Should the rational position to take on God be "Case dismissed" ? - 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!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Should the rational position to take on God be "Case dismissed" ?

Debate Information

1. When a claim is made, such as "God exists", it's rational to ask for evidence.
2. Although a lot of evidence is claimed, there is no evidence other than anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable.
3. Since the claim that "God exists" cannot be verified, a rational person should dismiss the case.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat
    There is and never has been one single piece of evidence to support the notion that God exists therefore a claim made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
    Anybody who fervently believes that there is a God is deluded.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Blastcat
    There is and never has been one single piece of evidence to support the notion that God exists therefore a claim made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
    Anybody who fervently believes that there is a God is deluded.

    I find that the word deluded has medical connotations that i'm not qualified to diagnose. I prefer the word "mistaken". We all make mistakes. I say that mistake is easier to accept than deluded.

    Words matter.
  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 149 Pts   -  
    I think Christopher Hitchens got it right when he said, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
    Blastcat

  • There is and never has been one single piece of evidence to support the notion that God exists therefore a claim made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
    It is not called GOD by those who establish its authenticity and you Swolliw have not established numerical axioms are not to be found, algebra is not to be found. Evidence is there you are not arguing the evidence presented by all representation. The term is cherry-picking Do you know how to read a numerical axiom? Can you identify a numerical axiom if you see one?
    "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
    You think he had it right?
    Blastcat
  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 149 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: You think he had it right?

    As far as producing evidence for the biblical god, yes, he had it right.@John_C_87
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 127 Pts   -  
    Valid argumentation but I disagree with Premise 2. Particularly, because anecdotal evidence is not the primary intellectual component of comprehensive evidence for God. Premise 2 makes the false presupposition that besides anecdotal evidence, there is no other authentication for the existence of God but this is wholly false. Do you truly believe that we have convinced mankind of God's existence through only telling them of our religious experiences? That's not necessarily true, even though the past was devoid of literacy, it was not devoid of rationality. Premise 2 also makes the implication that evidence needs to claim scientific credentials, and actually be "scientific" for it have any truth-value. This is debatable, and this view is clearly influenced by logical positivism Nonetheless, I would argue that a priori evidence are just as valid as a posteriori evidence, but that's for another discussion. 
  • @JoeKerr
    No. The location of evidence of a numerical axiom is available, we can even find evidence of mathematics in the scope of timeframes throughout human history. GOD does not belong to the Bible nor has anyone ever proven it has been limited to the Bible. It is by records and effort a numerical axiom documented within the pages of history continues into the Holy Bible. The numerical axiom does not take away from the principle of what is defined by mankind's use of words. 

    Christopher Hitchens May have not been given instruction on the common defense to the general welfare of a nation under principle. People can have evidence removed from a court proceeding for many reasons and that does not mean the evidence was not able to be found.

  • @Blastcat
    The point here is the Bible warns of a false GOD as well as a GOD which is not false. To have faith that someone is assigned the goal to locate the answer they seek is not a crime.
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited September 14
    @Blastcat


    I find that the word deluded has medical connotations that i'm not qualified to diagnose. I prefer the word "mistaken"

    That word doesn’t fit 

    . We all make mistakes. I say that mistake is easier to accept than deluded.

    Words matter.

    Words do matter which is why deluded is a perfectly correct term to use to describe a believer, those who believe in a god come claims are faith based ,  faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence

    A believer thinks the have a relationship with a supernatural entity that they cannot , hear , see or touch yet someone exists , this entity communicates with them and influences their lives this despite being contradicted by rational argument and reality , that simply put is a symptom of mental disorder a delusion 
    JoeKerrKhasimAmedu
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 286 Pts   -   edited September 14
    @KhasimAmedu

    You bring up a great argument, but I disagree with your opinion on #2.

    It's like UFO accounts, those who say they were abducted have no way of proving that they were abducted. It's the same with religious accounts, people have no way of proving that they had a religious experience. The case would HAVE to be "Case dismissed for lack of evidence." Who knows? Maybe a God created evolution, you have no way to prove otherwise. Maybe there isn't a heaven or hell, you have no way to prove otherwise.
    Blastcat
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 127 Pts   -  
    @Luigi7255

    I don't think we have any disagreement here. I strongly stand against the notion of using religious accounts and experiences as "evidence" for God's existence. It's not established, unpersuasive and lacks any logic depth. Rather using philosophical arguments rich in rationale and reason is our best bet so far. 
    Blastcat
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 286 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu

    Oh, I'm sorry for that. I'm glad you told me.
    Blastcat
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 14

    Rather using philosophical arguments rich in rationale and reason is our best bet so far.

    Your best can only convince the already convinced and those who aren't armed with critical thinking.
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 127 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    That's not true. You may be speaking from your experience, but philosophical arguments for God's existence have always been met with criticism. We address those criticisms, and some accept our conclusions. Arguments aren't supposed to compel us to accept them but merely appeal to them. 
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 14
    @Blastcat

    That's not true. You may be speaking from your experience, but philosophical arguments for God's existence have always been met with criticism. We address those criticisms, and some accept our conclusions. Arguments aren't supposed to compel us to accept them but merely appeal to them. 

    I've been studying arguments for the existence of god for about 20 years. You might surprise me. From what I've seen, most are anecdotal, as in " I feel or talk to God" , "I've witnessed a miracle" and so on. The more philosophical arguments are mostly all begging the question and those cannot convince because they are logically invalid.

    A logically invalid argument is like a Maserati with no wheels.. beautiful car, but it doesn't work, !

    It would greatly surprise me if you offered an argument that I have not heard before. There aren't that many.

    All of the arguments that I know of are basically circular, which means invalid. Those that are valid are unsound, and therefore, total failures. You must believe that at least ONE of these logical arguments are sound.. or you would not be a theist.

    They convince you but.. as I said earlier, you are already convinced and have to be careful not to fall for confirmation bias. If anyone has a bias, a true god believer has a bias, after all.

    And of course, those arguments might be convincing to those who aren't aware of critical thinking.. they might not be able to notice the circularity or that the premises are made up.
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 127 Pts   -  
    I could discuss a few arguments with you. I think it's impressive you've done this for 20 years.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 178 Pts   -   edited September 14
    I could discuss a few arguments with you. I think it's impressive you've done this for 20 years.
    9/11 really woke me up.
    I was already an atheist but the question never came up until then. The love for Allah really seemed to me messed up. How could people who follow a religion of peace turn into terrorists?

    Then, I slowly started to watch debates on Youtube and was hooked.
    I had to learn a lot of philosophy and science just to understand.

    I have had very few debates with Muslims because all I ever got was so frustrating. The argument from personal incredulity mostly "I can't believe they knew about that way back then therefore, God" kind of argument, mostly.

    Muslims also really seem to love the Kalam.. I don't blame them. They invented it. Id be happy to engage you in your best argument. I really do believe that you are mistaken. And I know that is a very hard pill to swallow for a true believer.

    I would talk about the quality of the reasoning and point out the logical fallacies. I've had to study those. I promote compassion and critical thinking, so I have to know what those are.

    If I inadvertently offend you, I will immediately apologize.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat
    I find that the word deluded has medical connotations that i'm not qualified to diagnose. 

    The word "deluded" may have such connotations however if we look at the definition:

    delusion 
     [dĕ-loo´zhun] a false belief that is firmly maintained in spite of incontrovertible and obvious proof to the contrary and in spite of the fact that other members of the culture do not share the belief.

    Delusion, med. jurisp. A diseased state of the mind, in which persons believe things to exist, which exist only, or in the degree they are conceived of only in their own imaginations, with a persuasion so fixed and firm, that neither evidence nor argument can convince them to the contrary.

    delusion di′lüzh·ən]  (psychology) A conviction based on faulty perceptions, feelings, and thinking.

    delusion is a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information (Wikipedia)

    There are variances in definitions, however you can get a fairly accurate picture of what constitutes delusion without necessarily psycho-analyzing, which is why I stand by my assertion that anybody who firmly believes in God or any other supernatural phenomenon, is deluded.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch