Atheists are Deep Believers

Thanks to Pro for this debate. [Responses] I agree that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. I disagree that someone can't believe something is both true and false - the human mind can contain extremely weird systems of belief. None of this disproves the definition of atheist as 'someone who lacks a belief is God' 'the stator is not certain about what He denies and what He believes. One having this stand can't be an Atheist, but an Agnostic' This is not true. Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence is not or cannot be known. This is not exclusive with weak atheism - a weak atheist is also a type of agnostic, but the two are distinct nonetheless. [1] [2] Pro claims I am going off the topic of discussion by bringing up aspects of God - not at all. By bringing up some of the many arguments atheists use in support of their position, I am showing that atheists do not simply take the non-existence of God on faith. This disproves Pro's side of the debate, so is very relevant. Pro brings up no real response to the argument from unbelief, simply pointing out that the number of atheists in the world is relatively small (though it drastically increases if you include atheistic religions like Buddhism). But this completely misses the point - if Christianity is true, everyone who does not believe in the Christian God is headed for hell. Unbelievers include not only atheists, but everyone who is not a Christian -the majority of the world, in other words. This objection doesn't even come close to hitting the mark. 'Your understanding is just your knowledge of the absolute, resultant of your perception' Of course, this is true. Things exist or not regardless of whether we believe or know about them. But that doesn't mean we can't infer the existence or non-existence of things based on out understanding of the universe. Pro appears to confuse whether we can deduce whether or not something exists, with whether or not our belief has an impact on its existence. The two are not the same. 'Con has mistaken here. What are referred here are mere arguments, NOT EVIDENCES.' Evidence is something used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion [3]. In the case of the Argument from evil, the evidence is the vast amounts of suffering and pain in the world. In the argument from unbelief, it is the vast amounts of unbelief in the world. These arguments for atheism draw their conclusion from evidence in favour of atheism. Pro is simply incorrect when he states that there is no evidence for atheism -many theists would agree with me. 'Arguments are done to support once stand, which one has already chosen to stick to, by Faith' This stance would destroy everything we have achieved in the last few centuries. We have learned more about the world in the last fifty years than the last one hundred thousand years. People who objectively weigh the facts before coming to a conclusion do not fit into Pro's assertion - it is absurd and contrary to a great many atheists, for instance who were once believers but decided they could not reconcile aspects of the world with the God they believed in. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...