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.
You can't know anything about a subject unless, at the very least, information about the subject exists. When there is a true "lack of belief" in a subject, the subject has not even been conceived. Hence, to claim a lack of belief in (insert any subject here) is unintelligible.
"When there is a true "lack of belief" in a subject, the subject has not even been conceived"
The subject is conceived by someone who has the belief.
"You can't know anything about a subject unless, at the very least, information about the subject exists"
You study the basis for the belief of those that have conceived it. You can believe that there are facts that support the belief but not belief in the thing itself. You can also study the opinions of those that believe.
I am just playing with ideas and may trail off into nonsense any minute if I haven't already :)
The subject is conceived by someone who has the belief.
Someone who has no beliefs at all about the subject, doesn't understand the subject.
You study the basis for the belief of those that have conceived it. You can believe that there are facts that support the belief but not belief in the thing itself.
If I understand you right, I agree.However, without any idea what "it" is, you can't identify what you don't believe in well enough to make an intelligible statement that you lack a belief in "it". Goes like : Do you believe in infallible beings? I haven't met any that I regard as such. If there are infallible beings, I don't know of any. Not: I don't believe in infallible beings.
When there is a true "lack of belief" in a subject, the subject has not even been conceived.
Just because you labeled something doesn't mean it has actually been conceived. If a God exists and in reality it doesn't match what a human was able to describe, then God hasn't been conceived.
Your whole claim is an idiotic play on words. I don't believe in Islam, however I do believe the religion of Islam exists. The two statements are not in conflict with each other. Your argument is invalid. There is enough conflict in the world for people to discuss. You don't have to go around looking for issues to fight about like this.
"You can't know anything about a subject unless, at the very least, information about the subject exists."
Agreed. Not only must at least some information about the subject exist, but you must also be, in some way, aware of said information. To me, this is technically a "true lack of belief" or "true non belief." It is impossible to have any beliefs whatsoever about any subject to whose existence you are utterly oblivious.
That said, it's not a very useful form of non belief to cite when it comes to examining truth claims, and whether or not one should believe X. For example, many atheists will say things like "everyone is born an atheist," or "all babies are atheists." While this is true, such is also the case for a rock, a tree, a bird, a house, the sun, or any number of things which are oblivious to the concept of theism. It is not the same kind of non belief the aforementioned atheists are espousing, as they are aware of and have information concerning theism.
I think what is typically meant when one claims a lack of belief in X, is something along the lines of "Based on the information I currently have, I am not convinced that X is true." This is not to be equated to believing X is false, which is definitely a belief.
Matt Dillahunty often uses an analogy which I think illustrates this fairly well. It's sort of a thought experiment where you imagine, say, a gumball machine full of gumballs, of which you're pondering whether the number of gumballs is even or odd. Someone also observing the gumballs tells you they believe the number to be even. When asked for their reasoning, they tell you they "just have faith" it's even, or that a voice in their head told them it was so, or that it "just makes sense" to them or gives them some sort of comfort to believe the number is even.
Would such testimony be enough to convince you there was indeed an even number of gumballs? Suppose you were not convinced by this. When asked if you too believe the number is even, wouldn't you have to say "No, I do not believe the number to be even"? But does this admission mean that you necessarily believe the number must be odd?
Clearly the answer is no, it does not. Maybe the number is even; maybe the number is odd; But the current claim being addressed is that the number is even, and if you are not convinced it is so, then you must admit you do not believe (or have a lack a belief that) the number is even.
This is what a number of atheists actually mean when they say they "lack a belief" in God. They simply are not convinced the number is even.
Of all the people who frequent this site, I craved your admiration the most. Your razor sharp critique of my thinking has been devastating. I used to think I had a valuable perspective to share and now....I hang my head in shame next to the brilliance of AnrgyGenX!
I think to claim a lack of belief while referring to yourself as an atheist is idiotic, but people can still lack a belief in something. In other words, to deny that X even exists is a belief itself. However, someone can lack a belief in X for a couple reasons. Either they have never heard of X, therefore they have no opinion, or they have a differing belief.
I think to claim a lack of belief while referring to yourself as an atheist is idiotic,
Why? "Lacking belief in God" is pretty much literally what the word parts imply. And agnostic doesn't fully cover it since that concerns knowledge directly, not belief.
I'm not following you. Are you saying the definition is fine until someone actually uses the definition?
I've had arguments with several atheists who have claimed that atheists do not hold a belief, as in theists believe something, atheists do not. I agree that atheism can be defined as the lack of belief in God, but disagree that atheism does not require a belief. Belief is a synonym of opinion.
Theists: In my opinion, God exists.
Atheists: In my opinion, God does not exist.
It can also be worded as:
Theists: I believe that God exists.
Atheists: I believe that God does not exist.
Which is far from the only school of thought on the subject. You are describing apathy and/or indecision, not agnosticism.
No, I'm aware of what agnosticism means, but it isn't often that you hear an agnostic define their own viewpoint as, "I believe that the existence of a god can not be proven." Instead, they often consider themselves agnostic because they do not want to assert that a god exists or does not exist. Calling it a position of indecision is fair.
Now, that may not fit the actual definition of agnosticism (maybe more along the lines of nontheism), but the commonly accepted definitions of terms usually only go as far as how they are used. We can agree that Christians of today are much different than early Christians, and probably don't fit the definition as to what a Christian truly is... But it is a large group that holds common beliefs, so we refer to them by that term, because they too refer to themselves as Christians. The same can be said with agnosticism. A large population of people who are indecisive in regards to the God question, refer to themselves as agnostics.
I agree that atheism can be defined as the lack of belief in God, but disagree that atheism does not require a belief.
And....how is this not a contradictory statement?
Theists: In my opinion, God exists.
Atheists: In my opinion, God does not exist.
Dude, you shouldn't even bother to give lip service to "I agree that atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in God". You clearly don't see that at all. Using a synonym doesn't change the fact that at least some atheists can be described as "it is not my opinion that God exists" NOT "in my opinion God does not exist".
Instead, they often consider themselves agnostic because they do not want to assert that a god exists or does not exist.
And if they do not conform to the populist notion and you are aware of this? Like for instance...me? I consider myself an atheist AND an agnostic. But you've already chosen to put words in my mouth regarding atheism, perhaps you would like to with agnosticism as well?
How is it? A lack of belief in God is totally different from saying that your viewpoint regarding God is not a belief.
Dude, you shouldn't even bother to give lip service to "I agree that atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in God". You clearly don't see that at all.
Well, I can't disagree with it. It's obvious that atheism is the lack of belief in God... Atheism even means, "not God." But the atheist position still requires a belief... A belief that God does not exist. I really do not see how that is confusing.
Using a synonym doesn't change the fact that at least some atheists can be described as "it is not my opinion that God exists" NOT "in my opinion God does not exist".
Those mean the same thing. If you were to say, "It is not my belief that God exists," that would be the same as saying, "I believe that God does not exist." How are your opinion statements any different?
And if they do not conform to the populist notion and you are aware of this? Like for instance...me? I consider myself an atheist AND an agnostic.
So, you take the position that God does not exist but admit that his existence is unknown? Great, so you have taken a title that describes the knowledge-based position that everyone is in whether they admit it or not. I think that giving yourself that kind of label is unnecessary, because it is really just stating the obvious. "I'm an atheist, but I don't actually know whether or not God exists." Ah, cool... Nice to know that you are human.
People can call themselves whatever they like for all I care. All I am saying is that agnostics tend to give themselves that label with the assumption that it is a position of indecision. That doesn't mean they are correct, and it doesn't mean that your definition is wrong, either.
But you've already chosen to put words in my mouth regarding atheism, perhaps you would like to with agnosticism as well?
Those mean the same thing. If you were to say, "It is not my belief that God exists," that would be the same as saying, "I believe that God does not exist."
Not it doesn't, and I'm shocked that somebody as clear-thinking and philosphically grounded would make such a myopic mistake.
First, I ask you to read SecuritonX's gumball analogy on the other side.
And for an explanation that is more eloquent and complete than I could possibly provide:
Not it doesn't, and I'm shocked that somebody as clear-thinking and philosphically grounded would make such a myopic mistake. First, I ask you to read SecuritonX's gumball analogy on the other side.
In regards to atheism, what I said tends to be the case. It is the denial of the existence of deities. However, I do see what you are saying. You can disbelieve in God, but not assert God's non-existence, just as I can disbelieve in Bigfoot, but not assert that he does not exist... Makes sense... But atheism's definition is more complex than simply the disbelief in God.
An agnostic, as referred to by most agnostics, lack a belief in God and also lack a belief that God does not exist. But many people also claim that there is not a third alternative to the "God" question, and that agnosticism, when defined properly, is actually atheism. I don't really think that is the case, because T.H. Huxley, who coined the term, did it because he did not feel that he belonged to any of the other "-isms." The term agnosticism, can be applied to just about anything, but when used in the theological sense, the definition covers not just knowledge, but belief, as well. It is the position of neither believing nor disbelieving in God. To disbelieve is a rejection of something as true. I certainly can disbelieve in something and still not accept that it is false, and that is the purpose of the term agnostic. Out of the three (theism, atheism, and agnosticism), only one asserts that God is not real, and that is atheism. To lack belief in God and also lack belief that God does not exist, is agnosticism. It is the reason that Huxley considered himself an agnostic, not an atheist.
It has to make you wonder why Huxley would introduce a third alternative if atheism is simply just the "lack of belief in God." I think that atheism may have taken on new meaning after the introduction of Huxley's agnosticism, or could have possibly been a play on semantics to make their view seem more reasonable. But like I said, you can call yourself whatever you want for all I care.
In regards to atheism, what I said tends to be the case.
That hasn't been true for a few decades now. I believe if you take a random sampling of modern atheists, you will find that most of them do not claim a belief that God does not exist. You've said it yourself, you've had several debates on this topic. You are likely to have several more. This sentiment isn't going away.
But atheism's definition is more complex than simply the disbelief in God.
Yes and no. "Yes" because the definition has to include both people who believe there is no God and people who fail to believe in God. "No" because they are ALL people who fail to believe in God. "a-" is arguably a slightly ambiguous prefix as it can mean both "lack of" and "opposite". If it was really meant to imply "belief God doesn't exist" they could and should have used the word ANTItheist.
But many people also claim that there is not a third alternative to the "God" question, and that agnosticism, when defined properly, is actually atheism.
I, personally view it as two intersecting spectra creating four squares. Left is theist/right atheistic, top gnostic/bottom agnostic. This gives us four quadrants. Going the Cartesian route- I: gnostic atheist- those who claim to have knowledge that God does not exist, II- Gnostic theist- believe they can prove a god or gods exist, III- agnostic theist- believe god exists, but don't claim to know (believe by pure faith), IV- do not claim belief or knowledge of God.
Even this is pretty simplistic, but it does a far more accurate service to the various belief systems than the populist method.
I don't really think that is the case, because T.H. Huxley, who coined the term, did it because he did not feel that he belonged to any of the other "-isms."
Theists have always been trying to shoe-horn atheists into one group. Hell, they would just as soon put the whole lot of us with Muslims, Hindis, etc and just call us all heathens.
I can assume that he correctly deduced what was missing from the extant analysis or hoped that he could hide in a new term. Which he sort of did.
To disbelieve is a rejection of something as true.
Miriam-Webster:
disbelieve
1. (transitive verb)- to hold not worthy of belief, not believe
2. (intransitive)- to withhold or reject belief.
dictionary.com:
1.to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
Seriously....language isn't always as hardline as people make it out to be.
Out of the three (theism, atheism, and agnosticism), only one asserts that God is not real, and that is atheism.
NO. IT. DOESN'T. It only asserts a lack of belief.
It has to make you wonder why Huxley would introduce a third alternative if atheism is simply just the "lack of belief in God."
Because people like you have been pigeon-holing people into nice little black-and-white boxes for centuries? Because he recognized there were divisions in both atheists and theists that were not properly dealt with by the common nomenclature? Perhaps there really is a division between knowledge and belief, and they both deserve separate handling?
The best thing you can do is accept that there are conflicting schools of thought on this. I argue that mine is more linguisticly and philosophically accurate, and would be more common if people weren't so intent on forcing people to decide on things they may not be prepared to. And I'm pretty damned sure most modern atheists agree with me.
That hasn't been true for a few decades now. I believe if you take a random sampling of modern atheists, you will find that most of them do not claim a belief that God does not exist.
That may be true. This is similar to the Christian or agnostic analogy we discussed earlier. Terms tend to mean what society makes them mean.
Yes and no. "Yes" because the definition has to include both people who believe there is no God and people who fail to believe in God. "No" because they are ALL people who fail to believe in God. "a-" is arguably a slightly ambiguous prefix as it can mean both "lack of" and "opposite".
That opens the door for four alternatives.
Theist= Believe in God
Atheist #1= Do not believe in God
Atheist #2= Believe God does not exist
Agnostic= No opinion either way
If it was really meant to imply "belief God doesn't exist" they could and should have used the word ANTItheist.
But anti-theists believe that theism is harmful. They don't just believe that God does not exist, they are also totally against the position of theism.
Left is theist/right atheistic, top gnostic/bottom agnostic.
My view would be somewhat similar, although I do find them unnecessary in that sense. Agnosticism takes on a slightly different meaning when left alone as a theological alternative to theism and atheism, though.
Theists have always been trying to shoe-horn atheists into one group. Hell, they would just as soon put the whole lot of us with Muslims, Hindis, etc and just call us all heathens.
You're confusing theists with Christians. All Christians are theists, but not all theists are Christians. However, theism is a single group... Just as atheism is.
1. (transitive verb)- to hold not worthy of belief, not believe
Fits my definition.
2. (intransitive)- to withhold or reject belief.
Fits my definition.
1.to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
Fits my definition.
2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
Also, fits my definition.
In case you forgot, this was my definition: "To disbelieve is a rejection of something as true."
Maybe it worked so well because all of those definitions basically said the same thing.
NO. IT. DOESN'T. It only asserts a lack of belief.
Has a theist ever asserted that God is not real? Has an agnostic ever asserted that God is not real? So, what do you call a person who asserts that God is not real?
Because people like you have been pigeon-holing people into nice little black-and-white boxes for centuries?
Or maybe because people like to give terms new meanings. I know from personal experience, that in an academic environment, atheism is described as the belief that deities do not exist. Is this the agreed upon definition from most self-proclaimed atheists? Apparently not.
The best thing you can do is accept that there are conflicting schools of thought on this. I argue that mine is more linguisticly and philosophically accurate, and would be more common if people weren't so intent on forcing people to decide on things they may not be prepared to.
You aren't being forced to decide anything. If you want to be called an atheist, that is fine... But if you don't hold the belief of atheists, then why be called one? Of course, you would argue that your position of not believing in God is all that is required to be referred to as an atheist. With a modern interpretation of the word, that may be true. But when a term is established, and it is meant to mean something in particular, it will forever carry that as it's true original meaning. Just like with Christians, we have plenty of Christians today, but they don't necessarily believe what early Christians did. The meaning behind that term (what a Christian believes) has changed based on our modern interpretations, but what a Christian is really supposed to be is still there.
And I'm pretty damned sure most modern atheists agree with me.
So what? Most Christians think that the kingdom of God is a realm where their soul rises up to after death, but Luke 17:21 paints a different picture. My point is that things are often misinterpreted. Modern atheism may be different from what atheism used to be, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their definition fits the term in the way that it was introduced. I guess you could rightly call yourself a modern atheist.
A lack of belief is not an assertion of disbelief. Let me elaborate...
To claim that there is no X, is logically unsupportable as an absolute. Though probable, we do not yet have sufficient data to make this declaration with certainty.
However, the same can be said of the existence of X, until empirical proof is brought forth.
Therefore, a lack of belief is the only logically supportable stance.
In terms of absolute knowledge, not much can be ascertained beyond our own existence. This is where pragmatism steps in.
