This is such an idiotic arguement... Big difference between believing what the lab-coay cultists say is so and being maybe wrong about the correct identity of the creator.
@drcraigvideos many many atheists define it as a lack of belief in a god — generally the majority I'd say even. Generally those would would go as far as to claim there is no god would only say it in the sense (or with the caveat) that there is no god that affects humans in any noticeable way at all, and might as well not exist if it does somehow exist.
Regardless of what one person considers the definition, if they explain the meaning they believe, it should still be OK.
I don't think the point was that you would be defined as an atheist. I think the point is that there is a strong correlation between location and the specific type of god one is likely to believe in. It is a less radical belief because the real issue is not addressed. Why are these other gods so easily dismissed by christians, but when someone dismisses the christian god there is an issue. This same point can be made to people of other religions. Not picking on Jesus
@eulerkaku there's nothing like other gods, the problem is western world not understanding the idea in naming in other culture. english is abstract and that's where the whole problem started from.
@eulerkaku who we call God (who we all carry his (not a human but light being) essence, doesn't have a specific name. naming is something we do on this earth. in cultures that have concrete language and idea, the concept of naming is different. if God (i hate to use that term cos i know the origin) does something for someone or is to be credited for something that happens, the name is derived from it for instance, if u are barren and finally have a child, u can say "the one that gives offspring"
What is the point of debate, when you die you find out the truth, or you know nothing' but wait there's more' what are we going to do when we run out of natural resources?
@DrFruedienslip well one of the duties of being a christian would be to share god, try to bring people to him and I guess debate would be a way to bring someone to god
its awesome how these atheists are trying to make clever arguments like this but whenever someone explains to them what is wrong with their argument all they do is deny the fact that their argument is retarted, honestly now if you want to make an atheist argument don't go looking for it in the youtube comments section : /
Were you born believing in Yahweh and Jesus Christ? No. The default position is non-belief of a claim. Craig is arguing semantics and misrepresenting atheist's views. He is implying that atheists are making a claim of certainty that "god doesn't exist" when we're actually saying "you haven't given us enough evidence to prove this claim is true".
WLC is doing this to try to shift the burden of proof and get us to prove a negative, because he knows damn well he doesn't have evidence for god.
@qlchampion conti: married bachelor that's also a negative. So all in all you can prove a negative. Last you said there isn't enough proof well my question for you is how much proof do you want. I've see court cases have less evidence then Christian Theism still convict a man gulity of a crime. Arguments like the cosmological arguments, telogical, moral, octological, and historal accounts of Jesus prove Christian Theism to be accurate and correct, so what proof and evidence do you have?
@FamousDave2186 there's proof beyond any reasonable doubt of a flood that flooded the entire earth, that noah's ark contained multiple of all the animals on the earth for many days including ones on other continents like North America or Oceania.
That's just one tiny piece of the bible, and yet there's been a massive lack of evidence for it by the majority of all researchers. Lots of the claims of christianity is essentially hearsay built off, and mixed with proven history.
@viridismonasteriense, You may not like the definition because it doesn't fit you presuppitions but that is the classical definition. Now atheist have separated the definition into 2 categories. HARD & SOFT atheism which I think is hilarious!
Oh, so you're an Atheist? That's interesting. My pencil is too. He lacks belief in God or gods. Perhaps you two should get together some time and talk. I'm sure it would be a very interesting conversation to hear...
Atheism has different meanings just like the word theory has different meanings and theists commonly play with the semantics of both to score some cheap points. Atheism can mean the lack of belief in god(s). Theists are prior atheists (i.e. babies) who have been given a veneer of religion via indoctrination.
Dr.Craig is, of course, entirely correct. If you wish to try to make a 'soundbite' argument such as this, then your terms really do have to be on the money. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either frame your question properly and eschew the catchphrase statement, or accept it when your desire to sound catchy leaves you looking a bit silly.
Dr. Craig doesn't answer the fundamental question. What basis is there for rejecting the existance of Zeus, Thor, Odin, etc, while simultaneously clinging to a belief in an entirely equivalent being? There is no fundamental difference between Zeus and the Christian god, beyond "But he's OUR God". Truth is irrelevant at that point.
@fvschie He already addressed that point. There is no argument for zeus as strong as the argument for jesus. As he says it's a silly argument that's easily refuted. Why does he believe in Jesus as apposed to believing in Odin, because there is (what he believes to be) sufficient evidence to justify belief in Jesus whereas there is none for aphrodite zeus odin ect.
@scar504 The existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the divinity of Jesus are two different things. Mohammed, the prophet, also actually existed. And he's at least as holy as Jesus is, performed miracles etc, has plenty of followers, and followed the Abrahamic god as well. So, why acknowledge Jesus and not Mohammed?
By 'holy' I am implying fiction, of course. No such thing as gods. But why pick one fiction over another and dismiss the rest? What if you're wrong?
@fvschie Part 1 It would appear that you didn't quite grasp my point, because i answered this question in the first comment. Let me attempt to evince the reason with an analogy. Santa Claus and Jesus are not equal in the sense that neither is falsifiable. Why? because if Santa Clause did exist there would be evidence to prove it (factory etc.) however there is evidence against his existence. This is why we don't believe in Santa Clause. Now why you ask does WLC believe in Jesus? cont.
@fvschie part 2 The reason WLC believes in Jesus as opposed to Mohammed is because he believes there is good evidence to suggest Jesus was who he said and that there was no good evidence to suggest that Mohammed was who he was alleged. You're trying to make it seem as though all religions have the same probability of being true which is simply not the case. If i made a religion right now that stated that i am god and if you obey me you'll be saved it wouldn't be as likely to be true. Cont.
The reason it wouldn't be as likely to be true is because I have no evidence to support my claim i.e miracles etc. So you would have much more reason to believe in Christianity as opposed to believing in this self confabulated religion that I've just devised. Do you now understand why WLC does not give as much likeliness to the possibility of other religions being true as his? If not i don't know how i can make it more palpable.
I lack the belief God exists. That doesn't mean I believe God doesn't exist. I just possess the non-belief about the belief in God, and will go to any lengths to defend it. What? No, the burden of proof is not on me to prove my non-belief. The negative position is always the default position in the absence of evidence otherwise. What? No, silly. That's not a belief. It's a NON-belief, which is impossible to refute anyway since it is not a belief about God. I make no claims about that.
You can't lack a belief. You either believe in something, or you don't. You cannot possess an non-belief; it's a contradiction, as a non-belief defines what you don't have.
If you assert that God does not exist (which is the TRUE definition of atheism), then you must provide support for said assertion.
You atheists are slippery, slimy snakes. Atheists of old at least had the balls to declare God did not exist and do all they could to defend it.
@aveyowyns Look, numbnuts, I agree with everything you say because I am a theist. I am simply parroting exaclty what I hear from atheists, and your criticism is right on. These are not my own words, or even my own thoughts. Learn to take a joke. Take a look at every other post on youtube from me. Good God!
It doesn't matter if you're a theist - you're still an asshat. Like I said, your comment doesn't convey sarcasm ... so, the problem lies with your incapability to do so.
You silly theists. Even rocks lack a belief in God, so rocks are atheists. Atheism is the default "position." QED. Try proving God exists to a rock, you crazy theists! It won't work! The position of the rock is not to have a position. Atheism is like a rock, see? Even rocks take the "default position." Our default position is like the rock's position which is no position. We are immovable positionless positions. Prove to a rock God exists, you crazy theists!
If you answer no, then you assert that he does not exist - and you're an atheist
If you answer yes, then you assert that he does exist - and you're a theist.
If you cannot answer (or will not answer for fear of being trapped by your irrationality), then you are an agnostic, and are not justified in asserting that God does not exist.
"The full quote was: you come off as an absolute ass-hate, NOT someone being sarcastic."
So, it was your point to not to come across sarcastic too, then? If that (being an ass-hat) was the point, then don't turn around and whine that someone takes you seriously.
"Apparently not in yours."
So you hold to the lack of logic that sarcasm is something someone HAS in their VOCABULARY, then?
The definition proposed by WLC seems myopic and purposefully dense.
So, i'll solve the definition drama and see if we can actually get an answer to the original question posed:
"Craigs" are hereby defined as people who don't believe in a god. I propose that almost every person is a "Craig" concerning all but one god. How does a theist rationalize picking one and saying "but this one is really true!!!!!!11one1", considering other monotheistic religions have their own 'convincing' arguments.
oh, stop arguing. Here is the real definition of atheism.
An atheist is a person who claims, believes and assert notion or notions that attempts to rebuke, deny and falsify existence of God.
These notions are sometimes testable by background information.
They also must extrapolate their notion that the universe is eternal which is absolutely pantheistic in a sense. I call it "atheistic pantheism". Keep inducing eternal to something that is not and proven to be not
To state that everyone is an atheist since everyone has gods they do not belive in robs the term 'atheist' of any useful meaning.
By the same token stating that no one is an atheist since no one can be certain there aren't any gods also robs the term atheist of any useful meaning.
@studentofsmith "By the same token stating that no one is an atheist since no one can be certain there aren't any gods also robs the term atheist of any useful meaning."
If everybody is not certain "God does not exist" then God may exist, this would expose atheism as the madness that it truely is.
@ozredneck22 It is not logically possible to prove there isn't some kind of god just as it is not logically possible to prove there's no such thing as extraterrestrials. As such, no one, if pressed, holds the position there's no such thing as god, only that the exsitence of such a being remains unproven.
To define atheism in the manner Dr. Craig has, therefore, describes a position held by no one which makes it as useless as the definition proposed by the questioner.
Interestingly some early Christians were regarded as athiests by the Romans for not accepting their gods. Of course they were using a different definition to Dr Craig. This is all a nonsense anyway. The question behind this is "Given the variety of different religions & religious experiences, how do you know your religion is the right one"? As far as I'm aware this point about atheism was started by Dawkins who was being humourous rather than putting forward an argument.
I agree about Dawkins, but the problem is that people like the questioner actually take that statement seriously. The problem is that atheism is NOT dependent on the premise that all gods are irrational as the questioner presupposes. Therefore the questioner is only trying to defend ONE branch of atheism, rather than atheism in general.
@jmanexpress He was just playing semantics so he didnt have to answer the question. I think someone should pose the questionto Craig again, but instead of using atheist, he should say "non believer"
@MrKGatl This is getting ridiculous it is not semantics. To be an atheist means to affirm the proposition there is no god. To be a theist is to affirm the proposition God exists. I as a Christian am in no sense an atheist, its not rocket science
By virtue of the very fact that they have taken the word theism and put an 'a' before it begs to differ. They are the ones using semantics. How retarded do you have to be to not understand such basic sequence of events? The word theism came first, then came 'atheism'. This word semantically means what Craig is saying. Do you even know what semantics is?
It is you who is using semantics and lawyers tactics to avoid confrontation on your Belief.
it would be like..If is said judy is not my mother..but, edna IS my mother..would I be amaternalist? no..just because I don't believe that judy is my mother does not make me not believe that edna is my mother. The comment from the peanut gallery was simply a ludicrous statement. One that holds no rational at all.
Well I may not be christian or muslim or a religious person but I think he handled this question very nicely. I hate cocky people like the guy asking the question who think they're so smart by just repeating what they heard someone else say and coming up with no original arguments by themselves (you can tell because he can't continue the argument once his question has been answered and had simply memorised the question). He was put in his place and put well :)
You gotta love something epic like this against mere internet infedels. they are bots and spammers and idiots who don't know what their own definition.
I take my hat off for Dr Craig who is able to answer an idiotic question in such a civilized way. If I had been asked the same question - and simultaneously had to keep myself from laughing or getting mad at that cocky besserwisser who puts such idiotic assumptions into his question... 14 year-olds can be that naive and cocky, but here you have a grown-up man!
@ymalmsteen887 Really? Think you can point me to one? I've never seen (nor even heard) of such videos that have such decisive proof before. I've seen claims to individual arguements, some even good, but little that can disprove an entire book. For that matter, something just about the Arguement from Reason would do.
...By the by, I doubt Lewis would regard the story of his life as 'a joke'. Are you sure you're thinking of Surprised by Joy?
@ymalmsteen887 I can't speak for why you haven't found it. I read it from a book written by C.S. Lewis, who has been writing since the 1930's. It isn't like it's banned from library shelves (and I've looked in my collection since and can't find it. Maybe it's his autobiography, I read it but don't own it). Since Lewis wrote it down, at least he had made the connection.
Why it isn't common knowledge is probably due to the religious implications in this polically correct society.
@ymalmsteen887 "when people like harris or dawkins say that they are just saying when you tell why you dont believe in those gods you have our reason for not beileveing in your god."
I can appreciate that and see that viewpoint perfectly. I would hope that the basis for all such conceptualization of God (from the vantage point of atheism) though is not dependant on only an idea that all belief, do believe solely on faith as personal proof can be rather revealing.
@ymalmsteen887 sure...i can believe in you but have no faith that you'd act in accordance with God's commandments....you might possess some self-proclaimed motto that coincides with those laws but it doesn't mean you'd act on behalf of God's will...you'd act on your own desire with your own motives for doing so. All it takes is belief in ONE god or a multitude of gods...and you are NOT an atheist. If a theist denies other gods, they're not an atheist to those gods...thats not what atheism means.
@ymalmsteen887 "it has nothing to do with faith." right, thats why i said it is better to say "no faith in God" hence meaning there is no faith there at all. One has to believe in God to have no faith in God? really!? doesn't the atheist "have no faith in God"? no belief in god(s) = no faith present.
"It just means without believe in gods." dictionaries i referenced....atheism = 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
@ymalmsteen887 lacking parts of a car means "to be in short supply of the whole" just like i said. thats the concept i am getting at that "muddies the waters" like i said...did you even read it? and LACK can also mean "WITHOUT" which is why I said....to be perfectly clear where an atheist stands it would be better to sat "you have NO faith in God"....which is what i said.....your first sentence points more towards your inability to read the words i wrote.
Theists want to label atheism as a belief that there are no gods so they can attack it. PERIOD
Craig's definition of atheism makes no sense. What do I call myself if I do not believe in your god but I do not claim NO gods could or do exist? If you want to use agnostic for me that implies I am not sure about your god... I AM sure about your god not existing so agnostic is misleading. and lumps me in with people who aren't sure. It's dishonest.... which is expected.
@sfg911 Craig read off the proper definition for Atheism from a dictionary of philosophy(E.g:It's not 'Craig's definition')It's not only theists who go with this definition.all honest scholars,acknowledge this as the definition of atheism...Atheism,really is the belief that 'No' God exists..I don't know what to call you since your complaint introduces ambiguities..
@sfg911 It simply means you're not a christian. I must say, the idea that "everyone" is an atheist because there are some gods they do not believe in is absurd to the extreme. If you define atheism this way, then it becomes an utterly meaningless term, because it applies to every single human being.
@sfg911 how can you be SURE there's no God if according to you there's no Higher power to impart knowledge of such a scale to you?? many religious/spiritual people could (supposedly) be SURE because they believe a higher being to make them sure, whether true or not (although I personally as a Christian am comfortable accepting that I don't Know for sure) whereas you have no experiencial basis for such sureness.
I apologise if I have misunderstood your statement.
A higher being of some kind is definitely possible, but the one that Craig believes in has been shown to be restricted in terms of reality to the minds of his believers. Craig is making a false claim, that to be an atheist you must say that no god exists. Atheism is and has always been in response to a claim about a specific god. As such, the questioner is correct and Craig is creating a strawman, which is typical of him in terms of intellectual dishonesty.
@TheTexanCanadian You don't know what honesty is if it was in your face. Atheism is the belief in no God. A=no. Theos=God. Thus Atheos=no God. Ergo atheism=belief in no god. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?
@TheTexanCanadian "TheTexanCadandian" (translation: I'm an amateur philosopher who has no real grasp of atheism except what George Smith or Dan Barker says about it.)
@TheTexanCanadian how's it a strawman? If your gonna sit here and say your an atheist, and not agree with the definition then why don't you go on ahead and believe that atheism is a religion, regardless if you disagree with the definition.
I've always found this videos claim odd since my own faith was solidified by the Arguement from Reason which went to show that Naturalistic Atheism is false. From there, I had to conclude supernaturalism was true, and from that, the small leap that God can exist. Personal experience since has confirmed that God does exist. My faith was saved by reason, and by reason I cannot be an atheist. Gloria in excelsis Deo.
I enjoy that this sort of magic carpet tactic of relieving themselves of the burden of proof has been pulled out from under them. Once a so-called atheists agnosticism has been revealed then it is only a matter of determining what kind of agnostic they are and if they assert it cannot be known then they're a scrorner = converstation over. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
I made a vid explaining why this claim (atheist = belive god does not exisit) is false.
for it to be true, it would mean that an atheist needs to have proof for EVERY definetion of god, that THAT god is not real. but what if I define god to be "the universe", or "the earth", or "this pan that I'm holding". you can't claim that THOES don't exists, there for, you'd have to agree that if THAT was god, than god is real.
there for, that is not a definetion of an atheist.
I dont get why is some videos people argue what the definition of atheism is. why does that matter. The burdon of proof is still on the one claiming something, unitl the other side is claiming something to. Its not a claim to say that I dont believe god exicts. Its a response to the claim that god exist.
@gulbirk People who make negative claims hold the burden of proof as well. Otherwise, the person making the claim that "death doesn't exist" holds no burden!
@drcraigvideos Yes. But the person saying God doesnt exist is making a claim. Ill make it easier for you. The burdon of proof is one the person claiming something, we can agree on that? And until evidence or demonstration for that claim has been presented, its valid to believe that that claim is false. If you didnt, yyou would have to believe EVERYTHING that hasnt been disproved.
@gulbirk Uhm, all I'm saying is that someone making a negative claim holds the burden of proof. That doesn't necessarily mean the position is true or false. Honestly, throw the junk philosophy away.
@drcraigvideos You are completely wrong. A negative claim cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. The burden of proof is on the positive claim, because it can be proven. You are using the burden of proof fallacy.
Dr. Craig makes a common strawman fallacy in this video of assuming that most atheists have faith that god does not exist. While some atheists do, it is a small fraction. Most atheists simply do not maintain a belief that any deities exist.
@trj1370 "You are completely wrong. A negative claim cannot be proven, it can only be disproven."
Uhm, yeah, when someone with hair on their head makes a negative claim like "I haven no hair", you can prove that they have hair on their head. But you know, that cannot be proven. You're smart!
"Most atheists simply do not maintain a belief that any deities exist."
Call that agnosticism then. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God. Drop the pop philosophy.
@gulbirk according to law.. a statement that "God does not exist" does hold a very strong burden of proof. the claim "god may not exist" does not hold the same burden of proof. but that is mere agnosticism. atheism has a claim to "know something" therefore that knowledge must be given proof. hope that helps a little
@drcraigvideos The person making the claim "death doesn't exist" does not hold the burden. The person claiming death does exist has the burden. It's just that in this case the burden is extremely easy.
Just because something is commonly accepted does not shift the burden to the negative claim. That is the Appeal to Belief logical fallacy.
@trj1370 No, it's not. It's common sense. If someone makes a claim (ie "death does not exist") they carry the burden of proof. If someone said "I do not exist" then according to you he carries no burden of proof. You're makin no logical sense. I even doubt you know what a fallacy is.
@trj1370 actually the burden goes either way of the scale except the neutral stance. To say "there IS a god" is a burden, as it defines an assertion. To say "there IS NO god" is also a burden, as it defines an assertion once again. To say "I don't know OR I am unsure OR I don't have enough proof"......defines no assertion whatsoever, hence no burden. No matter which way you tip the scale to positive or negative the burden then comes upon those that would actually assert one way or another.
@hexusziggurat the problem that the more modern atheist is inflicting on themselves is that they're trying to steal into the agnostic camp to relieve themselves of that burden. If the modern atheist can somehow borrow from the agnostic in saying "there isn't enough proof" then he'd relieve himself of the burden...though as theres a relief of the burden then thers also a relief of the assertion that "there is no god" & hence you conform to agnosticism & remove yourself from the atheistic camp.
That's a misunderstanding of the terms atheist and agnostic. The actual definitions are as follows:
Atheist: lack of faith in a god
Agnostic: lack of knowledge of a god
Therefore everyone on the planet is in fact an agnostic, and anyone who says they have "knowledge" of a god is either in an insane asylum or belongs in one. The only question is about faith, and even those who say they are agnostic because they want to avoid the debate are in fact atheists as well.
not sure what dictionary you're using but for me.....atheist=a disbelief in god(s)
agnostic=undecided as to whether there is/are god(s) [whther this is not wanting to explore it further...having no sense of wanting to understand it any further or listening to all sides and saying they are undecided or having been one way then bending towards mid-ground ie showing doubt in former assertions]
@TheTexanCanadian your definiton of atheism doesn't even make the mark, what "lack", as lack defines (in short supply of) so that means you may have "some supply" just not "enough supply of"...so do atheists fall in the 1% to 49% "faith" bracket? no...i am more inclined to say atheists don't "lack" any faith...they have "NO faith in God". whereas my agnostic friends do not "lack knowledge" they have great knowledge...they just choose to remain neutral in lieu of making an "assertion" either way.
I really don't understand how this is a difficult point. Christians deny the atheist's assertion and the atheist denies the assertion of every form of theism as much as the Christian denies most other forms of theism. They both make an assertion, but if you don't want to assert "there is no God" why muddle with language when there is the perfectly clear distinction between atheist and agnostic?
1)If atheism can now mean a belief that God is possible or there could be a God, then what would you call someone who empathically claims “God does not exist”? Should we call them supper atheists, hardcore atheists, first degree atheists etc.. I may have an answer to the dilemma. I personally believe in evolution (change over time) but I don’t believe in bacteria to man evolution so there is a distinction by using the terms macro and micro evolution.
@ATOMICGLUE "If atheism can now mean a belief that God is possible or there could be a God, then what would you call someone who empathically claims “God does not exist”? "
That question has been bothering me for some time now, what do you call them? Atheism is madness.
From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
2)So, maybe we can use the term “macro Atheism” for those that claim that “God does not exist” and we can use the term “micro Atheism” for those that believe that God is a possibility but they lack the faith to believe in him because from their viewpoint they can’t see any evidence.
3)If however, there is a consensus in the atheist community to change the meaning of atheism from a belief that “there is no God”, to “there could be a God but from my viewpoint I can’t see any evidence”. I think that acknowledging there could be a God and also acknowledging from their viewpoint they do not see any evidence to believe it, is an intellectually honest statement and I for one would be cool with that.
4)Conclusion: the new Atheist is one who believes God is possible but from his or her view point cannot see any evidence to believe it. For those Atheist that are determine to claim there is no evidence for God I would say… unless your viewpoint is all encompassing there is a big difference in claiming there is no evidence to not seeing any evidence. I for one see plenty of evidence for a creator, the observation of nature itself is enough not to mention the ability to observe it.
@fakirJ Um, an atheist according to the major encyclopedias of philosophy (and they are the ones that determine definitions as well as Greek linguists), is someone who REJECTS belief in any god. So, if you think no gods exist, then you are an atheist. If you think there is a god, then you are not an atheist. Simple. But, it doesn't matter if you use the new diluted version. That fails the test of science and logic as well. See above. Atheists don't think deeper. They only depend on fallacies.
@steve0281 So, atheism with ZERO testable evidences of life from non-life is rational? Are you trying to destroy how science and rationality have been done for centuries? You've got to be crazy, biased or thinking solely with your emotions and misconceptions or maybe all three.
@steve0281 Oh yes, My bad. Sorry. Am in a very huge rush and just read bearded and missed chubby. Sorry. You might find my rebuttal of new atheism's "lack of belief" useful as well as my playlists with much more evidence.
I guess all of us, human beings, were born atheist. Then, the concept of god(s) and religion are imposed as an inquestionable truth, depending in our parents traditions, culture and religion. That's how the cycle works and the key how to break it
@titoyepezliut Nobody has EVER been born atheist at any time in history.No baby has come out thinking, hmm...I reject the existence of gods or I lack belief in gods or anything of the sort.They only think about satisfying their hunger.Even if they were, it wouldn't help. They would also then be born lacking belief in science, history, gravity and a host of other truths. THis is yet another really, really stupid argument by atheists that falls apart completely with the most superficial checking.
For example I consider myself atheist because I believe there is not sufficiently irrefutable evidence for any case of a God that has ever been put forward, and since this is the case believers in Gods (especially theists as opposed to deists) have no true reason to believe in Gods other than blind faith.
Anyway these people really need to stop promoting the idea that 'atheists' dont know what they believe in because the word 'atheist' doesnt mean what they think it to mean!!!
"I consider myself atheist because I believe there is not sufficiently irrefutable evidence for any case of a God that has ever been put forward.....................believers in Gods (especially theists as opposed to deists) have no true reason to believe in Gods other than blind faith."
The problem is, the mere fact that you personally haven't encountered evidence doesn't mean that other people haven't either! You'd need to bring your own case to show that there is no God.
@Jaymaul009 There are countless evidences of God already, some from logic, some from science, some from history, some from prophecy, some from archaeology, some from the most credible of witnesses. You can't reject evidence just because you don't like it and say that it isn't evidence. That's simply NOT a genuine search for any sort of truth. It's only a search to confirm your apriori biases, a fundamental violation of logic and science. See my playlists for evidence.
If you are only willing to accept the strictest definition of atheism there is an obvious lexical gap. The words atheist, agnostic and theist can not describe all respectable positions. Therefore if I would like to describe a position that is most in line with atheist thinking I call it atheistic then describe the nuances of the position.
If I do this why is it reasonable for you to think you can pigeon-hole my stance by trying to force stricter meaning to my words to ease your argument?
@Jaymaul009 See why atheism fails no matter what definition you use below (since it refuses to follow the evidence where it leads). Biogenesis alone causes atheism to fail and there are 1000s of other lines of evidences. Since diluted atheism makes no claims, theism wins with even the tiniest evidence from any field of proof. See my playlists for MUCH evidence. And don't use different standards for competing ideas on the same question (that's a common fallacy atheists love to use).
Language evolves. When there are conflicting definitions for a word (see the Oxford dictionary definition), the usage which is most common will survive. Dr Craig is wasting his own time by being pedantic- the vast majority of 'atheists' use the word in a different way. If he's asking for their respect in listening to his arguments, he first needs to respect their use of language.
@matthewjhaywood LOL! So language can evolve to the point where we say that to believe in God is atheism? Sue me for believing that words have a meaningful definition to them.
@matthewjhaywood Furthermore, the reason atheists have diluted their definition is because:
A) Spontaneous generation has been falsified and abiogenesis has failed badly as well. Both were supposed to be scientific evidences that life could arise from non-life without intelligence.
B) Atheists want to escape the scientific requirement to provide evidence since they know they have none.
So, instead of having the integrity to follow the evidence, they've cowardly gone into lack of belief.
@TruthIsLife7 It really doesn't if you use the "lack belief" definition of atheism (which conflicts with official definitions as well as Greek linguistics). Both definitions fail the tests of science and rationality badly. If you choose the "lack belief" definition, then you lose by definition as soon as there is even a tiny amount of scientific, historical, mathematical, experiential, etc. evidence due to the requirement of science to follow the weight of evidence.
@drcraigvideos I think you might find my answer to the "lack of belief" view of new atheism helpful. Also, I have a lot of videos that you might find insightful as well, !Come Search With Me" and "Genesis Conflict" are two of the best with really strong evidence for Christianity as well as ones on history, archaeology, prophecy and a crucial series refuting the grossly unjust and unbiblical concept of eternal torture by God that has caused millions to rebel against God.
This pop-culture atheism is both trivial and stupid. "Atheist" and "theist" are distinctions of kind, not distinctions of degree. "Atheist" means lack of belief in a god or gods. "Theist" means belief in a god or gods. I am a theist. So how can I be both? According to this moron, I am both a theist and an atheist. Contradiction.
The apologist can constrain the definition of atheism but that's superfluous. Define atheism as you want, call it "belief X". It doesn't matter. What matters is the logic and reasoning that you employ to dismiss other supernatural claims, other than God. If one were to tell a Christian that "supernatural deity X exists and this is why..." by what criterion does the theist use to dismiss it? He will inevitably use most, if not all, of the reasons the "atheist" makes against their God.
@dudekyle13x "He will inevitably use most, if not all, of the reasons the "atheist" makes against their God." The problem here is that the theist already holds to the existence of a supernatural being. Craig was right. You can't be both at the same time since the two terms carry mutually exclusive meanings. Even under the present interpretation of atheism, a theist cannot be related. It's more accurate to say that a theist is an "Unbeliever" when it comes to divergent deistic claims.
Really for me, I call myself an atheist but I care less about the terms, and more about why someone believes, or does not believe, the way they do. You never really addressed my point though. Whatever you want to call either party, they still employ similar thought processes in their non belief of other Gods. The atheist and the theist aren't that dissimilar in that respect and (without re-watching the video so I'm going on memory) I think that's what the guy was driving at.
@dudekyle13x Yes, atheists and agnostics both employ similar thought processes in non-belief..how to violate science and logic and use every fallacy in the book to follow their apriori wishes. So sad.
@dudekyle13x What the guy in the video was doing was 'post-modernizing' the term "Atheist". So Craig gave the proper text-book definition in response to demonstrate that a theist was not - in the text-book sense - an atheist. You may call that superfluous, but that's like me saying that education is superfluous since textbooks are largely involved. No, we either hold to proper definitions or we don't. People post-modernize only what is not important to them. It tends toward hypocrisy.
So, then you are wrong to have regarded agnostics as "atheists without guts," if you follow the strict definition of Atheism. I may be agnostic about Zeus, but if you call me an "atheist without guts" in relationship to Zeus, then aren't you contradicting what you just said in this video about atheists? You can't have it both ways.
In Roman times, during the persecution of the Christians, these believers were regarded as atheists, because they denied the existence of Roman gods.
@bluehoneycomb "...because they denied the existence of Roman gods." So, then atheism is the denial of the existence of God(s). Thank you. So, atheism is not the non-belief in God, correct?
Scientists believe things they can't prove and work with variable's they can't explain, providing reasons they believe in.
In order to be a scientist you'd have to believe in everything you observe and that's obviously not the truth. Scientists have for years denied other scientists when they were proven wrong.
So Buddhists are atheists... They don't believe in any God... more along the lines of the rebirth stuff
chrism4n14 1 month ago
So it's not just on YouTube where many atheists behave like that...
AgApE010 1 month ago
gotta love Craig, always respectful and genuine.
finxoner 1 month ago
This is such an idiotic arguement... Big difference between believing what the lab-coay cultists say is so and being maybe wrong about the correct identity of the creator.
MagnusCattus 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos many many atheists define it as a lack of belief in a god — generally the majority I'd say even. Generally those would would go as far as to claim there is no god would only say it in the sense (or with the caveat) that there is no god that affects humans in any noticeable way at all, and might as well not exist if it does somehow exist.
Regardless of what one person considers the definition, if they explain the meaning they believe, it should still be OK.
MsHojat 1 month ago
I don't think the point was that you would be defined as an atheist. I think the point is that there is a strong correlation between location and the specific type of god one is likely to believe in. It is a less radical belief because the real issue is not addressed. Why are these other gods so easily dismissed by christians, but when someone dismisses the christian god there is an issue. This same point can be made to people of other religions. Not picking on Jesus
eulerkaku 2 months ago
@eulerkaku there's nothing like other gods, the problem is western world not understanding the idea in naming in other culture. english is abstract and that's where the whole problem started from.
MrSavedbylove 1 month ago
@eulerkaku who we call God (who we all carry his (not a human but light being) essence, doesn't have a specific name. naming is something we do on this earth. in cultures that have concrete language and idea, the concept of naming is different. if God (i hate to use that term cos i know the origin) does something for someone or is to be credited for something that happens, the name is derived from it for instance, if u are barren and finally have a child, u can say "the one that gives offspring"
MrSavedbylove 1 month ago
@MrSavedbylove what r yu babling on incoherently about?
madenew000 1 month ago
@viridismonasteriense theism refers to belief in a god.
atheism. without theism. without belief in a god.
moron.
shockoflogic 2 months ago
@shockoflogic *SIGH* watch?v=XcuSMQVq5dM
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
What is the point of debate, when you die you find out the truth, or you know nothing' but wait there's more' what are we going to do when we run out of natural resources?
DrFruedienslip 2 months ago
@DrFruedienslip well one of the duties of being a christian would be to share god, try to bring people to him and I guess debate would be a way to bring someone to god
demise9998 2 months ago
its awesome how these atheists are trying to make clever arguments like this but whenever someone explains to them what is wrong with their argument all they do is deny the fact that their argument is retarted, honestly now if you want to make an atheist argument don't go looking for it in the youtube comments section : /
Falcondick69 3 months ago
Were you born believing in Yahweh and Jesus Christ? No. The default position is non-belief of a claim. Craig is arguing semantics and misrepresenting atheist's views. He is implying that atheists are making a claim of certainty that "god doesn't exist" when we're actually saying "you haven't given us enough evidence to prove this claim is true".
WLC is doing this to try to shift the burden of proof and get us to prove a negative, because he knows damn well he doesn't have evidence for god.
qlchampion 3 months ago
@qlchampion conti: married bachelor that's also a negative. So all in all you can prove a negative. Last you said there isn't enough proof well my question for you is how much proof do you want. I've see court cases have less evidence then Christian Theism still convict a man gulity of a crime. Arguments like the cosmological arguments, telogical, moral, octological, and historal accounts of Jesus prove Christian Theism to be accurate and correct, so what proof and evidence do you have?
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186 there's proof beyond any reasonable doubt of a flood that flooded the entire earth, that noah's ark contained multiple of all the animals on the earth for many days including ones on other continents like North America or Oceania.
That's just one tiny piece of the bible, and yet there's been a massive lack of evidence for it by the majority of all researchers. Lots of the claims of christianity is essentially hearsay built off, and mixed with proven history.
MsHojat 1 month ago
@viridismonasteriense, You may not like the definition because it doesn't fit you presuppitions but that is the classical definition. Now atheist have separated the definition into 2 categories. HARD & SOFT atheism which I think is hilarious!
nvelopd 3 months ago
@nvelopd Why is that hilarious? They are two different things. Should they both be called just atheism?
ztarzcream 1 month ago
We are all born Atheists until someone else tells us that there is a god.
EdBoonSucks 3 months ago
@EdBoonSucks We're also all born with the ability to become a cannibal and eat other humans until someone tells us not to......What's your point?
jbourg333 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos
That would make a pencil an atheist!
joehardysr 3 months ago
@Roj899
No, actually that makes the pencil an atheist since, by a REVISED definition, it “lacks belief in God.”
joehardysr 3 months ago
it was indeed a semantic argument about the definition of atheism... i'm however interested in the points made before.
ThinkerResearcher 4 months ago
@viridismonasteriense A-Theism means Without religion(theism means religion not god).
funnyjerry 4 months ago
@viridismonasteriense
"A-Theism. Without Theism. Without god(s)"
Oh, so you're an Atheist? That's interesting. My pencil is too. He lacks belief in God or gods. Perhaps you two should get together some time and talk. I'm sure it would be a very interesting conversation to hear...
THEEVANTHETOON 4 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
Exactly, THEEVANTHETOON!
joehardysr 3 months ago
Excellent! Well put WLC!
lukehase 4 months ago
Atheism has different meanings just like the word theory has different meanings and theists commonly play with the semantics of both to score some cheap points. Atheism can mean the lack of belief in god(s). Theists are prior atheists (i.e. babies) who have been given a veneer of religion via indoctrination.
LAnonHubbard 4 months ago
Well i guess, for starters, we are all deists...that's the only source for rational arguments anyway.
fiesta181 6 months ago
@fiesta181 I would agree :)
beto88keys 2 months ago
Dr.Craig is, of course, entirely correct. If you wish to try to make a 'soundbite' argument such as this, then your terms really do have to be on the money. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either frame your question properly and eschew the catchphrase statement, or accept it when your desire to sound catchy leaves you looking a bit silly.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
Dr. Craig doesn't answer the fundamental question. What basis is there for rejecting the existance of Zeus, Thor, Odin, etc, while simultaneously clinging to a belief in an entirely equivalent being? There is no fundamental difference between Zeus and the Christian god, beyond "But he's OUR God". Truth is irrelevant at that point.
fvschie 6 months ago
@fvschie He already addressed that point. There is no argument for zeus as strong as the argument for jesus. As he says it's a silly argument that's easily refuted. Why does he believe in Jesus as apposed to believing in Odin, because there is (what he believes to be) sufficient evidence to justify belief in Jesus whereas there is none for aphrodite zeus odin ect.
scar504 6 months ago
@scar504 The existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the divinity of Jesus are two different things. Mohammed, the prophet, also actually existed. And he's at least as holy as Jesus is, performed miracles etc, has plenty of followers, and followed the Abrahamic god as well. So, why acknowledge Jesus and not Mohammed?
By 'holy' I am implying fiction, of course. No such thing as gods. But why pick one fiction over another and dismiss the rest? What if you're wrong?
fvschie 6 months ago
@fvschie Part 1 It would appear that you didn't quite grasp my point, because i answered this question in the first comment. Let me attempt to evince the reason with an analogy. Santa Claus and Jesus are not equal in the sense that neither is falsifiable. Why? because if Santa Clause did exist there would be evidence to prove it (factory etc.) however there is evidence against his existence. This is why we don't believe in Santa Clause. Now why you ask does WLC believe in Jesus? cont.
scar504 6 months ago
@fvschie part 2 The reason WLC believes in Jesus as opposed to Mohammed is because he believes there is good evidence to suggest Jesus was who he said and that there was no good evidence to suggest that Mohammed was who he was alleged. You're trying to make it seem as though all religions have the same probability of being true which is simply not the case. If i made a religion right now that stated that i am god and if you obey me you'll be saved it wouldn't be as likely to be true. Cont.
scar504 6 months ago
@fvschie part 3
The reason it wouldn't be as likely to be true is because I have no evidence to support my claim i.e miracles etc. So you would have much more reason to believe in Christianity as opposed to believing in this self confabulated religion that I've just devised. Do you now understand why WLC does not give as much likeliness to the possibility of other religions being true as his? If not i don't know how i can make it more palpable.
scar504 6 months ago
I lack the belief God exists. That doesn't mean I believe God doesn't exist. I just possess the non-belief about the belief in God, and will go to any lengths to defend it. What? No, the burden of proof is not on me to prove my non-belief. The negative position is always the default position in the absence of evidence otherwise. What? No, silly. That's not a belief. It's a NON-belief, which is impossible to refute anyway since it is not a belief about God. I make no claims about that.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
But you make the claim that there is absence of evidence for God's existence.
31Uriel 6 months ago
You can't lack a belief. You either believe in something, or you don't. You cannot possess an non-belief; it's a contradiction, as a non-belief defines what you don't have.
If you assert that God does not exist (which is the TRUE definition of atheism), then you must provide support for said assertion.
You atheists are slippery, slimy snakes. Atheists of old at least had the balls to declare God did not exist and do all they could to defend it.
aveyowyns 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@aveyowyns Look, numbnuts, I agree with everything you say because I am a theist. I am simply parroting exaclty what I hear from atheists, and your criticism is right on. These are not my own words, or even my own thoughts. Learn to take a joke. Take a look at every other post on youtube from me. Good God!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme
It doesn't matter if you're a theist - you're still an asshat. Like I said, your comment doesn't convey sarcasm ... so, the problem lies with your incapability to do so.
aveyowyns 6 months ago
@aveyowyns Learn to read between the lines, moron.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
You silly theists. Even rocks lack a belief in God, so rocks are atheists. Atheism is the default "position." QED. Try proving God exists to a rock, you crazy theists! It won't work! The position of the rock is not to have a position. Atheism is like a rock, see? Even rocks take the "default position." Our default position is like the rock's position which is no position. We are immovable positionless positions. Prove to a rock God exists, you crazy theists!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme
So, does God exist?
If you answer no, then you assert that he does not exist - and you're an atheist
If you answer yes, then you assert that he does exist - and you're a theist.
If you cannot answer (or will not answer for fear of being trapped by your irrationality), then you are an agnostic, and are not justified in asserting that God does not exist.
aveyowyns 6 months ago
@aveyowyns Ya think? I guess "sarcasm" is not in your vocabulary.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme
Or maybe, just like now, you come off as an absolute ass-hat, not someone being sarcastic.
*Sarcasm isn't something that one has in their vocabulary.
aveyowyns 6 months ago
@aveyowyns "you come off as an absolute ass-hat"
--That was precisely the point!
"*Sarcasm isn't something that one has in their vocabulary"
--Apparently not in yours.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme
"The full quote was: you come off as an absolute ass-hate, NOT someone being sarcastic."
So, it was your point to not to come across sarcastic too, then? If that (being an ass-hat) was the point, then don't turn around and whine that someone takes you seriously.
"Apparently not in yours."
So you hold to the lack of logic that sarcasm is something someone HAS in their VOCABULARY, then?
aveyowyns 6 months ago
@aveyowyns Find something better to do with your time than wrestle with something so trite.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
The definition proposed by WLC seems myopic and purposefully dense.
So, i'll solve the definition drama and see if we can actually get an answer to the original question posed:
"Craigs" are hereby defined as people who don't believe in a god. I propose that almost every person is a "Craig" concerning all but one god. How does a theist rationalize picking one and saying "but this one is really true!!!!!!11one1", considering other monotheistic religions have their own 'convincing' arguments.
Rhine0Cowboy 7 months ago
Another thing to notice is the notion that God cannot be an explanation to the universe because God cannot be tested.
But God has background information that are testable AND falsifies some of the notions AGAINST theism.
Fine tuning and design in nature, Big bang, non vacuum phenomena in consciousness such as entanglement
In order to have an explanation of something, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation and so on to infinity.
spiritring 7 months ago
oh, stop arguing. Here is the real definition of atheism.
An atheist is a person who claims, believes and assert notion or notions that attempts to rebuke, deny and falsify existence of God.
These notions are sometimes testable by background information.
They also must extrapolate their notion that the universe is eternal which is absolutely pantheistic in a sense. I call it "atheistic pantheism". Keep inducing eternal to something that is not and proven to be not
spiritring 7 months ago
Comment removed
spiritring 7 months ago
To state that everyone is an atheist since everyone has gods they do not belive in robs the term 'atheist' of any useful meaning.
By the same token stating that no one is an atheist since no one can be certain there aren't any gods also robs the term atheist of any useful meaning.
studentofsmith 7 months ago
@studentofsmith "By the same token stating that no one is an atheist since no one can be certain there aren't any gods also robs the term atheist of any useful meaning."
If everybody is not certain "God does not exist" then God may exist, this would expose atheism as the madness that it truely is.
ozredneck22 7 months ago
@ozredneck22 It is not logically possible to prove there isn't some kind of god just as it is not logically possible to prove there's no such thing as extraterrestrials. As such, no one, if pressed, holds the position there's no such thing as god, only that the exsitence of such a being remains unproven.
To define atheism in the manner Dr. Craig has, therefore, describes a position held by no one which makes it as useless as the definition proposed by the questioner.
studentofsmith 7 months ago
Interestingly some early Christians were regarded as athiests by the Romans for not accepting their gods. Of course they were using a different definition to Dr Craig. This is all a nonsense anyway. The question behind this is "Given the variety of different religions & religious experiences, how do you know your religion is the right one"? As far as I'm aware this point about atheism was started by Dawkins who was being humourous rather than putting forward an argument.
gextvedde 8 months ago
@gextvedde
I agree about Dawkins, but the problem is that people like the questioner actually take that statement seriously. The problem is that atheism is NOT dependent on the premise that all gods are irrational as the questioner presupposes. Therefore the questioner is only trying to defend ONE branch of atheism, rather than atheism in general.
BassP86 8 months ago
Dr Craig showed a lot of class here.
jmanexpress 8 months ago
@jmanexpress He was just playing semantics so he didnt have to answer the question. I think someone should pose the questionto Craig again, but instead of using atheist, he should say "non believer"
MrKGatl 8 months ago
@MrKGatl This is getting ridiculous it is not semantics. To be an atheist means to affirm the proposition there is no god. To be a theist is to affirm the proposition God exists. I as a Christian am in no sense an atheist, its not rocket science
jmanexpress 8 months ago
You were joking when you typed this, right?..
By virtue of the very fact that they have taken the word theism and put an 'a' before it begs to differ. They are the ones using semantics. How retarded do you have to be to not understand such basic sequence of events? The word theism came first, then came 'atheism'. This word semantically means what Craig is saying. Do you even know what semantics is?
It is you who is using semantics and lawyers tactics to avoid confrontation on your Belief.
knowwaie 7 months ago
it would be like..If is said judy is not my mother..but, edna IS my mother..would I be amaternalist? no..just because I don't believe that judy is my mother does not make me not believe that edna is my mother. The comment from the peanut gallery was simply a ludicrous statement. One that holds no rational at all.
brofun 8 months ago
Well I may not be christian or muslim or a religious person but I think he handled this question very nicely. I hate cocky people like the guy asking the question who think they're so smart by just repeating what they heard someone else say and coming up with no original arguments by themselves (you can tell because he can't continue the argument once his question has been answered and had simply memorised the question). He was put in his place and put well :)
cristofolon 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos who was Craig debating in this one?
MsOluwatoyin 8 months ago
@MsOluwatoyin I believe it was George Williamson. I think it was their first debate though.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Thank you.I will search for that one..
MsOluwatoyin 8 months ago
You gotta love something epic like this against mere internet infedels. they are bots and spammers and idiots who don't know what their own definition.
JuggernaughtJump 9 months ago
@JuggernaughtJump ....lol...so true
Drebln893 8 months ago
I take my hat off for Dr Craig who is able to answer an idiotic question in such a civilized way. If I had been asked the same question - and simultaneously had to keep myself from laughing or getting mad at that cocky besserwisser who puts such idiotic assumptions into his question... 14 year-olds can be that naive and cocky, but here you have a grown-up man!
MindTheHeart 9 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 Really? Think you can point me to one? I've never seen (nor even heard) of such videos that have such decisive proof before. I've seen claims to individual arguements, some even good, but little that can disprove an entire book. For that matter, something just about the Arguement from Reason would do.
...By the by, I doubt Lewis would regard the story of his life as 'a joke'. Are you sure you're thinking of Surprised by Joy?
AMWOODco 9 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 Biblically illiterate bigot at that.
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 I can't speak for why you haven't found it. I read it from a book written by C.S. Lewis, who has been writing since the 1930's. It isn't like it's banned from library shelves (and I've looked in my collection since and can't find it. Maybe it's his autobiography, I read it but don't own it). Since Lewis wrote it down, at least he had made the connection.
Why it isn't common knowledge is probably due to the religious implications in this polically correct society.
AMWOODco 9 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 "when people like harris or dawkins say that they are just saying when you tell why you dont believe in those gods you have our reason for not beileveing in your god."
I can appreciate that and see that viewpoint perfectly. I would hope that the basis for all such conceptualization of God (from the vantage point of atheism) though is not dependant on only an idea that all belief, do believe solely on faith as personal proof can be rather revealing.
hexusziggurat 9 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 sure...i can believe in you but have no faith that you'd act in accordance with God's commandments....you might possess some self-proclaimed motto that coincides with those laws but it doesn't mean you'd act on behalf of God's will...you'd act on your own desire with your own motives for doing so. All it takes is belief in ONE god or a multitude of gods...and you are NOT an atheist. If a theist denies other gods, they're not an atheist to those gods...thats not what atheism means.
hexusziggurat 9 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 "it has nothing to do with faith." right, thats why i said it is better to say "no faith in God" hence meaning there is no faith there at all. One has to believe in God to have no faith in God? really!? doesn't the atheist "have no faith in God"? no belief in god(s) = no faith present.
"It just means without believe in gods." dictionaries i referenced....atheism = 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
hexusziggurat 9 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 bigot
TheXiantruth 9 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 lacking parts of a car means "to be in short supply of the whole" just like i said. thats the concept i am getting at that "muddies the waters" like i said...did you even read it? and LACK can also mean "WITHOUT" which is why I said....to be perfectly clear where an atheist stands it would be better to sat "you have NO faith in God"....which is what i said.....your first sentence points more towards your inability to read the words i wrote.
hexusziggurat 9 months ago
he's right about the definition of atheism, but he's wrong about god existing.
JelyIsCool 9 months ago
Theists want to label atheism as a belief that there are no gods so they can attack it. PERIOD
Craig's definition of atheism makes no sense. What do I call myself if I do not believe in your god but I do not claim NO gods could or do exist? If you want to use agnostic for me that implies I am not sure about your god... I AM sure about your god not existing so agnostic is misleading. and lumps me in with people who aren't sure. It's dishonest.... which is expected.
sfg911 10 months ago
@sfg911 Get your facts straight: watch?v=XcuSMQVq5dM. I wish you'd be more smart to understand a REAL definition when you see it... but your typical.
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
@sfg911 Craig read off the proper definition for Atheism from a dictionary of philosophy(E.g:It's not 'Craig's definition')It's not only theists who go with this definition.all honest scholars,acknowledge this as the definition of atheism...Atheism,really is the belief that 'No' God exists..I don't know what to call you since your complaint introduces ambiguities..
MsOluwatoyin 8 months ago
@sfg911
The word you are looking for does not exist and seems not to be invented until this day. But maybe you should try antichrist?!?
yozkopf3000 8 months ago
@sfg911 It simply means you're not a christian. I must say, the idea that "everyone" is an atheist because there are some gods they do not believe in is absurd to the extreme. If you define atheism this way, then it becomes an utterly meaningless term, because it applies to every single human being.
AjaPuppy 7 months ago
@sfg911 how can you be SURE there's no God if according to you there's no Higher power to impart knowledge of such a scale to you?? many religious/spiritual people could (supposedly) be SURE because they believe a higher being to make them sure, whether true or not (although I personally as a Christian am comfortable accepting that I don't Know for sure) whereas you have no experiencial basis for such sureness.
I apologise if I have misunderstood your statement.
blackoutninja 7 months ago
@sfg911 Lol crags definition of atheism is exactly the same definition of Websters dictionary. it makes sense ...
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
That's the online version.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[
Wikipedia version.
To be an atheist means you believe in NO GOD, NONE AT ALL. Not believing in one and rejecting others.
The one posing the question actually used semantics.
He argued definitions.
IXSuperRadGamerXI 6 months ago
how hypocritical it is to call christianity "a classical theism"
TheAbyrwalg 10 months ago
A higher being of some kind is definitely possible, but the one that Craig believes in has been shown to be restricted in terms of reality to the minds of his believers. Craig is making a false claim, that to be an atheist you must say that no god exists. Atheism is and has always been in response to a claim about a specific god. As such, the questioner is correct and Craig is creating a strawman, which is typical of him in terms of intellectual dishonesty.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian You don't know what honesty is if it was in your face. Atheism is the belief in no God. A=no. Theos=God. Thus Atheos=no God. Ergo atheism=belief in no god. Why is that so hard for you to figure out?
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
questioner: "It's never been addressed to my liking" (mine either, for that matter)
Craig: "It's easy to address" (translation: It's easy to strawman)
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian "TheTexanCadandian" (translation: I'm an amateur philosopher who has no real grasp of atheism except what George Smith or Dan Barker says about it.)
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian how's it a strawman? If your gonna sit here and say your an atheist, and not agree with the definition then why don't you go on ahead and believe that atheism is a religion, regardless if you disagree with the definition.
niggaids 6 months ago
I've always found this videos claim odd since my own faith was solidified by the Arguement from Reason which went to show that Naturalistic Atheism is false. From there, I had to conclude supernaturalism was true, and from that, the small leap that God can exist. Personal experience since has confirmed that God does exist. My faith was saved by reason, and by reason I cannot be an atheist. Gloria in excelsis Deo.
AMWOODco 10 months ago
I enjoy that this sort of magic carpet tactic of relieving themselves of the burden of proof has been pulled out from under them. Once a so-called atheists agnosticism has been revealed then it is only a matter of determining what kind of agnostic they are and if they assert it cannot be known then they're a scrorner = converstation over. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
SimpleMan7718 10 months ago
Messianic prophecy, nuff said.
bigboyburnsy 11 months ago
Disbelief in other Gods does not make you an Atheist.
FATAL12SKILLZ 11 months ago
Another usual atheist pussified assertion...You have the burden of proof to you idiots.
TheXiantruth 11 months ago
1:30
PWND!
JuggernaughtJump 11 months ago
I made a vid explaining why this claim (atheist = belive god does not exisit) is false.
for it to be true, it would mean that an atheist needs to have proof for EVERY definetion of god, that THAT god is not real. but what if I define god to be "the universe", or "the earth", or "this pan that I'm holding". you can't claim that THOES don't exists, there for, you'd have to agree that if THAT was god, than god is real.
there for, that is not a definetion of an atheist.
eyallev 1 year ago
I dont get why is some videos people argue what the definition of atheism is. why does that matter. The burdon of proof is still on the one claiming something, unitl the other side is claiming something to. Its not a claim to say that I dont believe god exicts. Its a response to the claim that god exist.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk People who make negative claims hold the burden of proof as well. Otherwise, the person making the claim that "death doesn't exist" holds no burden!
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Yes. But the person saying God doesnt exist is making a claim. Ill make it easier for you. The burdon of proof is one the person claiming something, we can agree on that? And until evidence or demonstration for that claim has been presented, its valid to believe that that claim is false. If you didnt, yyou would have to believe EVERYTHING that hasnt been disproved.
gulbirk 1 year ago
@gulbirk Uhm, all I'm saying is that someone making a negative claim holds the burden of proof. That doesn't necessarily mean the position is true or false. Honestly, throw the junk philosophy away.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos You are completely wrong. A negative claim cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. The burden of proof is on the positive claim, because it can be proven. You are using the burden of proof fallacy.
Dr. Craig makes a common strawman fallacy in this video of assuming that most atheists have faith that god does not exist. While some atheists do, it is a small fraction. Most atheists simply do not maintain a belief that any deities exist.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 "You are completely wrong. A negative claim cannot be proven, it can only be disproven."
Uhm, yeah, when someone with hair on their head makes a negative claim like "I haven no hair", you can prove that they have hair on their head. But you know, that cannot be proven. You're smart!
"Most atheists simply do not maintain a belief that any deities exist."
Call that agnosticism then. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God. Drop the pop philosophy.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos
I just posted how your statement is exactly wrong, please see my previous comments.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@gulbirk according to law.. a statement that "God does not exist" does hold a very strong burden of proof. the claim "god may not exist" does not hold the same burden of proof. but that is mere agnosticism. atheism has a claim to "know something" therefore that knowledge must be given proof. hope that helps a little
BigG99 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos The person making the claim "death doesn't exist" does not hold the burden. The person claiming death does exist has the burden. It's just that in this case the burden is extremely easy.
Just because something is commonly accepted does not shift the burden to the negative claim. That is the Appeal to Belief logical fallacy.
trj1370 11 months ago
@trj1370 No, it's not. It's common sense. If someone makes a claim (ie "death does not exist") they carry the burden of proof. If someone said "I do not exist" then according to you he carries no burden of proof. You're makin no logical sense. I even doubt you know what a fallacy is.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@trj1370 actually the burden goes either way of the scale except the neutral stance. To say "there IS a god" is a burden, as it defines an assertion. To say "there IS NO god" is also a burden, as it defines an assertion once again. To say "I don't know OR I am unsure OR I don't have enough proof"......defines no assertion whatsoever, hence no burden. No matter which way you tip the scale to positive or negative the burden then comes upon those that would actually assert one way or another.
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
@hexusziggurat the problem that the more modern atheist is inflicting on themselves is that they're trying to steal into the agnostic camp to relieve themselves of that burden. If the modern atheist can somehow borrow from the agnostic in saying "there isn't enough proof" then he'd relieve himself of the burden...though as theres a relief of the burden then thers also a relief of the assertion that "there is no god" & hence you conform to agnosticism & remove yourself from the atheistic camp.
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
@hexusziggurat
That's a misunderstanding of the terms atheist and agnostic. The actual definitions are as follows:
Atheist: lack of faith in a god
Agnostic: lack of knowledge of a god
Therefore everyone on the planet is in fact an agnostic, and anyone who says they have "knowledge" of a god is either in an insane asylum or belongs in one. The only question is about faith, and even those who say they are agnostic because they want to avoid the debate are in fact atheists as well.
TheTexanCanadian 10 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian ...!
"Atheist: lack of faith in a god
Agnostic: lack of knowledge of a god"
not sure what dictionary you're using but for me.....atheist=a disbelief in god(s)
agnostic=undecided as to whether there is/are god(s) [whther this is not wanting to explore it further...having no sense of wanting to understand it any further or listening to all sides and saying they are undecided or having been one way then bending towards mid-ground ie showing doubt in former assertions]
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
@TheTexanCanadian your definiton of atheism doesn't even make the mark, what "lack", as lack defines (in short supply of) so that means you may have "some supply" just not "enough supply of"...so do atheists fall in the 1% to 49% "faith" bracket? no...i am more inclined to say atheists don't "lack" any faith...they have "NO faith in God". whereas my agnostic friends do not "lack knowledge" they have great knowledge...they just choose to remain neutral in lieu of making an "assertion" either way.
hexusziggurat 10 months ago
New Atheism= New Agnosticism
luke2thab 1 year ago
I really don't understand how this is a difficult point. Christians deny the atheist's assertion and the atheist denies the assertion of every form of theism as much as the Christian denies most other forms of theism. They both make an assertion, but if you don't want to assert "there is no God" why muddle with language when there is the perfectly clear distinction between atheist and agnostic?
ThePythagoran 1 year ago
@ThePythagoran hitchens thought agnosticism is evasive
JuggernaughtJump 11 months ago
1)If atheism can now mean a belief that God is possible or there could be a God, then what would you call someone who empathically claims “God does not exist”? Should we call them supper atheists, hardcore atheists, first degree atheists etc.. I may have an answer to the dilemma. I personally believe in evolution (change over time) but I don’t believe in bacteria to man evolution so there is a distinction by using the terms macro and micro evolution.
ATOMICGLUE 1 year ago
@ATOMICGLUE "If atheism can now mean a belief that God is possible or there could be a God, then what would you call someone who empathically claims “God does not exist”? "
That question has been bothering me for some time now, what do you call them? Atheism is madness.
From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
ozredneck22 1 year ago
2)So, maybe we can use the term “macro Atheism” for those that claim that “God does not exist” and we can use the term “micro Atheism” for those that believe that God is a possibility but they lack the faith to believe in him because from their viewpoint they can’t see any evidence.
ATOMICGLUE 1 year ago
3)If however, there is a consensus in the atheist community to change the meaning of atheism from a belief that “there is no God”, to “there could be a God but from my viewpoint I can’t see any evidence”. I think that acknowledging there could be a God and also acknowledging from their viewpoint they do not see any evidence to believe it, is an intellectually honest statement and I for one would be cool with that.
ATOMICGLUE 1 year ago
4)Conclusion: the new Atheist is one who believes God is possible but from his or her view point cannot see any evidence to believe it. For those Atheist that are determine to claim there is no evidence for God I would say… unless your viewpoint is all encompassing there is a big difference in claiming there is no evidence to not seeing any evidence. I for one see plenty of evidence for a creator, the observation of nature itself is enough not to mention the ability to observe it.
ATOMICGLUE 1 year ago
How many gods must you believe in before you're not an atheist anymore? 10? 20?
How many wives must you have before you're not a bachelor anymore?
How many kids must you have before you can be called a daddy? Isn't one enough?
Honestly, atheists... think deeper.
fakirJ 1 year ago
@fakirJ Um, an atheist according to the major encyclopedias of philosophy (and they are the ones that determine definitions as well as Greek linguists), is someone who REJECTS belief in any god. So, if you think no gods exist, then you are an atheist. If you think there is a god, then you are not an atheist. Simple. But, it doesn't matter if you use the new diluted version. That fails the test of science and logic as well. See above. Atheists don't think deeper. They only depend on fallacies.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
The chubby bearded guy is irrational. He needs to study a bit more.
steve0281 1 year ago
@steve0281 So, atheism with ZERO testable evidences of life from non-life is rational? Are you trying to destroy how science and rationality have been done for centuries? You've got to be crazy, biased or thinking solely with your emotions and misconceptions or maybe all three.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 I really think you misunderstood my position. I am most definitely NOT an atheist.
kure do, munjeka anipnida. sukohe!
steve0281 1 year ago
@steve0281 Oh yes, My bad. Sorry. Am in a very huge rush and just read bearded and missed chubby. Sorry. You might find my rebuttal of new atheism's "lack of belief" useful as well as my playlists with much more evidence.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Not a problem. Go have a bowl of bibim naengmyun for me, OK?
steve0281 1 year ago
I guess all of us, human beings, were born atheist. Then, the concept of god(s) and religion are imposed as an inquestionable truth, depending in our parents traditions, culture and religion. That's how the cycle works and the key how to break it
titoyepezliut 1 year ago
@titoyepezliut Nobody has EVER been born atheist at any time in history.No baby has come out thinking, hmm...I reject the existence of gods or I lack belief in gods or anything of the sort.They only think about satisfying their hunger.Even if they were, it wouldn't help. They would also then be born lacking belief in science, history, gravity and a host of other truths. THis is yet another really, really stupid argument by atheists that falls apart completely with the most superficial checking.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Craig is a badass motherf**ker!
sameer137 1 year ago
Love or hate Dr. Craig. He still does give reasonable answers to many atheist objections without appealing to emotion.
1984vrs 1 year ago
For example I consider myself atheist because I believe there is not sufficiently irrefutable evidence for any case of a God that has ever been put forward, and since this is the case believers in Gods (especially theists as opposed to deists) have no true reason to believe in Gods other than blind faith.
Anyway these people really need to stop promoting the idea that 'atheists' dont know what they believe in because the word 'atheist' doesnt mean what they think it to mean!!!
Jaymaul009 1 year ago
@Jaymaul009
"I consider myself atheist because I believe there is not sufficiently irrefutable evidence for any case of a God that has ever been put forward.....................believers in Gods (especially theists as opposed to deists) have no true reason to believe in Gods other than blind faith."
The problem is, the mere fact that you personally haven't encountered evidence doesn't mean that other people haven't either! You'd need to bring your own case to show that there is no God.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Birdieupon
So what should I do until I encounter some evidence of God?
Take the word of those that claim to encounter evidence as truth?
Jaymaul009 1 year ago
@Jaymaul009
"what should I do until I encounter some evidence of God?"
be agnostic, unless you encounter evidence against him, which would mean you could gravitate towards or believe in atheism.
"Take the word of those that claim to encounter evidence as truth?"
Nope, but it couldn't hurt to ask them to explain in more detail what this evidence is and do more of your own reading on the subject.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@Jaymaul009 There are countless evidences of God already, some from logic, some from science, some from history, some from prophecy, some from archaeology, some from the most credible of witnesses. You can't reject evidence just because you don't like it and say that it isn't evidence. That's simply NOT a genuine search for any sort of truth. It's only a search to confirm your apriori biases, a fundamental violation of logic and science. See my playlists for evidence.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
If you are only willing to accept the strictest definition of atheism there is an obvious lexical gap. The words atheist, agnostic and theist can not describe all respectable positions. Therefore if I would like to describe a position that is most in line with atheist thinking I call it atheistic then describe the nuances of the position.
If I do this why is it reasonable for you to think you can pigeon-hole my stance by trying to force stricter meaning to my words to ease your argument?
Jaymaul009 1 year ago
@Jaymaul009 See why atheism fails no matter what definition you use below (since it refuses to follow the evidence where it leads). Biogenesis alone causes atheism to fail and there are 1000s of other lines of evidences. Since diluted atheism makes no claims, theism wins with even the tiniest evidence from any field of proof. See my playlists for MUCH evidence. And don't use different standards for competing ideas on the same question (that's a common fallacy atheists love to use).
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
I wanna see Craig and Barker debate.
actionjackson864 1 year ago
Shouldn't craig know what an atheist is by NOW?
Alaric11 1 year ago
@Alaric11 Should you? Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's pop philosophers who have redefiniing it.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
Language evolves. When there are conflicting definitions for a word (see the Oxford dictionary definition), the usage which is most common will survive. Dr Craig is wasting his own time by being pedantic- the vast majority of 'atheists' use the word in a different way. If he's asking for their respect in listening to his arguments, he first needs to respect their use of language.
matthewjhaywood 1 year ago
@matthewjhaywood LOL! So language can evolve to the point where we say that to believe in God is atheism? Sue me for believing that words have a meaningful definition to them.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Language varies. Gravity exists but its still called a theory. Even with the use of the word "theory" we still know its fact.
rmharrison35 1 year ago
@matthewjhaywood Furthermore, the reason atheists have diluted their definition is because:
A) Spontaneous generation has been falsified and abiogenesis has failed badly as well. Both were supposed to be scientific evidences that life could arise from non-life without intelligence.
B) Atheists want to escape the scientific requirement to provide evidence since they know they have none.
So, instead of having the integrity to follow the evidence, they've cowardly gone into lack of belief.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 It really doesn't if you use the "lack belief" definition of atheism (which conflicts with official definitions as well as Greek linguistics). Both definitions fail the tests of science and rationality badly. If you choose the "lack belief" definition, then you lose by definition as soon as there is even a tiny amount of scientific, historical, mathematical, experiential, etc. evidence due to the requirement of science to follow the weight of evidence.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos I think you might find my answer to the "lack of belief" view of new atheism helpful. Also, I have a lot of videos that you might find insightful as well, !Come Search With Me" and "Genesis Conflict" are two of the best with really strong evidence for Christianity as well as ones on history, archaeology, prophecy and a crucial series refuting the grossly unjust and unbiblical concept of eternal torture by God that has caused millions to rebel against God.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
This pop-culture atheism is both trivial and stupid. "Atheist" and "theist" are distinctions of kind, not distinctions of degree. "Atheist" means lack of belief in a god or gods. "Theist" means belief in a god or gods. I am a theist. So how can I be both? According to this moron, I am both a theist and an atheist. Contradiction.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
The apologist can constrain the definition of atheism but that's superfluous. Define atheism as you want, call it "belief X". It doesn't matter. What matters is the logic and reasoning that you employ to dismiss other supernatural claims, other than God. If one were to tell a Christian that "supernatural deity X exists and this is why..." by what criterion does the theist use to dismiss it? He will inevitably use most, if not all, of the reasons the "atheist" makes against their God.
dudekyle13x 1 year ago
@dudekyle13x "He will inevitably use most, if not all, of the reasons the "atheist" makes against their God." The problem here is that the theist already holds to the existence of a supernatural being. Craig was right. You can't be both at the same time since the two terms carry mutually exclusive meanings. Even under the present interpretation of atheism, a theist cannot be related. It's more accurate to say that a theist is an "Unbeliever" when it comes to divergent deistic claims.
JoelJW 1 year ago
@JoelJW
Really for me, I call myself an atheist but I care less about the terms, and more about why someone believes, or does not believe, the way they do. You never really addressed my point though. Whatever you want to call either party, they still employ similar thought processes in their non belief of other Gods. The atheist and the theist aren't that dissimilar in that respect and (without re-watching the video so I'm going on memory) I think that's what the guy was driving at.
dudekyle13x 1 year ago
@dudekyle13x Yes, atheists and agnostics both employ similar thought processes in non-belief..how to violate science and logic and use every fallacy in the book to follow their apriori wishes. So sad.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7
..huh? Are you intentionally trying to be vague? Also, you missed my point.
dudekyle13x 1 year ago
@dudekyle13x What the guy in the video was doing was 'post-modernizing' the term "Atheist". So Craig gave the proper text-book definition in response to demonstrate that a theist was not - in the text-book sense - an atheist. You may call that superfluous, but that's like me saying that education is superfluous since textbooks are largely involved. No, we either hold to proper definitions or we don't. People post-modernize only what is not important to them. It tends toward hypocrisy.
JoelJW 1 year ago
So, then you are wrong to have regarded agnostics as "atheists without guts," if you follow the strict definition of Atheism. I may be agnostic about Zeus, but if you call me an "atheist without guts" in relationship to Zeus, then aren't you contradicting what you just said in this video about atheists? You can't have it both ways.
In Roman times, during the persecution of the Christians, these believers were regarded as atheists, because they denied the existence of Roman gods.
bluehoneycomb 1 year ago
@bluehoneycomb "...because they denied the existence of Roman gods." So, then atheism is the denial of the existence of God(s). Thank you. So, atheism is not the non-belief in God, correct?
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
So does this mean we're all people of faith?
Scientists believe things they can't prove and work with variable's they can't explain, providing reasons they believe in.
In order to be a scientist you'd have to believe in everything you observe and that's obviously not the truth. Scientists have for years denied other scientists when they were proven wrong.
I guess we're all religious.
bloodrunsclear 1 year ago