Argufight
cberguno wins(2–1)
178
158
Round 1
cbergunoFOR
Atheism requires not believing a creator. In other words you are to believe that the universe came from nothing and life came from non-life. Illogical at face value a non of its positions are defensible (including abiogenesis). Their standard answer is that “the honest answer is that we don’t know what created the universe nor how the first cell assembled from non living matter but at some point science rust should figure this is out…and btw, we are the smart ones”….really?
Optimist_OraAGAINST
I don't think it's fair to say atheism holds no water. To me, it just means someone isn't convinced a god exists, and that seems like a reasonable position to hold. My opponent probably sees it differently, but I can't really argue it better than that.
Round 2
cbergunoFOR
That’s the best you have? “It seams reasonable not to believe in God”. In other words “we just don’t know how the universe nor ourselves (humans) came about…”. The problem with this position is that it doesn’t propose any evidence for the claim that God does not exist. In other words making that acertion would require to present an argument in regards to the explanation of the existence of the universe and humans and atheist simply don’t do so. Or when they do (ex. Abiogenesis) their argument / theory / evidence do not hold water…
Optimist_OraAGAINST
I think my opponent gets atheism wrong by turning it into a claim that everything came from nothing. For a lot of people it's just not being convinced, which isn't the same as explaining the universe. Their point about not knowing how life started is fair, but that still doesn't make atheism collapse.
Round 3
cbergunoFOR
I think my opponent is confusing “atheism” with “agnosticism”. I believe it is vital to clarify the terminology. If not, my opponent will continue to argue (or hide) from a complete misplaced ideology…
Optimist_OraAGAINST
Isn't it possible to just lack belief without claiming to know how everything began? My opponent makes a fair point about unexplained origins, and I admit I can't answer that. But that still doesn't make atheism hold no water for me.
Round 4
Optimist_OraAGAINST
I think my opponent gets wrong that atheism has to be a positive claim. You can just not be convinced and still be atheist. Their agnostic point is fair, but I don't see why that makes atheism hold no water.
Round 5
cbergunoFOR
And again, dodging the bullet. An atheist by definition does not believe that a creator created the universe nor humanity was created which follows the belief that we were not created by intent (a mind). The problem with this position is that can’t explain why is their something rather than nothing, the fine tuning of the universe and the 70+ years of trying to come up with a monomer in a lab without activators but believe it is completely “rational” to not have to invoke a creator. What is rational about it and where is the evidence? What you will hear next will simply be “well, we just don’t know…that’s the honest answer”. That is exactly like a hand saying I am sure we will be able to prove that a net will hold a gallon of water. Just give it enough time and it will all make sense”. So their argument is from ignorance and invites the intelectual mind to just be fine with parking itself and wait long enough so we can see that fish crawl (or flap) out of the water and develop lungs…
Optimist_OraAGAINST
I think my opponent gets wrong that not being convinced needs a full explanation of the universe. You can just lack belief. Their origins question is fair, and I admit I can't answer it, but that still doesn't make atheism hold no water.