Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."
In late 19c. sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."
In the first sense above given, atheism is to be discriminated from pantheism, which denies the personality of God, and from agnosticism, which denies the possibility of positive knowledge concerning him. In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism. [Century Dictionary]
https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheism
Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."
In late 19c. sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."
In the first sense above given, atheism is to be discriminated from pantheism, which denies the personality of God, and from agnosticism, which denies the possibility of positive knowledge concerning him. In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism. [Century Dictionary]
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes.
What is atheism? - Atheist Alliance International
Atheism is very simple, yet widely misunderstood. The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix ‘a’. So let’s break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix ‘a’ means; ‘without’ or ‘lack of’. Therefore, atheism means ‘without a belief in a god or gods'.
I've always heard the term "merely" used to diminish the importance of and or de-emphasize a subject.
But in reality, we don't need to "decipher the text" ourselves because "author's intent" is available from Double_R.
Synonyms for merely
but, just, only, purely, simply
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/merely
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as **simply** "a lack of belief in a god"
Words Related to simply
**basically**, by and large, chiefly, generally, largely, mainly, mostly, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantially
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/simply
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as **basically** "a lack of belief in a god"
Double_R, did you intend your use of the word "merely" in the expanded debate resolution to be a synonym for "exclusively" or "only" (OR) did you intend your use of the word "merely" to mean "basically, generally, mainly, mostly, predominantly, primarily" ?
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
> ...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).
> 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).
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.
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'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".
> 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"
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.
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
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
Autarkic - definition of autarkic by The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/autarkic
Define autarkic. autarkic synonyms, autarkic pronunciation, autarkic translation, English dictionary definition of autarkic. or au·tar·chy n. pl. au·tar·kies or au·tar·chies 1. A policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports or economic aid.
> I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that respect for ones duty isn't motivated by reward, or that it isn't grounds for granting points in the debate?
I'm pointing out that "respect for ones duty" is NOT a reward itself.
The feeling you get when you either self-recognize or when others recognize you for "respecting ones duty" that feeling of "I am a good person" that good feeling is the reward function.
A lot of people throughout history have used "respect for ones duty" to get people to do all kinds of atrocious things.
The phrase "respect for ones duty" is a brainwashing technique.
The phrase "respect for ones duty" is an indirect appeal to authority.
> How much do you need defined to know what we're talking about? Just use the normal, applicable definitions, that's what you should assume.
Nope. A debate requires technical definitions. A debate resolution must be logically-coherent.
> Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
If you check the definition of "truth" you'll find that it requires correlation with "fact" and "fact" must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.
This means that PRINCIPLE requires TRUTH which requires FACT which requires EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND OR LOGICAL NECESSITY.
PRINCIPLE must be QUANTIFIABLE
> Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable.
This is indistinguishable from moral impulse and or moral intuition and or moral preference and or PURE UNFETTERED OPINION.
Also, "justified" is begging the question somewhat.
> Wrong: unjust, dishonest, or immoral
Does this inverse definition of "RIGHT" leave any room for morally neutral actions and or motives ?
You started off strong with "Argument: Hume's Guillotine",
But then you wound yourself in circles muddying the water.
(IFF) you are capable of understanding this (AND) you value your own existence (THEN) you must value the lives of at least some of those on which you directly and indirectly depend (humans, plants, and animals)
In conclusion, as autonomous beings, we should be acting out of a sense of duty to the moral law we give ourselves. The reason we should respect the dignity of persons is because we are all rational beings. The exercise of that capacity for reason makes us worthy of dignity. Since it's the same capacity for reason, it is unqualified by the particulars of circumstance. It's the same Universal capacity for reason that delivers the moral law. So, to act autonomously, is to act according to a moral law we give ourselves, exercising our Reason. Not the particular reasons we have because of circumstance, but the reason that legislates A Priori, regardless of empirical ends.
I am a big fan of deontological ethics and the categorical imperative.
However, you seem to have quite a different understanding of both of these terms than I hold myself.
Jane sincerely believes that she donates to the needy because it is her duty.
However, Jane actually donates to the needy because she believes this act is part of what makes her a good person and she enjoys the feeling she gets when she believes she is a good person.
Desires are intrinsically motivating. They are not however, all that is intrinsically motivating. Right and wrong are also intrinsically motivating concepts. Since right and wrong are both concepts, then they are subject to the laws of Reason, such as the law of non-contradiction which states that to contradict oneself is inherently irrational. For this reason, the basis upon which our moral principles must lie is Reason alone. If my opponent was to question the reason of Reason, then he would implicitly be committing to using reason.
GOOD = things that make me happy
BAD = things that cause me pain or make me sad
Being forced to disclose your medical information is protected. Do we force people to reveal any other health information before receiving service. Even healthcare providers are not allowed to demand a patient reveal if they have HIV or Hep C. That's what universal precautions are for.
Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.
Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."
In late 19c. sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."
In the first sense above given, atheism is to be discriminated from pantheism, which denies the personality of God, and from agnosticism, which denies the possibility of positive knowledge concerning him. In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism. [Century Dictionary]
https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheism
Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
I highly value your opinion. Thank you for your input.
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as **essentially** "a lack of belief in a god"
Key point: "In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism."
atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."
In late 19c. sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."
In the first sense above given, atheism is to be discriminated from pantheism, which denies the personality of God, and from agnosticism, which denies the possibility of positive knowledge concerning him. In the second sense, atheism includes both pantheism and agnosticism. [Century Dictionary]
https://www.etymonline.com/word/atheism
atheism /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Source: Oxford Languages
https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=ATHEISM&addon=opensearch
What is Atheism? - American Atheists
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-at
What is atheism? - Atheist Alliance International
Atheism is very simple, yet widely misunderstood. The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix ‘a’. So let’s break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix ‘a’ means; ‘without’ or ‘lack of’. Therefore, atheism means ‘without a belief in a god or gods'.
https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-atheism/what-is-atheism
I've never heard the word "merely" used to mean "exclusively".
Your ad hominem attacks are noted.
I've always heard the term "merely" used to diminish the importance of and or de-emphasize a subject.
But in reality, we don't need to "decipher the text" ourselves because "author's intent" is available from Double_R.
Synonyms for merely
but, just, only, purely, simply
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/merely
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as **simply** "a lack of belief in a god"
Words Related to simply
**basically**, by and large, chiefly, generally, largely, mainly, mostly, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantially
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/simply
Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as **basically** "a lack of belief in a god"
Double_R, did you intend your use of the word "merely" in the expanded debate resolution to be a synonym for "exclusively" or "only" (OR) did you intend your use of the word "merely" to mean "basically, generally, mainly, mostly, predominantly, primarily" ?
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.
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).
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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'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".
Thorium reactors recycle their own waste, resulting in a significantly smaller volume of dangerous waste products that need to be stored.
https://youtu.be/3u44skO-nMo
> 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"
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.
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
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
impressively diplomatic
Autarkic - definition of autarkic by The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/autarkic
Define autarkic. autarkic synonyms, autarkic pronunciation, autarkic translation, English dictionary definition of autarkic. or au·tar·chy n. pl. au·tar·kies or au·tar·chies 1. A policy of national self-sufficiency and nonreliance on imports or economic aid.
That's the core problem with the concept of "duty".
It's something the capricious authority of the moment gets to define.
> I don't think we have a duty to act immorally.
Does a soldier have a duty to drop bombs ?
> I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that respect for ones duty isn't motivated by reward, or that it isn't grounds for granting points in the debate?
I'm pointing out that "respect for ones duty" is NOT a reward itself.
The feeling you get when you either self-recognize or when others recognize you for "respecting ones duty" that feeling of "I am a good person" that good feeling is the reward function.
A lot of people throughout history have used "respect for ones duty" to get people to do all kinds of atrocious things.
The phrase "respect for ones duty" is a brainwashing technique.
The phrase "respect for ones duty" is an indirect appeal to authority.
> How much do you need defined to know what we're talking about? Just use the normal, applicable definitions, that's what you should assume.
Nope. A debate requires technical definitions. A debate resolution must be logically-coherent.
> Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
If you check the definition of "truth" you'll find that it requires correlation with "fact" and "fact" must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.
This means that PRINCIPLE requires TRUTH which requires FACT which requires EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND OR LOGICAL NECESSITY.
PRINCIPLE must be QUANTIFIABLE
> Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable.
This is indistinguishable from moral impulse and or moral intuition and or moral preference and or PURE UNFETTERED OPINION.
Also, "justified" is begging the question somewhat.
> Wrong: unjust, dishonest, or immoral
Does this inverse definition of "RIGHT" leave any room for morally neutral actions and or motives ?
> What do you mean by reward function?
A reward function is a core reinforcement mechanism.
"Moral Law: Principles describing conduct that is right and wrong."
Even worse.
PRINCIPLES = ?
CONDUCT = ?
RIGHT = ?
WRONG = ?
"respect for ones duty" IS NOT A REWARD FUNCTION.
DEBATE RESOLUTION: "There is a Universal Moral Law"
UNDEFINED TERMS:
UNIVERSAL = ?
MORAL = ?
LAW = ?
It's not exactly "blind" if you expect people to present their debate resolution before you accept.
> In the dick and Jane example, I never said it made her feel good. You're painting that motive onto her, so the criticism doesn't apply.
There is no reason to fulfil a "sense of duty" unless doing so makes you "feel good".
The moral law can be considered objective in so far as it's intersubjective.
I would have opened with this.
If someone does not agree that this law applies to them, then they are wrong.
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN
You started off strong with "Argument: Hume's Guillotine",
But then you wound yourself in circles muddying the water.
(IFF) you are capable of understanding this (AND) you value your own existence (THEN) you must value the lives of at least some of those on which you directly and indirectly depend (humans, plants, and animals)
In conclusion, as autonomous beings, we should be acting out of a sense of duty to the moral law we give ourselves. The reason we should respect the dignity of persons is because we are all rational beings. The exercise of that capacity for reason makes us worthy of dignity. Since it's the same capacity for reason, it is unqualified by the particulars of circumstance. It's the same Universal capacity for reason that delivers the moral law. So, to act autonomously, is to act according to a moral law we give ourselves, exercising our Reason. Not the particular reasons we have because of circumstance, but the reason that legislates A Priori, regardless of empirical ends.
I am a big fan of deontological ethics and the categorical imperative.
However, you seem to have quite a different understanding of both of these terms than I hold myself.
Jane sincerely believes that she donates to the needy because it is her duty.
However, Jane actually donates to the needy because she believes this act is part of what makes her a good person and she enjoys the feeling she gets when she believes she is a good person.
This is ultimately a selfish motive.
Desires are intrinsically motivating. They are not however, all that is intrinsically motivating. Right and wrong are also intrinsically motivating concepts. Since right and wrong are both concepts, then they are subject to the laws of Reason, such as the law of non-contradiction which states that to contradict oneself is inherently irrational. For this reason, the basis upon which our moral principles must lie is Reason alone. If my opponent was to question the reason of Reason, then he would implicitly be committing to using reason.
GOOD = things that make me happy
BAD = things that cause me pain or make me sad
It would seem unfair to score a "win" simply because your opponent was banned.
CHRISTIAN = THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST WAS A JEW, NOT A CATHOLIC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKmmopn7QVY&t=30s
PHENOMENAL
Medical Privacy is enshrined in HIPAA.
Being forced to disclose your medical information is protected. Do we force people to reveal any other health information before receiving service. Even healthcare providers are not allowed to demand a patient reveal if they have HIV or Hep C. That's what universal precautions are for.
And this one,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
Meliorism is an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.
Don't forget about THROIUM REACTORS and specifically MODULAR THORIUM REACTORS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofGtxEgpI8
NUCLEAR WASTE AS FUEL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg
https://youtu.be/BPcsx9l5eNM?list=WL