:100:

To point a few things out:

When the debate was set up, specific parameters were agreed upon, and I did indicate the moderator's role would be the same in the debate thread as any other thread, limited to enforcing the site guidelines. There were no violations there.

As a general matter, I also think community feedback is more effective and credible than authority declarations by staff. Whether i say something is bullshiit isn't any more critical than any other voice in the choir.

If everyone got their say and everything was exposed, then it was a good day.

But to make good on the debate that never was, I challenge @180 Proof to a duel! If yes, we'll iron out the details. 3017 will moderate it.

Last line a joke. The rest is for real.

The difficulty in dealing with weasels lies in forgetting that they're weasels, which is to say that they're usually pretty good at being weasels. I hold 3017 to be such a weasel and note that if the debate is a weasel fight, then it's not really a debate, because weasels don't debate. It would be nice if the moderator held 3017 to the standards of debate, and to clearly and plainly disqualify him if he continues to fail to meet those standards. Only in that way might 3017 understand that he has failed, and failed miserably and completely. But as a matter of five-cent psycho-analysis, I would not be surprised to learn that 3017 developed his weaselly survival kills in a harsher and meaner environment than TPF. And it is too bad that his skills as he practices them also make him entirely an unsympathetic character.

I think the term used locally is "fuckwit". — Banno

Takes one to know one. What was your greatest fuck-witted feat?

What was your greatest fuck-witted feat? — frank

Supposing that you were worthy of a reply.

Supposing that you were worthy of a reply. — Banno

Ohhh. Did you stump your toe or something?

But to make good on the debate that never was, I challenge 180 Proof to a duel! If yes, we'll iron out the details. 3017 will moderate it. — Hanover

You issued the challenge, so @180 Proof gets the choice of weapon.

Should 180 honour me by choosing me as his second, I'd recommend Socratic Irony at thirty paces.

Everything he said was posturing, my guess is he was hoping to barf out enough words that he could have plenty of weeds to hide in when he inevitably evaded addressing the actual topic of debate. — DingoJones

I'm just happy that could never happen in this thread. Phew!! :-)

Ohhh. Did you stump your toe or something? — frank

it's "...stub..."

Did you stub it?

No, but the cat wouldn't let me sleep in, so there's that. And it's cold and windy and I really don't want to go out and muck out the chicken coup. So a good time to stay inside and trade insults with whomever is willing.

Ah. Well we're getting our climate change on over here.

The mosquitoes will rule.

I never followed the debate or the parallel lines. I just knew it must have been hilarious. In my books 3017Amen is dumber than a door knob, but he is full of "let's go, let's do it". His character is similar to that of Ratbert in the Dilbert comics. An innocent nincompoop, a naive happy-go-lucky guy.

180 Proof, on the other hand, has difficulty in speaking humanese, or else has an easy way of speaking his own language.

Pitting the two against each other had got to be a hoot. I did not even have to read one single solitary line in the debate to see that. I am still laughing, albeit inwardly, not outwardly.

The mosquitoes will rule. — frank

They already had humans build many, many mosques.

You need to teach them to do it themselves.

You need to teach them to do it themselves. — frank

I see you haven't had a lot to do with chickens. Except perhaps in the pot.

This was the equivalent of watching a boxer go out with the strategy of bobbing and weaving so vigorously, without ever throwing a punch mind you, that they hoped their opponent would get dizzy and knock themselves out...

:lol:

So accurate.

Two fighters enter the ring for this turn-based fight, one clad in white and the other in black.

The fighter in black asks who should throw the first punch, and the fighter in white volunteers.

The fighter in white asks to confirm that the fighter in black would prefer to defend against a left jab.

The fighter in black denies that he has such a preference.

The fighter in white asks what kind of attack he should throw then.

The fighter in black says “whatever man, just try to hit me with something.”

The fighter in white declares round one a draw, still yet to throw a punch.

Lol, we are having way too much fun at his expense. Its not mean if its accurate…right?

Both players have to agree on a draw, otherwise it’s a resignation, all kidding aside.

No, but the cat wouldn't let me sleep in, so there's that. And it's cold and windy and I really don't want to go out and muck out the chicken coup. So a good time to stay inside and trade insults with whomever is willing. — Banno

Chicken shit!

The whole thing was a meta-debate - a debate about what was being debated. Pfhorrest nailed it.

Your definition is more of an ideal atheist: as you see it. — Tom Storm

I'm not only questioning theist's perspective and straw-manning of atheism, I'm also questioning many atheist's perspectives on defining it. If atheism is only about a lack of belief in a God or Gods, then what do you call them who lack belief in any superstition, supernatural, ghosts, fortune-telling or whatever fantasy you can come up with? Atheism is the closest definition of such a person and dividing it into "normal" atheists that can include absolute superstitious fanatics, with "ideal" atheists that are more close to the core of what atheism should be defined as, muddies the water and makes it very unclear as to how the opposing worldviews between atheism and theism work.

If we are talking about defining a concept, there are no real facts other than how society decides to define a concept. There's no "fact" that atheism is defined in a certain way, and possible it is defined differently in a heavily religious nation compared to a secular one. Dictionaries change all the time through cultural movements. When atheism was coined as a term, there was pretty much only the dichotomy of belief in God and a lack of belief in God. Today, if someone puts down tarot cards, starts fortune-telling in coffee stains, and wants to eat dirt to heal her aura, I don't think such a person can be attributed with the definition of atheist, regardless of what not-up-to-date dictionaries outlines.

A no true Scotsman fallacy happens when someone hears a description of the characteristics of X and argues that 'they're are not X' (because the description doesn't suit the person's preferred understanding and argument). — Tom Storm

So how do you define someone who is living by reason, rationality, facts of the world, and logic? As opposed to living with pure unsupported belief? Because if we go by your loose definitions, then you are putting me in the same category as some lunatic fortune-teller. And sure, by self-reflection, I'm doing it to, lumping together believers in God with everyone else who has an unsupported belief.

What's the answer to this? If atheism and theism aren't broad opposing concepts then how do we broadly define what you define as an ideal atheist? I make a clear separation between atheism and theism and any other unsupported belief. It makes the arguments clear.

The reason I don't think the Scotsman fallacy applies is that an atheist who believes in other supernatural things or even gods that are not part of any live religion today is much closer to theism and those belief systems. They use the same kind of arguments, the same kind of justification for their beliefs. And even if we define atheism by the classic "lack of belief in God" then how can we have belief systems within atheism that are just as unsupported as in that classical definition?

An ideal atheist is the norm definition of an atheist.

Imagine that all current religions go out of fashion, they become dead religions, and a thousand years from now we have a new religion with a new "God". If Atheism is only defined in relation to current Gods, then atheism can't exist as a concept in opposition to that new religion.

And what about Buddhism? There are no Gods there, but it's still in opposition with atheism. An atheist Buddhist doesn't exist. So how do you define an atheist in relation to Buddhism?

I'll remind you of what you said: — Tom Storm

I know what I said, and just as a racist saying "I'm not a racist", a person saying "I'm an atheist" and then lays tarot cards and start talking in tongues because they think there's an entity flowing through the quantum realm, is not an atheist. You misuse the Scotsman fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

I have clearly defined the line where you go from atheism to something else. So I'm not shifting any goalposts (like described in the link), I'm stating that any unsupported belief in entities, gods, supernatural, superstitious, or whatever unsupported belief you can think of, adheres more to theism than atheism. And that dismissing any unsupported belief that can't be justified with reason, rationality, and logic adheres to atheism.

You don't own the definition of atheism. If someone says they are an atheist and they don't believe in god, they are an atheist. Period. They may be an untheorized atheist, but so what? Atheism may have an ideal form (humanism and skepticism) but that's not what we were talking about. — Tom Storm

What does this have to do with "owning" a definition? I criticize a muddy definition that incorporates new agers and other wackos into the same category as atheists. As I said: if someone says "I'm no racist" when they clearly are, they are still a racist. People can say that they are whatever they want, but having a quantum-squid-entity worshipper who lays tarot cards call themselves an atheist becomes absurd.

To say that someone can call themselves whatever they want is not an argument in this discussion, it has nothing to do with the points I'm making. If we are to have a discussion about atheism, it has to be clearly defined. I don't think aunt Clarice with her "cat god of venus" applies to atheism and using her will to claim herself to be an atheist has no relevance.

About 50% of atheists I have met at freethinkers forums/events over 40 years and the like have no or little interest in logical foundations. They may be inchoate but they are still atheists. I was an atheist for 20 years before I ever examined reason and logic. — Tom Storm

It's not about an active or conscious way of using reason and logic as a calculus during the waking hours. The reason, rationality, and logic I talk about are how you approach everyday stuff with skepticism, with a clear opposition towards believing anything at face value. If an atheist didn't live by this, they would start to believe things that are unsupported, including the supernatural. It's not about "interest in logic", it's about the inner workings of an atheist's thought process. It's that if someone claims something, the atheist doesn't just nod and accept it as true, the foundational thought process questions everything until there's evidence or logic behind a claim.

Having a debate about why so many atheists are not philosophically inclined and can't really justify their atheism might be a more rewarding line to follow. — Tom Storm

Justify what? That I deny the truth value of any claim that doesn't have a rational, logical foundation for it? I justify myself as an atheist by not accepting anything as true or likely to be true just because someone say it is.

Sure, you have a point that I might create a concept of the ideal atheist, but there's no clear definition of what a person who lack unsupported belief is. And that kind of person is by definition an atheist anyway. So even if there's something added to include the lack of any kind of unsupported belief, not just in "God", that person is still at the foundation, an atheist. I just don't agree that aunt Clarice and her cat God can call herself an atheist, it's very much far from what defines an atheist.

American Atheists definition of atheism:
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system — Tom Storm

So a Buddhist atheist can therefore exist? Or someone believing there's a quantum-entity-cat flowing through the Higgs boson field is also an atheist because that's not directly a God?

If I reject any kind of belief that isn't supported, reject belief systems all-together other than a supported belief that can be rationally justified, i.e a hypothesis, what am I?

If I have a belief in an entity that is responsible for creating everything, starting the universe, a guardian of the world and universe, but I absolutely won't call it a "God" and do not accept anyone claiming my belief in such an entity is a belief in God, what am I?

I see you haven't had a lot to do with chickens. Except perhaps in the pot. — Banno

I grew up with the stories about how they had to ring their necks.

I'm sort of a vegetarian now, except I eat eggs.

If I have a belief in an entity that is responsible for creating everything, starting the universe, a guardian of the world and universe, but I absolutely won't call it a "God" and do not accept anyone claiming my belief in such an entity is a belief in God, what am I? — Christoffer

A disputant in search of an argument?

If atheism is only about a lack of belief in a God or Gods, then what do you call them who lack belief in any superstition, supernatural, ghosts, fortune-telling or whatever fantasy you can come up with? — Christoffer

I suggest you read about secular humanism, this is the worldview you seem to have in mind.

Your other ideas might make a good new thread for those wanting to explore atheism more fully. I just wanted to explore the definition, a job I believe has been covered.

So a Buddhist atheist can therefore exist? — Christoffer

Buddhism is often described as an atheistic religion.

If I have a belief in an entity that is responsible for creating everything, starting the universe, a guardian of the world and universe, but I absolutely won't call it a "God" and do not accept anyone claiming my belief in such an entity is a belief in God, what am I? — Christoffer

A theist in denial.

I suggest you read about secular humanism, this is the worldview you seem to have in mind. — Tom Storm

Yes, I know that. I'm trying to find out how people define atheism when it seems possible to believe in something that is by all definitions a God, but the only thing that is different is that they claim it not to be a God, even though everything about it is.

Buddhism is often described as an atheistic religion. — Tom Storm

Yes, but do you see the apparent contradiction in such a description?

A theist. — Tom Storm

But by the definition that an atheist can hold different belief systems, just that they share the lack of belief in God or Gods, then an atheist with a belief system around that example who just reject the idea that it is a God, can't be an atheist, but theist, right?

How then can we have atheists with different belief systems? Isn't everything collapsing into pure semantics with no clear meaning of any definitions?