"They are irrelevant points. Whether or not you think Atheism is a religion doesn't matter in the context of our debate or the debate we are analyzing."
You have no refutation. All you can say , "it doesn't matter", "it's irrelevant", "it doesn't matter".
I don't believe you even understand the point of others and myself saying that atheism is a religion. Remember what we say, it's all based on a perspective.
Does the perspective have validity?
You have to be willing to hear out the person's case to know. Question it to test for validity. See if it holds water.
When you investigate, challenge a subject like a scientist, you research, you question. When you're biased, you're dismissive and you're closed to the case.
"Those two terms "belief " and "disbelief " in and of themselves are not in agreement."
"Mall here openly concedes the fundamental disagreement within the debate. Everything else he says, I will show to be irrelevant. "
What is the debate here I created about?
This response you made is indicating something you are not understanding. I'll be generous leaving it at. Something you're not understanding.
I going to explain again, that this debate and the debate related to this one is not solely so much the emphasis on those two terms.
I never said "belief" and "disbelief" are the same and now I'm backpedaling.
I can't believe this thing is ultra complicated for you.
This is why you should be asking questions to get an understanding.
But what it appears is you carry on with the wrong information whether you care or not just to try to evade possible error on your part .
It's the belief/disbelief tied to a subject.
When you put two and two together, it comes out the same.
Two one dollar bills are not the same as eight quarters. However when you add up the value like adding up someone's entire position, it equals the same in equivalent value.
If you really don't follow by this point, I have to highly suspect you're rejecting to.
I reflect back on perspectives. My left is a right. It's not invalid being that it is from the perspective of your right.
North and south contradict not based on respective points of view.
"This is why if you say an atheist believes there is no God, it's not contradicting or disagreeable to the statement of an atheist not having a belief in God."
"This is irrelevant to the resolution."
No refutation. Everytime you say irrelevant such as this, my points are valid I know.
"They are debating how this should best linguistically be accepted. "
Preaching to the choir. We know, everybody and they momma know it was a semantic debate.
I'm saying again, regardless of the way one wants to express their position, they do not conflict. So there is no right or wrong, no one view that is valid and the other is not.
"What is being debated is whether atheism should be accepted as:
a. A lack of belief in god(s)
b. The belief that no god(s) exist "
It should be accepted as either form of expression you choose. It should be accepted as a lack of a belief in God. It should be accepted as a belief in a lack of an existence of God.
How can we have both? There is no, no, no ,no conflict between the two. No problem. Define atheism whichever which a way of these. No problem.
"As we saw above, Mall concedes the disagreement within the debate."
False charge.
"He seems to be arguing that both positions can still have the same ontological perspective on God's existence in reality, but that's irrelevant."
No refutation from you.
"What is being contested is how this perspective should be accepted definitionally. "
Right and it makes no difference because one is not valid over the other . That point has been explained and proven repetitiously.
See one side on that debate was arguing what should be based on something. But one side doesn't have anything valid over the other to make it a required sole verbatim expression in favor of that side.
Hence it was a draw exchange.
"Mall's argument for this debate being a tie has essentially fallen apart. Why is that? Because Mall isn't arguing it is a tie based on what is actually being debated.
He is arguing it is a tie based on the fact that both classifications of Atheism can rule out the existence of God, when what is being debated is the presence of belief and how atheism should be accepted.
Mall has effectively failed to meet his burden of proof. He has not made an argument as to why this debate is a tie."
So I'll wrap this up with a basic simple analogy.
Hopefully at this point, the opposing side of this debate has a better understanding and is open to understand what I'm saying this debate round.
You and I can argue that this glass of water content can be defined in opposing expressions.
The glass only has a 50 percent contained mass of water.
I argue that this glass of water is to be defined only as half empty. That is the valid basis to say it should be defined as a negative or absence of material.
You argue the exact opposite. It should be defined as half full due to the positive or presence of material.
Why are both expressions equivalent in meaning or value?
The fullness thereof concerning the container is indicated with the term "half" expressing the other part of the container which has a negative or absence of substance/material.
Believing there is no God and not believing there is do not conflict but harmonize.
Isn't there a Presidential review of debate topics?
If trying to have a debate in defense of one of your votes, the debate should have a resolution scope of just that, instead of the outcome of the whole debate.
You get all pissy that your lack of an even coherent RFD kept getting your vote taken down, and so you turn your vote into a debate topic?
I don't know if that is what he means, but this should not be a hard debate based on this. The resolution is not a debate that exists.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3403-atheism-is-simply-a-lack-of-belief
In that case, I will ask: what debate are you referring to?
Please stop making "leave it in the comment" as something mandatory. We opportunists, seeing an unclear topic, will just use that point to defeat you instead of pointing it out. Please make your argument clearer or just make one that is bare undefeatable. If your weapon is flawed, your opponent won't tell you to repair it, they will smash it to pieces.
There is no debate called that. Please stop arguing unwinnable topics.