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.
1a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.
Based on the the definition of god and atheists unable to comprehend the defintion, I'd say it's a safe bet they cannot. Does God exist?
In order to intelligently discuss a topic, one must have some level of understanding. So if I want to talk about nuclear science with someone within the profession, I wouldn't be able to because I lack the knowledge to follow what they may be saying. So if you want to propose a new definition that is acceptable about something, you have to understand its major elements, current definition, and why it is so improperly defined that you must add or subtract to its definition. "Ordinary atheists" are unable to provide a better definition of God because they lack the understanding of who God is. If I don't believe in thirst, and I've never experienced it, how in the world would I be able to define it?
If we were to discuss changing the definition of a god, then we would have to use a new word to replace "god" for the old definition. If someone has a new concept of something to present, I don't see a reason to take a well established word and change it's definition rather than create a new word, of just present the concept as it is, the label isn't necessary.
I would go further to say that any atheist cannot intelligently discuss what might be better definitions of god, because it cannot be intelligently discussed.
The ordinary person who doesn't believe in unicorns cannot intelligently discuss what might be better definitions of a unicorn.
If we were to discuss changing the definition of a god, then we would have to use a new word to replace "god" for the old definition.
This is an argument that god cannot be understood in a more reasonable manner.
I don't see a reason to take a well established word and change it's definition rather than create a new word
You think as a word, the meaning of god is "well established"?
I would go further to say that any atheist cannot intelligently discuss what might be better definitions of god, because it cannot be intelligently discussed.
CAN not, or usually is not? if the former, how can you be sure?
The ordinary person who doesn't believe in unicorns cannot intelligently discuss what might be better definitions of a unicorn.
Definition 1) Unicorn: A Three legged scaly creature resembling a house fly native to Finland.
Definition 2) Unicorn: A fictional horselike creature with a single horn
Are you saying that only those who believe that unicorns are not just fictional creatures can identify which definition is more appropriate?
This is an argument that god cannot be understood in a more reasonable manner.
No, this is an argument that if you change the concept of "god" from the current concept to a new concept, you will still need a label for the old concept. There is no reason not to just use a new label for the new concept.
You think as a word, the meaning of god is "well established"?
Yes, I think most people can agree whether a concept qualifies as a god. If I propose an entity who created all turtles and is responsible for the feeling of time passing slowly while bored, most people would agree that it would qualify as a god. On the other hand, if I propose an entity who digs holes and regularly consumes bananas, most people would agree that does not qualify as a god.
CAN not, or usually is not? if the former, how can you be sure?
CAN not.
A label used for an entity that can be demonstrated to manifest in reality is directly tied to our understanding of that entity, for example, the label "Dog" is a direct pointer to the physical manifestation of a dog, so the definition or description of "dog" changes with our understanding of dogs.
On the other hand, the label "Unicorn" is not tied to anything that can be demonstrated to manifests in reality, but instead it is only pointing to what "Unicorn" is defined as.
You cannot have an intelligent discussion about changing the definition of a label that is solely tied to it's own definition.
if you change the concept of "god" from the current concept to a new concept, you will still need a label for the old concept.
I reject your authority on the matter. :)
Yes, I think most people can agree whether a concept qualifies as a god.
Who do you think I should ask to find out if the concept of say, "love" qualifies as god?
If I propose an entity who created all turtles and is responsible for the feeling of time passing slowly while bored, most people would agree that it would qualify as a god.
I must admit this.
But.... do you assume that the minority demographic who view god as say "A literary device used in various religious narratives to exert power over lazy minded people, and every now and then inspire introspection like no other" are less correct somehow?
On the other hand, if I propose an entity who digs holes and regularly consumes bananas, most people would agree that does not qualify as a god.
I must admit that too.
A label used for an entity that can be demonstrated to manifest in reality is directly tied to our understanding of that entity,
A label used for an entity that can be demonstrated to manifest in reality is directly tied to our understanding of that entity, for example, the label "Dog" is a direct pointer to the physical manifestation of a dog, so the definition or description of "dog" changes with our understanding of dogs.
I don't follow you, please rephrase
On the other hand, the label "Unicorn" is not tied to anything that can be demonstrated to manifests in reality
To the contrary, "unicorn" is tied to fairy tales. Fairy tales are real, you can pick one up at a book store. They just describe things that are only imaginary.
, but instead it is only pointing to what "Unicorn" is defined as.
Unicorns aren't just defined, they are illustrated.
You cannot have an intelligent discussion about changing the definition of a label that is solely tied to it's own definition.
Perhaps I agree. Does this restate your point...."A label with an unrecognized referent is unintelligible"?
If this isn't something you would like to discuss further I'm fine with that, but I want the last word. If I propose that we change the label "pizza" to instead reference apple baked salmon, we would still need a label for the old concept of pizza.
Who do you think I should ask to find out if the concept of say, "love" qualifies as god?
You wouldn't ask anyone, you would reference it's definition. An emotion experienced by some forms of life does not qualify as a god. When people say "god is love", they are either leaving part of said god's description out, or using the word "god" incorrectly. Love is not an entity.
do you assume that the minority demographic who view god as say "A literary device used in various religious narratives to exert power over lazy minded people, and every now and then inspire introspection like no other" are less correct somehow?
I don't assume it, it can be demonstrated. All one needs to do is reference the definition of a "god".
I don't follow you, please rephrase
A label used for an entity that can be demonstrated to manifest in reality is directly tied to our understanding of that entity, for example, the label "Dog" is a direct pointer to the physical manifestation of a dog, so the definition or description of "dog" changes with our understanding of dogs.
The label "unicorn" is directly tied to how "unicorn" is defined. The label "dog" is directly tied to the species of mammal which we have labeled "dog". "Unicorn" is a pointer to a definition, "dog" is a pointer to a manifestation within reality.
To the contrary, "unicorn" is tied to fairy tales. Fairy tales are real, you can pick one up at a book store. They just describe things that are only imaginary.
No, the label "unicorn" is used in fairy tales, either accompanied by it's definition, or referencing it's definition. I will agree though that books manifest in reality.
Unicorns aren't just defined, they are illustrated.
Their illustrations are based on their definition. If I present you with an illustration of a pie, and assert it is an illustration of a unicorn, you can demonstrate that I am incorrect by referencing the definition of "unicorn".
Does this restate your point...."A label with an unrecognized referent is unintelligible"?
No, my point is if you want to change the definition of "unicorn" to three winged cheese spider, we are no longer discussing the current label "unicorn", so there was no point is bringing up unicorns. If you want to change the definition of "god" to something else, it serves no purpose to reference a new definition in the context of the current definition.
The proper way of going about why you are trying to do is as follows:
I have a concept of "X", let us discuss this concept, oh, and I'm labeling it "god" because I like the way that word sounds.
If this isn't something you would like to discuss further I'm fine with that, but I want the last word. If I propose that we change the label "pizza" to instead reference apple baked salmon, we would still need a label for the old concept of pizza.
I was being lazy. I think we can start out with ideas of what god is that are logically indefensible and refine our thoughts over time.You assert that we cannot or should not do this without inventing a new term. I disagree. You can try changing my mind about that and I would be thrilled if you could. But I won't give you the last word until I think our respective positions have been adequately contrasted against one another.
You wouldn't ask anyone, you would reference it's definition.
Which was written by someone whose authority I would be still be appealing to as if they couldn't be mistaken.
An emotion experienced by some forms of life does not qualify as a god.
Not that I particularly agree with love being defined as an emotion but for those ruled by emotion..the shoe may fit.
When people say "god is love", they are either leaving part of said god's description out, or using the word "god" incorrectly.
I say "If god is love then I am not atheist". I say this because the principle of love as I understand it is "concern for the well-being of more than just oneself". I believe this god is worthy of complete devotion. I can't think of a situation where honoring this principle would be inappropriate.
Love is not an entity.
Do you think god is, or is god just poorly defined as such? Unless you agree that god is something then you can't say any definition is more or less correct, unless all you want to do is appeal to authority.
I don't assume it, it can be demonstrated. All one needs to do is reference the definition of a "god".
How dare I challenge the orthodoxy imposed by dictionary definition authors right?
The label "unicorn" is directly tied to how "unicorn" is defined. The label "dog" is directly tied to the species of mammal which we have labeled "dog". "Unicorn" is a pointer to a definition, "dog" is a pointer to a manifestation within reality.
Either label MUST refer to something that as you say "manifests within reality" or the term is unintelligible.
If I present you with an illustration of a pie, and assert it is an illustration of a unicorn, you can demonstrate that I am incorrect by referencing the definition of "unicorn".
A unicorn is a female human whose ideal sexual arrangement is a FFM scenario. This is only incorrect according to the definition of unicorn you provided.
The proper way of going about why you are trying to do is as follows:
I have a concept of "X", let us discuss this concept, oh, and I'm labeling it "god" because I like the way that word sounds.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I have this concept that we communicate with other beings, entities or agents, some of which are regarded so highly that they are trusted as infallible. I don't think it's crazy or incorrect to use the god label for these beings. My atheism is due to my not regarding them as infallible, not my lack of belief in their existence or as you might say manifestation in reality.
Damn it to all those who recognize my brilliance before I have time to re-read it a few hundred times to ensure there are no errors or ambiguity.
Steps down from his most highest of horses.
I would like to clarify that while books do manifest in reality, they are merely sculptures of the concept "book". Please reference my argument regarding the unicorn illustration.
These discussions are based in the imagination. You can make presumptions in the imagination that you don't believe hold in reality. Being an Atheist doesn't mean you can't imagine how God works.
Atheists don't regard god as imaginary. Atheists are the ones who attempt to regard god as true. Theists don't even bother. Theists imagine god being true. Atheists attempt to take what Theists present as facts and attempt to fit god into how the world works. Once these ideas are determined not to work in the real world a conclusion is formed that god can only be imaginary. Your problem is that you never stopped to ask why an Atheist decides god is imaginary.
I wonder how long it would take you to find an atheist to agree with that statement. This one doesn't.
Atheists are the ones who attempt to regard god as true.
Which would lead to a pantheistic outlook, a difference in understanding of god, not a lack of belief in god.
Theists don't even bother.
Never read anything by Thomas Aquinas I presume?
Your problem is that you never stopped to ask why an Atheist decides god is imaginary.
I have intimate knowledge of why, being such an atheist. Perhaps you never stopped to consider how the dictionary definition of god would read if written by such an atheist.
I wonder how long it would take you to find an atheist to agree with that statement. This one doesn't.
I have an upvote already, so it looks like less than 5 hours. I explained how I came to my conclusions. It would make sense if you didn't travel the same path.
Which would lead to a pantheistic outlook, a difference in understanding of god, not a lack of belief in god.
No, it doesn't have to. If someone presents an idea you reject you don't have to bend it to fit your needs. You could reject their idea and assume they are wrong.
Never read anything by Thomas Aquinas I presume?
No, but my statement was about most Theists.
I have intimate knowledge of why, being such an atheist. Perhaps you never stopped to consider how the dictionary definition of god would read if written by such an atheist.
Having a definition of a god makes me not sure if you are an Atheist. What is your definition?
No, it doesn't have to. If someone presents an idea you reject you don't have to bend it to fit your needs. You could reject their idea and assume they are wrong.
If you are metaphorically challenged I suppose
Having a definition of a god makes me not sure if you are an Atheist. What is your definition?
Here's one that is logically defensible and is the definition I base my atheism on.... God: A being regarded as infallible
I understand an atheist as one who regards no beings as infallible. I regard no beings as infallible therefore I am atheist.
It's more like saying...If you don't even believe there is a show called the Smurfs, you have no place in an argument about whether the introduction of Smurfette made the show better or worse.
As an atheist who has intelligently conversed on the subject in question, I must disagree. Not ascribing to any ideological framework does not inherently preclude you from conceptualizing it or discussing its potential manifestations.
You are not an ordinary atheist. You haven't resorted to attacking my intelligence yet. If you would, please offer your opinion about the relative merits of these two definitions of god.
1. An almighty supernatural being
2. A being regarded as worthy of worship
Can you understand why an atheist might favor definition #2?
Part of why I favor #2, is that in order to accept the #1 definition as valid, one must agree that supernatural is a valid descriptor of something.
Imagine god as a psychological phenomenon that's at least somewhat similar to what people who hear voices in their head experience. I suppose that these "messages from god" are indeed messages. The question in dispute is not "do these messages originate from a real entity ?", but "is it a good idea for people to believe that these messages originate from a being that ought to be regarded as infallible or worthy of worship?"
Do you understand my point of view? Can you challenge my point of view?
The question in dispute is not "do these messages originate from a real entity ?", but "is it a good idea for people to believe that these messages originate from a being that ought to be regarded as infallible or worthy of worship?"
I think both are perfectly acceptable questions, however it does not seem that the second one actually deals with the question at hand. It is about epistemology, not the actual nature of God.
If God truly is a psychological phenomenon (which I do tend to support) then he isn't God, or at least not the one typically discussed or supported by believers.
If God truly is a psychological phenomenon (which I do tend to support) then he isn't God, or at least not the one typically discussed or supported by believers.
Right so the dispute is not whether god exists, but what does god exist as. Much more interesting, even if clouded by fantasy.
No, God's actual existence would need to be determined either prior to or concurrent with assessing his nature. And if he does not exist as typically described, then explanations (which often are provided by us unintelligent atheists by the way) will vary from person to person. Mental illness, indoctrination, fear, misunderstanding...any of these could be a source for belief, but none are universal.
You haven't resorted to attacking my intelligence yet.
I tend not to when it is uncalled for, which it generally is with you.
If you would, please offer your opinion about the relative merits of these two definitions of god.
1. An almighty supernatural being
2. A being regarded as worthy of worship
Can you understand why an atheist might favor definition #2?
No, not really. Most atheists I know would be fine with either. As for myself, in discussion with you I would prefer the first definition (though that is largely because I suspect I know where you are going with #2 and I disagree with the semantics you have attached to it in the past). I would quite comfortable disagree with either definition, however.
