Instigator / Pro
18
1485
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#3403

Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
9
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
3
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

PGA2.0
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
24
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Description

Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"

The definition contrasts with Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods. The purpose of the debate is to determine which of these two definitions should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize.

Definitions:

Definitions: Worldview --> a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worldview

Ism --> noun: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school Synonyms doctrine philosophical system philosophy school of thought https://www.freethesaurus.com/ism

archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Agnosticism: n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

Disbelief: The refusal to believe that something is true (Cambridge International Dictionary of English-1995). Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe (American Heritage Dictionary of English Language-1996).

Etymology n. 1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another,

Naturalism --> 3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. 4. Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

Secularism: n 1. (Philosophy) philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics 2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs

umanism (ˈhjuːməˌnɪzəm) n Humanism: 1. (Philosophy) the denial of any power or moral value superior to that of humanity; the rejection of religion in favour of a belief in the advancement of humanity by its own efforts

-->
@PGA2.0

Are all people with religious belief, a priori, suffering from mental illness? Sigmund Freud in 'Moses and Monotheism’ stated that belief in a single God is delusional .
Do you really think that there was a God in a burning bush, talking to Moses? Why isn't God talking from the Internet now?

-->
@FLRW

FLRW: "The oldest religion in the world is Hinduism. Hindus worship many gods and goddesses in addition to Brahman, who is believed to be the supreme God force present in all things."

***

It is claimed, not more, that Hinduism is the oldest religion.
https://probe.org/what-about-hindus-claim-that-hinduism-is-the-oldest-religion/

Tell me, what is the oldest Veda in existence?

"According to Jamison and Brereton, in their 2014 translation of the Rigveda, the dating of this text "has been and is likely to remain a matter of contention and reconsideration". The dating proposals so far are all inferred from the style and the content within the hymns themselves.[24] Philological estimates tend to date the bulk of the text to the second half of the second millennium.[note 1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda

Notice that the dating is a matter of contention and the dates proposed are inferred from style and content.

***

FLRW: "Religion provided an opiate for early man when he saw his dead children and his rotting leg."

That is a Marxist ideology - the opiate of the people.

-->
@PGA2.0

The oldest religion in the world is Hinduism. Hindus worship many gods and goddesses in addition to Brahman, who is believed to be the supreme God force present in all things. Religion provided an opiate for early man when he saw his dead children and his rotting leg.

-->
@FLRW

FLRW: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system."

What do atheists believe when they deny or reject the assertion that there is a God? Is it nothing about the world? No, they try to provide a system of thought that excludes and denies the biblical one. They are inconsistent and contradictory in their beliefs because they show by what they do (experience and practice) that they borrow from the Christian system of thought while denying it (God).

Ronald Nash lists major tests of every worldview:
1. The test of reason.
2. The test of experience.
3. The test of practice.

In the test of reason, they use logic to argue against absolute values and universal moral truths. Still, when someone cuts in line in front of them, they are morally indignant and object, showing they believe some things are morally absolute by their anger. Sometimes some claim skepticism, claiming no one can know for sure, while they think they know there is no God for certain.

In the test of experience, they claim they know the universe is material experientially. Thus human knowledge begins with sense experience. How can morality be anything but fluctuating and right and wrong nothing but preference and taste? How do they prove this? How do they account for morality if there is no fixed standard? They can't. They make it up and call it good because they like it. Some like to love their neighbours; others like to kill them. Why should I follow their preference? How does one correctly interpret right and wrong when there is no ultimate fixed standard? They don't. They believe anything goes if you have the might to enforce it. Yet they object to the very tyrants that live like this.

Why should we expect the present and future to be like the past (uniformity of nature)? What reason do they have to believe this should be so, not just that it is experientially?

If you don't have the correct interpretation of the world by having the correct worldview, you will find your thinking system more and more inconsistent, and that's what happens when God is denied.

-->
@FLRW

“Actually, in my opinion, Atheists know there is no God.”

“Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.”

Which one is it?

Either way, feel free to read through and cast a vote lol

From atheists.org. Who whould know more about 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. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

Actually, in my opinion, Atheists know there is no God.

-->
@Wylted

> Lack of belief in God and a lack of a positive disbelief in God would also both be considered atheistic.

exactly

-->
@PGA2.0
@3RU7AL
@Double_R

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 3RU7AL // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote is borderline. While the debate is long enough to have warranted a more extensive RFD, the voter did explain why he viewed this argument as central to the debate and furthered his reasoning in a long back-and-forth in the comments. Voters are not required to be exhaustive in their analysis, particularly if the voter explains why they see many of those points as irrelevant.
**************************************************

-->
@RationalMadman

What do you mean which god? I don't recall eluding to any specific one.

If you're talking about the debate in general, that's the point. Theism includes every single one, so any conversation about one says nothing about my attitude towards another.

-->
@Double_R

which god? Suddenly options open...

-->
@Mall

We’re not in agreement. A lack of belief is by definition, not a belief.

And no, it’s not a ying-yang. Good either exists or he does not exist, that’s it, there’s no other options. So the actuality of the situation is ying-yang. Theism and atheism address belief, which is a completely different thing.

Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang.

You can't silence me. Freedom of speech, everybody has a voice.
They wanted to silence Christ Jesus, the prophets, ministers moved by the HOLY SPIRIT. Protesters, activists, Malcolm X, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, Martin Luther King Jr. , Bruce Lee. Even adding D.J. Trump to it.

I will confirm double_R did mean subjective in a different context than what the rules are for unmoderated debates

-->
@oromagi

This is just getting stupid.

You pretend you're not arguing semantics right now while labeling this debate a "subjective competition", a term the site used to convey the idea behind rap battles, poetry slams, etc. and pretend this is my claim because I referred to it as a subjective debate even though I explained a dozen times already means it's philosophical. You're not being serious, you're just trying to save face.

You are the one who acknowledges that Con failed to address my case and who had made clear that the main reason for your vote is that you found my arguments personally unconvincing. That is antithetical to the rules on this site, the rules to judging debates in any formal setting, and frankly common sense. Ask anyone who knows what they're talking about and they would tell you the same.

-->
@Double_R

@oromagi
"Philosophical debates are subjective. "

False. Most philosophical debates argue for the truth or non-truth of a statement independent from bias, emotion, perspective. If we can't agree on a common ground of objective reality than debate is just people talking about their feelings about shit.

"This was a philosophical debate."

By your "just talking about my feelings" definition, probably so.

"Rap battles are subjective. This was not a rap battle."

agreed

"The DART rules you are semantically trying to apply to this debate were intended for rap battles"

That's a lie. The rules I am following cover SUBJECTIVE COMPETITIONS of which rap battles are but one example among many. Since you (wrongheadedly) insist that this debate is a SUBJECTIVE COMPETION then at your insistence, non-moderation is the applicable rule.

Why is this so difficult for you?
It's not. I'm 100% clear.

"What is so difficult about understanding why we would judge a philosophical debate differently than a rap battle? "

By definition, all the debates on this site are philosophical (i.e. the study of knowledge). You have created your own little definition of philosophical debates and created your own little rules for those debates that are nowhere reflected in the rules for this site.

"What is so complicated about this that explaining it inn your view amounts to subterfuge? "

It is hard to believe that you genuinely don't understand fundamental concepts like the definition of SIMPLY or the definition of SUBJECTIVE or PHILOSOPHY or the rules for SUBJECTIVE COMPETITIONS. Seems like you're just looking for an angle, any angle that let's you sell this as a win.

-->
@oromagi

Philosophical debates are subjective. This was a philosophical debate.

Rap battles are subjective. This was not a rap battle.

The DART rules you are semantically trying to apply to this debate were intended for rap battles, not philosophical debates.

Why is this so difficult for you? What is so difficult about understanding why we would judge a philosophical debate differently than a rap battle? What is so complicated about this that explaining it inn your view amounts to subterfuge? What is wrong with you?

-->
@Double_R

@Double_R No semantic bullshit here. I am literally just believing you when you wrote, "The resolution makes this debate SUBJECTIVE by definition."
When I challenged that characterization, you doubled down and said "should implies subjectivity" (talk about semantic bullshit) Is this a SUBJECTIVE debate as you have declared? Yes or no? Please answer yes or no directly without subterfuge in your next post.

Unsurprisingly, Double_R can't answer a simple yes or no question about his own writing (Should your argument be judged OBJECTIVELY or SUBJECTIVELY?) because either answer make him a liar. He clearly wants folks to apply the DART standard for OBJECTIVE debating but he retreated to a SUBJECTIVE appeal at the end of his R2 and when called out on it, babbled some ridiculous BS about SHOULD always indicating a subjective debate.

So long as Double_R continues to cower from this basic question, I think VOTERS can fairly treat this debate as non-moderated and vote however they wish.

-->
@Wylted

I'm not saying the character count would be unfair, I'm pointing out that you can't object to your opponents case *and* uphold your own against their criticisms without splitting the round in half for each. So if your case took 10,000 characters and the rebuttal to it took 10,000 characters you only get 5,000 characters for each.

I've stopped reading quite a few debates because of this and just never voted. It's too much info that's not being flushed out properly, and expanding to a 4 or 5 round debate makes it easy to long to do so.

You can have your opinion on that, that's fine. I just find it far less interesting, clear, and productive.

-->
@FLRW

YOU: "You can't understand religion. You have to believe in it."

Nonsense.

You can't believe in math. You have to understand it.
You can't understand religion. You have to believe in it.

-->
@Double_R

It's unfair for pro to get 10000 characters to prevent a case and then con only gets 5000 because the other 5000 is dedicated to rebuttals. If you do it the way I suggest both opening cases are 10k characters bother rebuttal rounds are 10k characters. In a 3 round debate the final round will be for impact analysis and counter rebuttals. In a 4 round debate r3 is for counter rebuttals and R4 is for conclusions and analysis.

This is the fairest way in my opinion and everyone has exactly equal characters for contentions, rebuttals and counter rebuttals

-->
@Wylted

YOU: "Just getting to round 2. Here is a quote

"Disappointingly, Con has chosen not to address a single argument I made in the first round despite agreeing that I would take full BoP. Without rebuttals to address, my points remain standing. So with that, I'll clearly have to spend the rest of this round responding to Con's points. "

Why do people still do this? Round 2 is the rebuttal round normally. Obviously con is not going to make rebuttals in the argument round."

***
I could not figure that one out either. The first round was for me to make my case, not rebut his and I mentioned as much in my reply to this point of his. Not only that, I feel I did address his argument of ONLY or SIMPLY a lack of belief in every round. I explained why it could not be so (lack or absence of belief) unless the person had not thought at all about God or gods. That is very seldom encountered. By denying God the atheist has to form many beliefs about God, or gods, he is denying. By denying God he has to come up with his own system of belief in explaining the universe, life, morality and the ultimate questions of life like why we are here, what significance it makes, etc. And in doing so, the atheist is going counter to everything God. He is intentionally ignoring God as a reasonable explanation. Thus, not God, or no God.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Double_R

IMO, Post 173 well summarized my part of the debate by RationalMadman!

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3403-atheism-is-simply-a-lack-of-belief?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=173

We have Gods for the same reason we have Kings. They are all concepts from Worm Man.

-->
@Wylted

Oromagi acknowledges that Con did not address my case and that his vote against me was mostly because he personally found my argument unconvincing. That's as clear an example of a biased vote there is.

If the BoP was fully mine then Con had no responsibility to present an argument at all. Ironically, this was the whole point of me challenging him. He kept whining about atheists never making their own case so I put together a challenge where he was the one who gets to be the one throwing stones.

I don't see why anyone would find the whole "R1 is not for rebuttals" layout preferable. If Pro makes a case and Con refutes that case, the debate at the end is far more clear to judge. Does the case stand? Yes or No?

When both sides present opposite cases space becomes a serious issue because now each side has half of a round to address an entire round, but also the judges now have to weigh the arguments against each other which is far more subjective.

There's nothing wrong with the Con presenting a counter argument, but a whole case just muddies the debate and leads to each side talking past each other.

-->
@oromagi

Do you understand the difference between a philosophical debate and a rap battle? Yes or No?

This isn't subterfuge, it's quite simple.

Both are considered subjective, but the difference is profound and unmistakeable. You know this. To lump them together as if they are the same thing is disingenuous at best.

You want me to answer yes or no because as long as you ignore that difference either will make your argument. No means I was wrong, making this debate objective which justifies using dictionary definitions (even though this debate was about what the word "should" mean). Yes means we get to pretend there's no difference so your vote is legitimate because the rules page used the same word I did.

It's as clear an example of sematic bullshit one could contrive.

Just getting to round 2. Here is a quote

"Disappointingly, Con has chosen not to address a single argument I made in the first round despite agreeing that I would take full BoP. Without rebuttals to address, my points remain standing. So with that, I'll clearly have to spend the rest of this round responding to Con's points. "

Why do people still do this? Round 2 is the rebuttal round normally. Obviously con is not going to make rebuttals in the argument round

I don't know if I can judge this. It's kind of annoying seeing the term agnostic used incorrectly over and over. Agnosticism is on a spectrum of belief to disbelief. Agnosticism is not between theistic and atheistic.

Agnosticism is merely a philosophical concept that says, one can never have enough evidence to know whether God is real or not. All agnostics are either theistic or atheistic . Most I agree would be atheists.

Lack of belief in God and a lack of a positive disbelief in God would also both be considered atheistic.

-->
@Double_R

"If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?"

That's how debates should be judged. You are right it shouldn't be based on how much you buy or believe an argument.

I haven't read Oro's RFD. I can't tell you whether he judged this correctly or not, but if he is weighing arguments based on how believable they sound to him, he is judging incorrectly.

-->
@PGA2.0

"“We atheists believe that nature simply exists. Matter is. Material is.” (Madalyn Murray O’Hair, What on Earth Is an Atheist? 1972)"

Thanks for remembering Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She has a great story as well as the story of her famous son.

-->
@TheMorningsStar

YOU: "Mall's vote has been removed multiple times already because there is no substance to it, but they continue to come back to repost it anyways. So no, there is nothing more than that meaningless statement in their vote."

Thanks for informing me!

-->
@Double_R

No semantic bullshit here.

I am literally just believing you when you wrote, "The resolution makes this debate SUBJECTIVE by definition."

When I challenged that characterization, you doubled down and said "should implies subjectivity" (talk about semantic bullshit)

Is this a SUBJECTIVE debate as you have declared? Yes or no?
Please answer yes or no directly without subterfuge in your next post.

-->
@oromagi

I've given you legitimate reasons as to why we don't according to whether we find ourselves personally convinced, showed you where the rules support that notion, explained what the burden of proof is and how it factors... And all you have is this semantic BS.

If you are no longer interested in a real conversation just say so.

-->
@Double_R

"You're literally categorizing the philosophical debate we just had along with rap battles, poetry slams, and talent shows. Wow."

I am literally just believing you when you say, "The resolution makes this debate SUBJECTIVE by definition." Wow.

-->
@oromagi

This is what I mean when I say you're not being serious. Your entire point here is just semantics to an absurd degree.

You're literally categorizing the philosophical debate we just had along with rap battles, poetry slams, and talent shows. Wow.

-->
@Double_R

DART VOTING POLICY: "Some debates by their nature, or pre-agreement between the debaters, are not eligible for normal moderation..... Examples of non-moderated debates include...

SUBJECTIVE COMPETITIONS
Differentiated from normal debates, rap battles, poetry slams, talent shows, and the like, are too subjective to a different standard than what these rules are designed to enforce."

DOUBLE_R (instigator of this debate) on whether or not this debate is SUBJECTIVE:

"Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"

The resolution makes this debate SUBJECTIVE by definition."

At PRO's repeated insistence, this debate is non-moderated.

-->
@PGA2.0

Mall's vote has been removed multiple times already because there is no substance to it, but they continue to come back to repost it anyways. So no, there is nothing more than that meaningless statement in their vote.

-->
@Mall
@Double_R

YOU concerning the vote: "Both positions are actually in agreement. A lack of belief is a belief in a lack there of. Either position will have a negative or opposite like the yin and yang."

Is that the totality of your explanation or did you post it somewhere else?

-->
@oromagi

"Are you taking back the part about this being a subjective debate or are your disagreeing with DART rules about how to handle subjective debates?"

Neither.

There is nothing about the DART rules that contradicts anything I've said. In fact it only affirms it. The rules are not intended to be a class on how to cast votes, it's just giving you the basics. Take not of the following excerpt:

"To be clear: pre-existing bias for or against either side, must never be a decisive factor in any point allotment."

They don't go into any further detail on how to ensure this, that's where this conversation and everything I've said comes in. Again, according to your own posts you do not believe Con adaquately refuted my case but you voted against me in large part anyway because you personally found my case unconvincing. That is the definition of personal bias in voting.

Let me repeat again; I WASN'T DEBATING YOU. If I was, I would have done a much better job of defending my case because I would have had the opportunity to hear your concerns first hand and address them directly and in depth. I wasn't given that opportunity because Con decided to make his own case and focus on that instead despite it's irrelevance to the resolution.

And as far as this whole subjective debate thing... Have you never heard of a philosophical debate before? Do you really think the rules on how you judge the participants change because the resolution is not fact based?

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7664/post-links/331173

-->
@Double_R

"Ok, I see we've reached the part of the conversation where you stop being serious, presumably because you know where this is going."

I am quite serious when I say that as soon you switched to "oh, this is just a subjective debate" at the end of your second argument, you surrendered any rational grounds for complaint about how people voted on your proposition. Are you taking back the part about this being a subjective debate or are your disagreeing with DART rules about how to handle subjective debates?

"The answer is yes, you give credit for the argument if it's ignored. It's called a concession, and it's one of the most basic rules of judging debates."

I have never studied or participated in any formal debating. The rules I go by are printed here: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

"Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."

You had the Burden of Proof and gave me two silly and unconvincing arguments that together added zero affirmation, zero strength to your thesis. CON's argument did not address your unconvincing proofs, true, but negated effectively by demonstrating popular, recent, and effective use of the word ATHEIST in the strict sense.

'It's not about whether you buy the argument, it's about whether it was properly refuted."

So your argument could just read "boogers" and if I did not come back with a proper refutation of "boogers" (unboogers, I suppose) than the guy who just said "boogers" automatically wins? I think I'm glad I never tried formal debating.

In Con's arguments, he states "Con: The definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of anygods. " I will be using the "anygods" in my ranking of his
Better spelling and grammar.

-->
@FLRW

Basically, the biblical God claims to be the one true and living God. He claims no gods were before Him and none after Him. Jesus Christ, claims He is the one way to God for salvation is found in no other. If that is true then Hinduism is false. I can give you extraordinary evidence that it is true. Show me the same with Hinduism.

-->
@FLRW

YOU:

"Lord Ganesha is also knonw as Ganapati, Vighnaharta, Vinayak and elephant head god in India, Is the most worshipped deities in the Hinduism and is the supreme deity. Ganapati is a popular figure in Indian art and worshipped on all religious occasions, especially at the beginning of all ventures.

I ask PGA2.0 why he thinks Lord Ganesha does not exist?"

***

Very simply. Two opposing deities that claim they are Lord and God cannot both be true, via the logical law of non-contradiction or even the law of identity.

Next, what evidence can you present that Lord Ganesha is the true God or Lord? The biblical evidence offers a myriad of proofs so indepth that also is backed up by extra-biblical historic records. Show me Lord Ganesha has logical consistent evidence that he even exists, instead of a product of the human mind.

> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)

(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself

There's your conditional statement.

> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)

(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed (THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY

Feel free to point out any errors you may find.

-->
@oromagi

Ok, I see we've reached the part of the conversation where you stop being serious, presumably because you know where this is going.

The answer is yes, you give credit for the argument if it's ignored. It's called a concession, and it's one of the most basic rules of judging debates.

It's not about whether you buy the argument, it's about whether it was properly refuted.

And to your other point, the burden of proof is not about who has to do a better job of convincing you, it's about which side has the responsibility to make a positive case. Con, not having the burden can if he so chooses, do nothing but sit back and throw stones at my arguments. I didn't have that luxery. That's the difference.

-->
@Double_R

"If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?"

When voting on a subjective debate, no such criteria need apply.

-->
@oromagi

"That's why it's called a burden. If you don't think it's your job to convince me the voter that you're right, then I am unlikely to find your argument persuasive, am I?"

If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?

Lord Ganesha is also knonw as Ganapati, Vighnaharta, Vinayak and elephant head god in India, Is the most worshipped deities in the Hinduism and is the supreme deity. Ganapati is a popular figure in Indian art and worshipped on all religious occasions, especially at the beginning of all ventures.

I ask PGA2.0 why he thinks Lord Ganesha does not exist?