Atheism vs. Theism

[Jim Lazarus]

A friend of mine, Jozak, has agreed to debate me on the broad subject of Non-Belief vs. Theism.

I've posted this thread as a set up to the actual debate, and hopefully he'll respond soon and we can discuss the specifics more in-depthly.

As for the debate parameters, I suggest:

Topic: Atheism vs. Theism: Which Is More Rational?
Rounds: 6
Maximum: 5,000 words, all posts.
Duration Between Statements: 9-10 days.
Quotations: Less than 50% of post.
Starting Date: Whenever is the most convenient for Jozak.

Statements will be made in turns, and I'd be willing to go first.

Looking forward to Jozak's response.

Thanks much.

- JL

[Jim Lazarus]

Because Jozak has informed me he's a bit rusty on atheistic apologetics, I've suggested a waiting period of a couple weeks before the debate starts.


To give him ample time to prepare, I suggest a starting date of August 7th. Three weeks should be enough time for him to prepare for this particular debate.


Perhaps when Jozak is available he can register on here and confirm this.


- JL

[Jozak]

Okay.......I'm up and ready to go.

[Jim Lazarus]

Cool deal dude :) .



Does August 7th sound good for you?



- JL

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi folks,

I'd like to summarize the parameters proposed so far, but feel free to suggest amendments. My comments are in red.

1) The topic of the debate:

Atheism vs. Theism: Which Is More Rational?

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

JLazarus for atheism and Jozak for theism.

3) The scope of the debate.

As you both no doubt know, the theism vs. atheism debate covers a wide area. You could keep things open ended and general if you'd like, but it might help to narrow things down a little. For instance, how will you define theism? Will it be a non-specific monotheism or something more specific like the evangelical Christian Biblical deity? Will the debate focus on philosophical arguments (e.g. design, first cause, religious experience, etc..) or would it get into other areas like creationism, history, paranormal claims, the Bible, etc...?

Also, would you both be using positive and negative arguments for your respective positions, or would one person present a positive argument while the other focuses on the attack?

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

6 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

????

6) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements.

9 or 10 days

(please choose a specific day)

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

Less than 50% of post.

9) The starting date of the debate:

August 7.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

(assumes standard format, unless otherwise mentioned)

[Jim Lazarus]

3) The scope of the debate.

As you both no doubt know, the theism vs. atheism debate covers a wide area. You could keep things open ended and general if you'd like, but it might help to narrow things down a little. For instance, how will you define theism? Will it be a non-specific monotheism or something more specific like the evangelical Christian Biblical deity? Will the debate focus on philosophical arguments (e.g. design, first cause, religious experience, etc..) or would it get into other areas like creationism, history, paranormal claims, the Bible, etc...?

Also, would you both be using positive and negative arguments for your respective positions, or would one person present a positive argument while the other focuses on the attack?

In this debate, I propose "god" to be defined as a being who is:

(A) Perfect
(B) Immutable
(C) Transcendent
(D) Immaterial
(E) Omniscient
(F) Omnipresent
(G) Personal
(I) All-Loving
(J) All-Just
(K) All-Merciful
(L) Creator Of The Universe

And theism to be a belief in at least one such being, atheism to be a lack of belief in such a being.

I will be using philosophical arguments. I invite Jozak to provide any positive evidence for the existence of a god that he should wish to - however, as atheism is not a position requiring acceptance of evolutionary theory - only a lack of belief in a deity, I feel that an argument over science would be unsuitable for this debate.

Arguments from history, the bible, or philosophy are invited. Classical or Modern Apologetical approaches.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

????

Concurrent opening statements, rebuttals and conclusions in turn (if this is possible)

7) The maximum duration between statements.

9 or 10 days

(please choose a specific day)

10 days.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

(assumes standard format, unless otherwise mentioned)

Right.


Of course, these are only my suggestions. Hopefully everything here will be suitable for Jozak. If not, I'm open to suggestions.

Thanx much.

- JL

[Jim Lazarus]

Ahh - I missed a couple.

I'd be more then willing to go first.

Also - I will not be arguing from a purely negative position. I will provide positive arguments for atheism as well as attempting refutations of Jozak's arguments.

Basically, the god-concept will be considered from the Abrahamic worldview, to put it in a much shorter way then I did above.

Hopefully that answers all questions?

- JL

[Jozak]

Auguest 7 sounds good.

By all means J-Laz, you go first, I haven't done this type of debating before, I am guessing for me it's going to be a "Learn as you go" kind of thing.

If you want to pick more specifics that's fine, like I said, I've never done this style of debating before, and religious debates I do usually involve me destroying Protestant doctrines :p , not weather proving god exists/more rational to believe in a higher power or not.

J-Laz email me if you need me to do anything....ill give u my AIM as well.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

By all means J-Laz, you go first, I haven't done this type of debating before, I am guessing for me it's going to be a "Learn as you go" kind of thing.

Hi Jozak,

You need not "learn as you go". :) To understand how the formal debates work, read FD Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85870) and check out past debates and debates currently in progress here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=75) for a frame of reference.

As for the parameters:


Concurrent opening statements, rebuttals and conclusions in turn (if this is possible)

We could do this if you like to. Just to make sure you know how concurrent statements work, keep in mind that the FDD forum is fully moderated. Posts need to be approved by a mod before they're visible to the forum. This is how we can let your opening statements appear visible simultaneously. So is how you'd like it? i.e. opening statements concurrent and the other 5 rounds in turns? JLazarus, would you prefer to go first when round 2 begins?

Jason

[Jim Lazarus]

We could do this if you like to. Just to make sure you know how concurrent statements work, keep in mind that the FDD forum is fully moderated. Posts need to be approved by a mod before they're visible to the forum. This is how we can let your opening statements appear visible simultaneously. So is how you'd like it? i.e. opening statements concurrent and the other 5 rounds in turns? JLazarus, would you prefer to go first when round 2 begins?

Jason

Surely. :)


J-Laz email me if you need me to do anything....ill give u my AIM as well.

Yeah man - AIM would be cool :cool: .


- JL

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Here are the parameters again. If you're both okay with all of the parameters and don't wish to propose any further amendments then we can make it official. :) (please confirm)


1) The topic of the debate:

Atheism vs. Theism: Which Is More Rational?

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

JLazarus for atheism and Jozak for theism.

3) The scope of the debate.

The debate will focus on arguments for and against theism, with theism defined by the following attributes: (1) perfect, (2) immutable, (3) transcendent, (4) immaterial, (5) omniscient, (6) omnipresent, (7) personal, (8) all-Loving, all-just, (9) all-merciful, (10) creator Of The universe. Basically, the monotheistic Abrahamic deity. The debate will look at philosophical arguments (classical and/or modern apologetical approaches), though arguments related to the Bible and history can used as well. Arguments from science will not be used. Both debaters can use positive and negative arguments to bolster their respective positions.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds:

6 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first:

Round 1: concurrent
Rounds 2-6: in turns, with JLazarus going first

6) The maximum length of each statement:

5000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements:

10 days

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

Up to 50% of the statement can use quotes.

9) The starting date of the debate:

August 7 (concurrent statements are due by Aug. 17)

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

Standard format

[Jim Lazarus]

Confirmed. :)


- JL

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Jozak, do you agree with all of the parameters?

Jason

[Jim Lazarus]

*2 weeks later*


Hmmmm. That's not very cool...


:banghead:

[Agnostic Theist]

Surely by defining God you have taken all the cards? Indeed, since theists generally believe that God is beyond logic (that is, monotheists, though you seem to have chosen to debate against a monotheistic God) you have serious advantage in both the topic of debate (which is more rational) and your definition of God.

I hope I don't sound hypocritical...having laready rushed into two debates - I would just really like to do one, and to be honest I sort of figured out that the topic I chose were no good after I thought about it.


I could try agnosticism, but what's going to happen there? We can't know God. Yes we can. How? Well, you could go to heaven. How do you know He'll be there? How do you know there is a heaven? Is God co-requisitive of an afterlife?

See, that's all I have and it doesn't amount to a debate! :down:

Apropos, pardon me for blathering on in your thread. I'll leave now.

Goodbye :wave:

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

*2 weeks later*


Hmmmm. That's not very cool...


:banghead:

You may want to send Jozak an email. If Jozak has lost interest, I'll leave this thread open if someone else may want to take up your gauntlet.

Jason

[Jim Lazarus]

Nightshade:


Yeah, I sent Jozak an e-mail notifying him of his need to provide final confirmation some time ago. Unfortunately he hasn't responded back.


:huh:


Unsure if someone else would like to take me up on this subject. I'll try to contact Jozak once more - if he does not respond back, or responds with a decline, I suppose I'll ask a friend or two if they are interested. If not, the proposal can be dropped.

- JL


Edit: JL, I merged your comment thread with this one to keep everything together - NS

[Agnostic Theist]

Since you have defined God, surely the topic of this debate should be

'Which is more rational - Belief in an omnimax monotheistic God or lack of belief in such a God?'

If you were arguing theism and atheism per se there would be no need to give such a tight definition of God.

[Jim Lazarus]

Agnostic: I only suggested that topic with that definition due to that being the common conception of "God" in Western and Middle Eastern thought.

[Agnostic Theist]

Very well, but if this debate does get underway I would like to point out that all-just is not compatible with all-merciful.

This thread reminds me of a statement by the Apostle Peter. To paraphrase

'One should not base belief in God on faith, for such beliefs that are so quick to come by may be lost just as quickly. It is by reason that we find the Lord, for all truth is based on reason'

I'm sure it would have made an excellent contribution to your debate - had he bothered to support or at least elaborate upon his assertion.

Anyway, good luck finding an opponent. I would like to take up the challenge but I see no place for the theist to claim reason over the atheist. Perhaps your friend realised this as well?

[Jim Lazarus]

Heh - funny you caught the justice vs. mercy incompabitibility. It was something I was going to use.


Doubtful this debate gets underway, but who knows.

[Agnostic Theist]

Heh - funny you caught the justice vs. mercy incompabitibility. It was something I was going to use.


Doubtful this debate gets underway, but who knows.

To be honest I only realised it this year.

Some bloke in front of me in a lecture was having a discussion with a mate. I caught the words

'God cannot be all merciful and all just'

I quietly tried to work out how He could be, then realised the contradiction.


Since so many theists base their position on faith nowadays, it seems Devil's Advocacy is the only chance any opponent of yours will have. Even then they need to reason.

You could, of course, turn your debate into a discussion and explain why atheism is more rational than theism.