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.
Atheism would exist even without the idea of god, but we would not have a name for it nor the idea of it. If there was no idea of gods then we would all be atheists but not know it.
If there was no idea of gods then we would all be atheists but not know it.
That is not true. When there is no idea of God, how can anybody accept that there isn't a god. "Accept" being the key word. If nobody can accept that there isn't a God, then they aren't atheists.
It isn't about "accepting there is no God", at least not for all atheists. The most universal characteristic of atheists is a lack of belief in God. That is all it takes. If the concept of God had never been proposed, then yes, we would all be atheists.
It is about "accpeting that there is no God." Atheism, by google definitions, states that it is a theory or belief that God doesn't exist.
Yes, atheism has the lack of belief that there is a God. However, they have a belief that there isn't a God.
I disagree with your last statement. If the concept of God had never been proposed, then yes, we would all be athiest."
Not knowing that there is a God doesn't mean that we don't believe in him. Belief, by google definitions, states basically it is a personal acceptance of something. Not knowing God at all doesn't mean i don't accept that he is not there. In order to not accept God's existence, i have to know the POSSIBILITY of his existence.
dictionary.com and American Heritage dictionary (as well as others):
"atheist
a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. "
Emphasis on "or".
Oxford English Dictionary (dictionary most commonly accepted for formal debates in the English Language):
atheist
Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist."
There is a difference in not believing and actively disbelieving.
Yourdictionary.com:
"An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power. (noun)"
Atheist Alliance International and Wikipedia:
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
People who have actually researched atheism and the surrounding philosophy know that atheism can basically be divided into two camps: agnostic/weak atheism: simply the lack of belief. Gnostic/Strong atheism: the active disbelief. So, yes, some atheists disbelieve in God. But the only universal quality of ALL atheists is that they do not have a belief in God.
Also, agnosticism is not some mutually exclusive middle ground because it refers to knowledge not belief.
Here is a video, from an atheist, that explains it quite nicely. Please watch it, as it is highly relevant to this conversation and is representative of MANY modern atheists, including on this site:
Yeah, I should probably be better at differentiating between disbelief and denial.
So I could say that weak atheism is more disbelief, strong atheism is more denial.
Even then, I would argue that for many atheists it isn't exactly disbelief per se, but lack of belief.
But really, that video puts it much more eloquently and accurately than I ever could, so hopefully you check it out soon. At the very least, he describes my personal position to a tee, and I know he and I are far from the only atheists who views it this way.
According to the OED, atheism refers to "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."
In my opening statement, I have clearly stated that theism is a collection of beliefs that:
1. God exists
2. God is the all powerful creator and;
3. Rational moral agents are obligated to worship God.
As long as you deny any of the above three beliefs, you are an atheist.
Yes, atheism has the lack of belief that there is a God. However, they have a belief that there isn't a God.
You are going in circles. The "lack of belief that there is a God" is the same as "having a belief that there isn't a God". Either way, this statement is a tautology. It's like saying, "While a bachelor is an unmarried man, an unmarried man is a bachelor." Your statement does not prove in any way that the existence of theism necessitates the existence of atheism.
Not knowing God at all doesn't mean i don't accept that he is not there.
No. Not knowing God at all means that you have no proof of God's existence. If you have no proof of God's existence, then you are not a theist. If you are not not a theist, the logical conclusion is that you are an atheist. Simply put, if you don't know there is a God, you are an atheist.
No. Not knowing God at all means that you have no proof of God's existence.
Well nobody can say that they have proof of God's existence. However, they learn about God through the bible. And i mean "they" as in ordinary theists.
If you have no proof of God's existence, then you are not a theist.
That is incorrect. There are lots of theists out there who don't have tangible proof of God (ignoring the bible as proof). Not having proof doesn't mean im not believing. I believe that there is life out there in the universe, other than earth, but i don't have proof. There are lots of believers in God who i bet don't have proof of God's existence.
I understand that some beliefs do stem out of evidence. But that is not always true.
Well nobody can say that they have proof of God's existence.
Great. Thank you for agreeing with me.
However, they learn about God through the bible. And i mean "they" as in ordinary theists.
I fail to understand what you mean by "ordinary" theists. Theism is a collection of claims:
1. God exists
2. God is all powerful and the creator and;
3. Rational moral agents are obliged to worship God only.
Which of these three claims are inconsistent with what you call "ordinary" theism?
There are lots of theists out there who don't have tangible proof of God (ignoring the bible as proof). Not having proof doesn't mean im not believing.
Not having any proof means that you cannot know that God exists.
I believe that there is life out there in the universe, other than earth, but i don't have proof.
And thus, you don't know that there is life in the cosmos. (Note: Cosmologists rarely use the term "universe" now if you want to include the possibility of multi-verses. I'm not saying that they exist, I'm just saying that some cosmologists acknowledge that they might be possible.)
There are lots of believers in God who i bet don't have proof of God's existence.
And thus, they cannot claim that God exists! If they can't claim that God exists, then they can't claim that theism is true.
I understand that some beliefs do stem out of evidence. But that is not always true.
The only type of beliefs that stem out of infallible and relevant evidence is justified true belief. And, simply put, justified true belief refers to knowledge. Thus, if you do not have proof of God's existence, you cannot claim to know that he exists. In other words, theism is inconsistent with your knowledge.
Plus, I hope that you will stick to the debate question at hand. Does the existence of theism NECESSITATE the existence of atheism? The word "necessitate", according to the OED, refers to "To render necessary; esp. to demand, require, or involve as a necessary condition, accompaniment, or result." I don't believe that you have proven that without theism, atheism necessarily does not exist.
Ignore what i said about ordinary theists. I just mean theists in general.
hmmmm. Im now recognizing the definition of theism you proposed. Yesterday, i guess i was unknowingly ignorant:
1. God Exists.
2. God is all powerful and the creator
3. Rational moral agents are obliged to worship God only.
Where did you get this peice of information. You said that theism is a collection of beliefs and CLAIMS that .....etc.
Well anybody can believe, but i doubt that people can CLAIM.
I don't have data but i bet mosts believers don't have claim in theism. Thus, that makes them atheist. So yeah, the most important questions now is where do you get this information from and is it credential?
Also two more questions. Assuming that the definition you typed is accurate, can someone be partly atheist and partly theist. Such as, what if someone believes but doesn't not claims or what if someone claims but does not believes.
Exactly. In fact, this definition is relatively uncontroversial. But you still haven't answered my question. How does your rebuttal prove your stance in accordance to the UoD?
Well anybody can believe, but i doubt that people can CLAIM.
Unfortunately, theists do claim that God exists. I haven't met any Christian or any other religious person who do not claim that God exists. Have you?
Honestly, you should open your eyes and take a look at the debate question before spouting bullshit.
I don't have data but i bet mosts believers don't have claim in theism.
Argumentum ad populum.
the most important questions now is where do you get this information from and is it credential?
Genetic fallacy.
Also two more questions. Assuming that the definition you typed is accurate, can someone be partly atheist and partly theist. Such as, what if someone believes but doesn't not claims or what if someone claims but does not believes.
Irrelevant.
I ask you again. Does the existence of theism NECESSITATE the existence of atheism?
Until you can answer the question, I will not honour you with a reply.
Honestly, i don't know what genetic fallacy is at the moment but i get the hint. Still i want you to answer that question...where did you get that source of information and is it credential? Why i ask is because google definition of theism is different than the definition you proposed.
Thesim, by google, is the belief in God. Not the claim in God.
I actually change my answer. I believe the answer is no. According to google, disbelief means refusal or inability to accept the existence of things. How can a newborn child be able to accept God if he/she doesn't know God. How can someone like me if they are unable to perceive my existence.
Honestly, i don't know what genetic fallacy is at the moment but i get the hint.
Then stop sitting around and go look it up.
Still i want you to answer that question...where did you get that source of information and is it credential?
If you really want to know, I got it from the Senior Lecturer of Philosophy in Vanderbilt Universit, Prof. Scott Aikin. But this has no relevance to whether or not the concept is true. If you want to deny the concept, tell me which of the three statements you disagree with.
Yeah i agree. But still i was curious.
Sorry. If you don't know me by now, I'm allergic to bullshit in serious debates ;)
How can a newborn child be able to accept God if he/she doesn't know God. How can someone like me if they are unable to perceive my existence.
Ah. So you changed your answer again. Why am I not surprised? If that is the case, why are you continually trying to defend your criticisms based on your original answer?
And furthermore, I think that due to the overwhelming validity of the Problem of Evil, I don't think that I need theism to exist in order to not believe in God.
Tell me which of the three statements you disagree with
I actually disagree with the last two statements and i disagree that you have to claim all three. Theism, by google, is the belief that God exists. The act of claiming that God exists is not mentioned. The definition that google provides is mostly in contradiction with the statement you provided.
I actually changed my answer yesterday when disputing with someone in which i can't mention right now due to the fact that i don't know how to spell his/her name. Edit: His or her name is Imrigone.
Believe it or not, i wasn't trying to defind my criticisms that i made on my first post. My first argument generally stated that nobody can't be born an athiest, thus implying that the existence of theism neccessitate the existence of atheism. After disputing with Imrigone, i changed my answer. When you gave your first argument to me, i disputed you on the fact that a person can still be an theist but not claim that God is exist. I disputed you based on google's definition of theism. However, you said i was incorrect according to your definition of theism. I see, according to your definition, why you can say that a person who does not claim God existence is not a theist.
Now that is my problem. Again, what Proffessor Scott Aikin stated and what google stated is different. And yes, talking about this do means we are staying on topic. lol of course my common sense is telling me that your professor is more credential but common sense can be misleading.
Edit. hmmmmmm. Right now, im trying to dispute your definition of Theism. I found a contradiction between what your definition states and what google states. However, which is true and which is false is something to be judged by the majority. If the majority takes your definition of Theism, then you are thusly correct. Vice Versa.
I actually disagree with the last two statements and i disagree that you have to claim all three.
So a Christian or any other theist does not claim that God is all powerful? He/she does not claim that God is the creator? He/she is not obligated to worship God?
Theism, by google, is the belief that God exists. The act of claiming that God exists is not mentioned. The definition that google provides is mostly in contradiction with the statement you provided.
Honestly, I have to tell you that Google is not synonymous with research. Then again, the OED defines theism as "Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation". The idea of being a supreme ruler of the universe would then imply an obligation to worship.
My first argument generally stated that nobody can't be born an athiest, thus implying that the existence of theism neccessitate the existence of atheism.
That is not an argument at all. I could as easily say that no one is born a theist. This implies that theism does not exist and therefore, it doesn't necessitate the existence of atheism. Either way, this is pure bullshit.
The word "necessitate" refers to "To render necessary; esp. to demand, require, or involve as a necessary condition, accompaniment, or result."
What you say subsequently is completely irrelevant and pure babble. I don't need to respond to that. So unless you can come up with a proper argument, this debate between us is over.
The idea of being a supreme ruler of the universe would then imply an obligation to worship.
That is not an argument at all. I could as easily say that no one is born a theist. This implies that theism does not exist and therefore, it doesn't necessitate the existence of atheism. Either way, this is pure bullshit.
These two statements contradict one another. In the first bolded set of sentences, you made an arguement based off an implication. However, in the second set of bolded words, you generally stated that an implication of something is pure b.s.
The idea of being a supreme ruler of the universe would then imply an obligation to worship.
I don't think you can make that implication an argument. Yes, it may imply an obligation to worship God, but is that a factual statement. That is like me still being on this website implies that im continuing to look up more debates immediately, but in reality, i am going on Youtube.
I have no idea why I even bother to reply you at all, but here it goes. But this will be my last reply until you can answer the debate in question.
These two statements contradict one another. In the first bolded set of sentences, you made an arguement based off an implication. However, in the second set of bolded words, you generally stated that an implication of something is pure b.s.
No, the statements were not contradictory. What I said was that my "no one is born a theist" argument is bullshit. I did not say that any argument based off of an implication is invalid or unsound. Open your damn eyes and read before jumping off the handle.
Yes, it may imply an obligation to worship God, but is that a factual statement.
A factual statement is an argument. Such a statment is an argument a priori.
I know you don't like b.s. but i want to know your input.
First, if you know I hate bullshit then why do you continually spew it at me? I don't mind you doing it to someone else, but when I write you a proper rebuttal, I would expect the same. Notice that I was never once off topic. I had related my stand to the debate in question.
Second, if you want to know my input, send me a private message next time.
A factual statement is an argument. Such a statment is an argument a priori.
You didn't answer my question. How is your implication to worship God due to his supreme power a fact?
First, if you know I hate bullshit then why do you continually spew it at me? I don't mind you doing it to someone else, but when I write you a proper rebuttal, I would expect the same. Notice that I was never once off topic. I had related my stand to the debate in question.
You recently stated: I have no idea why I even bother to reply you at all, but here it goes. But this will be my last reply until you can answer the debate in question.
You can't deny that you contradicted yourself. :D
And i did answer the debate's question. My answer is no due to the fact that if someone is inable to accept to God, he is an atheist. However, this is according to google's definition.
However, google is mostly in contradiction with your proposed statement with Theism. I don't see how any of us can go forward with this debate when there are two definitions that are similiar in some ways but different in many ways.
Then again, the OED defines theism as "Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation".
OED (don't know what that stands for. Oxford Education Dictionary :D) is too mostly in contradiction with your proposed statement of Theism. OED states a belief in one God as a creator and supreme ruler of the universe. Even if your implied statement of worshiping God is true, the definition doesn't claim that you have to CLAIM God's existence.
Edit. Yeah. The OED doesn't say that you have to claim God's existence. The dictionary generally states that you have to believe in his existence. I definitely want to hear your response about this contradiction.
Before I answer, I don't see any humour in this debate. If you can't carry yourself seriously in a serious debate, then, honestly, piss off.
You didn't answer my question. How is your implication to worship God due to his supreme power a fact?
I am not obligated to answer a question that you did not ask in the first place. But since you have asked, your question is a straw man. It states "supreme ruler" not, "power". Again, I repeat, open those damned eyes of yours and read.
My answer is no due to the fact that if someone is inable to accept to God, he is an atheist. However, this is according to google's definition.My answer is no due to the fact that if someone is inable to accept to God, he is an atheist. However, this is according to google's definition.
It doesn't matter where the definition comes from! If you are so myopic as to base the discussion on who came up with the definition, then you are obviously incapable of rational thought. Any one who does not believe that God exists is an atheist.
Even if your implied statement of worshiping God is true, the definition doesn't claim that you have to CLAIM God's existence.
What are you smoking when you wrote this? How can you worship something that you don't believe exists? Do you worship Allah?
I am not obligated to answer a question that you did not ask in the first place. But since you have asked, your question is a straw man. It states "supreme ruler" not, "power". Again, I repeat, open those damned eyes of yours and read.
First, i did asked you in the first place. You probably didn't realize it because i didn't put a question mark. I don't know what you mean by "straw man" but i think you believe im attacking you for the sake of an attack. Dunno but you still didn't answer my question. Why are you avoiding my question? Why is your implication of worshipping God true due to the fact he is the supreme ruler? I apologise for making the mistake by stating "supreme power" but you know dang well what i meant.
Not everybody has the same rational thought. I think it is best for everybody to refer to the same definition and make a judgement out of it before accepting it. I agree with google's definition of Thiesm. However, i agree with your definition of claiming his existence. I now agree that someone who is a theist must believe as well as claim that He exist. HOWEVER, not everybody has the same rational thought.
What are you smoking when you wrote this? How can you worship something that you don't believe exists? Do you worship Allah?
You didn't understand what i was saying. Google and OED doesn't state that you have to CLAIM god's existence. They stated generally to believe in his existence. But believing in someone's existence is different than claiming that someone's existence.
I can believe in the flying meatball sub monster but i don't have an actual claim on his existence.
How can you worship something that you don't believe exists?
Simple answer: just do it. I can be forced into worshipping Allah if i don't believe in him.
You didn't answer my question: How is your implication to worship God due to the fact that he is the supreme ruler true?
You seem to ignore the fact that the OED and google contradicts your statement of Theism. (When i use my rational thought, a full theist in my opinion is a person who believes and claims that God exists. However, society definitions says different).
Edit. Due to the fact that everybody doesn't have the same rational thought, the best way is to follow society definitions of the term Theism. I respect rational thought but i don't believe rational thought can be used as a fact when everybody don't seem to have the same rational thought. Rational thoughts seems to me like an opinion. And opinions aren't facts.
I am appalled that you can't see logic when it's staring at you in the face.
This was what you said:
"I don't think you can make that implication an argument. Yes, it may imply an obligation to worship God, but is that a factual statement. That is like me still being on this website implies that im continuing to look up more debates immediately, but in reality, i am going on Youtube."
Let's break down the statement:
Claim: "I don't think you can make that implication an argument."
"Argument": "Yes, it may imply an obligation to worship God, but is that a factual statement."
Analogy: That is like me still being on this website implies that im continuing to look up more debates immediately, but in reality, i am going on Youtube.
First, i did asked you in the first place. You probably didn't realize it because i didn't put a question mark.
Therefore, you have not asked a question. All you have done is made a claim, tried to argue for your claim and then provide an analogy. Nowhere is there even a question directed at me.
If you still insist that you did ask a question, then stop reading at this point because since you can't understand logic and debate, there is no point for you to be here in the first place.
I don't know what you mean by "straw man" but i think you believe im attacking you for the sake of an attack.
Wrong definition of what a "straw man" is. Go read up on your own.
I apologise for making the mistake by stating "supreme power" but you know dang well what i meant.
Actually, no I don't know what you meant since "power" and "ruler" are completely different. "Power" is a characteristic while "ruler" is a noun. These terms are nowhere near similar. But, I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.
Why is your implication of worshipping God true due to the fact he is the supreme ruler?
Your question is nonsensical. You are confusing cause with effect. I have no idea what you mean by "implication of worshipping God".
Not everybody has the same rational thought
Your English is appalling. Rational thought refers to the use of rigourous logic to defend your claims. Obviously, you can use different forms of logic (e.g. philosophical or scientific) to defend your views, but all forms of debate and argument are exercises in rational thought. Thus, your claim is utter bullshit.
But believing in someone's existence is different than claiming that someone's existence.
No, it is not. Claim is "‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’." Thus, by saying "I believe that God exists", it is a contention and assertion which constitutes a claim that God exists.
Simple answer: just do it. I can be forced into worshipping Allah if i don't believe in him.
A lazy answer. If you don't believe in him, you have no good reason to believe that he is worthy of worship. My question, "How can you worship something that you don't believe exists?", asks for a legitimate, rational and logical argument for worshipping something or someone.
Im downvoting you on the following reasons
Go ahead. I don't really care if you down-vote a hundred of my arguments. All I know is that you can't hold your position well. I have no good reason to believe in your claims. But two can play this game, if you really want to ;)
How is your implication to worship God due to the fact that he is the supreme ruler true?
An illogical question. (See above).
You seem to ignore the fact that the OED and google contradicts your statement of Theism.
So?
Rational thoughts seems to me like an opinion. And opinions aren't facts.
1. Your claim that God exists is also an opinion.
2. Opinions aren't facts.
Ergo,
3. Thus, it is not a fact that God exists.
I can play the same game. But this is mere petty squabble to me.
Debate over. If you can't even respect your opponents, there is no reason for you to reply. Until and unless you can phrase your questions and criticisms more cohesively and not resort to bullshit, I don't need to reply you any further.
Your question is nonsensical. You are confusing cause with effect. I have no idea what you mean by "implication of worshipping God
When i stated "implication of worshipping God" i meant that you implied that worshipping God........
You are still avoiding the question. You stated that because God is the supreme ruler, this is implied that we as humans must worship God. Implications aren't always true. You are drawing conclusions that is not proven to be true or false. Implications aren't arguments. Sigh, you are totally wasting my time. Answer the question please. :). I asked you this like two or three times already.
A lazy answer. If you don't believe in him, you have no good reason to believe that he is worthy of worship. My question, "How can you worship something that you don't believe exists?", asks for a legitimate, rational and logical argument for worshipping something or someone.
In your opinion, it is a lazy answer. However, you admitted that it is answer.
Being born in an Islamic country is a reason for people to be forced to follow Islam if they are believers or not.
Debate over. If you can't even respect your opponents, there is no reason for you to reply. Until and unless you can phrase your questions and criticisms more cohesively and not resort to bullshit, I don't need to reply you any further.
First of all this is createdebate. You are taking this site way to seriously. I am in no position to disrespect anybody. If i did, i did. All i can say is that i didn't mean to disrespect you. And i don't care if you play the same game. Im still downvoting you because you are not answer the question in which you call illogical? And how is it illogical???
Really? You stated that worshipping God is implied for the fact that God is our supreme ruler? And now im asking you is how and is that a true statement? I seriously asking to stop avoiding my question. It makes you look like a coward. And i know you think of me as a coward or an idiot whatever. Answer the question.
No, you didn't you only asked the question the first time you accused me of avoiding your question. That is pure bullshit.
Implications aren't always true. You are drawing conclusions that is not proven to be true or false.
Neither are they always false.
Implications aren't arguments.
They are premises. But some premises require arguments to support as well.
Sigh, you are totally wasting my time.
You are wasting my time as well. Answer the debate question. Does the existence of theism NECESSITATE the existence of atheism?
However, you admitted that it is answer.
Just because it's an "answer", it doesn't mean that it is valid, sound, cogent, binding or logical. In the OED, an answer is defined as "A reply made to a charge, whereby the accused seeks to clear himself; a defence." Nowhere does it say that an answer is necessarily valid, sound, cogent, binding or logical.
Being born in an Islamic country is a reason for people to be forced to follow Islam if they are believers or not.
Genetic fallacy.
First of all this is createdebate. You are taking this site way to seriously.
Another genetic fallacy.
I am in no position to disrespect anybody. If i did, i did. All i can say is that i didn't mean to disrespect you.
That is disputable.
And i don't care if you play the same game. Im still downvoting you because you are not answer the question in which you call illogical? And how is it illogical???
I have already stated why I think it is illogical in my previous reply. I don't need to repeat my argument.
You stated that worshipping God is implied for the fact that God is our supreme ruler?
No, I didn't. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that IF God exists, he is the proper object of worship.
It makes you look like a coward. And i know you think of me as a coward or an idiot whatever. Answer the question.
Call me what ever you want. I am allergic to bullshit but immune to argumentum ad hominem.
So far, I have uncovered two fallacies in your rebuttal alone. Two counts of committing the genetic fallacy and one committing the ad hominem fallacy.
Honestly, you aren't a good debater. By the way, I am not avoiding your question. I am merely asking you to rephrase your question. Why should I answer a question that isn't even phrased properly and attempts to put words in my mouth?
No, you didn't you only asked the question the first time you accused me of avoiding your question. That is pure bullshit.
I know i asked you before i accused you. And still im accusing you, where is my answer.
Answer the debate question. Does the existence of theism NECESSITATE the existence of atheism?
Didn't i already answer this? Yes. I stated "no" because once human beings are born, they are unable to accept God because they haven't learned about him. Thus, they are atheists. And therefore, the existence of theism doesn't neccessitate the existence of atheism.
The idea of being a supreme ruler of the universe would then imply an obligation to worship.
This is exactly what you stated, word to word, under the comment that is 1 day and two hours old. (For now it is one day and two hours old.)
Here is your full statement:
Honestly, I have to tell you that Google is not synonymous with research. Then again, the OED defines theism as "Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation". The idea of being a supreme ruler of the universe would then imply an obligation to worship.
Basically you stated that because God is the supreme ruler of the universe, that fact implies an obligation of humans to worship him. Im not putting b.s. in your mouth. It doesn't matter if you meant you meant GOD EXISTS or IF GOD EXISTS, is your implication of worship true or false?
Now that is not an argument. I can say (Galileo Galilei) because one ball is heavier than the other would imply that bigger ball to drop down faster to the earth than the lighter ball. You stated that implications aren't always false. But why put any implications in any argument when you are not going to prove its accurate.
How is my question not phased properly? I asked you simply to prove your implication. Make your implication true. Right now, you haven't proved why your implication is true which makes OED in some contradiction to your proposed statement of Theism.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Based upon history, theism came first, followed by atheism. We cannot prove it otherwise because this is how history happened, and we cannot change that.
I don't know, I don't think so personally, and there's no way to tell if it doesn't necessitate it because of how history is. With how history went, religion had to come first before the non-religious came about.
Atheism is the belief that there isn't a god. Atheism is the ACCEPTANCE that there isn't a God.
Wrong. And you discredit your own argument. You used the word "isn't", which is the contraction of "is not". Is not is a negative. Is, is a positive. Is asserts something, when combined with "not" it cancels out the "is"/assertion.
You are describing "strong" atheism. Strong Atheism asserts a claim/belief that no gods exist.
Atheism in general is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is the "do not believe" in the scenario.
yes, because there are no good reasons to believe that make sense in a rational world view and there is no evidence to support theistic assertions. I love the Sam Harris quote (paraphrase) - atheism is the noise reasonable people make in the presence of the unjustified and irrational supernatural claims of ignorant people.
Atheism is not really a claim, it is a denial of the theistic claim. Theists claim that there is a god. Atheists just deny that this claim is justified. The reason why athiests are justified in denying the theist claim is that there is no emperical evidence.
Atheism is not really a claim, it is a denial of the theistic claim. Theists claim that there is a god. Atheists just deny that this claim is justified. The reason why athiests are justified in denying the theist claim is that there is no emperical evidence.
And this is what I thought. But then how do you assert "there are no good reasons to believe that make sense in a rational world view and there is no evidence to support theistic assertions."
Or perhaps this is a misunderstanding. I interpret your statement to mean that
"there are no good reasons to believe that make sense in a rational world view"
Atheistic stance addressed.
"there is no evidence to support theistic assertions."
What is one in the same? Atheism and Theism? Or are both statements from your original post addressing theistic positions?
As a friendly suggestion, you might want to use specifics instead of using "they" to address my questions. I have questions and statements in my previous post, all of which could be "they", since it's such vague term.
Alright so it was my misunderstanding. I thought those original two statements were addressing both theism and atheism. That's why I attempted to dispute your claim by asking what assertions atheism makes.
The subject could be anything from unicorns to the existance of the sky, it seems the human condition is such that eventually you will find someone who will believe and another who will not.
It's not inherent though that there could not exist only theists (or only atheists for that matter), it's just not very realistic.
The existence of theism no more necessitates the existence of atheism than does the existence of atheism - even were atheism unthought (boy, 1984 is really getting to me) - necessitate the existence of theism.
I am putting "no" simply for the fact that objectively the stance/lack there of would exist regardless of whether there is a name to it, we don't have to believe in something to imagine it. Yet at the same time, the main reason there is the label "atheism" is because there is "theism".
For instance, let's pretend no one believes in Snufflepopperblubber. And anyone who does not believe in Snufflepopperblubber is called an "ablubpo". The statement could be made that everyone is an "ablubpo", but there is no point to state it since there is no challenge against it. But it can be argued that it is nevertheless true, but it doesn't matter since the opposition doesn't exist. It's almost as if "ablubpo" doesn't exist either, and as I said, it doesn't matter.
Many are unaware of this, but theism is actually a collection of beliefs and claims that:
1. God exists
2. God is the Creator
3. God is the proper object of worship and people are obligated to worship him.
Note that points (2) and (3) above are mere subsets or based on point (1), for if point (1) is not true, then (2) and (3) are also false.
The question in this debate, however, assumes that theism exists without justification. In fact, I would think that any one who denies any one of the three aforementioned theistic beliefs is an atheist. In that sense, it might actually be much more difficult to justify theism.
To return to the topic at hand, atheism is merely a lack of a belief in points (1), (2) and (3). But for the sake of simplicity, it is the lack of a belief primarily in (1). This shows that not only does the theist has to shoulder the burden of proof, but also that in any theistic debate, the theist has a much greater burden of proof. Thus, it is not that the atheism has good reason not to believe in God, but that the theist has not given any good evidence to believe in God. But if the latter is true, why say that theism "exists"?
Well then (perhaps I misunderstand your argument) it seems that since the burden of proof for theism is so much greater, that were one to be theistic, there would be doubt intrinsically in the belief. In which case I suppose you would argue then that that person is not a true theist. We can look at it from a mathematical sort of proof (though this is not to be interpreted as a proof of existence, just an example). Suppose god doesn't exist. This violates known theistic arguments, therefore God must exist. By being capable of contemplating an existence without a God, it seems to me that there is necessarily a possibility for atheism, even if the person who contemplates existence without a God is a theist.
I feel like this argument was convoluted. My brain knows what it's trying to say, but all the "nots" and "withouts" are getting my fingers tangled up. Sorry if this isn't clear.
You're right. It is slightly convoluted. To be honest, I couldn't even discern half of what I was typing previously.
Suppose god doesn't exist. This violates known theistic arguments, therefore God must exist.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Let's break down these two statements.
P1. God doesn't exist (assumption).
P2. P1 violates known theistic arguments.
Ergo,
C. God must exist.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the 2 premises.
By being capable of contemplating an existence without a God, it seems to me that there is necessarily a possibility for atheism, even if the person who contemplates existence without a God is a theist.
I wouldn't say that he is a theist, but that he considers himself to be a theist. Still, the burden of proof is on the theist to prove that God exists. As long as one can't and/or doesn't do that, then I would think that the default position would be either agnosticism or atheism because both position does not presuppose that God exists (obviously...).
