Atheism is based on ignorance

Hello again.I find a few of my opponent's arguments confusing or off-topic, so I may not be able to refute those points to their fullest, as you can't refute something you don't get.REBUTTAL"The debate is focused on whether or not it is based on ignorance, so you cannot shift the burden of proof. you commit the fallacy of argument from ignorance in which you take the position that it's false simply because you lack knowledge of it being true."No. I am not trying to "shift" the burden of proof, I am showing you where it already is and responding to your claims that we don't have any evidence to prove that god doesn't exist. Atheists do not commit the argument from ignorance fallacy for this very reason, as we do not claim that we know for sure god does not exist. Nobody is saying this. Atheists hold the position that there has been no evidence presented to convince them of the existence of a god, so we live our lives as if one does not exist. To make this a bit easier to understand, describe your position on unicorns. Can you say for sure they don't exist? No? Then why don't you believe in unicorns' existence? This is our position, which inherently gives Christians the burden of proof because they must give us evidence to prove that their god exists. It is impossible to give evidence that god does not exist; that's like me asking you to give evidence that unicorns don't exist."My first link shows how science is confirming the Bible. Your claim that science does not back up the Bible is wrong. "I have a couple issues with this. 1. You probably should have clarified that that source went with that statement by putting a citation next to it, otherwise people won't know what sources go with what statements. 2. You use clarifyingchristianity.com, which is biased and from as old as 1998 and uses sources from 1995. 3. Every single example shows that the Bible is consistent with science, not that science proves the Bible. Just because people knew that there were a lot of stars does not mean that they were ultra scientists. 4. This page continually resorts to semantics and fuzzy interpretations to prove itself. For example, to show that the Bible knew that there were a great many stars in the heaven, it quotes, "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me". In my book, the host of heaven is not stars, but space, wouldn't you agree? "I agree, however you fail to include all beliefs such as these regardless of whether not they're religious. the Bible teaches against what groups like the Westboro Baptist preach, so bringing that up isn't relevant. "Uh, no. The Westboro Baptist church follows the Bible better than you. You can't deny that they're getting their morality from scripture, which shows that this book can be interpreted in a way which gives people obviously incorrect moral codes. If god really wrote this, why would he be so mystical about it and leave things up for interpretation? Is it because he works in mysterious ways?"You seem to accuse the Bible of supporting the death of gays and sacrifices of babies when 1.Jesus became the atonement for mankind's sins, thus abolishing the biblical death penalty 2.God punishes evil doers so that they'd turn from sin and repent (Ezk. 18:23) 3.you brought no evidence to support that God supports killing babies. These are typical tactics done by Bible critics without fully examining the context. "You say that no more killing must occur because Jesus died for our sins, but if this is so, then why must people go to hell for their sins? I'd say going to hell is worse than being murdered, wouldn't you? Does not god kill all the firstborn in Egypt in Exodus 12? Does not god kill 42 children for calling a prophet a baldhead in 2 Kings 2:23-24? Or are my semantics just all wrong?"My opponent commits the fallacy of chronological snobbery. It's common for people to claim that the Bible has morals which are obsolete, but I will give evidence for why this is completely false."Ooh, chronological snobbery. I must say that I'm impressed you knew about this, but you're using it wrong. It is not chronological snobbery to say that people knew less about how the world worked the further back you go in history, it's a fact. The more time we as a human race have been around, the more things we learn and the more we develop. That's why you don't see any people with iron tools before the stone age. Your examples of good morality in the Bible are correct, the Bible does support these things. However this does not prove that the whole of the Bible is moral, rather that if one cherry-picks their morality from the Bible they can come to be a good person, as I'm sure your have done. You choose not to put homosexuals to death (Leviticus 20;27) and to wear mixed fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11) because you're only following the moral parts of the Bible you agree with, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, to use that as a basis to say that the whole Bible is morally good is incorrect.I think your next point about SAB being wrong exemplifies my point about being able to use semantical arguments or different meanings or "god works in mysterious ways" to brush off many contradictions and interpretations you don't like. In it you say that when god says, "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity" He is talking about natural disasters and not moral evil. I find this ridiculous, as if you replace "calamity" with "natural disasters",the passage does not make sense. This is because god follows a antonym-antonym pattern, as we can see with "The One forming light and creating darkness" and "from the rising to the setting of the sun". So when we see another antonym-antonym and then Pro wants to change the definition of one of the words to something completely unrelated, we can see how that's a bit nonsensical."I'm saying that you cannot use logic alone to show a contradiction in God's moral code as ancient cultures and languages work far differently than ours. For example, God did not kill all humans (Noah and his family and others could have been spared)"I still don't get what you're saying. Finding logical contradictions in the Bible casts doubt upon its validity, right? If god says "Don't kill", then kills people, is that not hypocritical? Also, are you saying that killing almost all people is acceptable? Next you quote experts who say the Bible is factual, which I also don't see as relevant. How is that related to creationists having the BoP to prove God? Also, just because experts say something does not mean it is correct. I said that the Bible was not divine, not that it wasn't factual."it's not circular reasoning because I'm not trying to prove the Bible is correct by using the Bible, I'm showing you how your understanding of God is incorrect by examining the axioms in the Bible. you have given no logical arguments against God's existence in this debate."I still don't think you get that I do not have any burden to prove that God is incorrect. I find this exasperating as it is quite an easy concept to grasp, yet so many creationists cannot grasp it. I've already explained why we do not have the burden of proof, but I'll do it again. Atheism does not claim anything. We look at your silly hypothesis and say, "No, we don't see any evidence for that, so we're not going to acknowledge something there is no evidence for." Therefore, it is up to you guys to give us some valid evidence as to why we should accept this hypothesis. I would say that you have not given any logical arguments for the existence of God in this debate."No I haven't looked at every religion, but based on experience, I know that the Christian God exist . I think you commit the fallacy of strawman. Just because most Christians indoctrinate, doesn't mean all do. My opponent uses that logic on Christianit , not applying it to Atheism as it as also capable of indoctrination. On top of that, not all religions have the same truth value. It ceases to be the burden of proof on the part of human, but on the deities or "divine/universal" truth to demonstrate in some way, shape, or form that they are the "truth." " I never claimed all Christians indoctrinate, I said most do. I don't talk about atheist indoctrination because it happens far, far less than Christian or Muslim indoctrination. Your personal experience is not verifiable, and if you believe that the Christian god presented himself to you, neither you nor I can prove or disprove this. Thus this is somewhat irrelevant in proving that atheism is wrong, as you can't blame us for not taking your word for your personal experiences."Not all Christians claim to have evidence for God, I don't take that approach thus I don't have the burden of proof as explained."So if you don't want to give evidence that god exists, why do you attack atheists for not believing in god when you give us no evidence he exists?"Not all atheists attack the Bible, but this debate is addressing the ones who do."No it isn't... the resolution is "Atheism is based on ignorance" and I don't see a mention of attacking the Bible in your opening arguments. This debate is about whether or not atheism is based on ignorance."Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, there is no strict definition of what an atheist believes, thus your claim seems to be an over generalization."This may be a generalization, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an atheist who did not become an atheist this way, and this represents the majority of atheism.