frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Atheism IS a Religion

1234579



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Coveny said:

    No you didn't. The words denying and disbelieving are NOT the same as believe. Why aren't these the definitions?????

    Theist - a belief in god(s)
    Atheist - a belief that there are no god(s)

    Instead they are defined as

    Theist - a beliefe in god(s)
    Atheist - a denying or disbelieving in god(s)

    If denying and disbelieving are a belief of atheism as you claim why doesn't the definitions portray that? Answer the question...
    Denying and disbelieving in something's existence is EXACTLY the same as NOT BELIEVING SOMETHING EXISTS. 

    Is English really your native language?
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:

    It's not the same thing to "not believe" as it is to "believe". It's used interchangeably by most but fails when applied. Saying "I don't believe you" isn't the same thing as saying "I believe you are wrong". If you've spoken English to like anyone you'll know that one is skepticism in someone's claim and the other belief their claim is wrong. The dictionary supports this by defining theist as "believes in", while not defining atheist as "believes in" but rather "does not believe in, or disbelieves". My position on these topics has not changed, nor have I made up any definitions, and the definitions support my position on the semantics of the three words.
    It is the same thing to not believe something as it is to believe something is not.  The dictionary does NOT support your contention IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.  Not believing in something is NOT the same as DENYING OR DISBELIEVING in something as atheism is defined in the dictionary entries.  Denying there is a God is NOT the same as not believing in God.  Disbelieving in God's existence is NOT the same not believing in God.  You are an atheist ONLY if you hold those views.  Your position hasn't changed, but it's been WRONG all along. 
    Coveny said:

    You should join the flat earthers they LOVE to lie.
    At least they have a better grasp of the English language.

    @CYDdharta said: It is the same thing to not believe something as it is to believe something is not.

    How is that? I mean you could tell me a story that I would not believe, .. but I wouldn't say your story didn't exist?

    I had an old car that I didn't believe in (1972 Chevy Vega), so I didn't drive it much. But I would never claim "it was not", .. or that it didn't exist! .. I wish it didn't, but that's not the same.

    This is what I've been trying to Convey to Coveny, that not believing in something is still faith, or "belief", .. but it doesn't mean that whatever you don't believe in doesn't exist.

    But atheism claims both, that they have no "belief/faith" AND that something they can see, and even buy does not exist either???
    Oh that's priceless. You two semantics twisters go at it and have fun. 

    Oh and CYDdharta ask him about halloween costumes the mental gymnastics he does on that one is decent.

    Halloween costumes don't exist silly, nor does Halloween. lol
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Evidence said:

    @CYDdharta said: It is the same thing to not believe something as it is to believe something is not.

    How is that? I mean you could tell me a story that I would not believe, .. but I wouldn't say your story didn't exist?

    I had an old car that I didn't believe in (1972 Chevy Vega), so I didn't drive it much. But I would never claim "it was not", .. or that it didn't exist! .. I wish it didn't, but that's not the same.

    This is what I've been trying to Convey to Coveny, that not believing in something is still faith, or "belief", .. but it doesn't mean that whatever you don't believe in doesn't exist.

    But atheism claims both, that they have no "belief/faith" AND that something they can see, and even buy does not exist either???
    Allow me to clarify as you're taking my statement out of the context in which it was intended; it is the same thing to not believe something exists as it is to believe something does not exist.

    Same thing, and same answer.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:

    Oh priceless... Just priceless. The irony it's so funny. A bunch of theists using atheist logic and reasoning because the use of a dog bypassed their cognitive bias. ROFL
    It has been funny; watching an "atheist" who doesn't know what the term atheism means use it incorrectly to describe himself then try to jeer at the people who do understand the concept.
    You don't believe he has a dog do you? ROFL You believe that there is a god. You understand that, you get that, but a dog... WOAH hold up. This is the very core of your semantical argument against me. Were is all that "there MUST be a belief system!!!" and "your lack of belief is a religion" stuff when it's associated with a dog? ROFL Oh it's priceless that you understand the concepts just fine when your cognitive bias is removed. Do you finally want to admit that being an atheist is a null value, or you want to continue with the semantic bait and switch game you've been playing?
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    @Coveny - Don't want to go down this road with you AGAIN @Evidence. I read about fictional characters like Harry Potter but I don't believe they exist. You should go to your nearest mental health facility and tell the doctors that you believe Harry Potter exists. It should give you plenty of people to chat with after that.

    https://www.ebay.com/i/263224756943?chn=ps&dispItem=1
    Do you still DENY that Harry Potter exist or not?

    Coveny - Again if you believe in a creator, then you are a theist.

    Depends on the creator. The theists believe in all kinds of creators, not one of them is our Infinite and Eternal Creator "I Am", and I can prove it!?

    Coveny - If you believe/worship yahweh then you are NO different than millions of other theists who worship yahweh from the bible regardless of if you define yahweh as "infinite, Eternal creative mind/spirit I am". I'm not buying your theist , your religion is no different and certainly not any better than any of the other 3,000 that are out there.

    Of course you don't "believe" in what I tell you, because your "belief" is based on Religious indoctrinations, so when the Pope says God is a plastic/wood theos god, then that's what you will stay believing.

    It's no use talking to such blind faithed religious people since they all put their religion before using their mind/spirit. Now go run and read your nonexistent Harry Potter books and see what the nonexistent  Harry Potter is doing? lol
    I don't believe the theist name pope any more than I believe the theist named evidence. I have no faith in god(s), any of the creators, supreme beings, spiritual beings, etc. I am not indoctrinated into religion and blind faith like you and the pope.

    I deny that Harry Potter exists. I agree Harry Potter is a fictional character in a book, but I deny that fictional characters exist. You really should talk to a professional medical personal about what you believe exists I'm sure they would find it fascinating... 
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:
    As currently, there is no (accepted) proof of or against the Creator, one must believe either what the scientists say, or what the theist says. Either way, you believe what somebody says, ergo, you have a belief system.
    LOL, I see Coveny X'd you out. Seems he doesn't "believe" he has a "belief" system? lol
    He presents a fallacy, and you're all on board. Tell me again do you believe he has a dog or not? ROFL I'm gonna get so much mileage out of that. hehe
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:

    No you didn't. The words denying and disbelieving are NOT the same as believe. Why aren't these the definitions?????

    Theist - a belief in god(s)
    Atheist - a belief that there are no god(s)

    Instead they are defined as

    Theist - a beliefe in god(s)
    Atheist - a denying or disbelieving in god(s)

    If denying and disbelieving are a belief of atheism as you claim why doesn't the definitions portray that? Answer the question...
    Denying and disbelieving in something's existence is EXACTLY the same as NOT BELIEVING SOMETHING EXISTS. 

    Is English really your native language?
    Still NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. Why are they defined differently if the meaning is the same????
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    As currently, there is no (accepted) proof of or against the Creator, one must believe either what the scientists say, or what the theist says. Either way, you believe what somebody says, ergo, you have a belief system.
    Don't believe either. Today scientists would never put their time in searching for scientific evidence of god, way too busy building Mars school busses and giving people rides on Mars.
    Did you hear how excited they were, saying: "Fealt the bumps, it was AWESOME!"
    Sssheesshh, what morons we've become. If it wasn't for you buddy, I'd be in line for that ride, and get my Certificate on "Toured-Mars And Survived!"

    Hey @Erfisflat I just thought of something funny? Now imagine taking a bunch of adults on that Mars-ride in the Mohave desert where NASA has the Mars Rover, .. and put everyone in spacesuits, with red tinted visors, lead them outside and they see that landscape with the Rover there, .. Har, har, har...

    How many do you think would believe that they're really on Mars?

    Wait, .. wait, .. to really freak them out, have Matt Damon there holding a few cabbages to meet them, and act all happy that they came to rescue him! lol

  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Erfisflat said:
    As currently, there is no (accepted) proof of or against the Creator, one must believe either what the scientists say, or what the theist says. Either way, you believe what somebody says, ergo, you have a belief system.
    Don't believe either. Today scientists would never put their time in searching for scientific evidence of god, way too busy building Mars school busses and giving people rides on Mars.
    Did you hear how excited they were, saying: "Fealt the bumps, it was AWESOME!"
    Sssheesshh, what morons we've become. If it wasn't for you buddy, I'd be in line for that ride, and get my Certificate on "Toured-Mars And Survived!"

    Hey @Erfisflat I just thought of something funny? Now imagine taking a bunch of adults on that Mars-ride in the Mohave desert where NASA has the Mars Rover, .. and put everyone in spacesuits, with red tinted visors, lead them outside and they see that landscape with the Rover there, .. Har, har, har...

    How many do you think would believe that they're really on Mars?

    Wait, .. wait, .. to really freak them out, have Matt Damon there holding a few cabbages to meet them, and act all happy that they came to rescue him! lol
    When one flat earther points out that another flat earther is using a false dichotomy fallacy. ROFL
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:

    You don't believe he has a dog do you? ROFL You believe that there is a god. You understand that, you get that, but a dog... WOAH hold up. This is the very core of your semantical argument against me. Were is all that "there MUST be a belief system!!!" and "your lack of belief is a religion" stuff when it's associated with a dog? ROFL Oh it's priceless that you understand the concepts just fine when your cognitive bias is removed. Do you finally want to admit that being an atheist is a null value, or you want to continue with the semantic bait and switch game you've been playing?
    You really are dim.  I neither believe nor disbelieve he has a dog; I don't have proof either way.  I neither believe nor disbelieve God exists; I don't have proof either way.  The main difference between the two is that I believe proof exists as to whether or not he has a dog.  And YOU want to tell ME about cognitive biases???  :D



    A dogtheist believes he has a dog.  A dogatheist believes he has no dog.  A dogfidel believes he doesn't have a dog.  A dognostic believes he's as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.  Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?  Or is it just hard for you to admit to yourself?
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:

    You don't believe he has a dog do you? ROFL You believe that there is a god. You understand that, you get that, but a dog... WOAH hold up. This is the very core of your semantical argument against me. Were is all that "there MUST be a belief system!!!" and "your lack of belief is a religion" stuff when it's associated with a dog? ROFL Oh it's priceless that you understand the concepts just fine when your cognitive bias is removed. Do you finally want to admit that being an atheist is a null value, or you want to continue with the semantic bait and switch game you've been playing?
    You really are dim.  I neither believe nor disbelieve he has a dog; I don't have proof either way.  I neither believe nor disbelieve God exists; I don't have proof either way.  The main difference between the two is that I believe proof exists as to whether or not he has a dog.  And YOU want to tell ME about cognitive biases???  :D

    A dogtheist believes he has a dog.  A dogatheist believes he has no dog.  A dogfidel believes he doesn't have a dog.  A dognostic believes he's as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.  Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?  Or is it just hard for you to admit to yourself?
    A dogtheist believes he has a dog
    A dogatheist doesn't believe he has a dog
    A dogagnostic doesn't believe it's possible to know if he has anything

    If you don't believe he has a dog, then you are a dogatheist. You don't get to remove yourself when there are only two options. This is why atheist is a null value, and why atheist isn't "I believe he doesn't have a dog". Apply this back to religion, what is a person who doesn't feel like they have enough information to believe there is a god(s)? Spoiler alert... it's an atheist.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    As currently, there is no (accepted) proof of or against the Creator,

    So you don't see the mind/spirit of man as something other than the brains activity?
    How about all the effort in trying to "capture the mind/soul of man and storing it on disk. which they hope to one day load into a robot? Have you seen the movie CHAPPiE yet?

    How much of the Blue Brain Project have you looked into? You're smart man, look into it!

    http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

    But look at this video they put out,



    what does this Fantasia type music cartoon has to do with the brain? See, all in the footsteps of NASA Entertainment to soothe the mind of us cows.

    Now this is interesting:



    Erfisflat said - one must believe either what the scientists say, or what the theist says. Either way, you believe what somebody says, ergo, you have a belief system.

    Like I said about todays scientists, .. and as for the "theist", only their individual Religious beliefs matter, like the atheists, ..  which is like the definition says: "blind faith"
    Erfisflat
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:

    Still NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. Why are they defined differently if the meaning is the same????
    They aren't defined differently, the meaning is EXACTLY THE SAME.  Do you have any idea how big a dictionary would be if they had to use every possible word combination that mean the exact same thing for every word???  No dictionary includes every combination of words and no dictionary claims to include every combination of words for every definition.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    No, it's not the same at all. Absence of belief is not belief of absence.
    Does not having a dog mean that you have a cat?
    That's why I clarified.  If you do not believe you have a dog, its the same as believing you do not have a dog.  Atheist isn't simply absence of belief, it is denying or disbelieving.
    I've actually used that example before, let's try a real-time test of it:
    Do you believe that I have a dog?

    @JoePineapples
    Atheist: "I don't believe dogs exist, so I don't care if you have a dog or not. And I have no belief either, .. faith is for theists, and I'm an atheist."
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:
    @Coveny - Theists believe in an uncreated creator. What do you believe in @Evidence ?

    Now your talking. Can you explain/define this "uncreated creator" that theists believe in?
    Thanks buddy. Love you man, ...
    It was your words from an earlier debate, it's in line with your "infinite eternal I am" god who's not a god because he's not in religion even though he's in the bible and many religions are based off the bible stuff. Theist believe in a creator of the universe, atheist don't.

    You can make a religion out of anything, any book, any idea, even music, including the Bible. In my younger days I knew a lot of science fiction fans who were very religious about science fiction, attended all the Science fairs which were more about science fiction than science.

    There are practically tens of thousands of Jesus's in the world, some look just like the Christian Religions Jesus that Christians claim is Biblical, so what? Now that doesn't make Jesus the Christian Religions Jesus does it? Just as an idol of Bible God doesn't mean that God is now an idol.

    Grow up already, I'm getting tired of breastfeeding you.
    ErfisflatCovenySilverishGoldNova
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:

    You don't believe he has a dog do you? ROFL You believe that there is a god. You understand that, you get that, but a dog... WOAH hold up. This is the very core of your semantical argument against me. Were is all that "there MUST be a belief system!!!" and "your lack of belief is a religion" stuff when it's associated with a dog? ROFL Oh it's priceless that you understand the concepts just fine when your cognitive bias is removed. Do you finally want to admit that being an atheist is a null value, or you want to continue with the semantic bait and switch game you've been playing?
    You really are dim.  I neither believe nor disbelieve he has a dog; I don't have proof either way.  I neither believe nor disbelieve God exists; I don't have proof either way.  The main difference between the two is that I believe proof exists as to whether or not he has a dog.  And YOU want to tell ME about cognitive biases???  :D

    A dogtheist believes he has a dog.  A dogatheist believes he has no dog.  A dogfidel believes he doesn't have a dog.  A dognostic believes he's as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.  Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?  Or is it just hard for you to admit to yourself?
    A dogtheist believes he has a dog
    A dogatheist doesn't believe he has a dog
    A dogagnostic doesn't believe it's possible to know if he has anything

    If you don't believe he has a dog, then you are a dogatheist. You don't get to remove yourself when there are only two options. This is why atheist is a null value, and why atheist isn't "I believe he doesn't have a dog". Apply this back to religion, what is a person who doesn't feel like they have enough information to believe there is a god(s)? Spoiler alert... it's an atheist.
    Once again;

    A dogtheist believes he has a dog. 
    A dogatheist believes he has no dog. 
    A dogfidel believes he doesn't have a dog. 
    A dognostic believes he's as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.

    Obviously, it's possible to know whether or not he has a dog, so dognostic doesn't translate properly into this conversation.  If you don't believe he has a dog, then you are a dogfidel.  To translate this back to religion, a person who doesn't feel like they have enough information to believe there is a god(s) is either agnostic (if they don't believe such information can exist) or they are an infidel.  If, and only if, they believe God does not exist are they an atheist.
    Erfisflat
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    CYDdharta said:

    ..which is no indication on what you do or don't believe about it. The question isn't "do you have any idea about me having a dog?", the question is "do you believe I have a dog?".
    A belief is a conviction, something you've been convinced of or accepted as truth. Could you answer the question please?
    How can I be convinced of something without proof, or at least very compelling evidence?  I believe neither that you have a dog nor that you have no dog
    According to your initial logic, this is impossible. If you're without belief that I have a dog, then you must have the belief that I don't have a dog (according to your logic).
    Coveny
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  

    According to your initial logic, this is impossible. If you're without belief that I have a dog, then you must have the belief that I don't have a dog (according to your logic).
    That isn't correct.  There are 4 pertinent beliefs;

    I can believe you have a dog. 
    I can believe you have no dog. 
    I can believe you don't have a dog. 
    I can believe you are as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.

    This has been my position all along.
    Coveny
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    CYDdharta said:

    According to your initial logic, this is impossible. If you're without belief that I have a dog, then you must have the belief that I don't have a dog (according to your logic).
    That isn't correct.  There are 4 pertinent beliefs;

    I can believe you have a dog. 
    I can believe you have no dog. 
    I can believe you don't have a dog. 
    I can believe you are as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.

    This has been my position all along.
    The question was about one specific belief (the belief that I have a dog) if you do not have that belief (literally do not believe that I have a dog) then, by your logic, you must believe I do not have a dog.

    If, for whatever reason, there are any other options when it comes to belief about the dog, the same applies to belief about gods. Therefore not believing in gods is not the same as believing that gods don't exist.
    Coveny
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • ChristChrist 39 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Coveny said:
    Christ said:
    For atheism to exist theism must also exist, no theism no atheism, atheism exists only in the mind of the theist.

    Atheism is not a religion in itself, atheism is a part of the theist's religion.

    Unwilling people become a part of the theist's religion whether they want to be or not.

    Atheism is imposed on atheists by theists, it is a form of religious persecution and bigotry.
    So if I say I'm not part of the theist's religion ... I'm part of the theist's religion? So everyone become theists in every religion because you can't accept there is an option WITHOUT god(s) in it?

    Theist impose atheism?!?!? Wait what? Atheist have to fight HARD against theism to break free, and some never truly do because the conditioning is so strong. Theist want to KILL atheist in almost every religion, not create them. Theists are all about conforming to the status quo.
    The oppressed taking the name the oppressors have given them and wearing it as a badge of honor is a pretty common thing.

    After years and years of talking to religious people all I can say is, being an atheist is something you can be proud of.

    Religious people have a lot of little tricks they use to rope other people into their religious context.

    Have you ever heard a theist say something like, atheists hate God or atheists hate Jesus?

    I do not hate God, that would be like hating the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, it's ridiculous.

    What I hate are the people that use God to justify their stupidity and bigotry, aside from that I have no interest in God or feelings about it.

    I am interested in religious people though, they can be very amusing.

  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    CYDdharta said:

    No, it's not the same at all. Absence of belief is not belief of absence.
    Does not having a dog mean that you have a cat?
    That's why I clarified.  If you do not believe you have a dog, its the same as believing you do not have a dog.  Atheist isn't simply absence of belief, it is denying or disbelieving.
    I've actually used that example before, let's try a real-time test of it:
    Do you believe that I have a dog?
    @JoePineapples
    Atheist: "I don't believe dogs exist, so I don't care if you have a dog or not. And I have no belief either, .. faith is for theists, and I'm an atheist."
    Wait what?!?! Evidence understands atheist!! That it's a null value, and it's not faith!!! Give this old man a PRIZE!!!
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:

    You don't believe he has a dog do you? ROFL You believe that there is a god. You understand that, you get that, but a dog... WOAH hold up. This is the very core of your semantical argument against me. Were is all that "there MUST be a belief system!!!" and "your lack of belief is a religion" stuff when it's associated with a dog? ROFL Oh it's priceless that you understand the concepts just fine when your cognitive bias is removed. Do you finally want to admit that being an atheist is a null value, or you want to continue with the semantic bait and switch game you've been playing?
    You really are dim.  I neither believe nor disbelieve he has a dog; I don't have proof either way.  I neither believe nor disbelieve God exists; I don't have proof either way.  The main difference between the two is that I believe proof exists as to whether or not he has a dog.  And YOU want to tell ME about cognitive biases???  :D

    A dogtheist believes he has a dog.  A dogatheist believes he has no dog.  A dogfidel believes he doesn't have a dog.  A dognostic believes he's as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.  Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?  Or is it just hard for you to admit to yourself?
    A dogtheist believes he has a dog
    A dogatheist doesn't believe he has a dog
    A dogagnostic doesn't believe it's possible to know if he has anything

    If you don't believe he has a dog, then you are a dogatheist. You don't get to remove yourself when there are only two options. This is why atheist is a null value, and why atheist isn't "I believe he doesn't have a dog". Apply this back to religion, what is a person who doesn't feel like they have enough information to believe there is a god(s)? Spoiler alert... it's an atheist.
    Once again;

    A dogtheist believes he has a dog. 
    A dogatheist believes he has no dog. 
    A dogfidel believes he doesn't have a dog. 
    A dognostic believes he's as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.

    Obviously, it's possible to know whether or not he has a dog, so dognostic doesn't translate properly into this conversation.  If you don't believe he has a dog, then you are a dogfidel.  To translate this back to religion, a person who doesn't feel like they have enough information to believe there is a god(s) is either agnostic (if they don't believe such information can exist) or they are an infidel.  If, and only if, they believe God does not exist are they an atheist.
    I like how you've brought in another word (infidel) to cover the gap in your incorrect use of the definition of atheist. The whole topic is about what you believe. You either believe or you don't. Do you believe you are going to do great things? No? Does that mean you believe you are NOT going to do great things? no it doesn't. Do you believe that you will be a good person all the time? No does that mean that you believe you will not be a good person all the time or is there still a small part of your mind that thinks "it could happen, I just don't believe it will...". One is a declaration and a claim, the other is a lack of that claim, disbelieving that claim, or denying that claim. When you sit at a dart board you don't "believe" you will get a hat trick, but at the same time you don't believe you won't get a hat trick either... I mean it could happen right? This is the difference between a theist and an atheist one has a claim to hold on to, the other lacks that claim. no more, no less.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    According to your initial logic, this is impossible. If you're without belief that I have a dog, then you must have the belief that I don't have a dog (according to your logic).
    That isn't correct.  There are 4 pertinent beliefs;

    I can believe you have a dog. 
    I can believe you have no dog. 
    I can believe you don't have a dog. 
    I can believe you are as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.

    This has been my position all along.
    4 beliefs....
    Really what's the difference between "have no dog" and "don't have a dog" exactly?

    Also you position earlier was "I can't know" if you have a dog or not which you didn't list.


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  

    The question was about one specific belief (the belief that I have a dog) if you do not have that belief (literally do not believe that I have a dog) then, by your logic, you must believe I do not have a dog.

    If, for whatever reason, there are any other options when it comes to belief about the dog, the same applies to belief about gods. Therefore not believing in gods is not the same as believing that gods don't exist.
    I present 4 options; you ignore two and misrepresent one and try to say it's my logic???  You need to read and comprehend my entire post before you can understand my logic.  At this point, I'm going to add a 5th option; I don't give a rat's whether you own a dog or not.

    Back to the actual debate, there are 4 relevant beliefs;

    Those who believe God exists - theists

    Those who believe no God exists - atheists

    Those who do not believe in religion - infidels

    Those who believe it is unknown and unknowable whether God exists or not.


    Coveny
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    CYDdharta said:

    According to your initial logic, this is impossible. If you're without belief that I have a dog, then you must have the belief that I don't have a dog (according to your logic).
    That isn't correct.  There are 4 pertinent beliefs;

    I can believe you have a dog. 
    I can believe you have no dog. 
    I can believe you don't have a dog. 
    I can believe you are as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.

    This has been my position all along.
    4 beliefs....
    Really what's the difference between "have no dog" and "don't have a dog" exactly?

    Also you position earlier was "I can't know" if you have a dog or not which you didn't list.


    ...and I added a new one; I don't give a rat's whether you own a dog or not.  This debate has nothing to do with who owns what dog.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Coveny said:

    I like how you've brought in another word (infidel) to cover the gap in your incorrect use of the definition of atheist. The whole topic is about what you believe. You either believe or you don't. Do you believe you are going to do great things? No? Does that mean you believe you are NOT going to do great things? no it doesn't. Do you believe that you will be a good person all the time? No does that mean that you believe you will not be a good person all the time or is there still a small part of your mind that thinks "it could happen, I just don't believe it will...". One is a declaration and a claim, the other is a lack of that claim, disbelieving that claim, or denying that claim. When you sit at a dart board you don't "believe" you will get a hat trick, but at the same time you don't believe you won't get a hat trick either... I mean it could happen right? This is the difference between a theist and an atheist one has a claim to hold on to, the other lacks that claim. no more, no less.
    Gee; welcome to the debate, I only brought up infidels 3 days and 4 pages of posts ago;

    infidel

    noun
    1. Religion.
    a person who does not accept a particular faith, especially Christianity.
    (in Christian use) an unbeliever, especially a Muslim.
    (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kafir (def 2).
    2. a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.
    3. (loosely) a person who disbelieves or doubts a particular theory, belief, creed, etc.; skeptic.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/infidel?s=t
    infidel

    n.
    1. Often Offensive An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
    2. One who has no religious beliefs.
    3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.
    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/infidel
    infidel

    noun
    1. a person who does not believe in a particular religion, esp. the prevailing religion ; specif.,
    a. among Christians, a non-Christian
    b. among Muslims, a non-Muslim
    2. a person who holds no religious belief
    3. a person who does not accept some particular theory, belief, etc.
    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/infidel
    infidel

    1 :one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
    2 a :an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
    b :one who acknowledges no religious belief
    3 :a disbeliever in something specified or understood
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infidel

    If your mistaken belief of what atheism mean is correct, why is it that your definition matches the definition of infidel and is completely different from the definition of atheist?








    ErfisflatCoveny
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:
    CYDdharta said:

    According to your initial logic, this is impossible. If you're without belief that I have a dog, then you must have the belief that I don't have a dog (according to your logic).
    That isn't correct.  There are 4 pertinent beliefs;

    I can believe you have a dog. 
    I can believe you have no dog. 
    I can believe you don't have a dog. 
    I can believe you are as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.

    This has been my position all along.
    4 beliefs....
    Really what's the difference between "have no dog" and "don't have a dog" exactly?

    Also you position earlier was "I can't know" if you have a dog or not which you didn't list.
    ...and I added a new one; I don't give a rat's whether you own a dog or not.  This debate has nothing to do with who owns what dog.
    Did you win first place at sidestepping questions?
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:

    I like how you've brought in another word (infidel) to cover the gap in your incorrect use of the definition of atheist. The whole topic is about what you believe. You either believe or you don't. Do you believe you are going to do great things? No? Does that mean you believe you are NOT going to do great things? no it doesn't. Do you believe that you will be a good person all the time? No does that mean that you believe you will not be a good person all the time or is there still a small part of your mind that thinks "it could happen, I just don't believe it will...". One is a declaration and a claim, the other is a lack of that claim, disbelieving that claim, or denying that claim. When you sit at a dart board you don't "believe" you will get a hat trick, but at the same time you don't believe you won't get a hat trick either... I mean it could happen right? This is the difference between a theist and an atheist one has a claim to hold on to, the other lacks that claim. no more, no less.
    Gee; welcome to the debate, I only brought up infidels 3 days and 4 pages of posts ago;

    infidel

    noun
    1. Religion.
    a person who does not accept a particular faith, especially Christianity. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, especially a Muslim. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kafir (def 2).
    2. a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.
    3. (loosely) a person who disbelieves or doubts a particular theory, belief, creed, etc.; skeptic.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/infidel?s=t
    infidel

    n.
    1. Often Offensive An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
    2. One who has no religious beliefs.
    3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.
    infidel
    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/infidel
    infidel

    noun
    1. a person who does not believe in a particular religion, esp. the prevailing religion ; specif.,
         a. among Christians, a non-Christian
         b. among Muslims, a non-Muslim
    2. a person who holds no religious belief
    3. a person who does not accept some particular theory, belief, etc.
    infidel

    1 :one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
    2 a :an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion
    b :one who acknowledges no religious belief
    3 :a disbeliever in something specified or understood

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infidel

    If your mistaken belief of what atheism mean is correct, why is it that your definition matches the definition of infidel and is completely different from the definition of atheist?


    My mistaken definition of atheism? My definition is what's in every site that's been referenced. And the reason atheist and infidels are different, is because they are different words that aren't synonyms. (My OCD would like to correct that they aren't "completely" different as their are some similarities in the definition of infidel and atheist)

    As for the meme, telling someone that you want them tortured for the rest of eternity is a mean thing to say. It doesn't matter if the person you tell believes it will happen or not, you're still a shitty person.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    I've actually used that example before, let's try a real-time test of it:
    Do you believe that I have a dog?
    I have no idea; you are as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.
    ..which is no indication on what you do or don't believe about it. The question isn't "do you have any idea about me having a dog?", the question is "do you believe I have a dog?".
    A belief is a conviction, something you've been convinced of or accepted as truth. Could you answer the question please?

    Ah, .. this is going nowhere. The question is about the dog, not whether you have one or not, .. but does it exist or not?
    So the question from you is: Does he, or does he not believe that dogs exist?

    Atheism claims that gods don't exist.
    And the god/gods in theism, are made up gods by Religions, just like the gods in Greek, Roman, German, Hindu etc. mythology.

    Look, if dogs went extinct almost 2,00 years ago, and all the people ever knew since then were stuffed Build-a-Bear dogs, and the "believers" in these Build-a-Bear dogs were called "theists", then that's what they would believe dogs were!

    And the atheists would deny that these Build-a-Bear dogs exist! What is so hard to understand about this?
    Coveny
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    WRONG! I cry myself to sleep every night, I'm sensitive and .
    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    CYDdharta said:

    I've actually used that example before, let's try a real-time test of it:
    Do you believe that I have a dog?
    I have no idea; you are as likely to have a dog as to not have a dog.
    ..which is no indication on what you do or don't believe about it. The question isn't "do you have any idea about me having a dog?", the question is "do you believe I have a dog?".
    A belief is a conviction, something you've been convinced of or accepted as truth. Could you answer the question please?
    Ah, .. this is going nowhere. The question is about the dog, not whether you have one or not, .. but does it exist or not?
    So the question from you is: Does he, or does he not believe that dogs exist?

    Atheism claims that gods don't exist.
    And the god/gods in theism, are made up gods by Religions, just like the gods in Greek, Roman, German, Hindu etc. mythology.

    Look, if dogs went extinct almost 2,00 years ago, and all the people ever knew since then were stuffed Build-a-Bear dogs, and the "believers" in these Build-a-Bear dogs were called "theists", then that's what they would believe dogs were!

    And the atheists would deny that these Build-a-Bear dogs exist! What is so hard to understand about this?
    I warned you about Evidence. His arguments go off on tangents, are full of fluff, and revels in semantic mistakes. 
    Evidence
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited October 2017

    Coveny said:

    My mistaken definition of atheism? My definition is what's in every site that's been referenced. And the reason atheist and infidels are different, is because they are different words that aren't synonyms. (My OCD would like to correct that they aren't "completely" different as their are some similarities in the definition of infidel and atheist)

    As for the meme, telling someone that you want them tortured for the rest of eternity is a mean thing to say. It doesn't matter if the person you tell believes it will happen or not, you're still a shitty person.
    YES, absolutely your mistaken definition of the term atheism.  Your definition of the term doesn't show up IN A SINGLE ONE of the definitions posted in this debate.  Read and try to comprehend this time;

    atheist

    noun
    someone who believes that God does not exist
    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist
    atheist


    countable noun

    An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.
    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/atheist
    atheist

    noun
    1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist

    a•the•ist


    n.

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist


    I didn't ask if infidels and atheists were the same, and never implied that they were.  I asked why what you call "atheists" matches the definition of infidels, while the actual definitions of atheist differ so much from what you claim the word "atheist" means?

    As for the meme; it's an atheism thing, you wouldn't understand.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    Coveny said:

    My mistaken definition of atheism? My definition is what's in every site that's been referenced. And the reason atheist and infidels are different, is because they are different words that aren't synonyms. (My OCD would like to correct that they aren't "completely" different as their are some similarities in the definition of infidel and atheist)

    As for the meme, telling someone that you want them tortured for the rest of eternity is a mean thing to say. It doesn't matter if the person you tell believes it will happen or not, you're still a shitty person.
    YES, absolutely your mistaken definition of the term atheism.  Your definition of the term doesn't show up IN A SINGLE ONE of the definitions posted in this debate.  Read and try to comprehend this time;

    atheist

    someone who believes that God does not exist
    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist
    atheist
    An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.
    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/atheist
    atheist
    1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist

    a•the•ist

    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist


    I didn't ask if infidels and atheists were the same, and never implied that they were.  I asked why what you call "atheists" matches the definition of infidels, while the actual definitions of atheist differ so much from what you claim the word "atheist" means?

    As for the meme; it's an atheism thing, you wouldn't understand.
    I will concede that you were able to find definition that support your claim. In a related note my respect for the online definitions from Cambridge and Collins just dropped a peg. At least Collins has it correctly in other definitions.  However it does show the effect of the bible belt in America.

    The british versions of the definitions in your links:
    Dictionary - a person who does not believe in God or gods
    Collins - a person who does not believe in God or gods

    Under the philosophy section of free dictionary - a person who does not believe in God or gods

    Cambridge seems pretty sparse on the subject. Losing more respect for that site. :(

    Webster - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
    Oxford - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    Urban - A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.
    Your dictionary -  The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.
    Macmillian - someone who does not believe that God exists

    I find it interesting that the American definition of atheist seems to be changing to a claim that god(s) don't exist. English is a living language though so I guess it's expected. It does create the question what is the definition of a person who doesn't believe god exist, and doesn't believe god doesn't exist. A new word would need to be created to cover people who are ambivalent on the topic. Of course the majority has been vilifying atheists for time untold, and they are the majority, so it shouldn't be unexpected that they are working to corrupt it's meaning.
    Erfisflat
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Coveny said:
    You either believe or you don't. Do you believe you are going to do great things? No? Does that mean you believe you are NOT going to do great things? no it doesn't (etc.)
    @CYDdharta
    The above is absolutely correct, a belief is a binary thing, it's either present or it's not. Therefore, any question beginning with "Do you believe..." can only have one of two answers, yes or no. If the answer is no, that does not limit or exclude you from having alternate beliefs about the question subject.

    The following are all separate belief questions, each require a yes or no;
    -Do you believe I have a dog?
    -Do you believe I don't have a dog?
    -Do you believe I might have a dog?
    -Do you believe I have more than one dog?
    -Do you believe I am a dog?
    -Do you believe that cats are dogs?
    Etc.

    A belief is like a hat, you either have it or you don't. A belief that god or gods exist might be a green hat (each god has a different shade of green) and the belief that there are no gods might be a blue hat. A belief that dogs can see in the dark might be a red hat. Not having a green hat does not mean you have to have a blue hat (or a red hat for that matter).
    Coveny
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    ...in addition, if you don't have enough evidence or information to convince you to get a relative hat, you simply don't have that hat (belief).
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    You either believe or you don't. Do you believe you are going to do great things? No? Does that mean you believe you are NOT going to do great things? no it doesn't (etc.)
    @CYDdharta
    The above is absolutely correct, a belief is a binary thing, it's either present or it's not. Therefore, any question beginning with "Do you believe..." can only have one of two answers, yes or no. If the answer is no, that does not limit or exclude you from having alternate beliefs about the question subject.

    The following are all separate belief questions, each require a yes or no;
    -Do you believe I have a dog?
    -Do you believe I don't have a dog?
    -Do you believe I might have a dog?
    -Do you believe I have more than one dog?
    -Do you believe I am a dog?
    -Do you believe that cats are dogs?
    Etc.

    A belief is like a hat, you either have it or you don't. A belief that god or gods exist might be a green hat (each god has a different shade of green) and the belief that there are no gods might be a blue hat. A belief that dogs can see in the dark might be a red hat. Not having a green hat does not mean you have to have a blue hat (or a red hat for that matter).
    If your opinion is that "not believing in God" means "believing God does not exist", then there is no dispute.  If you believe that "not believing in God" means something other than "believing God does not exist", then  obviously it is incorrect to assert that belief is binary. 

  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    ...in addition, if you don't have enough evidence or information to convince you to get a relative hat, you simply don't have that hat (belief).
    I would define it slightly differently. If you don't have enough evidence or information to be convinced then you aren't a part of the group of believers. This is heard even in our modern speech when they use the term "non-believer" to denote people who aren't a part of their group. Like atheism that doesn't make a claim that the non-believer is "something", say a muslim if they are christian, or whatever, it just a statement that they don't qualify to join their group.

    PS Thank you for joining in Joe it's a breath of fresh air...  
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Coveny said:

    I find it interesting that the American definition of atheist seems to be changing to a claim that god(s) don't exist. English is a living language though so I guess it's expected. It does create the question what is the definition of a person who doesn't believe god exist, and doesn't believe god doesn't exist. A new word would need to be created to cover people who are ambivalent on the topic. Of course the majority has been vilifying atheists for time untold, and they are the majority, so it shouldn't be unexpected that they are working to corrupt it's meaning.
    There does seem to be a movement to change the definition of atheism, but its in the other direction, to broaden the term, which has had the same meaning since at least the 16th century;

    atheism (n.)

    "the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."
    http://www.etymonline.com/word/atheism

    It seems more an attempt to by atheists to make their belief more inclusive to grow their membership.  There aren't very many atheists, but there are a lot of people who simply don't believe in God.  More members means more representation, more people willing to pay dues to organizations, etc. so you're right, so it shouldn't be unexpected that they are working to corrupt it's meaning.

    As for how to refer to people who just don't believe in God; infidel works, as does godless and irreligious.

    Can we at least agree that belief that God does not exist is a belief in the ultimate nature of the universe, and thus a religion? 
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:
    You either believe or you don't. Do you believe you are going to do great things? No? Does that mean you believe you are NOT going to do great things? no it doesn't (etc.)
    @CYDdharta
    The above is absolutely correct, a belief is a binary thing, it's either present or it's not. Therefore, any question beginning with "Do you believe..." can only have one of two answers, yes or no. If the answer is no, that does not limit or exclude you from having alternate beliefs about the question subject.

    The following are all separate belief questions, each require a yes or no;
    -Do you believe I have a dog?
    -Do you believe I don't have a dog?
    -Do you believe I might have a dog?
    -Do you believe I have more than one dog?
    -Do you believe I am a dog?
    -Do you believe that cats are dogs?
    Etc.

    A belief is like a hat, you either have it or you don't. A belief that god or gods exist might be a green hat (each god has a different shade of green) and the belief that there are no gods might be a blue hat. A belief that dogs can see in the dark might be a red hat. Not having a green hat does not mean you have to have a blue hat (or a red hat for that matter).
    If your opinion is that "not believing in God" means "believing God does not exist", then there is no dispute.  If you believe that "not believing in God" means something other than "believing God does not exist", then  obviously it is incorrect to assert that belief is binary. 

    The thing is, I've just shown very clearly that being without belief A does not mean you have to have belief B (or C or any other belief). If absence of belief A means that belief B must be present, as you claim it does, then surely you can explain the mechanism which forces this.

    Please do.
    Coveny
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    If your opinion is that "not believing in God" means "believing God does not exist", then there is no dispute.  If you believe that "not believing in God" means something other than "believing God does not exist", then  obviously it is incorrect to assert that belief is binary.  
    l think you got those two sentences mixed up.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    atheism (n.)

    "the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."
    http://www.etymonline.com/word/atheism

    It seems more an attempt to by atheists to make their belief more inclusive to grow their membership.  There aren't very many atheists, but there are a lot of people who simply don't believe in God.  More members means more representation, more people willing to pay dues to organizations, etc. so you're right, so it shouldn't be unexpected that they are working to corrupt it's meaning.

    As for how to refer to people who just don't believe in God; infidel works, as does godless and irreligious.

    Can we at least agree that belief that God does not exist is a belief in the ultimate nature of the universe, and thus a religion? 
    We will disagree as to the history of the definition of the word.

    Wiki - Atheism (derived from the Ancient Greek ἄθεος atheos meaning "without gods; godless; secular; denying or disdaining the gods, especially officially sanctioned gods"[1]) is the absence or rejection of the belief that deities exist.
    Define Atheism - The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities" without any direct or implied anti-theistic (or anti-religious) connotation, for it was (and still is) impartial in its initially intended use -- philosophical atheist thought is also believed by some scholars to have begun in Asia and Europe as early as 600 BCE.

    As for there being a belief system that states god doesn't exist yes I can agree that there is.

    Define antitheist:
    Dictionary - one opposed to belief in the existence of a god
    Free Dictionary - a person opposed to belief in god or gods
    Your Dictionary - An active opponent of the belief in the existence of a god or gods.
    Oxford - Attitude of opposition or metaphysical revolt against God, conceived as personal, omnipotent, and omniscient, as in traditional theism.

    I will also agree that if you have a belief, claim, or an opponent then yes that could be a religion. So while atheist couldn't be a religion, antitheism could, because antitheism claims, or believes that theism is "wrong" is is actively opposing it.

    Just to beat this horse in the ground. 
    symmetrical - having corresponding points whose connecting lines are bisected by a given point or perpendicularly bisected by a given line or plane 
    asymmetrical - having two sides or halves that are not the same :not symmetrical
    ** There is no claim that the object is a star or a polygon or whatever just that it does not fit into the symmetric "group"

    typical - combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group 
    atypical - not typical 
    ** There is no claim that the person is a nerd, or bookworm or whatever just that they don't fit into the typical "group"

    We use this "not part of this group" with other prefaces as well:
    known - generally recognized 
    unknown - not known or not well-known
    ** There is no claim that there is a unicorn or dragon or whatever just that it doesn't fit in the known "group"

    The same holds true for theist and atheist. An Atheist is not part of the theist group. That doesn't mean they know god doesn't exist, or that they actively work against people who believe god exists or whatever they just don't fit into the theist "group".
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    Coveny said:
    You either believe or you don't. Do you believe you are going to do great things? No? Does that mean you believe you are NOT going to do great things? no it doesn't (etc.)
    @CYDdharta
    The above is absolutely correct, a belief is a binary thing, it's either present or it's not. Therefore, any question beginning with "Do you believe..." can only have one of two answers, yes or no. If the answer is no, that does not limit or exclude you from having alternate beliefs about the question subject.

    The following are all separate belief questions, each require a yes or no;
    -Do you believe I have a dog?
    -Do you believe I don't have a dog?
    -Do you believe I might have a dog?
    -Do you believe I have more than one dog?
    -Do you believe I am a dog?
    -Do you believe that cats are dogs?
    Etc.

    A belief is like a hat, you either have it or you don't. A belief that god or gods exist might be a green hat (each god has a different shade of green) and the belief that there are no gods might be a blue hat. A belief that dogs can see in the dark might be a red hat. Not having a green hat does not mean you have to have a blue hat (or a red hat for that matter).
    If your opinion is that "not believing in God" means "believing God does not exist", then there is no dispute.  If you believe that "not believing in God" means something other than "believing God does not exist", then  obviously it is incorrect to assert that belief is binary. 

    The thing is, I've just shown very clearly that being without belief A does not mean you have to have belief B (or C or any other belief). If absence of belief A means that belief B must be present, as you claim it does, then surely you can explain the mechanism which forces this.

    Please do.
    Sir, I wish you better luck with that than I had.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Sir, I wish you better luck with that than I had.
    Thank you, I'm not really expecting that he/she will be able to explain though.

    Going back to the core theme of the thread for a moment, Vaulk's premise is relying on a lot of assumptions to be true. He's listed a bunch of stuff that may apply to some atheists (as individual qualities/qualifiers) but certainly not all atheists.
    To go a further step and assume that all the factors on that list will apply to a majority of atheists is just ridiculous.

    The list gets off to a very bad start with the "No I'm an atheist" being analogous to being religious.
    If you ask a white man if he's black and he says "No I'm white" then that must be analogous to being black, so he must be black.
    That pretty much sets the standard for the rest of the list.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Sir, I wish you better luck with that than I had.
    Thank you, I'm not really expecting that he/she will be able to explain though.

    Going back to the core theme of the thread for a moment, Vaulk's premise is relying on a lot of assumptions to be true. He's listed a bunch of stuff that may apply to some atheists (as individual qualities/qualifiers) but certainly not all atheists.
    To go a further step and assume that all the factors on that list will apply to a majority of atheists is just ridiculous.

    The list gets off to a very bad start with the "No I'm an atheist" being analogous to being religious.
    If you ask a white man if he's black and he says "No I'm white" then that must be analogous to being black, so he must be black.
    That pretty much sets the standard for the rest of the list.
    I'm expecting them to believe they explained it. Just like when KellyAnne sidesteps a question and answers a question that wasn't asked like it "explains".
     
    Oh I totally agree with the "may apply to some atheists but certainly not all atheists", and that's been the roadblock I keep running into. They see a trait as an "atheist" trait, then assume all atheists have that trait, and as you said it's ridiculous. 

    Yes the assumption when it comes to god (and only with god because they don't do this with other things) is that if answer that you aren't white then you must be black. Ignoring that you could be yellow, red, albino, or whatever. I completely agree. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/959/atheism-is-a-religion/p14

    The thing is, I've just shown very clearly that being without belief A does not mean you have to have belief B (or C or any other belief). If absence of belief A means that belief B must be present, as you claim it does, then surely you can explain the mechanism which forces this.

    Please do.
    You haven't shown anything as you have have completely evaded everything I said.  I never said being without belief A means you must have belief B; that isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand.  The discussion is about;

    Theist - a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.
    Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
    Agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
    Infidel - a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.


    Once again; do you believe that "not believing in God" means something other than "believing God does not exist"?  Answer the question this time.





    Coveny
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Coveny said:

    We will disagree as to the history of the definition of the word.

    Wiki - Atheism (derived from the Ancient Greek ἄθεος atheos meaning "without gods; godless; secular; denying or disdaining the gods, especially officially sanctioned gods"[1]) is the absence or rejection of the belief that deities exist.
    Define Atheism - The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities" without any direct or implied anti-theistic (or anti-religious) connotation, for it was (and still is) impartial in its initially intended use -- philosophical atheist thought is also believed by some scholars to have begun in Asia and Europe as early as 600 BCE.

    As for there being a belief system that states god doesn't exist yes I can agree that there is.

    Define antitheist:
    Dictionary - one opposed to belief in the existence of a god
    Free Dictionary - a person opposed to belief in god or gods
    Your Dictionary - An active opponent of the belief in the existence of a god or gods.
    Oxford - Attitude of opposition or metaphysical revolt against God, conceived as personal, omnipotent, and omniscient, as in traditional theism.

    I will also agree that if you have a belief, claim, or an opponent then yes that could be a religion. So while atheist couldn't be a religion, antitheism could, because antitheism claims, or believes that theism is "wrong" is is actively opposing it.

    Just to beat this horse in the ground. 
    symmetrical - having corresponding points whose connecting lines are bisected by a given point or perpendicularly bisected by a given line or plane 
    asymmetrical - having two sides or halves that are not the same :not symmetrical
    ** There is no claim that the object is a star or a polygon or whatever just that it does not fit into the symmetric "group"

    typical - combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group 
    atypical - not typical 
    ** There is no claim that the person is a nerd, or bookworm or whatever just that they don't fit into the typical "group"

    We use this "not part of this group" with other prefaces as well:
    known - generally recognized 
    unknown - not known or not well-known
    ** There is no claim that there is a unicorn or dragon or whatever just that it doesn't fit in the known "group"

    The same holds true for theist and atheist. An Atheist is not part of the theist group. That doesn't mean they know god doesn't exist, or that they actively work against people who believe god exists or whatever they just don't fit into the theist "group".
    LOL, you know you've lost the debate when you start quoting wiki;




    The discussion is about atheists, people who believe there is no God, not about antitheists people who are opposed to the belief in god or gods.  A person can believe there is no God while not being opposed to the belief.

    The English language is complex, rules are guidelines that don't always hold true in every case;

    Bout

    1. a contest or trial of strength, as of boxing.
    2. period; session; spell:
    3. a turn at work or any action.
    4. a going and returning across a field, as in mowing or reaping.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bout?s=t

    In your world, about must mean accepting without trial, timeless, and/or inaction.  In the real world, however, saying Beethoven's 5th piano concerto is an about piece of music doesn't make any sense;
    About

    1. of; concerning; in regard to:
    2. connected or associated with:
    3. near; close to:
    4. in or somewhere near:
    5. on every side of; around:
    6.on or near (one's person):
    7. so as to be of use to:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/about

    ...or how about;

    Blaze

    1. a bright flame or fire:
    2. a bright, hot gleam or glow
    3. a sparkling brightness:
    4. a sudden, intense outburst, as of fire, passion, or fury:
    5. blazes, Informal. hell:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/blaze?s=t

    Apparently in your world, its a fire fighter's job to go around and put houses and buildings ablaze.  In the real world;
    Ablaze

    1. burning; on fire:
    2. gleaming with bright lights, bold colors, etc.
    3. excited; eager; zealous; ardent.
    4. very angry.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ablaze



    Corn

    1. Also called Indian corn; especially technical and British, maize. a tall cereal plant, Zea mays, cultivated in many varieties, having a jointed, solid stem and bearing the grain, seeds, or kernels on large ears.
    2. the grain, seeds, or kernels of this plant, used for human food or for fodder.
    3. the ears of this plant.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/corn?s=t

    Covenyworld:  I started the Atkins diet, now all of my meals need to be acorn.  In the real world;
    Acorn

    1. the typically ovoid fruit or nut of an oak, enclosed at the base by a cupule.
    2. a finial or knop, as on a piece of furniture, in the form of an acorn.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/acorn



    I've never said atheists were theists; they're their own group of people who deny the existence of God(s), as per the many definitions of an atheist.  As such, they have a a belief in the ultimate nature of the universe, and are thus a religion.
    9a4.png 251.8K
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    LOL, you know you've lost the debate when you start quoting wiki;




    The discussion is about atheists, people who believe there is no God, not about antitheists people who are opposed to the belief in god or gods.  A person can believe there is no God while not being opposed to the belief.

    The English language is complex, rules are guidelines that don't always hold true in every case;

    Bout

    1. a contest or trial of strength, as of boxing.
    2. period; session; spell:
    3. a turn at work or any action.
    4. a going and returning across a field, as in mowing or reaping.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bout?s=t

    In your world, about must mean accepting without trial, timeless, and/or inaction.  In the real world, however, saying Beethoven's 5th piano concerto is an about piece of music doesn't make any sense;
    About

    1. of; concerning; in regard to:
    2. connected or associated with:
    3. near; close to:
    4. in or somewhere near:
    5. on every side of; around:
    6.on or near (one's person):
    7. so as to be of use to:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/about

    ...or how about;

    Blaze

    1. a bright flame or fire:
    2. a bright, hot gleam or glow
    3. a sparkling brightness:
    4. a sudden, intense outburst, as of fire, passion, or fury:
    5. blazes, Informal. hell:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/blaze?s=t

    Apparently in your world, its a fire fighter's job to go around and put houses and buildings ablaze.  In the real world;
    Ablaze

    1. burning; on fire:
    2. gleaming with bright lights, bold colors, etc.
    3. excited; eager; zealous; ardent.
    4. very angry.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ablaze

    Corn

    1. Also called Indian corn; especially technical and British, maize. a tall cereal plant, Zea mays, cultivated in many varieties, having a jointed, solid stem and bearing the grain, seeds, or kernels on large ears.
    2. the grain, seeds, or kernels of this plant, used for human food or for fodder.
    3. the ears of this plant.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/corn?s=t

    Covenyworld:  I started the Atkins diet, now all of my meals need to be acorn.  In the real world;
    Acorn

    1. the typically ovoid fruit or nut of an oak, enclosed at the base by a cupule.
    2. a finial or knop, as on a piece of furniture, in the form of an acorn.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/acorn

    I've never said atheists were theists; they're their own group of people who deny the existence of God(s), as per the many definitions of an atheist.  As such, they have a a belief in the ultimate nature of the universe, and are thus a religion.
    To dismiss a source because it's not an authority on the subject... whats the name for that... oh ya the appeal to authority fallacy. I noticed you completely ignore the other source I gave with supported the same position. 

    The words you used aren't antonyms like typical/atypical, symetrical/asymetrical, and of course theist/atheist. Yes the English language is complex, steals from other language to create a frankenstein language that sucks really bad. Just like you suck at English.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/959/atheism-is-a-religion/p14

    The thing is, I've just shown very clearly that being without belief A does not mean you have to have belief B (or C or any other belief). If absence of belief A means that belief B must be present, as you claim it does, then surely you can explain the mechanism which forces this.

    Please do.
    You haven't shown anything as you have have completely evaded everything I said.  I never said being without belief A means you must have belief B; that isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand.  The discussion is about;

    Theist - a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.
    Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
    Agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
    Infidel - a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.

    Actually, the discussion overall is about atheism being a religion or not.
    Your exact words, which I responded to, were:

    "Allow me to clarify as you're taking my statement out of the context in which it was intended; it is the same thing to not believe something exists as it is to believe something does not exist."

    So (according to you) being without belief A (that something exists) means that you must have belief B (that it does not exist)
    CYDdharta said:
    Once again; do you believe that "not believing in God" means something other than "believing God does not exist"?  Answer the question this time.

    I've been very clear on this from the start, not believing in any gods (or anything else for that matter) is not the same as the belief that they don't exist. Simply put, absence of belief is not belief of absence. 

    Belief that God exists is one belief
    Belief that God doesn't exist is separate belief
    Being without the first one doesn't automatically mean you have to have the second one.

    Now, back to my question, if you think that being without the belief that a god exists means that you have to have the belief that it doesn't exist, can you please explain the mechanism which forces this.
    Coveny
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/959/atheism-is-a-religion/p14

    The thing is, I've just shown very clearly that being without belief A does not mean you have to have belief B (or C or any other belief). If absence of belief A means that belief B must be present, as you claim it does, then surely you can explain the mechanism which forces this.

    Please do.
    You haven't shown anything as you have have completely evaded everything I said.  I never said being without belief A means you must have belief B; that isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand.  The discussion is about;

    Theist - a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods.
    Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
    Agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
    Infidel - a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.

    Actually, the discussion overall is about atheism being a religion or not.
    Your exact words, which I responded to, were:

    "Allow me to clarify as you're taking my statement out of the context in which it was intended; it is the same thing to not believe something exists as it is to believe something does not exist."

    So (according to you) being without belief A (that something exists) means that you must have belief B (that it does not exist)
    CYDdharta said:
    Once again; do you believe that "not believing in God" means something other than "believing God does not exist"?  Answer the question this time.

    I've been very clear on this from the start, not believing in any gods (or anything else for that matter) is not the same as the belief that they don't exist. Simply put, absence of belief is not belief of absence. 

    Belief that God exists is one belief
    Belief that God doesn't exist is separate belief
    Being without the first one doesn't automatically mean you have to have the second one.

    Now, back to my question, if you think that being without the belief that a god exists means that you have to have the belief that it doesn't exist, can you please explain the mechanism which forces this.
    Good luck getting @CYDdharta to see reality.
     
This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch