Atheists vs. Agnostics: Ready... FIGHT!

[Angry Citizen]

I contend that any personal decision on an issue is invalid unless it starts with atheism (taken to be defined as lack of belief in anything). Atheism is the logical first step towards discerning truth. Healthy skepticism forces the claimant to provide proof, where one might otherwise be content with subjective experience. Thus, for any issue, atheism is the beginning.

I further contend that the issue of whether God (or gods) exist(s) should also be started from a position of atheism, and that it should end with atheism (now taken to be defined as lack of belief in God -- its original meaning). The claimants -- theists -- have provided nominal, inconsistent 'proof' of their notion. Logic compels us to reject it outright. Agnosticism in this case implies that the claimants have cast reasonable doubt on our skepticism, forcing us to investigate further. They have not. Therefore, anyone who is not an atheist is illogical.

Discuss.

[DavidSupreme]

There is no evidence for any gods, therefore holding "agnosticism" makes no sense as this would need to be applied for everything such as Dragons, TeaPots in space ad infinitum.

Therefore Atheism is the only logical conclusion until evidence is presented, just as you where born.

[ensayne]

I contend that any personal decision on an issue is invalid unless it starts with atheism (taken to be defined as lack of belief in anything). Atheism is the logical first step towards discerning truth. Healthy skepticism forces the claimant to provide proof, where one might otherwise be content with subjective experience. Thus, for any issue, atheism is the beginning.

I further contend that the issue of whether God (or gods) exist(s) should also be started from a position of atheism, and that it should end with atheism (now taken to be defined as lack of belief in God -- its original meaning). The claimants -- theists -- have provided nominal, inconsistent 'proof' of their notion. Logic compels us to reject it outright. Agnosticism in this case implies that the claimants have cast reasonable doubt on our skepticism, forcing us to investigate further. They have not. Therefore, anyone who is not an atheist is illogical.

Discuss.

Allow me to be the "devil's advocate." A lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. Therefore, one cannot state that the lack of evidence for God is evidence that God does not exist. Now assume that God is supernatural as theists contend. IF this is true, then natural science cannot prove his existence or disprove his existence. Right? If this is false, it is impossible to prove a negative. So in both cases, science cannot be used as a measure for supporting or disproving God's existence. Now what if the claimant is the atheist?

[Angry Citizen]

A lack of evidence is not evidence in itself. Therefore, one cannot state that the lack of evidence for God is evidence that God does not exist.

Actually, every logical convention in existence states that lack of evidence is evidence in itself. In every issue, every person should start from a position of atheism -- in other words, skepticism. The claimant must overcome that skepticism with evidence. For the purposes of logic, whether some mythical critter manages to exist without proof is beside the point; the point is evidence and counterevidence, or logic and counterlogic. Since God defies both, he intrinsically cannot exist for the purposes of rationality.

Now assume that God is supernatural as theists contend.

Thus far, there is nothing in existence that can be labelled supernatural. Thus, the supernatural can also be ruled out.

IF this is true, then natural science cannot prove his existence or disprove his existence.

Improper logic. Natural science cannot develop a theory of gravity without first observing gravity in existence. We are currently discussing an idea for which there is no evidence whatsoever. We might as well be discussing a mythical fifth fundamental force that is responsible for the emission of a brand new particle. I'm sure the physicists in the audience would go nuts at the prospect, but I'm afraid it's not appropriate to consider the existence of something for which there is no evidence -- only that an intellectual concept has developed.

If this is false, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Logical conventions state that we approach all issues from a point of negativity. It is up to the claimant to prove a positive; the negative is otherwise assumed.

Now what if the claimant is the atheist?

Improper logic. Atheism is not the belief that gods cannot exist; merely that, based on available evidence, they do not exist.

[Ender]

True reason has no opinion without evidence. There's no way to circumvent this. There is no such thing as disbelief where scientific thought is emphasized. Merely a lack of opinion in matters not proved and a disinterest where no proof exists. A person who values pure logic would not declare they were an atheist, anymore than they would declare Bigfoot was not real or the Big Bang Theory for that matter. The position with the most strength is the position based solely on the presence of undeniable evidence and that emphasizes neutrality or disinterest where there is no evidence.

Of course, I've never encountered anyone who actually follows this. We all views formed without evidence, regardless of our position on God. I'm not sure we are capable of pure agnosticism. But regardless, that's the position a person who values evidence alone has to take.

[NoJingoLingo]

I contend that any personal decision on an issue is invalid unless it starts with atheism (taken to be defined as lack of belief in anything). Atheism is the logical first step towards discerning truth. Healthy skepticism forces the claimant to provide proof, where one might otherwise be content with subjective experience. Thus, for any issue, atheism is the beginning.

I further contend that the issue of whether God (or gods) exist(s) should also be started from a position of atheism, and that it should end with atheism (now taken to be defined as lack of belief in God -- its original meaning). The claimants -- theists -- have provided nominal, inconsistent 'proof' of their notion. Logic compels us to reject it outright. Agnosticism in this case implies that the claimants have cast reasonable doubt on our skepticism, forcing us to investigate further. They have not. Therefore, anyone who is not an atheist is illogical.

Discuss.

You're correct, what else is there to discuss?

[NoJingoLingo]

True reason has no opinion without evidence. There's no way to circumvent this. There is no such thing as disbelief where scientific thought is emphasized. Merely a lack of opinion in matters not proved and a disinterest where no proof exists. A person who values pure logic would not declare they were an atheist, anymore than they would declare Bigfoot was not real or the Big Bang Theory for that matter. The position with the most strength is the position based solely on the presence of undeniable evidence and that emphasizes neutrality or disinterest where there is no evidence.

Of course, I've never encountered anyone who actually follows this. We all views formed without evidence, regardless of our position on God. I'm not sure we are capable of pure agnosticism. But regardless, that's the position a person who values evidence alone has to take.

Theism does exist. You fail this portion of the test.

[Sonart]

.

it starts with atheism (taken to be defined as lack of belief in anything).

Meaning what? Atheists literally don't believe in anything???

I mean, to quote Crash Davis, "I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."

Not to mention that I believe in evolution. I believe in the laws of physics and nature. Or did you simply mean atheists don't believe in gods?

Allow me to be the "devil's advocate." A lack of evidence is not evidence in itself.

Sure it is. It's not necessarily 'proof', but it sure as hell can be 'evidence'.

.

[Philip Lu]

Even if there is God, since God has no present power, it is useless to worry about whether there is or isn't a God. Therefore, I just assume there is no God and live my life.

[Ender]

Theism does exist. You fail this portion of the test.

Indeed. I'm not a person who values pure reason.

[DavidSupreme]

Not to mention that I believe in evolution. I believe in the laws of physics and nature. Or did you simply mean atheists don't believe in gods?

I do not believe in any of that.
I accept that Evolution is a Fact because of the evidence showing us just that. I accept the existence of nature as I live in it (the world) and I accept the laws of physics, even if I do not understand all of them very well.

No belief necessary.

[Ender]

A number of the current speculations being debated in field of physics are not scientifically verifiable at this time. Belief certainly comes into play.