way. However, theism and atheism differs very greatly. The theist has to say that they know God exists. Atheists merely needs to say that either it is very improbably or they do not believe that God exists. They don't say that they know God doesn't exist.

Side: Disagree