Richard Dawkins' Brand of Atheism

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
Wow, I did not expect this thread to catch fire like this. But I’m not asking for the merits of atheism but more about Richard Dawkins’ presentation of atheism. So no one finds it a bit uncouth to say “what you believe to be fundamentally true is wrong and bordering on idiocy”?
[/quote]
Not me; it’s the simply truth. Except that I’d say “insanity” not “idiocy”. There’s not much point in avoiding offending people who find offense in my mere existence.

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
Those discussions have a time and a place and I can see atheists practically foam at the mouth and offering their uninvited opinion when anything regarding Christianity and atheism is mentioned.
[/quote]
Religion is all consuming; it tries to push itself into everything. It’s always time to point out it’s flaws when it appears. Or to turn things around, are you offended when people bring religion up in circumstances that should have nothing to do with it ? Like someone thanking God when the firefighters/police/whatever rescue him, for example. Religion is always pushing; it should always be pushed back, except under the most extreme circumstances ( so, no, don’t stand up and denounce theism at someone’s funeral ).

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
I am a fan of intelligent discourse as much as anyone but not at the cost of offending people who didn’t even ask for your opinion.
[/quote]
Funny how it’s OK for them to offend us . . .

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
But quite frankly I don’t know how many fundamentalists (the source of the problems, I think we more or less agree) Dawkins is winning over, but this recent of atheism movement seems like a bunch of atheists feeling smug and patting each other on the back while slandering Christians.
[/quote]
I doubt it’s converting any fundamentalists; such people are beyond reason. And how is telling the truth slander ?

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
I have trouble believing moderate religiosity is a problem if seperation of church and state is maintained and idiots don’t use it as justification for their own hateful behavior and prejudice.
[/quote]
Because even the mildest religion warps people’s judgement. Stupidity and irrationality are just as destructive as malice.

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
I don’t think if religion disappeared off the face of the earth, homophobia and all that stuff will dissipate since I know plenty of homophobes who are not religious in any sense.
[/QUOTE]
No, but removing one of the major drivers and excuses for that and other forms of bigotry should logically greatly reduce their prevalence.

82

[QUOTE=Staggerlee]
I was just rambling, I have no cite. It just seems that despite wars largely stemming from territorial interests and competition for resources, they are often dressed up with religious reasoning - giving fighters both a sense of being on their god’s side, and conversely of their opponents being expendable spiritual dead-enders. We’d surely be better off without this primitive illusory divide.
[/QUOTE]

I have observed that an individual’s sense of humor regarding any given belief system disappears almost immediately upon the actual internalization of that system. The meme of a devout conviction seems to seek out and cripple with surgical precision that one area of the mind that would otherwise be capable of seeing the ridiculousness of an indefensible position with regards to the new doctrine, for example the individual will see no great humor or contradiction in defending the rational with the irrational or vice versa. At the same time, the individual remains completely unaware of the transition. The person retains all other faculties, it’s just in that one particular area as related to the specific function of humor that the individual is stripped of the ability to detect or at least appreciate the absurd. The wry smiles, the self-deprecation, and the gentle disclaimers fade away: the individual is no longer able to understand that what they’re saying sounds crazy. Now crippled with a blindspot in their self-awareness, their external camera if you will, they effectively become new hosts eager to disseminate the meme while simultaneously becoming inoculated to the introduction of competing memes.

Can information be said to have an existence outside the physical realm? To seek its own perpetuation? Could some information become predatory? I often wonder.

The good news is that the damage may not be permanent; I once knew an elderly nun equipped a great collection of Jesus jokes.

83

[QUOTE=FordPrefect]
I think you have me mixed up with my cousin, Zaphod :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]
:smack: Of course!

(Maybe that’s why I could never get much farther than “take analgesic” in the text adventure game version of the book.)

84

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Dawkins, like too many atheists, insist that science ‘disproves’ religion.
[/quote]
Which of his books have you read, and in which one was that assertion made? He does argue that science is perfectly acceptable as a means of testing the claims of religion.

All that is irrelevant to judging the claims made by religion now. (Which religion, by the way, claims that there are 29 dimensions?)

Again, you are a master at rudely and obnoxiously calling people on their rude, obnoxious qualities. (But as to seeing the surprise of the zealot when they find out how wrong they have been, I’ve often felt the same way about the religious. Unfortunately, there won’t be any entity to feel, any sense organs to perceive, nor anything to reveal the truth. Schadenfreude is a dish best served before death, I guess.)

85

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Dawkins, like too many atheists, insist that science ‘disproves’ religion. What they all fail to comprehend is that the information we have now is not the information we will have twenty years hence or two hundred years hence. If there are twenty-nine dimesions, then possibility is limitless and we, with our flawed and tiny human comprehension, tend to be far too unrealistic in apprehending how little of all knowledge we actually have managed to understand.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, this is just another weak straw man. Dawkins covers this. And in fact, this is precisely the reason why religious claims are often so outrageously irrational and unjustified: precisely because they claim knowledge and truth with false certainty. The fact that our knowledge is limited is indeed a call to humility: a call that religious faith and claims generally REJECT.

Again, I find that people like yourself can only make this characterization by simply lying about the nature of their criticisms.

Right. This from the guy who simply refuses to see that the God of the OT calls for death as punishment to trivial and superstitious nonsense, even when cited to chapter and verse.

86

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You missed quite a few debates right here in SDMB then. As I learned here, there are two strains of atheism, Strong and Weak. The positions, as I mentioned, are different. The arguments countering each are different. I don’t have the desire to rehash the same old ground, but you may do a search if you like.
[/quote]

I was in those debates. I don’t recall seeing any atheists being confused by the distinction. Aren’t you admitting that YOU were once confused by them then? If you say you understand the issues now, good. We’ll see. As I define things, in the way I think is most clear and straightforward, atheist is synonymous with non-believer. Some of these atheists (who can be termed strong atheists) make strong claims about the existence of God. It’s worth noting, however, that these claims are often a little less grand and comprehensive than they are often made out to be.

Are you trying to be ironic? Again, traditionally it has been theists who have confused, often with malice, the ideas and claims and definitions of atheists. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this sort of discussion:

a) do you believe in god?
b) No.
a) So you’re an atheist then.
b) Ok, that’s how I define it sure, and I guess if that’s what atheist means to you then we shouldn’t have a problem.
a) So how can you possibly sustain the claim that you KNOW there is no god!
b) I didn’t make that claim.
a) But that’s what atheist means! See, look right here in this dictionary (and indeed there is such a dictionary definition saying that)!
b) It doesn’t matter what it says in the dictionary. You asked if I believed, and I said no. That was enough for you to decide that I was an atheist, and that’s what I mean by atheist. If you now want to claim that atheism means something different, then you are the one who is confusing the usage, not me.

87

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m all for an arrest and jail time. A big fine too. Just think of flux of revenue around Christmas and Easter. Not to mention the steady income from lost teeth.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I want to go to prison for telling my kid “now, you are a big boy, and wearing big boy underwear. And Bob the Builder is on it. Bob doesn’t like to get peed on.”

We lie to our children all the time. If you can manage to raise kids without lying - either by omission, or in the creation of a magical childhood, or in the interest of just getting a two year old out the door - you are a much better parent, and have much more rational children, than mine.

We spent several weeks telling our children there were no monsters that would crawl out from under their beds or from out of their closets at night. It didn’t work. What worked was telling them monsters are afraid of Teddy Bears.

88

I see it as early days.

Atheists are currently in the position that homosexuals were a few decades back, and blacks a couple of decades before that, and Jews 20-30 years earlier: Discrimination, slander and public scorn were all considered socially acceptable.

NOTE: I am not aware of any atheists being literally lynched in modern times, so I realize some will take justified exception to these comparisons. What is valid, I think, is that it is largely the same mindset of folks that are doing the oppressing. Perhaps they have learned that physical violence doesn’t serve their ends?

In my lifetime, I have seen homosexuality go from a crime that was mentioned only in hushed disgusted tones and never in polite company, to being a part of popular situation comedies and mainstream entertainment. In the 70s and 80s the folks arguing publicly for equal treatment of gays seemed very in-your-face and over the top. While being generally for gay equality, I saw it as more of an obviously needed reform, not worthy of debate and didn’t really pay attention to who these folks were…thus I can’t cite names or examples.

And obvious public anti-semitism has not been acceptable in the US since long before I was born, so I know little about how that came about.

In the case of the movement for racial equality, though, I have been educated by the PBS series “Eyes On The Prize”, so I can better articulate the parallels I see. I see Dawkins as being the Martin Luther King of the pro-atheism movement, not the Malcolm X. MLK gave the racists plenty to worry over and hate, but MX gave them reason to fear. Vocal theists may claim that Dawkins is wrong or obnoxious. I have heard none protests that he is dangerous. If he evokes fear at all, it is but the fear that he is correct.

89

[QUOTE=Kevbo]
NOTE: I am not aware of any atheists being literally lynched in modern times, so I realize some will take justified exception to these comparisons. What is valid, I think, is that it is largely the same mindset of folks that are doing the oppressing. Perhaps they have learned that physical violence doesn’t serve their ends?
[/QUOTE]

While yes, not on the same level, we do have several recent cases of atheist families being almost literally chased out of town by death threats, ostrization of and attacks on their kids, etc. And of course a well-documented issue of courts using lack of religious belief as a point against someone in civil matters, most egregiously in the custody cases.

90

Der Trihs, thank you for illustrating precisely the kind of arrogant and generally disagreeable attitude that I am talking about.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not me; it’s the simply truth. Except that I’d say “insanity” not “idiocy”. There’s not much point in avoiding offending people who find offense in my mere existence.
[/quote]

So you’re saying even moderate Christians are offended by the mere existence of of atheists? Maybe it’s just you, since I seem to get along fine with a lot of Christians.

Religion can be all consuming. It really depends on the individual, and when it is, yes I do have a problem with that too (I’ve already stated that I am not fond of fundamentalists). But a person thanking God for some unlikely/lucky event is not offensive because he/she not saying “I’m right in believing in Jesus, fucking idiot atheists”, in fact I doubt that atheism even enters their minds. When a Dawkins’ atheist talks about religion, it’s almost always hostile towards theists.

So we’re obligated to retaliate right? I never said I was a fan of fundamentalists. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

As I’ve stated numerous times, I do not necessarily disagree with Dawkins, but more with his presentation and antagonism towards religion. You can be atheist without forcing your views on others and rudely exclaiming that their views are “delusional”. Forcing your religious view on others hmm… That sounds kind of familiar…

What’s with the name calling.

Good people, fundamentalist or atheist, do not commit horrid acts of prejudice and intolerance. The ones that advocate that sort of behavior are the problematic ones, but I hardly think they’re the majority. And what about criminals that stop committing crimes once they’ve found Jesus? They should go back to being godless criminals right? Since they’re only being good for a lie.

I also wish that atheists wouldn’t get a bad rap for no good reason, but being pricks about it isn’t going to help…

91

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
Der Trihs, thank you for illustrating precisely the kind of arrogant and generally disagreeable attitude that I am talking about.
[/quote]

You may have missed it, but in pretty much every theism/atheism debate, every other atheist denounces Der Trihs’s opinions. Please don’t judge us all by him.

92

OK, I am Theist. Specifically a member of a mainline Protestant church, have served as a Deacon, etc. I was NOT indoctrinated by family (my parents are not church goers). I chose to enter the church after I graduated from college. My spiritual path wanders all over the place.

I have no issue with atheism. I have no issue with atheists. I put atheist who scream inane things about all theists in the same box I put idiotic theists - they are rude, irrational individuals who coat their anti-personal behavioural problems in the guise of their belief system (loosely using belief system to cover atheists as well).

I believe in free speech - so atheists are welcome to enter the debate. They are also welcome the same amount of backlash others get when they enter the debate.

They only time I get my back up with atheists is when they tell me not to bring my beliefs into politics. This is nonsensical unless better explained. Are you saying that I cannot use my belief that Jesus told me to minister to the poor when I vote in favor of funding a homeless shelter?

Now, as a strong believer in the 1st Amendment, I oppose a government church. However, I also oppose recent efforts to snuff out any religious symbols that exist in government hands. I also oppose adding any religous symbols too, though. I guess I go for a grandfathering in approach on things like the Mt. Soledad Cross in San Diego and the Mission on the Los Angeles Seal.

I don’t think that the atheists behind those movements represent their part of the population any more than Jerry Falwell represents me.

I think that religion, like many philosophies, can be used to rally the crowds. Once a crowd is rallied, it is capable of great good or great evil. I do not believe that eliminating religion will result in a world of peace - Stalin and Mao showed us how to be anti-religion and murdering SOBs at the same time.

I have not read Dawkins (for no other reason than I have a too-large stack of books that I am going to get to any day now). He is welcome to his opinion, but when his followers / fellow-believers start getting nasty, it only strengthens the idiots on the other fringe. It also gets the more progressive religious types riled up as well - and we are the group that is least likely to judge. Rather, progressives Christians are the ones running a variety of outreach and assistance programs instead. When we are diverted by needing to defend ourselves and our reputations from the poorly worded and thought out attacks of the atheists, we are not able to continue in our mission work.

WAY more than I meant to type, have not done a good job of organizing this, and I hope it is semi-coherent.

But as one of the public believers around here, I thought I should chime in.

93

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Bob doesn’t like to get peed on.
[/QUOTE]

I DEMAND A CITE!

94

[QUOTE=Algher]
When we are diverted by needing to defend ourselves and our reputations from the poorly worded and thought out attacks of the atheists, we are not able to continue in our mission work.
[/QUOTE]
Do then find the time to read Dawkins’ *The God Delusion * and especially Sam Harris’ The End of Faith. Both are articulate, concise, and tightly reasoned.

And to the issue raised by the OP, Harris emphasizes how even moderate Christianity, Judaism and Islam are contributing to the cycle of violence and willful ignorance that imperils our world today. That’s a pretty offensive notion to many kind, intelligent, and well-meaning people. But read what he actually has to say before dismissing such a counterintuitive idea.

I’m sure the impetus to do good works in the world springs from approximately the same internal source in atheists as it does in Christians, but the missions I observe in Central America are at war with each other over fine distinctions in points of faith, while the secular aid organizations are doing the same work without asking people to take sides in a “battle for souls.”

95

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Yeah, I want to go to prison for telling my kid “now, you are a big boy, and wearing big boy underwear. And Bob the Builder is on it. Bob doesn’t like to get peed on.”

We lie to our children all the time. If you can manage to raise kids without lying - either by omission, or in the creation of a magical childhood, or in the interest of just getting a two year old out the door - you are a much better parent, and have much more rational children, than mine.

[/QUOTE]
Yes. We lie to our children all the time but at a certain point we admit to them that there never was a Santa Claus. The problem is, some people just never get around to telling their kids that there is no God, either. I guess because they believe it themselves (because THEIR parents never told THEM the truth, and their parent’s parents never told their parents the truth and…)

Yet if grown adults went around insisting there was a Santa Claus we would think them fools or delusional. But atheists are supposed to be all touchy-feely and nice about telling the religious that there is no God. Why? Why the different rules? This is where all the thought-exercises with the “Invisible Pink Unicorn” or “Flying Spaghetti Monster” come in.

But I’ve never heard a religious person respond to these thought-exercises directly. Instead, they “shoot the messenger” as it were. They remind us (again) how sick they are of hearing about the IPU. But they never honestly address the question–how would they (a theist) honestly respond to a person who truly and whole-heartedly believed that miniature toy soldiers in his skull created the Universe and everything in it?

The theist KNOWS what their response to the “toy soldier delusion guy” would be, but if they admitted it, they would be proving the atheists’ point so somehow they never quite get around to it.

96

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
So you’re saying even moderate Christians are offended by the mere existence of of atheists? Maybe it’s just you, since I seem to get along fine with a lot of Christians.
[/quote]
Atheists America’s Least Trusted Group. Yes, most Americans are offended by us, or don’t even believe in us; “I don’t believe that anybody is really an atheist. I believe that deep down everyone knows there is a god.” You are either lucky, or deluding yourself about how the Christians you encounter feel.

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
But a person thanking God for some unlikely/lucky event is not offensive because he/she not saying “I’m right in believing in Jesus, fucking idiot atheists”, in fact I doubt that atheism even enters their minds.
[/quote]
No, but neither do the people who risked their lives to save them, to use my firefighters example. They are saying “Screw you, you’re expendable, and your efforts made no difference anyway. God deserves all the credit.”

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
When a Dawkins’ atheist talks about religion, it’s almost always hostile towards theists.
[/quote]
Assuming there is such a thing as a “Dawkins’ atheist”, they should be hostile towards religion. It’s stupid, irrational and destructive. Why shouldn’t they be hostile ? What’s wrong with being hostile towards something you consider extremely bad ?

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
So we’re obligated to retaliate right? I never said I was a fan of fundamentalists. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
[/quote]
Yes, we are obligated to retaliate, as practical. And we are talking about fundamentalists; when you talk about religion, they are what matters. They exemplify religion’s essence, they embody it’s direction. When it comes to religion, the fundamentalists are what matter; the others are a sideshow.

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
You can be atheist without forcing your views on others and rudely exclaiming that their views are “delusional”. Forcing your religious view on others hmm… That sounds kind of familiar…
[/quote]
Yes, that’s what religious people do. I notice a distinct lack of atheists doing the same, or even trying. Criticising people is not “forcing your beliefs on them”. That’s the religious people’s whine again; that unless you follow their beliefs and praise them at every turn, you are forcing your beliefs on them and oppressing them

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
What’s with the name calling.
[/quote]
It’s called “being honest”. Religion is stupid, irrational, and malignant; that’s how I feel, and saying otherwise would be a lie.

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
Good people, fundamentalist or atheist, do not commit horrid acts of prejudice and intolerance.
[/quote]
They do if they are religious. Assuming a truly religious person can be “good”. If someone is religious enough, they will beat their children to death, and mean well the whole time.

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
The ones that advocate that sort of behavior are the problematic ones, but I hardly think they’re the majority.
[/quote]
Nonsense; the passage of anti-gay laws all over the country proves you wrong.

[QUOTE=r4nd0mNumb3rs]
And what about criminals that stop committing crimes once they’ve found Jesus? They should go back to being godless criminals right? Since they’re only being good for a lie.
[/quote]
First, what makes you think they weren’t religious to begin with ? I would expect the religious to be more prone to crime; there does appear to be a link between religiousity and social dysfunction. Second, I would think it more likely that they switched from conning and beating people for themselves, and switched to conning and beating people for Jesus - and themselves.

97

[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
Yes. We lie to our children all the time but at a certain point we admit to them that there never was a Santa Claus. The problem is, some people just never get around to telling their kids that there is no God, either. I guess because they believe it themselves (because THEIR parents never told THEM the truth, and their parent’s parents never told their parents the truth and…)

Yet if grown adults went around insisting there was a Santa Claus we would think them fools or delusional. But atheists are supposed to be all touchy-feely and nice about telling the religious that there is no God. Why? Why the different rules? This is where all the thought-exercises with the “Invisible Pink Unicorn” or “Flying Spaghetti Monster” come in.

But I’ve never heard a religious person respond to these thought-exercises directly. Instead, they “shoot the messenger” as it were. They remind us (again) how sick they are of hearing about the IPU. But they never honestly address the question–how would they (a theist) honestly respond to a person who truly and whole-heartedly believed that miniature toy soldiers in his skull created the Universe and everything in it?

The theist KNOWS what their response to the “toy soldier delusion guy” would be, but if they admitted it, they would be proving the atheists’ point so somehow they never quite get around to it.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t tell my children there was no Santa - they figured it out on their own. I didn’t tell them that silkscreened Bob didn’t really give a damn if he got peed on, eventually, their common sense won out. Won out on the monsters under the bed, too.

We tell them some grownups believe in God, some don’t. Dad’s an atheist, mom’s a deist, mom and dad’s close friends are Wiccans, and many of our friends and relatives are Christians. Many of their friends are Christians. And God is like Santa Claus, whatever you believe, you need to respect the beliefs of others - which is the nice way to say “yeah, the little kids don’t know, and you know better, but don’t spoil their fun.”

My own experience, in being married to someone who was delusional (in the common non-medical use of the term - he believed he’d been a fairy in a past life) is that the best response is “that’s nice” and move on. You don’t cure someone of being delusional, and it really isn’t your business to do so. Everyone has their own irrationality (my favorite are the people who are delusional about money and jobs - i.e. my boss “owes” me a raise and I still have money because my Visa card still works) - God doesn’t seem that much better or worse than most of them.

98

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

Assuming there is such a thing as a “Dawkins’ atheist”, they should be hostile towards religion. It’s stupid, irrational and destructive.
[/QUOTE]

My my, aren’t we painting with a mighty big brush.

That is probably the most ignorant thing I’ve seen you write, unless you are referring to the idea that only the fundamentalists are the problem. A “sideshow”? I don’t get it. If someone goes about their life keeping their beliefs to themselves and not indoctrinating their children, what harm is there in it?

99

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

Assuming there is such a thing as a “Dawkins’ atheist”, they should be hostile towards religion. It’s stupid, irrational and destructive.
[/QUOTE]

My my, aren’t we painting with a mighty big brush.

That is probably the most ignorant thing I’ve seen you write, unless you are referring to the idea that only the fundamentalists are the problem. A “sideshow”? I don’t get it. If someone goes about their life keeping their beliefs to themselves and not indoctrinating their children, what harm is there in it?

That is just awesome. You have summed up exactly why people dislike and distrust atheists. You are a walking example of everything that retards the transition away from formal religion.

100

[QUOTE=Apos]
I was in those debates. I don’t recall seeing any atheists being confused by the distinction. Aren’t you admitting that YOU were once confused by them then? If you say you understand the issues now, good. We’ll see. As I define things, in the way I think is most clear and straightforward, atheist is synonymous with non-believer. Some of these atheists (who can be termed strong atheists) make strong claims about the existence of God.
[/QUOTE]

Bingo. There’s the problem. You defined Atheism in its Weak sense, then went and included the Strong strain under the umbrella. Now, if this was just the two of us in a bar discussiing this, you could simply tell me that you are defining the term in the Weak sense—or Strong—and we could proceed rather easily. But on a board like this when people of varying strains of Atheism are present and participate, once you make an argument to one person, another chimes in (of another strain) and it all gets conflated and confused. It results in a very sloppy, frustrating debate.

[QUOTE=Apos]
Are you trying to be ironic? Again, traditionally it has been theists who have confused, often with malice, the ideas and claims and definitions of atheists. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this sort of discussion:

a) do you believe in god?
b) No.
a) So you’re an atheist then.
b) Ok, that’s how I define it sure, and I guess if that’s what atheist means to you then we shouldn’t have a problem.
a) So how can you possibly sustain the claim that you KNOW there is no god!
b) I didn’t make that claim.
a) But that’s what atheist means! See, look right here in this dictionary (and indeed there is such a dictionary definition saying that)!
b) It doesn’t matter what it says in the dictionary. You asked if I believed, and I said no. That was enough for you to decide that I was an atheist, and that’s what I mean by atheist. If you now want to claim that atheism means something different, then you are the one who is confusing the usage, not me.
[/QUOTE]

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Twice now you’ve tried to point the finger at Theists for no apparent reason. If you don’t like them, good for you. But look at what you quoted from me to which you give this lengthy reply. I was simply making the point that in a debate, it helps to have terms defined—by and for both sides. Just what the fuck is it about that that gets under your skin?

And your example is not representative of the exchanges I’ve had. I have NOT attempted to tell classify anyone as Atheist or anything else. I always ask THEM how they would classify themselves. Than I seek clarification on their definition of the term THEY use. You seem to be making my point for me.

Again I’ll ask, specifically, what is wrong with having terms defined before one engages in a debate? I have to assume you know what the term “debate” means and that you’re aware that when formal debates are held, defining the terms is a normal course of procedure. Have I assumed too much?