atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary
Debate Rounds (5)
Some define it as a lack of belief in any god, others in a belief in the lack of any god. However. it is a label, meant to convey a concept. As such, those who are using it to describe themselves can use their own standard. Most self-identified atheists assert it only describes a lack of belief in any god, as being in direct and exclusive opposition to theism. That is, there is no middle ground between atheism and theism - everyone is one or the other. Those with no opinion at all, are atheists. Those who are uncertain are either theists or atheists, depending on what they accept as true (tentatively or otherwise). For those using the word to describe others, to define it narrowly is to create a strawman argument.
For the opposite side of the coin, theism is not the lack of belief in any god, it is a belief in a god. To claim it means anything else, simply does not match accepted definitions.
(Note: Only Cambridge provides a definition for "theist".)
To be a theist does not require belief in all hypothetical gods. No one uses it that way, because it would be absurd. It is equally absurd for anyone to have a positive belief that all hypothetical gods are nonexistent. Although some people believe anything that matches certain definitions of a "god" are fundamentally impossible, atheists typically hold no specific opinion regarding the existence of (for instance) Nashe, the Mesopotamiam god of fishing. Indeed, very very few have any clue what the supposed traits of Nashe is, let alone develop positive beliefs regarding which of those traits are not correct.
Further, this is a misrepresentation of "faith". Faith can mean many things, from belief based on formal evidence (e.g. "I have faith the economy will recover"), belief based on informal evidence (e.g. "I have faith my SO loves me"), belief disproportionate to evidence (e.g. "I have faith God exists, because the bible is evidence"), belief with a lack of evidence (e.g. "I have faith in God, despite there being no evidence") or belief where evidence does not apply (e.g. "I have faith that the universe exists"). In general, "faith" is synomous with "[any] belief". Everyone has beliefs (and therefore "faith"), regardless of belief in a god. Indeed, it is so obviously true, it's equally obvious that is not what is meant when applying "faith" to atheists.
Religion is not merely a belief in a god, it is specifically an *expression* of belief in a god. It is, basically, faith in god. Mere belief or acceptance of the existence of a god does not establish a religion. (The belief in a god with no expression is either non-religious theism or specifically "deism".) To make a claim that "atheism/science is a faith" is not merely intentionally creating a false equivalency, it is done so specifically meant imply that atheism is a religion. There is no accepted definition of "atheism" that includes a worship of a god.
There are atheists who reject the concept of any god. That is typically called either "strong atheism" or "gnostic atheism".
you can not be an atheist without a belief to argue from
theism can not exist without belief
dont christians have faith that unicorn heaven is false and that unicorns are false? in the case it is contrary to christianity
belief is faith, doubt, trust, confidence...
Theism is the belief in *any* god, not all gods.
People can *lack* belief. Those who lack belief in all gods are atheists.
Ergo, atheism is not a "theism", it is the absence of theism.
A theist who lacks a belief in something, or even some god, is still a theist since they believe in *a* god. There is no word for someone who believes in all gods, because it would be a useless word. Even just for asserted gods not even the most well educated and informed theologian is even aware of all gods, and it's impossible to be aware of all hypothetically assertable god-concepts.
Presumably, some Christians believe in a unicorn heaven, but not unicorns. As per the popular poem by Shel Silverstien, it is a popular belief that unicorns existed at one time.
Many Christians believe that animals go to heaven (or, possibly, that unicorns had a soul).
Ergo, those who believe both believe there is a unicorn heaven. Yet, they may also acknowledge that no unicorns exist. But I honestly have no clue why it's relevant.
claiming it dost make it so, disbelief is belief for me to believe to the contrary
Atheism requires theism only in the sense that the concept would be meaningless with theism. However, that doesn't mean the concept *could not* apply, only that it would be useless.
Let's call a belief in Crumpled Horned Snorkacts "jooism". Those who do not accept jooism are ajooists. You are an ajooist. The fact that the word is completely made up doesn't make that false. "Theist" and "atheists" are labels. They are exclusionary, specifically so that there's no one left out - there are no aatheists or aaatheists. (However, there are other words to further subdivide, such as "religious" and "not religious".)
i am telling the truth or not, you can believe i am or believe i am not
if i take my hand behind my back, is it true for you to say yes your that you are showing 3 fingers behind your back is true?
no, theism can not exist without atheism, atheism can not exist without theism, any theist is an atheist to the opposite possibility
atheism is religion, belief is theism, disbelief is belief, disbelief is atheism, for me to disbelieve, i must believe to the contrary, i must be an atheist, to be a theist
if we are some guys, and we are outside at a locked room, and we can get our hand inside the room and touch the chair bouncing around inside for whatever reason, and we all feel its a chair, and hear its a chair banging around in there, and some one says, the chair in there is red, he is automaticly an atheist to green chair, and blue chair, we know its a chair but not the colour, and some come argue its green, and i can argue that he dosnt know, while green chair believer argue that the chair is green to the contrary of red chair believer
The Law of Excluded Middle states that the opposite of (or "dichotomy" to") belief is *not* belief.
The Law of Identity states that not belief = not belief.
The Law of Non-contradiction states not belief /= belief.
- if you ["disbelieve"] my claim you either believe it [to be untrue or lack a belief it is true]
- i am telling the truth or not, you can believe i am [telling the truth], believe i am not [telling the truth or not believe I am telling the truth]
there is a difference between believing not something and not believing something.
- [yes], theism can not exist without atheism, atheism can exist without theism, any theist is [a theist and possibly a vegetarian, but not an atheist, vegetarian or otherwise]
- the chair in there is red, he is automaticly an atheist to green chair, and blue chair, we know its a chair but not the colour, and some come argue its green, and i can argue that he dosnt know, while green chair believer argue that the chair is green to the contrary of red chair believer
You are ignoring the definition of a "theist". A theist does NOT mean "someone who believes anything". A theist is someone who holds the specific belief there is a god. Not chairs. Not colors. Not rooms with colored chairs. A god. See the definitions I provided in Round 1.
We could just as easily say they are not a theist, because they're a red chair vegetarian, because a vegetarian is someone who beliefs something to be true, like a chair is red or people should only eat non-meat products. Let's not stop there, let's say they're anything at all, since people making word come out is a belief.
WORDS ARE LABELS. They mean something, because we accept they have meaning. That doesn't give you the right to strip all wors of all meaning.
belief=belief=i dont accept i dont know
disbelief=belief=i dont accept i dont know
non belief=i accept i dont know
if i believe your claim i believe your claim not disbelieve it, you are either telling the truth or not
is it true that the chair in the room is red?
words mean what they mean, you can change it by lying to yourself, but we have different words because they dont all mean black
No, this is not true. "Knowledge" is in every dictionary.
"Belief" is any concept we hold to be true. "Knowledge" is holding any belief to be true. Compare and contrast.
The opposite of "belief" is "not belief". The only synonym with "not belief" is "nonbelief" (i.e. "not belief"). The opposite of "knowledge" is "not knowledge". Terms synonymous with "not knowledge" could be "opinion" OR "ignorance". Opinion and ignorance are NOT synonyms. An opinion is a belief, but is not knowledge. Ignorance is neither a belief nor knowledge - it is a lack of both.
Knowledge addresses gnosticism. It is possible to be both a gnostic or agnostic theist. It is possible to be a gnostic or agnostic atheist.
A gnostic thiest is someone who holds certainty their belief in a god is true.
An agnostic theist is someone who holds uncertainty their belief in a god is true.
A gnostic athiest is somone who holds certainty in their belief no god is true.
An agnostic athiest is someone who lacks any certainty that any god is true.
"Belief" becomes irrelevant for an"agnostic atheist". An atheist can maintain a belief that no gods exist, or they can fail to maintain any belief that any god exist.
--"belief=belief=i dont accept i dont know"
Sure, why not.
--"disbelief=belief=i dont accept i dont know"
Inserting "belief" in there is begging the question.
disbelief=I do NOT accept I DO know (and only *sometimes* "I accept I do NOT know").
"I do not accept I do not know" is functionally the same as "I accept I do know", which is not disbelief. More to the point, you are ignoring the excluded middle. A lack of belief is not the assertion of a belief.
--"non belief=i accept i dont know"
non belief = I don't accept I DO know. Not only still begging the question, but also a contradiction of your prior statement.
"I don't accept I do know" does NOT equal "I do accept I do know"
--"is it true that the chair in the room is red?"
I have no opinion regarding the hypothetical color of the hypothetical chair. If you want to make up a NEW word for my lack of opinion about the chiar, acolored-chairist seems appropriate. Colored-chairist is not, since I have no opinion. Theism addresses a belief IN A GOD. What I hypothetically may or may not think about the hypothetical chair has nothing to do with it.
Theism is not just any belief, or any belief regarding a god, but specifically the belief in *the existence in of* a god. Let's change your analogy from a chair to a god. There's a room. It might contain a god. The god might be colored. That color might be red or green. If you think that IF there is a god in the room, it's red, that doesn't make you theist. If you think there actually is no god in the room, but if there had been it's be red - atheist. If you think there is a god in the room (regardless of color) - theist. Doesn't matter what color you think a god *would* be IF IT EXISTED. It only matters if you think it DOES EXIST.
In conclusion, theism is the acceptance of the existence of a god. Atheism is the lack of acceptance of the existence of any god. There is no third word. There is no third option. There are no other alternatives. Every person is *either* a theist or an athiest. There is no one that is neither.
Thanks for the debate. Enjoyed it. May the lack of gods smile upon you, and you receive all of their many non-existent blessings.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Such a clear win for Con to disprove whatever Pro says. Con is the only one provides link to his sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.