Atheism has been more successful than theism

FORFEITED

The terminology is unfortunate but Atheism is the actual default mode of all humans when they are born. They become theists through culture and social pressures that utilize gaslighting, repetition and lies to mask the fact that their claims have no evidence; children do not have the power or critical thinking skills and largely have to trust their primary caregivers are correct.

It is only later in life when folks revert back to their born original state. Or switch religions, or denominations as is mostly the case. Thus proving the evidence isn't what theism about anyway.

That's just gilding the lily. Claims that God create the night before the day makes no sense. Flying horses makes no sense. Magical glasses neither. Science and critical thinking is exposing the charlantory of theist claims.

It's all very well saying that god did it for every discovery but that's just piggy backing off other's work and intellectually dishonest in the claim that theism was correct in the first place. All the pseudo scientific claims from Young Earth Creationists and other Discovery Institute nonsense against evolution, Flat Earthers, the Paley Arguments now reformed as Fine Tuning "Problem" or the more recent Psycho-Physical "Problem" all rely on bad science and bad math and bad faith.

There is nothing "obvious" that an omnipotent god is even possible given discoveries in Chaos and complexity.

This shows a complete lack of understanding about what motivates scientists. They don't refuse to change - they love change and to be change makers and to challenge the status quo and be the next Einstein!

The fact is there is no "science". There are only multiple disciplines studying different aspects of our existence throughout all of historical, geological and astronomical time scales and from universal structures down to genetic, molecular and atomic and subatomic physical scales. They all agree and do not contradict each other. This is why there is no change - because we have found truth (within margins of probability and accuracy).

The trajectory of science has a direction whereas theists pretty much only have "because God" arguments with "mystery" as their core reasoning.

That's kinda the point of science - it is a true competition of ideas and some will win and some will lose.

If you know much about Christianity you will know there are different opinions about the god itself and instead of resolving issues they used to kill each other or agree to split forever. Hence we have a good few thousand different Churches and denominations who can't even agee on basics!

Not sure what you mean - are you talking about Buddhism and Shinto?

That's an example of why theism is terribly bad at defining what they're even praying about.

Evidence? Where? Prove the trinity. Please!

And?

What perfect end? The one you can't prove?

1. First you’re making lots of assumptions. You assume that all humans are born atheist without any proof at all. Second, it doesn’t matter which way anyone was born. One could argue that all humans are born thinking the world if flat and that they are simply told to believe it’s round do to the culture but then they relearn the truth and become flat earthers.
2. The proof is that for a child to become a theist they have to be indoctrinated or taught that gods exist. Much like literally everything else a human has to learn.
3. Humans are born not understanding anything about whether the Earth is flat or not - they are taught it. Just like they are taught about which religion to believe in.
4. Ultimately, humans are born neither denying nor believing in God (or a flat earth).
5. Correct - they have no conception of anything but I think you forget that atheism is not a denial of religion - it is waiting (forever) for theists to prove their points. Just as we were when we were born. You mistake that atheists disbelief theism - we don't, we just don't accept theistic claims because there is no proof of them.
6. You also makes more assumptions that theism is only based on “culture and social pressures.” This still doesn’t explain how theism started in the first place.
7. Theism is just a human need to find explanations when they were not equipped to intellectually or educated to come up with something else. It's obvious that's why the range of religions, incompatible with each other exist.
8. If humans are born atheist, then they should have stayed atheist if there was no theistic culture in the beginning?
9. We can see in real-time cults, churches and denominations springing into existence easily and very difficult to reason out of. Why is that? It's because theism has no real basis - it's entirely invented and re-invented.
10. Humans are easily convinced and easily fooled.
11. You have resorted to strawmanning. Evolution is just as crazy too.
12. No it isn't - evolution and science is proven continuously. Theists keep reinventing things they can't prove.
13. Science converges towards a result and can be recreated with the same results each time.
14. Theists can't even prove to each other their own differences.
15. “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” - H. S. Lipson
16. Um no. We don't pray to the great god Darwin, or sing praises or wear Darwin ornaments.
17. “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” - H. S. Lipson
18. He also said:
19. “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject what we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” talkorigins.org+3
20. So I think I'll ignore garbage creationist arguments since they're based on theism, which they can't prove either.
21. It is a fact that there is no science but they have found the truth? Science never reaches the full truth.
22. Science doesn't claim to have found "truth" either. I suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science to understand what it actually is.
23. God does reach the full truth.
24. Correction: the is a claim obout a being that hasn't been proven.
25. Aristotle believed in an unmoved mover. You have made atheism your god. Atheists often reject God just because they don’t want judgment.
26. He was also believed in goecentrism - what's your point?
27.  Theodore Roszak
28. Do you know what context his quote was about?
29. You seem to have forgotten what this debate is even about. It’s not about the existence of God but the benefits of (a)theism.
30. I was correcting your responses.
31. Having a final end is better than no final end. This is clearly good for the mind and well-being.
32. I don't even know what that means. If you have any specific points against my claims please make them - I really am not interested in debating whether unproven gods exist and definitely won't take creationism seriously.

ATHEISM IS DEFAULT, THEISM EXISTS THROUGH INDOCTRINATION

> “Everything else” includes atheism. Pro will simply argue that atheism is the “default” and not based on indoctrination. This, of course, has no proof to back it up.

Atheism, the non-belief in deities and all the supernatural are learned. Christians from different branches from Catholic to Mormonism all believe in different claims of the SAME religion! It is entirely based on what a child is compelled to believe depending on their parents' beliefs.

A child from an atheist family would not suddenly become a Mormon even when exposed to the religion from other families. So there's no innate or natural belief from birth.

ATHEISM HAS PROOF, THEISTS CANNOT EVEN CONVINCE EACH OTHER WHAT IS TRUE ABOUT THEIR OWN GODS

Non-theistic explanations don't suffer from the same problem - all of science, math and other disciplines have undeniable proofs. The god of the gaps is the retreat of theism from the onslaught of explicitly a-theistic reasoning.

> Theists debate atheists constantly. They provide plenty of proof. Just read Aquinas’ five proofs. Pro simply claims there is “no proof” but provides no proof there is no proof.

A topic for another day, but there isn't a single theological argument that convinces anyone other than people that already believe. The proof of this is that if any religion was objectively true then that religion would be the only one. As for Aquinas' five proofs - they are part of Summa Theologica - it's a how to manual for Christians as opposed to an apologetics. Neither of which really convince anyone that disbelieve Christian claims.

The primary proof of the lack of Christian proof is literally the fact that Christians cannot convince each other on their own deity! And that problem is mirrored in every single religion, though maybe not to the extent of Christianity where the nature of the deity is still under dispute.

> I, on the other hand, have shown proof. Pro has also tried to make atheism agnostic and more rational by claiming they are just waiting for proof. Atheists constantly deny proof and use strawmanning. Atheism is a form of denialism.

You have shown no proof - only claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. Atheists are in the same boat as other theists in being unconvinced of whatever you're claiming as proof for your own religion.

ADDRESSING STRAWMAN

> So are you calling all the great philosophers unintelligent and uneducated?

Of course! They believed in all sorts of supernatural claims and other disproven views on the universe. Also, I'm saying they are "intellectually unequiped" not that they're not intelligent. What I mean by that is that they are not exposed to the range of ideas that we have today. They're doing the best they can with the current best knowledge of their times but they're wrong.

> You say theism is just a human need to find explanations. That’s a bold claim to say that theism is only for that purpose.

"In the beginning ..." is how religious texts self-anoint their claims to absolute truth. This is done with little proof and therefore why theistic claims are unconvincing to non-believers or even believers of the same religion!

THEISTS DIVERGE WITHOUT RECONCILIATION, SCIENTIST CONVERGE TOWARDS A SINGLE TRAJECTORY

> We see the exact same thing in science.

Not when it is done openly and with genuine curiosity to discover the truth. Science converges and becomes more accurate. Evolution has been supported from every single branch of science from geology, paleontology, genetics, biology, the fossil record, etc. Even though there may be different ideas about specifics, there is no dispute on the core idea of Natural Selection.

> William Stansfield: “If a carbon-14 [dating result] supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it.”

This is a false quote - please provide a specific reference.

> So I think I'll ignore garbage evolutionist arguments since they're based on atheism, which they can't prove either. 

Wrong - there is plenty of proof for evolution - it's literally in the genetic record of every single living animal, plant, and fungus!

> Pro has pulled an _ad hominen_ attack on Aristotle, a man who has been dead for millenia. Aristotle proved that theism is not about indoctrination but metaphysics.

It's not a strawman to state the truth of the matter that Aristotle opinions are not necessarily fact, especially thousands of years later.

REBUTTING POSSIBLE REASON WHY THEISM IS BETTER THAN ATHEISM

> Ultimately, theisms lead to the spread of the Latin alphabet and widespread need for writing. Monks would copy down valuable material, not just religious documents. Theism lead to Christendom and a unified world. Theism helps humans focus on an end, while atheism doesn’t.

I think conquest and economics helped spread the need for writing. Theism obviously has helped humanity move forward but it was an intellectual stepping stone that, I argue, we no longer need.

In the current world, discarding gods from science, discarding religions from morality and discarding theology from governance has by far accelerated the pace of human progress. This is factually true given that nearly all of science was discovered since the Enlightenment along with all the engineering and mathematical progress made.

Think of the thousands of years where religion and the religious leaders ruled the intellectual substrate onto which we based all our ideas on. Compare that with the amount of progress made since we based our reality on verifiable claims. It's undeniable that atheistic thinking has been more sucessful otherwise we would still be believing that the world was created in 7 days!

Thank you for the debate. I wished we had touched more on the positive aspects of Atheism rather than the negatives of Theism but such is the nature of debating religion and comparing ideas.

>> So there's no innate or natural belief from birth.

> We seem to be in agreement now.

Of course - all knowledge is gained, that shouldn't be said. What needs to be stated however is that there is an innate need for humans to have truth, whether it is taught or imposed. With religion, one is asked to suspend one's belief versus Atheism and atheistic systems of knowledge require proof.

> You need to stop saying that science is facts:

Science is about observable facts - I don't think that should be in dispute.

> Pro has almost tried using the term “non-theistic” instead of “atheistic” so it sounds like atheism is just not chosing to not yet believe in theistic solutions.

There are different aspects of atheism but the most important one is the rejection of theistic claims. This includes all scientific knowledge, which explicitly do not require a deity - so much so that modern apologetics copy from the language of science in order to sound convincing. They're always unsuccessful because they get the science wrong and the math wrong.

They are synonymous and identical ways of observing and understanding the universe.

> Pro is attempting to use disagreement to “prove” something is false. As I have been saying the whole debate, everything, including atheism, has disagreement. For example, atheists originally believed in an eternal universe, but now the most common position is the Big Bang, with one initial beginning. This view is not universally accepted either.

There are different degrees of "disagreements" - theistic disagreements are like some scientists saying that our universe consists of atoms, and others saying it's made out of invisible demons. There are scientific facts and there are scientific ideas: gravity is fact, the origin of the universe is opinion; the latter because there hasn't been any proof either way.

In fact, you can see with the James Webb telescope people are looking to dispute the Big Bang because that model no longer fits into what we have observed. And the Big Bang was never "proven" - it's just a model which looked, until recently, it worked. It's possible we discard it altogether.

Whereas there are still theists that believe in the Trinity, those that don't, and those that are on both sides of the Filioque Clause Controversy! And even non-Trinitarians. Theism's disagreements are of a totally different order from scientific ones.

> You are using your own personal beliefs and trying to get the meaning you want out of it. You claim that “In the beginning” is used by religious texts to self-anoint themselves. Evolutionists believe the opposite. They believe that things have been the same since the **beginning**. This is called uniformitarianism.

I don't know what an Evolutionist is - is that some sort of cult?

> [Uniformitarianism] is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

Um, that's just saying that until there is evidence otherwise, there is no reason to expect the universe to behave different in the past from how it behaves now. Seems reasonable until we discover otherwise.

> Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, **all things** continue as they were **from the beginning** of the creation. For this they are **wilfully ignorant** of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting **by the word of God**. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. (2 Peter 3:3-6)

I can't answer this cherry picked claim that has no proof, isn't saying anything other than slightly related to the beginning. As I mentioned before, theists like to take a solid scientific idea and smear unrelated religious pandering statements and claim they knew it all along.

This is why atheism is always more successful: it is continuously used by theists to back up their bad ideas.

> If Genesis is true, then the present is not the key to the past. The past (Genesis) is the key to the present (and future). And creation can only be revealed by God’s word, not DNA.

If Genesis is true then animals were created before or after humans depending on which part you take to be true. I don't think a contradictory book should be used for anything other than allegorical morality tales.

> Atheistic scientists favored polygenism simply because it was the opposite of what the Bible said. If that’s not bias, I don’t know what is. Look at what Wikipedia says. It says “it contradicted Genesis” and “thus was more scientific.” They were saying that as long as it goes against Genesis, it is scientific.

And how many polygenists are there now?

> About Aristotle, you say we can’t accept everything some ancient man says, but I say we cannot simply dismiss a claim because of how ancient it is. This would be both an _ad hominen_ attack and a genetic fallacy.

I'm certainly not going to take a non-modern person's word on any matter that has evolved past them.

> You seem to admit theism was needed for some point in time. This proves atheism would be nowhere without theism. Can you explain the decrease in IQ?

I don't know if this is something that needs to be "admitted" - it's fact. I expect that atheism has always been around - they just didn't get to have much of a say. On the decrease in IQ, I believe theism can suppress curiosity and learning and challenging consensus, so I expect that results in a lower IQ.

This article:

[The Real Reason Atheists Have Higher IQs | Psychology Today](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs?msockid=349f349521c064c7137c2148204665eb)

has other ideas about Atheists have higher IQs.

> Technology could be making us dumber. All of atheism’s progress could be washed away in one night. Theism cannot.

I think Ricky Gervais said it best: if we had a nuclear war and all human knowledge was wiped out, then we will rebuild science, exactly like it was. Whereas religions will never be rebuilt in the same way.

With that, I conclude that I have made a stronger case regarding atheism and non-theistic thinking. Whereas theism tends towards divergence, even in some cases disputing the nature of their own god, atheism is converging and refining closer toward the truth.

Thank you for my opponent for his thoughts and research. I trust we will cross paths again at some point since 5 rounds isn't enough to cover all the topics raised.