Instigator / Pro
18
1485
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#3403
Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
PGA2.0
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
24
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Description
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
The definition contrasts with Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods. The purpose of the debate is to determine which of these two definitions should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize.
Definitions:
Definitions: Worldview --> a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldview
Ism --> noun: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school Synonyms doctrine philosophical system philosophy school of thought https://www.freethesaurus.com/ism
archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Agnosticism: n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
Disbelief: The refusal to believe that something is true (Cambridge International Dictionary of English-1995). Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe (American Heritage Dictionary of English Language-1996).
Etymology n. 1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another,
Naturalism --> 3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. 4. Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
Secularism: n 1. (Philosophy) philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics 2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs
umanism (ˈhjuːməˌnɪzəm) n Humanism: 1. (Philosophy) the denial of any power or moral value superior to that of humanity; the rejection of religion in favour of a belief in the advancement of humanity by its own efforts
Round 1
Thanks to Con for accepting.
In this debate I will establish why atheism should be accepted merely as a lack of belief in a god, as opposed to an active belief in the non existence of any gods. To make this case I present two points:
Logical Incoherence
Defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of any gods is at its core logically untenable. The simple fact is that god is one of the most widely defined words in the English language, if you ask 10 different people to define god you are likely to get 10 different answers. Everything from the God of the Bible (of which itself has about 30,000 different denominations), to Allah, to Zeus, Thor, or obscure god concepts like “god is energy” or “god is love”, to pantheism which posits that God is the universe. And then there’s polytheism. I could go on.
Any individual who accepts any of these concepts qualifies as a theist because they meet the one necessary requirement; they believe a god exists. In order for atheism to be the belief that no gods exist the atheist must therefore be in the position of having an active belief in the non-existence of every god concept imaginable. This is a logical absurdity as one cannot hold a belief towards a concept they themselves have never even contemplated.
This is the ultimate error advocates for this definition make, they begin the conversation by presuming that the god concept they accept is the only one worthy of consideration. From the atheists perspective, they have no idea what the theist’s concept of god is until they propose it. Once a god concept is proposed the atheist can then reject it as non-existent, however this only applies to the one god concept being discussed, not necessarily every one.
As an atheist myself there are many gods I will reject as non-existent. That doesn’t mean this is my attitude towards all of them which is what Con’s definition necessitates.
Even when an atheist proclaims themselves to be of the belief that no god exists it is important to note that the very act of rejecting a proposition requires the proposition to first be proposed. In other words they’re not expressing an attitude towards all possible god concepts, only the small subset of concepts they are contemplating. But theism isn’t limited to any small subset. Therefore this definition cannot possibly provide an accurate picture of the atheist’s position.
Practical Uselessness
Imagine 3 roommates; one believes in a god, one believes there are no gods, and one does not hold a belief either way. One of these individuals is not like the other two.
The individual who believes in a god likely goes to church on Sundays, says a prayer over breakfast, and/or is likely to approach the world in a way they otherwise wouldn’t because they think that’s what a god would want. The other two roommates do none of these. In every practical way, the other two are identical in terms of how they live their lives.
Because of this, there is no use to creating a separate category for these two individuals. It serves no purpose within our society. The point where one’s approach to life and/or society changes is when one moves from non-acceptance of the god proposition to acceptance. Both of these individuals are in the non-acceptance category even if one takes it a step further.
Some theists might argue that this actually proves their point, claiming that if one holds a belief and the other acts the same way, they must both hold the same belief regardless of what they profess. This argument confuses the difference between the middle ground when it comes to beliefs vs how it applies to actions.
Think of our justice system. In a criminal trial the prosecution has the burden of proof, which is to say that the defendant’s guilt is the only thing being considered, not his innocence. Therefore the jury has the choice between a verdict of guilty or not guilty. There is no innocent verdict. But a juror can believe the defendant is guilty, believe the defendant is innocent, or withhold any conclusion based on lack of evidence. So why not have a third category?
Because while we don’t have to form a conclusion, we do have to act. We can either treat the defendant as if they are guilty, or treat them as if they are innocent. There is no such thing as treating the defendant as if no conclusion has been formed.
The same applies to our approach to life. We can approach life as if there is a god or approach it as if there is not. There is no lack of belief approach. Our approach is about our actions, but theism and atheism are labels that address our belief system. One has a middle ground, the other does not.
And as far as why those who lack belief would approach life as if there are no gods, that’s because non-existence is the default position. We live our lives as if any proposed being doesn’t exist until we have reason to believe it does. To live life otherwise would put us in the position of accepting every proposed concept until proven false, even contradictory one’s. Imagine someone praying to God of the Bible, then Allah, then Zeus, etc. Not only would that be absurd on its face but is also self contradictory since most god concepts require that you place no gods before them. This is logical absurdity defined.
Summary
Since defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of a god is both useless and logically untenable, the only sensible alternative is to recognize atheism as the lack of belief in a god.
NOTE: AOB refers to the "absence of belief."
I thank Pro for initiating this debate; however, I want to make my position clear* although I asked three times to modify his Description definition, I can work with it. Here is what Pro states:
"Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods."
Interesting, a belief. Yes!
*As a Christian, I believe that Atheism is a denial or disbelief in the existence of God or gods. Pro has definite beliefs about God and gods. Atheism is a philosophy about life, as the suffix "ism" connotates. In this debate, I believe Pro defines atheism more in line with agnosticism. More on that later.**
Definition of ism
1: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
3a: doctrine: theory: religion Buddhism
b: adherence to a system or a class of principles stoicism
4: characteristic or peculiar feature or trait colloquialism - Merriam Webster
What this debate is not
It is not proof of the existence of God or gods but whether "atheism" means merely an absence of belief in God or gods, or more, such as disbelief and denial.
I apologize to RationalMadman for getting into semantics and word definitions to establish what atheism means.
I apply two dictionary definitions for God (God or gods):
1 God: the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
2 or less commonly God: a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality [1]
Questions: Pro, do you hold a concept and understanding of the biblical God? How about gods?
*With God or gods, we are speaking of the supernatural realm. We are speaking of an intelligent, transcendent, supernatural, personal, non-physical/spiritual, wise, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal being with the Christian God. The conceptual, biblically revealed Judeo-Christian God is the only one I defend as necessary, logical, reasonable, knowable, and sufficiently evidenced. I, with Pro, deny the existence of other gods as anything other than human fiction.
1) Etymology of Atheism
A-
a- (1)
prefix or inseparable particle, a relic of various Germanic and Latin elements.
a- (2)
word-forming element meaning "away," from Latin a "off, of, away from," the usual form of Latin ab before consonants (see ab-).
a- (3)
prefix meaning "not, without," from Greek a-, an- "not" (the "alpha privative"), from PIE root *ne- "not" (source also of English un-). [2]
theo-
Theism = God.
Atheism = No God.
"An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. The root of this term comes from the Greek words a (no, without) and theos (god). The religious attitude associated with being an atheist is called atheism." [4]
"By putting "a" in front of "theos" the word "atheos" was formed, which means "no god." In Greek "a" can also mean "without," although I think in this case "no" makes more sense." [5]
Thus, an atheist is a person whose doctrine or theory (ism) denies or disbelieves God or gods exists. He is different from an **agnostic (who does not know whether or not God or gods exist). The atheist has definite views (a worldview) on life, the universe, morality, and knowledge that usually involves naturalism as the explanation.
2) Atheists, in their own words:
“We atheists believe that nature simply exists. Matter is. Material is.” (Madalyn Murray O’Hair, What on Earth Is an Atheist? 1972) [6]
Thomas Nagel, The Last Word. p. 130-131:
“I want atheism to be true...It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God...It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
“Atheism is the deliberate, definite, dogmatic denial of the existence of God...the absolute denial of the absolute.” (Etienne Borne, Atheism 1961) [6 -ibid]
Pro, in his own words:
"I don't even believe in a God. I'm an atheist, so why would I presume God can know that which is unknowable?" God cannot solve solipsism [Post 29]
That is more than an AOB. That is a belief.
"An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. That's it. That's all..." Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism? [Post 1206]
Notice what the atheist is doing. He argues that his philosophy on morality is more reasonable than theism by denying the Christian/theistic position is true. Notice, too; Pro is making a claim against belief in God, not merely an absence. "Does not believe" equals disbelief, not "lack of belief." He denies theism is more reasonable, just as Bones claimed AOB while denying God's existence with four arguments he believes (see here). His conclusion, "c1. God does not exist." (x3)
3) Atheism Defined
"The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’" - The Oxford Dictionary of Atheism [7]
"Philosophical denial of the existence of God or any supernatural or spiritual being." Oxford World Encyclopedia [8]
"Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief that God exists. Atheism is also distinguished from **agnosticism, a belief which states that human beings do not, and cannot, know whether any gods exist." The World Book Encyclopedia p. 852 [10]
"Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be **distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty." (The New Encyclopedia Britannia-1993). [11]
"The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [12]
“An atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God; that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition. . . . a person who rejects belief in God." (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967) [6 - ibid]
There are better words to describe a person who lacks belief (ignoramus, agnostic, apathetic) in God than atheism, which is counter to an AOB in most cases since the atheist espouses naturalism and/or solipsism in some form as more reasonable than theism.
4) An atheist has a worldview
Atheism is a way/system of looking at life, existence, morality, knowledge, etc., that denies or ignores God or gods as the reasons but seeks a naturalistic or solipsist explanation. The atheist claims knowledge of reality that excludes God.
President of American Atheists David Silverman:
"There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own actions..." "The hard answer is it [ Moral direction] is a matter of opinion." [13 - see 30:23-26 minute]
Silverman holds to a philosophic naturalism worldview in explaining atheism over theism. He rejects (denies) claims about God as atheists do, not that he has no belief about God.
Questions: Pro, how do you believe the 1) universe, 2) life, 3) morality came to be, 4) what happens to us when we die, and 5) is there something more than matter, energy, and space?
There either is a God/gods, or there is not. What is your belief?***
5) Propositional definition of theism and atheism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) poses three reasons why atheism is a denial or negation of God/gods:
1) The question, "Does God exist?” leaves only two possible direct answers to this question:
a) “yes,” which is theism, and
b) “no,” which is atheism.
***Answers like “I don’t know”...are not direct answers to this question." [14]
2) Absences of belief (AOB) is too vague. "...babies, cats, and rocks [can be counted] as atheists by virtue of lacking belief in God." [14]
3) The proposition “theism” defines that God exists.
"Atheism” is defined in terms of theism.
SEP: "[T]he “a-” in “atheism” as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”—in other words, to take atheism to be the contradictory of theism." [14]
6) AOB is not atheism
Wokeupbug posted an outstanding series on Atheism versus AOB. He argued there is a vast difference between someone who "believes there is no God" and someone who believes neither "there is no God" nor that "there is a God." [15] He even argued that Richard Dawkins, The Poverty of Agnosticism, p. 69-77, who offered a seven-point measure for religious belief, classified atheism as believing there is no God.
1. Strong theist = I know God exists.
2. Weak theist = strongly believes God exists.
3. Theistic agnostic = siding towards God.
4. Impartial agnostic = siding equally between God existing and not existing.
5. Atheistic agnostic = siding towards Atheism.
6. Weak atheist = assumes God does not exist.
7. Strong atheist = I know God does not exist.
Only positions 6 and 7 apply to atheism, 3-5 to agnosticism. [16] (see Third Myth)
The "Four Horsemen" of atheism cannot get around the denial of God. They write books on their rejection of God.
7) What is Pros authority?
Please note, to date, Pros' "absence of belief" is nothing more than his preference and opinion. He has not documented one (credible) source.
Round 2
Disappointingly, Con has chosen not to address a single argument I made in the first round despite agreeing that I would take full BoP. Without rebuttals to address, my points remain standing. So with that, I'll clearly have to spend the rest of this round responding to Con's points.
1) Etymology of Atheism
Con's argument here focuses on the use of the prefix "a" which is defined as "not" or "without". However, his argument falls apart because he is using the prefix towards the wrong concept.
He argues that since theos refers to god, atheism means "no god". However since atheism is a response to theism, in order to determine what the "a" applies to we need to start by defining theism which Con has not sufficiently done.
As Con pointed out, a god either exists or does not exist. There are no other options. But as Con also and more importantly pointed out, the issue at hand is not about the actual answer to the question, it's about one's beliefs or mindset towards the question. This also follows from the suffix ism which denotes a doctrine, further establishing that when we talk about theism we're talking about a state of mind and not a truth value, affirming that theism is a belief system to be described, not a proposition to be evaluated.
If theism is a belief system, then a-theism is the negation of that system.
The negation of "I believe a god exists" is not "I believe no gods exist". The negation is "I do not believea god exists". This follows from the third law of logic, aka the law of excluded middle.
To illustrate this point further, I'll use true and false as examples. Let's evaluate whether the following proposition is true or false:
"This sentence is false"
If false is the negation of true, then by not being true this sentence would have to be false. But if this sentence is false then that would make it true. So what is the answer - True or False?
The answer is of course neither. This is why a negation is not the affirmation of the opposite. A negation is simply... "not". As in this sentence is either true or not true. It can also be false or not false.
So to reiterate, the negation of "I believe X" is not "I believe X is false". The negation is "I do not believe X".
Another way to confirm this would be to look at any other term using the prefix "a", such as asexual or apolitical. If one is asexual that simply means they do not have sex, there is nothing about this requiring the individual to go a step further and somehow believe in the immorality or harmfulness of sex. Apolitical simply means one is not political, it does not mean they advocate against politics.
Con cannot justify leaping over the negation in order to get to the extreme.
Lastly here, Con also attempts to paint his purported middle ground as agnosticism while ignoring that agnosticism addresses knowledge, not belief. This term was defined in the description which remarkably was provided by Con himself:
"Agnosticism: n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge"
Nothing about this definition supports it being used as a middle ground between theism and atheism. Moreover, if an agnostic is the middle ground between a theist and a atheist then what is a gnostic? Con's definitions are not coherent.
2) Atheists, in their own words:
Con lists a bunch of cherry picked quotes from atheists to make his case. It does not, Con needs to provide an argument explaining why we should accept his definition based on what a few atheists may have said.
3) Atheism Defined
Con again lists a bunch of cherry picked definitions to make his case. Two can play this game:
Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism
I could go on since most dictionaries define atheism this way including one's if Con's own examples. Con needs to provide an actual argument.
4) An atheist has a worldview
Con essentially argues that because atheists have beliefs, atheism must be a belief. That's nonsensical. Atheists have beliefs because people have beliefs, and atheists are people.
If I asked a group of pro lifers what they think about the death sentence and they all gave me the same answer, that doesn't make their answer part of what it means to be pro life.
We define words based on their commonality. Many atheists are naturalists. That doesn't make atheism naturalism any more than a lot of theists being Christians makes Christianity theism.
5) Propositional definition of theism and atheism
1 - "Does God exist?" is not a proposition, it's a question. "God exists" is a proposition. "God does not exist" is a different proposition.
Theism addresses "God exists", therefore since atheism is a response to theism, it must address the same proposition. "God does not exist" is therefore not what were discussing, just as a court of law does not address a defendant's innocence, only their guilt. In propositional logic we deal with one proposition at a time.
2 - the suffix ist clearly means we're talking about people
3 - non argument
6) AOB is not atheism
Con needs to make his own arguments, not link us to Wokeupbug. Without supporting argument his 7 levels of belief should be dismissed.
7) What is Pros authority?
My authority is reason and common sense. Con seems to take issue with my argument not relying on tons of sources but this isn't that kind of debate. Reminder of the full resolution posted in the description and agreed to before the debate started:
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
The resolution makes this debate subjective by definition. We're talking about how the term *should be* utilized within our society. That's a question for each individual to evaluate, it's not something you can prove by posting someone else's words. Con is trying to write off my argument as mere opinion while his case relies almost exclusively on other people's opinions.
Looking forward to reading Con's response to my first round in his rebuttals. Till then.
The resolution remains affirmed.
The resolution: Atheism is simply "alack of belief."
Description:
Pro: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely"a lack of belief in a god."
Con: The definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of anygods. The purpose of the debate is to determine which of these twodefinitions should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize.
1) Pros definition is his feelings or preference on whatatheism "should be." Contrast that with what the word means and isrecognized in dictionaries [1] [2] [3],etymologies [4] [5], and philosophical works [6] [7], aswell as by atheists [8] [9] not only in their writings [10] and thinking [11] (i.e., the Four Horsemen) but also in their actions.
2) Pro uses two references in the whole of his R2,one in R1, to back his opinion.* The rest is hearsay.** Prothinks his feelings determine what atheism means or should mean.
3) Pro is moving the goalposts. The resolution in R2 morphedinto, "We're talking about how the term *should be* utilized withinour society."
The keyword is what atheism should be, whether it bein Western or North American societies or the larger world.
"Obviously, if "theos" meant god, thenthere would need to be a word that meant the opposite. By putting"a" in front of "theos" the word "atheos" wasformed, which means "no god. " [12]
If 'theos' means God (or belief in God), then theism'sopposite should be no God (or disbelief in God).
Con charges I never addressed a single argument in R1. This is simply not true.
1) I addressed his claim that atheism is simply a lack orabsence of belief by showing,
a) it was so much more,
b) he and atheists have beliefs about God and gods,
c) atheists deny God and gods in what they say (anddo).
2) R1 presented my side of the debate.
Rebuttal of R1
Lack -
1: the fact or state of being wantingor deficient [13]
Absence -
1: a state or condition in whichsomething expected, wanted, or looked for is not present or does notexist: a state or condition in which something is absent
Synonyms
When Pro states "why atheism should beaccepted merely as a lack of belief in a god," he is suggesting"lack of belief in a god" is reasonable and true by his positiveassertion of "should." You should accept it. "Should"implies a moral obligation or duty. But what God/god is Pro basing his assumptionon? He says he has lack of belief in any. If he has lack of belief in any howreasonable is the truth value of his statement? What Pro is suggesting is that hehas no belief "there is a God" and no belief "there isnot a God." His claim is not to know either of these two propositions(lacking). Generally speaking, this is not the atheist position; it is more inline with agnosticism, apathy, or ignorance.
Pro states, "Defining atheism as the belief in thenon-existence of any gods is at its core logically untenable."
I agree, it is logically untenable, yet that is whatatheists do by citing "lack of evidence" and adenial that God/god exists. [15] [16] [17] [18]
While they shout "lack of evidence," theycite biblical references and call the biblical God names *** in arguing against such a God, denying His existence.
*** "[God is] a vindictive bloodthirstyethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic racist, an infanticidal, genocidal,phillicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciouslymalevolent bully."
The funny thing is that Dawkins offers all kinds of evidenceand beliefs about why you should NOT accept the reasonableness of the biblicalfaith by refuting it, showing his idea of the biblical God is not "lacking." With almost every professing atheist on Debateart, I could list examples of themdoing the same thing. Their denials have all kinds of beliefs about God. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
Thus, Pros' lack of belief view is inconsistent withatheism.
Pro argues, "for atheism to be the belief that nogods exist the atheist must therefore be in the position of having an activebelief in the non-existence of every god concept imaginable."
Again, this is not true. The atheist denies and arguesagainst the concept and being of God/gods existence. That existencewould apply to any god, not intending to deny every specificdeity, one by one.
Pro:
"Once a god concept is proposed theatheist can then reject it as non-existent, however this only appliesto the one god concept being discussed, not necessarily every one."
The atheist REJECTS any god concept, that means every singleone. It does not have to be proposed before the atheist rejects it despite Pros'claim.
Pro:
"As an atheist myself there are manygods I will reject as non-existent. That doesn't mean this is myattitude towards all of them which is what Con's definition necessitates."
Pro, as an atheist, rejects (denies) many gods. Thus, he hasa belief about these gods, not a lack of belief. His belief about said gods isapparent in that he understands things about these gods.
Pro:
"Even when an atheist proclaims themselvesto be of the belief that no god exists it is important to note that I) thevery act of rejecting a proposition requires the proposition to first beproposed. In other words II) they're not expressing an attitudetowards all possible god concepts, only the small subset of concepts theyare contemplating. But theism isn't limited to any small subset.Therefore this definition cannot possibly provide an accurate picture of the atheist'sposition."
Pros statements here are false. Theists believe inparticular gods, not every god. The proposition is that their particular Godexists or the entity "God" exists. Thus, as Pro pointed out, theyhave small subsets within theism (see Practical Uselessness). While some can believe gods areall real, logically, each god contradicts the other, as Pro has pointed out.Some are personal, others impersonal, such as "The Force." As aChristian, I believe only in the biblical God, the ONE true God. Abeliever in Allah believes in a particular God and holds exclusive beliefs thatonly that god is true or real. Same with a pantheist or panentheistic. Whilethe Muslim and Christian have common beliefs they share about God, their claimsare exclusive; therefore theists limit themselves to smaller subsets in their definitionof God/gods. I don't believe every god exists, only the biblical God. I deny allthe rest.
Pro admits an either-or distinction and contradicts hiswhole argument:
"We can approach life as if there is a god or approach it as if there is not. There is no lack ofbelief approach."
Exactly. Reader, did you get that? There is no lack ofbelief. Treating life from the standpoint of there is no God/gods is adenial of such, not a lack of belief. Pros first sentence reads there is not a God/gods. It is a fundamental belief that all other beliefs are filteredthrough (thus forming a worldview). His argument is very inconsistent.
"It takes more than 'lack of belief' to define anatheist." [28]
It takes more than a lack of belief to define what anatheist is, which is different from an agnostic. A Carm article [29] reflectssome of the problems that I summarize:
1) A lack of belief is complete ignorance or"non-awareness" of something. Pro demonstrates awareness, as do mostatheists.
2) Lack of belief would mean neutrality. That is impossibleif one has been exposed to a concept.
3) Actions reflect beliefs.
4) The atheist actively undermines and attacks theisticproofs.
5) The atheist lives by faith in his presuppositions, justas the Christian does.
Rebuttal of R2
1) Etymology of Atheism
Pro claims I do not understand theprefix charging I'm using it towards the wrong concept. How?
"the alpha-privative prefix "a-" or"an-" is still used in Greek words to express negation or absence," [30]
Pro admits atheism "is a response to theism"and claims I did not define theism. I did.
Pro understands one's beliefs are about one's mindsettowards the question of God's existence. He believes a state of mind cannot bea truth value. Why? Then Pro admits that if theism is a belief system,then a-theism negates that system. My point exactly. Pro is confused yetagain.
Pro claims the negation of "I believe God exists"is "I do not believe God exists," not "I believe no Godexists." The negation of "God (exists)" - theism - is "noGod (exists)" - a-theism.
Pros "This sentence is false" isself-refuting, a nonsensical sentence. Contrarily, either God exists ordoes not exist is not logically self-refuting. One or the other propositionmust be true.
Asexual is not sexual, apolitical isnot political, and atheistic is not theistic. The Greek word for against isanti. Anti-politics is against politics.
Pro falsely defines agnosticism as addressing knowledgerather than lack of knowledge. The Greek term for knowledge is Gnosticism. A Gnosticis someone who knows.
2) Atheists, in their own words
Pro does not refute my argument; he strawman's it, supplyingno proof of his own.
3) Atheism Defined
Again, Pro gives lip service, no proof.
5) Propositional Definition...
1) I am not following Pros logic. I identified"Does God exist?" as a question. What follows are the twopropositions.
2) Fair enough.
3) Yes, it is.
6) AOB is not atheism
Pro is mistaken. The "seven levels" argument is Richard Dawkins, as I noted.
7) Pros Authority?
Pros reason and authority? Why should I trust it? Because hesays so?
Round 3
Disappointingly, Con has all but dropped my main contentions in this debate instead choosing to focus on grammar and syntax, irrelevant quotes, cherry picked dictionary definitions, and strawman arguments.
Con claims I am moving the goal posts for this debate. Clearly, he didn’t read the rules prior to accepting, which is remarkable being that we agreed on them before I issued the challenge:
“Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god…
The purpose of the debate is to determine which of these two definitions should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize”
The full resolution makes clear that this is a philosophical debate focusing on what makes one definition preferable over another and how it applies to theism/atheism. I made my case on that clear in round one; we should accept “lack of belief” as the definition because it is logically coherent and societally useful whereas the alternative is neither, making my definition preferable.
Con has made no attempt to counter any of this. His case is essentially that we should accept his definition:
- Because the dictionary says so
- Because grammar and syntax says so
- Because scholars say so
- Because atheists act like they believe no gods exist
Aside from being very poor reasons to accept his definition in the face of my reasons why we shouldn’t, none of these points are true and/or valid and I’ve countered them all already. Because I have no meaningful rebuttals to my case to address I’ll respond to what I’ve been given to work with, but so far my case stands affirmed and any sincere effort by Con to refute it at this point would qualify as a new argument.
Response to Con’s case
Con says I claim to have no belief that there is a god, and also no belief that there is no god. I actually haven’t made any claim of what I personally believe on this proposition. We’re talking about atheism, not Double_R.
The only requirement to my definition of atheism is that one lacks any belief that there is a god. Whether one goes further and accepts that there are no gods is not relevant. Con tries to characterize this as apathy, ignorance, or agnosticism. These all fail:
Ignorance
In likening lack of belief to ignorance Con ignores how this applies to anything else. There are countless cases that police have filed away as cold cases despite mountains of evidence complied after years of investigation, countless documentaries on these and other unsolved mysteries, and juries have spent months deliberating over trials only to reach no conclusion at the end and declare not guilty based on a lack of evidence. Not drawing a conclusion says nothing about how much one knows about the subject.
Apathy
The same examples apply to apathy as well. No one would claim that police would spend years investigating or a jury would spend months deliberating over something they did not care about.
Agnosticism
Con continues to try and shove agnosticism in as a middle ground between theism and atheism.
Once again, Con’s own definition refutes his claim that agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism. Acceptance of the idea that “certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge” has no bearing on whether one believes a god exists.
To believe is to accept something as true. One does not need to be certain about something to accept it as true, nor does one need to have “exact knowledge” about something to accept it as true. Knowledge is a category of belief, specifically it’s the highest category. This makes knowledge categorically different from belief, which is the very thing theism/atheism address.
Also recall in previous rounds I asked Con if agnosticism fits between theism and atheism, then where does Gnosticism fall? Con ignored my question.
Agnosticism is not a middle ground, it’s a position on an entirely different question.
Logical Coherence
Con agrees with me that his definition of atheism is logically incoherent, thus Con confirms that he is arguing we should accept a logical untenable definition as the most reasonable. Needless to say, this is a self defeating proposition that should lose the debate on this point alone.
Con’s attempt to argue past this includes showing quotes by other atheists to make the case that even if we believe the definition makes no sense, this is what atheists subscribe to.
Con is again confusing atheism with atheists. In the last round I used the example of the pro life position on the death penalty, Con dropped my point and proceeded to keep making the same argument as if it was never countered.
Con is essentially arguing here that an atheist’s attitude towards one god concept shows their position towards all god concepts. Meanwhile Con himself acknowledges that there are many god concepts he himself believes don’t exist. So he is living proof that his own argument fails. If his active belief that god X does not exist does not preclude him from believing in god Y, then he cannot argue that any atheist believing god Y does not exist precludes their attitude towards god A, god B, god C, etc.
Commonality is how we define terms and label groups. The only commonality possible among every self professed atheist to have towards every god concept is that they lack belief in it.
Propositional logic
Con claims that a proposition does not have to first be proposed in order to be rejected. This is a baffling claim. If Con is using the term “reject” as an action, then he is claiming atheists are actively against concepts they have never contemplated. That is logically incoherent. If on the other hand he is using reject as a default position meaning “not in position of acceptance” then his argument literally means atheists simply lack belief.
Actions vs Beliefs
Con claims I said there was no such thing as lack of belief. Again, my full statement was that there is no lack of belief approach.
The justice system demonstrates this as I’ve already pointed out.
There are only two types of criminal justice systems; one that presumes innocence until guilt is proven, or one that presumes guilt until innocence is proven. One of these must be the default position because there is no middle ground on how to act.
Belief does have a middle ground, aka a third option. Con acknowledges this full well by trying to label it agnosticism. Regardless of its label, this shows that Con’s arguments here are fallacious. It’s simple math at this point; 3 is bigger than 2. The number of positions we can take with regards to how we act cannot account for all belief positions, this is why we have default positions with regards to our approach.
These default positions apply to many things, but are especially the case with any existential claim. Here, the default is that nothing exists until it is demonstrated to exist. The alternative would be that everything exists until it is demonstrated to not exist. The latter is again, an untenable approach. That would require one to pray to every god imaginable unless they can prove one by one that each one doesn’t exist.
Etymology
Con argues that the prefix “a” means negation. Great, we agree. The negation of “I believe” is “I do not believe”. Con continues to try and paint this is a matter of negating the proposition while ignoring the fact that the subject of theism/atheism is belief.
Summary
I summarized this debate in the beginning so I won’t repeat here. I’ll just reiterate that none of Con’s arguments stand and he’s made no meaningful attempt to engage in the essence of my case as to why we should accept “lack of belief” as the most reasonable and useful definition of atheism. The resolution is affirmed.
I thank Pro for arranging this debate!
The resolution was, "Should atheism be accepted as simply/merely a lack of belief in God or gods?" I argue it is so much more. Pro believes it should "merely" be so on his preference and subjective feelings alone. Why are his personal feelings an accurate barometer in judging what atheism is or what it means? He gives two sources outside his feelings in three rounds to back his claims. I will discuss those later.
My argument was based on several verifiable claims, documented as coming from someone other than myself and essentially reputable sources, not via a fallacy of authority. Here are the arguments I laid out, which Pro falsely claims do not address a single argument of his (repeatedly).
1) I showed atheism was much more than "merely" a lack of belief in God or gods. Atheists have all kinds of beliefs ABOUT God and gods.
(i) I gave examples from prominent atheists of the denial of God and gods.
(ii) I cited examples of Pro and his denial of God and gods.
(iii) I cited other atheists on DebateArt.
2) I showed the word's root and how significant sources of authority viewed its meaning.
Theism is a belief in God or gods. A-theism is no belief in God or gods.
3) I discussed the difference between atheism, theism and agnosticism.
4) I discussed why "lack or absence of belief" does not do the word justice but fits more with agnosticism. Atheists more fittingly use disbelief or denial (as witnessed in literally thousands of forum posts on DebateArt and throughout the Internet who argue against God).
5) I argued atheism is a worldview. Atheists answer all kinds of ultimate questions about life, the universe, morality, and the question of being and truth while opposing God/gods as the reason.
So, Pro's claim that I did not address the resolution is false.
Accept my definitions as opposed to Pros,
"Because the dictionary says so" as opposed to what, that Pro says different?
"Because grammar and syntax" matter to helps us to understand the meaning of the word.
"Because reputable scholars say so," as opposed to Pro telling us what to believe without evidence?
"Because atheists live as if God does not exist while arguing against Him" is good reason to believe they are engaging in more than a lack of belief. They have all kinds of beliefs about God.
Pros ONLY Two Sources
1) Atheism - 1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
I don't know how Pro believes this definition helps his case in any way? Strong disbelief is not the same as someone lacking belief, and I can't find many/any cases online of any atheist lacking a belief about God or gods. Instead, they deny God or gods not only by what they say about such a God but also by their lifestyle and worldview. It is very exceptional for an atheist to have ONLY an absence of lack of belief. It generally means they have not thought out the implications of their worldview.
2) Atheist - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism.
The atheist has assumed that God or gods do not exist, based on a worldview that tries to answer life's ultimate questions by denying or excluding God as a reasonable answer. It is a choice not to believe, and the ramifications are so immense that every avenue of their worldview is affected by this choice.
Thus, Pros arguments hold little water.
Rebuttal of R3
Pros charge that I dropped his main contention is not valid. I addressed it by showing him what the word means and has been understood to mean. Some atheists are trying to redefine the term. That confuses the matter and masks the consequences of making sense of such a worldview. As Pro argued, "the purpose of this debate is to determine which of two definitions should be considered most reasonable," while offering nothing more than opinion and only providing his definition is his attempt to muddy the waters. Pros fallacy of choice seemed to be argument ad populum, or an appeal to authority - solely his popularity and authority since he never demonstrated otherwise, just asserted as much.
As for his "lack of belief" as being "logically coherent," as Pro argues, I would say the opposite.
Yes, lack of belief is, as Pro says, "sociably useful" because it is an excuse to avoid any accountability (as demonstrated by Bones in our debate). It's a trump card to get the atheist out of a jam and avoid addressing issues that undermine atheism or that it can't answer or make sense of.
Response to my case by Pro
Pro is not ignorant about God or gods.
"Everything from the God of the Bible (of which itself has about 30,000 different denominations), to Allah, to Zeus, Thor, or obscure god concepts like "god is energy" or "god is love," to pantheism which posits that God is the universe. And then there's polytheism. I could go on."
"Once a god concept is proposed, the atheist can then reject it as non-existent..."
"As an atheist myself there are many gods I will reject as non-existent..."
He lists different gods and different concepts about God. He has "contemplated" the difference, plus he has a worldview that attempts to answer ultimate questions by denying God as a reasonable explanation.
"Both of these individuals are in the non-acceptance category..." (i.e., Denial, not absence of belief)
Ignorance
His cold case analogy fails. Notice words such as "despite mountains of evidence," "years of investigation," "juries have spent months deliberating," and so on.
Again, beliefs were held, and the subject was thoroughly examined. There wasn't an absence of belief but an absence of conviction. Atheists believe the evidence points to no God; evidence of the universe, life, morality, etc.
Agnosticism
Pro says that my definition of agnosticism has no bearing on whether one believes God exists. It does since I have certainty that God exists. An agnostic has none because they are ignorant of God's existence. An atheist denies God's existence. To disbelieve is to accept something as false or unrealistic to believe. To disbelieve is to deny.
Knowledge is a justified true belief.
Pro confuses Gnosticism with agnosticism. Gnosticism was a claimed mystical secret knowledge that contradicted the Gospel message.
Logical Coherence
Pro claims I agree with him "that his definition of atheism is logically incoherent." I acknowledged that the atheist can't make sense of his beliefs and that it is logically incoherent, but the atheist does not believe that. He sees justification for rejecting God's existence as expressed in his worldview, which is usually explained through naturalism.
Pro charges that I confuse atheism with atheists. No, he is.
"one who subscribes to or advocates atheism."
Pro equates the term "pro-lifers" with the death penalty, but it is a stance against abortion and for the life of the unborn, not against capital punishment. What argument is there to drop? Pro is equating two different things. Abortion murders an innocent human being, period.
Propositional Logic
Pro claims you can't reject a proposition unless you know what it is. I'm saying that the propositional set [there is no God] would include the different propositions of subsets or specific gods. Atheists, rejecting the set, reject the subsets.
Actions and Beliefs
In Pros two types of criminal justice systems; only one is just. It is the default for justice.
Etymology
"I do not believe" is different from "I lack a belief."
Pro, in his words
Pro states: "If theism is a belief system, then a-theism is the negation of that system."
Yes, precisely! Theism - belief in God; Atheism - denies or negates the belief in God. Atheists negate God.
"Not drawing a conclusion says nothing about how much one knows about the subject."
When you investigate something, you know things; knowledge is a justified true belief, not an absence or lack thereof.
Pros analogy of the justice system to atheism fails (R1). "There is no innocent verdict." Yes, there is - Not guilty.
"An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God..." (R1)
"There is no lack of belief approach." (R1)
"If theism is a belief system, then a-theism is the negation of that system." (R2 - Not AOB but denial)
Negation - "the contradiction or denial of something:"
"So to reiterate, the negation of "I believe X" is not "I believe X is false." The negation is "I do not believe X." (R2)
Pro confuses definitions all the time. "I do not believe X" is another way of saying "I believe X is false."
"Apolitical simply means one is not political..." (R2) And atheism means no God or not God, a denial.
"...agnosticism addresses knowledge, not belief..." (R2) No, it addresses lack of knowledge.
My arguments in R1 and R2 stand. Pro has not demonstrated that his view, atheism is a lack of belief, is anything other than his personal preference. I gave reasonable evidence that Pro dismissed without having any widely held or authority standard, but by his subjective opinion as true. WHY? Pro said I provided no rebuttal or "meaningful attempt" to engage in his arguments. That has been demonstrated in each round to be a false claim.
I realize that my R2 is ugly to read because of a glitch in the system. I checked for errors in the Word document, then copied and pasted without further ado, not knowing the format would be changed by the DebateArt program running words together. I am willing to concede the Pro wins a point in Grammar and Spelling. As for the rest, please vote Con on a better-reasoned and documented argument.
Are all people with religious belief, a priori, suffering from mental illness? Sigmund Freud in 'Moses and Monotheism’ stated that belief in a single God is delusional .
Do you really think that there was a God in a burning bush, talking to Moses? Why isn't God talking from the Internet now?
FLRW: "The oldest religion in the world is Hinduism. Hindus worship many gods and goddesses in addition to Brahman, who is believed to be the supreme God force present in all things."
***
It is claimed, not more, that Hinduism is the oldest religion.
https://probe.org/what-about-hindus-claim-that-hinduism-is-the-oldest-religion/
Tell me, what is the oldest Veda in existence?
"According to Jamison and Brereton, in their 2014 translation of the Rigveda, the dating of this text "has been and is likely to remain a matter of contention and reconsideration". The dating proposals so far are all inferred from the style and the content within the hymns themselves.[24] Philological estimates tend to date the bulk of the text to the second half of the second millennium.[note 1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
Notice that the dating is a matter of contention and the dates proposed are inferred from style and content.
***
FLRW: "Religion provided an opiate for early man when he saw his dead children and his rotting leg."
That is a Marxist ideology - the opiate of the people.
The oldest religion in the world is Hinduism. Hindus worship many gods and goddesses in addition to Brahman, who is believed to be the supreme God force present in all things. Religion provided an opiate for early man when he saw his dead children and his rotting leg.
FLRW: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system."
What do atheists believe when they deny or reject the assertion that there is a God? Is it nothing about the world? No, they try to provide a system of thought that excludes and denies the biblical one. They are inconsistent and contradictory in their beliefs because they show by what they do (experience and practice) that they borrow from the Christian system of thought while denying it (God).
Ronald Nash lists major tests of every worldview:
1. The test of reason.
2. The test of experience.
3. The test of practice.
In the test of reason, they use logic to argue against absolute values and universal moral truths. Still, when someone cuts in line in front of them, they are morally indignant and object, showing they believe some things are morally absolute by their anger. Sometimes some claim skepticism, claiming no one can know for sure, while they think they know there is no God for certain.
In the test of experience, they claim they know the universe is material experientially. Thus human knowledge begins with sense experience. How can morality be anything but fluctuating and right and wrong nothing but preference and taste? How do they prove this? How do they account for morality if there is no fixed standard? They can't. They make it up and call it good because they like it. Some like to love their neighbours; others like to kill them. Why should I follow their preference? How does one correctly interpret right and wrong when there is no ultimate fixed standard? They don't. They believe anything goes if you have the might to enforce it. Yet they object to the very tyrants that live like this.
Why should we expect the present and future to be like the past (uniformity of nature)? What reason do they have to believe this should be so, not just that it is experientially?
If you don't have the correct interpretation of the world by having the correct worldview, you will find your thinking system more and more inconsistent, and that's what happens when God is denied.
“Actually, in my opinion, Atheists know there is no God.”
“Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.”
Which one is it?
Either way, feel free to read through and cast a vote lol
From atheists.org. Who whould know more about atheists? Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.
Actually, in my opinion, Atheists know there is no God.
> Lack of belief in God and a lack of a positive disbelief in God would also both be considered atheistic.
exactly
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 3RU7AL // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is borderline. While the debate is long enough to have warranted a more extensive RFD, the voter did explain why he viewed this argument as central to the debate and furthered his reasoning in a long back-and-forth in the comments. Voters are not required to be exhaustive in their analysis, particularly if the voter explains why they see many of those points as irrelevant.
**************************************************
What do you mean which god? I don't recall eluding to any specific one.
If you're talking about the debate in general, that's the point. Theism includes every single one, so any conversation about one says nothing about my attitude towards another.
which god? Suddenly options open...
We’re not in agreement. A lack of belief is by definition, not a belief.
And no, it’s not a ying-yang. Good either exists or he does not exist, that’s it, there’s no other options. So the actuality of the situation is ying-yang. Theism and atheism address belief, which is a completely different thing.
Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang.
You can't silence me. Freedom of speech, everybody has a voice.
They wanted to silence Christ Jesus, the prophets, ministers moved by the HOLY SPIRIT. Protesters, activists, Malcolm X, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, Martin Luther King Jr. , Bruce Lee. Even adding D.J. Trump to it.
I will confirm double_R did mean subjective in a different context than what the rules are for unmoderated debates
This is just getting stupid.
You pretend you're not arguing semantics right now while labeling this debate a "subjective competition", a term the site used to convey the idea behind rap battles, poetry slams, etc. and pretend this is my claim because I referred to it as a subjective debate even though I explained a dozen times already means it's philosophical. You're not being serious, you're just trying to save face.
You are the one who acknowledges that Con failed to address my case and who had made clear that the main reason for your vote is that you found my arguments personally unconvincing. That is antithetical to the rules on this site, the rules to judging debates in any formal setting, and frankly common sense. Ask anyone who knows what they're talking about and they would tell you the same.
@oromagi
"Philosophical debates are subjective. "
False. Most philosophical debates argue for the truth or non-truth of a statement independent from bias, emotion, perspective. If we can't agree on a common ground of objective reality than debate is just people talking about their feelings about shit.
"This was a philosophical debate."
By your "just talking about my feelings" definition, probably so.
"Rap battles are subjective. This was not a rap battle."
agreed
"The DART rules you are semantically trying to apply to this debate were intended for rap battles"
That's a lie. The rules I am following cover SUBJECTIVE COMPETITIONS of which rap battles are but one example among many. Since you (wrongheadedly) insist that this debate is a SUBJECTIVE COMPETION then at your insistence, non-moderation is the applicable rule.
Why is this so difficult for you?
It's not. I'm 100% clear.
"What is so difficult about understanding why we would judge a philosophical debate differently than a rap battle? "
By definition, all the debates on this site are philosophical (i.e. the study of knowledge). You have created your own little definition of philosophical debates and created your own little rules for those debates that are nowhere reflected in the rules for this site.
"What is so complicated about this that explaining it inn your view amounts to subterfuge? "
It is hard to believe that you genuinely don't understand fundamental concepts like the definition of SIMPLY or the definition of SUBJECTIVE or PHILOSOPHY or the rules for SUBJECTIVE COMPETITIONS. Seems like you're just looking for an angle, any angle that let's you sell this as a win.
Philosophical debates are subjective. This was a philosophical debate.
Rap battles are subjective. This was not a rap battle.
The DART rules you are semantically trying to apply to this debate were intended for rap battles, not philosophical debates.
Why is this so difficult for you? What is so difficult about understanding why we would judge a philosophical debate differently than a rap battle? What is so complicated about this that explaining it inn your view amounts to subterfuge? What is wrong with you?
@Double_R No semantic bullshit here. I am literally just believing you when you wrote, "The resolution makes this debate SUBJECTIVE by definition."
When I challenged that characterization, you doubled down and said "should implies subjectivity" (talk about semantic bullshit) Is this a SUBJECTIVE debate as you have declared? Yes or no? Please answer yes or no directly without subterfuge in your next post.
Unsurprisingly, Double_R can't answer a simple yes or no question about his own writing (Should your argument be judged OBJECTIVELY or SUBJECTIVELY?) because either answer make him a liar. He clearly wants folks to apply the DART standard for OBJECTIVE debating but he retreated to a SUBJECTIVE appeal at the end of his R2 and when called out on it, babbled some ridiculous BS about SHOULD always indicating a subjective debate.
So long as Double_R continues to cower from this basic question, I think VOTERS can fairly treat this debate as non-moderated and vote however they wish.
I'm not saying the character count would be unfair, I'm pointing out that you can't object to your opponents case *and* uphold your own against their criticisms without splitting the round in half for each. So if your case took 10,000 characters and the rebuttal to it took 10,000 characters you only get 5,000 characters for each.
I've stopped reading quite a few debates because of this and just never voted. It's too much info that's not being flushed out properly, and expanding to a 4 or 5 round debate makes it easy to long to do so.
You can have your opinion on that, that's fine. I just find it far less interesting, clear, and productive.
YOU: "You can't understand religion. You have to believe in it."
Nonsense.
You can't believe in math. You have to understand it.
You can't understand religion. You have to believe in it.
It's unfair for pro to get 10000 characters to prevent a case and then con only gets 5000 because the other 5000 is dedicated to rebuttals. If you do it the way I suggest both opening cases are 10k characters bother rebuttal rounds are 10k characters. In a 3 round debate the final round will be for impact analysis and counter rebuttals. In a 4 round debate r3 is for counter rebuttals and R4 is for conclusions and analysis.
This is the fairest way in my opinion and everyone has exactly equal characters for contentions, rebuttals and counter rebuttals
YOU: "Just getting to round 2. Here is a quote
"Disappointingly, Con has chosen not to address a single argument I made in the first round despite agreeing that I would take full BoP. Without rebuttals to address, my points remain standing. So with that, I'll clearly have to spend the rest of this round responding to Con's points. "
Why do people still do this? Round 2 is the rebuttal round normally. Obviously con is not going to make rebuttals in the argument round."
***
I could not figure that one out either. The first round was for me to make my case, not rebut his and I mentioned as much in my reply to this point of his. Not only that, I feel I did address his argument of ONLY or SIMPLY a lack of belief in every round. I explained why it could not be so (lack or absence of belief) unless the person had not thought at all about God or gods. That is very seldom encountered. By denying God the atheist has to form many beliefs about God, or gods, he is denying. By denying God he has to come up with his own system of belief in explaining the universe, life, morality and the ultimate questions of life like why we are here, what significance it makes, etc. And in doing so, the atheist is going counter to everything God. He is intentionally ignoring God as a reasonable explanation. Thus, not God, or no God.
IMO, Post 173 well summarized my part of the debate by RationalMadman!
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3403-atheism-is-simply-a-lack-of-belief?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=173
We have Gods for the same reason we have Kings. They are all concepts from Worm Man.
Oromagi acknowledges that Con did not address my case and that his vote against me was mostly because he personally found my argument unconvincing. That's as clear an example of a biased vote there is.
If the BoP was fully mine then Con had no responsibility to present an argument at all. Ironically, this was the whole point of me challenging him. He kept whining about atheists never making their own case so I put together a challenge where he was the one who gets to be the one throwing stones.
I don't see why anyone would find the whole "R1 is not for rebuttals" layout preferable. If Pro makes a case and Con refutes that case, the debate at the end is far more clear to judge. Does the case stand? Yes or No?
When both sides present opposite cases space becomes a serious issue because now each side has half of a round to address an entire round, but also the judges now have to weigh the arguments against each other which is far more subjective.
There's nothing wrong with the Con presenting a counter argument, but a whole case just muddies the debate and leads to each side talking past each other.
Do you understand the difference between a philosophical debate and a rap battle? Yes or No?
This isn't subterfuge, it's quite simple.
Both are considered subjective, but the difference is profound and unmistakeable. You know this. To lump them together as if they are the same thing is disingenuous at best.
You want me to answer yes or no because as long as you ignore that difference either will make your argument. No means I was wrong, making this debate objective which justifies using dictionary definitions (even though this debate was about what the word "should" mean). Yes means we get to pretend there's no difference so your vote is legitimate because the rules page used the same word I did.
It's as clear an example of sematic bullshit one could contrive.
Just getting to round 2. Here is a quote
"Disappointingly, Con has chosen not to address a single argument I made in the first round despite agreeing that I would take full BoP. Without rebuttals to address, my points remain standing. So with that, I'll clearly have to spend the rest of this round responding to Con's points. "
Why do people still do this? Round 2 is the rebuttal round normally. Obviously con is not going to make rebuttals in the argument round
I don't know if I can judge this. It's kind of annoying seeing the term agnostic used incorrectly over and over. Agnosticism is on a spectrum of belief to disbelief. Agnosticism is not between theistic and atheistic.
Agnosticism is merely a philosophical concept that says, one can never have enough evidence to know whether God is real or not. All agnostics are either theistic or atheistic . Most I agree would be atheists.
Lack of belief in God and a lack of a positive disbelief in God would also both be considered atheistic.
"If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?"
That's how debates should be judged. You are right it shouldn't be based on how much you buy or believe an argument.
I haven't read Oro's RFD. I can't tell you whether he judged this correctly or not, but if he is weighing arguments based on how believable they sound to him, he is judging incorrectly.
"“We atheists believe that nature simply exists. Matter is. Material is.” (Madalyn Murray O’Hair, What on Earth Is an Atheist? 1972)"
Thanks for remembering Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She has a great story as well as the story of her famous son.
YOU: "Mall's vote has been removed multiple times already because there is no substance to it, but they continue to come back to repost it anyways. So no, there is nothing more than that meaningless statement in their vote."
Thanks for informing me!
No semantic bullshit here.
I am literally just believing you when you wrote, "The resolution makes this debate SUBJECTIVE by definition."
When I challenged that characterization, you doubled down and said "should implies subjectivity" (talk about semantic bullshit)
Is this a SUBJECTIVE debate as you have declared? Yes or no?
Please answer yes or no directly without subterfuge in your next post.
I've given you legitimate reasons as to why we don't according to whether we find ourselves personally convinced, showed you where the rules support that notion, explained what the burden of proof is and how it factors... And all you have is this semantic BS.
If you are no longer interested in a real conversation just say so.
"You're literally categorizing the philosophical debate we just had along with rap battles, poetry slams, and talent shows. Wow."
I am literally just believing you when you say, "The resolution makes this debate SUBJECTIVE by definition." Wow.
This is what I mean when I say you're not being serious. Your entire point here is just semantics to an absurd degree.
You're literally categorizing the philosophical debate we just had along with rap battles, poetry slams, and talent shows. Wow.
DART VOTING POLICY: "Some debates by their nature, or pre-agreement between the debaters, are not eligible for normal moderation..... Examples of non-moderated debates include...
SUBJECTIVE COMPETITIONS
Differentiated from normal debates, rap battles, poetry slams, talent shows, and the like, are too subjective to a different standard than what these rules are designed to enforce."
DOUBLE_R (instigator of this debate) on whether or not this debate is SUBJECTIVE:
"Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
The resolution makes this debate SUBJECTIVE by definition."
At PRO's repeated insistence, this debate is non-moderated.
Mall's vote has been removed multiple times already because there is no substance to it, but they continue to come back to repost it anyways. So no, there is nothing more than that meaningless statement in their vote.
YOU concerning the vote: "Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang."
Is that the totality of your explanation or did you post it somewhere else?
"Are you taking back the part about this being a subjective debate or are your disagreeing with DART rules about how to handle subjective debates?"
Neither.
There is nothing about the DART rules that contradicts anything I've said. In fact it only affirms it. The rules are not intended to be a class on how to cast votes, it's just giving you the basics. Take not of the following excerpt:
"To be clear: pre-existing bias for or against either side, must never be a decisive factor in any point allotment."
They don't go into any further detail on how to ensure this, that's where this conversation and everything I've said comes in. Again, according to your own posts you do not believe Con adaquately refuted my case but you voted against me in large part anyway because you personally found my case unconvincing. That is the definition of personal bias in voting.
Let me repeat again; I WASN'T DEBATING YOU. If I was, I would have done a much better job of defending my case because I would have had the opportunity to hear your concerns first hand and address them directly and in depth. I wasn't given that opportunity because Con decided to make his own case and focus on that instead despite it's irrelevance to the resolution.
And as far as this whole subjective debate thing... Have you never heard of a philosophical debate before? Do you really think the rules on how you judge the participants change because the resolution is not fact based?
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7664/post-links/331173
"Ok, I see we've reached the part of the conversation where you stop being serious, presumably because you know where this is going."
I am quite serious when I say that as soon you switched to "oh, this is just a subjective debate" at the end of your second argument, you surrendered any rational grounds for complaint about how people voted on your proposition. Are you taking back the part about this being a subjective debate or are your disagreeing with DART rules about how to handle subjective debates?
"The answer is yes, you give credit for the argument if it's ignored. It's called a concession, and it's one of the most basic rules of judging debates."
I have never studied or participated in any formal debating. The rules I go by are printed here: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
"Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
You had the Burden of Proof and gave me two silly and unconvincing arguments that together added zero affirmation, zero strength to your thesis. CON's argument did not address your unconvincing proofs, true, but negated effectively by demonstrating popular, recent, and effective use of the word ATHEIST in the strict sense.
'It's not about whether you buy the argument, it's about whether it was properly refuted."
So your argument could just read "boogers" and if I did not come back with a proper refutation of "boogers" (unboogers, I suppose) than the guy who just said "boogers" automatically wins? I think I'm glad I never tried formal debating.
In Con's arguments, he states "Con: The definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of anygods. " I will be using the "anygods" in my ranking of his
Better spelling and grammar.
Basically, the biblical God claims to be the one true and living God. He claims no gods were before Him and none after Him. Jesus Christ, claims He is the one way to God for salvation is found in no other. If that is true then Hinduism is false. I can give you extraordinary evidence that it is true. Show me the same with Hinduism.
YOU:
"Lord Ganesha is also knonw as Ganapati, Vighnaharta, Vinayak and elephant head god in India, Is the most worshipped deities in the Hinduism and is the supreme deity. Ganapati is a popular figure in Indian art and worshipped on all religious occasions, especially at the beginning of all ventures.
I ask PGA2.0 why he thinks Lord Ganesha does not exist?"
***
Very simply. Two opposing deities that claim they are Lord and God cannot both be true, via the logical law of non-contradiction or even the law of identity.
Next, what evidence can you present that Lord Ganesha is the true God or Lord? The biblical evidence offers a myriad of proofs so indepth that also is backed up by extra-biblical historic records. Show me Lord Ganesha has logical consistent evidence that he even exists, instead of a product of the human mind.
> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
There's your conditional statement.
> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
Feel free to point out any errors you may find.
Ok, I see we've reached the part of the conversation where you stop being serious, presumably because you know where this is going.
The answer is yes, you give credit for the argument if it's ignored. It's called a concession, and it's one of the most basic rules of judging debates.
It's not about whether you buy the argument, it's about whether it was properly refuted.
And to your other point, the burden of proof is not about who has to do a better job of convincing you, it's about which side has the responsibility to make a positive case. Con, not having the burden can if he so chooses, do nothing but sit back and throw stones at my arguments. I didn't have that luxery. That's the difference.
"If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?"
When voting on a subjective debate, no such criteria need apply.
"That's why it's called a burden. If you don't think it's your job to convince me the voter that you're right, then I am unlikely to find your argument persuasive, am I?"
If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?
Lord Ganesha is also knonw as Ganapati, Vighnaharta, Vinayak and elephant head god in India, Is the most worshipped deities in the Hinduism and is the supreme deity. Ganapati is a popular figure in Indian art and worshipped on all religious occasions, especially at the beginning of all ventures.
I ask PGA2.0 why he thinks Lord Ganesha does not exist?