CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
We all disbelieve a lot of things merely because no evidence has been provided.
A lack of evidence for something's existence is not evidence for it nonexistence.
It's not making a statement that "God doesn't exist".
That's exactly what atheism is saying.
I don't believe that God, without a doubt, doesn't exist.
Then you are an agnostic.
But I don't believe that he does.
Then, with the given facts, your beliefs are just as illogical as mine. You don't have evidence for God's nonexistence and I don't have (much) evidence for its existence. Hence the question.
It is true that a lack of evidence for something is not necessarily evidence for its lacking(although it can be). However, atheism is not the belief in god not existing, it is a lack of belief in god existing. The former includes the latter and is also more general. Agnostic is an epistemological position, not a metaphysical one. You can have theistic agnostics, atheistic agnostics, etc.
As for the logic of belief, we would first have to have a standard on what makes for a logical belief. Theists can be logical, but they usually take as given things which the atheist doesn't. Perhaps a logical belief is one that is derived from commonly accepted premises though valid reasoning? In such a cause, both "hard atheists" and theists will find such reasoning impossible to craft, due to the supernatural nature of some gods. Although, particular gods can be identified as logically contradictory in their definition or with the world, and if we assume that a god must not be contradictory in such a way to exist we can determine that a few particular, well defined gods, indeed do not exist.
Sigh, not this again. Theists really did a good job on distorting the definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism" through their simplistic rhetoric and failure to understand their opponents over the last few decades. To be atheist means to lack a belief in God. While an atheist CAN claim that God does not exist, this is merely a variety of atheism and is not endemic of the term.
Then you are an agnostic.
Another common misunderstanding of terms. Agnostic is not in the middle of some graded scale with theism on the left and atheism on the right. It is not mutually exclusive or contrasted with either of them, but rather with its polar opposite, gnosticism. agnostic/gnostic aren't even about the same subject matter as atheism and theism. Those refer to belief, while agnostic/gnostic refer to knowledge. If you are agnostic you claim you don't know. If you are atheist, you don't believe. If you are an agnostic atheist, which is what thepyg is referring to and is representative of most of the atheists on this site and many famous atheist authors, then you say you don't know for sure but you also do not believe. The type of atheism you are referring to, the "there is definitely not a God" type, can be considered gnostic atheism, but is more frequently called strong or positive atheism. As far as I have observed, It is not exceptionally common in modern atheism.
Further, while most theists are gnostic, it is totally viable to be an agnostic theist.
I concede that point; however would you not admit that atheism requires some faith as well? I doubt you can definitively say "God DOES NOT exist." Instead, atheists say "I don't BELIEVE God exists," just as theists say they "BELIEVE" God exists. In my opinion (which has shown to be wrong ;) ), both beliefs require some faith.
Agnosticism is a separate thing from Atheism, and you can be both. Same for Theism.
Someone who commented above disagrees with that statement.
I'm surprised thepyg didn't respond. So I will, because some of the things here seem glaringly inaccurate to me.
Instead, atheists say "I don't BELIEVE God exists," just as theists say they "BELIEVE" God exists. In my opinion (which has shown to be wrong ;) ), both beliefs require some faith.
While I would more or less agree with you if you were referring to strong atheists (the ones who claim God definitely does not exist), where is the belief in agnostic atheism?
Answer: there is none. We are unconvinced. We don't have a belief, we have a lack of belief. Our stance is a default position: unless one can prove to us God certainly exists than there is no reason to assume he does. This isn't fueled by faith at all, but rather its polar opposite, skepticism. The only claim on the subject that we are making is that we KNOW we don't believe in him, and one hardly needs faith to know what they believe (or fail to).
Someone who commented above disagrees with that statement.
Who? I re-read the comments by thepyg, casper, and myself. Each of us said that agnosticism and atheism are two different things and that theists can also be agnostic.
"A lack of evidence for something's existence is not evidence for it nonexistence."
No, but it does allow one to make inductive inferences which can lead one to doubt the existence of something.
"That's exactly what atheism is saying."
I think you confusing "agnostic" and "gnostic" atheism, when people say they are athiest they mean agnostic athist, this doesn't mean "God definitely doesn't exist", this means "God probably doesn't exist", or a lack of belief in God.
"Then you are an agnostic."
No, he's an atheist.
BTW agnosticism is more like hedging your bets, or intellectual fence sitting, it definitely isn't the most logical position to take.
As Karl popper said (paraphrasing); "you can never conclusively confirm a scientific hypothesis no matter how much evidence you gather, you can however conclusively disconfirm a scientific hypothesis" i.e. falsificationism, which addresses the problem of induction
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.
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.