The true definition of Atheism, and burden of proofs - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The true definition of Atheism, and burden of proofs
in Philosophy

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 553 Pts
The true definition of Atheism

What I am actually going to do in this first bit of the discussion is not tell what I think is the true definition of Atheism. What I am going to do however is point out that I have noticed in some discussions involving Theism and Atheism some people somewhere along the line get stuck and start arguing about definitions.

Now, instead of trying to refute each other's idea of how something is or should be defined I think a much more pragmatic approach should be for both parties to come to an agreement on an idea about that "something" so it can continue to be explored.

So for example, if you are an Atheist defining Atheism as a lack of belief instead of the outright denying of the existence of God and a Theist claims your definition is flawed then invite the theist to accept or at least entertain this definition and then explore it. 


The burden of proofs
So in an argument about the existence of God does the burden of proof rest on the Theist or the Atheist? Now, if the Atheist in question is someone that claims there is no such thing as God then the burden of proof rests on both the Atheist and Theist as they are both making unfalsifiable, untestable claims.

If on the other hand, if the Atheist is someone that doesn't deny the existence of God but doesn't believe in God either because they see no good reason as of yet to do so, then the burden of proof will always be on the Theist who outright claims that God does exist. Without Belief does not equate to the denying of something or believing that something doesn't exist; without belief is simply that; without belief.

Also, after reflecting on this for a bit I've thought that if I myself was a theist I'd more comfortable debating someone that denies the existence of God as it gives me the opportunity to put the burden of proof on them first. You can't do this with someone that is simply without belief; it's like asking a silent person to prove something they never claimed. Hence, I also think this why some Theists that I've witnessed from my experience start resorting to having arguments about the definitions; it makes their position much easier to defend. 
AlexOlandZombieguy1987

The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 307 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

     Although I think that the definition of atheism is something definite (the definition is literally in the name itself), I pretty much agree with everything you say here.
    ZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 553 Pts

    Interestingly, "Atheism from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts)." - https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheist



    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 553 Pts
    edited July 7
    This is also rather interesting:

    Linguistic structure
    Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the "a-" prefix, meaning "without," hence "atheism" is therefore concisely characterized as "without theism."
    See also:  Lack of belief in gods (educational YouTube video; 10 minutes)

    https://www.defineatheism.com/



    AlexOland

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1934 Pts
    Here is a how I see it. There is a null hypothesis essentially stating that we know nothing about the world. So whenever someone makes a statement claiming some truth about the world, the burden of proof is on them, since by default we know no truths. When a theist claims that the god exists, it is up to them to prove that this is true.

    On the other hand, the atheist's claim that the god does not exist, the burden of proof is also on them to prove that this is the case. It is very hard, if not impossible, to prove that something does not exist in the Universe, but nonetheless one cannot claim it without a good evidence.

    But when someone claims that we have no knowledge of any gods, and it is reasonable to assume that, by default, gods do not exist - that is a position not requiring proof. The null hypothesis is that we know nothing about the world, and we know nothing about what exists - and, since the space of the entities that can in principle exist is infinite, assuming that anything can exist without proof is philosophically problematic.

    As such, I subscribe to the following set of rules:
    1) If you claim that something exists, prove it.
    2) If you claim that something does not exist, prove it.
    3) If you do not know if something exists and have nothing to go on, then assume that it does not.
    4) If you do not know if something exists, but have solid arguments in support of its existence, then assume the neutral position: "It may or may not exist".
    AlexOlandPlaffelvohfenethang5

  • As such, I subscribe to the following set of rules:

    3) If you do not know if something exists and have nothing to go on, then assume that it does not.
    4) If you do not know if something exists, but have solid arguments in support of its existence, then assume the neutral position: "It may or may not exist".
    You make a lot of good point in your post. However,  the only issue I have is with 3 and 4 but only a little bit of an issue haha. The thing is that I would say if you do not know if something exists or not then just accept that as is for the time being; make no assumptions or inferences about it until evidence comes to light enabling you to make inferences.

    The thing with 4 is that in order to have solid arguments you need to have a certain degree of solid evidence, and if this is the case then I would say that accept that there is a degree of probability that something does exist while at the same time there exists a degree of possibility that it may not exist. 
    MayCaesarethang5

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • I don't think you atheists ever make actual logical considerations.

    The problem with arguing God is simple.

    Anything that takes the position of God must either have always or nevernexisted which determines,

    1. That which has always existed is not subject to change 

    2. That which never existed is defined by two characteristics

    1.never

    And 

    2. Existed

    Since existence is a word that describes being, the influence that determines being must determine that existence is conditional only based on what exists.....therefore if something does not exist it does not have the potential to cause, itself....

    I can make the logical assessment but I'd like for someone to make the logical assessment so they understand God is nescesarry,

    Also the human form requires a source of form....
  • Jesus is God, I can prove that.

    However, since people intend for logical assessments to take place to understand or form understanding, I'll leave it up to someone to want absolute proof or logical discussion and then proof.
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 307 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

     I have no idea how that argument is supposed to prove god or how it is supposed to be a logical argument. Can you go step by step and explain your reasoning? 
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 307 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

     I have no idea how that argument is supposed to prove god or how it is supposed to be a logical argument. Can you go step by step and explain your reasoning? 
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

    You're making no sense yet again please try and formulate your arguments into something reasonably intelligible by using statements that make sense 
    ZeusAres42AlexOland
  • Apparently your dumb as rocks.

    It's not hard to understand your all morons if you can't make sense of something as staight forward as what was written.

    First and foremost I made a logical series of assessments but apparently morons are incapable of understanding so now I'm going to speak to you like a dumbass child.

    Logical statements

    1.when saying God doesn't exist
    2. Then what takes that place
    AlexOlandDee
  • This site was obviously made by a for bitchs, Debra deleted half my post. Oh well, I think I'm going to go eat and really not play with dumbass people.
    AlexOlandDee
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 307 Pts
    @jesusisGod777

     Thank you. You could not have made it more clear that you are not someone worth talking to. I appreciate you being like this at the start of our discussion so we know not to waste our time with you. 
  • DeeDee 742 Pts
    @ethang5

    You say .....
    1.when saying God doesn't exist
    2. Then what takes that place

    My reply ......A multicolored Unicorn?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch