Atheism is the default position

| Rebuttal | Atheism is NOT a philosophy, political view, religion or ideology. That’s not entirely correct. There’s a lot (if not the majority) that consider believing in a god is like believing in leprechauns, even some refer to god as a virus or delusion (Richard Dawkins) this comes from an ideology. There are churches and entire organizations devoted to spreading atheism itself (as I pointed out earlier) this is religion because there are tenants that specifically spread the belief. There are obviously political views with atheists when it comes to science and religion, as atheists are notorious at using political influence to keep religion out, especially in the classroom. And for philosophy, there are plenty of atheists that believe that god is logically impossible, the internet is riddled with webpages devoted to disproving all gods (usually with bad reasoning). Granted atheists each have a different brand of philosophy\religion\ideology, but atheism is not lacking with these things. Atheism is a doctrine, it’s a belief there are no gods. Yes, the accepted definition for this debate of atheism is the “lack of belief in a god.” This is a bad definition. This definition is only telling you what it isn’t, not what it is. For example, if you define apples as “not blueberries”, does this mean that the apples are green beans? Well, green beans aren’t blueberries, so yes, green beans are apples… NO! This is just wrong. Don’t you see? With the same logic (atheism being default) this is correct that apples are green beans. The problem is that you have a bad definition to begin with, I’ll call it a pseudo-definition because it’s not a genuine definition (it doesn’t tell you what it really is, but what it isn’t. it’s completely useless.) We use that definition of yours for fun and play in this debate, but it really isn’t atheism (you’re just confused). There is solid linguistic evidence that shows that it isn’t, because the suffix “–ism” indicates that the word is a belief. If you don’t believe there are no gods and claim that you’re an atheist, then you’re not a genuine atheist. The definition is supposed to mean what the word means, not what you want it to mean (or some groups opinion). It’s very clear that because the suffix –ism is attached to atheism it is a belief (not lack of all beliefs). If you’re saying atheism is not this, why on earth do you use this word? Why not just simply call yourself a nonbeliever? Instead of confusing the English language. The "A" in atheism actually means atheism is a non-ism, no matter what root word you use Let me get this right, you’re saying the prefix does modify the meaning of the suffix? So… the –s suffix in the word atheists means non-plural? No, atheists is plural, the prefix (a-) doesn’t change the suffix (-s). I don’t see why we need to have the prefix a- negate the meaning of the suffix –ism (make it not-ism). I’m sorry, I didn’t create English. You can research and study the morphemes. Atheism is a belief there are no gods. That’s what it literally means. If you got a problem with that, blame language, not me. Whether the default position is unique or not is irrelevant. Yes it does. As I stated in the judicial criteria, the topic’s meaning is that the default position is the same as atheism. So if I show that there is a difference, then I obviously win the debate. Saying something is unique is like saying it’s different to everything else (including atheism). So being unique has all relevance to this debate. Basically, my opponent is grasping at straws, trying to throw in red herrings and other irrelevant things to see if anything sticks. Everything my opponent brought up is irrelevant to the fact that atheism is the default position. The reason why I responded about the definition is that you said you were wanting to “seek truth”. I was trying to explain to you that the definitions are bad, which is the truth. If you did not comment that you were seeking truth I may not have done so. I don’t want people being confused that we’re debating something that is true, because we’re not debating true atheism, it’s more like pseudo-atheism because we’re debating a fake definition of it, and pretending that it’s true for fun (at least I am) so that we can figure out in some hypothetical world if where atheism meant something else, is atheism the default position? It is not a red hearing as herrings misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue. The important & relevant issue was apparently seeking truth (as you made a big deal about playing baseball). The reason why I commented on nontheism because the accepted definition fits closer to nontheism then atheism. You seem to be confused between the two. And the other thing you called “irrelevant” (religion) is very relevant. If you are an atheist and have religion, you cannot be the default as it isn’t religious. There is an obvious difference. I will argue that both "ends" of atheism (religious and non-religious) are BOTH atheistic, and both within the default position. No, the default position has no religious beliefs. If you are an atheist, and have religious beliefs you are not default. If you were a non-religious atheist, then maybe. It would be confirming the consequent because it’s not always true, some atheists are not default. For example, if you’re a Buddhist, and you believe karma or rebirth, then you’re not default, but are just simply an atheist by the accepted definition. Because Karma & Rebirth are religious beliefs. If you are an atheist that believe in the spiritual world but not a God (like Jainism) you are not default because you have religious beliefs. My opponent failed to provide any evidence that atheism is anything other than the default position when it comes to beliefs in gods. When you clarified in the last round, you said "Atheism is the default position" (of religious beliefs). Yes, the words "of religious beliefs" are left out, but implied. We are NOT debating the default in terms of “belief in God” only. You explicitly stated that we are debating in terms of “religious beliefs”. Guess what, a lot of religious beliefs have nothing to do with God. For example, if you believe that an alien race called Elohim created the human race instead of a god, that is a religious belief (Raelism). If you believe in SaM47;sāra that is a religious belief. Those beliefs are atheistic. They are not the beliefs of the default position. You cannot be default and believe in these things. Clarification of the difference Okay, I think I need to clarify the “difference” between atheism and the default position, because pro doesn’t seem to understand it. The default is the position of no beliefs (because you have no beliefs when born, as pro pointed out in round 2). Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Default lacks all religious beliefs, the atheistic position only lacks one. In atheism you can have religious beliefs. In the default position you cannot. The difference is can and cannot, possible and impossible. If you are a religious atheist, you cannot be default. Therefore, the difference is obvious because not all atheists are default (lacking religious belief). Atheism and the default position are clearly different. | Summary | There are two basic arguments that I argued. 1) The default being unique and 2) The accepted definitions were bad. The first is important, the second was more of a side discussion that went on because Pro was wanting to seek truth. As discussed in the judicial criteria, the criteria was “difference”. Pro did seem to agree with it, as he (or she?) didn’t comment on it despite me pointing it out in the last round. What matters is one question, is there a difference between atheism and the default? Yes! Atheism can have religious beliefs, the default position cannot. You cannot be a religious atheist and be default. “Atheism is the default position” No! There is a difference. Which means you know who to vote for from the criteria, vote Con! Thank you, it has been an excellent debate. Peace to all, as I know that religious topics can get touchy sometimes.