@MounopanoTheGreat "Without God" doesn't necessarily mean belief that no god exists. That's just a ridiculous attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
Strictly speaking, I'm an anti-bullshitist. But imo you can't get around the word "belief" in the definition of atheism: even if you omit it, it's still there. On the other hand, atheism is in no way a form of religion. Any form of religion presupposes commitment: you have to worship you deity no matter what! An atheist will easily give up on any hypothesis or theory if you prove it wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. At least that's how I see it.
This is a good question. So much time is wasted in the theist/atheist debate because people are actually using different definitions. I describe myself as an atheist, by which I mean I lack a belief in a God. I DON'T state there is no God, how could I know this?
Some would say "you're an agnostic". They're right. I'm an agnostic atheist
Simple fact is, the word is not strictly defined. The best thing is to ask someone what they belief, not assume you know based on a label.
Atheists love trying to compartmentalize their "belief" into a convenient manufactured definition, b/c they know if they're tagged as claiming 'belief there is no god' they would be classified as a religion making them subject to the 'burden of truth'. They fight so hard over a passive position, what they call JUST a "lack" of belief ...for what??
@MounopanoTheGreat Agnosticism does mean without knowledge. But someone can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. An agnostic theist doesn't know if a god exists, but believes that it does. An agnostic atheist doesn't know if a god exists, but doesn't believe that it does.
Now gnostic atheism on the other hand is the positive assertion that no gods exist, because it includes a claim of knowledge.
@exotheist1 these are modern "tweeks" of the word to try and attach a political meaning to the debate. Ultimately 3 positions can exist, 1) a belief in God, 2) a belief that God doesn't exist, 3) not knowing "without 'gnosis'". People that claim not to know might make an assumption, but they admit that they do not know. Agnostic atheists though don't make assumptions, they merely hide behind the guise of "agnosticism" for political reasons, in reality they are atheists
@MounopanoTheGreat Okay. What category would you consider someone who has never considered the question of a god's existence: atheist or agnostic? Clearly the person does not "believe no gods exist" as you say atheism is. And obviously the person doesn't "know" the answer one way or another.
Oxford Dictionary - atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
Merriam-Webster - atheism: disbelief in the existence of deity; the doctrine that there is no deity
Atheists always try to redefine "atheism" but we know better. Get yourself a good dictionary and don't be fooled. They also try to redefine faith as "belief in something without evidence" when no reliable dictionary defines it that way.
all christians SHOULD be creationists, otherwise they are not even following a religion, but being arrogant enough to make their own one up and expect people to believe that they somehow have the divine right to decide on which parts of the bible are to be believed and which parts are not. You either believe its the word of god or you don't. If you don't then have the balls to go the whole hog instead of pretending that ONLY the parts that fit with your moral code are right.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the god of religion (theism); the ‘god’ that religious people have so arrogantly and ostensibly DEFINED.
Whether it’s Jesus, Jehovah, Allah or Krishna or whatever, atheism is the REFUSE of ANY of these definitions (claims of knowledge): -What does god look like?
-God looks like this, and acts like that and has this feelings about you…
-I don’t believe you!
When it comes to RATIONAL arguments for the existence of god, Deism is the end of the line.
@skallagrimur Im sorry but your comment is wrong - to put it nicely;) Your response had absolutely nothing to do with my comment. The video is about the definition of Atheism, not you sharing ur baseless opinion about God or the bible.
fairytale, or no fairytale...deists don't have a proof, u don't have proof...all there is to it, abiogenesis and quantum fluctuation does not do it for me nor 5 billion ppl. Energy is merely transferred it does not ignite itself, M theory and parallel universes are one shit for brains day dreaming wishful thinking rant.
u r the one who need to ponder, when u lack a belief in something, u necessarily believe that there no such thing as that something. logically is follows that not having the idea of the existence of that something means u do not believe in something but believe that there is no such something, it is a beleif. the answer is no difference, it is a belief, so is everything.
People dont just casually label themselves atheists. They make a decision to call themselves ATHEISTS b/c they have made a CHOICE to believe there is no god.
If you dont want that definition attached to you call yourself an agnostic.
Clearly. As an atheist, I find it is these kinds of stupid definitions of atheism that keeps people in the dark about atheism, keeps atheists in the closet as they have no beliefs to profess etc...
Atheism is a position and a lack of a position or a lack of belief.... is not anything. No such thing exists.
@gklr The the only ppl in the dark are the atheists. Atheism is a position of rejection and belief there is no god. The Greek term was used for ppl who were "ungodly" and who denied or disrepected some gods but believed in others..
Problem: I know the proposed god of the bible does not exist. No atheism required. The proposed god of the bible is said to never repent and also repent. POOF.
No such possibility as a being that never repents and also repents. There may still be a god, but that one is off the list of possible beings. Further quoting the bible itself is an utter waste of your own time.
@gklr Your subjective opinion and objective reality are two different things;) Reading the Bible and interpreting everything at face value in an unedified, undiscerning manner is foolish.
@gklr Gods character and mindset towards sin DOES NOT CHANGE. When God speaks of repenting it's in reference to His dealings with man(sinful & unrepentant or otherwise). If mans relationship with God changes then Gods 'dealings' with man also change in accordance with his unchanging will. Repent of man and repent of God symbolize two different contextual meanings, NOT the same. The Bible illustrates the difference.
"Gods character and mindset towards sin DOES NOT CHANGE"
I didn't say it did. I know it does not change, because I know there is no such god. No character now or ever. Nor was I saying that the bible says gods mindset towards sin changed, all I need is any change in this alleged god at all and POOF.
That happens frequently in the bible. It's authors simply were unware of why that can't be the case.
The bible crosses the line from fiction to falsehood quite often.
@gklr "I know the proposed god of the bible does not exist"..."all I need is any change in this alleged god at all and POOF" - Then ur actively and hopelessly engaged in willfull ignorance. Your criteria for whether or not God exists is at its core inane and puerile.
According to ur standards, a God who created the human race; a race who has the capacity to love, hate, show compassion etc. must be passively one dimensional.
" "I know the proposed god of the bible does not exist"..."all I need is any change in this alleged god at all and POOF" - Then ur actively and hopelessly engaged in willfull ignorance"
Nope. I am applying propositional logic and the law of noncontradiction.
"According to ur standards, a God who created the human race; a race who has the capacity to love, hate, show compassion etc. must be passively one dimensional."
"According to ur standards, a God who created the human race; a race who has the capacity to love, hate, show compassion etc. must be passively one dimensional.
Explain ur reasoning, b/c it's simply illogical. "
Lying about what I say is what you deem logical? Show me where I said any of the above?
I take it you don't mind lying much, you lied here about me. This tells me you don't take your own commandments anymore seriously than I do.
@gklr Instead of lying about me lying, tell me what part of what I said was completely off from your implications of why God doesn't exist. After you fail my first request explain this - "all I need is any change in this alleged god at all and POOF."
" Instead of lying about me lying, tell me what part of what I said was completely off from your implications of why God doesn't exist"
mytuber81: "According to ur standards, a God who created the human race; a race who has the capacity to love, hate, show compassion etc. must be passively one dimensional"
False. A lie... since I said no such thing.... and nor did I imply any such thing.
@gklr Stop being intellectually dishonest. You haven't answered my question yet - what part of what I said was completely off from your implications of why God doesn't exist?
Dont play games and telll what you supposedly DIDN'T imply, tell me what you DID imply.
There is no intellectual dishonesty from me. You lied that I said something I did not say.... you tried to bend that lie into "you implied it" and I did no such thing.
We prove what does not exist via a logical contradiction. I provided one for the alleged god of the bible. There are too many to list, I offered just 1. My point was to you... that no atheism, no belief.... is required to say such a being does not exist. I could have easily used another example.
If you were not so knee jerk sensitive, you may have actually seen my point.
My point was that atheism, the belief there is no god, is overrated. For example, an omnipotent being that cannot create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted, is not an atheist argument. It is a logical argument. It is proof no such being can exist. It requires no atheism to say.
Atheism only applies to gods that possibly do exist.
I thought you would find that interesting and I got back nonsense.
@gklr ???? lol-->"For example, an omnipotent being that cannot create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted, is not an atheist argument. It is a logical argument" " Atheism only applies to gods that possibly do exist."
"There are ppl who would rather refuse to believe in God for ANY reason, you seem to be one of them."
False statements are not beliefs statements. It is not possible the god you allege to believe in, exists. There are many possible gods, yours is just not one of them.
Atheists allow for more possible gods than theists do. You allow for 1. Atheists must allow for many more as possible.
You missed the point that I need no atheism to say your god doesn't exist.
"When God speaks of repenting it's in reference to His dealings with man(sinful & unrepentant or otherwise). "
Nonsense. The bible says god does not change and does not repent, when I can show multiple instances of either.
It is not a belief to say the god of the bible exists. It is false. You are not a theist, you lack belief in a god... what you profess is simply false, not a belief. Theists BELIEVE a god exists, you do not. You're just wrong and you do not state a belief
@mytuber81 Theists claim that atheists have as much faith as they do because they think atheism is the blind assertion that no gods exist. Atheism is a skeptical response to theism. This is why we always have to explain that atheism, most inclusively, is a lack of belief in the existence of any gods. More exclusively, atheism is the positive belief that there are no gods.
Agnosticism and gnosticism address claims of knowledge; they can be applied to claims other than ones about gods.
@mytuber81 " a CHOICE to believe there is no god.”
--> just like I have mane a “choice” to believe santa isn’t real, Allah isn’t real, unicorns are not real, jimmy the magical flying turtle is not real, etc?
Thats not really how it works. I don’t make a blind choice based off of what I find more preferable. I look at the evidence, and take the most honest position. People claim there is a god, present no or inadequate evidence, so i don’t believe.
Well said, but it is a waste of time. I wouldn't expect anyone who feels certain of the existence of a being whose existence is escape route for investigation and comprehension to comprehend anything which sidetracks such simplicity.
Theists don't live in caves, they are exposed to the same stimuli as we (normal people :) are. They are just so biased to filter out/quickly forget whatever makes their brains too hot...
On the one hand you are preaching against arrogance and then on the other you are arrogantly telling us to use the "logic" to define atheism. What logic by the way? The classic logic I use show that no entity can be denoted by a negated description (lack always uses not). Saying what atheism is is an attempt to denote but then saying only what it is not is a logical fail on a very basic level.
Truly awful reasoning expressed in a truly awful way.
Every position has a negative proposition, and a positive. You have detailed to us your understanding of the negative assertion within athiesm. Now can you tell us the positive? If not go back to the drawing board and stop trying to define away your burden of proof pls.
There is no burden of proof on atheist or on theists. No belief can be proven true. All beliefs are possibly false and possibly true at the same time. A burden of proof only applies when someone claims something is true.
Thank you for this info, but all i see is data, where is the video? I am more than willing to cooperate with you. But with claims so great, and the fact that cameras have been around for 150 years in our culture, do we at least have some photos of an actual explosion or is it all data?
@every1 Who among u would let a complete stranger in their home, just because they may proclaim to be a good person!??? NOT A SINGLE 1 OF U ... yet u have a problem with God not letting u into heaven, which just so happens to be His home! lol... His word is warning to u and u all simply just mock Him n blaspheme with all your hearts, while cheering on others who do the same! " Your time is running out!" soon the laughter will be over n all will have to face Him n it won't be any laughter then
@detroitthebaptist Hubble is your friend, and those nice people at NASA and the Goddard Space Flight center will be delighted to take you on a galactic tour.
The distant echo of Voyager will guide you in your first steps.
@Sweddude Can you please provide me with some video evidence of just 1 sun exploding? God never said earth or man was perfect, i was simply noting the evidence of design in the perfections! NOW LET'S SEE THAT EXPLODING SUN VIDEO!
Thanks. I agree with you. Unfortunately, theists are in a position to print their definition in an otherwise reliable source. (dictionary)I am trying to argue the point you make with a theist in a newsgroup. It is hard to do when the definitions I look up say that it is a -belief-. subbed.
How can anyone say that this video is arrogant or offending? Comments such as this just prove how primitive religion is and what evil it can do to corrupt people to the extent that they say and do things which completely defy logic. She is simply explaining what atheism is, it's a DEFINITION no argument here.
Atheism is the only position that a logical person who isn't lying to themselves can take.
Even if islam is growing fast, atheism is growing faster. Looks like humans are waking up =D
I agree, atheism is a response to a claim that there is a god, the response simply states "prove it". So far there is no proof so the default position is "there is no god". Dawkins defines this well on his scale system of 1-7. A '7' is someone that would be asserting there is no god while a 6 would be saying "I see no evidence for a god therefore there is probably not a god". The problem for people like us, is that the 7's are out there asserting a claim while using the label "atheist".
Those claiming there is no god is true, have a burden of proof and they will not meet it.
Those claiming there is no god is something they believe, are atheists. They have no burden of proof since they have not declare something is true.
Asking proof for a belief is to misunderstand beliefs. Atheism has nothing to do with "prove it"... only formal logic does. Atheism is not formal logic, only logic has proof.
When we prove a god doesn't exist, we do so sans atheism.
I am not confused. What do you think I am confused with?
If I could prove there is no invisible unicorn in your pocket, I would be applying logic.
For those gods we can prove do not exist, we do so with no atheism required.
I couldn't prove you have a pocket at all, I'd need to believe you have one. I'd need to believe there is no invisible unicorn in the pocket I believe you have.
Ditto for "god". To say it exists or doesn't is a belief.
@gklr Yes, you are VERY confused. I think you totally failed the 3rd grade topic that compares facts with opinions. Logic is not based on "beliefs", it is based on factual knowledge. It's as simple as that.
@whanethewhip, " Yes, you are VERY confused" Well you haven't shown where. "I think you totally failed the 3rd grade topic that compares facts with opinions" Propositional types are not even covered in high school and there are 5 Empirical truths (facts lie in here only, facts are properties of material objects) Tautologous truths (logical truth) Inductive logic (assumption) Subjective belief (opinions, taste and values and dreams) Myths (storybook claims) I'm wrong? Where?
When we can prove a god doesn't exist, we do not apply atheism. We apply formal logic.
The god that can do anything and yet cannot create a rock so heavy it cannot be lifted, cannot exist. Proven via logic, not via atheism. Atheism is the belief there is no god, not the proof there is no god.
We prove what does not exist via a logical contradiction, or P and not P at the same time where P is a proposition. eg: the ball that is on fire and is not fire at the same time
@gklr Dont write me a book dude and respond multiple times to a single post. learn to articulate your responces in a manner that stays with the topic and is condensed without going on tangents, this is not a blog, this is a comment area. Atheism is not a belief (and your strawman is as weak as your legit arguments). Atheism is a response to a claim.
@gklr I knew you were an arrogant dick as soon as saw your first post. You have no logic, every statement follows a strawman and you are incapable of debating on equal grounds allowing others to define their own position. You cite works by others which is fallacy of authority. And you try to overwhelm people with lengthy tangents.
Ya well atheists like me you see have been called arrogant dicks by those we present logic and reason to for a long time.
"every statement follows a strawman "
Show 1 strawman. Key to my point on this is that only logical buffoons say atheism is anything other than the belief there is no god and I am happy to point out that you don't know what a strawman even is.
@gklr First you ask me to show you your strawman, then you tell me I don't know what a strawman is, putting me in a position in which you don't think I know what it is so that I therefore cannot present it, is in fact a strawman in itself. And with that I'm done with you because assholes like you make me violent and all I want to do is put my fist through your fucking face for being the dick you are. Instead I'll just block you, lucky you... dick.
"First you ask me to show you your strawman, then you tell me I don't know what a strawman is, putting me in a position in which you don't think I know what it is so that I therefore cannot present it, is in fact a strawman in itself"
Nope, but it sure does prove you don't know what a strawman is. All fallacies must argue a THEREFORE you are wrong and at no time did I offer any such argument.
"And with that I'm done with you because assholes like you make me violent and all I want to do is put my fist through your fucking face for being the dick you are."
Your emotional nonsense means zero to me. If you can't grasp the basics of logic, go find out what they are. Don't treat logic as the enemy... it is there for you to learn.
"And with that I'm done with you because assholes like you make me violent and all I want to do is put my fist through your fucking face for being the dick you are"
I get the feeling you get all fucked up talking about breakfast.
"and you are incapable of debating on equal grounds allowing others to define their own position"
Sure I do. I simply show the logical error you are making in doing so. Sorry for all of that troubling nonsense called propositional logic!
"You cite works by others which is fallacy of authority"
False. You don't know the first thing about logical fallacies. I simply cited the source of the argument. I at no time argued that it was true because Bertrand Russell said so.
@ groundzerobuild. She is right. Why does she need to be tortured? Your a mindless drone subscribing to a violent religion. Violence is your answer to everything.
I'm a Muslim American and i think this girl is a fool.She is offending my ultimate and unshakable believe in Islam.I'm deeply offended by her statement.I wish the American government will arrest her and torture her for trying to disprove Allah. This is absolutely wrong.She could have been beheaded for demeaning Islam.Do you know that Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and the rest of the world.
You cannot take religious standards to describe Atheism... it`s like comparing an Apple with a Steak. Therefore, Atheism doesn`t need a proof. Because it only means; no willingness to rely on fiction. To me Atheism is a mindset of demanding a proof, nothing less and nothing more...
Therefore Religious fundamentalists are defining atheism as a religion before attacking it (in fact, to make an attack possible). It`s definitely them who disturb the peace...
@gklr It doesn`t turn out that way for me. I don`t believe in christianity, which doesn`t mean: I believe there is no christianity. "Not believing" is not the same as believing "there is no..."
Not believing is not anything. Nothing is the same as "not believing".
It also is not talking about you, to say "you do not believe". You cannot imply from "you do not believe" that "you" exist. When you did not exist, you did not believe in a god.
Say something about you to talk about you.
Say something about atheists to talk about atheists.
Saying atheists do not believe, says nothing about atheists.
@gklr Saying atheists do not believe is the only fitting definition of atheism. To me it means: not being a member of a theological community, as the word itself implies. Of course, one could argue that everything happening in our heads is but belief, for all we can tell is in probabilities... therefore: having any opinion at all means to believe - but it makes no difference in Fact. We`ll just end up quarreling on levels that have no influence on reality. It`s interesting though, I agree!
"Saying atheists do not believe is the only fitting definition of atheism."
Even if it says nothing about atheists? How does that work? Saying Jim does not believe in a god says nothing about Jim. Jim may not exist and it is true. If Jim exists it is also not about Jim and can't be proven true. It is a belief about what Jim is not, not about Jim and not about atheists.
@gklr Well,... it says what it says - the rest depends on the conclusions you draw from it. I could also imagine an explanation saying that nothing says anything - a good philosopher can underpin anything he wants into plausibility, but what`s the use?
@gklr the ball could be cut into 2 pieces while one of them is set on fire... again it depends on your point of view whether it`s still a ball ot not. Also you can say: though they`re connected, the ball is made of atoms - and whatever happens to some of them doesn`t automatically apply for all of them...
You then talk about beliefs a bit and sound confused on that as well, so let me try to show you about beliefs.
There are 3 belief types, assumption (which we use in any probability), opinion (subjective, and assumptions and myths are objective) and myths. Each can be demonstrated as seperate from the other by way of the method used to resolve any of them. Inductive logic requires assumption, subjective beliefs use unsharable data, and myths are story based only.
You also use "fact" to describe what you call a disagreement of opinion. First off no opinion was offered, secondly facts are all true, so that quite dispells your assertion that everything in our heads are beliefs. If so, no facts exist.
Facts are properties of material objects and apply to physical things alone. Numbers, words, statements, logic, etc have no facts.
Facts are empirical, mathematics is tautologous. 2 truth types exist, empirical and tautologous.
@gklr Words make an impact on a psychological level, therefore they have properties as well. I too believe in science, but science can`t be done one or two dimensional... it`s so much more complex than you depict it.
Words have no physical properties and all properties are physical.
"it`s so much more complex than you depict it."
I didn't depict how science was done. I said science uses empirical truths and logic uses tautologous truths. You used "fact" when fact cannot apply. Facts are material. Arguments are not.
"I don`t believe in christianity, which doesn`t mean: I believe there is no christianity."
It'd be rather silly to deny christianity exists. Although we cannot prove anyone believes a god exists or not, to suggest that no-one believes it is rather a stretch.
Atheism is not required to oppose christianity, muslims do it, jews do it, hindus do it.
We can prove the christian god does not exist, no atheism required. Atheism is unimportant in opposing christianity.
Saying you do not believe christians are right is not talking about you. You didn't believe christians were right 2 million years ago when you did not exist. Saying so says nothing about you.
"defining it as: unluckyfellow88 believes christians are wrong, I´m fine with it"
Muslims think the same thing, so no I am not close to saying that.
That christians are wrong can be proven true, no atheism (belief) required. Not all proposed gods can be proven to not exist.
Atheism is a word we use to describe the lack of a belief in gods and goddesses. It is not a belief--it is the opposite. If you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, is that absence of a belief, a belief? Of course not. Atheism is not an assertion, a belief, a philosophy, or a worldview.
This notion that atheism is "a belief" is often an effort by theists to try to put atheism and theism on an equal footing and in some cases an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I heard another blanket statement the other day that I can only imagine was acquired by an act of divination - "all Atheists are epistemologically prideful"
If atheism is a position on the god question then its a belief. A position taken concerning the validity or non-validity of an unprovable proposition is a belief. It't can't be anything else.
@sashajw1234 Actually, no. Let's say we have assorted fruit juices in glasses. They have different color, smell and sugar content; but they are all liquids, all are sweet and all come from fruits. The fruit juices are religious beliefs. What would atheism be like? Atheism would be an empty glass.
@JaguarEscarlata "Actually, no. Let's say we have assorted fruit juices in glasses."
Empty glass? I'm afraid not. Using your analagy it would be more like a glass of water, not an empty glass. ATheism is still a belief. Every self identifing atheist has a position on the god question. If they don;t have a position on the question. THen the question does not apply to them and neither do the labels.
@sashajw1234 Maybe the analogy wasn't clear, but the glass of water would actually be Deism, that is, the belief in a god but without rituals, scriptures, a church and the sort. You are right most atheist take a stand on the existance of god, but that is derived from Atheism through philosophy and other means. As an atheist I tell you I don't wheter god exists or not. I lack a belief but don't make a stand. Atheism is not a belief, is the absence of belief. You wouldn't call non smoking a habit.
@sashajw1234 That's what I'm saying. The absence of a belief is not a belief = the lack of a belief is not a belief. Saying "God doesn't exist" or "God may may exist but I chose not to believe" are conclusions derived from atheist philosphy. Having tasted a strawberry pie is an experience, deciding if you liked it or not, are opinions derived from experience or study; but having never tasted it is neither experience nor opinion.
@JaguarEscarlata "Atheism is a belief as much as non-smoking is a habit"
Atheism is by logical neccessity a position on the god question. It is not agnosticism. It is not theism. You go ahead an tell me whats left.
THe present king of france comment comes from the argument in a hundead year old essay by Russel demonstrating the logical issues that exist with the not operator. Much of his writting is still taught today.
I am no troll. I am an atheist. You don;t know what that is.
a lack of belief in god does not exist? um...haha Im guessing if you think thats a plausible statement then you believe in a personal god...xD geez man
I am an atheist, and I am quite sure you have no idea what that means. It means I believe there is no god as that is all atheism can be.
When I said that a lack of belief in god does not exist, I meant it. No such thing exists padre. There is a better chance that a god exists than what you call atheism.
Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
You violate formal logic in saying that a lack of belief IS anything. Not a chance in the world.
@gklr padre? um...Im assuming thats an attempt at condescension. Ok jack, here goes. You go ahead and play with words...I think someone just finished an arts and sciences logic class. =) Point is, you can play with sementics and make the claim that a lack of something doesnt exist so all thats left is something...but Im afraid Im not impressed with or compelled by that. I am an atheist as well, somewhat of an anti-theist I suppose. And I suspect you are young and excited to assert yourself. =)
"padre? um...Im assuming thats an attempt at condescension."
It could be, I meant it to be friendly. With how you write, being condescending is more appropriate.
"I think someone just finished an arts and sciences logic class. =) "
Wrong kiddo. I've held to this same argument for over a dozen years. I am nearly 50, I don't do "school". And what the hell is an "arts, sciences logic class??" Logic is unrelated to art or science.
"you can play with sementics and make the claim that a lack of something doesnt exist "
Oh I am not playing with words, I can prove that quite easily.
Where X is anything, not X is not anything. It is logically true, as true as 1+1=2 is true. Lacking something says what is NOT the case.... and here you are saying is is what IS the case.
ability to address others' statements meaningfully = fail...
and on and on...
please....just go away
Im happy to let you dance off in "victory"... I just want to talk about these issues with someone with a wider skill base than formal logic. k? Lets just say "you win". Ill even let you post at me saying how I lose...and wont retort...Ill be elsewhere...xD
"I am an atheist as well, somewhat of an anti-theist I suppose."
It is intellectual cowardice to hide behind something that does not exist, and label that atheism, to attack what others believe. I tolerate "anti-theism" and consider "anti-theist" to be like the KKK or any other hate group. And neither has anything to do with atheism, which solely is the concern that there is no god... a belief.
"You are "young" to the debate...hows that? You are young in maturity...better? "
Another psychic reading. Irrelevent to me, irrelevent to the discussion. For all I care you can assume I just ate 3 babies. It makes no difference to anything I have said.
Using etymology to define words is simply wrong, language does not work that way. Words like "relative" mean something different in logic than in ethics than in geneology than in physics. If we went by root words to define other words, each word could only have 1 meanings and many are ambiguios. Ambiguity could not exist doing it that way and yet all natural languages have ambiguity.
Essentially you are arguing a point that is based on the rules of ancient greek, which was laid down well before Aristotle formalized logic. My reasoning for rejecting it stems from an essay written by Bertrand Russell in 1905, called "On Denoting" which led to his greatest work, his Theory of Descriptions.
@gklr no...lol wtf is wrong with you? I simply told you what atheism is. Youre free to define differently if you like. Buddy...you can get your finger off the launch missle button, youre quite an overreacter arent ya.
Im sure your video is astonishing and must certainly destroy me 17 different ways. lol (tad o sarcasm there) anyhoo...Ill leave you to your ...whatever the *&%$% youre doing , sure doesnt seem to be anything useful by way of supporting atheism. lol I didnt mark you as spam xD
Nothing. I am simply an atheist who despises your misrepresentation of atheism. You parrot falsehoods as if they have meaning and they don't.
"I simply told you what atheism is"
No you didn't, you didn't come close. You told me what atheists are not, not what atheism is. And you didn't even try to address the reasons supplied to you that you are wrong.
@gklr Psychic reading...wtf? lol Im starting to see a difference in our approaches here...I read and process your entire posts to get an idea of how I want to reply to you. Its tougher, takes a bit more doing, more thought....than take one phrase in quotes and torch that in whatever way seems advantageous I see you doing the latter often. which is in keeping with someone who loves the simplicity of formal logic approaches to complex issues.
"Im sure your video is astonishing and must certainly destroy me 17 different ways. lol (tad o sarcasm there)"
Then try dealing with the arguments. Etymology is still no way to define words and I gave you the reasons why here in comments and you simply did not reply. You argue using logic that existed in ancient Greece and yet the reasons you are wrong were not shown until 1905 by Bertrand Russell. The link in case you dare yourself is watch?v=GJ3A4aBNK9M. An end to "a=not".
"sure doesnt seem to be anything useful by way of supporting atheism"
Arguing against the misrepresentation of atheism as a lack of belief, and supporting that atheism is the belief there is no god is supporting atheism. And I care more about the snot in my left nose than I do "atheism". The arguments are what I care about, not atheism. The application of formal logic concerns me. Yuor misunderstanding of logic and set theory leads you to say nonsense.
@gklr I dont know how your approach posits to be useful but formal logic is not in this debate. Why not? because people dug in their doctrines and belief systems are compelled by emotions, psychology, needs, thoughts and many other complex interrelated forces that an argument from formal logic simplistic and virtually meaningless. I DO see why someone of your personality type would cling to it...its simplicity. U predispose yourself to a self recognized win, as you do now.
"dont know how your approach posits to be useful but formal logic is not in this debate. Why not? "
Then try using words other than NOT, because that is a logical term. When we talk about groups of things we use set theory, like it or not. When we use NOT we use propositional logic, like it or not.
@gklr Atheism is without content. You want to say something without content cannot exist...go right ahead hehe. Those of us that choose to discuss things within the complex context of the real world *I guess that might be the snot in my right nostril* find it more challenging and rewarding...and useful. Im sure Ill get by without black belt formal logic skills (I mean, YOU seem to be doing just fine) ;) BTW, you have something hanging on the left side...formal logic...ugh. lol
New to youtube? Spam is marked by a computer script and I saw none of my comments marked as spam anyway. I unmark users when I see that in replies to my vids. The scripts simply look for repetition of words and it is youtubes programmers who fail when it gets applied to simple discussion.
@gklr thanks lol. Incidentally, you seem to assume people are pretty ignorant hey? The computer script marked your comments as spam, not me...which looking back...yep that is what I said. Now whether or not it's a "fail" would be, at least in my mind, up for debate. ;) For someone who dry humps formal logic so incessantly, you appear to lack the critical reading and comprehension requisite.
"2.- Present King of France? Come on... take your troll bait somewhere else"
Who are you kidding? The present King of France is an example used by Bertrand Russell in his 1905 essay titled "On Denoting" which introduces the problem with the NOT operator in formal logic that completely dispells the bullshit that atheism is a lack of belief.
@silentwisp7 I agree with your points in the video. I would have to say that I am pretty well convinced that humans invented religion, and I see no evidence that human thought changes our environment.
.
I'm amused to see people like gklr there who say logic actually says the "lack" of a belief doesn't exist. Most amusing indeed. I found it to be philosophical bullshit, the way he presents it, though.
A lack of anything, is not something that exists. If you could keep your foul mouth and insults in check long enough to pick up on basic logic you would see that. It simply doesn't matter that silentwisp7 is also wrong, her reasons would be no better than anything you've shown.
You cannot prove anyone believes in a god or is an atheist. Just stating you are an atheist is a statement of faith, you are asking everyone to believe you. You cannot prove you are an atheist or that anyone believes in a god. Therefore by any definition, even that atheism is the lack of belief in a god, requires the belief that anyone does. To prove someone believes there is a god would take mind reading skills never as yet proven to be real.
@gklr Wow... talk about an ego trip, I thought you said you were leaving? Dang.
.
"You cannot prove anyone believes..."
.
What an idiotic statement. Do you seriously think this is some kind of point?
.
On the assertion that "atheism is a statement of faith" .... wow.... seriously? No, a statement doesn't ask anyone to do or think anything. It is TELLING you what their position is. You can accept it or not, that doesn't change THEIR statement.
"because lacking belief is not something that exists"
.
You idiot!!! Lacking a belief is a RESULT of the person examining a claim. How can you be this stupid? The claim exists. The actions and thoughts taken to examine the claim exist. The position of NOT BELIEVING the claim as a result/consequence of those examinations!
A lack of anything, no matter what it is, is not an existent thing. And... saying X lacks Y, is not talking about X. Saying an atheist lacks belief in god is true, just not about the atheist. The subject is "what the atheist is not". What atheists are, is not what they are not.
This has been flagged as spam show
@MounopanoTheGreat "Without God" doesn't necessarily mean belief that no god exists. That's just a ridiculous attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
Quartrez 1 month ago
Comment removed
Quartrez 1 month ago
Strictly speaking, I'm an anti-bullshitist. But imo you can't get around the word "belief" in the definition of atheism: even if you omit it, it's still there. On the other hand, atheism is in no way a form of religion. Any form of religion presupposes commitment: you have to worship you deity no matter what! An atheist will easily give up on any hypothesis or theory if you prove it wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. At least that's how I see it.
akela6567 2 months ago
This is a good question. So much time is wasted in the theist/atheist debate because people are actually using different definitions. I describe myself as an atheist, by which I mean I lack a belief in a God. I DON'T state there is no God, how could I know this?
Some would say "you're an agnostic". They're right. I'm an agnostic atheist
Simple fact is, the word is not strictly defined. The best thing is to ask someone what they belief, not assume you know based on a label.
EASYTIGER10 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists love trying to compartmentalize their "belief" into a convenient manufactured definition, b/c they know if they're tagged as claiming 'belief there is no god' they would be classified as a religion making them subject to the 'burden of truth'. They fight so hard over a passive position, what they call JUST a "lack" of belief ...for what??
mytuber81 3 months ago
Comment removed
mytuber81 3 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat Agnosticism does mean without knowledge. But someone can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. An agnostic theist doesn't know if a god exists, but believes that it does. An agnostic atheist doesn't know if a god exists, but doesn't believe that it does.
Now gnostic atheism on the other hand is the positive assertion that no gods exist, because it includes a claim of knowledge.
exotheist1 3 months ago
@exotheist1 these are modern "tweeks" of the word to try and attach a political meaning to the debate. Ultimately 3 positions can exist, 1) a belief in God, 2) a belief that God doesn't exist, 3) not knowing "without 'gnosis'". People that claim not to know might make an assumption, but they admit that they do not know. Agnostic atheists though don't make assumptions, they merely hide behind the guise of "agnosticism" for political reasons, in reality they are atheists
MounopanoTheGreat 3 months ago
@MounopanoTheGreat Okay. What category would you consider someone who has never considered the question of a god's existence: atheist or agnostic? Clearly the person does not "believe no gods exist" as you say atheism is. And obviously the person doesn't "know" the answer one way or another.
That's why atheism includes a lack of belief.
exotheist1 3 months ago
Oxford Dictionary - atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
Merriam-Webster - atheism: disbelief in the existence of deity; the doctrine that there is no deity
Atheists always try to redefine "atheism" but we know better. Get yourself a good dictionary and don't be fooled. They also try to redefine faith as "belief in something without evidence" when no reliable dictionary defines it that way.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue We don't have to redefine it. We feel that theists aren't reading the first half of both of those definitions.
Disbelief does not mean a claim of the opposite to be true. It means a rejection of the validity of something.
exotheist1 3 months ago
She's an Agnostic Atheist:
Agnostic because she does not claim to KNOW there is no god, god or any other type of deity.
Atheist because she does not BELIEVE in the existence of a god, gods or deities due to the lack of evidence supporting such things.
Nortekman 5 months ago
@Nortekman,
She did not claim to know there is a god in the year 1543 when she did not exist, and she was not agnostic.
She did not believe in the existence of god in the year 1543 when she did not exist and she was not an atheist.
Both of your descriptions fail.
gklr 5 months ago
all christians SHOULD be creationists, otherwise they are not even following a religion, but being arrogant enough to make their own one up and expect people to believe that they somehow have the divine right to decide on which parts of the bible are to be believed and which parts are not. You either believe its the word of god or you don't. If you don't then have the balls to go the whole hog instead of pretending that ONLY the parts that fit with your moral code are right.
deadlychickenxop 6 months ago
Atheism is the lack of belief in the god of religion (theism); the ‘god’ that religious people have so arrogantly and ostensibly DEFINED.
Whether it’s Jesus, Jehovah, Allah or Krishna or whatever, atheism is the REFUSE of ANY of these definitions (claims of knowledge): -What does god look like?
-God looks like this, and acts like that and has this feelings about you…
-I don’t believe you!
When it comes to RATIONAL arguments for the existence of god, Deism is the end of the line.
fiesta181 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skallagrimur Im sorry but your comment is wrong - to put it nicely;) Your response had absolutely nothing to do with my comment. The video is about the definition of Atheism, not you sharing ur baseless opinion about God or the bible.
mytuber81 7 months ago 3
Comment removed
mytuber81 8 months ago
@skallagrimur
fairytale, or no fairytale...deists don't have a proof, u don't have proof...all there is to it, abiogenesis and quantum fluctuation does not do it for me nor 5 billion ppl. Energy is merely transferred it does not ignite itself, M theory and parallel universes are one shit for brains day dreaming wishful thinking rant.
warrior4just 8 months ago
u r the one who need to ponder, when u lack a belief in something, u necessarily believe that there no such thing as that something. logically is follows that not having the idea of the existence of that something means u do not believe in something but believe that there is no such something, it is a beleif. the answer is no difference, it is a belief, so is everything.
warrior4just 8 months ago
Atheism = belief there is no god.
People dont just casually label themselves atheists. They make a decision to call themselves ATHEISTS b/c they have made a CHOICE to believe there is no god.
If you dont want that definition attached to you call yourself an agnostic.
mytuber81 8 months ago 12
@mytuber81,
"Atheism = belief there is no god"
Clearly. As an atheist, I find it is these kinds of stupid definitions of atheism that keeps people in the dark about atheism, keeps atheists in the closet as they have no beliefs to profess etc...
Atheism is a position and a lack of a position or a lack of belief.... is not anything. No such thing exists.
Ironic?
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr The the only ppl in the dark are the atheists. Atheism is a position of rejection and belief there is no god. The Greek term was used for ppl who were "ungodly" and who denied or disrepected some gods but believed in others..
mytuber81 7 months ago
@mytuber81,
And what precisely, makes atheists "in the dark"?
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "And what precisely, makes atheists "in the dark"?
Romans 3:23
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
1 Samuel 2:9-10
"He will guard the feet of his faithful servants, but the wicked will be silenced in the place of darkness.
“It is not by strength that one prevails; those who oppose the LORD will be broken.
mytuber81 7 months ago 2
@mytuber81,
The bible? lol.
I thought you were going to present an argument.
I need no atheism to say the god of the bible doesn't exist, just logic. The bible is a joke by this time.
gklr 7 months ago
@gklr "I need no atheism to say the god of the bible doesn't exist, just logic. The bible is a joke by this time" - 1 Corinthians 3:18
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise.
Romans 14:11
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, EVERY knee shall bow to me, and EVERY tongue shall confess to God.
That includes you gklr.
mytuber81 6 months ago
@mytuber81,
Problem: I know the proposed god of the bible does not exist. No atheism required. The proposed god of the bible is said to never repent and also repent. POOF.
No such possibility as a being that never repents and also repents. There may still be a god, but that one is off the list of possible beings. Further quoting the bible itself is an utter waste of your own time.
gklr 6 months ago
@gklr Your subjective opinion and objective reality are two different things;) Reading the Bible and interpreting everything at face value in an unedified, undiscerning manner is foolish.
mytuber81 6 months ago
@gklr Gods character and mindset towards sin DOES NOT CHANGE. When God speaks of repenting it's in reference to His dealings with man(sinful & unrepentant or otherwise). If mans relationship with God changes then Gods 'dealings' with man also change in accordance with his unchanging will. Repent of man and repent of God symbolize two different contextual meanings, NOT the same. The Bible illustrates the difference.
mytuber81 6 months ago
@mytuber81,
"Gods character and mindset towards sin DOES NOT CHANGE"
I didn't say it did. I know it does not change, because I know there is no such god. No character now or ever. Nor was I saying that the bible says gods mindset towards sin changed, all I need is any change in this alleged god at all and POOF.
That happens frequently in the bible. It's authors simply were unware of why that can't be the case.
The bible crosses the line from fiction to falsehood quite often.
gklr 6 months ago
@gklr "I know the proposed god of the bible does not exist"..."all I need is any change in this alleged god at all and POOF" - Then ur actively and hopelessly engaged in willfull ignorance. Your criteria for whether or not God exists is at its core inane and puerile.
According to ur standards, a God who created the human race; a race who has the capacity to love, hate, show compassion etc. must be passively one dimensional.
Explain ur reasoning, b/c it's simply illogical.
mytuber81 6 months ago 2
@mytuber81,
" "I know the proposed god of the bible does not exist"..."all I need is any change in this alleged god at all and POOF" - Then ur actively and hopelessly engaged in willfull ignorance"
Nope. I am applying propositional logic and the law of noncontradiction.
"According to ur standards, a God who created the human race; a race who has the capacity to love, hate, show compassion etc. must be passively one dimensional."
I never said any such thing. Lying helps you how?
gklr 5 months ago
@mytuber81,
"According to ur standards, a God who created the human race; a race who has the capacity to love, hate, show compassion etc. must be passively one dimensional.
Explain ur reasoning, b/c it's simply illogical. "
Lying about what I say is what you deem logical? Show me where I said any of the above?
I take it you don't mind lying much, you lied here about me. This tells me you don't take your own commandments anymore seriously than I do.
Lying is not an argument.
gklr 5 months ago
@gklr Instead of lying about me lying, tell me what part of what I said was completely off from your implications of why God doesn't exist. After you fail my first request explain this - "all I need is any change in this alleged god at all and POOF."
mytuber81 5 months ago
@mytuber81,
" Instead of lying about me lying, tell me what part of what I said was completely off from your implications of why God doesn't exist"
mytuber81: "According to ur standards, a God who created the human race; a race who has the capacity to love, hate, show compassion etc. must be passively one dimensional"
False. A lie... since I said no such thing.... and nor did I imply any such thing.
gklr 5 months ago
@gklr Stop being intellectually dishonest. You haven't answered my question yet - what part of what I said was completely off from your implications of why God doesn't exist?
Dont play games and telll what you supposedly DIDN'T imply, tell me what you DID imply.
mytuber81 5 months ago
@mytuber81,
There is no intellectual dishonesty from me. You lied that I said something I did not say.... you tried to bend that lie into "you implied it" and I did no such thing.
We prove what does not exist via a logical contradiction. I provided one for the alleged god of the bible. There are too many to list, I offered just 1. My point was to you... that no atheism, no belief.... is required to say such a being does not exist. I could have easily used another example.
gklr 5 months ago
@mytuber81,
If you were not so knee jerk sensitive, you may have actually seen my point.
My point was that atheism, the belief there is no god, is overrated. For example, an omnipotent being that cannot create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted, is not an atheist argument. It is a logical argument. It is proof no such being can exist. It requires no atheism to say.
Atheism only applies to gods that possibly do exist.
I thought you would find that interesting and I got back nonsense.
gklr 5 months ago
@gklr ???? lol-->"For example, an omnipotent being that cannot create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted, is not an atheist argument. It is a logical argument" " Atheism only applies to gods that possibly do exist."
You still havent answered my question;)
mytuber81 5 months ago
@gklr There are ppl who would rather refuse to believe in God for ANY reason, you seem to be one of them.
mytuber81 6 months ago 5
@mytuber81,
"There are ppl who would rather refuse to believe in God for ANY reason, you seem to be one of them."
False statements are not beliefs statements. It is not possible the god you allege to believe in, exists. There are many possible gods, yours is just not one of them.
Atheists allow for more possible gods than theists do. You allow for 1. Atheists must allow for many more as possible.
You missed the point that I need no atheism to say your god doesn't exist.
gklr 5 months ago
@mytuber81,
"When God speaks of repenting it's in reference to His dealings with man(sinful & unrepentant or otherwise). "
Nonsense. The bible says god does not change and does not repent, when I can show multiple instances of either.
It is not a belief to say the god of the bible exists. It is false. You are not a theist, you lack belief in a god... what you profess is simply false, not a belief. Theists BELIEVE a god exists, you do not. You're just wrong and you do not state a belief
gklr 5 months ago
@mytuber81 Theists claim that atheists have as much faith as they do because they think atheism is the blind assertion that no gods exist. Atheism is a skeptical response to theism. This is why we always have to explain that atheism, most inclusively, is a lack of belief in the existence of any gods. More exclusively, atheism is the positive belief that there are no gods.
Agnosticism and gnosticism address claims of knowledge; they can be applied to claims other than ones about gods.
exotheist1 3 months ago
@mytuber81 Look up the definition of "agnosticism", on its own it has nothing to do with belief in god. Dumbass.
Quartrez 1 month ago
@mytuber81 " a CHOICE to believe there is no god.”
--> just like I have mane a “choice” to believe santa isn’t real, Allah isn’t real, unicorns are not real, jimmy the magical flying turtle is not real, etc?
Thats not really how it works. I don’t make a blind choice based off of what I find more preferable. I look at the evidence, and take the most honest position. People claim there is a god, present no or inadequate evidence, so i don’t believe.
BaneOfAzrael 1 week ago
@mytuber81 " call yourself an agnostic.”
--> do you know what an Agnostic atheist is? what about a Gnostic Atheist?
BaneOfAzrael 1 week ago
Well said, but it is a waste of time. I wouldn't expect anyone who feels certain of the existence of a being whose existence is escape route for investigation and comprehension to comprehend anything which sidetracks such simplicity.
Theists don't live in caves, they are exposed to the same stimuli as we (normal people :) are. They are just so biased to filter out/quickly forget whatever makes their brains too hot...
vinzbrain 9 months ago
i agree with you, its odd how people dont get it.. :)
theists believe there is a god, atheists lack that belief.. it really is that simple...
frackcha 9 months ago
On the one hand you are preaching against arrogance and then on the other you are arrogantly telling us to use the "logic" to define atheism. What logic by the way? The classic logic I use show that no entity can be denoted by a negated description (lack always uses not). Saying what atheism is is an attempt to denote but then saying only what it is not is a logical fail on a very basic level.
Truly awful reasoning expressed in a truly awful way.
mungbeanman 10 months ago
Every position has a negative proposition, and a positive. You have detailed to us your understanding of the negative assertion within athiesm. Now can you tell us the positive? If not go back to the drawing board and stop trying to define away your burden of proof pls.
arktheball 10 months ago 2
@arktheball,
There is no burden of proof on atheist or on theists. No belief can be proven true. All beliefs are possibly false and possibly true at the same time. A burden of proof only applies when someone claims something is true.
gklr 5 months ago
Very well said
DanceLikeANitwit 10 months ago
Thank you for this info, but all i see is data, where is the video? I am more than willing to cooperate with you. But with claims so great, and the fact that cameras have been around for 150 years in our culture, do we at least have some photos of an actual explosion or is it all data?
detroitthebaptist 11 months ago
I think atheists seems to be brainwashed I have no answers but at least I´m not brainwashed
menvaheteren 11 months ago
@skallagrimur I think atheists seems to be brainwashed I have no answers but at least I´m not brainwashed
menvaheteren 11 months ago
@menvaheteren Part of being a good brainwashed subject is NOT knowing you're brainwashed. This is why religion works well.
allieron 11 months ago
@every1 Who among u would let a complete stranger in their home, just because they may proclaim to be a good person!??? NOT A SINGLE 1 OF U ... yet u have a problem with God not letting u into heaven, which just so happens to be His home! lol... His word is warning to u and u all simply just mock Him n blaspheme with all your hearts, while cheering on others who do the same! " Your time is running out!" soon the laughter will be over n all will have to face Him n it won't be any laughter then
detroitthebaptist 11 months ago
@detroitthebaptist If god exists and i stand before ggod when im dead i would laugh in his face for creating such a badly constructed universe.
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude badly constructed universe? .. When did you or anyone else tour the universe and give it a inspection!?!?
detroitthebaptist 11 months ago
@detroitthebaptist Hubble is your friend, and those nice people at NASA and the Goddard Space Flight center will be delighted to take you on a galactic tour.
The distant echo of Voyager will guide you in your first steps.
allieron 11 months ago
@detroitthebaptist If you didnt know, there are plenty of suns exploding, galaxies exploding and our own planet geting pelted by asteroids.
Not to mention that the god of the bible couldnt make a perfect creation and thus by definition god is not perfect.
Sweddude 11 months ago
@Sweddude Can you please provide me with some video evidence of just 1 sun exploding? God never said earth or man was perfect, i was simply noting the evidence of design in the perfections! NOW LET'S SEE THAT EXPLODING SUN VIDEO!
detroitthebaptist 11 months ago
@detroitthebaptist So you dont even know that supernovas has ben observed several times? sad, just sad.
Sweddude 11 months ago
@detroitthebaptist Heres are a few examples of observed supernovas.
SN 185, SN 1006, SN 1054, SN 1572 and SN 1604.
Sweddude 11 months ago
Thanks. I agree with you. Unfortunately, theists are in a position to print their definition in an otherwise reliable source. (dictionary)I am trying to argue the point you make with a theist in a newsgroup. It is hard to do when the definitions I look up say that it is a -belief-. subbed.
csnowutube 1 year ago
How can anyone say that this video is arrogant or offending? Comments such as this just prove how primitive religion is and what evil it can do to corrupt people to the extent that they say and do things which completely defy logic. She is simply explaining what atheism is, it's a DEFINITION no argument here.
Atheism is the only position that a logical person who isn't lying to themselves can take.
Even if islam is growing fast, atheism is growing faster. Looks like humans are waking up =D
jamma246 1 year ago
I agree, atheism is a response to a claim that there is a god, the response simply states "prove it". So far there is no proof so the default position is "there is no god". Dawkins defines this well on his scale system of 1-7. A '7' is someone that would be asserting there is no god while a 6 would be saying "I see no evidence for a god therefore there is probably not a god". The problem for people like us, is that the 7's are out there asserting a claim while using the label "atheist".
whanethewhip 1 year ago
@whanethewhip,
Those claiming there is no god is true, have a burden of proof and they will not meet it.
Those claiming there is no god is something they believe, are atheists. They have no burden of proof since they have not declare something is true.
Asking proof for a belief is to misunderstand beliefs. Atheism has nothing to do with "prove it"... only formal logic does. Atheism is not formal logic, only logic has proof.
When we prove a god doesn't exist, we do so sans atheism.
gklr 5 months ago
@gklr I'm sorry that you are confused, perhaps if I simplify this for you. I have an invisible unicorn in my pocket, prove it is not real.
whanethewhip 5 months ago
@whanethewhip,
I am not confused. What do you think I am confused with?
If I could prove there is no invisible unicorn in your pocket, I would be applying logic.
For those gods we can prove do not exist, we do so with no atheism required.
I couldn't prove you have a pocket at all, I'd need to believe you have one. I'd need to believe there is no invisible unicorn in the pocket I believe you have.
Ditto for "god". To say it exists or doesn't is a belief.
gklr 5 months ago
@gklr Yes, you are VERY confused. I think you totally failed the 3rd grade topic that compares facts with opinions. Logic is not based on "beliefs", it is based on factual knowledge. It's as simple as that.
whanethewhip 5 months ago
gklr 5 months ago
@whanethewhip,
When we can prove a god doesn't exist, we do not apply atheism. We apply formal logic.
The god that can do anything and yet cannot create a rock so heavy it cannot be lifted, cannot exist. Proven via logic, not via atheism. Atheism is the belief there is no god, not the proof there is no god.
We prove what does not exist via a logical contradiction, or P and not P at the same time where P is a proposition. eg: the ball that is on fire and is not fire at the same time
gklr 5 months ago
@gklr Dont write me a book dude and respond multiple times to a single post. learn to articulate your responces in a manner that stays with the topic and is condensed without going on tangents, this is not a blog, this is a comment area. Atheism is not a belief (and your strawman is as weak as your legit arguments). Atheism is a response to a claim.
whanethewhip 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whanethewhip,
"Dont write me a book dude and respond multiple times to a single post"
Oh I will write on this as I see fit. Your comment was so skewed and wrong on so many levels, it took more than 1 reply to cover your errors.
"learn to articulate your responces in a manner that stays with the topic and is condensed without going on tangents"
I have and I do that very well.
"Atheism is not a belief "
False. Atheism requires belief on many levels.
gklr 5 months ago
@whanethewhip,
Prove you or anyone else believes there is a god (theist) or not(nontheist).
Prove you or anyone else believes there is no god (atheist) or not (nonatheist).
You can't. You believe any of those.
I'll wait on the ESP and mind reading tricks required to prove those things. Until then, you believe them.
gklr 5 months ago
@gklr I knew you were an arrogant dick as soon as saw your first post. You have no logic, every statement follows a strawman and you are incapable of debating on equal grounds allowing others to define their own position. You cite works by others which is fallacy of authority. And you try to overwhelm people with lengthy tangents.
whanethewhip 5 months ago
@whanethewhip,
Ya well atheists like me you see have been called arrogant dicks by those we present logic and reason to for a long time.
"every statement follows a strawman "
Show 1 strawman. Key to my point on this is that only logical buffoons say atheism is anything other than the belief there is no god and I am happy to point out that you don't know what a strawman even is.
gklr 5 months ago
@gklr First you ask me to show you your strawman, then you tell me I don't know what a strawman is, putting me in a position in which you don't think I know what it is so that I therefore cannot present it, is in fact a strawman in itself. And with that I'm done with you because assholes like you make me violent and all I want to do is put my fist through your fucking face for being the dick you are. Instead I'll just block you, lucky you... dick.
whanethewhip 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whanethewhip,
"First you ask me to show you your strawman, then you tell me I don't know what a strawman is, putting me in a position in which you don't think I know what it is so that I therefore cannot present it, is in fact a strawman in itself"
Nope, but it sure does prove you don't know what a strawman is. All fallacies must argue a THEREFORE you are wrong and at no time did I offer any such argument.
You have no idea how to identify a strawman.
gklr 5 months ago
@whanethewhip,
"And with that I'm done with you because assholes like you make me violent and all I want to do is put my fist through your fucking face for being the dick you are."
Your emotional nonsense means zero to me. If you can't grasp the basics of logic, go find out what they are. Don't treat logic as the enemy... it is there for you to learn.
gklr 5 months ago
@whanethewhip,
" Instead I'll just block you, lucky you... dick."
lol. Plug your ears, that'll help.
gklr 5 months ago
@whanethewhip,
"And with that I'm done with you because assholes like you make me violent and all I want to do is put my fist through your fucking face for being the dick you are"
I get the feeling you get all fucked up talking about breakfast.
gklr 4 months ago
@whanethewhip,
"and you are incapable of debating on equal grounds allowing others to define their own position"
Sure I do. I simply show the logical error you are making in doing so. Sorry for all of that troubling nonsense called propositional logic!
"You cite works by others which is fallacy of authority"
False. You don't know the first thing about logical fallacies. I simply cited the source of the argument. I at no time argued that it was true because Bertrand Russell said so.
gklr 5 months ago
@whanethewhip,
"And you try to overwhelm people with lengthy tangents"
I am thorough and if you dislike that, talk to someone else. I refute teh kinds of thing you say quite quickly and with good reason.
gklr 5 months ago
@ groundzerobuild. She is right. Why does she need to be tortured? Your a mindless drone subscribing to a violent religion. Violence is your answer to everything.
rsullie 1 year ago
I'm a Muslim American and i think this girl is a fool.She is offending my ultimate and unshakable believe in Islam.I'm deeply offended by her statement.I wish the American government will arrest her and torture her for trying to disprove Allah. This is absolutely wrong.She could have been beheaded for demeaning Islam.Do you know that Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and the rest of the world.
groundzerobuild 1 year ago
Comment removed
FirebirdKnight 1 year ago
You cannot take religious standards to describe Atheism... it`s like comparing an Apple with a Steak. Therefore, Atheism doesn`t need a proof. Because it only means; no willingness to rely on fiction. To me Atheism is a mindset of demanding a proof, nothing less and nothing more...
Therefore Religious fundamentalists are defining atheism as a religion before attacking it (in fact, to make an attack possible). It`s definitely them who disturb the peace...
unluckyfellow88 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
Atheism requires no proof because it is the belief there is no god.
No belief has any proof or it wouldn't be a belief. Only claims of truth carry a burden of proof.
If you do not believe there is no god then you are not an atheist.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr It doesn`t turn out that way for me. I don`t believe in christianity, which doesn`t mean: I believe there is no christianity. "Not believing" is not the same as believing "there is no..."
unluckyfellow88 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
""Not believing" is not the same as... "
Not believing is not anything. Nothing is the same as "not believing".
It also is not talking about you, to say "you do not believe". You cannot imply from "you do not believe" that "you" exist. When you did not exist, you did not believe in a god.
Say something about you to talk about you.
Say something about atheists to talk about atheists.
Saying atheists do not believe, says nothing about atheists.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Saying atheists do not believe is the only fitting definition of atheism. To me it means: not being a member of a theological community, as the word itself implies. Of course, one could argue that everything happening in our heads is but belief, for all we can tell is in probabilities... therefore: having any opinion at all means to believe - but it makes no difference in Fact. We`ll just end up quarreling on levels that have no influence on reality. It`s interesting though, I agree!
unluckyfellow88 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
"Saying atheists do not believe is the only fitting definition of atheism."
Even if it says nothing about atheists? How does that work? Saying Jim does not believe in a god says nothing about Jim. Jim may not exist and it is true. If Jim exists it is also not about Jim and can't be proven true. It is a belief about what Jim is not, not about Jim and not about atheists.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Well,... it says what it says - the rest depends on the conclusions you draw from it. I could also imagine an explanation saying that nothing says anything - a good philosopher can underpin anything he wants into plausibility, but what`s the use?
unluckyfellow88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unluckyfellow88,
" could also imagine an explanation saying that nothing says anything"
Only if you want to sound kooky.
" a good philosopher can underpin anything he wants into plausibility, but what`s the use?"
Showing that wrong is simple. Ask them to show how it is plausable that a ball can be on fire and not be on fire at the same time.
This is how we prove things do not exist, by showing them as the subject of a logical contradiction.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr the ball could be cut into 2 pieces while one of them is set on fire... again it depends on your point of view whether it`s still a ball ot not. Also you can say: though they`re connected, the ball is made of atoms - and whatever happens to some of them doesn`t automatically apply for all of them...
This is where nothing says anything.
unluckyfellow88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unluckyfellow88,
"the ball could be cut into 2 pieces"
Then it is not a ball. You can try all you like, you won't be showing an exception to any of the rules of formal logic.
"the ball is made of atoms - and whatever happens to some of them doesn`t automatically apply for all of them"
The statement is about the ball, ot its atoms.
"This is where nothing says anything"
There is no such thing as nothing. Nothing does not exist so it doesn't say anything.
gklr 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
"To me it means: not being a member of a theological community"
That is nontheist, not atheist.
Everyone believes in a god (theist) or not (nontheist).
Everyone believes there is no god (atheist) or not (nonatheist).
Atheism and theism are not mutually exclusive. Babies are nontheists and nonatheists.
All atheists are nontheists, not all nontheists are atheists.
gklr 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
You then talk about beliefs a bit and sound confused on that as well, so let me try to show you about beliefs.
There are 3 belief types, assumption (which we use in any probability), opinion (subjective, and assumptions and myths are objective) and myths. Each can be demonstrated as seperate from the other by way of the method used to resolve any of them. Inductive logic requires assumption, subjective beliefs use unsharable data, and myths are story based only.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Message me directly... whoever marks this conversation as spam is right doing so! Sorry!
unluckyfellow88 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
I see nothing here marked as spam and when that happens it is irrelevent.... it's done by a script and not a person.
gklr 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
You also use "fact" to describe what you call a disagreement of opinion. First off no opinion was offered, secondly facts are all true, so that quite dispells your assertion that everything in our heads are beliefs. If so, no facts exist.
Facts are properties of material objects and apply to physical things alone. Numbers, words, statements, logic, etc have no facts.
Facts are empirical, mathematics is tautologous. 2 truth types exist, empirical and tautologous.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Words make an impact on a psychological level, therefore they have properties as well. I too believe in science, but science can`t be done one or two dimensional... it`s so much more complex than you depict it.
unluckyfellow88 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
Words have no physical properties and all properties are physical.
"it`s so much more complex than you depict it."
I didn't depict how science was done. I said science uses empirical truths and logic uses tautologous truths. You used "fact" when fact cannot apply. Facts are material. Arguments are not.
gklr 1 year ago
@unluckyfellow88,
"I don`t believe in christianity, which doesn`t mean: I believe there is no christianity."
It'd be rather silly to deny christianity exists. Although we cannot prove anyone believes a god exists or not, to suggest that no-one believes it is rather a stretch.
Atheism is not required to oppose christianity, muslims do it, jews do it, hindus do it.
We can prove the christian god does not exist, no atheism required. Atheism is unimportant in opposing christianity.
gklr 1 year ago
I don`t believe christians are right, and if you`re defining it as: unluckyfellow88 believes christians are wrong, I´m fine with it! =)
unluckyfellow88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unluckyfellow88,
Saying you do not believe christians are right is not talking about you. You didn't believe christians were right 2 million years ago when you did not exist. Saying so says nothing about you.
"defining it as: unluckyfellow88 believes christians are wrong, I´m fine with it"
Muslims think the same thing, so no I am not close to saying that.
That christians are wrong can be proven true, no atheism (belief) required. Not all proposed gods can be proven to not exist.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I feel sorry for you... I really do.
REDWINGSRED36 1 year ago
Atheism is a word we use to describe the lack of a belief in gods and goddesses. It is not a belief--it is the opposite. If you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, is that absence of a belief, a belief? Of course not. Atheism is not an assertion, a belief, a philosophy, or a worldview.
This notion that atheism is "a belief" is often an effort by theists to try to put atheism and theism on an equal footing and in some cases an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
"the assertion that Atheists are arrogant..."
I heard another blanket statement the other day that I can only imagine was acquired by an act of divination - "all Atheists are epistemologically prideful"
nephyrias 1 year ago
If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease.
- Clark Adams
Zensonar 1 year ago
If atheism is a position on the god question then its a belief. A position taken concerning the validity or non-validity of an unprovable proposition is a belief. It't can't be anything else.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 Actually, no. Let's say we have assorted fruit juices in glasses. They have different color, smell and sugar content; but they are all liquids, all are sweet and all come from fruits. The fruit juices are religious beliefs. What would atheism be like? Atheism would be an empty glass.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
@JaguarEscarlata "Actually, no. Let's say we have assorted fruit juices in glasses."
Empty glass? I'm afraid not. Using your analagy it would be more like a glass of water, not an empty glass. ATheism is still a belief. Every self identifing atheist has a position on the god question. If they don;t have a position on the question. THen the question does not apply to them and neither do the labels.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 Maybe the analogy wasn't clear, but the glass of water would actually be Deism, that is, the belief in a god but without rituals, scriptures, a church and the sort. You are right most atheist take a stand on the existance of god, but that is derived from Atheism through philosophy and other means. As an atheist I tell you I don't wheter god exists or not. I lack a belief but don't make a stand. Atheism is not a belief, is the absence of belief. You wouldn't call non smoking a habit.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
@JaguarEscarlata "As an atheist I tell you I don't wheter god exists or not. I lack a belief but don't make a stand."
THen you are not an atheist.
THe absence of a thing sir, is not in its self 'a thing'
Saying what you are not does not say what you are.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 That's what I'm saying. The absence of a belief is not a belief = the lack of a belief is not a belief. Saying "God doesn't exist" or "God may may exist but I chose not to believe" are conclusions derived from atheist philosphy. Having tasted a strawberry pie is an experience, deciding if you liked it or not, are opinions derived from experience or study; but having never tasted it is neither experience nor opinion.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JaguarEscarlata "having never tasted it is neither experience nor opinion."
Having no concept of a proposition means it does not apply to you.
Not believing is not a position. It is the result of a line of thought,
X lacks Y is not a statement of identity
THe statement is true no matter what X is as long as X is not Y. Even if X is nothing at all it still lacks Y.
THe present king of France lacks belief in God and is not an atheist.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 I think you showed up as a troll with your last comment, but I still want to reply:
1.- Atheism is a belief as much as non-smoking is a habit.
2.- Present King of France? Come on... take your troll bait somewhere else.
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
@JaguarEscarlata "Atheism is a belief as much as non-smoking is a habit"
Atheism is by logical neccessity a position on the god question. It is not agnosticism. It is not theism. You go ahead an tell me whats left.
THe present king of france comment comes from the argument in a hundead year old essay by Russel demonstrating the logical issues that exist with the not operator. Much of his writting is still taught today.
I am no troll. I am an atheist. You don;t know what that is.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 I DO! *high fives fellow atheist*
jns124able 1 year ago
@JaguarEscarlata um...atheism is a belief as much as non smoking is a habit.
there, thats much more accurate.
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
atheism is the belief there is no god by definition. The definition that says atheism is a lack of belief says atheism does not exist.
A lack of belief in god does not exist.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr a = no, theism = theism. not adeism.
a lack of belief in god does not exist? um...haha Im guessing if you think thats a plausible statement then you believe in a personal god...xD geez man
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
I am an atheist, and I am quite sure you have no idea what that means. It means I believe there is no god as that is all atheism can be.
When I said that a lack of belief in god does not exist, I meant it. No such thing exists padre. There is a better chance that a god exists than what you call atheism.
Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
You violate formal logic in saying that a lack of belief IS anything. Not a chance in the world.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr padre? um...Im assuming thats an attempt at condescension. Ok jack, here goes. You go ahead and play with words...I think someone just finished an arts and sciences logic class. =) Point is, you can play with sementics and make the claim that a lack of something doesnt exist so all thats left is something...but Im afraid Im not impressed with or compelled by that. I am an atheist as well, somewhat of an anti-theist I suppose. And I suspect you are young and excited to assert yourself. =)
jns124able 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jns124able,
"padre? um...Im assuming thats an attempt at condescension."
It could be, I meant it to be friendly. With how you write, being condescending is more appropriate.
"I think someone just finished an arts and sciences logic class. =) "
Wrong kiddo. I've held to this same argument for over a dozen years. I am nearly 50, I don't do "school". And what the hell is an "arts, sciences logic class??" Logic is unrelated to art or science.
gklr 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"you can play with sementics and make the claim that a lack of something doesnt exist "
Oh I am not playing with words, I can prove that quite easily.
Where X is anything, not X is not anything. It is logically true, as true as 1+1=2 is true. Lacking something says what is NOT the case.... and here you are saying is is what IS the case.
Logical fail.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr re: your posts...
interesting = fail
ability to engage in intelligent debate = fail
ability to think in complexity = fail
ability to address others' statements meaningfully = fail...
and on and on...
please....just go away
Im happy to let you dance off in "victory"... I just want to talk about these issues with someone with a wider skill base than formal logic. k? Lets just say "you win". Ill even let you post at me saying how I lose...and wont retort...Ill be elsewhere...xD
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"interesting = fail
ability to engage in intelligent debate = fail
ability to think in complexity = fail
ability to address others' statements meaningfully = fail..."
You criticize what is obvious to anyone who looks at it. Too eager to criticize, you end up talking in absurdities. No skin off my nose.
gklr 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"I am an atheist as well, somewhat of an anti-theist I suppose."
It is intellectual cowardice to hide behind something that does not exist, and label that atheism, to attack what others believe. I tolerate "anti-theism" and consider "anti-theist" to be like the KKK or any other hate group. And neither has anything to do with atheism, which solely is the concern that there is no god... a belief.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr wow...maybe you SHOULD stick to formal logic because your ability to wrestle with anything more complex or convoluted is not your forte.
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"And I suspect you are young and excited to assert yourself. =)"
And twice you are wrong and giving me psychic readings. If it is not too late, get your money back on those ESP lessons.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Again with the psychic readings...oooook
A bad attempt at associating me with the ridiculous unsupported practice of psychic garbage? ugh transparent..
You are "young" to the debate...hows that? You are young in maturity...better? These are statements I make based on the content of your posts.
Why must I explain these things ad nauseum?
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"You are "young" to the debate...hows that? You are young in maturity...better? "
Another psychic reading. Irrelevent to me, irrelevent to the discussion. For all I care you can assume I just ate 3 babies. It makes no difference to anything I have said.
"Why must I explain these things ad nauseum?"
Because you can't oppose what is argued.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jns124able,
" a = no, theism = theism. not adeism"
Using etymology to define words is simply wrong, language does not work that way. Words like "relative" mean something different in logic than in ethics than in geneology than in physics. If we went by root words to define other words, each word could only have 1 meanings and many are ambiguios. Ambiguity could not exist doing it that way and yet all natural languages have ambiguity.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jns124able,
"a = no, theism = theism. not adeism"
I have a video up that destroys your point.
watch?v=GJ3A4aBNK9M
Essentially you are arguing a point that is based on the rules of ancient greek, which was laid down well before Aristotle formalized logic. My reasoning for rejecting it stems from an essay written by Bertrand Russell in 1905, called "On Denoting" which led to his greatest work, his Theory of Descriptions.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr no...lol wtf is wrong with you? I simply told you what atheism is. Youre free to define differently if you like. Buddy...you can get your finger off the launch missle button, youre quite an overreacter arent ya.
Im sure your video is astonishing and must certainly destroy me 17 different ways. lol (tad o sarcasm there) anyhoo...Ill leave you to your ...whatever the *&%$% youre doing , sure doesnt seem to be anything useful by way of supporting atheism. lol I didnt mark you as spam xD
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"no...lol wtf is wrong with you?"
Nothing. I am simply an atheist who despises your misrepresentation of atheism. You parrot falsehoods as if they have meaning and they don't.
"I simply told you what atheism is"
No you didn't, you didn't come close. You told me what atheists are not, not what atheism is. And you didn't even try to address the reasons supplied to you that you are wrong.
"youre quite an overreacter arent ya"
Another psychic reading? For me?
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Psychic reading...wtf? lol Im starting to see a difference in our approaches here...I read and process your entire posts to get an idea of how I want to reply to you. Its tougher, takes a bit more doing, more thought....than take one phrase in quotes and torch that in whatever way seems advantageous I see you doing the latter often. which is in keeping with someone who loves the simplicity of formal logic approaches to complex issues.
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"Psychic reading...wtf?"
Telling me about myself when you know no such thing is a psychic reading. You do it often and fail everytime.
gklr 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"Im sure your video is astonishing and must certainly destroy me 17 different ways. lol (tad o sarcasm there)"
Then try dealing with the arguments. Etymology is still no way to define words and I gave you the reasons why here in comments and you simply did not reply. You argue using logic that existed in ancient Greece and yet the reasons you are wrong were not shown until 1905 by Bertrand Russell. The link in case you dare yourself is watch?v=GJ3A4aBNK9M. An end to "a=not".
gklr 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"sure doesnt seem to be anything useful by way of supporting atheism"
Arguing against the misrepresentation of atheism as a lack of belief, and supporting that atheism is the belief there is no god is supporting atheism. And I care more about the snot in my left nose than I do "atheism". The arguments are what I care about, not atheism. The application of formal logic concerns me. Yuor misunderstanding of logic and set theory leads you to say nonsense.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr I dont know how your approach posits to be useful but formal logic is not in this debate. Why not? because people dug in their doctrines and belief systems are compelled by emotions, psychology, needs, thoughts and many other complex interrelated forces that an argument from formal logic simplistic and virtually meaningless. I DO see why someone of your personality type would cling to it...its simplicity. U predispose yourself to a self recognized win, as you do now.
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"dont know how your approach posits to be useful but formal logic is not in this debate. Why not? "
Then try using words other than NOT, because that is a logical term. When we talk about groups of things we use set theory, like it or not. When we use NOT we use propositional logic, like it or not.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Atheism is without content. You want to say something without content cannot exist...go right ahead hehe. Those of us that choose to discuss things within the complex context of the real world *I guess that might be the snot in my right nostril* find it more challenging and rewarding...and useful. Im sure Ill get by without black belt formal logic skills (I mean, YOU seem to be doing just fine) ;) BTW, you have something hanging on the left side...formal logic...ugh. lol
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"lol I didnt mark you as spam xD"
New to youtube? Spam is marked by a computer script and I saw none of my comments marked as spam anyway. I unmark users when I see that in replies to my vids. The scripts simply look for repetition of words and it is youtubes programmers who fail when it gets applied to simple discussion.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr thanks lol. Incidentally, you seem to assume people are pretty ignorant hey? The computer script marked your comments as spam, not me...which looking back...yep that is what I said. Now whether or not it's a "fail" would be, at least in my mind, up for debate. ;) For someone who dry humps formal logic so incessantly, you appear to lack the critical reading and comprehension requisite.
wow
jns124able 1 year ago
@jns124able,
"thanks lol. Incidentally, you seem to assume people are pretty ignorant hey?"
Yep, and I'd use you as exhibit #2,987,765,231
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JaguarEscarlata,
"2.- Present King of France? Come on... take your troll bait somewhere else"
Who are you kidding? The present King of France is an example used by Bertrand Russell in his 1905 essay titled "On Denoting" which introduces the problem with the NOT operator in formal logic that completely dispells the bullshit that atheism is a lack of belief.
Ignorance is not an argument.
gklr 1 year ago
@TLSlayer1 Well said!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@silentwisp7 I agree with your points in the video. I would have to say that I am pretty well convinced that humans invented religion, and I see no evidence that human thought changes our environment.
.
I'm amused to see people like gklr there who say logic actually says the "lack" of a belief doesn't exist. Most amusing indeed. I found it to be philosophical bullshit, the way he presents it, though.
.
Have you heard people trying that before?
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion,
A lack of anything, is not something that exists. If you could keep your foul mouth and insults in check long enough to pick up on basic logic you would see that. It simply doesn't matter that silentwisp7 is also wrong, her reasons would be no better than anything you've shown.
gklr 1 year ago
You cannot prove anyone believes in a god or is an atheist. Just stating you are an atheist is a statement of faith, you are asking everyone to believe you. You cannot prove you are an atheist or that anyone believes in a god. Therefore by any definition, even that atheism is the lack of belief in a god, requires the belief that anyone does. To prove someone believes there is a god would take mind reading skills never as yet proven to be real.
gklr 1 year ago
@gklr Wow... talk about an ego trip, I thought you said you were leaving? Dang.
.
"You cannot prove anyone believes..."
.
What an idiotic statement. Do you seriously think this is some kind of point?
.
On the assertion that "atheism is a statement of faith" .... wow.... seriously? No, a statement doesn't ask anyone to do or think anything. It is TELLING you what their position is. You can accept it or not, that doesn't change THEIR statement.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
"because lacking belief is not something that exists"
.
You idiot!!! Lacking a belief is a RESULT of the person examining a claim. How can you be this stupid? The claim exists. The actions and thoughts taken to examine the claim exist. The position of NOT BELIEVING the claim as a result/consequence of those examinations!
.
You fail.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
@ThatOneQuestion,
A lack of anything, no matter what it is, is not an existent thing. And... saying X lacks Y, is not talking about X. Saying an atheist lacks belief in god is true, just not about the atheist. The subject is "what the atheist is not". What atheists are, is not what they are not.
gklr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "A lack of anything, no matter what it is, is not an existent thing."
.
It is a conclusion, fool, not a thing. This is why you are just too confused to make any sense: you dont even know what you are talking about.
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
<