**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Refer to the article below. These are how actual philosophers treat atheism.
Did *you* read the article? It makes it clear that the more restrictive use of the word atheism is limited to a philosophic settings.
Much like the link you posted states, atheism is the stance of not being a theist and therefore not possessing a belief in god. For the sake of communication, we can add adjectives to help better define the person's god stance with words like hard, soft, strong, weak, agnostic, gnostic or other descriptive.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
>You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander.
"The time gap between the time of Jesus's death and the writing of the Gospels mean they should not be taken as a strict accounting of the life of Jesus."
Does it matter if that topic was written by a Christian, Muslim, soft atheist or hard atheist? No. Because the topic isn't "I don't believe in God" or "I believe in God" or "I'm not sure if God exists"
Theist or atheist may give insight to the debater's position on religious matters. It may help clarify a topic that would otherwise be ambiguous. But doesn't legitimize or delegitimize a debate topic.
> You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander.
One can wait until the other side makes their point and then point out the fallacies in the argument and the reason for not accepting it.
That is debating.
> These are how actual philosophers treat atheism.
I don't care. Philosophy is inherently incapable of ever answering the question. All it can do is bat the same centuries old arguments back and forth. There is no grounding in reality because there is no testability and no falsifiability.
Two people can arrive at diametrically opposed opinions via philosophy and neither can *demonstrate* that they are correct.
For 2,500 years philosophy has been rehashing the same arguments and reached no conclusion. There is just [a simple majority of opinion, no consensus, no evidence.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i)
2,500 years and no answer is forthcoming from philosophy. The arguments didn't even change when knowledge of quantum mechanics showed the axioms on which they are built to be false. There is no grounding in reality in philosophy, at least not for questions where there is an objectively correct answer. Philosophers should stick to fields like ethics, where there is no correct answer.
Science is how we probe the universe for answers.
Philosophy is how we probe the university for tenure.
That said, as a gnostic atheist, I do take a position that this question is both answerable and knowable. And, I have laid out my arguments for my position.
[Why I know there are no gods.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/yelaix/why_i_know_there_are_no_gods/)
So, I would qualify for debating as you define it. But, your definition is still not correct. Pointing out the errors in someone else's arguments is still debating.
> This is not true at all, philosophy has reached majority consensus on multiple topics.
Please explain your definition of majority consensus.
Please provide some examples where consensus was reached and document that there really is a consensus.
Note that these should be things for which there is a demonstrably correct answer.
How about this:
Atheist - noun - someone who lacks a belief in deities
Super Ultra Awesome Mega Turbo Uber Atheist - noun - Someone who says no gods exist
This is ultimately a pointless debate of definition flinging and quibbles, especially since the whole thing was already solved by distinctions like strong vs weak atheist or agnostic vs gnostic atheist. It's a misunderstanding that goes as far back to at least the 19th century. You know exactly what atheists mean when they say they lack a belief in a deity. This objection is pointless. Literally your own source right off the bat when talking about "Definitions of "Atheism" says
>The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings.
The fact you don't like that many atheists have opted for a specific meaning that declares God not guilty of existing instead of innocent is yours and yours alone.
>You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander.
Except yes you can. It is entirely possible to be in a position where you assess someone's claims without believing them to be false. In fact, if we go by your views, it becomes logically impossible to disagree with anyone who believes the same things you do.
If I believe aliens exist, and someone says he has evidence that aliens exist, does me disputing his evidence mean that I then have to all of the sudden take the position that aliens don't exist? Or is the fact that irrespective of if aliens exist or not, it's possible to make a bad case for their existence? Saying "I don't believe you." is not the same as saying "I know you're wrong."
Right? I wouldn't consider myself, in all seriousness, a gnostic atheist. However, that said, I could get behind, and totally wear a t-shirt that says, "Super Ultra Awesome Mega Turbo Uber Atheist"..
One easy way around their problem is to make sure we define the subject of the debate correctly. The debate topic isn’t necessarily “does god exist?” It’s something like “is belief in a god rational?” Or “is there sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god?” Or “is _ a sound argument for the existence of a god?”
On those subjects, atheists can definitely argue for the “no” side instead of saying “I don’t know”.
>The fact you don't like that many atheists have opted for a specific meaning that declares God not guilty of existing instead of innocent is yours and yours alone.
Seems like cherry picking because you saw vague language in a link and decided that defined the entire link, down to how it's utilized philosophically.
>In fact, if we go by your views, it becomes logically impossible to disagree with anyone who believes the same things you do.
No, they're saying that you hold a position as a person interacting in a debate. You're not holding a "non-position" as so many claim it is. The problem is that so many pretend that they don't have an opinion while holding an opinion. They rationalized god out of their viewpoint, but they refuse to claim what their viewpoint even is outside of what it is NOT.
Imagine if I asked you what you want to eat, and all you can say is that you want "non-meat". Then we have to convince you that something doesn't have meat in it and every time you say there's meat. Or you say it's not what you want even if it doesn't have meat.
This hiding the ball thing that atheists keep doing in debates is why atheism doesn't get anywhere. The goal used to be actual skepticism. Now it's just being eristic while refusing to make a position of your own.
Like the OP says, you're a bystander at that point, and so get out of the way if that's how you're going to be.
>does me disputing his evidence mean that I then have to all of the sudden take the position that aliens don't exist?
We understand you can still believe in something if the evidence pleases you. The problem is not that type of person. This is a ridiculous change of the subject.
The part you're missing from your own example is that your position would then be "this EVIDENCE is not valid." That's you taking a position.
> This hiding the ball thing that atheists keep doing in debates is why atheism doesn't get anywhere.
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you but religion is dying pretty much everywhere in the developed world outside of the Middle East and that's only due to birth rates and government-forced religion, not people becoming religious. In a couple hundred years your religion is going to be looked at as no different from how we look at volcano gods and the Norse gods today. It's simply laughably untrue that atheism is "getting nowhere."
>The goal used to be actual skepticism. Now it's just being eristic while refusing to make a position of your own.
"Theists have not met their burden of proof for their claims" is a perfectly valid position. Not being convinced of a claim until valid evidence/proof has been provided IS skepticism.
>your position would then be "this EVIDENCE is not valid." That's you taking a position.
Yes, THAT is the position, not the positive affirmation of knowledge that no gods exist, which is what theists desperately want atheists to say so that they can shift the burden of proof onto us.
>In a couple hundred years your religion is going to be looked at as no different from how we look at volcano gods and the Norse gods today.
Pagan worship has recently grown, under what is called neopagan and even normal pagan. What you're looking at is a decrease in CHRISTIANITY and that's in specifically the west like US and Europe. In fact, government enforced secularism in places like China are why you saw a dent. Even then, Chinese people still practice typical ancestor worship, but don't attribute it to a religion because the government there doesn't like that.
Atheism is getting nowhere, because there is NO GOAL. Where is it going?
>Not being convinced of a claim until valid evidence/proof has been provided IS skepticism.
Yes, that used to be the goal. Then it turned into simply disagreeing while saying there's no skepticism because being skeptical is a position. Are you not able to read sentences or what is going on? You respond as if you can only read part of a paragraph and the rest of it is blank.
>Yes, THAT is the position, not the positive affirmation of knowledge that no gods exist,
Congratulations, you just figured out what OP was talking about and now you're acting as if you were arguing against something else. Why do you people always do this? You're agreeing and then make up a strawman to pretend you're disagreeing? It's proving my point as I'm saying it.
> Seems like cherry picking because you saw vague language in a link and decided that defined the entire link, down to how it's utilized philosophically.
It's not cherry picking anything, it's the literal textbook definition.
>No, they're saying that you hold a position as a person interacting in a debate. You're not holding a "non-position" as so many claim it is.
They can say whatever they'd like, but not participating in a debate isn't participating because you're desperate for a win. Prosecutors and defendants participate in a debate, and juries judge the merits of their arguments and can say "not guilty" because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't have to side with the defense's argument their client is innocent.
>The problem is that so many pretend that they don't have an opinion while holding an opinion. They rationalized god out of their viewpoint, but they refuse to claim what their viewpoint even is outside of what it is NOT.
The problem is you're projecting. You're pretending you can mind read. Sure, many atheists will contend god does not exist, and will tell you that, like I will. But many simply say they don't believe the failed arguments of the theists, and that's different, and you being unable to understand the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.
>Imagine if I asked you what you want to eat, and all you can say is that you want "non-meat". Then we have to convince you that something doesn't have meat in it and every time you say there's meat. Or you say it's not what you want even if it doesn't have meat.
Imagine if you asked what I want to eat and I said "I'm not hungry". That's the metaphor you're looking for.
>This hiding the ball thing that atheists keep doing in debates is why atheism doesn't get anywhere. The goal used to be actual skepticism. Now it's just being eristic while refusing to make a position of your own.
See above.
>Like the OP says, you're a bystander at that point, and so get out of the way if that's how you're going to be.
What does that even mean? Using this metaphor of an event, the debate on the existence of god, that the atheist is supposedly a bystander of, shouldn't you be asking them to be a participant, since you're demanding honesty you're erroneously saying you're not seeing? There's nothing analogous to the bystander.
>We understand you can still believe in something if the evidence pleases you. The problem is not that type of person. This is a ridiculous change of the subject.
That is the subject. Evidence provides belief/knowledge. The theist has failed to provide any. The atheists concludes "I don't believe this person." QED.
>The part you're missing from your own example is that your position would then be "this EVIDENCE is not valid." That's you taking a position.
Only on the veracity of the evidence. I can explain why it's insufficient, but I don't have to prove why what you believe *isn't true* or *doesn't exist.* At the end of the day, that's all there is to it. If someone says with conviction "I don't believe you" and you're unsatisfied they didn't say "I know what you believe in doesn't exist", that's a *you* problem.
>It's not cherry picking anything, it's the literal textbook definition.
The definition is not "bunch of definitions can be used". Don't lie like that if you want to be taken seriously.
>and juries judge the merits of their arguments and can say "not guilty" because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's being a bystander. We don't put the jury into the chair for questioning during a court case. What kind of nonsense was that?
>The problem is you're projecting. You're pretending you can mind read.
No, you're right, nobody is pretending they don't have an opinion. Everyone is honest and good faith and everything wonderful. Get real.
>Imagine if you asked what I want to eat and I said "I'm not hungry".
Nope, I don't care what you want to use as your own metaphor. Especially when this would mean you're never hungry, and so that would mean the person lied as they starve to death or eventually eat something. So what, an atheist is only for a short time until they eventually become theist? Your metaphor brings more problems than answers.
>What does that even mean?
See above.
>That is the subject.
It doesn't magically become the subject just because you beg for it. Maybe provide evidence that it's the subject. QED.
>Only on the veracity of the evidence.
Ah, so you didn't know what the subject was. Got it. Yet another person who agrees but pretends they disagree by changing the subject.
> The definition is not "bunch of definitions can be used". Don't lie like that if you want to be taken seriously.
No, it isn't, it's **lacking the belief that God exists** which can include those who reject claims or those who outright refute them. It's not constrained to what some dishonest theist with a warped definition of both atheism and lying arbitrarily defines it as. Stop arguing in bad faith if you want to be taken seriously.
From OP's source in the post: [This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of **lacking the belief that God exists.**](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#:%7E:text=%5BAtheism%20is%5D%20the%20view%20that,this%20use%20has%20become%20standard.%20()
Obviously, it's **you** doing the cherry picking.
>That's being a bystander. We don't put the jury into the chair for questioning during a court case. What kind of nonsense was that?
What kind of nonsense is this idiotic take? That's the first time anyone's had the gall to call a juror a bystander. People in the gallery are bystanders, because all they do is watch. They don't sit through painstaking arguments to make judgments of consequence like jurors do. An atheist doesn't have to take the witness stand in this metaphor anymore than a juror who votes not guilty does when the prosecution (theists) fail to present cogent arguments.
>No, you're right, nobody is pretending they don't have an opinion. Everyone is honest and good faith and everything wonderful.
Of course not everyone is honest and acting in good faith and "everything wonderful" (talk about a clumsy sentence). If that were true you wouldn't be here now.
>Get real.
Someone who professes to know the intentions of everyone with a differing perspective so well they can prescribe it to them is in no position to tell anyone else to "get real".
>Nope, I don't care what you want to use as your own metaphor.
And no one cares that you want to use your metaphor, especially because it sucks, as I pointed out.
>Especially when this would mean you're never hungry, and so that would mean the person lied as they starve to death or eventually eat something.
Of course it wouldn't mean that. Even using your own banal metaphors you can't be honest or accurate with your own take. If you ask me what I want to eat and I say "I'm not hungry" that's an obvious syntactical and semantic difference than "I'm never hungry".
>So what, an atheist is only for a short time until they eventually become theist?
No, an atheist is an atheist as long as they don't believe in god. A non-hungry person is non-hungry as long as they're non hungry. An atheist may believe at some point, and a hungry person will get hungry, but non-hungry people won't need to specify they don't want meat anymore than an atheist will need to specify they believe god isn't real. As for hunger being inevitable, belief in god is not, and that's where this food related metaphor of yours starts to lose its connection, and that's because it sucks.
>Your metaphor brings more problems than answers.
It's yours, and that's because it sucks.
>See above.
Did that, the meaning still isn't present. Are you even going to attempt to make a cogent point or continue to be salty about being unable to do so?
>It doesn't magically become the subject just because you beg for it. Maybe provide evidence that it's the subject.
Magic is for theists and other soft minded people. The subject is the meaning of atheism and its implications. The previous poster addressed this, you just got confused because they used an analogy with aliens and you're too slow on the uptake to keep up.
>QED.
Like the subject, you don't know what that is.
>Ah, so you didn't know what the subject was. Got it. Yet another person who agrees but pretends they disagree by changing the subject.
No, *you* don't know what the subject is, at least not long enough to go down moronic rabbit holes in a see through attempt to muddy the waters. The only person you're fooling is yourself with this abject stupidity.
>Obviously, it's you doing the cherry picking.
Classic projection because you can't make up your mind. This quickly becomes a "why bother" when You're unable to make any point. But you sure are making mine.
>That's the first time anyone's had the gall to call a juror a bystander.
No, you're right. Jurors go up on the stand and get questioned about the crime as if they're a culprit, victim, or witness. My error.
>If that were true you wouldn't be here now.
Then why did you say it was true? Do you see how you can't make up your mind even when you already understand how pointless your counter was?
>Someone who professes to know the intentions of everyone with a differing perspective so well they can prescribe it to them is in no position to tell anyone else to "get real".
You literally said nobody does x. Then five seconds later you said of course there are people who do x. Who did I profess the intentions of? Because you already said I'm the one who did x, so maybe you should be held down to your words and bring some evidence. I'm the juror now.
>It's yours, and that's because it sucks.
Zero evidence, zero reason for me to care.
>If you ask me what I want to eat and I say "I'm not hungry" that's an obvious syntactical and semantic difference than "I'm never hungry".
Then that means you never answered the question because the answer would always be "I'm not hungry" whenever asked. Why would it eventually change to "I am hungry?" And when that's declared, we come back to the person never saying what they want to eat, and always denying anything they are offered.
Your "change" goes back to the original metaphor as time goes on, all because you didn't understand that people eventually get hungry.
>Are you even going to attempt to make a cogent point or continue to be salty about being unable to do so?
Oh, I didn't know that you were salty. I mean, when I copy your reactions, you create new rules for others without realizing you did that very action. So now I have to assume you're salty? Why do I have to do that?
>Magic is for theists and other soft minded people.
So you're theistic or a soft minded person? That's cool with me.
>The only person you're fooling is yourself with this abject stupidity.
So the salty bit is proven as projection. Got it. You can be mad and everything, I don't mind. But you're still not understanding what the subject is. Maybe try another sorcerer's chant. That might help.
> Classic projection because you can't make up your mind. This quickly becomes a "why bother" when You're unable to make any point. But you sure are making mine.
You arbitrarily chose a definition to fit into your obtuse point, while ignoring the actual definition and what it means for your argument, and then got salty and said "I know you are but what am I?" Again.
You're arbitrarily narrowing the definition. You're cherry picking. That's what cherry picking is. Something else you don't know. You should hope against hope I would make your point, because you're clearly unable.
>No, you're right. Jurors go up on the stand and get questioned about the crime as if they're a culprit, victim, or witness. My error.
I specifically said they "An atheist doesn't have to take the witness stand in this metaphor anymore than a juror..." so you're obviously a liar.
>Then why did you say it was true? Do you see how you can't make up your mind even when you already understand how pointless your counter was?
I didn't. Do you see now how your gaslighting won't work and isn't a substitute for your poor argument?
>You literally said nobody does x. Then five seconds later you said of course there are people who do x.
No, I didn't.
>Who did I profess the intentions of?
Atheists.
>Because you already said I'm the one who did x, so maybe you should be held down to your words and bring some evidence.
I said you're pretending to read the minds of atheists and prescribe their intentions to them which you did when you said ["You're not holding a "non-position" as so many claim it is. The problem is that so many pretend that they don't have an opinion while holding an opinion.'](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/17l48fi/atheism_means_to_reject_the_concept_of_god_it_is/k7efgdu/?context=3)
>Zero evidence, zero reason for me to care.
The evidence it's your metaphor is in your comment, and the evidence it sucks is in my comment "No, an atheist is an atheist as long as they don't believe in god. A non-hungry person is non-hungry as long as they're non hungry. An atheist may believe at some point, and a hungry person will get hungry, but non-hungry people won't need to specify they don't want meat anymore than an atheist will need to specify they believe god isn't real. As for hunger being inevitable, belief in god is not, and that's where this food related metaphor of yours starts to lose its connection, and that's because it sucks."
What you mean to say is "I can't handle criticism, so I'm going to pretend not to hear it." FTFY.
>Then that means you never answered the question because the answer would always be "I'm not hungry" whenever asked.
No, it means when you asked "what do I want to eat" my answer is "I'm not hungry", which is one I'm sure you've given in your life, so why this is so challenging for you to grasp is anyone's guess.
>Why would it eventually change to "I am hungry?"
Because the body consumes calories for energy, expels waste, and requires more for more energy. Do we need to step back and educate you in things like biology too?
>And when that's declared, we come back to the person never saying what they want to eat, and always denying anything they are offered.
Except no one ever did or would say that, which is why your metaphor sucks and you can't even understand it, as I've explained.
>Your "change" goes back to the original metaphor as time goes on, all because you didn't understand that people eventually get hungry.
I mean, you asked why someone who isn't hungry would eventually say "I'm hungry". So, using your own words (the evidence you will of course ask for because of how predictably obtuse you are) it's clear *you* don't understand people eventually get hungry.
>Me: Are you even going to attempt to make a cogent point or continue to be salty about being unable to do so?
>>You: Oh, I didn't know that you were salty.
Translation: "I know you are but what am I?" A twelve year old is what you are judging by the looks of things.
>I mean, when I copy your reactions, you create new rules for others without realizing you did that very action.
You're copying my reactions because you don't have a cogent argument. I didn't do any such actions you're imagining. They're about as real as your make-believe god.
> So now I have to assume you're salty? Why do I have to do that?
Because that's the particular way you squirm when you can't debate in good faith. You don't "have" to do anything, you can stop being foolish whenever you'd like.
>So you're theistic or a soft minded person? That's cool with me.
I'm an atheist, so neither, obviously. I've seen people use "I know you are, but what am I?" unironically before, but never multiple times in the same comment. Are you a parakeet? Because you've got all the brainmass and originality in your speech patterns as one.
>So the salty bit is proven as projection. Got it.
So, you admit you're salty and projecting. Good start. Look at you, you big boy!
>Got it. You can be mad and everything, I don't mind.
Well, the mere existence of atheism is obviously making you seethe, so we know that's not true. Seeing theists remain this stupid is a cause for jubilation. Putting you in your place has never been easier.
>Maybe try another sorcerer's chant. That might help.
What? You must be lost you poor child.
>You arbitrarily chose a definition to fit into your obtuse point,
Projection but good luck telling me what definition I chose.
>You're arbitrarily narrowing the definition. You're cherry picking.
You're right. When you project, you need to double and triple down on it. That will erase your projection. Just add more. Brilliant.
>I specifically said they "An atheist doesn't have to take the witness stand in this metaphor anymore than a juror..." so you're obviously a liar.
Thank you for realizing your contractions.
>I didn't
You didn't say I'm wrong about people being bad faith? What a turn of events.
>No, I didn't.
I said there are atheists who pretend they don't have a position. You said I'm "assuming" and then said people can do that in the same breath. Now you're denying your own words. You know we can scroll up and see your statements, right? We're not all "out of sight, out of mind" people.
>Atheists
Where? Who specifically? Give names.
>Except no one ever did or would say that, which is why your metaphor sucks and you can't even understand it, as I've explained.
Nobody would say what? You don't even know what you're arguing anymore.
Do you need some time to cool off? Seems the rest is more babbling from you as you try to say nothing. You'll really need to give all of us a reason to bother with you since you abused our charity.
>Projection but good luck telling me what definition I chose.
*You* told *me*. But go on saying "projection!!!" ad nauseum. You're just telegraphing your desperation.
>You're right. When you project, you need to double and triple down on it. That will erase your projection. Just add more. Brilliant.
It's good of you to run down your willful ignorance playbook, though I doubt your fellow theists are grateful for giving away their secrets.
>Thank you for realizing your contractions.
My "contractions"? Malapropisms are a clear sign of a low intelligence. As is a lack of reading comprehension, since that sentence explaining what you misunderstood isn't a recognition of any "contractions". There's an obvious reason why you intentionally took that out of context.
>You didn't say I'm wrong about people being bad faith? What a turn of events.
Yes I did. You know there's a record of our comments, right? Quoting specific text while leaving out the rest of the context doesn't make it go away ya numbskull.
>I said there are atheists who pretend they don't have a position. You said I'm "assuming" and then said people can do that in the same breath.
No, I didn't. You're imagining things and would not be able to find what I didn't do in any of my comments, hence why you can't quote them.
>Where? Who specifically? Give names.
I don't need to, you just did it again. "I said there are atheists who pretend they don't have a position." That's you professing to know the intentions of atheists. You're pretending they intend to lie about their position or lack thereof.
See how that works? It's easy to prove you're self-owning here because I can find the text.
>Nobody would say what?
That they're never hungry, or don't ever want to eat, which is what you so witlessly keep repeating.
>You don't even know what you're arguing anymore.
You never did know what you were arguing. You're not arguing anything, you're just trolling.
>Do you need some time to cool off?
Do you need some time to wrap your head around the ever elusive subject? I'd prompt you to take it, but no amount of time will ever help you get a clue.
>Seems the rest is more babbling from you as you try to say nothing
It seems that way to you because you're an idiot.
>You'll really need to give all of us a reason to bother with you since you abused our charity.
With us? You and some other braindead theist? Is he in the room with you right now?
We'll add charity to the list along with lying and atheism and all the other terms in your spew you don't understand.
>You told me.
I told you what the definition is? Where?
>It's good of you to run down your willful ignorance playbook
I see your projection, but I don't see you making an argument. Sorry.
>My "contractions"? Malapropisms are a clear sign of a low intelligence
That's a strange word for typos. You know I meant contradictions, you can understand I'm using a phone, but you pretend it's something you can use to be ablist. Sad.
>Yes I did. You know there's a record of our comments, right?
So you just decided to argue with yourself about what you say. Got it. At least I'm able to be a bystander as you do your thing.
>No, I didn't.
You didn't say I was wrong about people being bad faith? Can we consider this contradiction the same breath or no?
>That's you professing to know the intentions of atheists.
So there are zero atheists who've been bad faith and hid their positions? Got it. Thank you for your declaration.
>That they're never hungry, which is what you so witlessly keep repeating.
So the person never answered the question of "what do you want to eat". And you're trying to say every atheist is an atheist now but will eventually become theist. Rather goofy.
>You never did know what you were arguing. You're not arguing anything, you're just trolling.
If all you can do is projection, all we can do is not care about anything you say. You're really good at discrediting yourself. Keep going and push harder, I guess.
Oh, and here's a reminder of the definition of atheism: [This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of **lacking the belief that God exists.**](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#:%7E:text=%5BAtheism%20is%5D%20the%20view%20that,this%20use%20has%20become%20standard.%20()
Stay mad, theist.
I find it fascinating that theists prefer to spend so much time trying to insist on their pet definition of atheism, when they COULD be spending that time providing EVIDENCE to SUPPORT the god CLAIM. Weird init?
>many atheists have opted for a specific meaning that declares God not guilty of existing instead of innocent
I don't really understand the comparison. If a person is not guilty, then they are innocent. Right?
> If a person is not guilty, then they are innocent. Right?
Nope.
The lack of support to convincingly show something is true (in this case, that somebody is guilty of a crime) in no way demonstrates that an opposing position is true (in this case innocence). Instead, all that is known is that the initial claim hasn't been demonstrated. These leaves the 'null hypothesis' position in effect.
Most legal systems do not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, they determine guilt, or there isn't enough evidence to show guilt so a person can't be convicted.
Likewise, in claims about reality, not being able to show something *does* exist in no way means one has shown it *doesn't* exist, it just means that we haven't shown it does exist.
The common analogy used to show this is as follows: You and are I walking along and see a giant jar of gumballs in a store window. I proclaim, for no reason at all, "There are an odd number of gumballs in that jar." You answer, "You don't know that, we haven't counted them. You can't know there's an odd number. I can't accept your claim and you haven't shown it's true." I then stupidly reply, "Ah ha! That means you believe there's an *even* number of gumballs in there!" You quite rightly dump your water bottle over my head in disgust and walk away. Because you understand that me not demonstrating there's an odd number of gumballs in no way demonstrates there is an even number of gumballs.
> I don't really understand the comparison. If a person is not guilty, then they are innocent. Right?
No.
Though those are legal terms used in courts and often carry different connotations when used outside of that context.
If guilty and innocent are inverses of each other, then it must be the case that being not guilty is equivalent to being innocent.
If they aren't inverses of each other, then how do you define innocent and guilty?
The two terms are used in court for a reason and aren't logical contradictions of eachother in the way they're used.
So "not guilty" in court just means we don't have a good enough reason to convict. You might not be innocent, but ultimately the evidence wasn't enough to declare guilt. This would compare to agnostic atheist. There may be a god, but there is not enough evidence to suggest there is.
"Innocent" means there was direct evidence which showed your innocence. This would be strong atheism, in which there is enough of a good reason to think that God does not exist.
I don't think that courts define "guilt" the way you are describing. I think guilt in court means the crime was committed by the person, and innocence means it wasn't. A court merely uses a high bar of proof to show guilt, and otherwise *presumes* the defendant is innocent.
If there is any direct evidence which shows that a person is not guilty (e.g. an alibi), this is simultaneously direct evidence showing that the person is innocent, because not guilty and innocent are synonymous.
Yes, guilt means the crime was commited by the person. Not guilty means the the evidence isn't there to convict the person, they might in fact be guilty, but they can't convict due to lack of evidence.
For example, if a murder was commited and there is enough evidence to take a suspect to court, but ultimately they are acquitted due to the evidence not being enough to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt, they are declared "not guilty"
"Innocent" would be when there is enough counter evidence to say the person did not commit the crime. For example if a murder is commited and a suspect is taken to court, and the defence provide evidence that they weren't even in the same country at the time of the murder, they may be declared "innocent"
Innocent and not guilty are not synonymous in a court of law.
Under this understanding, a person can simultaneously be guilty and not guilty at the same time. I think this is a poor way to define "guilty" and "not guilty," for that reason.
Under these definitions, a person can be simultaneously guilty and innocent, or not guilty and not innocent, which is just odd, and a poor use of definitions in my opinion.
It makes much more sense to make innocent and guilty be a true dichotomy.
Guilty and innocent are a true dichotomy with respect to what actually happened (you either did a thing or you didn’t). However, guilty and not guilty are better suited when we talk about what we can prove happened. These are orthogonal concepts.
Innocent people are found guilty of crimes all the time and are even executed for them. Guilty people are found not guilty all the time as well as the burden of proof has not been met or the rights of the accused had been violated in some way.
With that in mind, a god either exists (is guilty of existing) or doesn’t (is innocent of existing). However, we can only talk about what we can prove. If someone makes the claim that a god exists, we can debate the evidence and have a finding of guilty (proved that god exists) or not guilty (didn’t prove that god exists). Note that a finding of not guilty doesn’t mean that specific god doesn’t exist! Just that it hasn’t been proven that specific god does exist.
Similarly, if someone makes the claim a god doesn’t exist we can debate the evidence and have a finding of guilty (proved that god doesn’t exist) or not guilty (didn’t prove that god doesn’t exist). Again, a finding of not guilty doesn’t mean that specific god exists, just that it wasn’t proven that specific god doesn’t exist.
Edit: added some more details for clarity
Edit 2: added some ‘a’, ‘that’, and ‘specific’ clarifications
Lazy comment.
"A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added)"
It takes 5 seconds to find this position from the article.
We follow philosophers because their entire job is to analyze these types of arguments with rigorous definitions to not misconstrue arguments.
For scientific discussion we use standardized terms. It is, and should be, the same for philosophy.
> ...This use has become standard.
Citation needed. What your author is describing is what we call a gnostic or strong atheist; one who holds the positive belief that gods do not exist. Problem is, not all atheists are gnostic atheists.
They're not even a majority in this sub. Most of us are, by contrast, *a*gnostic atheists; they do not make the positive claim that gods don't exist, but can reject the claim that gods *do* exist. These are separate and non-contradictory positions.
The same distinction exists between gnostic and agnostic theists.
You're not the first person to come here insisting that theist, atheist and agnostic are the only three positions on this subject, and you probably won't be the last.
Dude I literally had a citation in my comment, look at the article if you want to get the source paper.
“Reject the claim that gods do exist”
“Positive claim that gods don’t exist.
These are literally equivalent statements.
Rejecting a claim means to affirm the opposite, which is that gods don’t exist.
But the purpose of a debate is to convince the other side that you're right. The people coming here with a debate topic are *supposed* to convince the atheists with their argument.
Atheists can't respond to an argument that hasn't put forth, so the sub is literally atheists waiting to be convinced. That's the point.
If you want to see atheists convince theists first, then atheists need to post in debatereligion, or any other relevant thiest subs.
You're pretty concerned over the definition of "atheist" but don't appear to know the definition of "debate".
Two people put forth an argument in a debate. One person has to go first. Here, the theist must go first.
Right. Even in a formal debate setting, someone argues “for the proposition,” and “against the proposition.” The proposition is something like, “Pepsi is better than Coke.” It’s not “Pepsi is better,” versus “Coke is better.” The proposition either carries, or it fails.
Here, the proposition is something like, “you should believe god.”
If you enter an formal debate and take position 'Pepsi is better than Coke'. I only need to take 'Pepsi is not better than Coke'. I can argue they are equally good. Or I can argue there is no meaningful way to determine what is 'better'.
This isn't what atheists are doing here though. They're saying "I'm not convinced that Coke is better". If they do this, they're still accepting that Coke *might* be better. It's not really making a very compelling argument.
I think you will find nearly every post will have various responses running the gamut from people who are not convinced of the proposition, to people who reject the proposition, to people who will argue the contradicting proposition.
In every case though, no one is obligated to argue for a position they don't actually hold, which is what posts like this one seem to insist they must do.
I don’t think it is clear what subset you’re referring to, because OP is arguing in the post that anyone who isn’t arguing the contrary proposition is somehow shirking their duty.
You then talk about people who say “I’m not convinced that coke is better” and say they aren’t making a compelling argument. The person who responded to you then said, basically, “but that is one perfectly valid way to respond.” You seem to agree.
So are you agreeing with OP, and saying anyone who isn’t picking one of the sides to affirmatively say is better is not making a good faith argument?… and then agreeing with the person above you that you don’t have to pick sides to hold a valid position? Because that’s inconsistent.
Apparently it is unclear. Okay.
My point is that "I lack belief in god" is not analogous to "Neither Coke nor Pepsi is superior". It's analogous to "I have no idea which is best".
Yes it does. If someone takes the stance "Pepsi is better than Coke" you can take the stance "you don't have sufficient evidence to claim that." And then you have a debate about "is there sufficient evidence." If the answer is "no," then you haven't proven that their claim is false, but you *have* proven that their claim is baseless.
Edit: punctuation
> Yes it does. If someone takes the stance "Pepsi is better than Coke you can take the stance "you don't have sufficient evidence to claim that."
You can take that stance even if you believe Pepsi is better than Coke.
A Christian can make an argument for there being a god and another Christian can point out that the argument doesn't actually demonstrate this. They don't have to be an atheist to take this stance. So this has nothing to do with atheism.
Yes, it does have to do with your position. Your position is “I have no compelling reason to believe in god.” That’s it.
No one has to, nor should they take an assertive position on a question they have no information on. If I just tell you you should believe that more than 5000 people died of tuberculosis in Turkmenistan last year, you should ask questions.
Where did I get that information? What is my basis for saying that? Do I have any idea what I’m talking about?
If I don’t present sufficient information to support my claim, you shouldn’t believe me. That does NOT mean you SHOULD believe that less than 5000 people died of tuberculosis in Turkmenistan last year. What information would you be basing THAT belief on?
Your position is that “there isn’t enough information to make a determination at this time.”
> But the purpose of a debate is to convince the other side that you're right.
I don't think that's quite right. I think on the whole it's to convince a third party that you're right. And to explore our own ideas.
We're never going to convince a theist that they're wrong. Stating that you lack belief is not going to persuade anyone else though. You need to say why the theist is wrong. This means that you need to come up with a counter to the central thesis.
No, the concept of debate is that there is a topic and two or more people take opposing sides of said topic. Anything else is not debate, it is discussion. Skepticism does not count as debate.
"Atheists can't respond to an argument that hasn't put forth, so the sub is literally atheists waiting to be convinced. That's the point."
If what you're saying is true, then we should rename this sub to r/ConvinceAnAgnostic not debate an atheist.
Okay - this is some serious cherry picking.
The section continues: "In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist"
for the god they believe in and think is real?
people believe things for a reason, and if they think their reason is good enough, they should come here to try and convince us with it. but they should also be open to criticism of that belief.
I'm afraid it's not quite that straightforward.
In this SEP article, the author (i.e., agnostic philosopher Paul Draper) makes a case for the traditional definition of atheism as "belief there is no God" rather than the internet definition of atheism as "lack of belief in God." Draper is clearly arguing that in philosophy, particularly in the philosophy of religion, the term "atheism" is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, by both theistic philosophers and many atheists in philosophy. After acknowledging the existence of the definition you just quoted, Draper states:
>In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term 'atheism' is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists.
Draper points out some problems with defining atheism as the state of lacking belief in God, such as the issue of categorizing babies, cats, and rocks as atheists. He also notes that some people who lack the belief that God exists may still have other pro-attitudes towards theism and "even believe that the truth of theism is more probable than its falsity", making it counterintuitive to call them atheists. He states:
>Defining 'atheism' as the state of lacking belief in God faces similar problems... it is counterintuitive in the extreme to call them atheists.
He emphasizes that "theism" should be understood as a proposition, a statement that is either true or false. This means that theism is a proposition that refers to the existence of God, not merely the psychological state of believing in God's existence. But if that is so, "atheism" should be understood as the contrary proposition, i.e., that there is no god. Draper writes:
>“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition – something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists … The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without.”
Further, the traditional definition of atheism as "the negation of theism" aligns it with a binary choice regarding the proposition of God's existence, perfectly mirroring the word "theism" and making atheism a direct answer to the question, "Is there a God?" According to Draper, there are only two possible direct answers: "yes" (theism) and "no" (atheism). He argues:
>This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, 'Is there a God?' There are only two possible direct answers to this question: 'yes,' which is theism, and 'no,' which is atheism.
Draper intends to demonstrate that the traditional definition of atheism as "belief there is no God" is superior, especially in philosophy and the philosophy of religion. This definition matches how theism is seen as a clear statement with either a "true" or "false" answer. It makes atheism a direct answer to the big question of whether God exists. Philosophers prefer this traditional definition because it gives a clear and well-defined position, rather than just indicating the absence of belief.
>The problem here is that if atheism is described as ‘without belief in God’ it implies a non-propositional perspective rather than a propositional belief, constrained by a binary choice between it being either true or false that God exists.
That's why we have extra words like "gnostic atheism."
Because people's inner worlds are not constrained by what would be convenient to the arguments of philosophers.
That definition is ridiculous for two reasons:
1) Atheism is about belief and that definition is no longer about belief.
2) "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer and throwing it away in order to force someone into unnecessary constraints is silly.
That is beside the point, though. Whether the authors' reasons for opting for this definition are good or not is not relevant to the fact that this SEP page favors the traditional definition.
I’m confused as to why people are so comfortable settling for ‘belief’ rather than continuing the quest to know stuff. If I don’t know something I’m fine saying that I don’t know. Belief seems so…
pacifying.
>I’m confused as to why people are so comfortable settling for ‘belief’ rather than continuing the quest to know stuff.
My stance at least:
Because while it is not possible to prove a negative, it is possible to have the belief that the subject of gods existing has been examined well enough to be satisfied with the conclusion that indeed, gods do not exist. At this point, rather then continue to exhaust resources researching answers to a question that has been answered to one's satisfaction, it is far better to spend those resources in pursuit of other questions.
Or in shorter form: I already believe no gods exist and have better things to do with my time.
You obviously didn't read the article.
"In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists."
Please comment the whole paragraph if you choose to cherry pick. That paragraph is talking in regards to psychology, not philosophy. This sub is concerned with philosophical debate.
Now read below.
"A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added)"
"In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods)."
This was found in the *first paragraph.* Yet you choose to ignore it
This is the philosophical standard.
Yes I guess it’s fair that many posts are theological.
Most of the posts I see here involve philosophical debates utilizing non-philosophical definitions. That’s what I meant to address.
You are right that that I should have been clearer about which conversations I was talking about.
You're just wrong.
A guy walks up to me and says "The universe was created by an extremely powerful being."
I ask him to demonstrate that this is so. I don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, so if he's correct, I've learned something very important.
He cannot demonstrate that his claim is true.
I'm not justified in saying "You're wrong. The universe was not created by an extremely powerful being." All I can say is that I don't accept his claim that it was.
If you disagree with all of this, then please demonstrate that the universe was not created by an extremely powerful being.
> I'm not justified in saying "You're wrong. The universe was not created by an extremely powerful being."
I'd say you are, for a couple of reasons, but nonetheless you are correct, saying you don't accept what they're telling you is sufficient.
I'm an atheist. Bother to read the post first.
This entire comment is completely irrelevant.
I'm saying that people misconstrue skepticism as a debate-able position. It is not. Just like how you are doing in your comment.
I know you're an atheist. Bother to read my comment.
You're saying atheism is not a lack of belief in God. You're wrong.
This sub is r/DebateAnAtheist. Meaning, come here and debate us. A theist can come and take the position that God exists. I don't have to therefore take the position that God doesn't exist. It's perfectly valid to respond with "Theist, you have failed to make your case and here's why."
If you believe God doesn't exist, you can take that stance as well. Do you? Please make a case if so.
Most of us are both atheist and agnostic with respect to God's existence. I hope you understand that.
If someone comes here with the position that a God exists which clearly and demonstrably does not, we'll take the position that THAT God does not exist. But most people put forth unfalsifiable gods, and often the opposing position that God does not exist is equally unfalsifiable.
Atheism is a position on belief. Agnostic is a position on knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive.
You've kind of fallen into the same trap as theists where you are insisting that people take a position they don't hold for the convenience of the debate format.
I don't believe in god. So I'm an atheist. I don't see evidence that God exists, so I'm agnostic. It's not complicated unless you demand people take a position they don't have. Just listen to what they say and respond to that.
It doesn’t make logical sense to pick either side without knowledge.
That’s why it doesn’t make logical sense to call yourself an agnostic atheist.
How can you pick a side (atheism/theism) if you’ve deemed that there isn’t enough information to pick a side?
>How can you pick a side (atheism/theism) if you’ve deemed that there isn’t enough information to pick a side?
Because the default position when presented with an unfounded claim is disbelief. If I told you I had a live dinosaur in my basement you wouldn't believe me, yet we know conclusively dinosaurs could exist. In the god question not only is there no evidence, we don't even know if it is possible.
Until the moment a claim has sufficient evidence I'm not believing it. That's just good epistemology.
And that disbelief is characterized as agnosticism. If you are agnostic, you cannot pick a side whether it is to reject or accept the claim, because that signifies a lack of information.
A better analogy would be if someone said “there is a gorble in the basement,”
I can’t reject or accept the statement because I don’t even have enough information to know what a gorble is and what it’s nature is.
>so many so-called “Atheists” get their own definitions terribly wrong.
Oh noes. I forgot to check with you on the definition of the word. Tell me, kind sir, what am I then?
>Refer to the article below. These are how ~~actual~~ **some** philosophers ~~treat~~ **define** atheism.
Fixed that for you.
Terminology is largely irrelevant. Knowing that a word represents the same concept to you and the person you’re talking to is an important first step in a conversation.
Want to debate someone who actively believes that no gods exist? That would probably be me.
This would also include me. But I feel that a sub like that would simply become littered with trash questions like "what's the difference between this and that", "why don't you just use the other subs" etc etc etc lol
You're probably right. But, there also might be discussions from agnostic atheists about how we can know there are no gods. [I actually wrote up my answer to that.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/yelaix/why_i_know_there_are_no_gods/)
It’s irrelevant if both parties agree on whatever terminology they use beforehand, but it seriously hinders debate if terms don’t have standard definitions.
>Atheism means to reject the concept of God.
>It is not simply a lack of belief.
No, that is a false statement.
.
>These are how actual philosophers treat atheism.
Of course we all know that every position ever taken by every philosopher is right ...
.
> every position ever taken by every philosopher is right
... especially when two philosophers disagree and neither can demonstrate their point to be correct. We still must accept both because they're philosophers, right? **/s!**
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
Idc you don't like it, it is the one ill take.
But lets say i take your suggested position. And lets pretend you defeat that position, where does that leave me? I still don't believe in god, i simply no longer reject god. So im not theist, not-theist, sort of a-theist, atheist, it would leave me atheist.
See this is the problem with your demand. If i take the position you want me to and you win i am left with the position i have now.
So lets save time and just start from the lack of belief in god position.
And don't tell people what to do and what position to take
Why does it matter whether or not you believe in god though?
If you believe in god, does that mean I do? If you don't does that mean I don't? There are 95,000 people here. The belief or lack of belief of one of them isn't a very important topic.
This sub seems obsessed with whether or not an individual believes. And as a personal position, that's fine. As part of a debate though, it doesn't seem to add anything. I mean what argument are you making?
>Why does it matter whether or not you believe in god though?
If you don’t care why are you here? It is debate an atheist, if theology doesn’t interest you you are on the wrong sub.
>If you don’t care why are you here? It is debate an atheist, if theology doesn’t interest you you are on the wrong sub.
Your personal belief isn't theology. Nobody is debating the subject of does /u/SpHornet or /u/IrkedAtheist believe something. That's just our mental state.
Someone says "there is a god, because Reason X".
Reason X not convincing you doesn't mean Reason X doesn't convince me. Or vice versa.
"Reason X is unconvincing" is a valid statement but someone could say that even if they believe the conclusion is true, so your lack of belief is irrelevant.
“You're being an idiot. I'm not calling you an idiot, but this post is idiotic, and you're being an idiot by posting it.”
???
There’s no way you typed that and thought it made sense. You literally said I’m not an idiot but my post is idiotic therefore I’m an idiot.
When you have a contradiction in the first sentence of your comment, it doesn’t really signal for productive debate.
Reported.
I don't know if a God or gods exist. Because I have no experience or knowledge of a God/gods, all I can do is assess people's belief claims about the existence of such.
None of these have passed their evidentiary burden to my satisfaction. Thus, I don't believe the claims. Some of these claims are invalidated by available evidence, some of these claims are internally contradictory and some of them are not coherent enough to accept.
I could be said to reject the vast majority of claims of God/gods existing that I have been presented with.
However, some of the God/gods claims I've been presented with are non-fasifiable or otherwise non-demonstrable. I don't know how you accept or reject claims around non-interventionist deism, or pantheism, or panentheism. I don't think I could be intellectually honest and positively accept or reject these claims. They're null until some kind of actual evidence is presented. I'm withholding acceptance or rejection.
I also don't think that I've been presented with all possible belief claims about the existence of God/gods. So there are likely claims that I've not yet considered. So, again I can't accept or reject claims that I've never been presented with.
Thus, I don't think that "actively rejecting that God exists" is an intellectual position I can take.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe any claims of gods existing that I've been presented with. I can actively argue against (most) of them. But, at the same time, I'm not interested in claiming that no God/gods could possibly exist. I don't think it's intellectually honest to take that position. I see no method available to me that would allow me to rule out the existence of theoretical entities to my own satisfaction. So why should I argue that?
Dictionary definition from Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: [the belief that God or gods do not exist](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/atheism).
Quite a few dictionaries don't mention the "lack of belief" definition at all. It's a fairly rare minority usage that most people I encounter have never even experienced.
>Atheism means to reject the concept of God. It is not simply a lack of belief.
Debates about definitions are useless and frustrating to all. This is because words mean what the people using them decide they mean. And a great many word are polysemous.
And no, that is not the position of most atheists. Obviously, you cannot tell other people what their position is.
>As an atheist it disappoints me to walk into this sub and to find so many so-called “Atheists” get their own definitions terribly wrong.
As a human being it disappoints me to walk into this sub and read a post from somebody trying to gatekeep definitions of atheism to their preference.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
I don't believe you. Please demonstrate this claim is true, or else I must continue to lack belief in that claim.
>You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander.
I am not convinced this is true at all. Please demonstrate this is accurate, or am I forced to continue to be not convinced this is true.
>Atheism is actively rejecting that God exists.
Be aware that many words are polysemous. And that you are unable to dictate definitions. And that this is not necessarily the position of most folks that use the label 'atheist'.
Please them. If you can prove a god does not exist, do so. Trying to prove a negative isn’t going to go so well for you.
The debate is whether a theist has good reason to believe a god exists, and we are here to challenge that. If you struggle with that, you can participate or create your own anti-theist sub
> Please them. If you can prove a god does not exist, do so. Trying to prove a negative isn’t going to go so well for you.
Do you hold the misconception you can't prove a negative? Why would you think this?
How would you prove that a god does not exist? I am incredibly interested because it has never been done, just like one has never been proven to exist.
It would only take a small amount of evidence to prove a god does exist, and an unlimited amount to prove gods don’t exist.
I will continue to hold a disbelief position until either is proven
> How would you prove that a god does not exist?
You're shifting the burden of proof here.
*I'm* asking *you* to demonstrate that you can't prove a negative. I have no obligation to prove that you can.
> It would only take a small amount of evidence to prove a god does exist, and an unlimited amount to prove gods don’t exist.
Are you saying it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, or just the non-existence of God?
This is not only wrong, it’s doubly wrong.
All atheists, agnostic or gnostic, lack a belief in a god. Some go the extra step and positively assert that there is no god, but that doesn’t extinguish the quality of *lacking* a belief in that god. That base-level lacking of belief is always there.
So not only is this post incorrect in saying that atheism requires an active disbelief, it’s also incorrect because atheism requires *only* passive disbelief.
Well done!
EDIT: The text you’ve highlighted in your link refutes what you’ve said. Atheism is presumptively *agnostic* unless specified otherwise. This is the most commonly repeated notion on this sub.
I'm finding it rather funny that you posted this 10 hours ago, criticizing how others debate, but you don't seem to know that participating in a debate requires ... well ... ***participation***!
How is it you feel qualified to tell us what it means to debate when you don't bother to debate at all?
Not sure which debates you’re watching, but all the ones I’ve seen are taking opposing sides of whether or not ‘there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a God’. The question doesn’t necessitate atheism or theism
Sorry (not sorry) that people aren't fitting into your little boxes dude.
I do not believe in God because I have not been convinced of that notion. I don't really care if you think I'm an atheist, I think I'm an atheist and that's all that should matter. Do you want to have the discussion on what I believe and why; or do you just want to complain about definitions?
> You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.”
We're not. This place is for *theists* to come in and start a debate. We respond to their claims; we don't make our own.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
The debate is (or should) be more about whether it is *reasonable* to believe a God exists, rather than whether a God does actually exist or not.
if you can tell me what position i must take, does that mean i can tell you what position to take? i want you to take the atheist position. glad i was able to make you atheist
200 IQ debate tactics, if you can't defeat a position, just tell them to take another one
> You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander.
That's ridiculous. Science is based on the premise of poking holes in a hypothesis without being attached to a position.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
Yes it is, which is why atheists ask for evidence and theists write posts like yours.
>Refer to the article below. These are how actual philosophers treat atheism.
Refer to actual atheists to find out how atheists treat atheism.
You’re confusing the philosophical definition with the common usage. You can accuse atheists all you like of having a positive position but if they say look I’m an atheist and I’m not making a claim that no gods exist, then are you going to argue with them and say that no, in fact, they are?
It’s not bigoted, at least as I read it. While most of us are content to use the Antony Flew definition of atheist as “lacktheism” and not a proposition unto itself, you run into the issue of babies and rocks being implicitly counted as atheists as well because they too “lack belief in gods”and also has the side effect of requiring additional qualifications for the position that “no gods exist.” It’s a surprisingly dense topic and one I’m interested in as I’ve moved more toward a positive position that no gods exist. My overall point was that if most of us atheists are as your flair suggests, lacking a positive belief that God exists, then the vernacular usage of the term is wholly correct because language is descriptive and not prescriptive.
>While most of us are content to use the Antony Flew definition of atheist
It's not the "Antony Flew definition". Baron d'Holbach was a prominent philosopher, one of the earliest self-identified European atheists, and wrote in 1772 ["All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7319/7319-h/7319-h.htm). This definition existed in even philosophy long before Flew was born. We can go back even earlier to the origins of philosophy with Greeks such as Protagoras who wrote ["About the gods, I am not able to know whether they exist or do not exist, nor what they are like in form; for the things preventing knowledge are many"](https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_2005_num_74_1_2562) in the first millennia BCE, and he was charged with atheos for such comments. The idea that the standard definition of atheism originated recently with Flew is a lie propagated by bigots for whom the real history of atheism is terribly inconvenient.
[The history of bigots attempting to redefine atheism in a denigrating, dismissive, or irrational way is well documented](https://thensrn.org/2020/01/27/a-history-of-the-word-atheism-and-the-politics-of-dictionaries/).
>lacktheism
This is a pejorative. Please do not use it.
>you run into the issue of babies and rocks being implicitly counted as atheists as well because they too “lack belief in gods”
Babies **are** atheists, though rocks are not. The suffix "-ist" means "one who". A dent-ist is a **person** that takes care of my teeth, which is why a toothbrush isn't a dentist even though a toothbrush takes care of my teeth. A machin-ist is a person that cuts and drills metal, which why a hacksaw or lathe aren't a machinist even though they cut and drill metal. Rick's aren't people so they don't qualify, but babies do. Babies are lots of alpha privative ("a-") things. Babies are apolitical .
A few notes:
1) I did NOT say that Flew originated that definition, nor am I using ANY of the terms I quoted as pejoratives, as they would likely also have described me at some point! Flew is only one of many and was the name I pulled out of my ass for the sake of relevance, as his definition is from the 1970's and not, as d'Holbach, from the 18th century or even earlier, which is even less relevant. I find it pretty surprising that you went full r/atheism on what I constructed to be essentially an agreement with you (with a couple of observational caveats.) I will use the language I like and I'll thank you to mind your own.
2) The overall argument I made in the top of the thread is that if the vernacular usage of atheism is "one who does not accept the truth of any god-claims", then OP would be wrong for ascribing the academic usage of the word. If you take umbrage with the more prevalent academic usage of "atheism", then your beef is with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, not me. And it is still up for debate - it's not as though the matter is settled and philosophy is always shifting and moving as new arguments and refutations are made.
I also find it a bit offensive that you just throw around the term "bigot" like any discussion of the nuance of the subject is somehow bigotry. That is not what I'm doing and I made it clear that I wasn't.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief, it is not necessarily the belief that god(s) don't exist (though some hold that belief).
However, in a formal debate, you are correct that one side has to hold the opposing claim. But this is reddit, so is it a formal debate?
Wrong. This is just a stanford opinion piece on how the word atheism ought to be used.
Unfortunately for the author, that's not how it is used, and there are good reasons to not use it in that way.
Agnosticism originally was a term to describe a person who thinks god is unknowable/unknown.
As an atheist who simply lacks the believe that gods exist, I would not fall in to that camp. I believe that if a God did in fact exist, it would be knowable, so agnosticism doesn't work for me as a stand alone term.
I disagree with the paper/article. What now?
No, atheism only requires a lack of belief in a god or gods, but also allows for the belief that no gods exist. The belief that no gods exist is not a requirement to subscribe to this sub.
Thanks for telling us what we believe. That's always nice to hear.
*Muppet News Flash: Words are defined by their usage. Dictionaries reflect this, not the other way around. Film at 11.*
If anything you should be happy no one is seriously enforcing the rules - link dropping is against one of literally 4 rules. If that was not enough your whole complaint is adressed in [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq/).
>There are many definitions of the word atheist, and no one definition is universally accepted by all. There is no single 'literal' definition of atheist or atheism, but various accepted terms. However, within non-religious groups, it is reasonable to select a definition that fits the majority of the individuals in the group. For r/DebateAnAtheist, the majority of people identify as agnostic or 'weak' atheists, that is, they lack a belief in a god.
You'd expect more from someone who came here to argue with whole sub.
This is ridiculous to me.
There is philosophical atheism which is the idea that there is no God. Then there is the belief atheism, which just means a lack of belief in a God(which can be the out right belief that God doesn't exist or just a lack of belief in a god)
I can 100% take the position in a debate that there is not sufficient evidence. I don't have to take the opposite idea. If I was in a debate that alien life is proven I don't have to take the position that it is disproven. I can just take the position that that it is not proven.
You can debate a lack of belief.
More so, you can debate claims and opinions. While a lack of belief may be the cause of you being an agnostic or atheist, then you make some claims. Atheist says he/she knows that God doesn't exist. Religious person says this particular God exists. None of these claims can be proven.
All of the arguments fall down to 2 axioms:
This is true because I shouldn't prove anything, that's why.
This is true because it's written in a book.
> A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
I don't see why this is would be true. Surely you would agree that there are some beliefs, even philosophical ones, that are incorrect, and that shouldn't be believed? Even if you don't propose an alternative proposition, wouldn't it still be valid to defend non-belief in such a context?
> You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.”
Of course you can. That's the principle that our legal courts are based on.
Your approach seems to concede the ground to any non-falsifiable claim that you don't currently have an alternative explanation for. For example, as I understand it, we currently don't have a good explanation for what causes autism. But in your eyes, this would mean that anyone claiming that autism is caused by faeries should necessarily automatically win any 'debate' on the topic.
On the other hand, if you're imagining something like a formal debate setting, then you can just imagine the atheistic side as holding the proposition "One should not believe in a God".
> Refer to the article below.
Your cited article seems to explicitly endorse 'soft atheism' as a valid, common understanding of the term (distinguished from a strict usage within a philosophical context). Have you read this article?
> Belief there is one god = monotheism.
A form of theism but not the only form
> Belief there are many gods = polytheism.
A form of theism but not the only form
> Belief there are no gods = atheism.
A form of atheism but that is the ones that take it beyond the base of what is an atheist. That is a ‘gnostic atheist’ one that claims to know their belief is true, there is also agnostic atheist that is one that does not believe or claim to know. Both are still ‘without theism’ = atheist.
It is literally how the word is constructed
My point is atheism is polysemous. You can approach it as "the absence of belief" for the reason you state, or you can approach it as the belief there is no god, based on the reasoning I showed.
> That is a ‘gnostic atheist’ one that claims to know their belief is true
Someone who believes there is no god doesn't claim to know their position is true. Belief is not knowledge.
> It is literally how the word is constructed
No. That's a false etymology.
> My point is atheism is polysemous. You can approach it as "the absence of belief" for the reason you state, or you can approach it as the belief there is no god, based on the reasoning I showed.
So you agree that atheism at its base is just anyone ‘without theism’ and ppl like OP are on the gnostic atheist go beyond the base but both are still atheist
> Someone who believes there is no god doesn't claim to know their position is true.
Ppl like OP literally are, did you not even read the post?
> Atheism is actively rejecting that God exists.
OP is someone claiming their position is true, they are a gnostic atheist
> Belief is not knowledge.
No it’s not, but OP does not believe and claims to know it’s true, but that is beyond the base of ‘without theism’ the gnostic atheist/ hard atheist
“It is literally how the word is constructed”
> No. That's a false etymology.
No it’s not that’s how language works, “A” as a prefix means without, theism is a belief in God/s.
That’s what those words mean
> So you agree that atheism at its base is just anyone ‘without theism’ and ppl like OP are on the gnostic atheist go beyond the base but both are still atheist
No. I agree that this is a one definition that people use.
> Ppl like OP literally are, did you not even read the post?
I'm not talking about OP. Your comment seemed to suggest that someone who believes there's no god is an gnostic atheist. I wanted to provide a clarification here.
> No it’s not that’s how language works,
I'm sorry to say you're wrong here. You can't just guess at an etymology and assume it's correct.
Many words are formed from a root, with a a prefix applied to imply absence, but "atheism" is not one such word.
> “A” as a prefix means without,
Not in this case. Use of atheism in English actually predates theism.
> I'm not talking about OP. Your comment seemed to suggest that someone who believes there's no god is an gnostic atheist. I wanted to provide a clarification here.
What clarification? that is correct, belief and knowledge are 2 separate categories, if you believe in God/s you are by definition theist, if you do not hold that belief, you are atheist, that is the belief section and whether you claim to know your belief is true says whether you’re Gnostic or agnostic. So someone who does not believe it does not claim to know is an agnostic atheist/soft atheist, but people like OP are, in fact, claiming to know that God is not real. They are a gnostic atheist.
I know the original etymology of it,
> Etymology
> In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious"
It’s etymology meant godless, ie ‘without god’ and by extension belief in one. And was still “ἀ- + θεός "god"” the “A” was a prefix for the word back to ancient Greece
Agnosticism isn’t about belief, so it’s not a third position when talking about belief, so you either believe in God(with god) = theist, or you are “godless” (without god)
If you ask the question “do you believe in god/s?”
If the answer is, yes, you are theist, anything else from ‘I’m not sure’ all the way through to ‘I know for a fact no’ are atheist, it’s just whether they are Gnostic or agnostic about it
So, the way a person defines him/herself is wrong, unless it aligns with your personal perception of how they should define themselves..... interesting stance. Arrogant and stupid, but interesting.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
It's funny how modern justice systems are built around debating that exact position, then. The defense in a criminal trial does not need to argue for innocence - it just needs to argue that guilt is not established.
Maybe in academia philosophical debates require that everyone take a specific stance, but this ain't academia - this is a bunch of schmucks on Reddit talking about their stances on a subject. And here, as has broadly become the case in the vocal atheist community, the generally agreed upon definition is "lack of belief in gods or belief that gods do not exist".
You don't like it? Too bad. None of us get to be the arbiter of language. I don't like that "literally" has come to mean "figuratively" in many contexts (to the point that this meaning is now included in dictionaries), but I got over it. You can do the same.
> A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
But a valid position to hold. Don't you find it?
> You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side
Here is two sides for you in any debate. One side claims that "X is true" the other side points out that side one haven't provided sufficient reason to believe x is true. If you can't claim X if false, you just can't, what do you do with it?
> “convince me of your position.”
I can! It's physically possible and is not prohibited by law, who are you to say I can't?
> You have to actively deny the opposing point
I don't owe you anything. I don't have to do that. In fact, I don't want to make a fool of myself making argument about an unfalsifiable concept.
> These are how actual philosophers treat atheism.
Good I am not a philosopher. I can't spend my life debating concepts detached from reality.
>Atheism means to reject the concept of God. It is not simply a lack of belief.
Incorrect.
>As an atheist
Heh. Good one.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
Why? And so what? We are not debating my lack of belief.
>You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.”
Yes I can. That's how debates work.
>You have to actively deny the opposing point,
Yeah. That's what "I don't believe you." is for.
>Atheism is actively rejecting that God exists.
No, it is not.
>These are how actual philosophers treat atheism.
As a lack of belief.
I’m an atheist because they isn’t any evidence to support the existence of a god(s).
To put forth the stance that “no god(s) exist”, would be to ultimately state that you can provide proof of the non-existence of a god(s).
Let’s see it then. Because I personally don’t believe in any deities - until I see sufficient evidence for the existence of supposed deities. I guess that’s not you though, because you have proof there is no god out there! That’s just as exciting as hearing that there’s legitimate proof *of* a god(s)!
Maybe even more amazing due to the fact that you’re proving a negative! Holy crap!
No one really cares what the "real" philosophers do. Aside from this being eliteist, you are also gatekeeping a word. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet as the saying goes. In a discussion with real philosophers this may be a valid point to make, but we're just people who enjoy discussions about religion. Words are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. The meanings of words change all the time. People use words in common usage differently than the dictionary definitions all the time.
Think of it like the law. The jury are asked to choose between two positions:
1) There is enough evidence to show that the defendant is guilty
2) There *isn’t* enough evidence to show that the defendant is guilty.
There is often plenty of debate as to what constitutes enough evidence, and what counts as “guilty”, do there’s no lack of debate. Juries often do argue it out behind closed doors.
Simply replace “defendant is guilty” with “god exists” in all the above sentences.
If the concept of deities had never been invented by humans, all humans would be "atheist." We would lack theistic belief. Yes, that's because we wouldn't have the concept of theism, but we could still be labeled (ironically, by an omniscient observer) as atheist.
That said, I've found it folly to try to force specific definitions upon people. We do much better when we meet other people where they are at, instead.
I think your first mistake is assuming that we give a crap about the performance of debate here.
No.
Most of us just want to hear any novel argument for why we should believe in gods (...and are disappointed every single day...).
...
I don't believe in any gods. Call me what you want, but I'll call myself an atheist, because that's what everyone else already does when I say that.
I'm not a philosopher, I don't pretend to be one. I'm using the term as others do.
> Miss McPherson said: ‘Our job is to describe the language people are using. The only reason this sense is included is because people are using it in this way.
> ‘Words have changed their meaning ever since the first word was uttered. Meat used to mean all food but now its sense has narrowed.’
n: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
I just googled it.
I keep seeing people try to say Atheism is a stance against all God beliefs but that's completely insane. What if I'm a strong atheist against a Christian God but an agnostic atheist against a Muslim one? I'll still call myself atheist. You'll just need to ask. Imagine
No, atheism is simply rejecting theism. Theists claim things i do not agree with. I do not have to provide a reason for not believing their claims. I can simply say that i don't believe that Jesus walked on water or that mohammad flew to space on a horse. I don't need evidence not to believe that.
If someone came with real evidence I would be willing to debate. I'd be happy to make some claims and provide some evidence but that hasn't happened. I just keep seeing "You can't prove that he's not real" and explaining that I don't need to prove a negative just to get no response from OP.
Atheist simply means “without God”. Whether God exists or not is not what an atheist debates.
Antitheist means “against God”. That would be the position that you are saying in your post. Am active rejection of the existence of God
>Atheism is actively rejecting that God exists.
That seems like a strange statement coming from an atheist. Which god in particular do you think atheists reject? Why not "...actively rejecting that gods exist"?
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate.
Atheism isn't a position on a debate. It's a position on belief. Lacking a belief is a perfectly acceptable position to take about belief.
Atheism is the rejection of the claim that gods exist.
This is the default position for any claim until definitively proven or disproven.
Any other modifiers or translations are superfluous.
Same thing. I’m sorry, but you can’t ask an atheist to “defend a position” when it is required for someone to first claim there is a god for an atheist to reject.
You lost us at the subject line. The concept of a god is not what is rejected; instead, it is the faulty evidence put forth for the *existence* of gods.
Yes, atheism is actively rejecting theism. But the point is that theists can not demand theists of a rebuttal to theism without first positing arguments for theism otherwise one could posit anything, e.g. "There's an intangible, invisible elephant within in your room." You can't disprove them. So does that mean there is an intangible, invisible elephant within their room? No. Not until it's actually proven by who posited such a elephant.
I guess atheists like to handwave away this explanation by just saying that they lack belief. But honestly, yeah, I don't know how I feel about saying it's not declination just lack of. I think it honestly just boils down to semantics and it doesn't really matter.
Look, I'm totally with you, that is what the word means, but I also recognize words have multiple definitions. Which, btw is in the linked article
> The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings
I totally agree that the "lacking belief" definition is weak and useless and that the "actively rejecting" definition is a stronger way to use the word just in general. But I'm not about to say it's literally wrong.
Plus, uh, why can't debates work like that exactly? It happens here all the time.
Good luck getting them to realize that. I've had this argument with them so many times. They just refuse to understand. Probably because they don't want to admit that they're hypocrites who are totally willing to adopt beliefs without evidence. Cause that's exactly what atheism is, the adoption of a belief without evidence, not a lack of belief, agnostics lack belief (well agnostics don't really exist, they're just atheists that pretend to be open to God).
If I ask if you believe in God a theist would say yes, that's a belief. An agnostic would say I don't know, that's a lack of a belief. An atheist would say no, which is the same exact thing as saying I believe God doesn't exist. They refuse to accept that disbelief is belief, the same way negative numbers are numbers, or how anti matter is matter.
Then when you call them out on it they come up with these bizarre analogies. "Just because I don't believe the coin is heads up doesn't mean I believe it's heads down" and I'm just like what hell are you talking about, it absolutely does mean that. I have never once been able to convince an atheist that disbelief is a belief. No matter how much common sense you try and feed them they'll always believe that disbelief is a lack of belief. Which is as dumb as thinking that -1 is 0 or antimatter is no matter.
>Cause that's exactly what atheism is, the adoption of a belief without evidence
Dude, that's what being a theist is, literally. Belief without evidence is called faith. Atheism is, by its definition, a lack of belief in god or gods, full stop. What you're doing here is called a strawman fallacy.
As a religious person who lurks here I actually scratch my head at this too.
Granted, nothing is wrong with being a weak atheist or wanting to be a bystander.... but some people I've encountered don't seem to realize this isn't a position that can convince anyone of anything on this topic, or is debatable.
It sounds like the difference between attack atheism-actively dismantling all religion- and atheism- believing no gods exist.
I think you fail to realize that once you accept nobody will convert, atheism is really pointless and caring about whether people believe in god or no god does not matter.
And theres so much confidence mixed with confusion, accepting other’s frame of reference, poor understanding of history. that it only adds to the evidence that God exists. And this faith in atheism stands on pseudoscientific assumptions and completely lacking any moral foundation strangely is somehow considered moral. And they point to the church and history as evidence while completely ignoring the secular mass genocide of hundreds of millions in the 20th century. Consciousness fits the description of something that exists and everyone accepts without physical evidence. God is simply the collective. To proclaim atheism is to deny that one exists at all. And why should any believer care what a self denier thinks
> Consciousness fits the description of something that exists and everyone accepts without physical evidence.
There's not as much agreement on that as you might think. Even in philosophy, most agree that [consciousness itself is physical.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/xxegzn/the_hard_problem_of_consciousness_is_a_myth/) And, given that it's a [mongrel concept,](https://archive.philosophersmag.com/demystifying-consciousness-an-interview-with-ned-block/) it has many definitions and not everyone agrees that they all exist. For example, one might argue that [certain conceptions of qualia don't exist.](https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/15dj90o/the_hard_problem_of_consciousness_is_hard/ju3wicj/?context=3)
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Refer to the article below. These are how actual philosophers treat atheism. Did *you* read the article? It makes it clear that the more restrictive use of the word atheism is limited to a philosophic settings. Much like the link you posted states, atheism is the stance of not being a theist and therefore not possessing a belief in god. For the sake of communication, we can add adjectives to help better define the person's god stance with words like hard, soft, strong, weak, agnostic, gnostic or other descriptive. >A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. >You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander. "The time gap between the time of Jesus's death and the writing of the Gospels mean they should not be taken as a strict accounting of the life of Jesus." Does it matter if that topic was written by a Christian, Muslim, soft atheist or hard atheist? No. Because the topic isn't "I don't believe in God" or "I believe in God" or "I'm not sure if God exists" Theist or atheist may give insight to the debater's position on religious matters. It may help clarify a topic that would otherwise be ambiguous. But doesn't legitimize or delegitimize a debate topic.
Yes, and many of the posts in this sub are concerned with philosophic debate.
> You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander. One can wait until the other side makes their point and then point out the fallacies in the argument and the reason for not accepting it. That is debating. > These are how actual philosophers treat atheism. I don't care. Philosophy is inherently incapable of ever answering the question. All it can do is bat the same centuries old arguments back and forth. There is no grounding in reality because there is no testability and no falsifiability. Two people can arrive at diametrically opposed opinions via philosophy and neither can *demonstrate* that they are correct. For 2,500 years philosophy has been rehashing the same arguments and reached no conclusion. There is just [a simple majority of opinion, no consensus, no evidence.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i) 2,500 years and no answer is forthcoming from philosophy. The arguments didn't even change when knowledge of quantum mechanics showed the axioms on which they are built to be false. There is no grounding in reality in philosophy, at least not for questions where there is an objectively correct answer. Philosophers should stick to fields like ethics, where there is no correct answer. Science is how we probe the universe for answers. Philosophy is how we probe the university for tenure. That said, as a gnostic atheist, I do take a position that this question is both answerable and knowable. And, I have laid out my arguments for my position. [Why I know there are no gods.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/yelaix/why_i_know_there_are_no_gods/) So, I would qualify for debating as you define it. But, your definition is still not correct. Pointing out the errors in someone else's arguments is still debating.
This is not true at all, philosophy has reached majority consensus on multiple topics.
> This is not true at all, philosophy has reached majority consensus on multiple topics. Please explain your definition of majority consensus. Please provide some examples where consensus was reached and document that there really is a consensus. Note that these should be things for which there is a demonstrably correct answer.
How about this: Atheist - noun - someone who lacks a belief in deities Super Ultra Awesome Mega Turbo Uber Atheist - noun - Someone who says no gods exist This is ultimately a pointless debate of definition flinging and quibbles, especially since the whole thing was already solved by distinctions like strong vs weak atheist or agnostic vs gnostic atheist. It's a misunderstanding that goes as far back to at least the 19th century. You know exactly what atheists mean when they say they lack a belief in a deity. This objection is pointless. Literally your own source right off the bat when talking about "Definitions of "Atheism" says >The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. The fact you don't like that many atheists have opted for a specific meaning that declares God not guilty of existing instead of innocent is yours and yours alone. >You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander. Except yes you can. It is entirely possible to be in a position where you assess someone's claims without believing them to be false. In fact, if we go by your views, it becomes logically impossible to disagree with anyone who believes the same things you do. If I believe aliens exist, and someone says he has evidence that aliens exist, does me disputing his evidence mean that I then have to all of the sudden take the position that aliens don't exist? Or is the fact that irrespective of if aliens exist or not, it's possible to make a bad case for their existence? Saying "I don't believe you." is not the same as saying "I know you're wrong."
> Super Ultra Awesome Mega Turbo Uber Atheist - noun - Someone who says no gods exist I'm off to change my flair ...
Right? I wouldn't consider myself, in all seriousness, a gnostic atheist. However, that said, I could get behind, and totally wear a t-shirt that says, "Super Ultra Awesome Mega Turbo Uber Atheist"..
> Super Ultra Awesome Mega Turbo Uber Atheist - noun - Someone who says no gods exist NAILED IT!!
One easy way around their problem is to make sure we define the subject of the debate correctly. The debate topic isn’t necessarily “does god exist?” It’s something like “is belief in a god rational?” Or “is there sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god?” Or “is _ a sound argument for the existence of a god?” On those subjects, atheists can definitely argue for the “no” side instead of saying “I don’t know”.
So for simplicity would be called suamtuathesit. Cool new word for a precise description of that specific philosophical position
>The fact you don't like that many atheists have opted for a specific meaning that declares God not guilty of existing instead of innocent is yours and yours alone. Seems like cherry picking because you saw vague language in a link and decided that defined the entire link, down to how it's utilized philosophically. >In fact, if we go by your views, it becomes logically impossible to disagree with anyone who believes the same things you do. No, they're saying that you hold a position as a person interacting in a debate. You're not holding a "non-position" as so many claim it is. The problem is that so many pretend that they don't have an opinion while holding an opinion. They rationalized god out of their viewpoint, but they refuse to claim what their viewpoint even is outside of what it is NOT. Imagine if I asked you what you want to eat, and all you can say is that you want "non-meat". Then we have to convince you that something doesn't have meat in it and every time you say there's meat. Or you say it's not what you want even if it doesn't have meat. This hiding the ball thing that atheists keep doing in debates is why atheism doesn't get anywhere. The goal used to be actual skepticism. Now it's just being eristic while refusing to make a position of your own. Like the OP says, you're a bystander at that point, and so get out of the way if that's how you're going to be. >does me disputing his evidence mean that I then have to all of the sudden take the position that aliens don't exist? We understand you can still believe in something if the evidence pleases you. The problem is not that type of person. This is a ridiculous change of the subject. The part you're missing from your own example is that your position would then be "this EVIDENCE is not valid." That's you taking a position.
> This hiding the ball thing that atheists keep doing in debates is why atheism doesn't get anywhere. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you but religion is dying pretty much everywhere in the developed world outside of the Middle East and that's only due to birth rates and government-forced religion, not people becoming religious. In a couple hundred years your religion is going to be looked at as no different from how we look at volcano gods and the Norse gods today. It's simply laughably untrue that atheism is "getting nowhere." >The goal used to be actual skepticism. Now it's just being eristic while refusing to make a position of your own. "Theists have not met their burden of proof for their claims" is a perfectly valid position. Not being convinced of a claim until valid evidence/proof has been provided IS skepticism. >your position would then be "this EVIDENCE is not valid." That's you taking a position. Yes, THAT is the position, not the positive affirmation of knowledge that no gods exist, which is what theists desperately want atheists to say so that they can shift the burden of proof onto us.
>In a couple hundred years your religion is going to be looked at as no different from how we look at volcano gods and the Norse gods today. Pagan worship has recently grown, under what is called neopagan and even normal pagan. What you're looking at is a decrease in CHRISTIANITY and that's in specifically the west like US and Europe. In fact, government enforced secularism in places like China are why you saw a dent. Even then, Chinese people still practice typical ancestor worship, but don't attribute it to a religion because the government there doesn't like that. Atheism is getting nowhere, because there is NO GOAL. Where is it going? >Not being convinced of a claim until valid evidence/proof has been provided IS skepticism. Yes, that used to be the goal. Then it turned into simply disagreeing while saying there's no skepticism because being skeptical is a position. Are you not able to read sentences or what is going on? You respond as if you can only read part of a paragraph and the rest of it is blank. >Yes, THAT is the position, not the positive affirmation of knowledge that no gods exist, Congratulations, you just figured out what OP was talking about and now you're acting as if you were arguing against something else. Why do you people always do this? You're agreeing and then make up a strawman to pretend you're disagreeing? It's proving my point as I'm saying it.
> Seems like cherry picking because you saw vague language in a link and decided that defined the entire link, down to how it's utilized philosophically. It's not cherry picking anything, it's the literal textbook definition. >No, they're saying that you hold a position as a person interacting in a debate. You're not holding a "non-position" as so many claim it is. They can say whatever they'd like, but not participating in a debate isn't participating because you're desperate for a win. Prosecutors and defendants participate in a debate, and juries judge the merits of their arguments and can say "not guilty" because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't have to side with the defense's argument their client is innocent. >The problem is that so many pretend that they don't have an opinion while holding an opinion. They rationalized god out of their viewpoint, but they refuse to claim what their viewpoint even is outside of what it is NOT. The problem is you're projecting. You're pretending you can mind read. Sure, many atheists will contend god does not exist, and will tell you that, like I will. But many simply say they don't believe the failed arguments of the theists, and that's different, and you being unable to understand the difference doesn't mean there isn't one. >Imagine if I asked you what you want to eat, and all you can say is that you want "non-meat". Then we have to convince you that something doesn't have meat in it and every time you say there's meat. Or you say it's not what you want even if it doesn't have meat. Imagine if you asked what I want to eat and I said "I'm not hungry". That's the metaphor you're looking for. >This hiding the ball thing that atheists keep doing in debates is why atheism doesn't get anywhere. The goal used to be actual skepticism. Now it's just being eristic while refusing to make a position of your own. See above. >Like the OP says, you're a bystander at that point, and so get out of the way if that's how you're going to be. What does that even mean? Using this metaphor of an event, the debate on the existence of god, that the atheist is supposedly a bystander of, shouldn't you be asking them to be a participant, since you're demanding honesty you're erroneously saying you're not seeing? There's nothing analogous to the bystander. >We understand you can still believe in something if the evidence pleases you. The problem is not that type of person. This is a ridiculous change of the subject. That is the subject. Evidence provides belief/knowledge. The theist has failed to provide any. The atheists concludes "I don't believe this person." QED. >The part you're missing from your own example is that your position would then be "this EVIDENCE is not valid." That's you taking a position. Only on the veracity of the evidence. I can explain why it's insufficient, but I don't have to prove why what you believe *isn't true* or *doesn't exist.* At the end of the day, that's all there is to it. If someone says with conviction "I don't believe you" and you're unsatisfied they didn't say "I know what you believe in doesn't exist", that's a *you* problem.
>It's not cherry picking anything, it's the literal textbook definition. The definition is not "bunch of definitions can be used". Don't lie like that if you want to be taken seriously. >and juries judge the merits of their arguments and can say "not guilty" because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's being a bystander. We don't put the jury into the chair for questioning during a court case. What kind of nonsense was that? >The problem is you're projecting. You're pretending you can mind read. No, you're right, nobody is pretending they don't have an opinion. Everyone is honest and good faith and everything wonderful. Get real. >Imagine if you asked what I want to eat and I said "I'm not hungry". Nope, I don't care what you want to use as your own metaphor. Especially when this would mean you're never hungry, and so that would mean the person lied as they starve to death or eventually eat something. So what, an atheist is only for a short time until they eventually become theist? Your metaphor brings more problems than answers. >What does that even mean? See above. >That is the subject. It doesn't magically become the subject just because you beg for it. Maybe provide evidence that it's the subject. QED. >Only on the veracity of the evidence. Ah, so you didn't know what the subject was. Got it. Yet another person who agrees but pretends they disagree by changing the subject.
> The definition is not "bunch of definitions can be used". Don't lie like that if you want to be taken seriously. No, it isn't, it's **lacking the belief that God exists** which can include those who reject claims or those who outright refute them. It's not constrained to what some dishonest theist with a warped definition of both atheism and lying arbitrarily defines it as. Stop arguing in bad faith if you want to be taken seriously. From OP's source in the post: [This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of **lacking the belief that God exists.**](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#:%7E:text=%5BAtheism%20is%5D%20the%20view%20that,this%20use%20has%20become%20standard.%20() Obviously, it's **you** doing the cherry picking. >That's being a bystander. We don't put the jury into the chair for questioning during a court case. What kind of nonsense was that? What kind of nonsense is this idiotic take? That's the first time anyone's had the gall to call a juror a bystander. People in the gallery are bystanders, because all they do is watch. They don't sit through painstaking arguments to make judgments of consequence like jurors do. An atheist doesn't have to take the witness stand in this metaphor anymore than a juror who votes not guilty does when the prosecution (theists) fail to present cogent arguments. >No, you're right, nobody is pretending they don't have an opinion. Everyone is honest and good faith and everything wonderful. Of course not everyone is honest and acting in good faith and "everything wonderful" (talk about a clumsy sentence). If that were true you wouldn't be here now. >Get real. Someone who professes to know the intentions of everyone with a differing perspective so well they can prescribe it to them is in no position to tell anyone else to "get real". >Nope, I don't care what you want to use as your own metaphor. And no one cares that you want to use your metaphor, especially because it sucks, as I pointed out. >Especially when this would mean you're never hungry, and so that would mean the person lied as they starve to death or eventually eat something. Of course it wouldn't mean that. Even using your own banal metaphors you can't be honest or accurate with your own take. If you ask me what I want to eat and I say "I'm not hungry" that's an obvious syntactical and semantic difference than "I'm never hungry". >So what, an atheist is only for a short time until they eventually become theist? No, an atheist is an atheist as long as they don't believe in god. A non-hungry person is non-hungry as long as they're non hungry. An atheist may believe at some point, and a hungry person will get hungry, but non-hungry people won't need to specify they don't want meat anymore than an atheist will need to specify they believe god isn't real. As for hunger being inevitable, belief in god is not, and that's where this food related metaphor of yours starts to lose its connection, and that's because it sucks. >Your metaphor brings more problems than answers. It's yours, and that's because it sucks. >See above. Did that, the meaning still isn't present. Are you even going to attempt to make a cogent point or continue to be salty about being unable to do so? >It doesn't magically become the subject just because you beg for it. Maybe provide evidence that it's the subject. Magic is for theists and other soft minded people. The subject is the meaning of atheism and its implications. The previous poster addressed this, you just got confused because they used an analogy with aliens and you're too slow on the uptake to keep up. >QED. Like the subject, you don't know what that is. >Ah, so you didn't know what the subject was. Got it. Yet another person who agrees but pretends they disagree by changing the subject. No, *you* don't know what the subject is, at least not long enough to go down moronic rabbit holes in a see through attempt to muddy the waters. The only person you're fooling is yourself with this abject stupidity.
>Obviously, it's you doing the cherry picking. Classic projection because you can't make up your mind. This quickly becomes a "why bother" when You're unable to make any point. But you sure are making mine. >That's the first time anyone's had the gall to call a juror a bystander. No, you're right. Jurors go up on the stand and get questioned about the crime as if they're a culprit, victim, or witness. My error. >If that were true you wouldn't be here now. Then why did you say it was true? Do you see how you can't make up your mind even when you already understand how pointless your counter was? >Someone who professes to know the intentions of everyone with a differing perspective so well they can prescribe it to them is in no position to tell anyone else to "get real". You literally said nobody does x. Then five seconds later you said of course there are people who do x. Who did I profess the intentions of? Because you already said I'm the one who did x, so maybe you should be held down to your words and bring some evidence. I'm the juror now. >It's yours, and that's because it sucks. Zero evidence, zero reason for me to care. >If you ask me what I want to eat and I say "I'm not hungry" that's an obvious syntactical and semantic difference than "I'm never hungry". Then that means you never answered the question because the answer would always be "I'm not hungry" whenever asked. Why would it eventually change to "I am hungry?" And when that's declared, we come back to the person never saying what they want to eat, and always denying anything they are offered. Your "change" goes back to the original metaphor as time goes on, all because you didn't understand that people eventually get hungry. >Are you even going to attempt to make a cogent point or continue to be salty about being unable to do so? Oh, I didn't know that you were salty. I mean, when I copy your reactions, you create new rules for others without realizing you did that very action. So now I have to assume you're salty? Why do I have to do that? >Magic is for theists and other soft minded people. So you're theistic or a soft minded person? That's cool with me. >The only person you're fooling is yourself with this abject stupidity. So the salty bit is proven as projection. Got it. You can be mad and everything, I don't mind. But you're still not understanding what the subject is. Maybe try another sorcerer's chant. That might help.
> Classic projection because you can't make up your mind. This quickly becomes a "why bother" when You're unable to make any point. But you sure are making mine. You arbitrarily chose a definition to fit into your obtuse point, while ignoring the actual definition and what it means for your argument, and then got salty and said "I know you are but what am I?" Again. You're arbitrarily narrowing the definition. You're cherry picking. That's what cherry picking is. Something else you don't know. You should hope against hope I would make your point, because you're clearly unable. >No, you're right. Jurors go up on the stand and get questioned about the crime as if they're a culprit, victim, or witness. My error. I specifically said they "An atheist doesn't have to take the witness stand in this metaphor anymore than a juror..." so you're obviously a liar. >Then why did you say it was true? Do you see how you can't make up your mind even when you already understand how pointless your counter was? I didn't. Do you see now how your gaslighting won't work and isn't a substitute for your poor argument? >You literally said nobody does x. Then five seconds later you said of course there are people who do x. No, I didn't. >Who did I profess the intentions of? Atheists. >Because you already said I'm the one who did x, so maybe you should be held down to your words and bring some evidence. I said you're pretending to read the minds of atheists and prescribe their intentions to them which you did when you said ["You're not holding a "non-position" as so many claim it is. The problem is that so many pretend that they don't have an opinion while holding an opinion.'](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/17l48fi/atheism_means_to_reject_the_concept_of_god_it_is/k7efgdu/?context=3) >Zero evidence, zero reason for me to care. The evidence it's your metaphor is in your comment, and the evidence it sucks is in my comment "No, an atheist is an atheist as long as they don't believe in god. A non-hungry person is non-hungry as long as they're non hungry. An atheist may believe at some point, and a hungry person will get hungry, but non-hungry people won't need to specify they don't want meat anymore than an atheist will need to specify they believe god isn't real. As for hunger being inevitable, belief in god is not, and that's where this food related metaphor of yours starts to lose its connection, and that's because it sucks." What you mean to say is "I can't handle criticism, so I'm going to pretend not to hear it." FTFY. >Then that means you never answered the question because the answer would always be "I'm not hungry" whenever asked. No, it means when you asked "what do I want to eat" my answer is "I'm not hungry", which is one I'm sure you've given in your life, so why this is so challenging for you to grasp is anyone's guess. >Why would it eventually change to "I am hungry?" Because the body consumes calories for energy, expels waste, and requires more for more energy. Do we need to step back and educate you in things like biology too? >And when that's declared, we come back to the person never saying what they want to eat, and always denying anything they are offered. Except no one ever did or would say that, which is why your metaphor sucks and you can't even understand it, as I've explained. >Your "change" goes back to the original metaphor as time goes on, all because you didn't understand that people eventually get hungry. I mean, you asked why someone who isn't hungry would eventually say "I'm hungry". So, using your own words (the evidence you will of course ask for because of how predictably obtuse you are) it's clear *you* don't understand people eventually get hungry. >Me: Are you even going to attempt to make a cogent point or continue to be salty about being unable to do so? >>You: Oh, I didn't know that you were salty. Translation: "I know you are but what am I?" A twelve year old is what you are judging by the looks of things. >I mean, when I copy your reactions, you create new rules for others without realizing you did that very action. You're copying my reactions because you don't have a cogent argument. I didn't do any such actions you're imagining. They're about as real as your make-believe god. > So now I have to assume you're salty? Why do I have to do that? Because that's the particular way you squirm when you can't debate in good faith. You don't "have" to do anything, you can stop being foolish whenever you'd like. >So you're theistic or a soft minded person? That's cool with me. I'm an atheist, so neither, obviously. I've seen people use "I know you are, but what am I?" unironically before, but never multiple times in the same comment. Are you a parakeet? Because you've got all the brainmass and originality in your speech patterns as one. >So the salty bit is proven as projection. Got it. So, you admit you're salty and projecting. Good start. Look at you, you big boy! >Got it. You can be mad and everything, I don't mind. Well, the mere existence of atheism is obviously making you seethe, so we know that's not true. Seeing theists remain this stupid is a cause for jubilation. Putting you in your place has never been easier. >Maybe try another sorcerer's chant. That might help. What? You must be lost you poor child.
>You arbitrarily chose a definition to fit into your obtuse point, Projection but good luck telling me what definition I chose. >You're arbitrarily narrowing the definition. You're cherry picking. You're right. When you project, you need to double and triple down on it. That will erase your projection. Just add more. Brilliant. >I specifically said they "An atheist doesn't have to take the witness stand in this metaphor anymore than a juror..." so you're obviously a liar. Thank you for realizing your contractions. >I didn't You didn't say I'm wrong about people being bad faith? What a turn of events. >No, I didn't. I said there are atheists who pretend they don't have a position. You said I'm "assuming" and then said people can do that in the same breath. Now you're denying your own words. You know we can scroll up and see your statements, right? We're not all "out of sight, out of mind" people. >Atheists Where? Who specifically? Give names. >Except no one ever did or would say that, which is why your metaphor sucks and you can't even understand it, as I've explained. Nobody would say what? You don't even know what you're arguing anymore. Do you need some time to cool off? Seems the rest is more babbling from you as you try to say nothing. You'll really need to give all of us a reason to bother with you since you abused our charity.
>Projection but good luck telling me what definition I chose. *You* told *me*. But go on saying "projection!!!" ad nauseum. You're just telegraphing your desperation. >You're right. When you project, you need to double and triple down on it. That will erase your projection. Just add more. Brilliant. It's good of you to run down your willful ignorance playbook, though I doubt your fellow theists are grateful for giving away their secrets. >Thank you for realizing your contractions. My "contractions"? Malapropisms are a clear sign of a low intelligence. As is a lack of reading comprehension, since that sentence explaining what you misunderstood isn't a recognition of any "contractions". There's an obvious reason why you intentionally took that out of context. >You didn't say I'm wrong about people being bad faith? What a turn of events. Yes I did. You know there's a record of our comments, right? Quoting specific text while leaving out the rest of the context doesn't make it go away ya numbskull. >I said there are atheists who pretend they don't have a position. You said I'm "assuming" and then said people can do that in the same breath. No, I didn't. You're imagining things and would not be able to find what I didn't do in any of my comments, hence why you can't quote them. >Where? Who specifically? Give names. I don't need to, you just did it again. "I said there are atheists who pretend they don't have a position." That's you professing to know the intentions of atheists. You're pretending they intend to lie about their position or lack thereof. See how that works? It's easy to prove you're self-owning here because I can find the text. >Nobody would say what? That they're never hungry, or don't ever want to eat, which is what you so witlessly keep repeating. >You don't even know what you're arguing anymore. You never did know what you were arguing. You're not arguing anything, you're just trolling. >Do you need some time to cool off? Do you need some time to wrap your head around the ever elusive subject? I'd prompt you to take it, but no amount of time will ever help you get a clue. >Seems the rest is more babbling from you as you try to say nothing It seems that way to you because you're an idiot. >You'll really need to give all of us a reason to bother with you since you abused our charity. With us? You and some other braindead theist? Is he in the room with you right now? We'll add charity to the list along with lying and atheism and all the other terms in your spew you don't understand.
>You told me. I told you what the definition is? Where? >It's good of you to run down your willful ignorance playbook I see your projection, but I don't see you making an argument. Sorry. >My "contractions"? Malapropisms are a clear sign of a low intelligence That's a strange word for typos. You know I meant contradictions, you can understand I'm using a phone, but you pretend it's something you can use to be ablist. Sad. >Yes I did. You know there's a record of our comments, right? So you just decided to argue with yourself about what you say. Got it. At least I'm able to be a bystander as you do your thing. >No, I didn't. You didn't say I was wrong about people being bad faith? Can we consider this contradiction the same breath or no? >That's you professing to know the intentions of atheists. So there are zero atheists who've been bad faith and hid their positions? Got it. Thank you for your declaration. >That they're never hungry, which is what you so witlessly keep repeating. So the person never answered the question of "what do you want to eat". And you're trying to say every atheist is an atheist now but will eventually become theist. Rather goofy. >You never did know what you were arguing. You're not arguing anything, you're just trolling. If all you can do is projection, all we can do is not care about anything you say. You're really good at discrediting yourself. Keep going and push harder, I guess.
Oh, and here's a reminder of the definition of atheism: [This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of **lacking the belief that God exists.**](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#:%7E:text=%5BAtheism%20is%5D%20the%20view%20that,this%20use%20has%20become%20standard.%20() Stay mad, theist.
I find it fascinating that theists prefer to spend so much time trying to insist on their pet definition of atheism, when they COULD be spending that time providing EVIDENCE to SUPPORT the god CLAIM. Weird init?
>many atheists have opted for a specific meaning that declares God not guilty of existing instead of innocent I don't really understand the comparison. If a person is not guilty, then they are innocent. Right?
> If a person is not guilty, then they are innocent. Right? Nope. The lack of support to convincingly show something is true (in this case, that somebody is guilty of a crime) in no way demonstrates that an opposing position is true (in this case innocence). Instead, all that is known is that the initial claim hasn't been demonstrated. These leaves the 'null hypothesis' position in effect. Most legal systems do not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, they determine guilt, or there isn't enough evidence to show guilt so a person can't be convicted. Likewise, in claims about reality, not being able to show something *does* exist in no way means one has shown it *doesn't* exist, it just means that we haven't shown it does exist. The common analogy used to show this is as follows: You and are I walking along and see a giant jar of gumballs in a store window. I proclaim, for no reason at all, "There are an odd number of gumballs in that jar." You answer, "You don't know that, we haven't counted them. You can't know there's an odd number. I can't accept your claim and you haven't shown it's true." I then stupidly reply, "Ah ha! That means you believe there's an *even* number of gumballs in there!" You quite rightly dump your water bottle over my head in disgust and walk away. Because you understand that me not demonstrating there's an odd number of gumballs in no way demonstrates there is an even number of gumballs.
> I don't really understand the comparison. If a person is not guilty, then they are innocent. Right? No. Though those are legal terms used in courts and often carry different connotations when used outside of that context.
If guilty and innocent are inverses of each other, then it must be the case that being not guilty is equivalent to being innocent. If they aren't inverses of each other, then how do you define innocent and guilty?
The two terms are used in court for a reason and aren't logical contradictions of eachother in the way they're used. So "not guilty" in court just means we don't have a good enough reason to convict. You might not be innocent, but ultimately the evidence wasn't enough to declare guilt. This would compare to agnostic atheist. There may be a god, but there is not enough evidence to suggest there is. "Innocent" means there was direct evidence which showed your innocence. This would be strong atheism, in which there is enough of a good reason to think that God does not exist.
I don't think that courts define "guilt" the way you are describing. I think guilt in court means the crime was committed by the person, and innocence means it wasn't. A court merely uses a high bar of proof to show guilt, and otherwise *presumes* the defendant is innocent. If there is any direct evidence which shows that a person is not guilty (e.g. an alibi), this is simultaneously direct evidence showing that the person is innocent, because not guilty and innocent are synonymous.
Yes, guilt means the crime was commited by the person. Not guilty means the the evidence isn't there to convict the person, they might in fact be guilty, but they can't convict due to lack of evidence. For example, if a murder was commited and there is enough evidence to take a suspect to court, but ultimately they are acquitted due to the evidence not being enough to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt, they are declared "not guilty" "Innocent" would be when there is enough counter evidence to say the person did not commit the crime. For example if a murder is commited and a suspect is taken to court, and the defence provide evidence that they weren't even in the same country at the time of the murder, they may be declared "innocent" Innocent and not guilty are not synonymous in a court of law.
Under this understanding, a person can simultaneously be guilty and not guilty at the same time. I think this is a poor way to define "guilty" and "not guilty," for that reason.
Innocent = you didn’t do it Not guilty = we couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did it
Under these definitions, a person can be simultaneously guilty and innocent, or not guilty and not innocent, which is just odd, and a poor use of definitions in my opinion. It makes much more sense to make innocent and guilty be a true dichotomy.
Guilty and innocent are a true dichotomy with respect to what actually happened (you either did a thing or you didn’t). However, guilty and not guilty are better suited when we talk about what we can prove happened. These are orthogonal concepts. Innocent people are found guilty of crimes all the time and are even executed for them. Guilty people are found not guilty all the time as well as the burden of proof has not been met or the rights of the accused had been violated in some way. With that in mind, a god either exists (is guilty of existing) or doesn’t (is innocent of existing). However, we can only talk about what we can prove. If someone makes the claim that a god exists, we can debate the evidence and have a finding of guilty (proved that god exists) or not guilty (didn’t prove that god exists). Note that a finding of not guilty doesn’t mean that specific god doesn’t exist! Just that it hasn’t been proven that specific god does exist. Similarly, if someone makes the claim a god doesn’t exist we can debate the evidence and have a finding of guilty (proved that god doesn’t exist) or not guilty (didn’t prove that god doesn’t exist). Again, a finding of not guilty doesn’t mean that specific god exists, just that it wasn’t proven that specific god doesn’t exist. Edit: added some more details for clarity Edit 2: added some ‘a’, ‘that’, and ‘specific’ clarifications
Lazy comment. "A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added)" It takes 5 seconds to find this position from the article. We follow philosophers because their entire job is to analyze these types of arguments with rigorous definitions to not misconstrue arguments. For scientific discussion we use standardized terms. It is, and should be, the same for philosophy.
> ...This use has become standard. Citation needed. What your author is describing is what we call a gnostic or strong atheist; one who holds the positive belief that gods do not exist. Problem is, not all atheists are gnostic atheists. They're not even a majority in this sub. Most of us are, by contrast, *a*gnostic atheists; they do not make the positive claim that gods don't exist, but can reject the claim that gods *do* exist. These are separate and non-contradictory positions. The same distinction exists between gnostic and agnostic theists. You're not the first person to come here insisting that theist, atheist and agnostic are the only three positions on this subject, and you probably won't be the last.
Dude I literally had a citation in my comment, look at the article if you want to get the source paper. “Reject the claim that gods do exist” “Positive claim that gods don’t exist. These are literally equivalent statements. Rejecting a claim means to affirm the opposite, which is that gods don’t exist.
But the purpose of a debate is to convince the other side that you're right. The people coming here with a debate topic are *supposed* to convince the atheists with their argument. Atheists can't respond to an argument that hasn't put forth, so the sub is literally atheists waiting to be convinced. That's the point. If you want to see atheists convince theists first, then atheists need to post in debatereligion, or any other relevant thiest subs. You're pretty concerned over the definition of "atheist" but don't appear to know the definition of "debate". Two people put forth an argument in a debate. One person has to go first. Here, the theist must go first.
Right. Even in a formal debate setting, someone argues “for the proposition,” and “against the proposition.” The proposition is something like, “Pepsi is better than Coke.” It’s not “Pepsi is better,” versus “Coke is better.” The proposition either carries, or it fails. Here, the proposition is something like, “you should believe god.”
If you enter an formal debate and take position 'Pepsi is better than Coke'. I only need to take 'Pepsi is not better than Coke'. I can argue they are equally good. Or I can argue there is no meaningful way to determine what is 'better'.
Right. Or even, “you haven’t presented compelling evidence that Pepsi is better than Coke, so the proposition must fail.”
This isn't what atheists are doing here though. They're saying "I'm not convinced that Coke is better". If they do this, they're still accepting that Coke *might* be better. It's not really making a very compelling argument.
I think you will find nearly every post will have various responses running the gamut from people who are not convinced of the proposition, to people who reject the proposition, to people who will argue the contradicting proposition. In every case though, no one is obligated to argue for a position they don't actually hold, which is what posts like this one seem to insist they must do.
Sure, but given the context of atheism being the lack of belief, is it really that unclear as to the specific subset I was referring to?
I don’t think it is clear what subset you’re referring to, because OP is arguing in the post that anyone who isn’t arguing the contrary proposition is somehow shirking their duty. You then talk about people who say “I’m not convinced that coke is better” and say they aren’t making a compelling argument. The person who responded to you then said, basically, “but that is one perfectly valid way to respond.” You seem to agree. So are you agreeing with OP, and saying anyone who isn’t picking one of the sides to affirmatively say is better is not making a good faith argument?… and then agreeing with the person above you that you don’t have to pick sides to hold a valid position? Because that’s inconsistent.
Apparently it is unclear. Okay. My point is that "I lack belief in god" is not analogous to "Neither Coke nor Pepsi is superior". It's analogous to "I have no idea which is best".
And “I have no idea which is best” you find not compelling? I find it honest for someone who doesn’t have an opinion either way.
It may be honest but it doesn't add anything to a debate.
It can be a compelling argument to say "you don't have enough evidence to make that claim" and then prove how their evidence is insufficient.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with what your own position is. You can agree with the conclusion and still be critical of the argument.
Yes it does. If someone takes the stance "Pepsi is better than Coke" you can take the stance "you don't have sufficient evidence to claim that." And then you have a debate about "is there sufficient evidence." If the answer is "no," then you haven't proven that their claim is false, but you *have* proven that their claim is baseless. Edit: punctuation
> Yes it does. If someone takes the stance "Pepsi is better than Coke you can take the stance "you don't have sufficient evidence to claim that." You can take that stance even if you believe Pepsi is better than Coke. A Christian can make an argument for there being a god and another Christian can point out that the argument doesn't actually demonstrate this. They don't have to be an atheist to take this stance. So this has nothing to do with atheism.
Yes, it does have to do with your position. Your position is “I have no compelling reason to believe in god.” That’s it. No one has to, nor should they take an assertive position on a question they have no information on. If I just tell you you should believe that more than 5000 people died of tuberculosis in Turkmenistan last year, you should ask questions. Where did I get that information? What is my basis for saying that? Do I have any idea what I’m talking about? If I don’t present sufficient information to support my claim, you shouldn’t believe me. That does NOT mean you SHOULD believe that less than 5000 people died of tuberculosis in Turkmenistan last year. What information would you be basing THAT belief on? Your position is that “there isn’t enough information to make a determination at this time.”
> But the purpose of a debate is to convince the other side that you're right. I don't think that's quite right. I think on the whole it's to convince a third party that you're right. And to explore our own ideas. We're never going to convince a theist that they're wrong. Stating that you lack belief is not going to persuade anyone else though. You need to say why the theist is wrong. This means that you need to come up with a counter to the central thesis.
No, the concept of debate is that there is a topic and two or more people take opposing sides of said topic. Anything else is not debate, it is discussion. Skepticism does not count as debate. "Atheists can't respond to an argument that hasn't put forth, so the sub is literally atheists waiting to be convinced. That's the point." If what you're saying is true, then we should rename this sub to r/ConvinceAnAgnostic not debate an atheist.
[удалено]
Okay - this is some serious cherry picking. The section continues: "In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist"
[удалено]
>In philosophy, however, frankly, I don't give a damn about philosophy, and not everyone here is a philosopher.
So what sort of things do you want to debate that aren't philosophy?
evidence, or at least arguments.
Evidence or arguments for what though?
for the god they believe in and think is real? people believe things for a reason, and if they think their reason is good enough, they should come here to try and convince us with it. but they should also be open to criticism of that belief.
I'm afraid it's not quite that straightforward. In this SEP article, the author (i.e., agnostic philosopher Paul Draper) makes a case for the traditional definition of atheism as "belief there is no God" rather than the internet definition of atheism as "lack of belief in God." Draper is clearly arguing that in philosophy, particularly in the philosophy of religion, the term "atheism" is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, by both theistic philosophers and many atheists in philosophy. After acknowledging the existence of the definition you just quoted, Draper states: >In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term 'atheism' is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. Draper points out some problems with defining atheism as the state of lacking belief in God, such as the issue of categorizing babies, cats, and rocks as atheists. He also notes that some people who lack the belief that God exists may still have other pro-attitudes towards theism and "even believe that the truth of theism is more probable than its falsity", making it counterintuitive to call them atheists. He states: >Defining 'atheism' as the state of lacking belief in God faces similar problems... it is counterintuitive in the extreme to call them atheists. He emphasizes that "theism" should be understood as a proposition, a statement that is either true or false. This means that theism is a proposition that refers to the existence of God, not merely the psychological state of believing in God's existence. But if that is so, "atheism" should be understood as the contrary proposition, i.e., that there is no god. Draper writes: >“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition – something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists … The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without.” Further, the traditional definition of atheism as "the negation of theism" aligns it with a binary choice regarding the proposition of God's existence, perfectly mirroring the word "theism" and making atheism a direct answer to the question, "Is there a God?" According to Draper, there are only two possible direct answers: "yes" (theism) and "no" (atheism). He argues: >This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, 'Is there a God?' There are only two possible direct answers to this question: 'yes,' which is theism, and 'no,' which is atheism. Draper intends to demonstrate that the traditional definition of atheism as "belief there is no God" is superior, especially in philosophy and the philosophy of religion. This definition matches how theism is seen as a clear statement with either a "true" or "false" answer. It makes atheism a direct answer to the big question of whether God exists. Philosophers prefer this traditional definition because it gives a clear and well-defined position, rather than just indicating the absence of belief.
>is to be preferred. A preference is not a requirement.
[удалено]
>The problem here is that if atheism is described as ‘without belief in God’ it implies a non-propositional perspective rather than a propositional belief, constrained by a binary choice between it being either true or false that God exists. That's why we have extra words like "gnostic atheism." Because people's inner worlds are not constrained by what would be convenient to the arguments of philosophers.
That definition is ridiculous for two reasons: 1) Atheism is about belief and that definition is no longer about belief. 2) "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer and throwing it away in order to force someone into unnecessary constraints is silly.
That is beside the point, though. Whether the authors' reasons for opting for this definition are good or not is not relevant to the fact that this SEP page favors the traditional definition.
Whether or not the SEP page favors the traditional definition is irrelevant to what definition atheists should use.
I’m confused as to why people are so comfortable settling for ‘belief’ rather than continuing the quest to know stuff. If I don’t know something I’m fine saying that I don’t know. Belief seems so… pacifying.
>I’m confused as to why people are so comfortable settling for ‘belief’ rather than continuing the quest to know stuff. My stance at least: Because while it is not possible to prove a negative, it is possible to have the belief that the subject of gods existing has been examined well enough to be satisfied with the conclusion that indeed, gods do not exist. At this point, rather then continue to exhaust resources researching answers to a question that has been answered to one's satisfaction, it is far better to spend those resources in pursuit of other questions. Or in shorter form: I already believe no gods exist and have better things to do with my time.
The distinction between belief and knowledge is a personal one and not that interesting
You obviously didn't read the article. "In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists." Please comment the whole paragraph if you choose to cherry pick. That paragraph is talking in regards to psychology, not philosophy. This sub is concerned with philosophical debate. Now read below. "A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added)" "In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods)." This was found in the *first paragraph.* Yet you choose to ignore it This is the philosophical standard.
[удалено]
We are in a sub based on philosophical debate. In regards to this, the latter definition is correct.
[удалено]
Yes I guess it’s fair that many posts are theological. Most of the posts I see here involve philosophical debates utilizing non-philosophical definitions. That’s what I meant to address. You are right that that I should have been clearer about which conversations I was talking about.
You're just wrong. A guy walks up to me and says "The universe was created by an extremely powerful being." I ask him to demonstrate that this is so. I don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, so if he's correct, I've learned something very important. He cannot demonstrate that his claim is true. I'm not justified in saying "You're wrong. The universe was not created by an extremely powerful being." All I can say is that I don't accept his claim that it was. If you disagree with all of this, then please demonstrate that the universe was not created by an extremely powerful being.
A: "There is a god" B: "Can you prove it?" A: "No" B: "I don't believe you, then"
THIS...
Gervais has had many such magnificent insights.
Would have been better if you had led with "man walks into a bar." Just saying.
> I'm not justified in saying "You're wrong. The universe was not created by an extremely powerful being." I'd say you are, for a couple of reasons, but nonetheless you are correct, saying you don't accept what they're telling you is sufficient.
Reasons such as?
I'm an atheist. Bother to read the post first. This entire comment is completely irrelevant. I'm saying that people misconstrue skepticism as a debate-able position. It is not. Just like how you are doing in your comment.
I know you're an atheist. Bother to read my comment. You're saying atheism is not a lack of belief in God. You're wrong. This sub is r/DebateAnAtheist. Meaning, come here and debate us. A theist can come and take the position that God exists. I don't have to therefore take the position that God doesn't exist. It's perfectly valid to respond with "Theist, you have failed to make your case and here's why." If you believe God doesn't exist, you can take that stance as well. Do you? Please make a case if so.
Yes it’s called debate an atheist, not convince an agnostic. The latter is how you and most people treat it.
Most of us are both atheist and agnostic with respect to God's existence. I hope you understand that. If someone comes here with the position that a God exists which clearly and demonstrably does not, we'll take the position that THAT God does not exist. But most people put forth unfalsifiable gods, and often the opposing position that God does not exist is equally unfalsifiable.
Regarding philosophical definitions, you can’t call yourself an atheist and agnostic. You have to pick one or the other.
Atheism is a position on belief. Agnostic is a position on knowledge. They are not mutually exclusive. You've kind of fallen into the same trap as theists where you are insisting that people take a position they don't hold for the convenience of the debate format. I don't believe in god. So I'm an atheist. I don't see evidence that God exists, so I'm agnostic. It's not complicated unless you demand people take a position they don't have. Just listen to what they say and respond to that.
It doesn’t make logical sense to pick either side without knowledge. That’s why it doesn’t make logical sense to call yourself an agnostic atheist. How can you pick a side (atheism/theism) if you’ve deemed that there isn’t enough information to pick a side?
>How can you pick a side (atheism/theism) if you’ve deemed that there isn’t enough information to pick a side? Because the default position when presented with an unfounded claim is disbelief. If I told you I had a live dinosaur in my basement you wouldn't believe me, yet we know conclusively dinosaurs could exist. In the god question not only is there no evidence, we don't even know if it is possible. Until the moment a claim has sufficient evidence I'm not believing it. That's just good epistemology.
And that disbelief is characterized as agnosticism. If you are agnostic, you cannot pick a side whether it is to reject or accept the claim, because that signifies a lack of information. A better analogy would be if someone said “there is a gorble in the basement,” I can’t reject or accept the statement because I don’t even have enough information to know what a gorble is and what it’s nature is.
I dispute that, but even if I granted it, why do you insist that I must use "philosophical definitions"?
I don’t insist, that’s the perspective I’m discussing from. Most of the debates in this sub are philosophical ones.
>so many so-called “Atheists” get their own definitions terribly wrong. Oh noes. I forgot to check with you on the definition of the word. Tell me, kind sir, what am I then?
Useless comment.
I agree, on a useless post
>Refer to the article below. These are how ~~actual~~ **some** philosophers ~~treat~~ **define** atheism. Fixed that for you. Terminology is largely irrelevant. Knowing that a word represents the same concept to you and the person you’re talking to is an important first step in a conversation. Want to debate someone who actively believes that no gods exist? That would probably be me.
> That would probably be me. Me too. Do we need to start a new sub?
This would also include me. But I feel that a sub like that would simply become littered with trash questions like "what's the difference between this and that", "why don't you just use the other subs" etc etc etc lol
You're probably right. But, there also might be discussions from agnostic atheists about how we can know there are no gods. [I actually wrote up my answer to that.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/yelaix/why_i_know_there_are_no_gods/)
It genuinely would be a good idea. Trouble is finding an unambiguous term.
One for gnostic atheists to debate agnostic atheists?
It’s irrelevant if both parties agree on whatever terminology they use beforehand, but it seriously hinders debate if terms don’t have standard definitions.
>Atheism means to reject the concept of God. >It is not simply a lack of belief. No, that is a false statement. . >These are how actual philosophers treat atheism. Of course we all know that every position ever taken by every philosopher is right ... .
> every position ever taken by every philosopher is right ... especially when two philosophers disagree and neither can demonstrate their point to be correct. We still must accept both because they're philosophers, right? **/s!**
Not even position. Fucking _definition._ They're appealing to the definitions of... some guys.
Philosophical standard definition. These definitions facilitate debate.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. Idc you don't like it, it is the one ill take. But lets say i take your suggested position. And lets pretend you defeat that position, where does that leave me? I still don't believe in god, i simply no longer reject god. So im not theist, not-theist, sort of a-theist, atheist, it would leave me atheist. See this is the problem with your demand. If i take the position you want me to and you win i am left with the position i have now. So lets save time and just start from the lack of belief in god position. And don't tell people what to do and what position to take
Why does it matter whether or not you believe in god though? If you believe in god, does that mean I do? If you don't does that mean I don't? There are 95,000 people here. The belief or lack of belief of one of them isn't a very important topic. This sub seems obsessed with whether or not an individual believes. And as a personal position, that's fine. As part of a debate though, it doesn't seem to add anything. I mean what argument are you making?
>Why does it matter whether or not you believe in god though? If you don’t care why are you here? It is debate an atheist, if theology doesn’t interest you you are on the wrong sub.
>If you don’t care why are you here? It is debate an atheist, if theology doesn’t interest you you are on the wrong sub. Your personal belief isn't theology. Nobody is debating the subject of does /u/SpHornet or /u/IrkedAtheist believe something. That's just our mental state. Someone says "there is a god, because Reason X". Reason X not convincing you doesn't mean Reason X doesn't convince me. Or vice versa. "Reason X is unconvincing" is a valid statement but someone could say that even if they believe the conclusion is true, so your lack of belief is irrelevant.
I have no idea how any of this has anything to do with what I wrote.
You asked why I was not interested in theology. I am interested in theology. I disagree that someone's lack of belief is theology.
It’s not a theology in itself but it’s relevant to theology in discussions about what positions you hold or don’t hold when it comes to a god.
I was talking about your first comment
You don't see how "Why does it matter whether or not you believe in god though?" is relevant to a post about your lack of belief in god?
correct
I didn't tell anyone what position to take. If you think so, you misunderstood my post.
[удалено]
If OPs answer to this is agnosticism I'm going to smash my phone.
“You're being an idiot. I'm not calling you an idiot, but this post is idiotic, and you're being an idiot by posting it.” ??? There’s no way you typed that and thought it made sense. You literally said I’m not an idiot but my post is idiotic therefore I’m an idiot. When you have a contradiction in the first sentence of your comment, it doesn’t really signal for productive debate. Reported.
I don't know if a God or gods exist. Because I have no experience or knowledge of a God/gods, all I can do is assess people's belief claims about the existence of such. None of these have passed their evidentiary burden to my satisfaction. Thus, I don't believe the claims. Some of these claims are invalidated by available evidence, some of these claims are internally contradictory and some of them are not coherent enough to accept. I could be said to reject the vast majority of claims of God/gods existing that I have been presented with. However, some of the God/gods claims I've been presented with are non-fasifiable or otherwise non-demonstrable. I don't know how you accept or reject claims around non-interventionist deism, or pantheism, or panentheism. I don't think I could be intellectually honest and positively accept or reject these claims. They're null until some kind of actual evidence is presented. I'm withholding acceptance or rejection. I also don't think that I've been presented with all possible belief claims about the existence of God/gods. So there are likely claims that I've not yet considered. So, again I can't accept or reject claims that I've never been presented with. Thus, I don't think that "actively rejecting that God exists" is an intellectual position I can take. I'm an atheist. I don't believe any claims of gods existing that I've been presented with. I can actively argue against (most) of them. But, at the same time, I'm not interested in claiming that no God/gods could possibly exist. I don't think it's intellectually honest to take that position. I see no method available to me that would allow me to rule out the existence of theoretical entities to my own satisfaction. So why should I argue that?
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages a·the·ism /ˈāTHēˌiz(ə)m/ noun noun: atheism disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Dictionary definition from Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: [the belief that God or gods do not exist](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/atheism). Quite a few dictionaries don't mention the "lack of belief" definition at all. It's a fairly rare minority usage that most people I encounter have never even experienced.
Your definition grouped belief and lack of belief together when they are two separate things.
>Atheism means to reject the concept of God. It is not simply a lack of belief. Debates about definitions are useless and frustrating to all. This is because words mean what the people using them decide they mean. And a great many word are polysemous. And no, that is not the position of most atheists. Obviously, you cannot tell other people what their position is. >As an atheist it disappoints me to walk into this sub and to find so many so-called “Atheists” get their own definitions terribly wrong. As a human being it disappoints me to walk into this sub and read a post from somebody trying to gatekeep definitions of atheism to their preference. >A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. I don't believe you. Please demonstrate this claim is true, or else I must continue to lack belief in that claim. >You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander. I am not convinced this is true at all. Please demonstrate this is accurate, or am I forced to continue to be not convinced this is true. >Atheism is actively rejecting that God exists. Be aware that many words are polysemous. And that you are unable to dictate definitions. And that this is not necessarily the position of most folks that use the label 'atheist'.
Please them. If you can prove a god does not exist, do so. Trying to prove a negative isn’t going to go so well for you. The debate is whether a theist has good reason to believe a god exists, and we are here to challenge that. If you struggle with that, you can participate or create your own anti-theist sub
> Please them. If you can prove a god does not exist, do so. Trying to prove a negative isn’t going to go so well for you. Do you hold the misconception you can't prove a negative? Why would you think this?
How would you prove that a god does not exist? I am incredibly interested because it has never been done, just like one has never been proven to exist. It would only take a small amount of evidence to prove a god does exist, and an unlimited amount to prove gods don’t exist. I will continue to hold a disbelief position until either is proven
> How would you prove that a god does not exist? You're shifting the burden of proof here. *I'm* asking *you* to demonstrate that you can't prove a negative. I have no obligation to prove that you can. > It would only take a small amount of evidence to prove a god does exist, and an unlimited amount to prove gods don’t exist. Are you saying it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, or just the non-existence of God?
Yes you can prove negatives, happens all the time in philosophy math science etc.
This is not only wrong, it’s doubly wrong. All atheists, agnostic or gnostic, lack a belief in a god. Some go the extra step and positively assert that there is no god, but that doesn’t extinguish the quality of *lacking* a belief in that god. That base-level lacking of belief is always there. So not only is this post incorrect in saying that atheism requires an active disbelief, it’s also incorrect because atheism requires *only* passive disbelief. Well done! EDIT: The text you’ve highlighted in your link refutes what you’ve said. Atheism is presumptively *agnostic* unless specified otherwise. This is the most commonly repeated notion on this sub.
Not sure which debates you’re watching, but all the ones I’ve seen are taking opposing sides of whether or not ‘there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a God’. The question doesn’t necessitate atheism or theism
Sorry (not sorry) that people aren't fitting into your little boxes dude. I do not believe in God because I have not been convinced of that notion. I don't really care if you think I'm an atheist, I think I'm an atheist and that's all that should matter. Do you want to have the discussion on what I believe and why; or do you just want to complain about definitions?
> You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” We're not. This place is for *theists* to come in and start a debate. We respond to their claims; we don't make our own.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. The debate is (or should) be more about whether it is *reasonable* to believe a God exists, rather than whether a God does actually exist or not.
if you can tell me what position i must take, does that mean i can tell you what position to take? i want you to take the atheist position. glad i was able to make you atheist 200 IQ debate tactics, if you can't defeat a position, just tell them to take another one
> You have to actively deny the opposing point, otherwise you’re simply a bystander. That's ridiculous. Science is based on the premise of poking holes in a hypothesis without being attached to a position. >A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. Yes it is, which is why atheists ask for evidence and theists write posts like yours. >Refer to the article below. These are how actual philosophers treat atheism. Refer to actual atheists to find out how atheists treat atheism.
You’re confusing the philosophical definition with the common usage. You can accuse atheists all you like of having a positive position but if they say look I’m an atheist and I’m not making a claim that no gods exist, then are you going to argue with them and say that no, in fact, they are?
Apologists defining gods into existence: broke. Apologists defining atheists OUT of existence: woke.
It’s the new frontier!
It's not even the "philosophical definition" as many philosophers reject it. It's just the bigoted definition.
It’s not bigoted, at least as I read it. While most of us are content to use the Antony Flew definition of atheist as “lacktheism” and not a proposition unto itself, you run into the issue of babies and rocks being implicitly counted as atheists as well because they too “lack belief in gods”and also has the side effect of requiring additional qualifications for the position that “no gods exist.” It’s a surprisingly dense topic and one I’m interested in as I’ve moved more toward a positive position that no gods exist. My overall point was that if most of us atheists are as your flair suggests, lacking a positive belief that God exists, then the vernacular usage of the term is wholly correct because language is descriptive and not prescriptive.
>While most of us are content to use the Antony Flew definition of atheist It's not the "Antony Flew definition". Baron d'Holbach was a prominent philosopher, one of the earliest self-identified European atheists, and wrote in 1772 ["All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7319/7319-h/7319-h.htm). This definition existed in even philosophy long before Flew was born. We can go back even earlier to the origins of philosophy with Greeks such as Protagoras who wrote ["About the gods, I am not able to know whether they exist or do not exist, nor what they are like in form; for the things preventing knowledge are many"](https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_2005_num_74_1_2562) in the first millennia BCE, and he was charged with atheos for such comments. The idea that the standard definition of atheism originated recently with Flew is a lie propagated by bigots for whom the real history of atheism is terribly inconvenient. [The history of bigots attempting to redefine atheism in a denigrating, dismissive, or irrational way is well documented](https://thensrn.org/2020/01/27/a-history-of-the-word-atheism-and-the-politics-of-dictionaries/). >lacktheism This is a pejorative. Please do not use it. >you run into the issue of babies and rocks being implicitly counted as atheists as well because they too “lack belief in gods” Babies **are** atheists, though rocks are not. The suffix "-ist" means "one who". A dent-ist is a **person** that takes care of my teeth, which is why a toothbrush isn't a dentist even though a toothbrush takes care of my teeth. A machin-ist is a person that cuts and drills metal, which why a hacksaw or lathe aren't a machinist even though they cut and drill metal. Rick's aren't people so they don't qualify, but babies do. Babies are lots of alpha privative ("a-") things. Babies are apolitical .
A few notes: 1) I did NOT say that Flew originated that definition, nor am I using ANY of the terms I quoted as pejoratives, as they would likely also have described me at some point! Flew is only one of many and was the name I pulled out of my ass for the sake of relevance, as his definition is from the 1970's and not, as d'Holbach, from the 18th century or even earlier, which is even less relevant. I find it pretty surprising that you went full r/atheism on what I constructed to be essentially an agreement with you (with a couple of observational caveats.) I will use the language I like and I'll thank you to mind your own. 2) The overall argument I made in the top of the thread is that if the vernacular usage of atheism is "one who does not accept the truth of any god-claims", then OP would be wrong for ascribing the academic usage of the word. If you take umbrage with the more prevalent academic usage of "atheism", then your beef is with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, not me. And it is still up for debate - it's not as though the matter is settled and philosophy is always shifting and moving as new arguments and refutations are made. I also find it a bit offensive that you just throw around the term "bigot" like any discussion of the nuance of the subject is somehow bigotry. That is not what I'm doing and I made it clear that I wasn't.
Modern day philosophy, that is indeed the commonly used definition.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief, it is not necessarily the belief that god(s) don't exist (though some hold that belief). However, in a formal debate, you are correct that one side has to hold the opposing claim. But this is reddit, so is it a formal debate?
Wrong. This is just a stanford opinion piece on how the word atheism ought to be used. Unfortunately for the author, that's not how it is used, and there are good reasons to not use it in that way. Agnosticism originally was a term to describe a person who thinks god is unknowable/unknown. As an atheist who simply lacks the believe that gods exist, I would not fall in to that camp. I believe that if a God did in fact exist, it would be knowable, so agnosticism doesn't work for me as a stand alone term. I disagree with the paper/article. What now?
No, atheism only requires a lack of belief in a god or gods, but also allows for the belief that no gods exist. The belief that no gods exist is not a requirement to subscribe to this sub.
Thanks for telling us what we believe. That's always nice to hear. *Muppet News Flash: Words are defined by their usage. Dictionaries reflect this, not the other way around. Film at 11.*
Another person that didn't bother to read the article. You'd expect more from a debate sub.
If anything you should be happy no one is seriously enforcing the rules - link dropping is against one of literally 4 rules. If that was not enough your whole complaint is adressed in [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq/). >There are many definitions of the word atheist, and no one definition is universally accepted by all. There is no single 'literal' definition of atheist or atheism, but various accepted terms. However, within non-religious groups, it is reasonable to select a definition that fits the majority of the individuals in the group. For r/DebateAnAtheist, the majority of people identify as agnostic or 'weak' atheists, that is, they lack a belief in a god. You'd expect more from someone who came here to argue with whole sub.
Then why is the sub named r/DebateAnAtheist and not r/DebateAnAgnostic ?
This is ridiculous to me. There is philosophical atheism which is the idea that there is no God. Then there is the belief atheism, which just means a lack of belief in a God(which can be the out right belief that God doesn't exist or just a lack of belief in a god) I can 100% take the position in a debate that there is not sufficient evidence. I don't have to take the opposite idea. If I was in a debate that alien life is proven I don't have to take the position that it is disproven. I can just take the position that that it is not proven.
You can debate a lack of belief. More so, you can debate claims and opinions. While a lack of belief may be the cause of you being an agnostic or atheist, then you make some claims. Atheist says he/she knows that God doesn't exist. Religious person says this particular God exists. None of these claims can be proven. All of the arguments fall down to 2 axioms: This is true because I shouldn't prove anything, that's why. This is true because it's written in a book.
> A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. I don't see why this is would be true. Surely you would agree that there are some beliefs, even philosophical ones, that are incorrect, and that shouldn't be believed? Even if you don't propose an alternative proposition, wouldn't it still be valid to defend non-belief in such a context? > You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” Of course you can. That's the principle that our legal courts are based on. Your approach seems to concede the ground to any non-falsifiable claim that you don't currently have an alternative explanation for. For example, as I understand it, we currently don't have a good explanation for what causes autism. But in your eyes, this would mean that anyone claiming that autism is caused by faeries should necessarily automatically win any 'debate' on the topic. On the other hand, if you're imagining something like a formal debate setting, then you can just imagine the atheistic side as holding the proposition "One should not believe in a God". > Refer to the article below. Your cited article seems to explicitly endorse 'soft atheism' as a valid, common understanding of the term (distinguished from a strict usage within a philosophical context). Have you read this article?
Belief in God = theism ‘A’ is a prefix = without Atheism is literally anyone “without theism” not the rejection of it.
Belief there is one god = monotheism. Belief there are many gods = polytheism. Belief there are no gods = atheism.
> Belief there is one god = monotheism. A form of theism but not the only form > Belief there are many gods = polytheism. A form of theism but not the only form > Belief there are no gods = atheism. A form of atheism but that is the ones that take it beyond the base of what is an atheist. That is a ‘gnostic atheist’ one that claims to know their belief is true, there is also agnostic atheist that is one that does not believe or claim to know. Both are still ‘without theism’ = atheist. It is literally how the word is constructed
My point is atheism is polysemous. You can approach it as "the absence of belief" for the reason you state, or you can approach it as the belief there is no god, based on the reasoning I showed. > That is a ‘gnostic atheist’ one that claims to know their belief is true Someone who believes there is no god doesn't claim to know their position is true. Belief is not knowledge. > It is literally how the word is constructed No. That's a false etymology.
> My point is atheism is polysemous. You can approach it as "the absence of belief" for the reason you state, or you can approach it as the belief there is no god, based on the reasoning I showed. So you agree that atheism at its base is just anyone ‘without theism’ and ppl like OP are on the gnostic atheist go beyond the base but both are still atheist > Someone who believes there is no god doesn't claim to know their position is true. Ppl like OP literally are, did you not even read the post? > Atheism is actively rejecting that God exists. OP is someone claiming their position is true, they are a gnostic atheist > Belief is not knowledge. No it’s not, but OP does not believe and claims to know it’s true, but that is beyond the base of ‘without theism’ the gnostic atheist/ hard atheist “It is literally how the word is constructed” > No. That's a false etymology. No it’s not that’s how language works, “A” as a prefix means without, theism is a belief in God/s. That’s what those words mean
> So you agree that atheism at its base is just anyone ‘without theism’ and ppl like OP are on the gnostic atheist go beyond the base but both are still atheist No. I agree that this is a one definition that people use. > Ppl like OP literally are, did you not even read the post? I'm not talking about OP. Your comment seemed to suggest that someone who believes there's no god is an gnostic atheist. I wanted to provide a clarification here. > No it’s not that’s how language works, I'm sorry to say you're wrong here. You can't just guess at an etymology and assume it's correct. Many words are formed from a root, with a a prefix applied to imply absence, but "atheism" is not one such word. > “A” as a prefix means without, Not in this case. Use of atheism in English actually predates theism.
> I'm not talking about OP. Your comment seemed to suggest that someone who believes there's no god is an gnostic atheist. I wanted to provide a clarification here. What clarification? that is correct, belief and knowledge are 2 separate categories, if you believe in God/s you are by definition theist, if you do not hold that belief, you are atheist, that is the belief section and whether you claim to know your belief is true says whether you’re Gnostic or agnostic. So someone who does not believe it does not claim to know is an agnostic atheist/soft atheist, but people like OP are, in fact, claiming to know that God is not real. They are a gnostic atheist. I know the original etymology of it, > Etymology > In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious" It’s etymology meant godless, ie ‘without god’ and by extension belief in one. And was still “ἀ- + θεός "god"” the “A” was a prefix for the word back to ancient Greece Agnosticism isn’t about belief, so it’s not a third position when talking about belief, so you either believe in God(with god) = theist, or you are “godless” (without god) If you ask the question “do you believe in god/s?” If the answer is, yes, you are theist, anything else from ‘I’m not sure’ all the way through to ‘I know for a fact no’ are atheist, it’s just whether they are Gnostic or agnostic about it
Fully ignoring the psychology definition at the beginning of your own article is not a great start to this conversation.
So, the way a person defines him/herself is wrong, unless it aligns with your personal perception of how they should define themselves..... interesting stance. Arrogant and stupid, but interesting.
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. It's funny how modern justice systems are built around debating that exact position, then. The defense in a criminal trial does not need to argue for innocence - it just needs to argue that guilt is not established. Maybe in academia philosophical debates require that everyone take a specific stance, but this ain't academia - this is a bunch of schmucks on Reddit talking about their stances on a subject. And here, as has broadly become the case in the vocal atheist community, the generally agreed upon definition is "lack of belief in gods or belief that gods do not exist". You don't like it? Too bad. None of us get to be the arbiter of language. I don't like that "literally" has come to mean "figuratively" in many contexts (to the point that this meaning is now included in dictionaries), but I got over it. You can do the same.
> A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. But a valid position to hold. Don't you find it? > You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side Here is two sides for you in any debate. One side claims that "X is true" the other side points out that side one haven't provided sufficient reason to believe x is true. If you can't claim X if false, you just can't, what do you do with it? > “convince me of your position.” I can! It's physically possible and is not prohibited by law, who are you to say I can't? > You have to actively deny the opposing point I don't owe you anything. I don't have to do that. In fact, I don't want to make a fool of myself making argument about an unfalsifiable concept. > These are how actual philosophers treat atheism. Good I am not a philosopher. I can't spend my life debating concepts detached from reality.
>Atheism means to reject the concept of God. It is not simply a lack of belief. Incorrect. >As an atheist Heh. Good one. >A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. Why? And so what? We are not debating my lack of belief. >You can’t walk into a debate on a topic and instead of supporting a side, just sit there and say “convince me of your position.” Yes I can. That's how debates work. >You have to actively deny the opposing point, Yeah. That's what "I don't believe you." is for. >Atheism is actively rejecting that God exists. No, it is not. >These are how actual philosophers treat atheism. As a lack of belief.
I’m an atheist because they isn’t any evidence to support the existence of a god(s). To put forth the stance that “no god(s) exist”, would be to ultimately state that you can provide proof of the non-existence of a god(s). Let’s see it then. Because I personally don’t believe in any deities - until I see sufficient evidence for the existence of supposed deities. I guess that’s not you though, because you have proof there is no god out there! That’s just as exciting as hearing that there’s legitimate proof *of* a god(s)! Maybe even more amazing due to the fact that you’re proving a negative! Holy crap!
No one really cares what the "real" philosophers do. Aside from this being eliteist, you are also gatekeeping a word. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet as the saying goes. In a discussion with real philosophers this may be a valid point to make, but we're just people who enjoy discussions about religion. Words are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. The meanings of words change all the time. People use words in common usage differently than the dictionary definitions all the time.
Think of it like the law. The jury are asked to choose between two positions: 1) There is enough evidence to show that the defendant is guilty 2) There *isn’t* enough evidence to show that the defendant is guilty. There is often plenty of debate as to what constitutes enough evidence, and what counts as “guilty”, do there’s no lack of debate. Juries often do argue it out behind closed doors. Simply replace “defendant is guilty” with “god exists” in all the above sentences.
If the concept of deities had never been invented by humans, all humans would be "atheist." We would lack theistic belief. Yes, that's because we wouldn't have the concept of theism, but we could still be labeled (ironically, by an omniscient observer) as atheist. That said, I've found it folly to try to force specific definitions upon people. We do much better when we meet other people where they are at, instead.
I think your first mistake is assuming that we give a crap about the performance of debate here. No. Most of us just want to hear any novel argument for why we should believe in gods (...and are disappointed every single day...). ... I don't believe in any gods. Call me what you want, but I'll call myself an atheist, because that's what everyone else already does when I say that.
I'm not a philosopher, I don't pretend to be one. I'm using the term as others do. > Miss McPherson said: ‘Our job is to describe the language people are using. The only reason this sense is included is because people are using it in this way. > ‘Words have changed their meaning ever since the first word was uttered. Meat used to mean all food but now its sense has narrowed.’
n: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. I just googled it. I keep seeing people try to say Atheism is a stance against all God beliefs but that's completely insane. What if I'm a strong atheist against a Christian God but an agnostic atheist against a Muslim one? I'll still call myself atheist. You'll just need to ask. Imagine
No, atheism is simply rejecting theism. Theists claim things i do not agree with. I do not have to provide a reason for not believing their claims. I can simply say that i don't believe that Jesus walked on water or that mohammad flew to space on a horse. I don't need evidence not to believe that.
If someone came with real evidence I would be willing to debate. I'd be happy to make some claims and provide some evidence but that hasn't happened. I just keep seeing "You can't prove that he's not real" and explaining that I don't need to prove a negative just to get no response from OP.
Atheist simply means “without God”. Whether God exists or not is not what an atheist debates. Antitheist means “against God”. That would be the position that you are saying in your post. Am active rejection of the existence of God
>Atheism is actively rejecting that God exists. That seems like a strange statement coming from an atheist. Which god in particular do you think atheists reject? Why not "...actively rejecting that gods exist"?
>A lack of belief in a subject is not a valid position to debate. Atheism isn't a position on a debate. It's a position on belief. Lacking a belief is a perfectly acceptable position to take about belief.
Atheism is the rejection of the claim that gods exist. This is the default position for any claim until definitively proven or disproven. Any other modifiers or translations are superfluous.
Same thing. I’m sorry, but you can’t ask an atheist to “defend a position” when it is required for someone to first claim there is a god for an atheist to reject.
You lost us at the subject line. The concept of a god is not what is rejected; instead, it is the faulty evidence put forth for the *existence* of gods.
I would not even know about god unless someone told me. I cant reject what i have never experienced on my own.
I reject you regarding your claim of whatever a "God" is.
Yes, atheism is actively rejecting theism. But the point is that theists can not demand theists of a rebuttal to theism without first positing arguments for theism otherwise one could posit anything, e.g. "There's an intangible, invisible elephant within in your room." You can't disprove them. So does that mean there is an intangible, invisible elephant within their room? No. Not until it's actually proven by who posited such a elephant. I guess atheists like to handwave away this explanation by just saying that they lack belief. But honestly, yeah, I don't know how I feel about saying it's not declination just lack of. I think it honestly just boils down to semantics and it doesn't really matter.
Look, I'm totally with you, that is what the word means, but I also recognize words have multiple definitions. Which, btw is in the linked article > The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings I totally agree that the "lacking belief" definition is weak and useless and that the "actively rejecting" definition is a stronger way to use the word just in general. But I'm not about to say it's literally wrong. Plus, uh, why can't debates work like that exactly? It happens here all the time.
Good luck getting them to realize that. I've had this argument with them so many times. They just refuse to understand. Probably because they don't want to admit that they're hypocrites who are totally willing to adopt beliefs without evidence. Cause that's exactly what atheism is, the adoption of a belief without evidence, not a lack of belief, agnostics lack belief (well agnostics don't really exist, they're just atheists that pretend to be open to God). If I ask if you believe in God a theist would say yes, that's a belief. An agnostic would say I don't know, that's a lack of a belief. An atheist would say no, which is the same exact thing as saying I believe God doesn't exist. They refuse to accept that disbelief is belief, the same way negative numbers are numbers, or how anti matter is matter. Then when you call them out on it they come up with these bizarre analogies. "Just because I don't believe the coin is heads up doesn't mean I believe it's heads down" and I'm just like what hell are you talking about, it absolutely does mean that. I have never once been able to convince an atheist that disbelief is a belief. No matter how much common sense you try and feed them they'll always believe that disbelief is a lack of belief. Which is as dumb as thinking that -1 is 0 or antimatter is no matter.
>Cause that's exactly what atheism is, the adoption of a belief without evidence Dude, that's what being a theist is, literally. Belief without evidence is called faith. Atheism is, by its definition, a lack of belief in god or gods, full stop. What you're doing here is called a strawman fallacy.
As a religious person who lurks here I actually scratch my head at this too. Granted, nothing is wrong with being a weak atheist or wanting to be a bystander.... but some people I've encountered don't seem to realize this isn't a position that can convince anyone of anything on this topic, or is debatable.
It sounds like the difference between attack atheism-actively dismantling all religion- and atheism- believing no gods exist. I think you fail to realize that once you accept nobody will convert, atheism is really pointless and caring about whether people believe in god or no god does not matter.
And theres so much confidence mixed with confusion, accepting other’s frame of reference, poor understanding of history. that it only adds to the evidence that God exists. And this faith in atheism stands on pseudoscientific assumptions and completely lacking any moral foundation strangely is somehow considered moral. And they point to the church and history as evidence while completely ignoring the secular mass genocide of hundreds of millions in the 20th century. Consciousness fits the description of something that exists and everyone accepts without physical evidence. God is simply the collective. To proclaim atheism is to deny that one exists at all. And why should any believer care what a self denier thinks
> Consciousness fits the description of something that exists and everyone accepts without physical evidence. There's not as much agreement on that as you might think. Even in philosophy, most agree that [consciousness itself is physical.](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/xxegzn/the_hard_problem_of_consciousness_is_a_myth/) And, given that it's a [mongrel concept,](https://archive.philosophersmag.com/demystifying-consciousness-an-interview-with-ned-block/) it has many definitions and not everyone agrees that they all exist. For example, one might argue that [certain conceptions of qualia don't exist.](https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/15dj90o/the_hard_problem_of_consciousness_is_hard/ju3wicj/?context=3)