Outsmarted by a Christian, need help to contradict

[Eilonnwy]

I agree with Adrian. That's absolutely not how logical arguments go and it's very possible for an atheist to lose if they don't properly argue the points made. That's why I've not only been learning about the answers to theists claims, but logical fallacies and things like that.

---

Just to check that I understand this correctly, being a newcomer to atheism and philosophy, the OP lost the debate because he made the positive claim that there was no god, but since there is no evidence to prove that, he lost. There is a lack of evidence, which means it is unreasonable to believe in god, with out any claim on whether he exists or not, but the OP didn't take this line of reasoning.

And a philosophical debate starts from ground zero, no one is more right or wrong than the other until the first argument is made.

Correct?

In essence, yes.

The fact is that when you assert a positive claim about something you have to back it up with evidence. When you make the positive claim of "There is no God." then you must assert the evidence.

On the other hand when you debate theist and they are asserting a god does exist, they must prove it and for the atheist to take the default position of not accepting a claim until it's been proven.

It is possible to debate for the nonexistence of a god, IMO. But it would have to be the Abrahamic God, I think it's possible to show evidence that god does not exist. I think Victor Stenger did a great job of that.. It's impossible to debate a deistic god, though.

However, when debating a theist it is always better to take the default no then posit no god.