Atheism references no authority, you are making that up. Atheism IS a lack of belief, and thats all it is. Whatever else an atheist might believe about religion or authority is irrelevant, what makes them an atheist is simply a lack of belief in god or gods.

1) the atheist has no such burden, they are not asserting anything. They simply lack a belief, lacking a belief is not an assertion.

2) the theist certainly cannot, but again the atheist has no such requirement. The atheist isnt asserting anything.

3) it collapses only because you redefined atheism specifically so it would collapse.

@tim wood Humans living forever. Clue is in the words.

Atheism references no authority, you are making that up — DingoJones

Please introduce us to the atheist who comes to their position without reference to human reason.

living forever. Clue is in the words — Trinidad

Forever? Really? Forever? You want to assert in some sense that humans live forever and claim that lacking proof they don't, they do? That amounts to saying that in the present and immediate absence of proofs, whatever is asserted must be true. Is that your argument?

Reason has its own "authority" and of such authority that is not generally referred to as an authority. Yours then a mild but either vicious or ignorant fallacy of ambiguous usage.

Assuming I came to the debate not knowing whether to vote for Atheism or Theism and today is election day, who do I vote for based upon the respective positions submitted by our candidates? — Hanover

I don't think it's really gotten off the ground yet.

It's not clear what it means to have a "logical position."

If I believe the sun is bright, is that a logical position to hold? Do I need to produce a logical proof first?

Or is it that my opponent needs to show that it isn't logical to defeat me?

Grrr!

After a long stretch of rain, the weather is now finally suitable for gardening, so I barely have any time left. I haven't even turned on the computer for 11 days!

I so want to have a say in that debate!!!!

With that, to the Atheist I say: Can we learn from the belief systems of a Helen Keller?

No, she didn't work for a living (a crucial aspect of a person's life), her position is irrelevant to those who have to work for a living.

@tim wood Not everything requires proof,unless you deify logic. I eat to satisfy hunger. Any proof required?

I haven't even turned on the computer for 11 days! — baker

WOO HOO!!! Eleven days. Wow, I haven't managed that since, um, 1994. Seriously. Thank you for reminding us it's still possible to have a life. :-)

I do agree that part of the debate may depend on what is logical. I have read some of the ideas of Strawson, and I do believe that they are useful for thinking about logic. However, our ways of viewing life are so intricately bound up with reason and logic. Of course, it is possible to come up with dictionary definitions of terms, especially logic, theism and atheism, but these are meanings used in daily discourse, rather than in fuller philosophy analysis.

Therefore, I think that the debate will be interesting, but both positions of 'logic' are likely to be open to question. It is an interesting area for debate, but I am inclined to think that rather than being a matter of rigorous debate, it is so much more, it is not about concepts as such, but about how we contemplate the world and reality. It may be that there are no right or wrong answers ultimately. However, the battle between theism and atheism is such an interesting philosophy debate, and is central to how most people begin to think about so many other philosophy questions and issues.

Provable and requiring proof are related but different conditions. I asked you a question. Do you intend to answer it?

Reason is not an authority, it is a tool one uses when one wants to make sense.
Regardless, how one comes to be an atheist isnt definitive of atheism. Atheists can be atheists through bad reasoning, its not a position on reasoning it is a position in belief in god.

I think the debate could have started better if each poster had a pre-prepared opening statement to explain their respective positions. 3017amen did this but 180 Proof didn't.

Atheism IS a lack of belief, and thats all it is. — DingoJones

People use the terms in different ways. Some refer to it as the lack of belief that there is a God or gods (weak atheism) and some refer to it as the belief that there is no God or gods (strong atheism).

Rather than get lost in arguing over the correct meaning of "atheism" it would be best for any self-proclaimed atheist to clarify whether they simply lack a belief in a god's existence or if they believe that no god exists (or whatever other alternatives there are).

@tim wood The answer is in my posts above. I'm not here to spoonfeed you or Q&A every thought that enters your mind.

Reason is not an authority, it is a tool one uses when one wants to make sense. — DingoJones

Ok, a tool if you prefer, and the atheist belief is that this tool can generate meaningful statements on the subject of gods.

In the same way, the theist believes that holy books, or perhaps their personal experience, are tools which can generate meaningful statements on the subject of god.

Competing claims. None of which can be proven.

The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. They take reason's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.

Sincere.

But unsophisticated.

Ok, a tool if you prefer, and the atheist belief is that this tool can generate meaningful statements on the subject of gods.

In the same way, the theist believes that holy books, or perhaps their personal experience, are tools which can generate meaningful statements on the subject of god.

Competing claims. None of which can be proven. — Foghorn

If a person is using books and personal experiences to draw conclusions they are still using reason to do that. You made a false equivalence here, to draw an actual equivalence would be for the theist to use faith as their tool. As I started this side bar off with: faith is a garbage tool.
In any case, I’m not making a claim about atheism or theism generating meaningful statements.

The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. They take reason's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications. — Foghorn

Nobody has faith in reason. People have very repeatable patterns of reliability that prove its efficacy. It is the foundation of all of science and knowledge. It is as “proven” a thing as here is. Zero faith needed.
This is another false equivalency, where you have used “faith” in two different ways so that it appears faith is common to both theism and atheism. “Faith” is used in everyday speech to talk about reasonable confidence in something. People say they have faith in spouses, faith public transit system etc. “Faith” is also used as a basis for believing in something as when the theist is asked why they believe in god and they answer “faith”. It is given as a reason, which I’ve argued it is not.
This is an important distinction and let me make it clear that it is the latter usage that I am using and it is the latter usage that negates the point you make in the quoted portion.

So from my perspective my initial point stands, but please point out where ive failed to address a rebuttal you made if thats the case.

So what do atheists and theists think of Intuition or immediate knowledge?

The question was substantive. Your refusal to answer the droppings of the ignorant troll.

The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. — Foghorn

No doubt some people fall into this category - maybe. But that is not atheism. This way: an atheist declines to accept on faith that which requires direct evidence to affirm. Which says zero about belief, but is towards those who would press their beliefs onto others as matter of fact.

@tim wood Very logical.

Shit, he finally agreed to the debate he's always demanded? This is my new box set.

The primary problem atheists typically have is that their faith in reason (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is faith. They take reason's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications. — Foghorn

The primary problem theists typically have is that their reason in faith (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is reason. They take faith's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.

Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power.

The problem in the theism-atheism debate is that both sides assume about themselves and about eachother that their respective positions have been arrived at by a process of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices". But neither has done that. What is more, the cradle atheist has no comparable experience of what that is like, to be told religious claims by one's parents (or other caretakers). The cradle atheist has no sense of the cognitive impact of learning religious teachings from a trusted person at an age before one's faculties of critical thinking have developed. While the cradle theist has no sense what it is like to be without such learning.

This is why a moderator is necessary. To keep those two things from derailing the discussion like every other time. Without one we are into the same old shit as before. — DingoJones

I predict no derailment. It would be a miracle (ha!) if the train ever leaves the station.

Quite so, it is a conclusion based on evidence, and having been concluded, by most folks is set aside. — tim wood

I disagree. Weak atheism requires no consideration at all, and strong atheism is a rejection of the proposition 'God exists' for want of evidence. You cannot have evidence that God does not exist.

Do you know the phrase, "The curious incident of the dog in the night-time"? Sometimes a lack of evidence is evidence.

Ummm I've read the book? And seen a very good stage adaptation. Anyhoo, a quote, as Freud famously said, is sometimes just a quote. :|

180's opening shouldn't have been diverted by a weak opening by 3017, but should have just made out his case as if he had gone first. — Hanover

The starting point of any inquiry is that everything (and its negation) might be logically possible. Then someone or another shows some reason or another why something is not possible, and so its negation is necessary. The question at hand is about whether or not atheism is logically possible, not whether it is definitely true. 180’s position is, of course, “I don’t see any reason why not”, because if he did see any reason why not then he wouldn’t hold that position. So everything really rests on 3017 offering some supposed reason why not, the merits of which can then be debated.

180 probably also has some reasons why theism isn’t possible, but that’s not the subject of this debate.

You cannot have evidence that God does not exist. — Kenosha Kid

Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."

I suppose by "prove" you mean the formal sense, rather than just convincing someone? That does seem like an impossible bar to meet.

I mean, you can't prove the material world exists, however I feel plenty of solid arguments can be made to convince someone it does. Maybe that's what should be aimed for.