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.
Yeah, there is a difference. Also, included would just be the parts of the different descriptions, and not just a full description. I challenge the ideas of God that have been put out and don't really reject God overall.
More like between... "naive atheism" and "theological skepticism"
The "naive atheist" doesn't view the god phenomenon realistically. Their thinking on the subject of god is clouded because THEY THEMSELVES favor the logically unsound definition of god that worshipers (theists) do.
A "theological skeptic" will only accept a statement about god to be true if it's experientially verifiable and can be logically supported down to first principles.
My thinking...
Theological skepticism = I do not accept one or more claims about god
Naive atheism = I do not believe god exists
Let me ask you this...Is there a description of god that you find acceptable?
The "naive atheist" doesn't view the god phenomenon realistically. Their thinking on the subject of god is clouded because THEY THEMSELVES favor the logically unsound definition of god that worshipers (theists) do.
You mean, they use the same definition for god as the people who believe in god? I fail to see how that makes the atheist unrealistic.
A "theological skeptic" will only accept a statement about god to be true if it's experientially verifiable and can be logically supported down to first principles.
If you must insist on semantics (even though I suspect you understood my meaning), then the above debate seems more a distinction between selective theological skepticism and absolute theological skepticism.
My thinking... [...] Let me ask you this...Is there a description of god that you find acceptable?
As usual, I personally find your semantics rather frustratingly pointless. I do not constrain myself to any singular definition of god, and I fail to see how that is relevant anyways.
I know that, but this does not make his argument any less illogical. He is effectively arguing that the atheist is unrealistic because they reject the unrealistic beliefs of the theist.
He is effectively arguing that the atheist is unrealistic because they reject the unrealistic beliefs of the theist.
The "naive atheist" is someone who finds out that there are a number of logically invalid ways of describing god, and therefore gives up trying to describe god in a rational manner. They effectively assume it's impossible to do so.
If god is a referent term that has no proper subject, then atheism is by extension a meaningless term.
The "naive atheist" is someone who finds out that there are a number of logically invalid ways of describing god, and therefore gives up trying to describe god in a rational manner. They effectively assume it's impossible to do so.
That is neither unreasonable nor innately unfounded. If every iteration of "god" to this point has been an unsubstantiated consequence of evolutionary function, that constitutes a significant probability against any other forthcoming iteration being even remotely logical.
If god is a referent term that has no proper subject, then atheism is by extension a meaningless term.
If by proper subject you mean a logical one, I disagree. Not all ideas are logical, but we still need terms to refer to them. A term like "god" may reference something illogical and still have meaning, and by extension a term of negation to that idea retains significance as well.
I would add...
An absolute negation of "god" is necessarily based upon the present conceptions and iterations of "god". Should some highly improbable logical iteration of "god" manifest, then that would drastically alter the meaning and significance of the term. To hold a perspective hostage to an imagined possibility, particularly an improbable one, is itself unreasonable.
You mean, they use the same definition for god as the people who believe in god? I fail to see how that makes the atheist unrealistic.
I believe what he's getting at is that even if you can demonstrate empirically that Zeus (one of the ancient greek concepts of a god) is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with what we are able to observe and measure, it does not necessarily follow that every single god is a complete fabrication.
In other words, 'there are no gods' does not necessarily follow from the premise 'there is no Zeus.'
No, his argument was that negating an already flawed definition of god makes the negation flawed itself. Which simply makes no sense whatsoever.
Further, I never said the negation of one god equates the negation of all gods. The absolute atheist rejects the premise for every iteration of the meaning of god as it is used by those who believe in it; the selective atheist would reject only some iterations.
The "naive atheist" doesn't view the god phenomenon realistically. Their thinking on the subject of god is clouded because THEY THEMSELVES favor the logically unsound definition of god that worshipers (theists) do.
What I took from this is that, in attempting to refute god conceptually, they start from the definition of god pushed by theists- specifically, the concept of god from their own religion. The implication here is that refuting that specific concept of god is sufficient to dismiss the existence of any and all gods altogether. I didn't say that you said that negating one equates the negation of all- I said that he was suggesting a certain portion of atheists have this viewpoint, and I tend to agree there.'
The absolute atheist rejects the premise for every iteration of the meaning of god as it is used by those who believe in it; the selective atheist would reject only some iterations.
So in other words, the absolute atheist dismisses any and all concepts of god out of hand without any consideration or care for the specifics. Is making assumptions regarding things one has no exposure to or data on, solely using ones own personal biases, consistent with the scientific method?
Well, it does appear to be what he meant: "Finding a definition flawed should prompt an attempt to better define, not an assumption that there is nothing to define in the first place."
What I took from this is that, in attempting to refute god conceptually, they start from the definition of god pushed by theists- specifically, the concept of god from their own religion. [...] and I tend to agree there.'
That is the implicit argument behind his semantic maneuver, yes. I disagree with his phraseology because it indicates not that some atheists are "naive" (i.e. extrapolate general rejection from specific rejections), but that the only type of atheist is the "naive" variety. Otherwise, one must be a theological skeptic. I am neither.
So in other words, the absolute atheist dismisses any and all concepts of god out of hand without any consideration or care for the specifics. Is making assumptions regarding things one has no exposure to or data on, solely using ones own personal biases, consistent with the scientific method?
Some absolute atheists may reject all conceptions of god because they pertain to god, but this is by no means innate to the position. Consider that we know the following: (1) scientific research indicates that spiritual proclivity is genetically determined and socially conditioned; (2) that every known iteration of "god" has served some evolutionary function at a collective and/or individual level; and (3) that every known iteration of "god" has lacked any form of substantiation and been taken purely upon faith. While this does not constitute evidence against some as of yet unrealized iteration of "god", it establishes that every iteration of "god" to this point has been a consequence of evolutionary function. Most importantly, these factors establish a highly founded and substantiated probability against the existence of a demonstrably true iteration of "god"... making the absolute atheist conclusion not innately assumptive or biased, but a consequence of the reasoned deduction of probability.
Well, it does appear to be what he meant: "Finding a definition flawed should prompt an attempt to better define, not an assumption that there is nothing to define in the first place."
Which is exactly my point. One one hand, you find a flaw in a given definition and dismiss the concept entirely. On the other hand, you find a flaw in a given definition, and dismiss that particular definition entirely, irrespective of other definitions associated with the concept.
That is the implicit argument behind his semantic maneuver, yes. I disagree with his phraseology because it indicates not that some atheists are "naive" (i.e. extrapolate general rejection from specific rejections), but that the only type of atheist is the "naive" variety. Otherwise, one must be a theological skeptic. I am neither.
Again, not what I took from it. His wording appeared to specify naive atheists as a specific category or subset of atheism. If his intent was to label that all atheists were naive, he would not use 'naive' as an adjective describing a subset of atheism, but rather a statement indicating that all atheists are naive. If all bricks are red, we don't need to refer to them as 'red bricks,' simply bricks. If there are other colors of bricks, eg yellow, it would be relevant to note the color.
Some absolute atheists may reject all conceptions of god because they pertain to god, but this is by no means innate to the position. Consider that we know the following: (1) scientific research indicates that spiritual proclivity is genetically determined and socially conditioned; (2) that every known iteration of "god" has served some evolutionary function at a collective and/or individual level; and (3) that every known iteration of "god" has lacked any form of substantiation and been taken purely upon faith. While this does not constitute evidence against some as of yet unrealized iteration of "god", it establishes that every iteration of "god" to this point has been a consequence of evolutionary function. Most importantly, these factors establish a highly founded and substantiated probability against the existence of a demonstrably true iteration of "god"... making the absolute atheist conclusion not innately assumptive or biased, but a consequence of the reasoned deduction of probability.
And you don't see a key difference between considering something to be extremely improbable vs impossible and non-existent?
Which is exactly my point. One one hand, you find a flaw in a given definition and dismiss the concept entirely. On the other hand, you find a flaw in a given definition, and dismiss that particular definition entirely, irrespective of other definitions associated with the concept.
That was not your point. Your point was that he was not saying that.
What he is saying, and apparently you agree, is that if a term is flawed we must assume that there is a better definition that is more sensible even when we have no proof that such a definition exists. This grossly misplaces the burden of reason and proof.
Further, the argument is that we should assume this against the knowledge that any definition that holds integrity to the common understanding of the term in question is innately illogical. Redefinition is warranted if the original definition does not accurately describe the object it is attached to. Because god is a conceptual object, the best definition is that which most accurately describes that concept as it is commonly understood. I contend that the manner in which "god" is commonly understood is innately fallible and illogical.
Again, not what I took from it. His wording appeared to specify naive atheists as a specific category or subset of atheism. [...]
I presented two types of atheist - absolute and selective - which very directly applied to the stances being described. He instead chose to define the absolute atheist as "naive" and to remove the term "atheist" from the selective perspective entirely; this very clearly made naivety the realm of the atheist and reason the realm of the skeptic (whatever that even is). There was no other remotely apparent reason for those distinctions to have been made the way they were, particularly in light of the prior introduction of alternative definitions which spoke directly to the positions without ascribing any value-weighted words to them. That is all I will say on this particular matter.
And you don't see a key difference between considering something to be extremely improbable vs impossible and non-existent?
I do not believe we can know anything with absolute certainty. To me, "impossible" and other absolute terms refer to extremes of probability. Thus I am as certain in declaring the non-existence of god as I am the non-existence of leprechauns, and for very much the same reasons.
Redefinition is warranted if the definition does not accurately describe the object it is attached to. Because god is a conceptual object, the best definition is that which most accurately describes that concept as it is commonly understood.
Redefining god so that it makes sense (if that is even possible) is, in my opinion, both counter-intuitive and semantically inaccurate. Further, assuming it possible to redefine god as something sensible, what then would you call the common conception of god if not "god"? You create far more problems than you resolve, rather than just accepting that not all words are describing logical or sensible objects.
