The Instigator
nonprophet
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism is the default position

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
nonprophet
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 799 times Debate No: 53374
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (1)

 

nonprophet

Pro

First round is for acceptance only.

For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God".
gryephon

Con

I'll accept. Thank you for the challnege.
Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Pro

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists.
That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it.
That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist.
Nobody is born a Theist.
If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position
of being an Atheist.

It's that simple.
gryephon

Con







| Opening |

My Position

I myself believe that the default position is a unique position that is different from most (if not all) other existing positions. This does mean that it’s not the same as Atheism, though might have a similarity to it (e.g. lack of a particular belief about God).

Discussion on Judicial Criteria

The criteria on who to vote in favor for shuld be based on "difference". The topic title states “Atheism is the default position”, obviously saying that the default position is the same. Therefore, if there is found a "difference" in the atheistic position, then vote in favor of my position (Con) If there is not found any difference, vote in favor of my opponent’s (Pro).


| Constructive |

1) The Default Position is a unique Position

Comparison of different positions

The Atheistic Position

“To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.”
---- Woody Allen

The thing with the default position that differs with atheism, is that atheism can believe in something, but the default position does not believe in anything. For example, atheists can believe in things such as science, religion, scandalous sex, etc. But the most relevant belief to this debate is the belief that “god does not exist”. This particular belief can be native to atheism, but is not so with the default position for it believes nothing.

The Agnostic Position

“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us;
and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.”
---- Charles Darwin

The agnostic position typically believes that you can’t know if God does or doesn’t exist (Which may or may not be true). But none the less it is a “belief” that you can’t know if God exists or not. So this position differs from the default position because it can believe something (though lacks knowledge).

The Theistic Position

“I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays.”
---- Henny Youngman

This position obviously believes something, therefore it is not the default.

The Default Position

Pro said that when we are born we have no beliefs at all. This is what I believe the default position is, a position of no beliefs. So it’s not the exact same thing as atheism, as atheism lacks a single belief, the default position lacks ALL beliefs. Are they similar? Yes. Are they the same? No. There is a distinct difference between the quantity of some and all.


| Rebuttal |

If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
---- Richard Dawkins

That’s not necessary true. If you lose faith in a God, it could be simply because you want to serve a different God not necessary go back to atheism. (e.g. Thor to Ra) Remember, the accepted definition for atheism is the lack of belief in “a” god, not all gods. So atheism is compatible with theism, apparently I’m an atheist theist. I’ll explain how this is true.

Statement 1: I lack belief in a god.

True. I do lack belief in Apollo (Greek god). So there is a god that I lack belief in, Therefore I’m an atheist by the accepted definition.


Statement 2: I believe in a god

True. I do believe in the Christian variant of God. Therefore I’m a theist.


The point being that you don’t always go back, because you don’t necessary quit being an atheist during theism. Also it may not be possible to go to the same kind of position as new born babies are from, for they lack belief in anything. Theoretically it might be possible from amnesia, but not losing faith in a god.

Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Pro

Ah, yes. The English language. I should have known this would be a debate about English, not atheism.

OK well, I have to agree that the "lack of" something, is indeed, the default position, depending on the topic.

The lack of an oven is the default position when it comes to baking
The lack of vehicles is the default position when it comes to transportation.

When it comes to religious beliefs, atheism is the default position (the lack of belief in a god)

My opponent wants to define the default position (of everything) as the lack of everything.
I can't argue that. but the topic is not everything. The topic, is religious beliefs, because the title of the debate is
"Atheism is the default position" (of religious beliefs). Yes, the words "of religious beliefs" are left out, but implied.
Atheism wouldn't be the default position of music or any other topic, but religious beliefs.

Since we agreed that the definition of Atheism is "the lack in the belief in a god", it should be clear that we are talking about the default position of religious beliefs, not everything.

When it comes to the agnostic position, it would be impossible to say for sure what we may learn in the future.
To say that we "can't know" if a god exists is false. You can say you don't know, but that may, or may not change. depending on the available evidence. I don't know what any of that has to do with atheism or the default position since atheism has something to do with belief while agnosticism has something to do with knowledge. They are different. I agree with my opponent when he says "So this (agnostic) position differs from the default position because it can believe something (though lacks knowledge)." So why bother to bring it up?

I also agree with my opponent that the theistic position "obviously believes something, therefore it is not the default."
Again, why bring it up?

My opponent then goes on to say "I believe the default position is, a position of no beliefs."
If we were talking about the default position for everything, I don't agree.
Beliefs aren't everything. A baby may be born without beliefs, but a baby is born with vision and hearing.
So, when it comes to senses, a baby is not the default position. Something that lacks senses would be the default position on that topic.
My opponent claims, "the default position lacks ALL beliefs". If we are talking about the default position of everything, then it must lack everything, not just beliefs. The singularity from which the Universe expanded from, would be the default position of everything, since it lacks everything including time and space.

However, I will go back to say that the topic here isn't the default position of everything. It's the default position of religious beliefs, which is atheism as defined in the first round.


My opponent goes on to argue my point of
"If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position"

I stand by that statement.

My opponent's argument is "you (may) want to serve a different God not necessary go back to atheism."
Changing your belief is not the same as losing it. I also want to point out that since atheism is the default position, you do not "want" to go back to it. It's automatic once you lose all beliefs in gods. You may "want" to stop believing in a god, but once you do there is no requirement to go back to atheism, it's as automatic as letting go of a rubber band and watching it snap back to its default position of the lack of being stretched.
The analogy of a rubber band will also work in saying that stretching it in a different way is not the same as not stretching it at all. You can stretch a rubber band in all kinds of ways the same way you can believe in all kinds of gods. The default position is the lack of the belief in a god like the default position of a rubber band is the lack of the stretch of it. Switching from god to god is like stretching from circle to square. Different positions, but not the default position.

Now the use of the statements my opponent uses is another play on words. "The lack of a belief in a god" has the same meaning as "the lack of belief in all gods." Of course you can get technical, but we are talking about clear meaning.
For example:
When someone says "I'm tired", it's obvious that the person saying that. isn't talking about their name.
If a person says "I'm Bob", it's obvious they are talking about their name without them having to say specifically "my name is Bob".

This attempt on word play in a debate may be fun and amusing, but has no value when seeking the truth.

"The default position" when applied to atheism is referring to the default position of religious beliefs without having to specifically say it.

If we are here to play games, I'd rather be playing baseball. If we are here to learn and seek the truth, then let's be honest and stop with the games.

gryephon

Con





| Opening |
Discussion on Judicial Criteria

Since Pro did not comment, I will take that as an agreement with the criteria.


| Constructive |


The Default Position is a unique Position

My opponent wants to define the default position (of everything)
as the lack of everything.

Not everything, speaking in terms of beliefs. Saying that the default position is the absence of beliefs, not necessarily everything. Baby senses is not what I’m talking about, what a newborn baby believes is what I’m talking about, and it believes nothing. Atheists on the other hand do not always believe nothing, but sometimes carry religious beliefs.


"Atheism is the default position" (of religious beliefs). Yes, the words
"of religious beliefs" are left out, but implied.

Okay, I think I see your fallacy here. Atheism is not the absent of religious beliefs, it’s the absent of a particular religious belief (belief in god). For example, Buddhism is a religion and is atheistic as it lacks a belief in God. Many variations of the UFO religions (e.g. Scientology & Raelism) can lack a belief in god. Some atheists do seem to believe in magical monsters (e.g. flying spaghetti monster) though I’m not certain if it’s just a prank on religion, or they really do believe (hard to tell with pastafarians). Also, there are atheists that do believe in the supernatural, such as you evolved from a rock (some variants of evolutionist).

If you think that atheism is the lack of religion, that’s entirely incorrect. In fact, there are some atheist mega churches that are rising these days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

So atheism is not the default to religious beliefs, as the default would be the lack of all religious beliefs. (A unique position) not the lack of one belief


So why bother to bring it up?

I brought it up because I was comparing all the major positions with relevance to the belief in god. And showing how they differed from the default. I was trying to show it being “unique”, not just to atheism.

| Rebuttal |
If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to)
go back to the default position

I think your just thinking of a certain brand of atheism, particularly the non-religious variety (which is not always true about atheists). You’re not considering atheists that are pantheistic or just plain religious quacks. So when the rubber band snaps back it could snap back to the religious end of atheism, not the non-religious end (default position).

Now the use of the statements my opponent uses is another play on words.

Yes, I do quarrel around with the words to make a point about using strict definitions. You don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t really matter what the definer meant, it’s how people want a word to mean. You defined it that way because you (or someone else) wanted it to mean it that way, not that it actually means that.

When the word atheist was coined, it probably meant something more along the lines “a person who believes there are no gods” because the suffix -ist (athe-ist) indicates the word is a doctrine, not a lack of belief. For example amoral means (not + morals), however the word amoralist (not+ morals + doctrine) means someone who believes there are no morals (not that your born without morals). What your doing is having the prefix (a-) mutilate the meaning of the suffix (-ist) when the prefix is only supposed to modify the meaning of the root word (theos, as in [a-the-ist]) not rape the meaning of the suffix (-ist).

You can research the meaning of the suffix if you don’t believe me. And yes I’m aware that it can mean something along the lines of someone who “does” something (e.g. pianist, contortionist)

http://www.etymonline.com...

Yes, I know that I accepted the definitions. And i'm not arguing that I should win because of bad definitions (as I've agreed to accept them for this debate) The definition is applicable in this debate, but doesn’t really work outside of it. (Maybe useful to some clusters of atheists who want to have it mean that way) If that definition is used, you will spawn some “atheist theist” because some people will want to be both. If you’re wanting a better definition to what I think you’re after would be the “absence of belief in any god and goddess.” But that isn’t atheism (its closer to nontheism)


This attempt on word play in a debate may be fun and amusing, but has no value when seeking the truth.

If we are debating the truth, have you considered at all that this isn’t atheism we are debating? That the definitions might not accurately represent atheism? I know you might scoff at the idea… who knows, maybe we both are wrong about atheism. Or maybe it’s just you.

Debate Round No. 3
nonprophet

Pro

I think my opponent is just bringing up a bunch of red herrings and irrelevant facts.

The debate is "Atheism is the default position"

I'll admit that atheism is not a lack of religion. So what? I don't see what that has to do with the default position.

Whether the default position is unique or not is irrelevant.

Buddhism, Scientology, Raelism, Pasatfarianism, Pantheism, etc., are all irrelevant.

My opponent said, "So when the rubber band snaps back it could snap back to the religious end of atheism, not the non-religious end (default position)."

I will argue that both "ends" of atheism (religious and non-religious) are BOTH atheistic, and both within the default position.

Again the debate is "Atheism is the default position". Religion is irrelevant.

Let's take the word "atheism". The suffix is "ism". Other words with that suffix include communism, socialism, Catholicism, etc.

My opponent claims "the prefix is only supposed to modify the meaning of the root word"

So, does that mean atheism is an "ism"?

"Ism" is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort, sometimes with a derogatory sense.

Atheism is NOT a philosophy, political view, religion or ideology.

The "A" in atheism actually means atheism is a non-ism, no matter what root word you use.

Basically, my opponent is grasping at straws, trying to throw in red herrings and other irrelevant things to see if anything sticks. Everything my opponent brought up is irrelevant to the fact that atheism is the default position.

The perfect example of this is when my opponent said "If you’re wanting a better definition to what I think you’re after would be the “absence of belief in any god and goddess.” But that isn’t atheism (its closer to nontheism)"

Why bother saying that? We both agreed that atheism was the lack of the belief in a god.
I don't care about other definitions. We are not talking about nontheism.
It's just saying something for the sake of saying it. I will not let it confuse the matter.

My opponent failed to provide any evidence that atheism is anything other than the default position when it comes to beliefs in gods.

Thank you for the debate.






gryephon

Con






| Rebuttal |


Atheism is NOT a philosophy, political view, religion or ideology.

That’s not entirely correct. There’s a lot (if not the majority) that consider believing in a god is like believing in leprechauns, even some refer to god as a virus or delusion (Richard Dawkins) this comes from an ideology. There are churches and entire organizations devoted to spreading atheism itself (as I pointed out earlier) this is religion because there are tenants that specifically spread the belief. There are obviously political views with atheists when it comes to science and religion, as atheists are notorious at using political influence to keep religion out, especially in the classroom. And for philosophy, there are plenty of atheists that believe that god is logically impossible, the internet is riddled with webpages devoted to disproving all gods (usually with bad reasoning). Granted atheists each have a different brand of philosophy\religion\ideology, but atheism is not lacking with these things.

Atheism is a doctrine, it’s a belief there are no gods. Yes, the accepted definition for this debate of atheism is the “lack of belief in a god.” This is a bad definition. This definition is only telling you what it isn’t, not what it is. For example, if you define apples as “not blueberries”, does this mean that the apples are green beans? Well, green beans aren’t blueberries, so yes, green beans are apples… NO! This is just wrong. Don’t you see? With the same logic (atheism being default) this is correct that apples are green beans. The problem is that you have a bad definition to begin with, I’ll call it a pseudo-definition because it’s not a genuine definition (it doesn’t tell you what it really is, but what it isn’t. it’s completely useless.)

We use that definition of yours for fun and play in this debate, but it really isn’t atheism (you’re just confused). There is solid linguistic evidence that shows that it isn’t, because the suffix “–ism” indicates that the word is a belief. If you don’t believe there are no gods and claim that you’re an atheist, then you’re not a genuine atheist.

The definition is supposed to mean what the word means, not what you want it to mean (or some groups opinion). It’s very clear that because the suffix –ism is attached to atheism it is a belief (not lack of all beliefs). If you’re saying atheism is not this, why on earth do you use this word? Why not just simply call yourself a nonbeliever? Instead of confusing the English language.




The "A" in atheism actually means atheism is a non-ism, no
matter what root word you use

Let me get this right, you’re saying the prefix does modify the meaning of the suffix? So… the –s suffix in the word atheists means non-plural? No, atheists is plural, the prefix (a-) doesn’t change the suffix (-s). I don’t see why we need to have the prefix a- negate the meaning of the suffix –ism (make it not-ism). I’m sorry, I didn’t create English. You can research and study the morphemes. Atheism is a belief there are no gods. That’s what it literally means. If you got a problem with that, blame language, not me.




Whether the default position is unique or not is irrelevant.

Yes it does. As I stated in the judicial criteria, the topic’s meaning is that the default position is the same as atheism. So if I show that there is a difference, then I obviously win the debate. Saying something is unique is like saying it’s different to everything else (including atheism). So being unique has all relevance to this debate.




Basically, my opponent is grasping at straws, trying to throw in red herrings and other
irrelevant things to see if anything sticks. Everything my opponent brought
up is irrelevant to the fact that atheism is the default position.

The reason why I responded about the definition is that you said you were wanting to “seek truth”. I was trying to explain to you that the definitions are bad, which is the truth. If you did not comment that you were seeking truth I may not have done so. I don’t want people being confused that we’re debating something that is true, because we’re not debating true atheism, it’s more like pseudo-atheism because we’re debating a fake definition of it, and pretending that it’s true for fun (at least I am) so that we can figure out in some hypothetical world if where atheism meant something else, is atheism the default position?

It is not a red hearing as herrings misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue. The important & relevant issue was apparently seeking truth (as you made a big deal about playing baseball). The reason why I commented on nontheism because the accepted definition fits closer to nontheism then atheism. You seem to be confused between the two.

And the other thing you called “irrelevant” (religion) is very relevant. If you are an atheist and have religion, you cannot be the default as it isn’t religious. There is an obvious difference.




I will argue that both "ends" of atheism (religious and non-religious) are
BOTH atheistic, and both within the default position.

No, the default position has no religious beliefs. If you are an atheist, and have religious beliefs you are not default. If you were a non-religious atheist, then maybe. It would be confirming the consequent because it’s not always true, some atheists are not default.

For example, if you’re a Buddhist, and you believe karma or rebirth, then you’re not default, but are just simply an atheist by the accepted definition. Because Karma & Rebirth are religious beliefs. If you are an atheist that believe in the spiritual world but not a God (like Jainism) you are not default because you have religious beliefs.




My opponent failed to provide any evidence that atheism is anything other than
the default position when it comes to beliefs in gods.

When you clarified in the last round, you said

"Atheism is the default position" (of religious beliefs).
Yes, the words "of religious beliefs" are left out, but implied.

We are NOT debating the default in terms of “belief in God” only. You explicitly stated that we are debating in terms of “religious beliefs”. Guess what, a lot of religious beliefs have nothing to do with God. For example, if you believe that an alien race called Elohim created the human race instead of a god, that is a religious belief (Raelism). If you believe in SaM47;sāra that is a religious belief. Those beliefs are atheistic. They are not the beliefs of the default position. You cannot be default and believe in these things.



Clarification of the difference

Okay, I think I need to clarify the “difference” between atheism and the default position, because pro doesn’t seem to understand it. The default is the position of no beliefs (because you have no beliefs when born, as pro pointed out in round 2). Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Default lacks all religious beliefs, the atheistic position only lacks one.

In atheism you can have religious beliefs. In the default position you cannot. The difference is can and cannot, possible and impossible. If you are a religious atheist, you cannot be default. Therefore, the difference is obvious because not all atheists are default (lacking religious belief). Atheism and the default position are clearly different.



| Summary |

There are two basic arguments that I argued. 1) The default being unique and 2) The accepted definitions were bad. The first is important, the second was more of a side discussion that went on because Pro was wanting to seek truth.

As discussed in the judicial criteria, the criteria was “difference”. Pro did seem to agree with it, as he (or she?) didn’t comment on it despite me pointing it out in the last round. What matters is one question, is there a difference between atheism and the default? Yes! Atheism can have religious beliefs, the default position cannot. You cannot be a religious atheist and be default.

“Atheism is the default position” No! There is a difference. Which means you know who to vote for from the criteria, vote Con!

Thank you, it has been an excellent debate. Peace to all, as I know that religious topics can get touchy sometimes.

Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
"Technically when you"re being hired, it shouldn"t matter if you"re a YEC or not, as this would be outright religious discrimination."

Certain jobs have certain requirements. If a movie role requires a female actor, it's not sex discrimination to not hire a male for the role. Males are just not qualified for that job.

Certain scientific jobs, like a biologist, must understand what biology is. Evolution is a major part of biology, so a YEC would not be considered a biologist, since they deny the science behind it. That's not discrimination. A YEC is just not qualified for the job.

I doubt anyone would hire an airline pilot who believes planes can't fly. They just aren't qualified.

In this day and age, you should be considered completely insane if you think that the earth is under 10,000 years old. It's like believing the moon is made of cheese.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
"I predict that historians that believe the holocaust happened might have trouble getting a good job in say a century or two from now."

I don't, because here is still overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust did happen.
Documents, films, pictures, the actual concentration camps themselves.

There is evidence for creator, it"s called intelligent design."
That's a pseudo-science.
You don't determine if something was designed just by looking at it., Complexity also doesn't prove design.

The way to determine if something was designed, is to compare it to something that was NOT designed.
For example, we know Mount Rushmore was designed, because faces in the side of mountains aren't naturally occurring. When compared to a mountain without carved heads, we can determine that Mt. Rushmore was designed (not naturally occurring) and other mountains were not designed (naturally occurring).

"I don"t want to waste my life debating the ignorant, for they don"t want to believe the evidence right in front of them."
LOL.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
"To me it sounds like a theist saying we should presume theism, until the atheist proves that there is no god. And defining theism as the lack of disbelief in God. I guess to shrug off the burden of proof."
That is what's called, shifting the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on those who make the claim.

The double negative, "The lack of disbelief in God"=Belief in a god=making a claim that a god exists.
The use of a double negative in order to try to shift the burden of proof, is the ONLY deceptive game being played here.

"Also the earliest reference to the slang meaning of gay was in the late-1940s"
Maybe, but it wasn't used mainstream until the 70's

The Flintstones is an animated, prime-time American television sitcom that was broadcast from September 30, 1960, to April 1, 1966
"When you're with the Flintstones,
we'll have a yabba dabba doo time,
a dabba doo time,
we'll have a gay old time."
( "Gay" as in happy)
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
->"A biologist, a chemist, an anthropologist, and astrophysicists...."

Technically when you"re being hired, it shouldn"t matter if you"re a YEC or not, as this would be outright religious discrimination. There are a few creationist in some prestigious laborites (e.g. Russel Humphrey, though I think he retired from Sandia National Laboratories). So there is a grain of truth to your statement, but the reason is generally towards religious discrimination among scientist instead of spoken "requirement". It"s immoral. While there are some creationist that have jobs, usually the job market is a little bit more difficult for them then others. It"s as bad a racism.

It"s sad that we live in an era where you"re considered intellectually sophisticated when you think that gravity doesn"t really exist (Erik Verlinde), but completely insane if you think that the earth is under 10,000 years old.
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
->"There is demonstrable evidence for the Holocaust. There is none for a god."

Evidence for the holocaust now. Who knows what"s possible next century with a bunch of holocaust denialers, their folly will spread like gangrene. Holocaust denial is starting to spread in some foreign places (assuming you"re an American), e.g. Arab countries, Japan, etc.

You know Isaac Newton is widely revered as the greatest scientist of all time" But it would be difficult for him to have a job in science because of his views on creationism and secular dominance today (many people would call him insane). I predict that historians that believe the holocaust happened might have trouble getting a good job in say a century or two from now. Anything is possible with anti-Semitism or anti-religionism.

FYI. There is evidence for creator, it"s called intelligent design. The attributes in nature and the body are clearly evidence of a designer. And no, I"m not going to debate you on it. If your skeptic on what is clearly seen, that"s your problem, not mine. I don"t want to waste my life debating the ignorant, for they don"t want to believe the evidence right in front of them.
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
->"I guess "gay" doesn't mean homosexual""

Yes I"m aware about gays, they pervert words. But I"m not debating on the gay word right now. And honestly, if I were I probably would not get on top of them like I do with atheists. As far as I know, gays are bold about their lifestyle when they use that word currently (and not trying to deceive meaning). But atheists, I feel like there is some deceptive game being played to gain (I guess) some sort of legitimacy. A way to sneak in hatred for god, and avoid the burden of proof when asked "why should I believe there is no god?", and you say you don"t have to.

To me it sounds like a theist saying we should presume theism, until the atheist proves that there is no god. And defining theism as the lack of disbelief in God. I guess to shrug off the burden of proof.

Also the earliest reference to the slang meaning of gay was in the late-1940s. You can research the etymology of the word at

http://www.etymonline.com...
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
I guess "gay" doesn't mean homosexual. That kind of "definition" didn"t exist before the mid-1970s.
There is demonstrable evidence for the Holocaust. There is none for a god.

"There are NO jobs that require you to believe the earth is 4 billion years old"
A biologist, a chemist, an anthropologist, and astrophysicists....
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
->"Dude, a disbelief is a lack of a belief."
Not necessarily. It can also mean "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." (e.g. "Laura shook her head in disbelief"). I was leaning more towards their refusal to believe. But to clarify, Atheism is the doctrine there is no gods is the most accurate & non-biased definition that I"m aware of as it"s based on the literal meaning of atheism.

->"You seriously can't see the difference between:"

No, I can see the difference. The problem here is that you"re making an assumption that "I lack a belief in god" that makes you an atheist. Which is incorrect, because it"s not based on the literal meaning of atheism. Lack of belief is a completely made up definition, it"s certainly not its traditional meaning. As far as I know, that kind of "definition" didn"t exist before the mid-1970s, not before Antony Flew posted "the presumption of atheism".

I declare myself to be an atheist theist agnostic gnostic. If we"re going to be making up meaning, why not? Yeah sisterly brother, I"m the lady man.

If a child gets confused with the names of broccoli and carrot, should we change the meaning of broccoli to accommodate his confusion? NO! He should be corrected to learn the difference between the two vegetables instead of confusing language. Likewise if someone is confused with atheism, should we change the meaning of atheism to accommodate his definitions? NO!

I have presented you with evidence from breaking apart the word showing the individual meaning of each morpheme of atheism. So far, you have offered no good evidence as to why to interpret atheism another way.
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
->"Because, there are 40,000 different sects of Christiani""
Well if you want to think in terms of uselessness compared to things of more value, then we seriously need to re-think education because a lot of things we learn has little bearing on our day to day life.

How is say, the big bang theory going to help you out at all in life? Compared to math or music? It"s a doctrine you can"t empirically prove, it happened too long ago. What bearing does a course on dark matter have on life? There are NO jobs that require you to believe the earth is 4 billion years old (as far as the US is concerned). Those that believe in evolution and don"t believe in evolution both do well in life. There is a lot of history "science" in school that doesn"t profit you at all that is taught, when compared to subjects of say math & music. There"s some good science, but a lot of science concerning the distant past is irrelevant to science that concerns the present (the stuff that gets us to the moon, medical science, etc).

Also as I pointed out you can learn about major world religions in school (what different people believe in).There"s just problems on the science classes when it comes to creationism. So it"s not like we"re adding a whole lot to what kids are learning. It"ll be good for them because it"ll open up doors for criticism on secular ideology (naturalism, Humanism, uniformitarism, etc) something that kids are usually deprived of. And criticism has been known to evolve the intellect. A lot of parents think that schools are too biased to secular education, and prefer to educate kids at home. So we could attract more homeschoolers back into public education. Everybody benefits.
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
->"An atheist is not a god denier. Most atheists will actually admit that""

That"s because you are confused with what an atheist is. You use a made up definition, and don"t seek the real meaning of atheism. Those "atheists" as you call are more or less closet agnostics that wants to carry the mantle of atheism, yet don"t want to shoulder burden of responsibility when it comes to proving god doesn"t exist. So they confuse the definition of atheism so they don't have to.

->"A Holocaust Denier has a belief that the Holocaust didn't happen despite the evidence that it did. You can't even begin to compare an atheist with a Holocaust Denier!"

Oh, and yes I can compare a holocaust denier to an atheist. Fun fact, holocaust deniers typically don"t use terms like "denial", they prefer the term "revisionist". Much like an atheist who prefers an oddball definition to describe themselves. You"ll both play on words to confuse what you"ll really are.

Many of you"ll spread a kind of hatred for your neighbor, one antireligious, and the other antisemitic. You"ll are both are brands of skepticism. You"ll both seek to deprive of faith, one from history, the other in God. This is not like comparing apples to oranges, it"s more like comparing a red apple with a green apple. The only real difference between the two is the subject, one being god, the other being holocaust.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
nonprophetgryephon
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: After agreeing to the definition when accepting the debate, Con spent the entire argument arguing a different definition of atheism. It was a good debate but the deciding factor is that Con admitted that the default position was a lack of belief in God and he agreed to that as the definition of atheism to start the debate.