Is atheism as logical with evidence as theism and do both positions require evidence to stand? | DebateCraft

Pro Instigator Opens first

0

Mal

Rating: 1390
Debates: 469
Win rate: 45.52%

Stats:

Match format

Type: Unrated · 5 rounds
Time: Three days
Limit: 10,000
Vote: One month · No minimum

Con Contender

1

SkepticalOne

Rating: 1551
Debates: 9
Win rate: 66.67%

Stats:

Please quote exactly. Do not rephrase or reinterpret. Answer all questions directly. Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit.

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Round 1

1 of 5

Mal

Pro #1

Is atheism as logical with evidence as theism and do both positions require evidence to stand?

Yes of course.

Why?

I was communicating with an " atheist" a short time ago who said he or she was an "agnostic atheist" or was a "theist" I believe.

I asked the person questions and had to alternate or ask questions in various ways in order to keep it conversational.

My position is agnosticism is more rational than atheism.

To keep it short and basic, the person waffled on what the person believes.

At first rejecting the belief in no gods of theism.

Then I asked the person about believing illogical things not existing.

The person went passed that in not saying "not existing" but so far as to confidently say "illogical things cannot exist".

Then double downed with communicating the gods of theism are illogical, thus believing the gods of theism "cannot exist" indicating impossibility without proof as an absolute statement....... without absolute knowledge.

The person did basically say there was uncertainty of what is illogical and logical.

So a lot of muddled incoherent talking points.

With that aside, I want to highlight the person believes this about the gods of theism WITHOUT EVIDENCE. But yet requires evidence to believe these gods do exist.

Very short-sighted from the atheist's point of view.

Atheism, to believe that these gods don't exist, in the same way, evidence is looked for from theists that posit a claim as fact, same goes to the atheist that posits.

Being that atheism is effectively a religion or belief system, it takes the belief regardless of evidence existing or not.

In regards to the person I interacted with, I believe the person swayed from theist to agnostic to agnostic atheist.

Now the question I asked I think repeatedly, why not just stop at agnosticism?

Couldn't get an answer.

As time goes on like a theist, people tack on a belief system directly that indirectly denies or rejects or lacks another in order to constitute the other.

Atheism ultimately is not the default position. People are swayed into atheism and theism not so much on what is thought to be evidence or thought to be none at all . When somebody says there is no evidence, more than likely, that person means to him or herself. Otherwise that person will be charged with holding an absolute claim to a fact . The person would be making matter of fact statements that can't even be supported.

It's one thing to say the gods of theism don't exist with no evidence to support that. It's another to actually believe they don't, which atheists do..... without evidence.

Upon interacting with the so called agnostic atheist, it was revealed why the person believed these gods didn't exist. It wasn't so much the weak basis of the lack of evidence to that person. Outstandingly weak basis.

The person's worldview is a belief system as an atheist, the person's belief was illogical things CANNOT exist. Burden of proof statement with the "cannot".

After ceasing in rejecting the belief of illogical things not existing, admitting from the person's position, that these gods are illogical, the worldview of believing only .......only logical things exist, anything that doesn't conform to that cannot, not possibly not but cannot exist. This is due to the belief system in this and on top of this, the person continued to muddle the points by also saying basically that there's uncertainty in determining the logical and illogical.

Out of all this we're not really talking evidence. Just a muddling of faith systems and straddling with agnosticism.

But that's just one person. I've yet to reach any atheist with evidence to sustain the belief in no gods of theism existing.

Now I'll turn this over to the opposing side for questions on anything I've said.

But yes it is true that all atheists ultimately must prove their matter of fact claims of any god of theism, deism, pantheism, etc. and other systems of spirituality. Not withstanding atheists that never mature in mind or has not a mind whereas any inanimate object would fit the same bill if one defines atheism in such conflation.

I yield.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

Con #2

First, I would like to thank Mal for instigating this debate. I look forward to interesting exchanges.

1. Definition of Atheism (The "Default" Position)

Pro claims atheism is a "religion or belief system" that actively asserts gods do not exist. This is a definition error. Atheism is not a belief system; it is a single response to a single claim. It is the lack of belief in a deity, not necessarily the belief in the lack of a deity.

Gumball Analogy: If a jar is filled with gumball candies, and someone claims the number of gumballs is odd, rejecting that claim does not mean you are asserting the number is even. You are simply saying, "I do not have enough evidence to accept your specific claim." Atheism is the rejection of the theistic claim, not a counter-claim. Therefore, it is the default position.

2. "Agnostic Atheism" (The Stance is Not "Waffling")

My opponent mocks the term "agnostic atheist" as incoherent muddling. However, this reveals a misunderstanding of epistemology (knowledge) versus ontology/theology (belief). Knowledge and belief are two different categories. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. An agnostic believes the existence of God is currently unknown or unknowable. Atheism deals with belief. An atheist does not actively believe in a God. An "agnostic atheist" is someone who says, "I do not know with absolute certainty if a god exists (agnostic), but because there is no compelling evidence, I do not believe in one (atheist)." This is a highly precise, intellectually honest position, not "waffling."

3. The Burden of Proof

Mal argues that because atheists "believe gods don't exist," they must provide evidence for this non-existence. However, the burden of proof always lies on the party making the positive assertion. Theists assert that a supernatural deity exists. Atheists point out that the evidence presented is insufficient.

Excluding closed systems and logical contradictions, you cannot prove a universal negative. It is impossible to provide evidence that something does not exist anywhere in the universe (e.g., invisible flying unicorns, leprechauns, or Zeus). Expecting an atheist to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.

4. Illogical Things

Pro focuses heavily on his interlocutor's statement that "illogical things cannot exist" and that "gods are illogical." If the specific definition of a god contains logical contradictions, that specific god can be dismissed on logical grounds without needing physical evidence. For example, a "square circle" cannot exist by definition - no physical evidence is needed.

If a theist defines a god as existing outside of time and space, yet interacting with time and space, or being simultaneously all-powerful and all-loving while suffering exists (The Problem of Evil), the atheist is justified in pointing out the logical contradiction. Pointing out an internal contradiction in a claim is not a "faith system"—it is basic logic.

5. "No Evidence"

My opponent asserts that when an atheist says "there is no evidence," they only mean "no evidence to him or herself." Evidence must be objective, verifiable, and falsifiable to be considered valid in any other field of human inquiry (like science or law). Personal testimonies, ancient texts, and emotional experiences (which theists often use) do not meet this standard because they cannot be tested or replicated. When an atheist says there is no evidence, they mean there is no objective evidence that survives critical scrutiny.

With that, I turn it back over to Pro.

Round 2

2 of 5

Mal

Pro #3

Question time and we're going to see if there's honesty here .

"However, the burden of proof always lies on the party making the positive assertion. Theists assert that a supernatural deity exists. Atheists point out that the evidence presented is insufficient."

If an atheist makes a positive claim that no god of theism exists, does the atheist have the burden of proof to substantiate the claim?

"For example, a "square circle" cannot exist by definition - no physical evidence is needed."

This is a false equivalency. This is why I put the term "illogical" in quotes, when talking about the gods of theism. Something you don't necessarily understand can't be concluded as illogical or logical.

"My opponent asserts that when an atheist says "there is no evidence," they only mean "no evidence to him or herself." Evidence must be objective, verifiable, and falsifiable to be considered valid in any other field of human inquiry (like science or law). Personal testimonies, ancient texts, and emotional experiences (which theists often use) do not meet this standard because they cannot be tested or replicated. When an atheist says there is no evidence, they mean there is no objective evidence that survives critical scrutiny."

The gods of theism haven't been disproven that I know of like they haven't been proven in scientific empirical terms that I know of.

If one of those statements is false, the opposite side can demonstrate.

But first , there's a question on the floor so the opposite side can knock that out next round.

That's all for now.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

Con #4

Thank you, Mal!

I find it amusing my opponent asks a question answered in the quote which inspired it:

If an atheist makes a positive claim that no god of theism exists, does the atheist have the burden of proof to substantiate the claim?

And my answer as quoted by Pro:

...the burden of proof always lies on the party making the positive assertion.

I assume my opponent is attempting to suggest a different definition of atheism than supplied in the previous round. I fully acknowledge there are different flavors of atheism, some even make positive claims, and yes, they have a burden. However, that is not true of atheists in general. The only thing all atheists have in common is no belief in gods, and this debate is about "atheists", not the positive claim-making strong/gnostic atheists.

Mal seemingly rejects the possibility logical contradiction can apply to deities. This is strange. Why would logic not be applicable to deities? Special pleading isnt doing as much for Pro as he might wish. Anything (including gods) which is defined in logically incoherent ways can not be real - just like square circles. I supplied relevant examples of common logically contradictory divine traits which Pro has sidestepped. I re-extend.

Instead of addressing the argument, my interlocutor has pushed the goal posts to 'gods we know little about [that are not well defined] cant be illogical'. This is likely a truism - things we know little about (probably) cant be labeled illogical. Okay. That doesn't take away from my case, but it potentially hurts my opponent. Do we know enough to warrant belief in the existence of such a deity? I'll cover this more just below.

The gods of theism haven't been disproven that I know of like they haven't been proven in scientific empirical terms that I know of.

This statement is at the core of this debate. As asked and answered just above, anyone making a positive claim has a burden of proof. Gods of theism have been claimed to exist, but the burden of proof has not be met (as my opponent concedes). On this alone, the claims can be dismissed. There is no need to disprove the unproven. Atheists are justified in not believing that which has not been shown to exist with objective, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence.

Back to you, sir

Round 3

3 of 5

Mal

Pro #5

So an atheist has to back up his claim with evidence that no god of theism exists.

Is that correct and is that logical?

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

Con #6

Since a similar question has already been answered, my opponent is clearly attempting to shift the burden of proof onto all atheists. To be absolutely clear: the default position of atheism makes no truth claims. The rules of logic dictate two simple principles:

Claimants bear proof: Those who make an assertion carry the burden to prove it.
Non-claimants do not: Those who withhold belief carry no burden whatsoever.

Only a "strong" or "gnostic" atheist asserts that no god exists, and they alone bear the burden of proof for that claim. Because the general atheist position is simply a lack of belief, it carries no burden of proof. Thus atheism is not like theism in regards to its need for evidence.

Round 4

4 of 5

Mal

Pro #7

The opposite side is not answering the questions forfeiting the topic according to the stipulation.

So an atheist has to back up his claim with evidence that no god of theism exists or the claim that the gods of theism are unproven.

Is that correct and is that logical?

Yes or no.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

Con #8

Thank you, sir!

The questions Pro has posed have been answered multiple times: Anyone who makes a truth claim has a burden. My opponent hopes to force a forfeiture for not following his script, but that was never a stipulation.

My opponent ask a question similar to those previously asked but has added a phrase which changes the answer. The first part of the question has been addressed - if someone makes a truth claim, they have a burden. This is cut and dried.

The second part suggests pointing out a positive claim is unproven carries a burden. This is not correct or logical. Calling out a positive claim as unproven has no burden as it is simply highlighting insufficient evidence. It is a response to a positive claim, not a primary standalone claim. Pro himself has done as much when he stated,

The gods of theism haven't been disproven that I know of like they haven't been proven in scientific empirical terms that I know of.

Is Pro arguing he has a burden to prove the gods of theism haven't been proven? This is incoherent and absurd reasoning.

Back to you, Pro.

Round 5

5 of 5

Mal

Pro #9

"Is Pro arguing he has a burden to prove the gods of theism haven't been proven? "

No .

The opposite side still hasn't answered my question, about being logical.

Still hasn't said, atheists have the burden of proof upon making positive claims.

If I missed those specific words that the opposite side has said, that should of been highlighted. Otherwise I'm getting deflection.

If providing evidence is logical, something demanded from theists, it's just as logical as atheists providing evidence which is the topic title.

Just that simple. I don't know what the opposing side was fighting against this whole time.

Just logical fundamental, rudimentary, elementary logic principle here.

Due to the evasion, the opposite side has forfeited and has had no points to actually debunk my conclusion here.

Case closed.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

Con #10

Thank you, Mal!

"The opposite side still hasn't answered my question, about being logical."

"Still hasn't said, atheists have the burden of proof upon making positive claims."

Pro is attempting to force a forfeiture because I did not use his preferred phrasing. However, the rules require answering the question, not conceding to his framing. I answered directly: the burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim. I agree that if anyone, including an atheist, makes a positive claim, they bear a burden. However, my opponent has failed to show how being an atheist equates to being a claimant. The "atheist" part of the question is irrelevant to the answer.

Pro is committing a category error by tying the burden of proof to a person’s identity (atheist) rather than claims. Truth claims require proof; the absence of a claim does not. Identity is irrelevant to formal logic.

This understanding was established in round one with the only definition of atheist that has been supplied in this debate. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. Not believing in something is not a claim. Pro has not challenged this definition, and so it stands.

If providing evidence is logical, something demanded from theists, it's just as logical as atheists providing evidence which is the topic title.

It is unclear what claim my opponent thinks atheists make by default. Atheism is nothing more than a negative answer to a question regarding belief in gods. Again, this is not a claim. In fact, this is the opposite - it is withholding belief. This takes us back to Pro's twisted rationale in the previous round regarding calling out an unsubstantiated claim is somehow a claim. That is logically absurd. Pointing out insufficient evidence for a claim is not a standalone claim. It is a response. Because Pro completely ignores the distinction between making a claim and withholding belief, he has conceded the point. My argument stands completely unrefuted.

I would like to thank Mal for instigating this debate. It has been thoroughly enjoyable and civil exchange.

Kohai Administrator

#31

--> @SkepticalOne, @Mal, @Qudit.Machine15

>Reported Vote: Qudit.Machine15 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: other
>Reason for Mod Action:
See fauxlaw’s note

Kohai Administrator

#30

---Qudit.Machine15's former vote---
Voted for: con
The pro, at times, can be incoherent and needs to work on subject verb agreement. The con exhibited good use of logic and application. I found, at times, that it was difficult to ascertain the pro's position or reasoning.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#29

--> @Qudit.Machine15

As advised by private message, I have removed tyour vote on this debate due to lack of analysis of both participants relative arguments in support ofr, or denial of the Resolutiuon. please enter a new vote to include the merits of bother aerguments to support you vote conclusion.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#28

--> @Qudit.Machine15

Thanks for taking the time to vote!

SatanLucy

#27

--> @fauxlaw

I agree Mal should have included some definitions in description, because to be honest, this debate is about two people arguing two different topics. Different definitions = Different topic.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#26

--> @fauxlaw

Thanks for voting.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#25

The entirety of the comments is a sideline argument between Con [SkepticalOne] and SatanLucy on whether or not the debate is a misuse of positive [or negative] claims as evidence for the Pro and Con positions.
Part of the problem of the Debate Challenge is that it did not include any definitions or structure of the debate, which makes it still another open-season of arguments. Very sloppy.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#24

Meh.

SatanLucy

#23

"No one is saying that."

then you have no argument.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#22

"If you say "one should lack belief in God", then you are making a positive claim which needs proof."

No one is saying that.

"Saying "I lack belief in God" is not a claim which disproves "God exists", so it's irrelevant to debate."

"Lack of belief in gods" is not an ontological claim. "God exists" is an ontological claim. Pro contends both positions are identical. You and I disagree. 😉

SatanLucy

#21

--> @SkepticalOne

"Of course it doesn't—that is a category error on your part. 'God exists' is an ontological claim about reality, while a lack of belief is an epistemic state regarding one's own knowledge."

So it is irrelevant to debate. It's not a claim which can be defended or used in a debate.

If you say "one should lack belief in God", then you are making a positive claim which needs proof.

Otherwise, you got no claim at all.

Saying "I lack belief in God" is not a claim which disproves "God exists", so it's irrelevant to debate.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#20

"The only way to tear down some claim is to make a claim regarding it."

You're using 'claim' very loosely. The 'claim' that counters is not a standalone statement regarding the world. It is a response. These are not the same. One would not exist if it weren't for the other.

"Lack of belief in God does not contradict with "God exists",

Of course it doesn't—that is a category error on your part. 'God exists' is an ontological claim about reality, while a lack of belief is an epistemic state regarding one's own knowledge.

SatanLucy

#19

--> @SkepticalOne

"Atheism is a claim or not a true claim' is not a true dichotomy."

It is by result.

"There are innumerable debates where one person defends a proposition and another tries to tear it down"

The only way to tear down some claim is to make a claim regarding it.

Lack of belief in God does not contradict with "God exists", so it is not a valid counter to that position, as it is not even a claim, so it claims nothing on the issue

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#18

You could have said 'atheism is a claim or it is not a claim'. ('Atheism is a claim or not a true claim' is not a true dichotomy.)

Ive already agreed general atheism is not a claim. This does not in any way preclude it from logic or debate. There are innumerable debates where one person defends a proposition and another tries to tear it down. In these cases, only one side argues a claim.

SatanLucy

#17

--> @SkepticalOne

Its really a simple dichotomy. If atheism is a claim, it requires proof. If its not claim, then it cannot be true claim, and with that, it cannot even be a debating position, because there is no claim to argue for.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#16

Is this tautology meant to be relevant to something?

SatanLucy

#15

--> @SkepticalOne

If there is no claim, then there is no true claim.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#14

Also, substantive truth claims are not required for logic to be applicable.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#13

--> @SatanLucy

Agreed. Atheism isnt a claim (at least not by default) and does not require evidence.

SatanLucy

#12

--> @SkepticalOne

If you say atheism isnt a claim, then it cannot be logical with evidence. For logic, you need premises, which are claims.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#11

Hmmm, you bring up a point - maybe debates should have a proposition to set the scope of the arguments...oh, wait, they do! 🤣

In all sincerety, I appreciate your comments. They are bound to increase traffic here.

SatanLucy

#10

--> @SkepticalOne

Maybe, but you made bunch of positive claims in a debate, such as "lack of belief is the default position".

If you only sticked to asking questions, maybe you would avoid making a positive claim. this way, however, you made bunch of them,

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#9

--> @SatanLucy

That is a meta view and goes far beyond the scope of the proposition. The debate was about specific groups of people, none of which were explicitly the participants in the debate.

SatanLucy

#8

--> @SkepticalOne

Saying that "act of doubt" is not a claim is irrelevant when your position in a debate must be a claim.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#7

--> @SatanLucy

The act of doubt is not a claim.

Additionally, atheism isnt defined as an 'advocacy for the logical principle burden of proof'. The debate is about burdens atheists may or may not have because of the fact that they are atheists.

SatanLucy

#6

--> @SkepticalOne

Saying "doubt is the default position" is a positive claim.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#5

*Doubt

Doubt is the default position, and the exact opposite of a truth claim about the world.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#4

--> @SatanLucy

Boubt is not a positive claim.

SatanLucy

#3

--> @SkepticalOne

Those are all positive claims. Even a claim that something doesn't require positive claims, is a positive claim.

Tho Mal will explain it better.

SkepticalOne Global Moderator

#2

--> @SatanLucy

Atheism as defined in this debate is a skeptical position. Skepticism does not require positive claims. It is a the default position.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

#1

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Con won this debate going away. Each round [5 in total] built upon the last, with a conclusion that rocked the debate resolve in every way. That said, here is my justification;

Again, Pro failed in a number of ways.
First, the debate resolution [title] is poorly constructed, making attempts at logic that do not follow. He assumes that both sides [atheist and theist] make positive claims of their beliefs. No.

Second, he offers no definitions of terms in his challenge, and he wanders as a result. Atheist, theist, and evidence should have been clearly defined terms. Pro has been warned about this lack in other debates, and he continues to suffer by not making an offering of definitions. How hard is it to do so? Seemingly impossible for this Pro, but others are capable and do it [not all, unfortunately].

Third, he asks questions of the opponent instead of making proactive arguments and rebuttals to challenge the opponent.

re: #1, above: Pro's mistaken position that both theists and atheists must prove their position by evidence
is easily rebutted in each round by Con without Pro ever offering concrete evidence for the positive claims of theists that God exists. Pro wastes his R1 with an anecdotal story of one person [an atheist] who, predictably, does not make a positive claim regarding his proof that God does not exist. Anecdotal carries too much expectation to be evidence, yet the "argument" occupied 3/4 of Pro's entire R1 to no effect. Con crushed the argument by logic which Pro denied, but the logic is sound. Most atheists make no claims but disbelief in a god. That is not a statement of belief, let alone proof, and does not need to be. That is the fallacy of Pro's first error in the resolution. This argument is pressed by Pro in every round, and Con's response never wavers; No proof is needed when not making a positive claim.

That's enough, #'s 2 and 3 above are self-explanatory

Worse, Pro's mention of Con's forfeiture in at least two rounds is poor sportsmanship and petty. His R3 is a single statement he assumes is correct and logical. It is neither.