Non-theism, can also reject Atheism
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
My opponent can argue for Baked Beanz.
All i ask is for an honest debate.
Errors that remain unacknowledged after being pointed out become construed as lies.
Also i will probably use wikipedia as a foundation to launch a debate.
I may use other sources later on, if required.
I will begin this debate by pointing to a group that were not that long ago considered mythological like the illuminati.
But in actual fact, this group is not mythological, and this group still gathers at the Edinburgh old college, to this day.
The group is known as "the speculative society".
The Speculative Society is a Scottish Enlightenment society dedicated to public speaking and literary composition, founded in 1764. It was mainly, but not exclusively, an Edinburgh University student organisation. The formal purpose of the Society is as a place for social interchange and for practising of professional competency in rhetoric, argument, and the presentation of papers among fellow members. While continuing to meet in its rooms in the University's Old College, it has no formal links to the University.
So this "society" was a "Scottish Enlightenment society".
Let us take a look at what the Scottish Enlightenment was.
The Scottish enlightenment was the period in 18th- and early-19th-century Scotland characterised by an outpouring of intellectual and scientific accomplishments.
So we can clearly see, from this, there is a shift away from the dogmatic nature of religion.
The Enlightenment culture was based on close readings of new books, and intense discussions took place daily at such intellectual gathering places in Edinburgh
The Society rejected any authority other than "reason".
the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment asserted the importance of human reason combined with a rejection of any authority that could not be justified by reason. In Scotland, the Enlightenment was characterised by a thoroughgoing empiricism and practicality where the chief values were improvement, virtue, and practical benefit for the individual and society as a whole.
We can clearly see that the topic of "religion" had become a "mute" point. It simply was not discussed. Neither for, nor against.
Among the fields that rapidly advanced were philosophy, political economy, engineering, architecture, medicine, geology, archaeology, botany and zoology, law, agriculture, chemistry and sociology. Among the Scottish thinkers and scientists of the period were Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Dugald Stewart, Thomas Reid, Robert Burns, Adam Ferguson, John Playfair, Joseph Black and James Hutton.
Now this Scottish enlightenment spread far and wide. And it's influence can be seen in countries far afield to this day, including in the values of the USA.
It was known as "the Scottish diaspora".
The Scottish Enlightenment had effects far beyond Scotland, not only because of the esteem in which Scottish achievements were held outside Scotland, but also because its ideas and attitudes were carried all over Europe and across the Atlantic world as part of the Scottish diaspora, and by European and American students who studied in Scotland.
The influence was even seen in the US founding fathers.
The political ideas had an important impact on the founding fathers of the US, which broke away from the empire in 1775
Scotland, had just shifted away from religion, and now perseud something at the time considered Satanic, instead. Education.
Scotland now had five universities to Englands two.
By the 17th century, Scotland had five universities, compared with England's two.
We clearly see that a new wave of thought is sweeping Scotland, and the evolvement of the Speculative society, is not something that just arose overnight
Robert Sibbald (1641–1722) was appointed as the first Professor of Medicine at Edinburgh, and he co-founded the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in 1681.These developments helped the universities to become major centres of medical education and would put Scotland at the forefront of new thinking.
Scotland likely became a european leader when it came to education. And i know this is ironic to some, that may consider Scots to be deep fried mars bar munching Scottists.
By the end of the century, the University of Edinburgh's Medical School was arguably one of the leading centres of science in Europe, boasting such names as the anatomist Alexander Monro (secundus), the chemists William Cullen and Joseph Black,
However the Speculative society, is just the society i chose to begin with, due to it's mythological status.
But groups such as this, were forming all over Scotland, previous to this.
Intellectual life revolved around a series of clubs, beginning in Edinburgh in the 1710s. One of the first was the Easy Club, co-founded In Edinburgh by the Jacobite printer Thomas Ruddiman. Clubs did not reach Glasgow until the 1740s. One of the first and most important in the city was the Political Economy Club, aimed at creating links between academics and merchants, of which noted economist Adam Smith was a prominent early member. Other clubs in Edinburgh included The Select Society, formed by the younger Allan Ramsay, a prominent artist, and philosophers David Hume and Adam Smith and, later, The Poker Club, formed in 1762 and named by Adam Ferguson for the aim to "poke up" opinion on the militia issue.
I also point to the Speculative society, because it was the Speculative society which the utilitarians based their school of thought on, when those societies reached our capital city, London
The University of Cambridge had a Speculative Society in the early years of the 19th century; it was one of the clubs that merged to form the Cambridge Union Society. Around 1825 Utilitarians and Owenites in London engaged in debates, and a formal Debating Society consciously modelled on the Speculative Society of Edinburgh was set up by John Stuart Mill. It was ambitious, but proved short-lived
And yes, i think by now, it is clear where this is going, isn't it? "The Scottish rite of freemasonry".
That Satanic group, that built lodges all over the world.
Historian Jonathan Israel argues that by 1750 Scotland's major cities had created an intellectual infrastructure of mutually supporting institutions, such as universities, reading societies, libraries, periodicals, museums and masonic lodges.
Now regarding all the issues that the Scottish enlightenment societies of that time became synonymous with, religion was a "mute" point.
Empiricism and inductive reasoning. Literature. Economics. Sociology and anthropology. Mathematics, science and medicine.
So what is this groups religious opinion? Is it a 33rd degree secret, or something?
Well let us look at some of the members of the speculative society.
Let us begin with David Hume. As David Hume's name appears to appear no matter which society you are discussing. David Hume is synonymous with the wider "Scottish enlightenment" subject. Even though he was not a member of the speculative society.
Although he wrote a great deal about religion, Hume's personal views have been the subject of much debate. Some modern critics have described Hume's religious views as agnostic or have described him as a "Pyrrhonian skeptic." Contemporaries considered him to be an atheist, or at least un-Christian,
Hume believed that religion in England was destructive
Additionally, when mentioning religion as a factor in his History of England, Hume uses it to show the deleterious effect it has on human progress. In his Treatise on Human Nature, Hume wrote: "Generally speaking, the errors in religions are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."[
Hume was described as irreligious, but perhaps not Atheist, by one historian that wished to analyse him.
Philosopher Paul Russell writes that Hume was plainly sceptical about religious belief, although perhaps not to the extent of complete atheism. He suggests that Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion",
Let us look at Walter Scott, the freemason, like his father
Scott's father, also Walter (1729–1799), was a Freemason, being a member of Lodge St David, No.36 (Edinburgh), and Scott also became a Freemason in his father's Lodge in 1801,
Now Henry Mackenzie, freemason.
MacKenzie was a Scottish Freemason. He was initiated into Lodge Canongate Kilwinning, No. 2, (Edinburgh, Scotland), on 2 December 1784.
Now i would like to go to those Satanic conspiracy theories regards to the Scottish freemasons.
Usually, these theories fall into three distinct categories: political (usually involving allegations of control of government, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom), religious (usually involving allegations of anti-Christian or Satanic beliefs or practices), and cultural (usually involving popular entertainment). Many conspiracy theories have connected the Freemasons (and the Knights Templar) with worship of the devil;
And make no mistake, freemasons are opposed by Christian and Catholic groups.
While many Christian denominations take no stance on or openly acknowledge and allow Freemasonry, some are outwardly opposed to it, and either discourage or outright prohibit their members from joining the fraternity.
The Catholic church even banned freemasonsry
Catholic ban on Freemasonry since the Second Vatican Council
The Catholic church criticises the Freemasons for refusing to promote one faith over others.
Catholic critics of Freemasonry observe that it refuses to promote one faith as being superior to any others.
Citing, religious "indifference".
while at the same time it also uses religious-type rituals. That combination is seen as inculcating an indifference to religion.[
Now i will reveal the first indication, of what a 33rd degree freemasons actual belief is, and it is one of "shhhhhhhh".
Anderson's Ancient Charges of a Freemason, 1723, says of Freemasons, that it is "expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves".Freemasons reply that not obliging a member to profess a certain religious viewpoint as a condition of membership is not the equivalent of asserting that no religion can be superior to any other. Personal theological beliefs are not to be discussed in the lodge, thus avoiding arguments with those holding different beliefs. It has been suggested that this ban on religious discussion was especially important in Eighteenth Century England where a civil war, in part caused by religious conflict, had only recently ended.
Now there it is. Quite clear. Ones religious view need not be discussed.
They "leave their particular opinions at home. To themselves.
It is not important.
The discussion causes wars.
It matters not, what people believe. It needs not be an argument.
Now i am getting to the nitty gritty.
There is no place for Atheism in a non-theistic discussion.
no theism means non theorising.
Atheism is full of religious theories.
Atheism is a "pro-active" ideology
There have been many atheists who have been active in advocacy or education.
Now, what is freemasonsry? To begin with.
The Scottish "rite" refers to the Scottish branch of freemasonry practised in USA.
Although most of the thirty-three degrees of the Scottish Rite existed in parts of previous degree systems, the Scottish Rite did not come into being until the formation of the Mother Supreme Council at Charleston, South Carolina, in May 1801
Now the Scottish rite, practised in USA, was founded upon the existing practise of freemasonsry which has no known date for foundation.
Though the oldest known freemasonic lodge in Scotland can be traced back to 1598
The minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) No. 1 in Scotland show a continuity from an operative lodge in 1598 to a modern speculative Lodge. It is reputed to be the oldest Masonic Lodge in the world.
Though there is much evidence of their existence, pre-dating this date by some considerable time, such as evidence from written poetry, written in 1425
Since the middle of the 19th century, Masonic historians have sought the origins of the movement in a series of similar documents known as the Old Charges, dating from the Regius Poem in about 1425
But freemasonry arrived in London around 1717
The first Grand Lodge, the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster (later called the Grand Lodge of England (GLE)), was founded on St John's Day, 24 June 1717,
Now i am going to return to the religious argument against freemasonry, that accused the freemasons of employing rationalism and naturalism, as well as other Satanic allegations.
Another prominent religious activist against freemasonry, was B.T Roberts.
Free Methodist Church founder B.T. Roberts was a vocal opponent of Freemasonry in the mid 19th century. Roberts opposed the society on moral grounds and stated, "The god of the lodge is not the God of the Bible." Roberts believed Freemasonry was a "mystery" or "alternate" religion
But we can clearly see that Freemasonsry is "not" an alternate religion.
And "yes" it is a mystery. A secret, what the members believe.
Each member does not know what the other member believes, as it is not required for them to discuss the issue, as the discussion causes wars.
But this, only equals "Satanism" to religious adherents that wish to fight over philosophy, and "belief".
Now many "Atheists" also jump on the anti-freemason bandwagon, accusing them of being Satanists, without realising, that those theories take roots from religious organisations that deem their silence on the subject, as "Satanic".
So there is nothing compatible in the slightest between an over opinionated Atheist, and a member of a non-theistic enlightenment society.
Conspiracy theorists have long associated Freemasonry with the New World Order and the Illuminati, and state that Freemasonry as an organisation is either bent on world domination or already secretly in control of world politics.
Now i would like to look at the effects "the freemasons" have had on religion in Scotland.
Some may be surprised, but Scotland is largely a secular, and non-religious country.
Going by research studies conducted in 2017, 58% of Scots self identified as being "non-religious".
Now let us compare this with religion in other countries.
Let us take "England" as an example.
England was once completely ruled, due to their close proximity to the continent, and invaders easier access to Dover, than Edinburgh, by the Romans, that first introduced Christianity to British shores. So lets see the effects.
The 2001 and 2011 censuses did not include on adherence to individual Christian denominations, since they were asked only in the Scottish and Northern Ireland censuses and not in England and Wales. However using the same principle as applied in the 2001 census, a survey carried out in the end of 2008 by Ipsos MORI and based on a scientifically robust sample, found the population of England and Wales to be 47.0% affiliated with the Church of England, which is also the state church, 9.6% with the Roman Catholic Church and 8.7% were other Christians, mainly Free church Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians. 4.8% were Muslim, 3.4% were members of other religions, 5.3% were Agnostics, 6.8% were Atheists and 15.0% were not sure about their religious affiliation or refused to answer to the question.
Now what i notice, is not only the greater amount of Christians, but also the greater amount of Atheist organisations, that directly oppose those religions.
Faith. There are also organisations promoting irreligion, including humanism and atheism.
During the 2001 census, 15% marked Atheism down as their "faith".
Other "faiths" included, irreligion and humanism.
However, this is "not" non-theistic.
Now we have established, that the ideologies of freemasonry, probably formed after the defeat to Saladine during the crusades, to ensure we never again have a religious war of this nature again, are "non-theistic" and became "nationalised" in Scotland, during the "Scottish enlightenment", let us now take a look at "non-theism".
Now, let us analyse this statement.
"non-theism" is a "range" of "both" religious and non religious "attitude".
From this, we deduce that it is "an attitude".
The attitude is "neutral".
Atheism is "not" neutral.
non-theism can include, even a belief that Jesus was born to a virgin.
Can include, isis literally flying off the cross in zooming up to heaven in literal body, as proposed by the quran.
Can include, being born to a virgin.
Can include, walking on water.
Can include, anything you want. But it is not important. It does not need to be discussed. There is no need to fight eachother because someone else chooses to believe differently. There is no reason for an Atheist to sit and discuss his lack of belief in Gods. The subject is completely "a non topic". What "you" believe, is "your" little own personal "secret".
You can believe in God, Gods, or no God, or no Gods. It does not matter.
It is of no importance.
"You can even believe in Satan" if you so wish. It is not something that needs to be spoken about.
Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of God and differs from an antithetical, explicit atheism.
Now we clearly see, non-theism describes an "apathy" towards the subject.
And i have clearly exemplified this "apathy" during this round.
It can also be referred to as "silence", towards the subject. Shhhhhh
There is a "huge" difference, between non-theism, and Atheism.
A non-theist can be an agnostic, ignostic, ietis, skeptic, pantheist, atheist, christian. It could even include an Islamist.
it has been used as an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions, such as agnosticism, ignosticism, ietsism, skepticism, pantheism, atheism, strong or positive atheism, implicit atheism, and apatheism. It is in use in the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology.
In fact, a non-theist could include, Buddhists, Hindus, Janists, Taoists, Dudes, Realists, Judaists, Satanists, Unitarians....All those groups have been connected with Freemasonic conspiracy theories, even though it is not a conspiracy theory, you will find members of all those denominations in the freemasons.
Nontheistic traditions of thought have played roles in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, Creativity, Dudeism, Raëlism Humanistic Judaism, Laveyan Satanism, The Satanic Temple, Unitarian Universalism, and Ethical Culture.
You will even find Atheists in the free-masons.
However this is a "non-theistic" organisation.
Quite simply, it does not matter what you believe, the society is "non-theist" and ones personal religious theories are not what seperates us. Our own personal theories, are our own little secrets, and our adherence to "non-theism" is what brings us together.
An outspoken Atheist, will be rejected from this group.
Baked beans is and I reject baked beanz.
Nonetheless baked beans are.
So maybe variation in all aspects of production, presentation and appreciation are perhaps almost limitless.
But the baked bean is still the baked bean.
zedvictor4 wrote....Well.Baked beans is and I reject baked beanz.Nonetheless baked beans are.So maybe variation in all aspects of production, presentation and appreciation are perhaps almost limitless.But the baked bean is still the baked bean.
Well my opponent has decided to argue for bakedbeanz.
Which is totally fine.
However my opponent signed up to a debate where it is written in my "short description" that i will be arguing for "non-theism being able to reject Atheism".
I will be arguing that my personal non-theistic stance can also reject Atheism.
Therefore my opponent can argue for what he/she wants, but that is not the subject of the debate.
However my opponent has been handed 30,000 characters and 4 rounds left to produce a logical debate.
So no reason for him/her not to do so.
The beans analogy should have been obvious.
Are atheism and non-theism one and the same thing?....Well if one regards definition then in fact they are one and the same thing....(Online dictionary)
Therefore, what we are discussing is rejection and the ability to reject.
If one supposes that one is an atheist and one also supposes that someone else is a non-theist and therefore different, then of course it is an easy but arbitrary decision for one to reject the other.
Similarly, but perhaps somewhat less whimsically, one association may reject another association or perhaps an association might spitefully reject an individual.
And the spiteful kids in the playground wouldn't let you join their gang, because they were beans on toast and you were toast and beans..
So, just as I might reject baked beanz with a "z", anyone can reject anything for any reason.
Therefore the essence of the debate is the disputable but indisputable act of rejection rather than actual difference.
Nonetheless, baked beanz remains baked beans as atheism remains non-theism.
zedvictor4 wrote.....So:The beans analogy should have been obvious.
But then, you need to be able to prove that you genuinely thought that my reference to baked beanz over-rules the title "Non-theism, can also reject Atheism", and that my reference to baked beanz was anything other than giving you as much scope as possible.
zedvictor wrote....Nonetheless:Are atheism and non-theism one and the same thing?....Well if one regards definition then in fact they are one and the same thing....(Online dictionary)
Yes the "dictionary" is "your" source.
Here is what the dictionary says about non-theism..And it does not say much.
: a person who does not believe that there is a god or gods : a person who is not a believer in theism
And here is what the dictionary say's about Atheism.
a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any godsb: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Straight away, before exploring the subject farther, we can see that Atheism, and Non-theism, are "not" the same thing.
Nowhere in the definition for "nontheism" does it say anything about "a lack of belief" nor "strong disbelief".
Also, nowhere in the definition of nontheism, does it say anything about "religious position".
The dictionary does not expand, like an encyclopedia would, to explain that a "nontheist" also does not "disbelieve" in God, or Gods.
As i have already shown in round 1, "nontheism" can also include "theists", because "nontheism" is simply the practise of "nontheorising" and remaining silent on the subject.
The Urban dictionary highlights the difference very well
Atheists need deities to argue against while Nontheist rather not be bothered by either.
We just have to look at the wider definition of non-theism, to see that Atheism is "not" the samething as "non-theism".
Nontheistic religions are traditions of thought within a religious context—some otherwise aligned with theism, others not—in which nontheism informs religious beliefs or practices.
Does what is written above, sound like Atheism? No.
Now whilst Atheism can in certain areas, fall under the "non-theistic" umbrella, so can Satanism.
Is Atheism and Satanism the same thing? No.... And neither is "non-theism and Atheism", the same thing.
Philosophical models not falling within established religious structures, such as Daoism, agnosticism,[dubious – discuss] atheism[dubious – discuss], Confucianism, Deism, and Pandeism, have also been considered to be nontheistic religions.
The Satanic Temple, a sect of modern or rational Satanism, was officially recognized as a nontheistic religion on 25 April 2019.
zedvictor4 wrote....Similarly, but perhaps somewhat less whimsically, one association may reject another association or perhaps an association might spitefully reject an individual.And the spiteful kids in the playground wouldn't let you join their gang, because they were beans on toast and you were toast and beans..So, just as I might reject baked beanz with a "z", anyone can reject anything for any reason.Therefore the essence of the debate is the disputable but indisputable act of rejection rather than actual difference.Nonetheless, baked beanz remains baked beans as atheism remains non-theism.
The above may be true, that people could reject other individuals for other reasons, such as their preference to baked beanz.
However in this specific case, it is not true.
A "nontheist" will not reject an Atheist, in this instance, because of baked beanz.
A "nontheist" will reject an Atheist, when it becomes apparent that an "Atheist" is not the samething as a nontheist.
An Atheist theorises that there are "no gods", or that there are reasons in which to doubt, the existence of God, or have lack of belief.
A "nontheist" doesn't.
A "nontheist" attempts to have no opinion on the subject, and is open to reason.
For this reason, almost anyone can be accepted, and rejected, in a "nontheist" society.
"Disbelief" in God or Gods, is not "nontheistic".
That is "theistic".
No belief either way, is "nontheistic".
My opponent supposes fictional characters and then proceeds to attribute said characters with thoughts and opinions.
So I will suppose a person that label's as an atheist who is in complete agreement with another person that label's as a non-theist. They are both tolerant and inclusive and not rejective of each others approach to theism.
If a person wishes to assume that they are different and adopts a label and decides to reject another person who has decided to adopt a different label, then that will be the way of things.
After all, assumptions and labels are only limited by our imaginations.
The umbrella of terminology is very broad.
And so, my characters are in full agreement, whereas my opponents characters choose to disagree.
My characters are tolerant and inclusive whereas my opponents characters are spiteful and rejective.
That has always been the way of things.
Nonetheless, baked beanz is still baked beans.
Unless one chooses to decide differently of course.
So, personal data manipulation given what it is, allows us to create a conceptual World of infinite variety.
Where anything can mean something whilst simultaneously meaning something else altogether.
So where does that leave us?
The fourth round or round four?
zedvictory4 wrote....Well:My opponent supposes fictional characters and then proceeds to attribute said characters with thoughts and opinions.
My opponent is implying he/she is unable to seperate fiction from non-fiction.
However i do not believe my opponent is unable to seperate fiction from non-fiction.
I do however believe my opponent may have mistaken acting stupid, with being clever.
However that is just a theory. I actually genuinely do not know my opponent is only acting. Though i do believe there is enough evidence to suggest he/she "is" only acting, and is actually more than capable of pin-pointing what the main subject is.
zedvictor4 wrote....So I will suppose a person that label's as an atheist who is in complete agreement with another person that label's as a non-theist. They are both tolerant and inclusive and not rejective of each others approach to theism.
This statement is ideological.
Quite simply, a person practising "non theism" is practising trying to have no belief nor disbelief.
A person practising Atheism, is practising "disbelief".
Whilst in an ideal world, they would both be tolerant of eachothers beliefs, there are certainly occasions when the two might clash.
For instance, in the event an Atheist sets up an Atheist group, and a non theist that wants to argue that he believes it is wrong to go out and challenge religious people upon their beliefs, and it is "mistaken" to simply believe there are "no god or gods" without evidence, will likely be cast out of the Atheist group.
On the otherhand if an Atheist joins a "non theist" society which discusses philosophy and rhetoric, and avoids the subject of religion, and the Atheist decided today he wishes to give his companions a good bible bashing on the inaccuracies of the bible, the Atheist runs the risk of being expelled from the group.
And that is pretty much it.
Now i will copy and paste the rest of my opponents arguments below, just so that people can see i have acknowledged it, and they do not mistake my ignoring it as me not being able to counter it, or his/her post having some revelational meaning which i simply cannot refute.
zedvictor4 wrote...Nonetheless:If a person wishes to assume that they are different and adopts a label and decides to reject another person who has decided to adopt a different label, then that will be the way of things.After all, assumptions and labels are only limited by our imaginations.The umbrella of terminology is very broad.And so, my characters are in full agreement, whereas my opponents characters choose to disagree.My characters are tolerant and inclusive whereas my opponents characters are spiteful and rejective.That has always been the way of things.Nonetheless, baked beanz is still baked beans.Unless one chooses to decide differently of course.So, personal data manipulation given what it is, allows us to create a conceptual World of infinite variety.Where anything can mean something whilst simultaneously meaning something else altogether.So where does that leave us?The fourth round or round four?
This is all semantics and very ideological.
It also lacks clarity, and is totally void of any facts whatsoever.
At certain points of consideration, what is what?
Is something, something?
Or is something perhaps something else?
I had been viewing my opponents considerable list of proposed debates for a while, before I decided upon this one.
And I had already come to the conclusion that "semantics" and "ideology" were very much the name of my opponents game. In so much as the game was calculated to be over, before it had even started.
So, the peripheral fluff of Wikipedia et al, may well present cosmetic facts in abundance for the benefit and wonderment of the voter.
Though, I would suggest that the simplicity and nature of such propositions should already be obvious at the outset.
Just as the theist can reject the theist, the atheist can reject the atheist and the baked beanz can be rejected in favour of the baked beans. and so on, ad infinitum.
Nonetheless at some point of consideration, a baked bean is a baked bean.
zedvictor4 wrote.....Well.At certain points of consideration, what is what?Is something, something?Or is something perhaps something else?You choose.
I am unable to choose, as i find this rather unclear.
zedvictor4 wrote....So, the peripheral fluff of Wikipedia et al, may well present cosmetic facts in abundance for the benefit and wonderment of the voter.
Well, i don't have to stick with wikipedia.
I could use other sources.
According to this religious learning platform
Nontheism was only created and continues to be used in order to avoid the negative baggage that comes with the label 'atheism'.
However, when discussing religion, i do not always feel a religious platform is always the best source, ironically, as the opinion could be biased.
But, according to that, atheism and non-theism is not the same thing, because non-theists want to remove the negative baggage connected with Atheism.
Also another source here agrees with me
It says "the latter (non-theism) is not necessarily one which denies the existence of god.
There is an interesting distinction that might be made without being pedantic between “atheist” and “non-theist.” The latter is not (necessarily) one who explicitly denies the existence of God (or denies theism).
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Atheism is related to Theism, and thus not the same as "non-theism".
The purpose of this entry is to explore how atheism and agnosticism are related to theism
I decided to leave out the opinions of religious forums, and Quora.
However i gave a decent selection of non-wikipedia sources there.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy probably being the best one.
I may actually include this new and developed strategy in my future debates.
1 entire round dedicated to producing non wikipedia links and sources.
zedvictor4 wrote....Just as the theist can reject the theist, the atheist can reject the atheist and the baked beanz can be rejected in favour of the baked beans. and so on, ad infinitum.
Though we are talking about two different concepts, your argument that Atheism can also reject Atheism does not defeat my argument that Non-theism can also reject Atheism.
However the context i m pertaining to, is explained better by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Firstly, let me compliment my opponent on a well presented and politely conducted debate.
Atheism is and Non-theism is and the two by definition are the same.
The Atheist in this instance is the Atheist, whereas the Non-theist can be a hundred and one other things.
The Non-theist might be an 18th century Scottish Academic or could just as easily be a Heinz baked bean canner from Wigan.
Anyone can reject anything for any reason. Rejection is as arbitrary as it is contrived to have purpose.
The Non-theist or the Atheist can be anyone other than a Theist and choose to reject whatsoever takes their fancy. In this case, each other.
The Atheist and the Non-Atheist are people, by one definition the same, but by other defining features such as conditioning and cognitive variation, therefore chalk and cheese.
Atheism and Non-theism are simply, only concepts and so by definition the same.
Quite clearly, Non-theism cannot reject Atheism, whereas the Non-theist can assume a hundred and one differences and therefore a hundred and one different reasons to reject the Atheist.
If my opponent had presented the case for the Non-theist rejecting the Atheist, then this would clearly have been insurmountable.
Non-theism and Atheism are inert concepts and by definition the same and so therein lies the crux of my contention.
Does the baked bean conceptualise?
As far as I am able to know it does not, so I will confidently assert that Baked Beanz is Baked Beans, but only prior to the discerning palate of the taster of course.
pantheism is neither atheism nor theism. Taoism is neither atheism nor theism considering in Taoism, we ARE gods if we are good. So your argument means: If you hate the color Black, you would 100% love the color white. In the truth, I love blue and hate any colors in the grayscale, and that means not everything is bipolar.
NONTHEISM or non-theism is a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in a God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of God and differs from an antithetical, explicit atheism. Nontheism does not necessarily describe atheism or disbelief in God; it has been used as an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions, such as agnosticism, ignosticism, ietsism, skepticism, pantheism, atheism, strong or positive atheism, implicit atheism, and apatheism. It is in use in the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology.
ATHEISM is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities.Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.Atheism is contrasted with theism,which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
(Both sources are from their wikipedia page titles)
Anyone can reject anyone if they wish to.
Nonetheless I will accept this as an atheistic Easter challenge just to see how you run with it.
Yes, it can also be viewed as Atheism.
However there is scope for a non-theist to reject an Atheist, if they so wish.
I agree: non-theism can reject atheism (even though it can also be viewed as atheism).
Atheism, /can/ also reject Atheism.
Agnosticism, pantheism, transtheism?
The way i see it zedvictor4. this would then be your argument during the debate. That non-theism and Atheism are the samething.
I would be attempting to show you, that is not necessarily the case
By definition non-theism is atheism.
So how do you see things differently?
As a Pagan-Taoist free thinker, I agree completely to this resolution and consider it a fact, not an opinion.