Trying to pull semantics on a term that applies simple literal logic does not allow you to insert belief to something that is exactly not that. Apply Occam's razor.
Now when you talk about evidence the problem is not that the classic theological monotheistic god has possibility it is absolutely impossible as per the definitions and the arguments stand on the grounds of contradictions/paradoxes.
Atheism as you call it is not a belief until someone has given proof of evidence and they haven't.
When you say you believe there is no god, you are using the word differently to the way religious people believe. In order for your belief (which I would call an opinion based on evidence) to be equivalent to religious belief, you would have to hold it irrespective of evidence. Most (not all) atheists I know would change their position on the existence of god(s) if credible evidence were presented to them. Hence, this is entirely different to religious belief.
Lack of belief in a concept means that you hold it possible that the concept exists. Using the term 'lack of belief', you talk about your human ignorance and the fact that everything is by definition unknowable.
Calculated risks =/= belief. If there is little support to assume an entity exists, you can assume in your everyday life that it doesn't exist. You simply have not obtained enough information to assume it exists.
This is a mindset that decreases ignorance and promotes an open mind.
Really, you seem to just be playing a word game in this video. I think I understand what you mean, and I think you need to take a different view as to what 'believe' really means.
I'd like to correct something. I fucked. I need to wake up (literally). I based my argument on the theist definition. I would say that I am an "atheos" if anything. I guess that would make you an atheist. Not me. What does that make me then. On the other hand I'm still taking into account the loosely used suffix "ism". Basing the "A" on the modern definition of theism is somewhat acceptable. I'm still a little confused here. So nullify the misnomerous parts of my first two comments.
cont. You might say I'm stupified. I don't hold the position that a god can't exist. I don't get it. I don't hold this X. I don't get this X.
I understand the premise of the video. However, I think the video should be titled "Atheists Don't Exist". That title would better support your vlog. If you think that "atheists" like yourself can't have a lack of a belief in any god than they by definition are not atheists. They don't exist.
P.S. Yes, that's why I used the "" the first time.
There's a fallacy here. I like the gameshow comparison but one thing still differs. Not believing in a god isn't tested by something behind a door. The test was whether or not he believed there was a fairy behind the door. Not soley that he doesn't believe in them. I must say that I lack in a belief in any god. I'm detached from it if I must say so myself. My whole life I've never truly understood this idea of god and thus I must say I've never believed in it. I can't say the same for you. cont.
After watching the whole video....my only main criticism is the 33 min. mark "the false equivocation of belief with faith" you say under the title: faith here being defined as believing something without justification. But then go onto use the OTHER definition of faith: trust in someone (a god in this case) so you have effectively equivocated two definition of faith into one....when it was convenient to make a point....a point i might add don't disagree with...i do disagree with the process.
ok....mistake...i thought the vid was over. but i regret to say i only watched 3 half minutes. please disregard my last reply, it was done in haste. i really should exercise more patience.
@KnownNoMore thanks...i really like your videos....they deserve more views hands down. you go deeper than the average research video. almost completely neutral approach. iv been trying to get my online buddies to check your stuff.
both ricky red and benny blue....they represent different levels of atheist.. (without theism) you have to realize this know no more. The reason lack of belief is more accurate is because it can be used to represent BOTH benny and ricky.... but anti theism...or leaning towards gnostic atheist....well...only covers ricky, exluding benny...but both of them are without god belief.... to reiterate....rick and benny represent subdivisions of being atheist...but only the "lack" title covers both
@KnownNoMore The coin example isn't since we know coins exist and that there is a 50/50 chance of which side is on top. You cant compare the two claims in any way. "
Kan wel, het gaat niet om de kans maar om het idee dat iemand een claim maakt zonder bewijs. Zo'n claim hoef je niet te geloven, maar dat betekent niet dat je gelooft dat z'n claim onwaar is.
@KnownNoMore Ander voorbeeld, jij claimt dat er morgen een eclips is, ik geloof dat niet, omdat het dan in de krant gestaan zou hebben, dat betekent niet dat ik geloof dat het onmogelijk is dat er morgen een eclips zal zijn.
Onmogelijkheid heeft er niks mee te maken. Alleen waarschijnlijkheid. Dus als ik zeg dat er morgen een eclips is maar jij acht het waarschijnlijker dat er geen eclips komt omdat er anders iets over in de krant zou hebben gestaan, dan houdt dat in dat je gelooft dat er geen eclips komt morgen.
@KnownNoMore "dan houdt dat in dat je gelooft dat er geen eclips komt morgen." Correct, maar ik sluit het niet uit en heb dan een gebrek aan geloof in de komst van de eclips de volgende dag.
Weet je kunt woordspelletjes spelen, maar de definitie is duidelijk: Atheisme is een gebrek aan geloof. Dat ik niet geloof dat er een paarse dinosaurus in je kamer zit, betekent niet dat ik geloof dat ie niet bestaat of kan bestaan.
Dat heeft echter geen enkele betrekking op het feit of je open staat voor het tegendeel of niet, of hoe sterk die overtuiging is. Zolang je het maar een microscopisch beetje waarschijnlijker vind dat er geen eclips komt betekent dat dat je gelooft dat er geen eclips komt. Dat is simpelweg wat een geloof/overtuiging betekent.
Hoe sterk die overtuiging is hangt af van hoe waarschijnlijk je het acht. Het kan een hele zwakke overtuiging zijn maar ook een hele sterke overtuiging
En ook dit is een zwak voorbeeld aangezien we weten dat eclipsen voorkomen en dat de hemellichamen die daarvoor nodig zijn bestaan. Hoe is dit vergelijkbaar met de vraag of een God bestaat?
@KnownNoMore "Hoe is dit vergelijkbaar met de vraag of een God bestaat?" Het gaat niet om waarschijnlijkheid, maar of het ene niet geloven automatisch betekent dat je gelooft dat datgene niet mogelijk is.
Het is heel simpel ik geloof niet in het bestaan van een god (tenminste waarvan ik op de hoogte ben), maar ik sluit niet uit, nog geloof dat er god(en) zijn.
@KnownNoMore "Geloven dat X niet bestaat =/= de mogelijkheid uitsluiten dat X bestaat." Als jij denk dat god niet bestaat,, dan sluit jij op dat moment uit datie bestaat. Het kan zijn dat je later van mening/geloof veranderd, maar op dat moment sluit je uit dat god bestaat.
noun 1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: a religious conviction: 2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
Ik accepteer niet als waar dat goden bestaan maar ook niet dat ze niet bestaan, ik sta open voor bewijs, er is geen bewijs om een van beide uit te sluiten..
@KnownNoMore Ik heb ook geen sterke overtuiging dat goden wel of niet bestaan, ik heb een overtuiging wat waarschijnlijker is, maar ik ben er niet van overtuigt dat goden bestaan en ook niet dat zij absoluut niet bestaan.
Ik heb überhaupt geen religieuze opvating.
Ik heb geen vertrouwen in het bestaan of niet bestaan van goden.
Kortom ik heb geen geloof in het bestaan, noch in het niet bestaan van goden.
@KnownNoMore Het enige wat je hebt aangetoond is dat geloof in de waarschijnlijkheid van iets een geloof is. Niet hoe geloof in de waarschijnlijkheid van iets hetzelfde is als geloven in het absolute bestaan of niet bestaan van iets.
Ik heb ook nooit gezegd dat "geloven dat god niet bestaat" gelijk staat aan "ik weet zeker dat god niet bestaat. In tegendeel want geloven dat X waar of niet waar is staat nooit gelijk aan zeker weten.
Ik heb nooit gezegd dat Atheist betekent: iemand die zeker weet dat god niet bestaat. Maar dat Atheist betekent: iemand die het niet-bestaan van god als waarschijnlijker beschouwt (in welke mate dan ook) dan het bestaan van god.
Natuurlijk is dat wel waar, hoe zou uberhaupt het anders kunnen zijn? Aangezien alle overtuigingen zijn gebaseerd op waarschijnlijkheid. Wat kan "geloven dat x niet bestaat " anders kunnen betekenen? Het kan per definitie niet gelijk staan aan zeker weten dat X niet bestaat, dus wat betekent het volgens jou dan wel?
Dan mag jij es uitleggen wat "geloven dat x niet bestaat" dan wel betekent? Als het geen zekerheid of waarschijnlijkheid is, wat is het dan wel?
@KnownNoMore `Maar dat Atheist betekent: iemand die het niet-bestaan van god als waarschijnlijker beschouwt" Wat dus niet klopt omdat er ook atheisten zijn die het geloof van god als onmogelijk beschouwt, wat niks met waarschijnlijkheid te maken heeft.
`M.a.w. iemand die gelooft dat god niet bestaat.` Dit is dezelfde misvatting die je de hele tijd maakt. Maar laat ik maar stoppen, je weet waar ik sta, ik weet jouw standpunt, laten we het daar bij houden.
Ter illustratie, verander de claim eens in een levende roze olifant met een vierkante slurf die in knownnomore's kamer staat. Ben je het er mee eens dat de kans dat die claimwaar is, minimaal ietsje kleiner is dan de kans dat die claim wel waar is?
Want laten we eerlijk zijn, de kans dat er echt een levende roze olifant met vierkante slurf in mijn kamer staat is bijzonder klein niet waar? Als ik dat zou beweren dan zou je terecht zeggen dat ik uit mijn nek lul
@KnownNoMore "Ben je het er mee eens dat de kans dat die claimwaar is, minimaal ietsje kleiner is dan de kans dat die claim wel waar is?" Ja, maar zoals ik al eerder zei, het een waarschijnlijker vinden dan het andere betekent niet dat je het ene als waar gelooft en het andere als onmogelijk of onwaar.
"Let's say I flip a coin, don't show it to you, and tell you it's heads. Do you believe me? You shouldn't. If you don't, does that automatically mean that you believe it's tails? Of course not. It's the same with god claims. If someone says "god exists" and I say "I don't believe you" that does not automatically mean that I believe that god does not exist."
What i have basically been arguing for 40 minutes is that the claim "god exist" is in a completely different category than "this coin is on heads". The god claim is inherently improbable. The coin example isn't since we know coins exist and that there is a 50/50 chance of which side is on top. You cant compare the two claims in any way.
【cont.】 Personally, I disagree with you on this one; however the comment section does not provide me with adequate space to address it, and I do not post my own videos (perhaps one day...), so I am going to post a blog on as a response, and will provide the link once I am finished (may be a while... I am currently working on a PhD in theoretical physics, which doesn't leave me much time... but I'll get it done. ;) )
Have you also seen this video I made on the topic? watch?v=d2NDRG-ILco
And to be frank, in the end its going to be a semantic issue inevitably. The main problem I have is (regardless of what label you call it by) people who do very much believe that there is no God yet say that they merely lack belief in a God. Which doesnt make sense to me nor do I think it could possibly be helpful
And I actually completely agree. I was going to preface my response with expressing my opinion that ultimately the discussion is rather moot. Personally, I prefer to have discussions by asking for the opinion of someone else (or they can ask me) on whatever topic, and then discuss the issue from rather, and completely avoid the "appropriate" label for myself. Anywho, back to work I suppose...
@KnownNoMore Thanks for the vid. I think the lack of belief response is primarily to deal with trivial theistic arguments. However, let me argue it this way. In argument, a position is often better explained by one set of words than another, even if semantically the two sets have the same meaning, and represent the same position. Therefore the position regarding lack of belief better represents a rejection of the initial premise than the position of belief in the contrary premise.
Excellent video- I have enjoyed everything I have seen from you (as evinced by the fact that seeing that this video is nearly 38 minutes long inspired *no* hesitation on my part on watching it). [cont.]
I am an atheist and if placed in the situation I probably would quit the show. I cannot be certain that there are no gods out there in some form - I'm reasonably certain, but not sure.
But if the game show host said that the God behind the door was the god from one of the Abrahamic religions I'd take the money without blinking. Because not even a god must be logically consistent and the ones described in your various holy books are not.
I think it's just a problem of symantics & lack of language/vocabluary. The concept of God umbrellas a wide range of definitions. Everyone I've ever met is ignostic to my definition of God.
For a great extent I think you failed to take into account humanist (and other) objections to religious ideologies. Much of the arguement is not about faith in God, it's an objection to specific Dogmas. Moreover the open, honest discussion about God & spirituality is often hindered by the religious right.
"or a great extent I think you failed to take into account humanist (and other) objections to religious ideologies. Much of the arguement is not about faith in God, it's an objection to specific Dogmas. Moreover the open, honest discussion about God & spirituality is often hindered by the religious right."
I didnt mention that because it is unrelated. Atheism and Theism is about the existence of a God not about religion and religious dogma and such.
@KnownNoMore I think that the 'believe' versus 'lack of belief' argument falls into the hands of the simplistic theistic argument. Therefore I prefer the definition as espoused by other atheists, as ''not believing the claims re a supernatural being as made by theists''. It is the supernatural element of the being that differs a religious belief from a philosophy. And my preference for a definition of a deity is that in the glossary of the religious tolerance website
I got to 4:15 where you indicate that knowledge is a subset of truth and belief and gave up. Whilst I love Venn diagrams, you have made a critical error of reasoning. There is no space to explore that in depth here, but let it suffice to say that an individual's position on belief, and his position on knowledge, are not necessarily contingent upon truth. Indeed they are not even in the same same realm of reasoning. This was explained in the video this one is a response to.
As a follow up let me give some examples of god(s): Caesar was a "god" as well as the Pharaohs, people have define whatever "power" that defined(s) the universe is god, and Volcanoes were gods in some cultures. When atheist "reject" god their rejecting certain claims. If you walked up to an atheist and told him your "god" was whatever caused the universe to exist he more likely then not would not reject your claim of it's "existence" but maybe reject your actions in defining it as a "god".
Interesting but a bit faulted. The god(s) hypothesis is an unfalsifiable claim that can't be dis-proven because god(s) has no "real" definition, it can be a physical being or an abstract concept/action, as well people can associate infinite attributes to god(s) such as looks, powers, and location. Therefore the only way atheism would require faith is if ALL ideas of what may be considered a god(s) are rejected but there aren't many atheist who'll do that.
Well if X has no definition, X by definition doesnt exist.
If X has a definition but is contradictory X cannot exist.
If X is unprovable then it is by definition made up and therefore unlikely to just happen to match reality. If X has a definition but is basically the same as Y, then X shouldnt be used and instead we should talk about Y.
You see this has nothing to do with mere lack of belief. Those types of gods can be rejected out of hand.
I never X had no definition, I said X had no "real" definition or to be more accurate (this is my fault for not defining the term accurately enough) no "one" definition. In this case X is just like an other variable and be representative of anything.
The second statement ignores the case of multiple definitions along with non-absolute statements, E.G. often in experimentation multiple effects can occur it does not mean what caused those effects don't exist.
Big G God: supernatural mind that exists as the foundation of all reality.
Little g god: a being with super-human abbilities.
if another definition is used I wont accept the usage of the word God/god and therefore is irrelevant to Atheism
When it comes to a little g god I see the term as useless since that would even have to include aliens. actually the polytheistic gods are more or less indistinguishable from beings like aliens.
Ah but here's the problem, You can make your own definition but you can't define it for others. there's 300,00 denomination of Christianity for a reason and it can summed up in one word: Perception. It's common knowledge that no 2 people are the same but we often have some things in common with others. How you see the definition of god can be valid and accepted by many but so can the definition of others. Technically you're an atheist too, an atheist to certain ideas of god.
But those thousands of denominations believe basically in the same God-concept with minor variations. The differences are mostly about doctrine not about the concept of God.
"Technically you're an atheist too, an atheist to certain ideas of god."
No I'm an Atheist regarding ANY God. Ofcourse unless you define God as something that I already believe exists. But then you cant call it God. If its not supernatural and personal, its not a God. You have to call it something else.
Not necessarily, many accounts of the doctrines dictates gods actions and many people have varying ideas on god's limitations. Admittedly there are hairline fractures here and there and a "vague" definition of god can suffice for the most part it's his attributes and actions that allow us atheist to measure and observe "it/him and reject certain claims.
As I said before how you define god is not an absolute it's just what you adhere to, in fact by that definition god is undefinable
Also if its about definitions, you're not an Atheist but an Ignostic. And an ignostic can say nothing about believe since its meaningless when there is no definition. And it might even be that you already believe in something but are not aware that the term in question refers to that. Like my example in the video regarding "zwaartekracht". Everyone believes in "zwaartekracht" but people who dont know what that word means are not aware of that.
The term that best fits me is Agnostic Atheist, I reject many claims of gods however I accept certain ones since you can't refute them (unfalsifiable claim), not as fact, but possibility. An ignostic, agnostic, w/e accepts that ALL claims are possible.
I sort throw what I don't know under "irrefutable" since I don't know about and therefore can't acknowledge or discuss it.
"Who gets to define what maps onto reality and what doesn't"
Mapping a claim to reality means we look at out understanding of how things work. Ie, when people touch things they leave a finger print. If my finger print is on someones computer, its reasonable to assume I touched the computer. Its not reasonable to assume some alien shape shifter is responsible.
You last post on Santa already tells me You understand so I don't know why you keep asking
But we find out time and again our understanding is mistaken. You can't map something that is unknown to us against what is known. As a function, the range is limited to known things. Any element in the domain that is unknown would not map and be undefined. It wouldn't EVER make sense to us.
I think we basically agree on how the world works. Our models describe how things are learned about reality. We obviously like our own best.
@CMrace "But we find out time and again our understanding is mistaken"
Yes, because someone has discovered new evidence about reality that shows our current understanding to be false. Its happened alot in the past and will likely continue to happen. Its part of the way we learn.
I just think your model has ambiguity in determining truth when two competing explanations are logically consistent because it includes the need to prove things false. (I am not sure I believe that is possible outside man made abstract systems like math)
I think it is impossible to even argue evidence in your model all our perception itself (including measurement) would technically be belief.
I also do not see how something completely new can be mapped onto reality and learned.
@CMrace "I just think your model has ambiguity in determining truth when two competing explanations are logically consistent because it includes the need to prove things false."
Ahh, possibly this is our problem. Its not about detemining truth. Its about criteria for resonable assessment. IE me claiming an alien shape shifter is responsible for my fingerprint, is not reasonable. Further evidence is required.
Why is everyone using these silly aliens, elves, Santa etc questions? (you avoid going in-depth)
You have no way to lack belief/disprove these things. We want to hear you defend the non-existence of elves the same as gravity under your (faith) logic.
We know you have set it up so that not believing these things requires conscious faith (belief w/out evidence) for your logic and thus creates a level playing field any silly but consistent claim.
@CMrace "You have no way to lack belief/disprove these things."
Claims that, if true, still have no effect on the understanding of reality don't need to be disproven, because they don't mean anything so I don't know why you keep bringing them up.
"for your logic and thus creates a level playing field any silly but consistent claim."
No, not if you map the claim to understandable reality. This is one of the major steps used to detect fallacies.
"no bearing on reality" is just an opinion. Who gets to decide that? So if you think it has no bearing, it doesn't. This is what I am talking about. I think it does have a bearing on reality. Now what?
You are saying that your theoretical model doesn't actually work until you "map it to reality. 99.99999% of reality is not understood, yet you feel that mapping onto it will validate belief logic?
Map the claim to reality? Can you show me how this is done? Use the alien example.
@CMrace " I think it does have a bearing on reality. Now what?"
I had a conversation with a theist just the other day. I told him, "as you and i speak, god could exist. Infact, throuh all the arging over the last several thousand years about whether there is a god or not, there may have always been one an we just couldn't know for sure. The question is, if there is one and we can't prove it, or access it, or show that it does anything at all, exactly what does it change?" Nothing.
The discussion of God's existence makes a huge difference.
People believing in God has a huge impact on society. These Gods have mandates. You have kind of given them justification for beliefs that can cause harm to others.
Jolly red Santa isn't real, but talk of his fiction propelled him to grow to mythic proportions and continues has lead to him to make a difference in thousands of lives.
So how are you qualifying "make a difference on reality" other than your personal opinion?
@CMrace "The discussion of God's existence makes a huge difference"
Off topic, I said that if god exists and has always existed, what difference does it make if we don't know. The discussion of god is irrellevant becausewe have always discussed god. We will still discuss the posiibillity to the point where we debate, fight and kill over it. It won't change anything unless we can demonstrate for sure that 1 is up there.
@CMrace "People believing in God has a huge impact on society."
Yes, it has, your completely missing the point. Its possible right now that there is no god and never has been. Something i'm not totally sold on, but its certainly possible. If its true right now, but we can't show it to be, will people stop believe, will anything change? The question is actually meaningless because it describes our current situation.
Ok, I'm going to be you here...........Oh but i dissagree, I think hes real, I saw a story about a UFO in the news during Christmas time a few years ago and i think this is a logical connection to santa claus. My clam is just as justified as the claim that says humans bleed if they are cut bad enough.
@CMrace "Therefore act as and speak as though he isn't real keeping in mind that there is an infinitesimally small possibility you could be mistaken."
Yes, quite true, because of the lack of evidence that can be tested, people are justified to consider santa imaginary, and they do. I have never met a lucid adult who doesn't think Santa is imaginary. Like me, they are open to the presentation of empical evidence that suggests otherwise, until then, the claim is believed false.
You didn't explain how I specifically used a red herring falicy
It looks like you are just making it up as an excuse to use "common sense opinion" in places where your logic gets sticky. It allows you to say "that's ridiculous and doesn't need consideration because it doesn't map" whenever belief-logic would fail a claim like the "silly" but logically difficult to defend Santa, Elves. etc
I don't see how you could ever learn anything new, since it can only be mapped onto current knowledge of reality.
I think this is special pleading. We CAN'T know whether or not we are being tricked by aliens. The fact is you believe this alien theory false, yet you have no mechanism to discredit it. Just because you think it's crazy doesn't mean we aren't mistaken.
Asking you to demonstrate how you can discredit even the most obviously false things is hardly a red herring.
Who gets to define what maps onto reality and what doesn't. People just believe it maps onto reality anyway, making that just opinion as well.
There just isn't any way to basically eliminate non-belief and have anything be objective or demonstrable. Even what you saw is an opinion. Whether the machine was measuring accurately is an opinion.
Saying this only works to the "real world" (however we define that), just weakens the logic because you have to decide a-priority what's possible
@CMrace "Who gets to define what maps onto reality and what doesn't."
If you and 100 other people see and video tape someone destroying your house; In court, are you going to argue for reasonable doubt in this persons defense because you think an alien brainwave contraption might be being used by someone in a flying saucer to trick you an 100 other people into thinking you saw what you saw? I doubt it, because you know there is no evidence to suggest it.
Before we map this argument to reality, its valid. Once we compare it to how we understand reality, the fallacies show up. The argument becomes invalid in one way via the fallacy of composition. This is why your claims of alien trickery are nothing more than meaningless chatter. This is why all claims are not equal.
"I have a green room, IMO that counts as evidence of Peter Pan."
What? lol, Umm, Alright, The fact that you have a green room in your house is evidence that the room was built by humans. This is a decent assumption because we know humans build houses with rooms in them. Aliens could have built it, but unless you have something like a spaceship in your back yard, or something similar, you have no real evidence.
It is just that you don't understand the true nature of Peter Pan. The connection is quite clear to me. It's my opinion and since you have not disproven PP I have just as much ground to stand on as you.
In your scheme it's only evidence if people believe it is. I believe, therefore my opinion, my green room and PP there in spirit is validation. remember unverifiable means your truth and mine can be different based on opinion, and you have no mechanism to assign probabilities to them.
Concluding the human body is invisible to the naked eye because its made up of individual cells that are invisible to the naked eye is a fair conclusion. The problem is, the conclusion is false. When we compare the conclusion to our knowledge about what makes matter visible to the human eye, the argument ends up with a composition fallacy.
I understand and read about the human eye example. Show me how I am specifically making this fallacy. What specific claims and premises am I making that evoke this charge of fallacy?
@CMrace Earlier i said, if i cut my self deep enough, i'll bleed. This is not only a claim, its demonstrable. You said peolpe may not have any blood at all and that some alien brainwave contraption was responsible for making us think that we do. This could be true right now despite the fact that we can't show it to be and the whole world would still operate the same way regarding blood. Your attempting to disprove an argument with an irrelevant stance, form of red herring
Atheism as a term does not reaquire denying any gods. Just not having gods that you believe in makes you an Atheist. You can, and should off course deny all gods and fantasy creatures man has invented, but its not compulsory.
If you have never heard about gods, you are an Atheist. No need to deny any of them, since you have not heard about them.
@KnownNoMore : Not so simple, I think. We can actually have an Atheist who has never heard about Thor. He has no opinion about Thor. So considering Thor he is an Atheist, but really dont hold a belief in any direction. As soon as he hears about Thor, he is going to make up his mind, and have an opinion about Thor. Propably he will think Thor is as likely to be real as Donald Duck. So the "evidence" he has for his disbelief is just the lack of any proper evidence or reason to believe in Thor.
But I also do not believe that they DON'T exist < Wrong afairests* DOUBT they exist
'I am an Atheist [sic] meaning that I believe that no God exists' NO! It's subtilely different: I am an atheist meaning I do NOT believe that ANY gods have met their burden of proof' (which is a fact otherwise 1 God -a several would be undeniably real like Mount Everest is real -no one argues whether it really is).
This is very long & repetitive -making a poor argument in many different way =/= truth!
Do you consider the existence of any God to any extent whatsoever unlikely? The only way to have MERE lack of belief without any positive belief is to regard to existence of a God as completely 50-50. As soon as you regard as just a tiny bit more likely that no such beings exists, you believe in the non-existence of such beings.
So if you agree with the statement "there are probably no gods", that means you believe that no gods exist.
@KnownNoMore 'So if you agree with the statement "there are probably no gods", that means you believe that no gods exist.' Wrong VERY wrong! Why? You've added something I'm not saying! What? That I believe there are no Gods. But I do don't I if I agree with the 'probably no Gods' statement?! Wrong! What does 'probably' mean? Not 100% certain! So how can I say I do NOT believe in any gods? Because that STILL doesn't mean I MUST think any do which is VERY different from saying what you say I say!
wrong. Saying "I believe no gods exist" is NOT the same as being 100% certain that there are no gods. Belief is not absolute knowledge.
I believe my parents are my biological parents. But I dont know that with absolute certainty. But they probably are.
So if a person agrees that there PROBABLY are no gods, then they believe that no gods exist. It's that simple. That's what it means to believe something.
So do YOU agree with the statement "There probably are no gods"?
@KnownNoMore You are equating 2 different kinds of statements "There probably are no gods" i.e. a position which LACKS faith & 'they believe that no gods exist.' NO THIS IS NOT CORRECT! Any statement which ADDS belief to a simple disbelief MUST be wrong! Always. Why? As YOU said 'That's what it means to believe something.' so a LACK of belief in God ISN'T something -it's a LACK of something -a LACK of belief, NOT 'belief IN disbelief' < THAT is what's called a 'double negative' in English -LEARN
This phrase indicates a position regarding the proposed existence of gods. Its is an opinion that is not provable. aka a belief. So is every other position concerning the existence of gods.
Any opinion on the veracity of an unknown that proposes what is thought to be the case, or thought likely to be the case, is a belief by neccessity. Atheism is no exception.
@Sashajw12345 No you are very much mistaken. The reason your clip is so unpopular is because it is saying NOT believing something means you MUST believe the opposite. So if I say I do not believe in gods am I saying no gods are real? Not at all. To assume so is unwarranted. All you could possibly ascertain for certain is I see no reason to BELIEVE gods exist. I do not BELIEVE in extra terrestrials either. Can this be interpreted as I KNOW no extra terrestrials MIGHT exist? No!
@sitemountain "Can this be interpreted as I KNOW no extra terrestrials MIGHT exist? No!"
False camparison, to know something is the case is quite different than believing it is the case.
This is a very basic point but given your posts, I'm not sureprised you don;t understand it.
To be of the opinion that its likely there are no gods is no way a claim of knowledge but is the position of an atheist. Hence the bus adds that say there is probably no God.
@Sashajw12345 So you agree: 'To be of the opinion that its likely there are no gods is no way a claim of knowledge but is the position of an atheist. Hence the bus adds that say there is probably no God.'
That illustrates why 'Why Atheism is a belief, not a mere "lack of belief" is complete nonsense! It also explains why so many people don't agree with your empty claim here,
...but all knowledge is belief in your scheme and you only have "logical consistency" to disprove things. Meaning that any logically consistent belief is justified. It is impossible to judge what is more likely to be true.
He's right when he says "NOT believing something [doesn't mean] you MUST believe the opposite. That is a non-sequitor.
"to know something is the case is quite different than believing" How is 'knowing' different from 'believing' in your logic?
@CMrace How is 'knowing' different from 'believing' in your logic?
Simple, we know something is true when tests can verify the claims veracity. Ie, If i cut my self self deep enoug, i will bleed.
This is quite different from claiming that I know, when people sleep, peter pan watches over them from neverland. I can believe it all i want, but its truthfullnes can't be displayed, which is why it is a belief
A absurd but logically consistent explanation is just as justified.
Aliens could be using perception rays to fool all who see you cut yourself. People don't bleed and never have. They die when an alien pushes a button. So now I am just as justified in my belief as you. If I am right your truth is a false perception. We just have opinions. Knowing is impossible because our data itself is verified by scientific who believe they see data correctly.
Why don't you test that theory? I would but from experience, i know what happens to me and others, and the same thing will happen to you, you will bleed if you recieve a bad enough cut.
"If I am right your truth is a false"
Yes
"So now I am just as justified in my belief as you."
You can't map your theory to testable evidence. This is where your running into problems.
I don't have to test anything. I believe it. and since there is no evidence my alien theory could not possibly be true, it is justified. and since both are consistent logically & evidence is just opinion based There is no way to test for truth. You have your belief I have mine. Stalemate. I don't have to accept what you 'believe' to be evidence. Neither do you.
What makes you so sure your evidence is testable and conclusive? Alien brainwave perception filters make bleeding look real.
@CMrace "Alien brainwave perception filters make bleeding look real."
You keep comming up with these ideas that are meaningless. Your proposing scenarios that make no difference on the outcome. You have a real habbit of doing this.
Even if such claims as your alien trickery were true, we wouldn't know, so it wouldn't change our perception of reality. Thus meaningless. This is a very good example of a Red Herring.
Are you suggesting that if this alien trickery were true it would be meaningless simply because we did not know about it? I think discovering aliens would create massive perception change.
Is it your philosophy that everything that cannot be known right now is meaningless? Not worth thinking about?
Many people do/don't believe in a God and that certianly changes peoples perception of reality so it is not a red herring.
@CMrace "So belief in peter pan watching over you as you sleep is justified?"
Not in the context of a logical argument that means anything. I would need to make a conclusive connection between said idea and some testable evidence.
I don't believe any of your tested evidence is worth anything. I have a green room, IMO that counts as evidence of Peter Pan.
Now that we all have the 'evidence' it doesn't matter because we can't sort fact from opinion outside of contradiction. What really counts as evidence?
'comon, that's just common sense false' isn't good enough for philosophy. That's just admitting there is a hole in the logic. Why can't you logically disprove elves? That should be easy right?
A person can't be completely agnostic or they would not be sure they were agnostic.
Your logic you has no way to evaluate 2 competing logical claims. Everything is up for grabs since everything is an opinion. Even an absurd explanation that covers the facts must be considered.
Saying "that's common sense not to be true" is not good enough for philosophy. It's a huge problem. You can't say elves are not real within your logic. Even if you could you couldn't assign it probability.
@CMrace "He's right when he says "NOT believing something [doesn't mean] you MUST believe the opposite."
Sure, technically. The reality is that when people consider the truthfullness of a claim, they form an opinion. If the truth value of the claim is unknown, then so is the truth value of their opinion regardless of what anybody believes. Atheists do not belive gods exists because to them, its likely they don't.
To me this is ALL technical. This is the abstraction of how knowledge is gathered and verified for truth.
It is the objective part of logic. Should we really consider that elves existing COULD be as likely as atomic theory?
The default when evidence is lacking is.
Opinions can be based anything. The way to learn about nature to act as if claims are false until given evidence is to observe things, infer and test. Not logically disprove all other absurd consistent possibilities.
I don't understand how you can say that we are going to use facts to know things, but then say everything is a belief and, if logically consistent, is justified.
Few claims about nature can be absolutely disproven. Evidence quality can only be interpreted by opinion. Can scientists believe what they see? If something isn't logically consistent, it is assigned an unknown probablilty (how?) and it is justified.
Nothing can be disproven here. Its all opinion and not all justified.
@sitemountain The reason your clip is so unpopular"
Its not my clip, you need to be careful of your unfounded assumptions, lol especially since you are such an analytical atheist. You would think that such unfounded claims are beyond you.
Total nonsense, I believe lots of things, just like everyone else with an average mind. The important thing is that beliefs be recognized for what they are. (Opinions concerning what we think is the case).
I don't think you have followed our conversation very well.
If you can call not believing, believing, I don't see why I can't call believing not-not believing.
People claim they are "believers" in something when the reality is just that they don't believe every other possibility. All that exists is lack of belief. You are really defining what you don't believe.
All the same problems still exist negative or double negative or triple.....
@KnownNoMore You are equating 2 different kinds of statements "There probably are no gods" i.e. a position which LACKS faith & 'they believe that no gods exist.' NO THIS IS NOT CORRECT! Any statement which ADDS belief to a simple disbelief MUST be wrong! Always. Why? As YOU said 'That's what it means to believe something.' so a LACK of belief in God ISN'T something -it's a LACK of something -a LACK of belief, NOT 'belief IN disbelief' < THAT is what's called a 'double negative' in English -LEARN
As theist I want to thank you for being intelectually honest, a few atheist atheist I have talked with are not that honest. But every claim of knowledge needs justification. So far the only little error I spotted was that babies are ignostic. I rather think they are agnostic, as they also don't know what worth the question "Does God exist?" has.
No they are definitely ignostic since they dont know what "God" is.
Btw I didnt say that Atheism was a knowledge claim, since it isnt necessarily a claim, merely a belief in response to a claim. So it doesnt require much justification, just an explanation of why the person in question is an Atheist. But we dont really require evidence against the existence of faries either and still nearly all of us accept that faries dont exist beyond reasonable doubt.
"why the person in question is an Atheist" this can come down to psychology. (Being raised in a terrible Christian household etc. ..)
We don't need to believe that fairies exist, as if they were to exist, then we would expect to have empirical information about them as the concept of fairies describes them as material beings. Also the fine-tuning of the universe shows that life is so improbable that it is also very improbable that aliens exist.
""why the person in question is an Atheist" this can come down to psychology. (Being raised in a terrible Christian household etc. ..)"
well, thats possible. Just like something similar can be true of a Theist. But what the reason for whatever belief is has nothing to do with that belief itself. So that's absolutely irrelevant.
Well you and I "actively" believe in the non-existence of tons of things. Afterall, all it takes to "actively" believe something isnt true, is to consider it to whatever extent less likely that such a thing exists than that it does.
In order to have "mere lack of belief" one must consider the existence of X to be essentially like a coin toss. Both sides are just likely. completely 50-50. But even most people in that category dont fit the "mere lack of belief" definition either.
Before I respond to anymore of your comments, I need you to answer this.
Now that you are claiming atheism is a belief. Theists will say "atheists have faith just like we do, because atheism is a belief. They can't prove god doesn't exist, so they have faith."
So what? Theists so all kind of absurd things about Atheists anyway. I refuse to adapt to their behavior and especially not if it means being dishonest about your position. In fact I consider it completely detrimental to hold on to this "lack of belief" nonsense. Since it implies that you hold the likelyhood of their beliefs to be completely 50-50 and it just happens that you haven't been convinced yet. Bull-fucking-shit. We don't do that for anything else. (cont)
(continued) when people usually make absurd claims without evidence we call them on it. We'd tell them they are wrong. We pretty much all believe in the non-existence of faries and santa clause and such. Nobody in their right mind would take this "lack of belief" position if there were people claiming faries and santa clause to be real. We would say that they are wrong not that we "merely lack belief" in their absurdities.
(continued) and when theists claim that Atheism requires faith, then we need to explain that they are wrong about that. They believe along with us that santa isn't real and that doesn't require faith. It never requires faith to believe that implausible and unproven claims are most likely false.
@KnownNoMore Alright, so then when you tell them that atheism is a belief, then they say that you have burden of proof to support your position, what do you say to that?
I agree that I have a burden of proof towards some types of gods, since I am a strong atheist.
But I am a weak atheist in regards to deism, since that is not falsifiable.
Would you care to tell me the difference between strong and weak atheism?
Nobody has a burden of proof regarding any of their beliefs UNTIL they are trying to convince somebody else that they should share in their beliefs. That is when burden of proof comes in. I could believe something strongly but if I don't care if anyone else believes it to, I shoulder no burden of proof.
So if a Theists tries to convince me a God exists he has the burden of proof. If I try to convince a Theist that he is wrong, I have the burden of proof.
Even if you would hold to this "mere lack of belief" position, then if you would try to convince a Theist that he should also lack belief in a God, then you would shoulder a burden of proof as well. Namely you would need to prove that his reasons for believing are unjustified.
The burden of proof is always on the person trying to convince the other person. Regardless of who makes a positive claim or anything.
"Would you care to tell me the difference between strong and weak atheism?"
Weak Atheism = the belief that there is no God
Strong Atheism = The position that the existence of God is impossible/ the position that God cannot exist.
Examples of strong Atheists would be Quentin Smith, or youtube use Dhorpatan. Basically anyone who claims that the concept of God is logically impossible. That is strong Atheism.
@KnownNoMore Well I am a strong atheist in regards to certain types of gods, not just from logic, but because it is a known fact as to how those gods originated.
I am working on a video response to this, because I disagree about the meaning of atheism. But I don't know if I will do it yet.
I actually don't think it is really the definition of "Atheism" you disagree on, but the definition of "belief". That is already a point of disagreement it seems, because I take the word belief in the most common way like we would apply it to everything we believe. You already disagree on what it means to belief something.
So could you define what it means to believe something is true and what it means to believe something is false?
Trying to pull semantics on a term that applies simple literal logic does not allow you to insert belief to something that is exactly not that. Apply Occam's razor.
Now when you talk about evidence the problem is not that the classic theological monotheistic god has possibility it is absolutely impossible as per the definitions and the arguments stand on the grounds of contradictions/paradoxes.
Atheism as you call it is not a belief until someone has given proof of evidence and they haven't.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
Theism is the belief in a god or gods, Atheism is exactly NOT that.
There is no cognizant effort required of Atheism.
If you say you believe that god does not exist, then you are making a proposition.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
When you say you believe there is no god, you are using the word differently to the way religious people believe. In order for your belief (which I would call an opinion based on evidence) to be equivalent to religious belief, you would have to hold it irrespective of evidence. Most (not all) atheists I know would change their position on the existence of god(s) if credible evidence were presented to them. Hence, this is entirely different to religious belief.
CoyoteAussie 2 weeks ago
Lack of belief in a concept means that you hold it possible that the concept exists. Using the term 'lack of belief', you talk about your human ignorance and the fact that everything is by definition unknowable.
Calculated risks =/= belief. If there is little support to assume an entity exists, you can assume in your everyday life that it doesn't exist. You simply have not obtained enough information to assume it exists.
This is a mindset that decreases ignorance and promotes an open mind.
MirackiMiracky 2 weeks ago
@MirackiMiracky
Really, you seem to just be playing a word game in this video. I think I understand what you mean, and I think you need to take a different view as to what 'believe' really means.
MirackiMiracky 2 weeks ago
I'd like to correct something. I fucked. I need to wake up (literally). I based my argument on the theist definition. I would say that I am an "atheos" if anything. I guess that would make you an atheist. Not me. What does that make me then. On the other hand I'm still taking into account the loosely used suffix "ism". Basing the "A" on the modern definition of theism is somewhat acceptable. I'm still a little confused here. So nullify the misnomerous parts of my first two comments.
NeverAloneForever 4 weeks ago
Oh, and yes it is a belief to believe in the impossibility. Indeed.
NeverAloneForever 4 weeks ago
cont. You might say I'm stupified. I don't hold the position that a god can't exist. I don't get it. I don't hold this X. I don't get this X.
I understand the premise of the video. However, I think the video should be titled "Atheists Don't Exist". That title would better support your vlog. If you think that "atheists" like yourself can't have a lack of a belief in any god than they by definition are not atheists. They don't exist.
P.S. Yes, that's why I used the "" the first time.
NeverAloneForever 4 weeks ago
There's a fallacy here. I like the gameshow comparison but one thing still differs. Not believing in a god isn't tested by something behind a door. The test was whether or not he believed there was a fairy behind the door. Not soley that he doesn't believe in them. I must say that I lack in a belief in any god. I'm detached from it if I must say so myself. My whole life I've never truly understood this idea of god and thus I must say I've never believed in it. I can't say the same for you. cont.
NeverAloneForever 4 weeks ago
After watching the whole video....my only main criticism is the 33 min. mark "the false equivocation of belief with faith" you say under the title: faith here being defined as believing something without justification. But then go onto use the OTHER definition of faith: trust in someone (a god in this case) so you have effectively equivocated two definition of faith into one....when it was convenient to make a point....a point i might add don't disagree with...i do disagree with the process.
Niveous23 2 months ago
ok....mistake...i thought the vid was over. but i regret to say i only watched 3 half minutes. please disregard my last reply, it was done in haste. i really should exercise more patience.
Niveous23 2 months ago
@Niveous23
You should also check out this short video I made on this topic: watch?v=d2NDRG-ILco
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore thanks...i really like your videos....they deserve more views hands down. you go deeper than the average research video. almost completely neutral approach. iv been trying to get my online buddies to check your stuff.
Niveous23 2 months ago
both ricky red and benny blue....they represent different levels of atheist.. (without theism) you have to realize this know no more. The reason lack of belief is more accurate is because it can be used to represent BOTH benny and ricky.... but anti theism...or leaning towards gnostic atheist....well...only covers ricky, exluding benny...but both of them are without god belief.... to reiterate....rick and benny represent subdivisions of being atheist...but only the "lack" title covers both
Niveous23 2 months ago
All hail the almighty Gnurkl! :D
FreakmundZoid 2 months ago
Atheism itself is not a belief, it is not even a theism, it it the absence, not (a-) theism.
Your reasons for being an atheist might be beliefs, but atheism itself is not.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
The word Atheism doesnt come from A-Theism. But from Atheos-ism. Which literarly means "the no-god position/view".
But I understand that words change meaning and such.
Basically you are saying: Atheism = non-Theism
And I am saying: Atheism =/= non-Theism
watch?v=d2NDRG-ILc
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore Your link is improperly copied, it does not work.
Tell me how being without a god is the same as believing there are no god(s).
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Foutje, dit moet de juiste link zijn: watch?v=d2NDRG-ILco
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore "Foutje, dit moet de juiste link zijn: watch?v=d2NDRG-ILco"
Het lijntje bestaat niet. Atheism and non-theism zijn het zelfde, enkel een verschil in spelling. Net zoals non-synchronous en asynchronous.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore The coin example isn't since we know coins exist and that there is a 50/50 chance of which side is on top. You cant compare the two claims in any way. "
Kan wel, het gaat niet om de kans maar om het idee dat iemand een claim maakt zonder bewijs. Zo'n claim hoef je niet te geloven, maar dat betekent niet dat je gelooft dat z'n claim onwaar is.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore Ander voorbeeld, jij claimt dat er morgen een eclips is, ik geloof dat niet, omdat het dan in de krant gestaan zou hebben, dat betekent niet dat ik geloof dat het onmogelijk is dat er morgen een eclips zal zijn.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Onmogelijkheid heeft er niks mee te maken. Alleen waarschijnlijkheid. Dus als ik zeg dat er morgen een eclips is maar jij acht het waarschijnlijker dat er geen eclips komt omdat er anders iets over in de krant zou hebben gestaan, dan houdt dat in dat je gelooft dat er geen eclips komt morgen.
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore "dan houdt dat in dat je gelooft dat er geen eclips komt morgen." Correct, maar ik sluit het niet uit en heb dan een gebrek aan geloof in de komst van de eclips de volgende dag.
Weet je kunt woordspelletjes spelen, maar de definitie is duidelijk: Atheisme is een gebrek aan geloof. Dat ik niet geloof dat er een paarse dinosaurus in je kamer zit, betekent niet dat ik geloof dat ie niet bestaat of kan bestaan.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Dat heeft echter geen enkele betrekking op het feit of je open staat voor het tegendeel of niet, of hoe sterk die overtuiging is. Zolang je het maar een microscopisch beetje waarschijnlijker vind dat er geen eclips komt betekent dat dat je gelooft dat er geen eclips komt. Dat is simpelweg wat een geloof/overtuiging betekent.
Hoe sterk die overtuiging is hangt af van hoe waarschijnlijk je het acht. Het kan een hele zwakke overtuiging zijn maar ook een hele sterke overtuiging
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
En ook dit is een zwak voorbeeld aangezien we weten dat eclipsen voorkomen en dat de hemellichamen die daarvoor nodig zijn bestaan. Hoe is dit vergelijkbaar met de vraag of een God bestaat?
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore "Hoe is dit vergelijkbaar met de vraag of een God bestaat?" Het gaat niet om waarschijnlijkheid, maar of het ene niet geloven automatisch betekent dat je gelooft dat datgene niet mogelijk is.
Het is heel simpel ik geloof niet in het bestaan van een god (tenminste waarvan ik op de hoogte ben), maar ik sluit niet uit, nog geloof dat er god(en) zijn.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Geloven dat X niet bestaat =/= de mogelijkheid uitsluiten dat X bestaat.
Simpel vraagje, ben jij het met de volgende stelling eens:
"Ik acht het bestaan van een God minimaal enigszins onwaarschijnlijk"
Gewoon eerlijk zijn, ben je het met die stelling eens?
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore "Geloven dat X niet bestaat =/= de mogelijkheid uitsluiten dat X bestaat." Als jij denk dat god niet bestaat,, dan sluit jij op dat moment uit datie bestaat. Het kan zijn dat je later van mening/geloof veranderd, maar op dat moment sluit je uit dat god bestaat.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore ""Ik acht het bestaan van een God minimaal enigszins onwaarschijnlijk""
Eens, maar dat is iets anders dan "Ik acht het bestaan van god onmogelijk of niet bestaand."
1) Belief in the claim
2) Belief in the negation
3) No belief either way.
Ik kan het een waarschijnlijker vinden dan het ander, dat betekent niet dat ik het ene geloof en het andere niet.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
" Ik kan het een waarschijnlijker vinden dan het ander, dat betekent niet dat ik het ene geloof en het andere niet"
Dat IS wat "geloven dat iets niet bestaat" betekent.
Ik acht het bestaan van X tot op welke hoogte dan ook onwaarschijnlijk = ik geloof dat X niet bestaat.
Ik acht het bestaan van X tot op welke hoogte dan ook waarschijnlijk = ik geloof dat X wel bestaat.
Dat is de definitie van iets geloven
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore ""Dat IS wat "geloven dat iets niet bestaat" betekent."
Nee, geloven dat iets niet bestaat betekent dat je uitsluit dat datgene bestaat, 0,0% kans in andere woorden.
Ik geloof dat niet.
Geloven in de kans dat iets is of niet is, is niet hetzelfde als geloven dat iets > absoluut < is of niet is.
"Ik acht het bestaan van X tot op welke hoogte dan ook waarschijnlijk = ik geloof dat X wel bestaat." Zoals ik zonet uitlegde is dat niet waar.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore Laat ik nogmaals proberen mijn punt duidelijk te maken.
Geloven in de waarschijnlijkheid van iets is niet hetzelfde als geloven in het bestaan of absolute niet bestaan van iets.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore De definitie van geloof is:
belief
Pronunciation:/bɪˈliːf/
noun 1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: a religious conviction: 2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
Ik accepteer niet als waar dat goden bestaan maar ook niet dat ze niet bestaan, ik sta open voor bewijs, er is geen bewijs om een van beide uit te sluiten..
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore Ik heb ook geen sterke overtuiging dat goden wel of niet bestaan, ik heb een overtuiging wat waarschijnlijker is, maar ik ben er niet van overtuigt dat goden bestaan en ook niet dat zij absoluut niet bestaan.
Ik heb überhaupt geen religieuze opvating.
Ik heb geen vertrouwen in het bestaan of niet bestaan van goden.
Kortom ik heb geen geloof in het bestaan, noch in het niet bestaan van goden.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Belief: something you accept as true or false"
1. Geloven dat iets waar is betekent een overtuiging hebben dat iets waar is.
2. Iedere overtuiging (op een handjevol absolute zekerheden na) is gebaseerd op waarschijnlijkheid.
C1. Het waarschijnlijker achten dat X waar is dan niet waar is een geloof.
C2. Iemand die de stelling "god bestaat niet" acht als waarschijnlijker waar dan niet waar, is een persoon die gelooft in het niet-bestaan van god
Met wat ben je het niet eens?
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore "Met wat ben je het niet eens?"
1. Ik geloof niet dat het waar is dat goden niet bestaan.
2. Is niet deel van de definitie. Waar haal je dat vandaan?
En bovendien irrelevant, aangezien jij het hebt over geloven dat goden niet bestaan, niet over de waarschijnlijkheid dat goden niet bestaan.
Ik heb geloof met betrekking tot het tweede, niet met betrekking tot het eerste.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore "C1. Het waarschijnlijker achten dat X waar is dan niet waar is een geloof.
C2. Iemand die de stelling "god bestaat niet" acht als waarschijnlijker waar dan niet waar, is een persoon die gelooft in het niet-bestaan van god"
Dit is jouw stelling, je hebt echter nog steeds niet aangetoond dat die waar is.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore Het enige wat je hebt aangetoond is dat geloof in de waarschijnlijkheid van iets een geloof is. Niet hoe geloof in de waarschijnlijkheid van iets hetzelfde is als geloven in het absolute bestaan of niet bestaan van iets.
Ik ga het hier bij laten.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Ik heb ook nooit gezegd dat "geloven dat god niet bestaat" gelijk staat aan "ik weet zeker dat god niet bestaat. In tegendeel want geloven dat X waar of niet waar is staat nooit gelijk aan zeker weten.
Ik heb nooit gezegd dat Atheist betekent: iemand die zeker weet dat god niet bestaat. Maar dat Atheist betekent: iemand die het niet-bestaan van god als waarschijnlijker beschouwt (in welke mate dan ook) dan het bestaan van god.
M.a.w. iemand die gelooft dat god niet bestaat.
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore `Ik heb ook nooit gezegd dat "geloven dat god niet bestaat" gelijk staat aan "ik weet zeker dat god niet bestaat."
Nee, maar je argumenteert wel dat geloven in waarschijnlijkheid hetzelfde is als geloven in het niet bestaan van iets. En dat is gewoon niet waar.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Natuurlijk is dat wel waar, hoe zou uberhaupt het anders kunnen zijn? Aangezien alle overtuigingen zijn gebaseerd op waarschijnlijkheid. Wat kan "geloven dat x niet bestaat " anders kunnen betekenen? Het kan per definitie niet gelijk staan aan zeker weten dat X niet bestaat, dus wat betekent het volgens jou dan wel?
Dan mag jij es uitleggen wat "geloven dat x niet bestaat" dan wel betekent? Als het geen zekerheid of waarschijnlijkheid is, wat is het dan wel?
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore `Maar dat Atheist betekent: iemand die het niet-bestaan van god als waarschijnlijker beschouwt" Wat dus niet klopt omdat er ook atheisten zijn die het geloof van god als onmogelijk beschouwt, wat niks met waarschijnlijkheid te maken heeft.
`M.a.w. iemand die gelooft dat god niet bestaat.` Dit is dezelfde misvatting die je de hele tijd maakt. Maar laat ik maar stoppen, je weet waar ik sta, ik weet jouw standpunt, laten we het daar bij houden.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Ter illustratie, verander de claim eens in een levende roze olifant met een vierkante slurf die in knownnomore's kamer staat. Ben je het er mee eens dat de kans dat die claimwaar is, minimaal ietsje kleiner is dan de kans dat die claim wel waar is?
Want laten we eerlijk zijn, de kans dat er echt een levende roze olifant met vierkante slurf in mijn kamer staat is bijzonder klein niet waar? Als ik dat zou beweren dan zou je terecht zeggen dat ik uit mijn nek lul
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore "Ben je het er mee eens dat de kans dat die claimwaar is, minimaal ietsje kleiner is dan de kans dat die claim wel waar is?" Ja, maar zoals ik al eerder zei, het een waarschijnlijker vinden dan het andere betekent niet dat je het ene als waar gelooft en het andere als onmogelijk of onwaar.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
En ja ik ben Nederlands :-)
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
Are you Dutch by any chance? Just curious.
"Let's say I flip a coin, don't show it to you, and tell you it's heads. Do you believe me? You shouldn't. If you don't, does that automatically mean that you believe it's tails? Of course not. It's the same with god claims. If someone says "god exists" and I say "I don't believe you" that does not automatically mean that I believe that god does not exist."
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
What i have basically been arguing for 40 minutes is that the claim "god exist" is in a completely different category than "this coin is on heads". The god claim is inherently improbable. The coin example isn't since we know coins exist and that there is a 50/50 chance of which side is on top. You cant compare the two claims in any way.
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
【cont.】 Personally, I disagree with you on this one; however the comment section does not provide me with adequate space to address it, and I do not post my own videos (perhaps one day...), so I am going to post a blog on as a response, and will provide the link once I am finished (may be a while... I am currently working on a PhD in theoretical physics, which doesn't leave me much time... but I'll get it done. ;) )
LeonhardEuler1 2 months ago
@LeonhardEuler1
Have you also seen this video I made on the topic? watch?v=d2NDRG-ILco
And to be frank, in the end its going to be a semantic issue inevitably. The main problem I have is (regardless of what label you call it by) people who do very much believe that there is no God yet say that they merely lack belief in a God. Which doesnt make sense to me nor do I think it could possibly be helpful
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore I had not seen it, but have now.
And I actually completely agree. I was going to preface my response with expressing my opinion that ultimately the discussion is rather moot. Personally, I prefer to have discussions by asking for the opinion of someone else (or they can ask me) on whatever topic, and then discuss the issue from rather, and completely avoid the "appropriate" label for myself. Anywho, back to work I suppose...
LeonhardEuler1 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore Thanks for the vid. I think the lack of belief response is primarily to deal with trivial theistic arguments. However, let me argue it this way. In argument, a position is often better explained by one set of words than another, even if semantically the two sets have the same meaning, and represent the same position. Therefore the position regarding lack of belief better represents a rejection of the initial premise than the position of belief in the contrary premise.
asianlife53 2 months ago
Excellent video- I have enjoyed everything I have seen from you (as evinced by the fact that seeing that this video is nearly 38 minutes long inspired *no* hesitation on my part on watching it). [cont.]
LeonhardEuler1 2 months ago
There are degrees of certainty to consider...
I am an atheist and if placed in the situation I probably would quit the show. I cannot be certain that there are no gods out there in some form - I'm reasonably certain, but not sure.
But if the game show host said that the God behind the door was the god from one of the Abrahamic religions I'd take the money without blinking. Because not even a god must be logically consistent and the ones described in your various holy books are not.
itsjustameme 2 months ago
I think it's just a problem of symantics & lack of language/vocabluary. The concept of God umbrellas a wide range of definitions. Everyone I've ever met is ignostic to my definition of God.
For a great extent I think you failed to take into account humanist (and other) objections to religious ideologies. Much of the arguement is not about faith in God, it's an objection to specific Dogmas. Moreover the open, honest discussion about God & spirituality is often hindered by the religious right.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
@MrLittletomdj
"or a great extent I think you failed to take into account humanist (and other) objections to religious ideologies. Much of the arguement is not about faith in God, it's an objection to specific Dogmas. Moreover the open, honest discussion about God & spirituality is often hindered by the religious right."
I didnt mention that because it is unrelated. Atheism and Theism is about the existence of a God not about religion and religious dogma and such.
KnownNoMore 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore I think that the 'believe' versus 'lack of belief' argument falls into the hands of the simplistic theistic argument. Therefore I prefer the definition as espoused by other atheists, as ''not believing the claims re a supernatural being as made by theists''. It is the supernatural element of the being that differs a religious belief from a philosophy. And my preference for a definition of a deity is that in the glossary of the religious tolerance website
asianlife53 2 months ago
@KnownNoMore Good point, well made.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
I got to 4:15 where you indicate that knowledge is a subset of truth and belief and gave up. Whilst I love Venn diagrams, you have made a critical error of reasoning. There is no space to explore that in depth here, but let it suffice to say that an individual's position on belief, and his position on knowledge, are not necessarily contingent upon truth. Indeed they are not even in the same same realm of reasoning. This was explained in the video this one is a response to.
mygodlesslife 3 months ago
As a follow up let me give some examples of god(s): Caesar was a "god" as well as the Pharaohs, people have define whatever "power" that defined(s) the universe is god, and Volcanoes were gods in some cultures. When atheist "reject" god their rejecting certain claims. If you walked up to an atheist and told him your "god" was whatever caused the universe to exist he more likely then not would not reject your claim of it's "existence" but maybe reject your actions in defining it as a "god".
this1blackguy 4 months ago
Interesting but a bit faulted. The god(s) hypothesis is an unfalsifiable claim that can't be dis-proven because god(s) has no "real" definition, it can be a physical being or an abstract concept/action, as well people can associate infinite attributes to god(s) such as looks, powers, and location. Therefore the only way atheism would require faith is if ALL ideas of what may be considered a god(s) are rejected but there aren't many atheist who'll do that.
this1blackguy 4 months ago
@this1blackguy
Well if X has no definition, X by definition doesnt exist.
If X has a definition but is contradictory X cannot exist.
If X is unprovable then it is by definition made up and therefore unlikely to just happen to match reality. If X has a definition but is basically the same as Y, then X shouldnt be used and instead we should talk about Y.
You see this has nothing to do with mere lack of belief. Those types of gods can be rejected out of hand.
KnownNoMore 4 months ago
@KnownNoMore
Not necessarily.
I never X had no definition, I said X had no "real" definition or to be more accurate (this is my fault for not defining the term accurately enough) no "one" definition. In this case X is just like an other variable and be representative of anything.
The second statement ignores the case of multiple definitions along with non-absolute statements, E.G. often in experimentation multiple effects can occur it does not mean what caused those effects don't exist.
this1blackguy 4 months ago
@this1blackguy
I'd say that there are only 2 types of Gods.
Big G God: supernatural mind that exists as the foundation of all reality.
Little g god: a being with super-human abbilities.
if another definition is used I wont accept the usage of the word God/god and therefore is irrelevant to Atheism
When it comes to a little g god I see the term as useless since that would even have to include aliens. actually the polytheistic gods are more or less indistinguishable from beings like aliens.
KnownNoMore 4 months ago
@KnownNoMore
Ah but here's the problem, You can make your own definition but you can't define it for others. there's 300,00 denomination of Christianity for a reason and it can summed up in one word: Perception. It's common knowledge that no 2 people are the same but we often have some things in common with others. How you see the definition of god can be valid and accepted by many but so can the definition of others. Technically you're an atheist too, an atheist to certain ideas of god.
this1blackguy 4 months ago
@this1blackguy
But those thousands of denominations believe basically in the same God-concept with minor variations. The differences are mostly about doctrine not about the concept of God.
"Technically you're an atheist too, an atheist to certain ideas of god."
No I'm an Atheist regarding ANY God. Ofcourse unless you define God as something that I already believe exists. But then you cant call it God. If its not supernatural and personal, its not a God. You have to call it something else.
KnownNoMore 4 months ago
@KnownNoMore
Not necessarily, many accounts of the doctrines dictates gods actions and many people have varying ideas on god's limitations. Admittedly there are hairline fractures here and there and a "vague" definition of god can suffice for the most part it's his attributes and actions that allow us atheist to measure and observe "it/him and reject certain claims.
As I said before how you define god is not an absolute it's just what you adhere to, in fact by that definition god is undefinable
this1blackguy 4 months ago
@this1blackguy
Also if its about definitions, you're not an Atheist but an Ignostic. And an ignostic can say nothing about believe since its meaningless when there is no definition. And it might even be that you already believe in something but are not aware that the term in question refers to that. Like my example in the video regarding "zwaartekracht". Everyone believes in "zwaartekracht" but people who dont know what that word means are not aware of that.
KnownNoMore 4 months ago
@KnownNoMore
The term that best fits me is Agnostic Atheist, I reject many claims of gods however I accept certain ones since you can't refute them (unfalsifiable claim), not as fact, but possibility. An ignostic, agnostic, w/e accepts that ALL claims are possible.
I sort throw what I don't know under "irrefutable" since I don't know about and therefore can't acknowledge or discuss it.
this1blackguy 4 months ago
"Who gets to define what maps onto reality and what doesn't"
Mapping a claim to reality means we look at out understanding of how things work. Ie, when people touch things they leave a finger print. If my finger print is on someones computer, its reasonable to assume I touched the computer. Its not reasonable to assume some alien shape shifter is responsible.
You last post on Santa already tells me You understand so I don't know why you keep asking
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345
But we find out time and again our understanding is mistaken. You can't map something that is unknown to us against what is known. As a function, the range is limited to known things. Any element in the domain that is unknown would not map and be undefined. It wouldn't EVER make sense to us.
I think we basically agree on how the world works. Our models describe how things are learned about reality. We obviously like our own best.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "But we find out time and again our understanding is mistaken"
Yes, because someone has discovered new evidence about reality that shows our current understanding to be false. Its happened alot in the past and will likely continue to happen. Its part of the way we learn.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
I just think your model has ambiguity in determining truth when two competing explanations are logically consistent because it includes the need to prove things false. (I am not sure I believe that is possible outside man made abstract systems like math)
I think it is impossible to even argue evidence in your model all our perception itself (including measurement) would technically be belief.
I also do not see how something completely new can be mapped onto reality and learned.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "I just think your model has ambiguity in determining truth when two competing explanations are logically consistent because it includes the need to prove things false."
Ahh, possibly this is our problem. Its not about detemining truth. Its about criteria for resonable assessment. IE me claiming an alien shape shifter is responsible for my fingerprint, is not reasonable. Further evidence is required.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
Why is everyone using these silly aliens, elves, Santa etc questions? (you avoid going in-depth)
You have no way to lack belief/disprove these things. We want to hear you defend the non-existence of elves the same as gravity under your (faith) logic.
We know you have set it up so that not believing these things requires conscious faith (belief w/out evidence) for your logic and thus creates a level playing field any silly but consistent claim.
Even solid evidence is opinion under faith logic.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "You have no way to lack belief/disprove these things."
Claims that, if true, still have no effect on the understanding of reality don't need to be disproven, because they don't mean anything so I don't know why you keep bringing them up.
"for your logic and thus creates a level playing field any silly but consistent claim."
No, not if you map the claim to understandable reality. This is one of the major steps used to detect fallacies.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
"no bearing on reality" is just an opinion. Who gets to decide that? So if you think it has no bearing, it doesn't. This is what I am talking about. I think it does have a bearing on reality. Now what?
You are saying that your theoretical model doesn't actually work until you "map it to reality. 99.99999% of reality is not understood, yet you feel that mapping onto it will validate belief logic?
Map the claim to reality? Can you show me how this is done? Use the alien example.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace " I think it does have a bearing on reality. Now what?"
I had a conversation with a theist just the other day. I told him, "as you and i speak, god could exist. Infact, throuh all the arging over the last several thousand years about whether there is a god or not, there may have always been one an we just couldn't know for sure. The question is, if there is one and we can't prove it, or access it, or show that it does anything at all, exactly what does it change?" Nothing.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
The discussion of God's existence makes a huge difference.
People believing in God has a huge impact on society. These Gods have mandates. You have kind of given them justification for beliefs that can cause harm to others.
Jolly red Santa isn't real, but talk of his fiction propelled him to grow to mythic proportions and continues has lead to him to make a difference in thousands of lives.
So how are you qualifying "make a difference on reality" other than your personal opinion?
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "The discussion of God's existence makes a huge difference"
Off topic, I said that if god exists and has always existed, what difference does it make if we don't know. The discussion of god is irrellevant becausewe have always discussed god. We will still discuss the posiibillity to the point where we debate, fight and kill over it. It won't change anything unless we can demonstrate for sure that 1 is up there.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@CMrace "People believing in God has a huge impact on society."
Yes, it has, your completely missing the point. Its possible right now that there is no god and never has been. Something i'm not totally sold on, but its certainly possible. If its true right now, but we can't show it to be, will people stop believe, will anything change? The question is actually meaningless because it describes our current situation.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@CMrace "Jolly red Santa isn't real"
Ok, I'm going to be you here...........Oh but i dissagree, I think hes real, I saw a story about a UFO in the news during Christmas time a few years ago and i think this is a logical connection to santa claus. My clam is just as justified as the claim that says humans bleed if they are cut bad enough.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
under belief-logic yes. You have to resort to "that's just silly" (doesn't map)
The way I see it, the claim Santa is real is treated with skepticism & I would lack belief in such a thing. After that I would consider Occam's Razor.
What's more likely the Ad-hoc ridiculous ad-hoc explanations of Santa without evidence or that Santa isn't real.
Therefore act as and speak as though he isn't real keeping in mind that there is an infinitesimally small possibility you could be mistaken.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "Therefore act as and speak as though he isn't real keeping in mind that there is an infinitesimally small possibility you could be mistaken."
Yes, quite true, because of the lack of evidence that can be tested, people are justified to consider santa imaginary, and they do. I have never met a lucid adult who doesn't think Santa is imaginary. Like me, they are open to the presentation of empical evidence that suggests otherwise, until then, the claim is believed false.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345
Explain the procedures for mapping onto reality.
You didn't explain how I specifically used a red herring falicy
It looks like you are just making it up as an excuse to use "common sense opinion" in places where your logic gets sticky. It allows you to say "that's ridiculous and doesn't need consideration because it doesn't map" whenever belief-logic would fail a claim like the "silly" but logically difficult to defend Santa, Elves. etc
How is mapping done? Can U give example?
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace " You didn't explain how I specifically used a red herring falicy"
I said humans can bleed if cut (a demonstable claim.
You said Ah!! but the blood might not be real. An alien briainwave contraption might be tricking us.
This point is irrelevant unless we know we were being tricked.
Attempting to discredit an argument with irrelevant points is a form or a Red Herring fallacy.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
I don't see how you could ever learn anything new, since it can only be mapped onto current knowledge of reality.
I think this is special pleading. We CAN'T know whether or not we are being tricked by aliens. The fact is you believe this alien theory false, yet you have no mechanism to discredit it. Just because you think it's crazy doesn't mean we aren't mistaken.
Asking you to demonstrate how you can discredit even the most obviously false things is hardly a red herring.
CMrace 4 months ago
@Sashajw
Who gets to define what maps onto reality and what doesn't. People just believe it maps onto reality anyway, making that just opinion as well.
There just isn't any way to basically eliminate non-belief and have anything be objective or demonstrable. Even what you saw is an opinion. Whether the machine was measuring accurately is an opinion.
Saying this only works to the "real world" (however we define that), just weakens the logic because you have to decide a-priority what's possible
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "Who gets to define what maps onto reality and what doesn't."
If you and 100 other people see and video tape someone destroying your house; In court, are you going to argue for reasonable doubt in this persons defense because you think an alien brainwave contraption might be being used by someone in a flying saucer to trick you an 100 other people into thinking you saw what you saw? I doubt it, because you know there is no evidence to suggest it.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@CMrace Do you recall the human cell argument CM?
Before we map this argument to reality, its valid. Once we compare it to how we understand reality, the fallacies show up. The argument becomes invalid in one way via the fallacy of composition. This is why your claims of alien trickery are nothing more than meaningless chatter. This is why all claims are not equal.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
Comment removed
CMrace 4 months ago
@Sashajw
So you aren't using faith logic to understand reality so much as you are using faith logic to understand people's understanding of reality.
CMrace 4 months ago
"I have a green room, IMO that counts as evidence of Peter Pan."
What? lol, Umm, Alright, The fact that you have a green room in your house is evidence that the room was built by humans. This is a decent assumption because we know humans build houses with rooms in them. Aliens could have built it, but unless you have something like a spaceship in your back yard, or something similar, you have no real evidence.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
It is just that you don't understand the true nature of Peter Pan. The connection is quite clear to me. It's my opinion and since you have not disproven PP I have just as much ground to stand on as you.
In your scheme it's only evidence if people believe it is. I believe, therefore my opinion, my green room and PP there in spirit is validation. remember unverifiable means your truth and mine can be different based on opinion, and you have no mechanism to assign probabilities to them.
CMrace 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345
I don't see a fallacy. Could you spell it out similar to the human eye example?
1)
2)
3)
...
This "map onto reality to make my logic work" idea seems a lot like the "It's just common sense" opinion. What is the difference?
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "I don't see a fallacy"
Concluding the human body is invisible to the naked eye because its made up of individual cells that are invisible to the naked eye is a fair conclusion. The problem is, the conclusion is false. When we compare the conclusion to our knowledge about what makes matter visible to the human eye, the argument ends up with a composition fallacy.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345
I understand and read about the human eye example. Show me how I am specifically making this fallacy. What specific claims and premises am I making that evoke this charge of fallacy?
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace Earlier i said, if i cut my self deep enough, i'll bleed. This is not only a claim, its demonstrable. You said peolpe may not have any blood at all and that some alien brainwave contraption was responsible for making us think that we do. This could be true right now despite the fact that we can't show it to be and the whole world would still operate the same way regarding blood. Your attempting to disprove an argument with an irrelevant stance, form of red herring
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
Atheism as a term does not reaquire denying any gods. Just not having gods that you believe in makes you an Atheist. You can, and should off course deny all gods and fantasy creatures man has invented, but its not compulsory.
If you have never heard about gods, you are an Atheist. No need to deny any of them, since you have not heard about them.
bary1234 4 months ago
@bary1234
watch?v=d2NDRG-ILco
My latest video on the subject. You belong in the group who regard Atheism and Non-Theism as synonyms.
KnownNoMore 4 months ago
@KnownNoMore : Not so simple, I think. We can actually have an Atheist who has never heard about Thor. He has no opinion about Thor. So considering Thor he is an Atheist, but really dont hold a belief in any direction. As soon as he hears about Thor, he is going to make up his mind, and have an opinion about Thor. Propably he will think Thor is as likely to be real as Donald Duck. So the "evidence" he has for his disbelief is just the lack of any proper evidence or reason to believe in Thor.
bary1234 4 months ago
Red says:
But I also do not believe that they DON'T exist < Wrong afairests* DOUBT they exist
'I am an Atheist [sic] meaning that I believe that no God exists' NO! It's subtilely different: I am an atheist meaning I do NOT believe that ANY gods have met their burden of proof' (which is a fact otherwise 1 God -a several would be undeniably real like Mount Everest is real -no one argues whether it really is).
This is very long & repetitive -making a poor argument in many different way =/= truth!
sitemountain 5 months ago
@sitemountain
Do you consider the existence of any God to any extent whatsoever unlikely? The only way to have MERE lack of belief without any positive belief is to regard to existence of a God as completely 50-50. As soon as you regard as just a tiny bit more likely that no such beings exists, you believe in the non-existence of such beings.
So if you agree with the statement "there are probably no gods", that means you believe that no gods exist.
KnownNoMore 5 months ago
@KnownNoMore 'So if you agree with the statement "there are probably no gods", that means you believe that no gods exist.' Wrong VERY wrong! Why? You've added something I'm not saying! What? That I believe there are no Gods. But I do don't I if I agree with the 'probably no Gods' statement?! Wrong! What does 'probably' mean? Not 100% certain! So how can I say I do NOT believe in any gods? Because that STILL doesn't mean I MUST think any do which is VERY different from saying what you say I say!
sitemountain 5 months ago
@sitemountain
wrong. Saying "I believe no gods exist" is NOT the same as being 100% certain that there are no gods. Belief is not absolute knowledge.
I believe my parents are my biological parents. But I dont know that with absolute certainty. But they probably are.
So if a person agrees that there PROBABLY are no gods, then they believe that no gods exist. It's that simple. That's what it means to believe something.
So do YOU agree with the statement "There probably are no gods"?
KnownNoMore 5 months ago
@KnownNoMore You are equating 2 different kinds of statements "There probably are no gods" i.e. a position which LACKS faith & 'they believe that no gods exist.' NO THIS IS NOT CORRECT! Any statement which ADDS belief to a simple disbelief MUST be wrong! Always. Why? As YOU said 'That's what it means to believe something.' so a LACK of belief in God ISN'T something -it's a LACK of something -a LACK of belief, NOT 'belief IN disbelief' < THAT is what's called a 'double negative' in English -LEARN
sitemountain 5 months ago
@sitemountain "There probably are no gods"
This phrase indicates a position regarding the proposed existence of gods. Its is an opinion that is not provable. aka a belief. So is every other position concerning the existence of gods.
Any opinion on the veracity of an unknown that proposes what is thought to be the case, or thought likely to be the case, is a belief by neccessity. Atheism is no exception.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345 No you are very much mistaken. The reason your clip is so unpopular is because it is saying NOT believing something means you MUST believe the opposite. So if I say I do not believe in gods am I saying no gods are real? Not at all. To assume so is unwarranted. All you could possibly ascertain for certain is I see no reason to BELIEVE gods exist. I do not BELIEVE in extra terrestrials either. Can this be interpreted as I KNOW no extra terrestrials MIGHT exist? No!
Understand NOW?
sitemountain 4 months ago
@sitemountain "Can this be interpreted as I KNOW no extra terrestrials MIGHT exist? No!"
False camparison, to know something is the case is quite different than believing it is the case.
This is a very basic point but given your posts, I'm not sureprised you don;t understand it.
To be of the opinion that its likely there are no gods is no way a claim of knowledge but is the position of an atheist. Hence the bus adds that say there is probably no God.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
Comment removed
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sashajw12345 So you agree: 'To be of the opinion that its likely there are no gods is no way a claim of knowledge but is the position of an atheist. Hence the bus adds that say there is probably no God.'
That illustrates why 'Why Atheism is a belief, not a mere "lack of belief" is complete nonsense! It also explains why so many people don't agree with your empty claim here,
sitemountain 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345
...but all knowledge is belief in your scheme and you only have "logical consistency" to disprove things. Meaning that any logically consistent belief is justified. It is impossible to judge what is more likely to be true.
He's right when he says "NOT believing something [doesn't mean] you MUST believe the opposite. That is a non-sequitor.
"to know something is the case is quite different than believing" How is 'knowing' different from 'believing' in your logic?
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace How is 'knowing' different from 'believing' in your logic?
Simple, we know something is true when tests can verify the claims veracity. Ie, If i cut my self self deep enoug, i will bleed.
This is quite different from claiming that I know, when people sleep, peter pan watches over them from neverland. I can believe it all i want, but its truthfullnes can't be displayed, which is why it is a belief
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
A absurd but logically consistent explanation is just as justified.
Aliens could be using perception rays to fool all who see you cut yourself. People don't bleed and never have. They die when an alien pushes a button. So now I am just as justified in my belief as you. If I am right your truth is a false perception. We just have opinions. Knowing is impossible because our data itself is verified by scientific who believe they see data correctly.
Doesn't that seem problematic at all?
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "People don't bleed and never have'
Why don't you test that theory? I would but from experience, i know what happens to me and others, and the same thing will happen to you, you will bleed if you recieve a bad enough cut.
"If I am right your truth is a false"
Yes
"So now I am just as justified in my belief as you."
You can't map your theory to testable evidence. This is where your running into problems.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sasha
I don't have to test anything. I believe it. and since there is no evidence my alien theory could not possibly be true, it is justified. and since both are consistent logically & evidence is just opinion based There is no way to test for truth. You have your belief I have mine. Stalemate. I don't have to accept what you 'believe' to be evidence. Neither do you.
What makes you so sure your evidence is testable and conclusive? Alien brainwave perception filters make bleeding look real.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "Alien brainwave perception filters make bleeding look real."
You keep comming up with these ideas that are meaningless. Your proposing scenarios that make no difference on the outcome. You have a real habbit of doing this.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
Their not meaningless. They are all possible however probable and there is an infinite many things exactly like that.
It seems like your attitude is just. "that's meaningless" to them all. Well there is no evidence for aliens or Santa or God.
None of those are 'justified' beliefs are even logically consistent.
Your entire logic makes it impossible to discern If, or how likely something is to be true.
Logically consistent belief = justified and possible
inconsistent = no
cont
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "Their not meaningless."
Even if such claims as your alien trickery were true, we wouldn't know, so it wouldn't change our perception of reality. Thus meaningless. This is a very good example of a Red Herring.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345
Are you suggesting that if this alien trickery were true it would be meaningless simply because we did not know about it? I think discovering aliens would create massive perception change.
Is it your philosophy that everything that cannot be known right now is meaningless? Not worth thinking about?
Many people do/don't believe in a God and that certianly changes peoples perception of reality so it is not a red herring.
CMrace 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345
So belief in peter pan watching over you as you sleep is justified?
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "So belief in peter pan watching over you as you sleep is justified?"
Not in the context of a logical argument that means anything. I would need to make a conclusive connection between said idea and some testable evidence.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
What logical argument reduces Peter pan to dust? Do you agree that I am justified in my belief?
CMrace 4 months ago
@Sashajw
I don't believe any of your tested evidence is worth anything. I have a green room, IMO that counts as evidence of Peter Pan.
Now that we all have the 'evidence' it doesn't matter because we can't sort fact from opinion outside of contradiction. What really counts as evidence?
'comon, that's just common sense false' isn't good enough for philosophy. That's just admitting there is a hole in the logic. Why can't you logically disprove elves? That should be easy right?
CMrace 4 months ago
@Sashajw
A person can't be completely agnostic or they would not be sure they were agnostic.
Your logic you has no way to evaluate 2 competing logical claims. Everything is up for grabs since everything is an opinion. Even an absurd explanation that covers the facts must be considered.
Saying "that's common sense not to be true" is not good enough for philosophy. It's a huge problem. You can't say elves are not real within your logic. Even if you could you couldn't assign it probability.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "He's right when he says "NOT believing something [doesn't mean] you MUST believe the opposite."
Sure, technically. The reality is that when people consider the truthfullness of a claim, they form an opinion. If the truth value of the claim is unknown, then so is the truth value of their opinion regardless of what anybody believes. Atheists do not belive gods exists because to them, its likely they don't.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
To me this is ALL technical. This is the abstraction of how knowledge is gathered and verified for truth.
It is the objective part of logic. Should we really consider that elves existing COULD be as likely as atomic theory?
The default when evidence is lacking is.
Opinions can be based anything. The way to learn about nature to act as if claims are false until given evidence is to observe things, infer and test. Not logically disprove all other absurd consistent possibilities.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "Should we really consider that elves existing COULD be as likely as atomic theory?"
I have no idea why you asked me that question
"Opinions can be based anything."
Yes
" Not logically disprove all other absurd consistent possibilities."
Vague concepts of 'God' can't be disproven, yu keep sying this and i have no idea why, this does not represent my position
"
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
I don't understand how you can say that we are going to use facts to know things, but then say everything is a belief and, if logically consistent, is justified.
Few claims about nature can be absolutely disproven. Evidence quality can only be interpreted by opinion. Can scientists believe what they see? If something isn't logically consistent, it is assigned an unknown probablilty (how?) and it is justified.
Nothing can be disproven here. Its all opinion and not all justified.
CMrace 4 months ago
@sitemountain "Can this be interpreted as I KNOW no extra terrestrials MIGHT exist? No!"
You chastise other people on their logic and you write a sentence this? lol
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw12345 It's interesting you are unable to say WHY this is illogical. Why am I not surprised?
sitemountain 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sitemountain The reason your clip is so unpopular"
Its not my clip, you need to be careful of your unfounded assumptions, lol especially since you are such an analytical atheist. You would think that such unfounded claims are beyond you.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@sitemountain
AMAZING RESPONSE!!! Better than my video response!!!
CMrace 4 months ago
@sitemountain
Maybe we can play the believe ad infinitum game. :)
Sashajw doesn't believe anything. Belief doesn't exist.
He really Lacks a Lack of belief in something.
I hope no one makes a lack of a lack of a lack of belief video.... lol.
CMrace 4 months ago
@CMrace "Sashajw doesn't believe anything. Belief doesn't exist."
Total nonsense, I believe lots of things, just like everyone else with an average mind. The important thing is that beliefs be recognized for what they are. (Opinions concerning what we think is the case).
I don't think you have followed our conversation very well.
Sashajw12345 4 months ago
@Sashajw
If you can call not believing, believing, I don't see why I can't call believing not-not believing.
People claim they are "believers" in something when the reality is just that they don't believe every other possibility. All that exists is lack of belief. You are really defining what you don't believe.
All the same problems still exist negative or double negative or triple.....
CMrace 4 months ago
@Sashajw
Do you believe truth exists outside of people or if all people died universal truths would die out with us?
CMrace 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KnownNoMore You are equating 2 different kinds of statements "There probably are no gods" i.e. a position which LACKS faith & 'they believe that no gods exist.' NO THIS IS NOT CORRECT! Any statement which ADDS belief to a simple disbelief MUST be wrong! Always. Why? As YOU said 'That's what it means to believe something.' so a LACK of belief in God ISN'T something -it's a LACK of something -a LACK of belief, NOT 'belief IN disbelief' < THAT is what's called a 'double negative' in English -LEARN
sitemountain 5 months ago
As theist I want to thank you for being intelectually honest, a few atheist atheist I have talked with are not that honest. But every claim of knowledge needs justification. So far the only little error I spotted was that babies are ignostic. I rather think they are agnostic, as they also don't know what worth the question "Does God exist?" has.
31Uriel 5 months ago
@31Uriel
No they are definitely ignostic since they dont know what "God" is.
Btw I didnt say that Atheism was a knowledge claim, since it isnt necessarily a claim, merely a belief in response to a claim. So it doesnt require much justification, just an explanation of why the person in question is an Atheist. But we dont really require evidence against the existence of faries either and still nearly all of us accept that faries dont exist beyond reasonable doubt.
KnownNoMore 5 months ago
@KnownNoMore
"why the person in question is an Atheist" this can come down to psychology. (Being raised in a terrible Christian household etc. ..)
We don't need to believe that fairies exist, as if they were to exist, then we would expect to have empirical information about them as the concept of fairies describes them as material beings. Also the fine-tuning of the universe shows that life is so improbable that it is also very improbable that aliens exist.
31Uriel 5 months ago
@31Uriel
""why the person in question is an Atheist" this can come down to psychology. (Being raised in a terrible Christian household etc. ..)"
well, thats possible. Just like something similar can be true of a Theist. But what the reason for whatever belief is has nothing to do with that belief itself. So that's absolutely irrelevant.
KnownNoMore 5 months ago
@KnownNoMore
Ok, just forget about the first sentence in my first comment.
31Uriel 5 months ago
wow, i did not know i had to actively not believe in things.
rja125 7 months ago
@rja125
Well you and I "actively" believe in the non-existence of tons of things. Afterall, all it takes to "actively" believe something isnt true, is to consider it to whatever extent less likely that such a thing exists than that it does.
In order to have "mere lack of belief" one must consider the existence of X to be essentially like a coin toss. Both sides are just likely. completely 50-50. But even most people in that category dont fit the "mere lack of belief" definition either.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
THIS VIDEO'S TOPIC is what I have been trying to advocate for the past month!!!! I'm currently writing an essay about it.
Brilliant stuff, very appreciated!
RomaZeal 7 months ago
@RomaZeal
thanks :)
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
Before I respond to anymore of your comments, I need you to answer this.
Now that you are claiming atheism is a belief. Theists will say "atheists have faith just like we do, because atheism is a belief. They can't prove god doesn't exist, so they have faith."
That is what you are going to make them say now.
HonestTechnoAtheist 7 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
So what? Theists so all kind of absurd things about Atheists anyway. I refuse to adapt to their behavior and especially not if it means being dishonest about your position. In fact I consider it completely detrimental to hold on to this "lack of belief" nonsense. Since it implies that you hold the likelyhood of their beliefs to be completely 50-50 and it just happens that you haven't been convinced yet. Bull-fucking-shit. We don't do that for anything else. (cont)
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
(continued) when people usually make absurd claims without evidence we call them on it. We'd tell them they are wrong. We pretty much all believe in the non-existence of faries and santa clause and such. Nobody in their right mind would take this "lack of belief" position if there were people claiming faries and santa clause to be real. We would say that they are wrong not that we "merely lack belief" in their absurdities.
(cont)
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
(continued) and when theists claim that Atheism requires faith, then we need to explain that they are wrong about that. They believe along with us that santa isn't real and that doesn't require faith. It never requires faith to believe that implausible and unproven claims are most likely false.
(cont)
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@KnownNoMore Alright, so then when you tell them that atheism is a belief, then they say that you have burden of proof to support your position, what do you say to that?
I agree that I have a burden of proof towards some types of gods, since I am a strong atheist.
But I am a weak atheist in regards to deism, since that is not falsifiable.
Would you care to tell me the difference between strong and weak atheism?
HonestTechnoAtheist 7 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
Nobody has a burden of proof regarding any of their beliefs UNTIL they are trying to convince somebody else that they should share in their beliefs. That is when burden of proof comes in. I could believe something strongly but if I don't care if anyone else believes it to, I shoulder no burden of proof.
So if a Theists tries to convince me a God exists he has the burden of proof. If I try to convince a Theist that he is wrong, I have the burden of proof.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
Even if you would hold to this "mere lack of belief" position, then if you would try to convince a Theist that he should also lack belief in a God, then you would shoulder a burden of proof as well. Namely you would need to prove that his reasons for believing are unjustified.
The burden of proof is always on the person trying to convince the other person. Regardless of who makes a positive claim or anything.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
"Would you care to tell me the difference between strong and weak atheism?"
Weak Atheism = the belief that there is no God
Strong Atheism = The position that the existence of God is impossible/ the position that God cannot exist.
Examples of strong Atheists would be Quentin Smith, or youtube use Dhorpatan. Basically anyone who claims that the concept of God is logically impossible. That is strong Atheism.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@KnownNoMore Well I am a strong atheist in regards to certain types of gods, not just from logic, but because it is a known fact as to how those gods originated.
I am working on a video response to this, because I disagree about the meaning of atheism. But I don't know if I will do it yet.
HonestTechnoAtheist 7 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist
I actually don't think it is really the definition of "Atheism" you disagree on, but the definition of "belief". That is already a point of disagreement it seems, because I take the word belief in the most common way like we would apply it to everything we believe. You already disagree on what it means to belief something.
So could you define what it means to believe something is true and what it means to believe something is false?
KnownNoMore