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
Better arguments
6
9
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
3
Better conduct
4
4
After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
PGA2.0
Tags
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
Pro
#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.
Con
#2
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
Pro
#3
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.
Con
#4
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
Pro
#5
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.
Con
#6
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.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in comments https://www.debateart.com/debates/3403/comment-links/42552
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
As initiator and maker of extraordinary claims, PRO has the BURDEN of PROOF here.
PRO offers us three fairly different standards to apply:
1) Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
2) The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
3) [A lack of belief] should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize.
PRO clearly states that #2 is the Full Resolution and so #2 will be used to establish PRO's burden. That is, this VOTER won't apply the much lower standard of "lack of belief is one simple definition for atheism" or the much lower standard of "most reasonable." #2 does appear to be PRO's intent. PRO must prove that atheism has only one acceptable definition. Given that PRO is contradicting the body of Western scholarship regarding this definition, PRO has set himself a nearly impossible task. PRO defines all kinds of terms except for the one relevant term, ATHEISM.
PRO argues that dictionaries should do away with the most strict , precise definition of atheism and only use the more broad definition mostly overlapping with agnosticism.
Logical Incoherence
PRO argues that strict atheism is incoherent because there are too many concepts of god to actively disbelieve them all. Where the rule that prohibits categorical denial came from, PRO does not say. To me, merely refusing to accept any supernatural explanation is sufficient denial of the possibility of all gods, by definition. To say, "strictly atheist until proof of GOD" seems perfectly rational and strictly atheist without need to consult each and every god conception.
Nevertheless, PRO fails to explain why a logically incoherent concept does not merit its own word. Just because the fear of spiders is irrational doesn't imply that the word arachnophobia ought not to be defined.
Practical Uselessness
PRO uses weak analogy to argue that because agnosticism and atheism are alike performatively in terms of non-worship, they must also be identical in terms of theory. That is, there is no practical distinction between the roommate who does not go to church because he does not believe there could ever be a god and the roommate who does not go to church because he does not pretend to know whether god is real. A scientist is the same thing as a skeptic, in essence.
PRO does explain what word we would use to replace atheism if strict atheism were re-defined to only mean the same thing as agnosticism.
CON fails to address either idea directly but does a fine job of establishing the strict usage of atheism is a popular and commonplace understanding and correctly challenges PRO authority to presume redefinition without even basic reliance on precedence in literature or religious thought. CON's reliance on sources here ultimately makes CON's affirmative the strongest, even as CON neglected his duties to negate PRO. CON's strongest argument is that absence of belief is more agnostic than atheistic. CON also argues that ATHEISM in its strictest sense is correct usage.
PRO never really argued against the utility of using the broad, duplicative definition of atheism although PRO clearly expected as much.
In R2-
1) Etymology of Atheism- PRO invents an entirely fictional etymology for the word atheism without reliance on even one work of reference.
2) PRO drops the evidence for the ordinary usage of atheism in the strictest sense saying its cherry picked.
3) PRO drops the evidence for the commonplace definition by saying its cherry picked and then tries to refute by using a MW definition of atheist, not ATHEISM and that MW definition relies on a definition of ATHEISM that falsifies PRO's thesis
"a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
4 & 5 PRO's strongest counters are that worldview and propositional position are not necessary to the categorization of ATHEISM.
6) PRO rejects CON's sources without explanation
7) PRO asserts his authority is based in reason but PRO has given no rational argument against the regular usage of an ordinary word, on a rational argument against strict atheism ideologically.
(cont in COMMENTS)
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The entire discussion revolves around the resolution and the proper usage ("should") and interpretation of the word "atheist" itself.
CON argues that because the word itself has been used in some cases and by some people to mean "belief in the impossibility of any and all god(s)" that means that the word itself ALWAYS means that and only that.
This is obviously inaccurate.
CON is making an argumentum ad populum AND an argumentum ad verecundiam (with their reliance on famous quotes).
PRO confirms the resolution by comparing the word "apolitical" to the word "atheist" which elegantly illustrates that simply adding an "a" prefix to another word DOES NOT necessarily mean that you are "anti" or "the opposite" of that word.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in comments
I'm just honestly surprised at the trying to claim a definition for a word with a link that shows that definition is used when said word is preceded by 'not'. Like, how does someone honestly think they can get away with that when they include the URL?
At least with my vote I let any possible bias on my end be made clear in the first paragraph before going into my justification for points (thus making it so if there is a problem with my vote it is apparent). The idea of just making BS statements, being inconsistent, fallacious, and outright dishonest in order to justify a vote though? It is insane.
I had to block 3RU7AL just yesterday, due to the sophistry BS.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mall // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision:
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.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Even if the voter chooses not to award points, the voter must provide some evaluation of the arguments given in the debate. This RFD does not discuss any material from the debate itself, merely providing the voter's views on the resolution and the positions of the debaters.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
The reasons are much better.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The above RFD does not explain the voter's decision beyond vaguely stating that one side had better reasons.
Did you really think no one would look at your linked source? Your second definition literally follows from "not merely". You know, the word 'not' is important there, right?
To copy from it,
"not merely
— used to say that one thing is true and that another thing is also true"
Don't be a dishonest hack your entire life.
MERELY meaning:
1 : only, just used to say that someone or something is **small, unimportant**, etc. used to describe the only reason for something or the only effect of something;
2 : used to say that one thing is true and that another thing is also true
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/merely
This has always been a purely voluntary interaction.
""SHOULD BE ACCEPTED"
DOES NOT MEAN
"SHOULD BE THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEFINITION""
You are literally ignoring the word MERELY, which literally means ONLY.
Ya, I'm done with this discussion. You are clearly being dishonest at this point.
I'd need to take a closer look at this debate before I make a call on his vote. You can report it if you wish, I haven't had an opportunity to get to the more recently reported votes on this debate just yet.
Quoted directly from the debate description:
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
"SHOULD BE ACCEPTED"
"SHOULD BE ACCEPTED"
DOES NOT MEAN
"SHOULD BE THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEFINITION"
MANY WORDS HAVE MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS
INCLUDING THE WORD YOU CHOSE AS AN EXAMPLE, NAMELY "ONE"
> ...counter it with an equally compelling (aka, scientific)...
If the best "survey" on the topic is the OPINIONS of a ridiculously small sample size of over-privileged Oxford students, there is no need to "counter survey".
Specifically because no survey on the topic could possibly refute the debate resolution.
Just because you personally find this particular survey "compelling" does not mean it is relevant to the topic at hand.
As I've already pointed out, language is NOT democratic (51% winner take all).
"PRO personally believes that the term "atheist" is best described as someone who "lacks a belief" in any and all (theistic) gods that they are currently aware of.
CON believes that nobody anywhere should use that definition"
And this makes it clear that you are not voting based on the actual resolution. Pro needs to argue that atheism is merely the lack of belief, but yet you have now changed the resolution to one where Con has the full BoP to show that no one should use that definition. These are two different resolutions, and based on this comment it is clear you aren't actually voting on this debate proper.
@whiteflame, does this not constitute reason to think this vote is fraudulent? If you are voting by acting like the debate resolution is something other than what it is, then it seems as if the vote violates the voting policy, specifically,
"Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution"
> I have made clear criticisms of your points and then added an observation, insulting as it might be, on top of that.
You talk about red-herrings and then claim that your characterizations are not intended to discredit my arguments?
Make up your mind.
"I was specifically presenting a SPECIFC example where etymology was OBVIOUSLY NOT RELEVANT."
That was completely irrelevant to the actual discussion, yes. Do you not know what a Red Herring is?
"Thanks for the argumentum ad hominem."
Do you know what an ad hominem is? It is to attack the person as a way of attacking the position. I have made clear criticisms of your points and then added an observation, insulting as it might be, on top of that. That means that it is not an ad hominem, even if it might look that way to certain types of people.
"Honestly, at this rate I think you just want CON to be the winner (likely because you agree with CON's definition) and are just talking out your ass in order to justify it."
Only one person here has not used fallacies, has had their vote removed by moderation, etc.
Furthermore, if I was biased in that manner then I would have assigned the argument points to Con.
Everything was justified in my RFD without, I believe, a show of bias. The same cannot necessarily be said about you.
"instead of resting on your 561 individuals (not a representative sample) who you believe agree with you"
Way to just dismiss literally the only scientific survey that sought how a general populace views the term 'atheist'. I admitted its limitations at the very beginning when I brought it up, but also made it clear that said limitations are not as impactful when YOU and anyone else on Pro's side cannot counter it with an equally compelling (aka, scientific) poll/survey to show any other result.
I'm not sure if there's a specific number of vote bombs, but if it becomes a common trend, we'll ban you from voting. You won't be banned from the site for vote bombing alone.
> In that case, language has no 'should' for meaning, and thus no one can win (yet you voted someone to win?).
PRO is obviously arguing from their own personal perspective (how could this NOT be the case).
PRO personally believes that the term "atheist" is best described as someone who "lacks a belief" in any and all (theistic) gods that they are currently aware of.
CON believes that nobody anywhere should use that definition (and furthermore that PRO and anyone who calls themselves an "atheist" is obviously illogical, while presumably the "theists" are super smart and extra logical for believing in unfalsifiable gods).
Honestly, at this rate I think you just want CON to be the winner (likely because you agree with CON's definition) and are just talking out your ass in order to justify it.
Thanks for the argumentum ad hominem.
Perhaps you could try to present the strongest possible case against the debate resolution instead of resting on your 561 individuals (not a representative sample) who you believe agree with you (who also did not say that "lack of belief" was an "unreasonable" interpretation of the word).
> In which case, bringing up that objection was a Red Herring in this discussion.
No.
No it was not.
I was specifically presenting a SPECIFC example where etymology was OBVIOUSLY NOT RELEVANT.
"I never made the claim that "etymology is irrelevant" IN ALL POSSIBLE CASES."
In which case, bringing up that objection was a Red Herring in this discussion.
"Allowing other people to "self-define" is crucial."
In that case, language has no 'should' for meaning, and thus no one can win (yet you voted someone to win?). Someone very well could say that to them being an atheist means to believe that God is their best friend, and you have zero way of saying that usage is incorrect or that atheist should mean something else.
Of course, that is unless we consider that language is inherently tied to social cohesion, and thus we go right back to argumentum ad populum being non-fallacious.
Language is unnecessary if there is only a single individual, it only becomes a thing when there is the attempt to communicate ideas between individuals. If we let every individual use whatever definition for whatever word then we end up with no cohesion, and thus language becomes pointless.
Honestly, at this rate I think you just want Pro to be the winner (likely because you agree with Pro's definition) and are just talking out your ass in order to justify it. This explains your inconsistencies, your Red Herring, your strange way of trying to describe what language even is, etc. If I am right, and I am beginning to suspect that this is the case, then this discussion becomes pointless as no matter what point is made you won't actually take it into real consideration.
I think you have to write much more then that, but I agree with the general outlook of your vote
How many vote bombs can you have before you are banned from the site?
> are inherently contradictory.
No, they are not.
Because they refer to two very different examples.
> Relying on the 'a' prefix is to inherently tie the discussion to etymology, but you also are saying that etymology is irrelevant.
I never made the claim that "etymology is irrelevant" IN ALL POSSIBLE CASES.
> Language is inherently a tool used to communicate ideas between individuals.
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS.
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS. This is key. I often find that "disagreements" are actually "miscommunications" between people with different AXIOMS and different definitions. Specifically between "atheists" and "christians" who often try to paint each other saying "you're not a TRUE christian because..." and "you're not a TRUE atheist because..." instead of ASKING each other what they personally MEAN when they call THEMSELVES one thing or the other thing.
Allowing other people to "self-define" is crucial.
It's like finding out one of your co-workers self-identifies as a muslim and then asking them why the like flying planes into buildings.
And when they say, that's not what it means to be a muslim (to them personally), you try to tell them they are not a TRUE muslim if they don't like flying planes into buildings.
This is exactly what CON is doing to PRO.
Can you consider elaborating a bit? In such a close debate, every point matters, and you just threw him 3 points for a one line reason that can't be deciphered in a meaningful sense.
"It's certainly not because of the "history and etymology" of those particular words."
and
"PRO confirms the resolution by comparing the word "apolitical" to the word "atheist" which elegantly illustrates that simply adding an "a" prefix to another word DOES NOT necessarily mean that you are "anti" or "the opposite" of that word."
are inherently contradictory. Relying on the 'a' prefix is to inherently tie the discussion to etymology, but you also are saying that etymology is irrelevant. This shows clear lack of consistency on your part.
I do think etymology plays a weak role, as the history and origin of words tends to be tied to usage to an extent. Again, as I have continued to say, the key is context. Language is inherently a tool used to communicate ideas between individuals. That is what language is. This means that that context needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to the meaning of words.
If you are looking at things from a colloquial level, then common usage is what is relevant, and thus argumentum ad populum is non-fallacious.
If you are looking at things from a meme perspective, like with 'Let's go Brandon', then it becomes important to look at historical usages and see where the meme usage originates (and possibly how it has evolved), and thus how it is used within a particular subset of people (those that use the meme and the intended audience), even if that is not society as a whole.
If you are looking at things from an academic perspective, well language becomes standardized at points within academia and so using academic resources is a good way of determining meaning.
Etc.
As such, 'Let's go Brandon' can have different meanings depending on the context it is being used in.
"which according to your "context" qualifier would only apply to the Oxford campus"
When it is literally the only scientific survey of a general audience, even if it was limited to students on Oxford campus, it gives more weight to the survey than any random poll you could find.
"This is a non-trivial percentage of your "Oxford students""
Which becomes trivial when you consider that the 'is convinced that there is no God or gods' and 'believes that there is no God or gods' are similar enough that taking a more general 'no god(s)' approach creates such a massive majority (nearly 80%) in comparison, and that even if you don't find this appropriate that the 'believes that there is no God or gods.' is a majority (not just a plurality).
"Don't you think it's a bit of a conflict of interest to vote in a debate where you were counseling one of the participants?"
If I was helping them throughout the debate, sure. I didn't though, I only gave advice leading up to R1.
It is no different then if you regularly talked with someone about a topic, saw them debate it, and then gave a vote.
So long as you did not actually assist them throughout the debate, it does not seem necessarily like a conflict of interest has occurred.
I also made sure it was clear that I had done so in my RFD so that if a mod took issue with it that it could be removed (and I would have no complaint about that).
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual for the following:
PRO confirms the resolution by comparing the word "apolitical" to the word "atheist" which elegantly illustrates that simply adding an "a" prefix to another word DOES NOT necessarily mean that you are "anti" or "the opposite" of that word.
What do you think the words "let's go Brandon" mean and why do you think they have that particular meaning ?
> 3. A person who lacks a belief in God or gods. 93 (13.6%)
This is a non-trivial percentage of your "Oxford students" (which according to your "context" qualifier would only apply to the Oxford campus).
> If everyone uses the word one to mean the number that is between zero and two but some random person starts using the word one to mean paintbrush then the person would, in society, come off as speaking nonsense or speaking in a difficult to understand way (if they realized this meaning change). Because language functions as part of social cohesion, this automatically makes this usage of language worse than the common usage of language.
One might use the word one to refer to oneself without contradicting other interpretations of the word based on CONTEXT.
There is very little FUNCTIONAL difference between "lack of belief" or "unconvinced" (AND) "belief (faith) in the impossibility of any and all conceivable god(s)".
It is not anywhere close to the difference between "one" and "paintbrush".
(IFF) the debate resolution included "the most common and most popular understanding of the term ATHEISM" (THEN) making an argumentum ad populum would be appropriate
What do you think the words "let's go Brandon" mean and why do you think they have that particular meaning ?
It's certainly not because of the "history and etymology" of those particular words.
It's certainly not because "the majority of english speakers" have a "common understanding" of those particular words.
It's certainly not because "the academic establishment" has used those particular words in "highly respected" publications.
What do you think the words "let's go Brandon" mean and why do you think they have that particular meaning ?
I get the point, I don't think it holds any water towards negating the resolution. I could explain why but actual my opponent never went there.
Don't you think it's a bit of a conflict of interest to vote in a debate where you were counseling one of the participants?
It is actually one of the things I recommended Con to address before the debate began.
The thing is that while there might be a lot of polls that people can appeal to, there is only one academic survey of popular usage that has ever been done and published. The source is the article 'Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism' by Dr. Bullivant.
Of course, it is limited in nature (having only interviewed from a general population of Oxford students in 2007), but the fact that it remains the only "scientific survey"/ academically run and published survey is powerful. The results of the survey are as follows:
1. A person who is convinced that there is no God or gods. 199 (28.1%)
2. A person who believes that there is no God or gods. 362 (51.2%)
3. A person who lacks a belief in God or gods. 93 (13.6%)
4. Don’t know. 4 (0.6%)
5. Something else. (please specify) 29 (4.1%)
6. Both ticked one (or more) of the given options and specified something else. 6 (0.8%)
7. Ticked two or more of the given options. 14 (2.0%)
From it, we can see that some variation of "no gods" is wildly the most understood definition of the word while the "lack a belief" is quite small. Combine that with the "no gods" variation being consistent with academic usage as well and this could have been a strong line of reasoning Con could have used.
This survey automatically has more weight than any other that could be brought up because it is a scientific one, in a peer reviewed source. This makes it so that the limits to the original survey, as well as it being 15 years old at this point, would not be nearly as strong a rebuttal as no reliable alternative could be brought up instead.
It is one reason I am disappointed in Con's arguments to an extent. I recommended this and instead Con used "atheism has a world view" instead.
"Language, on a colloquial level, is inherently tied to societal communication. If society, at large, understand a word to mean X then using that word to mean Y creates confusion"
It's a great point, one which I was more than prepared to address if Con had chosen to make it. He didn't.
"the best and or most correct usage of that word"
There is no such thing as a 'most correct usage' of language outside of the context that it is used in. If that is socially, then how it is understood by said society at large is absolutely the "most correct usage". If everyone uses the word one to mean the number that is between zero and two but some random person starts using the word one to mean paintbrush then the person would, in society, come off as speaking nonsense or speaking in a difficult to understand way (if they realized this meaning change). Because language functions as part of social cohesion, this automatically makes this usage of language worse than the common usage of language. As such, argumentum ad populum is not a fallacious use of reasoning in this context.
Just like in the example of emotional appeal I gave. No one can cry about an argumentum ad passiones if the topic is one where emotion is a key player (like if a particular story is a sad story or not).
And if we move to academic usage, we end up right back at how language is employed being one where crying 'argumentum ad verecundiam' is nonsense as well (as I already explained before).
The only way you can avoid this is to take some sort of realist approach to language, which is nonsensical, or to argue that language is not something that comes about due to a social dynamic (which is the only way you "language is anarchic" statement makes sense), but that would certainly be something difficult to ever be able to show as reasonable.
> I'm sorry, but how is an argumentum ad populum a fallacy in the context of this debate?
The idea that "the most common usage of a word" = "the best and or most correct usage of that word" is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
The idea that "academic usage of a word" = "the best and or most correct usage of that word" is an argumentum ad verecundiam.
Language is not "democratic" and language is also not "autocratic".
Language is "anarchic".
Even CON argued that using the term "atheist" to mean "belief (faith) in the impossibility of any and all conceivable god(s)" is illogical.
This point, (that this particular usage of the word is logically incoherent) is an "argumentum ad logos" and actually quite a strong argument AGAINST CONs own particular preferred usage of the word "atheist".
"CON is making an argumentum ad populum AND an argumentum ad verecundiam (with their reliance on famous quotes)."
I'm sorry, but how is an argumentum ad populum a fallacy in the context of this debate? It isn't a debate on what the 'fact of the matter' is, it is about how a word should be understood. Language, on a colloquial level, is inherently tied to societal communication. If society, at large, understand a word to mean X then using that word to mean Y creates confusion. Arguing that adhering to the societal understanding of a word, with understanding that societal understanding can shift over time, is a legitimate line of argument due to the nature of language. It is like claiming that someone is making an appeal to emotion fallacy when the debate is on which story is saddest.
Furthermore, language within an academic field is also standardized, to an extent, in order to ensure that miscommunication of ideas does not occur. Sometimes there is an authority that is not fallacious to appeal to. An argumentum ad verecundiam is specifically an appeal to an irrelevant authority, and while Con did commit this at times, some of those quotes are from more academic sources.
To quote from https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
"The argument from appeal to authority, the ad verecundiam fallacy, is characterized with examples and shown to be a fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when the appeal is to a relevant authority."
When it comes to academic usage of a word, appealing to a relevant authority (which Con did) can be useful. Sure, Con did not necessarily argue well enough that we should have our colloquial usage of a term more inline with the academic usage, which is something that could rightly be pointed out, but to argue that this is an 'argumentum ad verecundiam' without any actual detail is the misuse the fallacy.
The only one of these fallacies that could actually be relevant to the discussion is the argumentum ad verecundiam, but even then you need to actually go into detail on how this is being committed or else it looks like you are just pulling fallacies out your ass in order to justify your vote without even fully understanding them.
You're including implications that I did not imply.
"Not a number" means just what I said. It can be more than one if there is more than one pertinent point based on how you're evaluating it. If not, then it still remains important not to just exclude large portions of the debate without reason. So when you say:
"If there is a single argument that either supports or refutes the resolution, by itself, aren't all other arguments and counter-arguments superfluous (especially if they are repetitive logical fallacies)?"
that all comes with an explanation, a reason why that single argument is the most important and why other arguments in the debate are superfluous. Pointing out that that they are fallacious is one way to do that.
> I don't know why you keep referencing things I haven't said.
I'm referencing what you implied AND what you say below.
> I didn't specify a number of "specific points" because there is no number.
Not a number apparently means "more than one".
> You should be covering enough to represent the points that each side made.
Why would anyone do this?
If there is a single argument that either supports or refutes the resolution, by itself, aren't all other arguments and counter-arguments superfluous (especially if they are repetitive logical fallacies)?
> That doesn't mean you should be exhaustive, but that also doesn't mean that you can pick one point per side if there are a lot of points each side presents.
There are a lot of words, but not a lot of points.
> I never said there are "KEY POINTS" of any sort. Don't know why you keep putting that in quotes as though you're citing me.
Because, as you just said, "That doesn't mean you should be exhaustive, but that also doesn't mean that you can pick one point per side"
Which means, there are some "KEY POINTS" that are REQUIRED for your personal qualification of an "adequate RFD".
> Generally, though, if you're going to call much of the debate "FILLER", it's a good idea to justify why you believe that's true, i.e. what makes those arguments unsubstantial from your perspective.
Any text within the debate that neither supports nor refutes the debate resolution is "FILLER" (and should be ignored as such).
CON: atheists are illogical because you can't disprove all conceivable god(s) (because many of them are "unfalsifiable")
PRO: not all atheists "disbelieve" in all conceivable god(s), (for example, a DEIST is functionally "not a theist") many of them are simply "unconvinced" of the existence (and or significance) of any specific "theistic" god(s) (for example, "apolitical" does not always mean "anti-political" and or "strong disbelief in the concept of politics" but rather, "disinterested in politics")
CON: you're wrong because famous people agree with me and because the word itself "atheist" means "anti-theist"
I'll vote when I can
I don't know why you keep referencing things I haven't said.
I didn't specify a number of "specific points" because there is no number. You should be covering enough to represent the points that each side made. That doesn't mean you should be exhaustive, but that also doesn't mean that you can pick one point per side if there are a lot of points each side presents.
I never said there are "KEY POINTS" of any sort. Don't know why you keep putting that in quotes as though you're citing me. Generally, though, if you're going to call much of the debate "FILLER", it's a good idea to justify why you believe that's true, i.e. what makes those arguments unsubstantial from your perspective.
How many "specific points" are required ?
PLEASE TELL ME WHICH SPECIFIC POINTS YOU BELIEVE ARE THE "KEY POINTS" BECAUSE 99.9% OF THIS DEBATE IS FILLER
The entire discussion revolves around the resolution and the proper usage ("should") and interpretation of the word "atheist" itself.
CON argues that because the word itself has been used in some cases and by some people to mean "belief in the impossibility of any and all god(s)" that means that the word itself ALWAYS means that and only that.
This is obviously inaccurate.
CON is making an argumentum ad populum AND an argumentum ad verecundiam (with their reliance on famous quotes).
PRO confirms the resolution by comparing the word "apolitical" to the word "atheist" which elegantly illustrates that simply adding an "a" prefix to another word DOES NOT necessarily mean that you are "anti" or "the opposite" of that word.
PGA2. 0 put up a good performance in this debate
I didn't say anything about "key points." I said you need to cover specific arguments from both debaters and why you did or didn't find them convincing. Saying that Pro presented an argument that included an apolitical comparison to atheist doesn't tell me why you found the argument more convincing. Con presented arguments, not just quotes, so just dismissing his entire case on the basis that there were quotes is not sufficient.
PRO wins "more convincing arguments" with the "apolitical" comparison to "atheist" (WHICH OBVIOUSLY CONFIRMS THE RESOLUTION)
CON fails to address PRO's argument (specifically the one noted above) and instead present famous quotes which have absolutely no bearing on arguments presented
PLEASE TELL ME WHICH SPECIFIC POINTS YOU BELIEVE ARE THE "KEY POINTS" BECAUSE 99.9% OF THIS DEBATE IS FILLER
"American Atheists demonstrate it has all kinds of beliefs and opinions about God, and they do deny God"
Which one?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 3RU7AL // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
PRO confirms the resolution with sound logic
CON fails to address PRO's argument and instead present famous quotes which have absolutely no bearing on arguments presented
PRO wins "more convincing arguments" with the "apolitical" comparison to "atheist"
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter does not consider specific points presented by either side aside from pointing out an argument from Con that he dismisses, nor does he consider how any of these points impact under the resolution. The voter does add onto his RFD in the comments, but as written, this is insufficient.
RFD(1/3)
Full disclosure, PGA and I did talk about how one would best go about making the Con case before this debate. Once the debate kicked off I did step back and am going to try to judge this from a neutral POV.
The tricky thing about this debate is that, depending on context, language can be either prescriptive (as is usually the case in academia) or descriptive (when it comes to more colloquial usage). As such, the resolution becomes tricky to actually argue for one way or the other (as pointed out by some in the comments). After all, by what standards do we determine how a word should be used?
To start with, I think both sides conducted themselves well.
Nothing to complain about in regards to Pro's spelling and grammar.
I am, however, docking Con points on the spelling and grammar due to Round 2. While the spacing issue can be understandable as a formatting issue, what really takes it for me is the statement "I agree, it is logically untenable, yet that is whatatheists do by citing "lack of evidence" and adenial that God/god exists." At first I thought this was Con conceding, but it is increasingly obvious that it is just Con not properly portraying the idea trying to be conveyed. It is the combination of this with the spacing issue that really makes me have to grant Pro points here.
Sources, on the other hand, I think undeniably go to Con. Within Pro's arguments he only made two uses of outside sources, one of which was a duplicate from the Description and the other was to use the Merriam-Webster definition of 'atheist'. On the other hand, Con made use of resources from Oxford, the SEP, etymonline, etc. to help construct his case and try to strengthen it. I won't say all of Con's sources were great, but when it comes to covering etymology and the more academic usage these sources help with building and strengthening Con's arguments. Because of this, I award source points to Con.
Arguments is trickier, however, and I will break down each round and give my thoughts on where I think things stood at various points.
ROUND 1
Pro makes two arguments in his round 1, and I must confess that I find the first argument used perplexing. Pro argues that "defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of any gods is at its core logically untenable" due to the term god having many definitions, yet does so in a debate that a particular term should have only one definition. Appealing that a definition can be vague or have too many meanings in a debate for a term to be considered to only have a single accepted meaning seems like quite the issue that Con can capitalize on, but does Con actually capitalize on this issue?
Pro's argument on practical uselessness does, however, seem like a stronger argument, though not one I think is necessarily convincing. I think Con can refute it, but the question is if Con actually does or not.
RFD(2/3)
So, how was Con's first round? I would say it is a mixed bag.
I think Con's etymology argument was quite good, but a little short. The "atheism defined" section also is, I believe, quite powerful as in it Con looks at the academic usage of the word to support his position. I also think bringing up the SEP for the propositional definition is useful, but think that it doesn't constitute much of a new argument beyond the academic usage argument (these could be combined into one argument).
I think that Reddit user Wokeupbug does make convincing points, but the issue is that I think Con did not go into enough detail on this line of argumentation and so this section really did not seem that strong. We can only judge the parts Con used, and so sadly this section (which had potential) ended up wasted. I also think the "atheists in their own words" section was not useful, as all it takes is for Pro to show some self-identified atheists disagreeing to counter the usefulness of this line of argumentation.
Last, the section "an atheist has a worldview" is the section I think actually did more harm than good to Con. This section tries to attribute to atheists views outside of the non-existence of god, but none of the other strong arguments employed by Con would actually agree with this section. Using the academic literature wouldn't lead to the conclusions Con is trying to draw here, looking at the etymology won't either, etc.
In the end, I think that Con did make stronger opening arguments, but Con made, in my mind, a serious mistake that can lead to distraction from the issue in later rounds. After round 1 I would say Con is ahead, but there is a question on who can capitalize on the weakness of each others opening rounds more.
ROUND 2
Pro starts his round 2 by expressing disappointment that Con did not rebut arguments but instead presenting a case, saying that it was agreed that Pro would have the full BoP. I do not see where this is expressed though, but it ultimately has no bearing on the weight of the arguments.
Pro starts his rebuttals by attacking one of Con's stronger arguments, and it shows the exact worry I had after the first round (that Con did not spend enough time on the argument). I think most of the ways Pro tried to counter this argument would have failed had Con actually spent time to support the argument in round 1 instead of immediately jumping to make more arguments.
Pro rightly points out the weakness of the "atheists in their own words" section, but I think made a misstep in trying to rebut the "atheism defined" section. Con made sure to use academic sources to support this section while Pro used Merriam-Webster in order to do so (and this is the only time Pro uses a source to support an argument!), but the weight of these are not equal. This really seemed like a weak rebuttal to me.
When Pro addressed the "atheists have a worldview" section he just made a small argument that it is nonsense to attribute atheists having beliefs to atheism containing beliefs, but does not capitalize on showing that this line of argumentation conflicts with other arguments Con made.
Pro's response to the "propositional definition of atheism" section also was very lackluster. He does not go into detail and ignores the Law of Excluded Middle in relation to propositions despite having brought up the Law of Excluded Middle himself in a different point. I think Pro did not spend nearly the amount of time needed to rebut this point, especially when Con built this argument using the SEP as a source.
Pro did, however, rightly point out that Con was relying too much on Wokeupbug's words on Reddit and did not provide the needed support in the actual debate.
Pro's response to Con's question of Pro's authority was also lackluster, especially considering Pro's weak rebuttals to the academic definitions Con provided. Using other people's views, how a term is used by others, etc. in order to strengthen a case is actually a good thing, yet Pro tries to write off Con doing this by arguing the subjectivity of the resolution.
In the end, Pro did manage to defeat Con's weaker arguments and undermine the etymology argument (though I think Con has potential of coming back from that one), but I find the rest of Pro's arguments this round to be very lackluster. Considering how weak I found Pro's opening arguments, I think that Con has the potential to capitalize on this and, if he does so, leave Pro little room to catch up in the last round.
RFD(3/3)
So, did Con capitalize on this opportunity? Sadly, no.
I think Con did a good job pointing out Pro's lack of sourcing to support the "lack" definition, but a lot of the rest of Con's pre-R1 rebuttal seemed as if it was unneeded or belonged elsewhere in the round.
Con does, in the R1 rebuttal section, point out that Pro's position is more aligned with what is normally understood to be agnosticism, but there is hardly any actual space dedicated to showing this. Instead, Con jumps to use a Dawkins quote, which really seems quite weak. I do think Con's argument that an atheist is one that rejects any god concept is a decent enough rebuttal to Pro's "logically untenable" argument, but it is weakened by not narrowing down what "god" means, as without that Pro can still appeal to "god is too vague a term". Con could have, alternatively, gone down the route of arguing noncognitivism as a subset of atheism, but he doesn't do that either.
Even the response to the practical uselessness section was disappointing. I think that by appealing that Pro's "There is no lack of belief approach" statement that there at least becomes something that Pro needs to respond to, but there rebuttal was so lackluster that it really didn't do much to help Con's case.
This lackluster response also exists when Con tries to address Pro's rebuttals. The only one given any time to be worth anything is the response to etymology, and even then it isn't given the needed depth to be useful.
In the end, Con's round 2 was absolutely wasted potential. Pro managed to bring into doubt one of Con's good arguments and showed Con's weak arguments were just that. I don't think that Pro did a good job addressing all of Con's arguments though, but this round really helped Pro catch up in my mind. Con really could have had this in the bag after this round, instead they let Pro catch up, making it so that Pro very well could turn this around in Round 3.
ROUND 3
Pro starts this round by, imo, overstating how strong his case has been so far (not that I blame him after seeing Con's R2), but it really does not do him any good.
Pro starts the actual rebuttals by addressing Con's use of saying Pro's position is more generally understood to be agnosticism (or ignorance or apathy), but the problem is that the rebuttal to the agnostic label requires presupposing Pro's definitions for theism and atheism and not Con's (as Con made clear in his R1 via the SEP that these terms should be understood in relation to a preposition).
Pro dismantles Con's rebuttal of the logical coherence section of R2. The rest of Pro's R3 really seemed to only touch on the points being made or used, imo, some uncharitable interpretations. I do think, however, the Pro does correctly point out some of Con's inconsistencies in regards to if there is a middle position or not.
Con starts R2 giving his insight into how things have played out, but it really does not help his case when he is as behind as he is. The only part of this section that I think did help, at least on some level, was "Accept my definitions as opposed to Pros" part, but this really should have been saved for the end of the round.
Con then points out that Pro only ever used 2 sources, but this was unnecessary as it was already brought up in round 2 without a strong/convincing challenge to it.
Con then spends the rest of the round barely making a strong point against any of Pro's arguments or rebuttals so far.
In the end, Con wasted rounds 2 and 3 while having an almost solid round 1. The biggest issue is how many different lines of argumentation Con tried to use and uphold, causing him to not have enough time to give them adequate time in the following rounds. Pro did manage to keep his initial arguments at least somewhat standing, but also didn't create a strong counter to Con's stronger arguments. However, because Con did not actually spend enough time reinforcing these arguments in rounds 2 and 3 they really started to loose their "oomf". I honestly don't think that I can give Con points for arguments, but I also think Pro's arguments were lackluster and that Pro failed to give a truly solid rebuttal to Con's stronger arguments.
As such, I am leaving arguments at a tie.
How can we explain the beginning of theism? Well,recognizing the evolutionary roots of much of human behavior, it seems that a psychological susceptibility to belief in God is the result of adaptive design. That hypothesis would only make sense if indeed there were behaviors associated with such susceptibility that made us genetically successful. Just as canine teeth evolved to help people rip the flesh off bones, could a belief in God have evolved to help people tear off bits of meaning from an otherwise meaningless existence? Or perhaps God is simply a spandrel—an architectural term (for an ornamental arch) adopted by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin to indicate a biological feature that is passed down part and parcel with another trait and is not on its own a product of natural selection. God might be an accidental by-product of human cognitive evolution, a functionless leftover of the capacity to reason about other human minds in the everyday social world, as cognitive scientists such as Pascal Boyer of Washington University in St. Louis believe.
the key point you seem to be missing is,
"atheists" do not have a king
"atheists" are independent thinkers
"atheists" do not follow dogma or sacred texts
you keep referencing famous writers
nobody gives a single shit who wrote what and who called themselves an "atheist" or not
"atheists" are not "united" any more than "nonsmokers" are "united"
"atheists" are not "united" any more than "non-stamp-collectors" are "united"
the "apolitical" example illustrates this best
"apolitical" does not mean "anti-political" and does not mean someone "hates politics"
they simply don't give a shit about politics
also, you both missed the point that a DEIST is technically an ATHEIST (not a theist)
DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ATHEISM
you can't make any assumptions about why someone chooses to identify as a "non-smoker" and you furthermore can't make any assumptions about what other beliefs this person ("non-smoker") might subscribe to
you can't make any assumptions about why someone chooses to identify as an "atheist" and you furthermore can't make any assumptions about what other beliefs this person ("atheist") might subscribe to
people are free to call themselves whatever they wish - - for whatever reasons (or non-reasons) they wish
Why did you make the voting period 60 days?