CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
1. We don't have a name for the hobby of not collecting stamps.
Well if 75% to 90% of the world population collected stamps or did anything else, we probably would have a term for non-stamp collectors out of convenience...
"2. Webster:-ism. noun suffix. : the act, practice, or process of doing something.
doctrine : theory : religion"
Yeah, the process of remaining non-believing... :P
I'd say it can be both, but by default it is a lack of belief.
We are all born atheists. That is a fact. Before we have any knowledge or even the capacity for knowledge, we know not of God, thus we do not choose to disbelieve, we simply have no way of believing, we lack belief.
Both of the categories fit on this side, whereas only one fits on the other.
If someone believes God does not exist, then they lack the belief as well.
That makes this the more complete definition, the only one that covers all atheists, whereas the other side speaks only of the strong/gnostic atheists instead.
Technically both are admissible as forms of atheism seeing as the only requirement to be an atheist is that the person does not hold a belief in god. Both lacking belief in a god and actively believing that there is no god satisfy this requirement but i vote for this option because it most accurately describes the VAST majority of atheists. Very, very rarely will you encounter a person who will claim that there is no god because most of us understand that that claim is just as absurd as claiming that there is one as it cant be proven or supported.
-ist refers to a person, and even if you could say rocks are technically atheist... so? how does that at all invalidate one coming from a place of non-believing?
I would argue no because of the fact that they are not able to believe anything at all as they are not conscious beings. Attributing any labels like atheist to a rock is just pointless even if they technically fit the definition.
Both sides of the argument can be supported through a general statement such as: the lack of belief in a god or the belief in the lack of a god is the same thing. However, when going into depth on this topic, the view of the lack of belief is preciser and a more viable option. By definition, "Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion" (atheism.org). Therefore, atheists have no belief, disproving the second argument. On the first glance, yes, the 2 options looked similar, but it became clear to me that atheism is the lack of belief because of the definition of an atheist.
"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism."
variant of an-1.before a consonant, meaning “not,” “without”:
amoral; atonal; achromatic."
Atheism is simply not holding a belief in god, it can include those that possess a belief that god doesn't exist, because obviously that would leave them void of a belief in an existing god as well. To differentiate between the two, you have agnostic atheism (I do not believe in a god) and gnostic atheism (I believe a god does not exist). by default atheism is a lack of belief but can be a belief in the opposite direction as well.
Agnostic covers the lack of belief and is a separate word from Atheism, which covers the belief in lack. But you're right, dictionaries are sloppy these days. Especially when they have two contradictory definitions for the same word.
Agnosticism has to do with knowledge where atheism concerns belief, two entirely different things. The questions "do you believe in a god?" is not properly answered by "I don't know" at most that implies you do not believe, and thus would make you an atheist.
Well then you have multiple dictionaries all contradicting each other, allowing to muddy the water of semantics.
Knowledge and belief are separate, but not disconnected. Atheist, like the faithful, will often say "I know" before stating a belief.
When asked if there is a God an Agnostic will say "I don't know" or perhaps "maybe". An Atheist would say "No", and that's because of the Atheists belief that there is not God.
Some will, because they are gnostic atheists, others will because they have an either-or mentality like most people and generally think of gods existence as he either exists or doesn't. You ask me, and other atheists on here if god exists and many of us will simply say we have no reason to think so.
Not sure where the terms "gnostic atheist" and "agnostic atheist" came from, but the concepts are already covered with the terms "agnostic" and "atheist".
You already said it yourself, knowledge and belief are two different things that are strongly connected. Therefore (a)gnosticism and (a)theism are two different spectrums. One can be agnostic and an atheist, one can be Gnostic and a theist, one can be agnostic and a theist, and one can be Gnostic and an atheist.
Agnostic atheist: I don't know and I don't believe.
Gnostic atheist: I do know and I don't believe, (which means they'd have to believe a god doesn't exist).
I am not sure I see how these options are different. Wouldn't a belief in a lack of God just mean you explain how the world works without using God? I believe that the world/universe can exist without God, so I believe in the lack of God. And, lacking a belief in God would have to lead to the same conclusion.
I don't agree that a belief in lack of God is a belief that there is no God. I think that a belief in the lack of a God is believing that the universe can exist without God and not that it definitely does exist without God. I agree with your assessment. Can you explain what is I am missing?
I think the use of the word "lack" implies it to be missing. I am not sure why you added the universe to the idea though. I kept the use of the modifier soley to the word it was accompanying. Lack/belief and lack/god.
I see your side and agree it can mean what you say in the context you are using.
I think the use of the word "lack" implies it to be missing.
I have an explanation for how things work that is missing God from it.
I am not sure why you added the universe to the idea though. I kept the use of the modifier soley to the word it was accompanying. Lack/belief and lack/god.
God is used to explain the universe, so I feel you would need to explain how the universe works without God.
I see your side and agree it can mean what you say in the context you are using.
The ideas are not mutually exclusive.
I definitely believe that belief in lack of God is different than belief that there is no God.
I definitely believe that belief in lack of God is different than belief that there is no God.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with where you went there. I meant the ideas of; a naturally occurring universe and a god, are not mutually exclusive from each other.
Wouldn't a belief in a lack of God just mean you explain how the world works without using God?
I don't think that follows by definition. A belief in a lack of a God is simply the conscious absence of any God in one's world view. Such a belief obviously necessitates that the world can exist without a God. That, however, is not the same as having an explanation for how the world works or how it started. I.e. I may be able to explain that the world can exist without a God without having an explanation as to why the world exists in the first place. All I have to argue is that the world isn't necesarilly created by a God, which can be done in different ways. One strategy is to give a non-theistic explanation, another is to argue for the logical impossibility of the existence of a God, a third is to argue that thestic accounts of cosmology are inherently unnecesarry and insufficient. Either way, I don't need to have an alternative explanation in order to belief in the lack of a God.
Ok. I didn't consider that case. My statement was for the people who try to explain how the world/universe was created. Your point is valid. My overall point is that you don't have to believe that a god is impossible in order to believe that the world can be created without God. We agree on that, right?
Defined in my OED as, "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of god."
Quotes Bacon as writing in 1605, "A little or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline the mind of man to atheism."
Atheism is an active construction of the mind: it is to say with positivity that there is no god. It is a belief in the nonexistence of a deity just as ateakettleism is the belief in the lack of a giant, orbiting tea kettle.
To be ignorant of spiritual concepts is not to be an atheist per se, but rather to be, shall we say, atheistically ignorant.
What are you even on about? You provide the OED definition to lend your argument a semblance of legitimacy, then substitute your own in its place and attempt to deduce some nonsensical argument from it. And ultimately all you have accomplished is some pointless semantic maneuver.
Atheism is the belief in a lack of God. This holds because you must have knowledge of the subject of God in order to be an Atheist. A person who has never encountered the concept of God would lack the belief, but would not actually be an Atheist. If you have never heard of Santa, you don't have a positive belief that there is no such thing as Santa.
If hardcore Atheists are correct and there really is no God, then all Theists have presented is a fake being. This means that no one has ever heard of the proper description of God. Therefore, all Atheists are in the group of people who have never heard of God including those that have never heard a Theist version of God.
That's pretty clever. Even so, one who believes inaccurately about a thing isn't the same as one who believes the thing doesn't exist. Both are different than one who lacks all knowledge of the thing.
An Agnostic can lack belief in God and not qualify as an Atheist. But in the end, A can't equal non-A.
If I have no knowledge of the subject, then I have no belief but I am neither Atheist nor Agnostic.
If I have knowledge of the subject but no belief concerning the subject, I am an Agnostic. My response the the question of God can be "Maybe", which is not an Atheist's answer.
If I have knowledge of the subject and believe there is no God, then I am an Atheist.
Belief doesn't equal non-belief.
You may find a dictionary jumble the terms, but they're wrong.
The difference between knowledge OF the subject and knowledge ON the subject, is the difference between having heard of Santa (knowledge of), and knowing what he looks like (knowledge on). People have knowledge of the subject.
I've always interpreted the prefix 'a' like in 'a'theism to mean anti, or against. It seems to me we already have a term for the lack of belief: agnosticism. To be atheist (i.e. anti-theist, against theism) means you have an active belief that god does not exist. If you simply lack a belief on the matter or you are just unsure, I'd call you an agnostic.
On a personal aside, i don't see how anyone could be an atheist on any ground other than a moral rejection of god/religion as a whole (i.e. the Christian god endorses slavery, I'm morally opposed to slavery, therefore I reject god and am an atheist). Most theists claim their god is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless... an invisible man in the sky, if you will. I don't see how you could prove such an entity does not exist anymore that you could prove it does, so it seems to me rather foolish to assert the theist position of 'yes, god exists' as much as it is to claim 'no, he doesnt;' We don't really know.
As a nihilist who rejects morality, I still find atheism an explicable and defensible perspective. My rationale, in short, being thus:
There is a growing, interdisciplinary body of research that indicates religiosity (and, by extension, God) is a consequence of human genetic and cultural evolution. The term "God" itself is a human semantic construction, and has particular human significance. In the event that there is some generative force or supernatural power in the universe, I would contend that it diverges so much in its actuality from genetically compelled human conceptualizations of God that to call it God would be so inaccurate as to render the application of the term meaningless. Thus, no God.
A person who identifies as an atheist generally believes there is no God. However when arguing with theists, it is sufficient and easier to defend the weaker position: that it is unreasonable to believe in God. Also nobody ever argues that there is certainly no such thing as God, because certainty is such a high standard of proof.
The Lack of Belief in a God, or the Belief in the Lack of a God
- P in a Q or P in a -Q
No belief in a god or belief in there is no god.
When people say the first one is a belief it is misleading. Hows this;
P in a Q. P in a -Q.
Belief in a god. Belief in no god exists.
This is similar but seems to not represent the average atheist.
The lack of belief is still a belief
What I am saying is that P =/= -P
A belief is affirmation on something and that something can have different values (yes\no). "No belief" (-P) is a terrible term as the term is now about lack of affirmation. Unconvinced seems to fit for defining -P.
That isn't necessarily true. Believing that there is no God is the belief that you are convinced that a God doesn't actually exist. Whereas, you can be an Atheist if you simply believe that a God is not necessary so you don't have one to worship.
My point was the statements are not equal when compared. P does not = -P. It is not necessary they be complete opposites but they can't be the same.
be·lief
biˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
Lets look at the examples from the definition above.
P in Q
belief in value of hardwork. "Hard work pays off"
P in -Q
belief in no value of hardwork "Hard work is for chumps"
Both of these are based on acceptance a statement is true they have affirmation.
-P in Q
no belief in value of hardwork "where is the evidence of value in hard work"
If you use good in place of P, you wouldn't say the negative of good is still good. Would you call it bad or would you note at the very least it is not good. Why would the negative of belief still be belief?
What you are saying is comparable to these statements as you are saying despite the proposed absence of a specific belief, that belief is still somehow there.
There are two types of belief: Positive and negative. A positive believe is a belief in favor of something, and a negative belief is a belief against something. Theism is a positive belief, and atheism is a negative belief. I am not saying that atheism is bad, I am saying that atheism is the belief that there is no God. If you choose to be an atheist, that is your right, but it is still a belief. I am not calling it a religion though.
Your are right that beliefs can be negative or positive, but that only counts when a belief is present. Just because life forms can be either mobile or immobile doesn't mean that every immobile thing out there is an immobile life form. A rock is immobile but not a life form, so counting a rock as an immobile life form is adding a quality to it that was never there in the first place.
What I'm saying is some atheists don't have any belief on God positive or negative. As far as they know, there is no God, but that doesn't mean we assume there is definitely none. Some people just don't have a belief on that subject. Its simple.
Also, you don't choose belief. You believe in something based on the evidence you are presented or you don't. It is a response, not a choice.
Yes, basically. But I contend that atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms.
Before I continue, I will point out that there are at least two different schools of thought on this subject, and they both tend to argue that the other is wrong. I'd say they both deserve a voice, although I argue that the school I subscribe to is more logical and accurate. Moving back to the subject at hand...
Agnosticism more properly concerns knowledge. An agnostic does not believe they have the knowledge to say for sure whether or not God exists (or they believe such knowledge is unattainable. Agnostics come in different flavors just as atheists and theists do.) Now, the theism/atheism spectrum concerns belief, not knowledge. If a theist admits that there is no proof of God but continues to do so anyway (presumably through pure faith), they would be an agnostic theist.
In my case, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not claim to have definitive knowledge about God one way or the other and I find proposals on either side to warrant skepticism, so I'm an agnostic. But to be a theist, one would have to believe in God. I don't, so I'm an atheist. Thus I'm both, which separates me from those atheists who believe there is no God.
Why the hell would you have replied before if you hadn't read it. You replied basically saying "I can't be arsed to read it all: can you summarise it for me?" You truly are very unpleasant character.
These are two entirely different questions that are intertwined.
'
the Answer "I don't know" does not directly answer question two, because not knowing something doesn't necessarily say anything about whether or not you believe.
Person A: Do you believe god exists, or doesn't exist?
Person B: I don't Know
Person A: You didn't answer my question, I asked if you BELIEVED, not if you KNEW.
Not if someone answers that they don't know, that tends to imply that they don't believe either way, in which case they don't believe that a god does exist, technically making them... atheist. All that is required to be an atheist is to not hold a belief that god exists in the first place, to be unconvinced...
If you do not claim to know whether or not a god exists, but you do not believe one to exist, then you are non-believing, or in other words an atheist who claims to not know either way. This person would be an agnostic atheist
A-: "not or without"
Theism: "belief in a gods existence"
-ist: "referring to a person possessing the attribute"
Gnosticism: "knowledge, usually referring to god"
.
theist: "A person possessing the trait of believing in the existence of a god"
Atheist: "A person possessing the trait of non-believing in the existence of a god"
Gnostic (context:god): "A person possessing the trait of knowing whether a god exists"
Agnostic (context: god): "A person possessing the trait of not knowing whether a god exists"
.
Gnostic theist: "A person who possesses the trait of believing a god exists, and knowing whether that god exists; a person who claims to know god does exist"
Agnostic theist: "A person who possesses the trait of believing a god exists, and not knowing whether that god exists; a person who believes despite claiming to not know, possibly by faith, or describing their conviction as more suspicion than knowledge.
Gnostic atheist: "A person who possesses the trait of not believing a god exists, and knowing whether that god exists; a person who claims to know whether a god does exist, and does not believe that god exists, therefore logically has to believe that god doesn't exist"
Agnostic Atheist: "A person who possesses the trait of not believing a god exists, and not knowing whether that god exists"
Agnostic atheists do not believe, and they do not claim to know, the angle they are coming from is that of scepticism, they are sceptical of the claim of gods existence. The claim hasn't meet the burden of proof, therefore they remain unconvinced and find the claim unreasonable to hold.
exactly, or at least that is where agnostic atheists are coming from. Agnosticism/gnosticism is one spectrum, atheism/theism is an entirely different spectrum and they intertwine with each other. Anyone can choose whatever label they want, I will not argue with them over that so much, as long as they can clarify their genuine position further from their label. Someone calls themselves a pure agnostic, and claims to be neither atheist, nor theist, I will not challenge them on that, as labels are for soup cans anyway, as long as they describe their true thoughts on the subject so we can have a genuine discussion on it. In return, I expect people to not throw a hissy fit over whatever label I choose as long as it isn't completely ridiculous (like calling myself a purple bigfootist to mean I believe god doesn't exist would obviously only be done to intentionally confuse people.) I call myself an agnostic atheist, by that what I mean is, I do not believe, nor do I know, I am simply unconvinced.