The 'strong' and 'weak' qualifiers for the atheist position disambiguate lack of belief in gods from belief that gods do not exist. The burden of proof lies with any who make a positive claim. "God does not exist" is a positive claim; strong atheists hold a burden of proof. Yes, I'd ask you to prove your unicorn exists, and when you couldn't I'd be justified in rejecting your proposition, but I would not be justified in establishing a belief to the contrary solely based on your lack of evidence.
@mungbeanman Atheism has two definitions. 1. To believe that there is no god. 2. To not believe there is a god. If somebody says "weak atheist" it means they are an atheist by the 2nd definition only. If somebody says "strong atheist" it means atheism by both definitions.
Theism has two definitions. 1. To believe there is a god. 2. To not believe there is no god. If somebody says "weak theist" it means they are a theist by the 2nd definition only. If somebody says "strong theist" it means theism by both definitions.
@mungbeanman The problem is, you're assuming that atheist means the opposite of theist, when it really just means to not be a theist. I, for one, do not believe in a god, but I also don't believe there isn't one. This still makes me an atheist. An agnostic atheist, but an atheist nonetheless.
@mungbeanman You can argue for your own definition of atheism, or you can look it up in a dictionary, where you will always find that it either gives two definitions (the ones I provided) or it only gives one definition (the second one I provided). I'm going to go with the dictionary.... (continued)
@DaltonMunnal Theist: To believe there is a god. Atheist: To not believe there is a god.
Where does this bring you confusion? I'd suggest you watch this video, instead of trying to convince people that you understand words better than the dictionary does. watch?v=akCbE91l81A
1. Dictionaries do not define words. They record their popular usage.
2. Many dictionaries define atheism by what it is, i.e. a belief or doctrine.
3. 'What does the word atheism mean?' and 'what is atheism?' are two different questions and the answers are derived in different ways. I am answering the latter while you the former. For some reason known only to you.
4. Where in the dictionary do I find the term "weak atheist" by the way?
The problem with words is that they can mean whatever people want them to mean. Words change meaning. But that doesn't mean that the entity they denote changes. For example if we all started using the word 'tree' to mean 'blue frog' does that mean that all trees in the world have become blue frogs? Clearly not.
Atheism, the entity, can only be what it is: a belief.
Also, I'm not confused in the slightest and I resent the suggestion. Using logical arguments (and by that I mean actual formal logic) to support one's argument helps remove any confusion.
You haven't really addressed the points I point put to you which suggests that you know where your argument is heading; nowhere. Which is hardly going to convince me that formal logic is wrong now, is it?
@mungbeanman I didn't reply to all of your points because you asked 5 different questions in a medium that gives me a limited character count to reply with. Only so much I can discuss at a time on here without causing a flood of hard to follow comments. And my only argument is that our dictionaries know what they're talking about. If you have a problem with that and want to tell me that our dictionaries are wrong, then go for it. Fine by me.
"you asked 5 different questions in a medium that gives me a limited character count"
Answer them in a PM then.
"If you have a problem with that and want to tell me that our dictionaries are wrong"
I made two points to you which I guess I'll have to again. The first being that most dictionaries list atheism as a belief so why would I think that the dictionaries are wrong and that this isn't about the meaning of the word but the entity that is atheism.
I think that by avoiding direct questions I have proved that my brain is far more developed than yours. My best guess is that you have mistaken me for a theist, which is pretty stupid on your part, and you have just come here looking for a fight. Silly, because you didn't really fight your corner very well, did you?
I don't follow. Your statement is worded strangely. I understand the proof of god part but the rest of the sentence doesn't seem to follow on. What's this about knowing there is a god in a book? (And why is "book" emphasised?)
That makes even less sense than any of your comments so far. What does "talk type" mean? I don't understand you, why you are here or what issues you want me to address. Are you just trolling or something? Perhaps if you were to answer my questions directly rather than follow on with vague, non-sequitur statements we could get somehwere.
If you wish to include rocks as homeless then yes, most illogical. Anyway, as I've said, I've jumped through enough of your hoops to prove my point. Back to the subject at hand, please.
Reduced levels of light. Darkness is relative of course and not just either or. A room with one lit candle in it late at night will be dark but the room will not lack light. Colours can be described as dark yet to be able to see the colour you need light. And of course those things that truly lack light such as mathematics or love would never be described as dark (in a physical sense of course, not metaphorically).
"You have jsut defined something by what it isn't; the presence of light."
I did no such thing. Did you read any further than that sentence? Reduced levels of light does not mean a lack of light. It's all relative.
"Another one; vegetarian, how do you define it?"
A person whose diet consists solely of vegetables and dairy products. Too easy, man. However, I think I have jumped through enough of your hoops now to have made my point. Thank you very much.
@mungbeanman "I did no such thing. Did you read any further than that sentence? Reduced levels of light does not mean a lack of light. It's all relative." And the only way you can define darkness is by stating what it is not.
darkness
Pronunciation: /ˈdɑːknəs/
noun
[mass noun] 1the partial or total absence of light
You are trying once again to describe an entity by the meaning of the word attached to it. This is simply unacceptable. Did you find a rock in the garden to describe to me yet?
That being said 'partial absence of light' is what I am arguing for anyway.
Again you are trying to define an entity by the dictionary definition. "What is a vegetarian" is an entirely different question to "what does the word vegetarian mean?"
"As you can see, defined by what the people do not eat."
Are you honestly saying that the defintion I gave does not describe a vegetarian? Dead people don't eat meat; I suppose you class them as vegetarians too?
Atheism is the lack of theism, hence the a in front of theism.
It is the lack of a positive belief in god(s).
"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."
If you claim that a coin is heads and I don't believe you then being as there is only one possible alternative that it could be, tails, then absolutely 100% would I possess the belief that it was tails. There is simply no third option in which would create a scenario where I lacked a belief that it was heads and I lacked belief that it was tails. You need to brush up on the nature of belief and its philosophical implications. I recommend Stanford.
@mungbeanman :and I don't believe you then being as there is only one possible alternative that it could be, tails, then absolutely 100% would I possess the belief that it was tails." No, you just believe his claim that it IS heads.
That does not mean you exclude the possibility of it being heads, you just do not believe his, baseless, claim that it is.
"You need to brush up on the nature of belief and its philosophical implications." Right back at ya.
@mungbeanman Your unsubstantiated claim that I lack an understanding of the nature of belief and philosophy is just as empty as my "Right back at ya."
I claimed no such thing merely that you needed to brush up on it. I take my understanding of belief from what I have read in places such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you were on the same page as me in that respect you wouldn't have a disagreement.
@mungbeanman "I claimed no such thing merely that you needed to brush up on it." As was my reply, although I admit it was phrased rudely.
"If you were on the same page as me in that respect you wouldn't have a disagreement." There are several philosophical positions on belief and dis/non belief. You have failed to prove how not believing something as true, means you believe it is false.
I don not believe in any god(s), neither do I believe no god(s) exist,
No, you said that had I made an unsubstantiated claim that you LACK an understanding of the nature of belief. In fact I believe that you DO possess some understanding but that it is not up to the accepted standard by authorities.
"You have failed to prove how not believing something as true, means you believe it is false."
I don't make that claim. Rocks don't believe in god, but they also don't believe that there is no god.
@mungbeanman "In fact I believe that you DO possess some understanding but that it is not up to the accepted standard by authorities." Which is an unsubstantiated and flawed assumption.
"I don't make that claim." The title of your video is: "Why all atheists believe there is no god. " The definition of atheism is lack of belief in gods. You are stating that lack of belief in god means one believes there is no god. You have failed to prove this.
"The definition of atheism is lack of belief in gods."
No, the definition of atheism is the belief there is no god. Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition, you are only saying what it is not. So in that respect "You are stating that lack of belief in god means one believes there is no god" is a false accusation based on faulty assumption on your part.
@thomaseshuis "The definition of atheism is lack of belief in gods." No, the definition of atheism is the belief there is no god." Sorry but your wrong. Only U.S. dictionaries define it that way and not even all of them. Oxford Dictionary:
atheism
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun [mass noun] disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin: late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'
@mungbeanman `Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition" It is. That's the way words are described and defined, by characteristics they share or don't share with other words and definitions.
"It is. That's the way words are described and defined"
Words? I was describing a thing, an entity. Go into your garden, pick up a rock and describe it to me. What are you doing? Telling me about the rock and its defining features or reading out the dictionary definition under "rock"?
Ah, now we are at the heart of your error. You see, and this is the same mistake that qualiasoup makes (because he assumed something rather than thought to research it), the word atheism appears in language BEFORE theism. How do you explain the apparent violation of cause and effect?
Then why did he get it wrong? A simple bit of research would have showed that you don't create the word 'atheist' by prefixing the word 'theist. It's a common assumption I see being made all the time and one that can be disproved so very easily.
"The one that simply states without god, not there is no god?"
"Without god" refers to the root word 'atheos'. Atheism and its root word are not one and the same.
@mungbeanman Then why did he get it wrong?" He did not.
"that you don't create the word 'atheist' by prefixing the word 'theist." No, you create it by creating the English/french version of the Greek word.
The greek definition being: 'without gods' > a-theos , the English word being a-theos, but because theos is not a commonly used English way of spelling words it became a-theism. Whereby theism later became a separate term to describe those believing in gods.
He tried to show that 'atheism' is constructed by prefixing 'theism' which is not the case. That's wrong in anyone's book.
"you create it by creating the English/french version of the Greek word."
It's not a translation from ancient Greek, atheos is the root word used to create an entirely new word. Why, pray tell me, would they add the suffix '~ism' denoting a doctrine onto the root word only to instantly discard it?
It clearly isn't. As I stated in my previous comment, and I would like you to address this please, why add to the Greek word a suffix that denotes a doctrine if the doctrine part of the word is to be immediately discarded? By adding '~ism' to 'atheos' you have created a new word with a new meaning, i.e. the doctrine that there is no god.
Root words don't interchange with their derivatives. Morpheus/morphine for example.
"You really want to argue that the following words do not exist?"
Why on Earth would you think I would argue that? My guess is misunderstanding on your part or logical fallacy. Neither would be something to be proud of.
"Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)"
Belief? The belief part of atheism doesn't come from anywhere other than the '~ism' suffix. No '~ism', no belief. Strange answer from yourself there.
Amoral - where morals are discarded or disregarded.
Apolitical - having little concern with politics.
Atypical - out of the ordinary.
Asymmetric - uneven symmetry.
Atheist - one who believes there is no god.
Unless of course you wish to, from a logical standpoint, classify rocks as asexual, amoral, apolitical atheists. Because your descriptions certainly do. This is why I'll never accept your "logic".
@mungbeanman "So in that respect "You are stating that lack of belief in god means one believes there is no god" is a false accusation based on faulty assumption on your part." No, it is a factual observation.
Show me then, in black and white, where I have said that a lack of belief is a belief. Or, for that matter, where I have said that a lack of anything is a whole other thing.
Not once did I claim that atheism was a lack of belief in god and that means that all atheists believe there is no god. You are not following me or are guilty of logical fallacies.
"I don not believe in any god(s), neither do I believe no god(s) exist,"
Says nothing about you only about what you are not and as is is about as useful as trying to tell me your name by only telling me all the names it is not. My best guess, being as you have demonstrated an understanding of god concepts and the fact that you have attempted to exclude yourself toward some sort of middle, is that you are an agnostic. But this is just a guess based on no information.
@mungbeanman "Says nothing about you only about what you are not" Saying what I am not says something about me. It tells you which groups or ideas I do not identify with, which tells you something about my views on gods and possibly religions.
Again your philosophical hand-waving is nonsensical.
Simply not true. My name is NOT Mary is a truth about what I do NOT possess. If truths about what I am not were in fact truths about what I am you should be able to tell me what my name is based on that information alone. Can you do it? According to you, you can.
"Again your philosophical hand-waving is nonsensical."
Tell me my name and I will happily accept that as true.
"Saying I am an atheist says that I do not believe in a god."
True, because you can't believe that there is no god without lacking a belief that there is a god. All atheists belong to a subset of non-theists.
"It says something about me."
Yes, it says that you believe there is no god. Lacking a belief in god is not a property of you, it is an absence of a property. An absence of a thing is not a thing in itself.
@mungbeanman "True, because you can't believe that there is no god" Which I don't.
"Yes, it says that you believe there is no god" You are contradicting yourself. You are once again arguing that not believing something is believing that something cannot exist.
I do not believe there is no god, I just don't believe any of the theistic claims.
I think you do but you either don't realise it or are in denial.
Think of these two propositions
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god.
Neither one is true or false but there is no scenario where both can be true or both can be false, right? So which do you think is most likely to be true? The only way you can give an answer that doesn't give away whether you possess a belief one way is to claim that both seem as likely as each other.
@mungbeanman I hold neither to be true (agnostic), as there is no evidence that a god does exist, but neither has it been proven that a god cannot possibly exist. Yet I do not positively believe (atheist) any known gods to exist because no evidence has been presented yet.
@mungbeanman "So which do you think is most likely to be true?" It's not about likelihood. If you do belief in the existence of a specific god or gods, you're a theist.
If you believe there is a chance, however small or large, that a god might exists, you still do not positively believe a specific god does, making you an atheist.
"You are contradicting yourself. You are once again arguing that not believing something is believing that something cannot exist."
This would only be the case if you apply your definition to my argument which we both should realise is tantamount to a logical fallacy. Please, you must surely appreciate by now that I use atheism to mean the belief there is no god.
@mungbeanman "Lacking a belief in god is not a property of you, it is an absence of a property" But it still tells you something about me, that I lack that property.
No, it tells me something about what you don't do. Imagine that it is true to say about you that your hair is brown. This means that if you say that your hair is NOT blonde then this is true about what you do NOT possess. It's predicate logic I'm afraid, you have to balance out the equation on each side.
@mungbeanman "No, it tells me something about what you don't do" Which tells you something about me.
Negative definitions are quite common you know.
Ever heard of negative theology for example?
"This means that if you say that your hair is NOT blonde then this is true about what you do NOT possess." And it tells you something about me, that I am not part of the population of people with blond hair.
It tells me nothing about you whatsoever. Things about you are things you do, properties you possess, your defining features. Telling me what you don't have doesn't tell me what you do have. I'm sorry, there really are no two ways about it. I've pretty much run out of ways to explain it to you though, I'll have to think on that one.
"If you want to deny this, go ahead and be delusional."
In fact, you recently accused me of claiming that a lack of belief is a belief. So you are guilty of contradicting yourself.
"This is flawed analogy since your name tells you nothing about your beliefs or lack thereof, atheism does."
Saying you lack a belief in god does not state what your belief regarding god is. Stating what your name is not does not tell me what your name is. The analogy is perfect.
In fact so perfect that it has stumped you entirely. Your logic argues that saying something about what you are not says something about you so you should be able to solve this analogy no problems. If your logic is good it will solve any such problem. Good logic is good in all scenarios or none at all.
So please, if you can tell me my name, based solely on knowing that it is not Mary, I will concede entirely.
In fact so perfect that it has stumped you entirely." No it hasn't.
"o you should be able to solve this analogy no problems" Nope, because saying your name is not X, says it is not X. It does not have to tell anything else. Saying I am an a-theists, tells you I do not belief in gods, it does not and does not have to tell you what I do believe.
@mungbeanman "Saying you lack a belief in god does not state what your belief regarding god is." It does tell you I do not believe in any of the known gods and it does not have to tell anything more. You are making this illogical demand.
A definition does not have to entail every possible aspect. Saying you have a cow does not tell you what kind of cow and what gender, would you say therefore that cow is also an illogical definition?
@mungbeanman "However, some definitions have only one aspect." And the definition of atheism is still a lack of belief or disbelief in gods, not that gods do not exists.
@mungbeanman thing: a fact, circumstance, or state of affairs. Therefore saying what you are not DOES say "something" about you. The Mary example is bad because there are so many names. If there were less options, it would work though. If I say that thing is not biotic, that means you that the thing is abiotic by definition (absence of life). What if I said my name starts with an H. You can't get my name. My the statement did still say "something" about me.
@mungbeanman "is that you are an agnostic" Agnostic is just as non-informative, it tells you what a person has not: knowledge about god. If you reject atheism as useful claim you must also deny agnosticism, since it's also not-something.
Besides agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. Telling you that I do not know whether a god exists, does not tell you what I believe or not believe.
@mungbeanman "Agnosticism is the excluded middle, for those who believe that god's existence is as equiprobable as its non-existence."
No agnosticism is the stance that > knowledge < about god(s) existence is impossible to acquire. That does not have anything to with belief/lack of belief in the existence/non-existence of god(s). Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief.
"No agnosticism is the stance that > knowledge < about god(s) existence is impossible to acquire."
Okay, let's run with that as you have given agnosticism a belief description.
So belief is an attitude towards a proposition and in the case of agnosticism then the proposition in question is "it is possible to possess knowledge of god". This statement is niether true nor false so it is a belief statement and the agnostics attitude or "stance" toward it is belief.
@mungbeanman You can belief it is impossible to prove god(s) existence and yet still believe one exists, making you an agnostic theist.
Likewise you can belief knowledge is impossible, and it is therefore pointless to belief knowledge claims about gods, a.k.a. theistic claims, making you an agnostic atheist.
@mungbeanman Burden of proof lies on both sides dude. For one to refute a claim, that person must have an alternate claim, then that person must be able to back up that claim by presenting proof or else it is an empty claim and if that person is the one to attack another one's assertion or claim, then the burden of proof lies on that person.
The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim that a proposition is true. That could be an atheist or a theist. But beliefs are built on propositions that could be true or false and, as long as a person accepts this and is honest about it, don't come with any such burden.
@mungbeanman The burden of proof arises when a person's claim is questioned and is then requested to be proven. As humans, it is normal to have doubts or questions but as Atheist you distinctly say there is no God, which is a claim of its own. So in the end both parties have claims to justify. Forgive me, not all atheist make these claims, just most.
"The burden of proof arises when a person's claim is questioned and is then requested to be proven."
Which only occurs when the a person says that their claim IS true. If you hold that an unprovable position is true then you are in possession of a belief and of course no burden of proof lies with you. How can you be burdened proving something that can't be proved?
@mungbeanman Then if that's how you see it, then there would be no burden of proof whatsoever. After all Christianity is a Belief, The Claim would have been made centuries ago. We can only give reasons why we choose to believe. Atheist, however, question this belief as well as bring forth other claims and theories such as the big bang. These claims give rise to a burden of proof on Atheists. I will not excuse though, the fact that Christians may have a burden of proof as well.
"but as Atheist you distinctly say there is no God"
It would be a foolish atheist that says that (just as it would be a foolish theist to say that there IS a god). The sensible atheist says that they believe there is no god. It would be impossible to prove this position so how could they say such a thing so assuredly? But yes, that foolish claim would come with a burden of proof.
@mungbeanman Christianity has been around for centuries and for one to say there is no god, the idea of a god must first be presented, in which case most atheistic speculations were born centuries prior to the death of Jesus, therefore, it is up to the atheist to present proof for his claims or to disprove ours, if they don't have a claim nor proof, then no argument can take place.
"it is up to the atheist to present proof for his claims or to disprove ours"
Not if the atheist accepts the fact that beliefs do not require being proved. That being said the Abrahamic god HAS been proven not to exist. Atheists like to create logic proofs against its existence as a hobby.
@mungbeanman Beliefs require proof to whom sees it necessary. If an Atheist accepts the fact that a belief does not require proof then there wouldn't be a burden of proof. Atheist and Christians wouldn't have an arguement. It's because of the need of justification that Atheists have which makes it necessary for Christians to have a burden of proof.
"In what way has the Abrahamic God been disproven."
In many, many ways. Where to start?
Basically what it comes down to is that his properties contradict each other so often that it would be impossible for him to exist. No entity that defies the law of contradiction can be shown to exist. Do you wish me to give specifics?
@mungbeanman What if a group of people were to tell you that a man is behind you, but you couldn't see this man but these people can. the burden of proof would be on them to prove he is there but the burden of proof would be on you to prove they are crazy and there is no one there. But if you wish to avoid the claim that is up to you and no argument can take place. After all, no one is gonna kill you if you don't believe.
@mungbeanman atheism is a lack of a belief. If I tell you that the Universe was created by shintoguna, you probably wouldn't believe me. You have no idea what I'm talking about so you would not accept the belief that the Universe was created by shintoguna. However, that doesn't mean you believe that shintoguna didn't create the universe. If you don't even know what shintoguna is, how could you believe that it is false? You simply lack belief in both claims.
"that doesn't mean you believe that shintoguna didn't create the universe."
It does. After having the proposition put to me I would automatically create the belief that it was false. It is my very strong belief that the universe was created through a rapid expansion of space time through natural processess. Any counter claim to that would automatically become the belief that the claim was false (unless it is more convincing than my current understanding of course).
@mungbeanman ""that doesn't mean you believe that shintoguna didn't create the universe."
It does. After having the proposition put to me I would automatically create the belief that it was false." Maybe you perceive the world in black and white separation, but not everyone does.
"Maybe you perceive the world in black and white separation, but not everyone does."
Read up belief in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Personally I'm not interested in how anyone else may perceive belief in whatever wooly shades of grey you can come up with. I'm interested in clear cut logic and facts.
"Watch..."
I have already. Factually incorrect, no first order logic and opinion. Inconsequential. Try reading Bertrand Russell's On Denoting instead.
@mungbeanman Your making this more difficult than it is lol. You think that if you don't accept a claim, it means you claim it to be false, correct? If I ask you, do you believe Jankinua will beat Chedeere in a fight, what would you reply? You probably wouldn't accept the belief that "Jankinua will win the fight" since you don't know who they are/anything about them. Does that mean you would believe that Chedeere would win? Probably not. You would simply lack both beliefs.
"You think that if you don't accept a claim, it means you claim it to be false, correct?"
Not correct. It is central to my position that saying what you don't do, in this case not accepting a claim, ever says what you do do, in this case thinking a claim is false. For example a baby does not accept allsorts of claims but that doesn't mean that the baby believes the claims to be false.
"do you believe Jankinua will beat Chedeere in a fight"
Would you mind if I turned this from the fantastical to the real in order for us to better picture the scenario?
So I ask you that at any one time if you have an even number or odd number of cells in your body. Because we have no way of knowing we are in the realm of belief. You could argue that you have no belief on the subject whatsoever, but if you're being honest your belief would be that...(cont.)
...the probabality of there being an even number of cells in your body is as likely as there being an odd number. Your scenario only tries to shift the position toward the excluded middle rather than one of theist or atheist.
And saying that a proposition is plausible is not making a proposition about the entity. If One person tells me that my cat walked on my rug, and another says that my cat didn't walk on my rug (when I was at school), then I could consider both as plausible, but it doesn't mean I believe both the propositions. I could think that both are reasonable, but I simply ask for more information. This would be similar to negative atheism (read about it).
@mungbeanman Your body cells example is kind of like heads or tails. You don't believe that the coin will land on heads and you don't believe that it will land on tails (without looking at the coin or the person at first, etc.) You can believe that "there is a 50/50 chance", but that is an entirely different proposition. You do not accept the belief that the coin will land on heads, you don't accept the belief...... tails. You have a lack of a belief which is what atheism, in broad terms, is
Sorry, I use cool names because it's funner thinking of those names than actually having this conversation lol and it breaks any tension
You say that it tries to push the position toward the excluded middle. You do know that the excluded middle means that there is no middle right? Just want to make sure.
Anyway, that probability proposition you mentioned is entirely different. And it doesn't say "I believe i have an even # of cells" or "...odd # of cells."
@mungbeanman Also, I would like to add that my first example "shintoguna" didn't work for you because you already had a strong belief about how the universe was created. It is important to understand that many atheists and I don't have a strong belief about how the universe was created, how man was created, etc. I don't even believe in the theory of evolution (because I haven't studied it enough of course, but I don't say it is false). Therefore, the claim of god does not counter my beliefs.
There are two types of proposition in this world; those that are true or false (truths, facts) and those that could be true or false (beliefs). Any proposition that isn't as yet known to be true or is ultimately unknowable is a belief so once you put such proposition to me it automatically is processed as a belief. This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by the way, in case you wanted a reference to check.
@mungbeanman "There are two types of proposition in this world; those that are true or false (truths, facts) and those that could be true or false (beliefs)."
This is true, but that does not make not having a certain belief a belief in it's negation.
And by the way the SEP is not the sole authority on the philosophy and there isn't a clear cut consensus on this subject.
Who said "that does not make not having a certain belief a belief in it's negation"? Certainly not me.
"And by the way the SEP is not the sole authority on the philosophy and there isn't a clear cut consensus on this subject."
It's a better authority than you and that's all that matters to me. The only reason there isn't a "clear cut" consensus is because the psychologists have a different view. There is enough philosophical material to be clear cut enough though.
@mungbeanman "There are two types of propositions......"
What was the point in writing that comment? It is saying that lets say there is a proposition that "God exists". IF god truly does exist, then the proposition is a fact. If god doesn't exist, or it is impossible for humans to know, then the proposition "God exists" is actually just a belief.
If one makes no proposition, but rather considers it plausible and wants more evidence, then one is not holding a fact or belief.....(cont.)
weak atheism is at this time you do not have enough evidence to convince you there is a god so you just choose to believe in atheism until more information comes.
strong atheism is where you say there is NO possible way there is a god (IMPOSSIBLE)
Im a weak go weaklings yah
i hate when people say you should prove religion WRONG
religious people should have to prove themselves RIGHT
Anyone saying that god is impossible has not expressed atheism.
Saying "I do not have enough evidence" is not talking about "I".
Atheism is the belief there is no god, which allows the possibility of a god. If you do not allow that possibility, you can't be said to be an atheist.
When you didn't exist you didn't have enough evidence, so saying so says zero about you or the atheist.
I don't think god exist, I also don't think god doesn't exist, but I know I've never seen any evidence of god, but I've also never seen any evidence god isn't there at all. What I can do though is look at the specifically defined god of specific religions and decide whether or not the source material makes sense or is credible. if it's nonsensical or not credible, it would be impossible for a god, as the book describes, to exist.
@KevinLounsberry To further clarify how someone can not believe in something, but also no believe it does not exist at all. Newly discovered species. There are new species of animals and insects discovered on a regular basis. Ones which I doubt you've ever heard of. You don't think they're real, yes? because you've seen no evidence of them? But do you think they don't exist at all? What if I described one to you, and told you it's real, but provided no evidence of it?
Religion-Bullshit, Atheism-Bullshit, God simply is whatever cannot be explained, IT is the force that drives everything, not a guy or deity of any kind, there are 100's of religions literally so they obviously couldn't all be true, they are that cultures vision of what god is its so clear how dumb r ppl? USE YOUR BRAIN, at least atheists claim they will change their mind in event a particular religion shows evidence! Religions say no matter what evidence comes their special story is correct
@MyPersonalFavourites "If we r really a product of chance (chemical scum as Dawkins says) then our life is not more wothy than rats- deep inside do u think this is true."
Some people find it disturbing to think life may have no greater meaning than what we choose to give it. Others, however, find it liberating to think we are the authors of their own destiny.
@tellnet Objectively speaking you are correct. If we were act on this recognition, however, our species would go extinct just as hawks would go extinct should they recognize (and act upon) the idea that their prey has an equal right to exist. Human beings are in competition with both each other and other species for finite resources. Failing to 'put yourself first' is counter-evolutionary.
Well beliving is one way or the other is hard for long periods of time. And yet both camps spend soo much time on the subject. I think both sides needs to spend more time on finding out the truth about its existance or non existance than trying to convince the other side of their BELEIF
@MyPersonalFavourites There are no signs of god, to suggest the heavens and earth is a sign of God is circular reasoning. Atheists don't suggest everything came from nothing, they suggest it's ridiculous to come to any conclusion at all.
@todocambiara2 It's a comments section, how can you tell whos left? If someone replies to one of my comments I get a notification I can check on any time I'm signed in to youtube.
@todocambiara2 I'm saying that you can't really say someone has "left" a youtube comments section, because you can't tell when they're online or find out if they're coming back, and they don't have to check back on the video's comments in order to tell if someone's replied.
Logic isn't about having fun, it's about understanding the world. You lack this logic which is why you have to resort to your emotions to try and settle an argument and why you think that holes don't exist.
I genuinely feel pity for you. There are those who don't even have the oppurtunity to learn logic and then there are those, like you, who squander it. Sad.
You're trolling because you keep coming back despite saying that you were done several comments ago with a vile attitude that I will not stand for. There is a disclaimer about trolling on my channel (which you now get a mention in, haha) and why it will not be tolerated. And I couldn't care less if you think I'm lying or not because you are my intellectual inferior and a sad, sad individual who's opinion means nothing to me.
what the heck, this was recommended to me? not only does this video inaccurately represent both theism and atheism but it completely ignores any and all epistemological (god i hope that is spelled right) standpoints such as agnostic and gnostic. of course i am sure that this has been gone over already but i am slightly peeved that this argument is constantly brought up seeing how it is up to the individual to define the way they belief and not have others say how they think it is.
The 'strong' and 'weak' qualifiers for the atheist position disambiguate lack of belief in gods from belief that gods do not exist. The burden of proof lies with any who make a positive claim. "God does not exist" is a positive claim; strong atheists hold a burden of proof. Yes, I'd ask you to prove your unicorn exists, and when you couldn't I'd be justified in rejecting your proposition, but I would not be justified in establishing a belief to the contrary solely based on your lack of evidence.
urcorrect 3 weeks ago
@urcorrect
I don't know what you mean by "strong" atheist.
mungbeanman 3 weeks ago
@mungbeanman Atheism has two definitions. 1. To believe that there is no god. 2. To not believe there is a god. If somebody says "weak atheist" it means they are an atheist by the 2nd definition only. If somebody says "strong atheist" it means atheism by both definitions.
DaltonMunnal 1 week ago
@DaltonMunnal
Theism has two definitions. 1. To believe there is a god. 2. To not believe there is no god. If somebody says "weak theist" it means they are a theist by the 2nd definition only. If somebody says "strong theist" it means theism by both definitions.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman The problem is, you're assuming that atheist means the opposite of theist, when it really just means to not be a theist. I, for one, do not believe in a god, but I also don't believe there isn't one. This still makes me an atheist. An agnostic atheist, but an atheist nonetheless.
DaltonMunnal 1 week ago
@DaltonMunnal
"The problem is, you're assuming that atheist means the opposite of theist"
Can you demonstrate that it doesn't?
"when it really just means to not be a theist"
So babies, animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, rocks, non-existent entities etc. are all atheists? No dice.
Anyway, your original comment divides atheism into two parts. What is the whole that is just plain old atheism? What then is "weak" theism?
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman You can argue for your own definition of atheism, or you can look it up in a dictionary, where you will always find that it either gives two definitions (the ones I provided) or it only gives one definition (the second one I provided). I'm going to go with the dictionary.... (continued)
DaltonMunnal 1 week ago
@DaltonMunnal Theist: To believe there is a god. Atheist: To not believe there is a god.
Where does this bring you confusion? I'd suggest you watch this video, instead of trying to convince people that you understand words better than the dictionary does. watch?v=akCbE91l81A
DaltonMunnal 1 week ago
@DaltonMunnal
1. Dictionaries do not define words. They record their popular usage.
2. Many dictionaries define atheism by what it is, i.e. a belief or doctrine.
3. 'What does the word atheism mean?' and 'what is atheism?' are two different questions and the answers are derived in different ways. I am answering the latter while you the former. For some reason known only to you.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@DaltonMunnal
4. Where in the dictionary do I find the term "weak atheist" by the way?
The problem with words is that they can mean whatever people want them to mean. Words change meaning. But that doesn't mean that the entity they denote changes. For example if we all started using the word 'tree' to mean 'blue frog' does that mean that all trees in the world have become blue frogs? Clearly not.
Atheism, the entity, can only be what it is: a belief.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@DaltonMunnal
Also, I'm not confused in the slightest and I resent the suggestion. Using logical arguments (and by that I mean actual formal logic) to support one's argument helps remove any confusion.
You haven't really addressed the points I point put to you which suggests that you know where your argument is heading; nowhere. Which is hardly going to convince me that formal logic is wrong now, is it?
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman I didn't reply to all of your points because you asked 5 different questions in a medium that gives me a limited character count to reply with. Only so much I can discuss at a time on here without causing a flood of hard to follow comments. And my only argument is that our dictionaries know what they're talking about. If you have a problem with that and want to tell me that our dictionaries are wrong, then go for it. Fine by me.
DaltonMunnal 1 week ago
@DaltonMunnal
"you asked 5 different questions in a medium that gives me a limited character count"
Answer them in a PM then.
"If you have a problem with that and want to tell me that our dictionaries are wrong"
I made two points to you which I guess I'll have to again. The first being that most dictionaries list atheism as a belief so why would I think that the dictionaries are wrong and that this isn't about the meaning of the word but the entity that is atheism.
mungbeanman 1 week ago
@mungbeanman Will continue in a PM then.
DaltonMunnal 1 week ago
I would love to post a full comment, but i keep getting an error
bjenkinsw16 1 month ago
well, if the term atheist applies to one, then, by definition one doesn't believe in god(s).
this video is slightly redundant...
DUCKY3654 1 month ago
@DUCKY3654
The term atheist applies to one who believes there is no god. I fail to see any redundancy, slight or otherwise.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
Comment removed
DUCKY3654 1 month ago
Grow a brain
Mee551able 1 month ago
@Mee551able
I think that by avoiding direct questions I have proved that my brain is far more developed than yours. My best guess is that you have mistaken me for a theist, which is pretty stupid on your part, and you have just come here looking for a fight. Silly, because you didn't really fight your corner very well, did you?
mungbeanman 1 month ago 2
@mungbeanman So your an atheist? And yes my brain is a bit fucked up thanks for mensioning it.
Mee551able 1 month ago
@Mee551able
"So your an atheist?"
My an atheist? What?!
"And yes my brain is a bit fucked up thanks for mensioning it."
No problems, but I think you gave that little secret away yourself some time ago.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
Do you see god?
If so you need to go see someone.
Mee551able 1 month ago
@Mee551able
Is this directed at me or just a general statement?
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman what about there being no proof of god or you know there is a god in a BOOK
Mee551able 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Mee551able
I don't follow. Your statement is worded strangely. I understand the proof of god part but the rest of the sentence doesn't seem to follow on. What's this about knowing there is a god in a book? (And why is "book" emphasised?)
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman God has never existed :-)
Mee551able 1 month ago
@Mee551able
Why are you telling me this? What has this got to do with me? Besides, you have just made a statement that has burdened you with proving it.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman Why do you tell everyone if you dont want people to talk type?
Mee551able 1 month ago
@Mee551able
That makes even less sense than any of your comments so far. What does "talk type" mean? I don't understand you, why you are here or what issues you want me to address. Are you just trolling or something? Perhaps if you were to answer my questions directly rather than follow on with vague, non-sequitur statements we could get somehwere.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
@mungbeanman God Is Not Real It Has Been Made up. Dose that help you?
Mee551able 1 month ago
@Mee551able
Not really. I want to know why you are telling me this, what it has to do with me or this video and how you would go about proving such a thing.
mungbeanman 1 month ago
How about homeless, also an illogical definition?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
If you wish to include rocks as homeless then yes, most illogical. Anyway, as I've said, I've jumped through enough of your hoops to prove my point. Back to the subject at hand, please.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
How would you define darkness by the way?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Reduced levels of light. Darkness is relative of course and not just either or. A room with one lit candle in it late at night will be dark but the room will not lack light. Colours can be described as dark yet to be able to see the colour you need light. And of course those things that truly lack light such as mathematics or love would never be described as dark (in a physical sense of course, not metaphorically).
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "Reduced levels of light." You have jsut defined something by what it isn't; the presence of light.
Another one; vegetarian, how do you define it?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"You have jsut defined something by what it isn't; the presence of light."
I did no such thing. Did you read any further than that sentence? Reduced levels of light does not mean a lack of light. It's all relative.
"Another one; vegetarian, how do you define it?"
A person whose diet consists solely of vegetables and dairy products. Too easy, man. However, I think I have jumped through enough of your hoops now to have made my point. Thank you very much.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "I did no such thing. Did you read any further than that sentence? Reduced levels of light does not mean a lack of light. It's all relative." And the only way you can define darkness is by stating what it is not.
darkness
Pronunciation: /ˈdɑːknəs/
noun
[mass noun] 1the partial or total absence of light
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
You are trying once again to describe an entity by the meaning of the word attached to it. This is simply unacceptable. Did you find a rock in the garden to describe to me yet?
That being said 'partial absence of light' is what I am arguing for anyway.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "A person whose diet consists solely of vegetables and dairy products." Not true, some vegetarians eat fish.
Again from the dictionary:
vegetarian
Pronunciation: /vɛdʒɪˈtɛːrɪən/
noun a person who does not eat meat or fish, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons.
As you can see, defined by what the people do not eat.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Again you are trying to define an entity by the dictionary definition. "What is a vegetarian" is an entirely different question to "what does the word vegetarian mean?"
"As you can see, defined by what the people do not eat."
Are you honestly saying that the defintion I gave does not describe a vegetarian? Dead people don't eat meat; I suppose you class them as vegetarians too?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
Atheism is the lack of theism, hence the a in front of theism.
It is the lack of a positive belief in god(s).
"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
If you claim that a coin is heads and I don't believe you then being as there is only one possible alternative that it could be, tails, then absolutely 100% would I possess the belief that it was tails. There is simply no third option in which would create a scenario where I lacked a belief that it was heads and I lacked belief that it was tails. You need to brush up on the nature of belief and its philosophical implications. I recommend Stanford.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman :and I don't believe you then being as there is only one possible alternative that it could be, tails, then absolutely 100% would I possess the belief that it was tails." No, you just believe his claim that it IS heads.
That does not mean you exclude the possibility of it being heads, you just do not believe his, baseless, claim that it is.
"You need to brush up on the nature of belief and its philosophical implications." Right back at ya.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Right back at ya."
Astounding comeback. I am defeated. I cannot argue with the law of the playground.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Your unsubstantiated claim that I lack an understanding of the nature of belief and philosophy is just as empty as my "Right back at ya."
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
I claimed no such thing merely that you needed to brush up on it. I take my understanding of belief from what I have read in places such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you were on the same page as me in that respect you wouldn't have a disagreement.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "I claimed no such thing merely that you needed to brush up on it." As was my reply, although I admit it was phrased rudely.
"If you were on the same page as me in that respect you wouldn't have a disagreement." There are several philosophical positions on belief and dis/non belief. You have failed to prove how not believing something as true, means you believe it is false.
I don not believe in any god(s), neither do I believe no god(s) exist,
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"As was my reply"
No, you said that had I made an unsubstantiated claim that you LACK an understanding of the nature of belief. In fact I believe that you DO possess some understanding but that it is not up to the accepted standard by authorities.
"You have failed to prove how not believing something as true, means you believe it is false."
I don't make that claim. Rocks don't believe in god, but they also don't believe that there is no god.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "In fact I believe that you DO possess some understanding but that it is not up to the accepted standard by authorities." Which is an unsubstantiated and flawed assumption.
"I don't make that claim." The title of your video is: "Why all atheists believe there is no god. " The definition of atheism is lack of belief in gods. You are stating that lack of belief in god means one believes there is no god. You have failed to prove this.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"The definition of atheism is lack of belief in gods."
No, the definition of atheism is the belief there is no god. Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition, you are only saying what it is not. So in that respect "You are stating that lack of belief in god means one believes there is no god" is a false accusation based on faulty assumption on your part.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
Comment removed
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis "The definition of atheism is lack of belief in gods." No, the definition of atheism is the belief there is no god." Sorry but your wrong. Only U.S. dictionaries define it that way and not even all of them. Oxford Dictionary:
atheism
Pronunciation:/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun [mass noun] disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin: late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
You will forgive me for being reluctant about being schooled in the English language by someone whose grasp is somewhat tenuous.
Anyway, where is this "lack of belief" definition that you claim because I can't see it?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman disbelief
Pronunciation:/dɪsbɪˈliːf/
noun
[mass noun]
• inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real: lack of faith:
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@mungbeanman `Describing something as a lack of something else is not a definition" It is. That's the way words are described and defined, by characteristics they share or don't share with other words and definitions.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"It is. That's the way words are described and defined"
Words? I was describing a thing, an entity. Go into your garden, pick up a rock and describe it to me. What are you doing? Telling me about the rock and its defining features or reading out the dictionary definition under "rock"?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman You really want to argue that the following words do not exist?
A-Theist.
The "A" prefix means without/non/.
As in....
Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"A-Theist."
Ah, now we are at the heart of your error. You see, and this is the same mistake that qualiasoup makes (because he assumed something rather than thought to research it), the word atheism appears in language BEFORE theism. How do you explain the apparent violation of cause and effect?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "(because he assumed something rather than thought to research it)" Actually he did research it. Who's making baseless accusations now.
"the word atheism appears in language BEFORE theism"
You mean this one: atheism 1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god"
The one that simply states without god, not there is no god?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Actually he did research it."
Then why did he get it wrong? A simple bit of research would have showed that you don't create the word 'atheist' by prefixing the word 'theist. It's a common assumption I see being made all the time and one that can be disproved so very easily.
"The one that simply states without god, not there is no god?"
"Without god" refers to the root word 'atheos'. Atheism and its root word are not one and the same.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Then why did he get it wrong?" He did not.
"that you don't create the word 'atheist' by prefixing the word 'theist." No, you create it by creating the English/french version of the Greek word.
The greek definition being: 'without gods' > a-theos , the English word being a-theos, but because theos is not a commonly used English way of spelling words it became a-theism. Whereby theism later became a separate term to describe those believing in gods.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"He did not."
He tried to show that 'atheism' is constructed by prefixing 'theism' which is not the case. That's wrong in anyone's book.
"you create it by creating the English/french version of the Greek word."
It's not a translation from ancient Greek, atheos is the root word used to create an entirely new word. Why, pray tell me, would they add the suffix '~ism' denoting a doctrine onto the root word only to instantly discard it?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "It's not a translation from ancient Greek, atheos is the root word used to create an entirely new word." It is.
From the etymology dictionary:
atheism 1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god" (see atheist)Ancient Gk. atheotes meant "ungodliness."
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"It is."
It clearly isn't. As I stated in my previous comment, and I would like you to address this please, why add to the Greek word a suffix that denotes a doctrine if the doctrine part of the word is to be immediately discarded? By adding '~ism' to 'atheos' you have created a new word with a new meaning, i.e. the doctrine that there is no god.
Root words don't interchange with their derivatives. Morpheus/morphine for example.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"You really want to argue that the following words do not exist?"
Why on Earth would you think I would argue that? My guess is misunderstanding on your part or logical fallacy. Neither would be something to be proud of.
"Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)"
Belief? The belief part of atheism doesn't come from anywhere other than the '~ism' suffix. No '~ism', no belief. Strange answer from yourself there.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Asexual - able to reproduce without sex.
Amoral - where morals are discarded or disregarded.
Apolitical - having little concern with politics.
Atypical - out of the ordinary.
Asymmetric - uneven symmetry.
Atheist - one who believes there is no god.
Unless of course you wish to, from a logical standpoint, classify rocks as asexual, amoral, apolitical atheists. Because your descriptions certainly do. This is why I'll never accept your "logic".
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman You really want to argue that the following words do not exist?
A-Theist.
The "A" prefix means without/non/.
As in....
Asexual=having no sex or sexual organs.(not a belief theres no sex organs)
Amoral=without moral.(not a belief theres no morals)
Apolitical=not political.(not a belief theres no politics)
Atypical=not typical.(not a belief there not typical)
Asymmetric=not symmetrical.(not a belief theres no symmetry)
Atheist=not theist.(not a belief theres no god)
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "So in that respect "You are stating that lack of belief in god means one believes there is no god" is a false accusation based on faulty assumption on your part." No, it is a factual observation.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"No, it is a factual observation."
Show me then, in black and white, where I have said that a lack of belief is a belief. Or, for that matter, where I have said that a lack of anything is a whole other thing.
Not once did I claim that atheism was a lack of belief in god and that means that all atheists believe there is no god. You are not following me or are guilty of logical fallacies.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"I don not believe in any god(s), neither do I believe no god(s) exist,"
Says nothing about you only about what you are not and as is is about as useful as trying to tell me your name by only telling me all the names it is not. My best guess, being as you have demonstrated an understanding of god concepts and the fact that you have attempted to exclude yourself toward some sort of middle, is that you are an agnostic. But this is just a guess based on no information.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "Says nothing about you only about what you are not" Saying what I am not says something about me. It tells you which groups or ideas I do not identify with, which tells you something about my views on gods and possibly religions.
Again your philosophical hand-waving is nonsensical.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Saying what I am not says something about me."
Simply not true. My name is NOT Mary is a truth about what I do NOT possess. If truths about what I am not were in fact truths about what I am you should be able to tell me what my name is based on that information alone. Can you do it? According to you, you can.
"Again your philosophical hand-waving is nonsensical."
Tell me my name and I will happily accept that as true.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman ""Saying what I am not says something about me."
Saying I am an atheist says that I do not believe in a god. It says something about me. If you want to deny this, go ahead and be delusional.
"My name is NOT Mary" This is flawed analogy since your name tells you nothing about your beliefs or lack thereof, atheism does.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Saying I am an atheist says that I do not believe in a god."
True, because you can't believe that there is no god without lacking a belief that there is a god. All atheists belong to a subset of non-theists.
"It says something about me."
Yes, it says that you believe there is no god. Lacking a belief in god is not a property of you, it is an absence of a property. An absence of a thing is not a thing in itself.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "True, because you can't believe that there is no god" Which I don't.
"Yes, it says that you believe there is no god" You are contradicting yourself. You are once again arguing that not believing something is believing that something cannot exist.
I do not believe there is no god, I just don't believe any of the theistic claims.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Which I don't."
I think you do but you either don't realise it or are in denial.
Think of these two propositions
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god.
Neither one is true or false but there is no scenario where both can be true or both can be false, right? So which do you think is most likely to be true? The only way you can give an answer that doesn't give away whether you possess a belief one way is to claim that both seem as likely as each other.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "I think you do but you either don't realise it or are in denial.
Think of these two propositions
1. There is a god.
2. There is no god."
I don't, it is you who fails to realise that these two propositions are factual statement, in other words they deal with f knowledge, not believe.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"it is you who fails to realise that these two propositions are factual statement"
So, if not beliefs and being as only one can be true, which one of them is a fact then?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman I hold neither to be true (agnostic), as there is no evidence that a god does exist, but neither has it been proven that a god cannot possibly exist. Yet I do not positively believe (atheist) any known gods to exist because no evidence has been presented yet.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "So which do you think is most likely to be true?" It's not about likelihood. If you do belief in the existence of a specific god or gods, you're a theist.
If you believe there is a chance, however small or large, that a god might exists, you still do not positively believe a specific god does, making you an atheist.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"You are contradicting yourself. You are once again arguing that not believing something is believing that something cannot exist."
This would only be the case if you apply your definition to my argument which we both should realise is tantamount to a logical fallacy. Please, you must surely appreciate by now that I use atheism to mean the belief there is no god.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "Lacking a belief in god is not a property of you, it is an absence of a property" But it still tells you something about me, that I lack that property.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"But it still tells you something about me"
No, it tells me something about what you don't do. Imagine that it is true to say about you that your hair is brown. This means that if you say that your hair is NOT blonde then this is true about what you do NOT possess. It's predicate logic I'm afraid, you have to balance out the equation on each side.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "No, it tells me something about what you don't do" Which tells you something about me.
Negative definitions are quite common you know.
Ever heard of negative theology for example?
"This means that if you say that your hair is NOT blonde then this is true about what you do NOT possess." And it tells you something about me, that I am not part of the population of people with blond hair.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Which tells you something about me."
It tells me nothing about you whatsoever. Things about you are things you do, properties you possess, your defining features. Telling me what you don't have doesn't tell me what you do have. I'm sorry, there really are no two ways about it. I've pretty much run out of ways to explain it to you though, I'll have to think on that one.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"If you want to deny this, go ahead and be delusional."
In fact, you recently accused me of claiming that a lack of belief is a belief. So you are guilty of contradicting yourself.
"This is flawed analogy since your name tells you nothing about your beliefs or lack thereof, atheism does."
Saying you lack a belief in god does not state what your belief regarding god is. Stating what your name is not does not tell me what your name is. The analogy is perfect.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman
"This is flawed analogy..."
In fact so perfect that it has stumped you entirely. Your logic argues that saying something about what you are not says something about you so you should be able to solve this analogy no problems. If your logic is good it will solve any such problem. Good logic is good in all scenarios or none at all.
So please, if you can tell me my name, based solely on knowing that it is not Mary, I will concede entirely.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman ""This is flawed analogy..."
In fact so perfect that it has stumped you entirely." No it hasn't.
"o you should be able to solve this analogy no problems" Nope, because saying your name is not X, says it is not X. It does not have to tell anything else. Saying I am an a-theists, tells you I do not belief in gods, it does not and does not have to tell you what I do believe.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Nope"
Well there we go then, your logic is faulty and I cannot accept it.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "Saying you lack a belief in god does not state what your belief regarding god is." It does tell you I do not believe in any of the known gods and it does not have to tell anything more. You are making this illogical demand.
A definition does not have to entail every possible aspect. Saying you have a cow does not tell you what kind of cow and what gender, would you say therefore that cow is also an illogical definition?
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"A definition does not have to entail every possible aspect."
True, but I don't say that it does. However, some definitions have only one aspect.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "However, some definitions have only one aspect." And the definition of atheism is still a lack of belief or disbelief in gods, not that gods do not exists.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"And the definition of atheism is still a lack of belief or disbelief in gods, not that gods do not exists."
But the logic you use to back this up is demonstrably faulty so I simply cannot accept it I'm afraid.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman thing: a fact, circumstance, or state of affairs. Therefore saying what you are not DOES say "something" about you. The Mary example is bad because there are so many names. If there were less options, it would work though. If I say that thing is not biotic, that means you that the thing is abiotic by definition (absence of life). What if I said my name starts with an H. You can't get my name. My the statement did still say "something" about me.
SpilkyWay 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "is that you are an agnostic" Agnostic is just as non-informative, it tells you what a person has not: knowledge about god. If you reject atheism as useful claim you must also deny agnosticism, since it's also not-something.
Besides agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief. Telling you that I do not know whether a god exists, does not tell you what I believe or not believe.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"If you reject atheism as useful claim you must also deny agnosticism, since it's also not-something."
I don't reject atheism, I reject people reducing it to nothing and giving it no practical or logical usage by defining it based on gibberish.
Agnosticism is the excluded middle, for those who believe that god's existence is as equiprobable as its non-existence.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "Agnosticism is the excluded middle, for those who believe that god's existence is as equiprobable as its non-existence."
No agnosticism is the stance that > knowledge < about god(s) existence is impossible to acquire. That does not have anything to with belief/lack of belief in the existence/non-existence of god(s). Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"No agnosticism is the stance that > knowledge < about god(s) existence is impossible to acquire."
Okay, let's run with that as you have given agnosticism a belief description.
So belief is an attitude towards a proposition and in the case of agnosticism then the proposition in question is "it is possible to possess knowledge of god". This statement is niether true nor false so it is a belief statement and the agnostics attitude or "stance" toward it is belief.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman You can belief it is impossible to prove god(s) existence and yet still believe one exists, making you an agnostic theist.
Likewise you can belief knowledge is impossible, and it is therefore pointless to belief knowledge claims about gods, a.k.a. theistic claims, making you an agnostic atheist.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Burden of proof lies on both sides dude. For one to refute a claim, that person must have an alternate claim, then that person must be able to back up that claim by presenting proof or else it is an empty claim and if that person is the one to attack another one's assertion or claim, then the burden of proof lies on that person.
Dale78ful 2 months ago
@Dale78ful
The burden of proof lies with anyone making the claim that a proposition is true. That could be an atheist or a theist. But beliefs are built on propositions that could be true or false and, as long as a person accepts this and is honest about it, don't come with any such burden.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman The burden of proof arises when a person's claim is questioned and is then requested to be proven. As humans, it is normal to have doubts or questions but as Atheist you distinctly say there is no God, which is a claim of its own. So in the end both parties have claims to justify. Forgive me, not all atheist make these claims, just most.
Dale78ful 2 months ago
@Dale78ful
"The burden of proof arises when a person's claim is questioned and is then requested to be proven."
Which only occurs when the a person says that their claim IS true. If you hold that an unprovable position is true then you are in possession of a belief and of course no burden of proof lies with you. How can you be burdened proving something that can't be proved?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Then if that's how you see it, then there would be no burden of proof whatsoever. After all Christianity is a Belief, The Claim would have been made centuries ago. We can only give reasons why we choose to believe. Atheist, however, question this belief as well as bring forth other claims and theories such as the big bang. These claims give rise to a burden of proof on Atheists. I will not excuse though, the fact that Christians may have a burden of proof as well.
Dale78ful 2 months ago
@Dale78ful
"but as Atheist you distinctly say there is no God"
It would be a foolish atheist that says that (just as it would be a foolish theist to say that there IS a god). The sensible atheist says that they believe there is no god. It would be impossible to prove this position so how could they say such a thing so assuredly? But yes, that foolish claim would come with a burden of proof.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Christianity has been around for centuries and for one to say there is no god, the idea of a god must first be presented, in which case most atheistic speculations were born centuries prior to the death of Jesus, therefore, it is up to the atheist to present proof for his claims or to disprove ours, if they don't have a claim nor proof, then no argument can take place.
Dale78ful 2 months ago
@Dale78ful
"it is up to the atheist to present proof for his claims or to disprove ours"
Not if the atheist accepts the fact that beliefs do not require being proved. That being said the Abrahamic god HAS been proven not to exist. Atheists like to create logic proofs against its existence as a hobby.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
Comment removed
Dale78ful 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Beliefs require proof to whom sees it necessary. If an Atheist accepts the fact that a belief does not require proof then there wouldn't be a burden of proof. Atheist and Christians wouldn't have an arguement. It's because of the need of justification that Atheists have which makes it necessary for Christians to have a burden of proof.
In what way has the Abrahamic God been disproven.
Dale78ful 2 months ago
@Dale78ful
"Beliefs require proof to whom sees it necessary."
Proof makes belief redundant. It has been proven that 1+1=2 so there is no need to hold a belief regarding that equation.
"...Christians to have a burden of proof."
Many Christians are foolish enough to say that they don't believe there is a god, they KNOW there is one which is where the burden of proof falls.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@Dale78ful
"In what way has the Abrahamic God been disproven."
In many, many ways. Where to start?
Basically what it comes down to is that his properties contradict each other so often that it would be impossible for him to exist. No entity that defies the law of contradiction can be shown to exist. Do you wish me to give specifics?
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman What if a group of people were to tell you that a man is behind you, but you couldn't see this man but these people can. the burden of proof would be on them to prove he is there but the burden of proof would be on you to prove they are crazy and there is no one there. But if you wish to avoid the claim that is up to you and no argument can take place. After all, no one is gonna kill you if you don't believe.
Dale78ful 2 months ago
@mungbeanman atheism is a lack of a belief. If I tell you that the Universe was created by shintoguna, you probably wouldn't believe me. You have no idea what I'm talking about so you would not accept the belief that the Universe was created by shintoguna. However, that doesn't mean you believe that shintoguna didn't create the universe. If you don't even know what shintoguna is, how could you believe that it is false? You simply lack belief in both claims.
SpilkyWay 2 months ago
@SpilkyWay
"that doesn't mean you believe that shintoguna didn't create the universe."
It does. After having the proposition put to me I would automatically create the belief that it was false. It is my very strong belief that the universe was created through a rapid expansion of space time through natural processess. Any counter claim to that would automatically become the belief that the claim was false (unless it is more convincing than my current understanding of course).
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman ""that doesn't mean you believe that shintoguna didn't create the universe."
It does. After having the proposition put to me I would automatically create the belief that it was false." Maybe you perceive the world in black and white separation, but not everyone does.
Watch watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&list=FLRu18ezlVYSk_cfGzmqWADA&index=26&feature=plpp_video
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
"Maybe you perceive the world in black and white separation, but not everyone does."
Read up belief in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Personally I'm not interested in how anyone else may perceive belief in whatever wooly shades of grey you can come up with. I'm interested in clear cut logic and facts.
"Watch..."
I have already. Factually incorrect, no first order logic and opinion. Inconsequential. Try reading Bertrand Russell's On Denoting instead.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Your making this more difficult than it is lol. You think that if you don't accept a claim, it means you claim it to be false, correct? If I ask you, do you believe Jankinua will beat Chedeere in a fight, what would you reply? You probably wouldn't accept the belief that "Jankinua will win the fight" since you don't know who they are/anything about them. Does that mean you would believe that Chedeere would win? Probably not. You would simply lack both beliefs.
SpilkyWay 2 months ago
@SpilkyWay
"Your making this more difficult than it is"
No, it's rather simple.
"You think that if you don't accept a claim, it means you claim it to be false, correct?"
Not correct. It is central to my position that saying what you don't do, in this case not accepting a claim, ever says what you do do, in this case thinking a claim is false. For example a baby does not accept allsorts of claims but that doesn't mean that the baby believes the claims to be false.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@SpilkyWay
"do you believe Jankinua will beat Chedeere in a fight"
Would you mind if I turned this from the fantastical to the real in order for us to better picture the scenario?
So I ask you that at any one time if you have an even number or odd number of cells in your body. Because we have no way of knowing we are in the realm of belief. You could argue that you have no belief on the subject whatsoever, but if you're being honest your belief would be that...(cont.)
mungbeanman 2 months ago
...the probabality of there being an even number of cells in your body is as likely as there being an odd number. Your scenario only tries to shift the position toward the excluded middle rather than one of theist or atheist.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman (continuation of last comment)
And saying that a proposition is plausible is not making a proposition about the entity. If One person tells me that my cat walked on my rug, and another says that my cat didn't walk on my rug (when I was at school), then I could consider both as plausible, but it doesn't mean I believe both the propositions. I could think that both are reasonable, but I simply ask for more information. This would be similar to negative atheism (read about it).
SpilkyWay 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Your body cells example is kind of like heads or tails. You don't believe that the coin will land on heads and you don't believe that it will land on tails (without looking at the coin or the person at first, etc.) You can believe that "there is a 50/50 chance", but that is an entirely different proposition. You do not accept the belief that the coin will land on heads, you don't accept the belief...... tails. You have a lack of a belief which is what atheism, in broad terms, is
SpilkyWay 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "Would you mind...."
Sorry, I use cool names because it's funner thinking of those names than actually having this conversation lol and it breaks any tension
You say that it tries to push the position toward the excluded middle. You do know that the excluded middle means that there is no middle right? Just want to make sure.
Anyway, that probability proposition you mentioned is entirely different. And it doesn't say "I believe i have an even # of cells" or "...odd # of cells."
SpilkyWay 2 months ago
@mungbeanman Also, I would like to add that my first example "shintoguna" didn't work for you because you already had a strong belief about how the universe was created. It is important to understand that many atheists and I don't have a strong belief about how the universe was created, how man was created, etc. I don't even believe in the theory of evolution (because I haven't studied it enough of course, but I don't say it is false). Therefore, the claim of god does not counter my beliefs.
SpilkyWay 2 months ago
@SpilkyWay
There are two types of proposition in this world; those that are true or false (truths, facts) and those that could be true or false (beliefs). Any proposition that isn't as yet known to be true or is ultimately unknowable is a belief so once you put such proposition to me it automatically is processed as a belief. This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by the way, in case you wanted a reference to check.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "There are two types of proposition in this world; those that are true or false (truths, facts) and those that could be true or false (beliefs)."
This is true, but that does not make not having a certain belief a belief in it's negation.
And by the way the SEP is not the sole authority on the philosophy and there isn't a clear cut consensus on this subject.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis
Who said "that does not make not having a certain belief a belief in it's negation"? Certainly not me.
"And by the way the SEP is not the sole authority on the philosophy and there isn't a clear cut consensus on this subject."
It's a better authority than you and that's all that matters to me. The only reason there isn't a "clear cut" consensus is because the psychologists have a different view. There is enough philosophical material to be clear cut enough though.
mungbeanman 2 months ago
@mungbeanman "There are two types of propositions......"
What was the point in writing that comment? It is saying that lets say there is a proposition that "God exists". IF god truly does exist, then the proposition is a fact. If god doesn't exist, or it is impossible for humans to know, then the proposition "God exists" is actually just a belief.
If one makes no proposition, but rather considers it plausible and wants more evidence, then one is not holding a fact or belief.....(cont.)
SpilkyWay 2 months ago
there are two branches of atheism
weak atheism is at this time you do not have enough evidence to convince you there is a god so you just choose to believe in atheism until more information comes.
strong atheism is where you say there is NO possible way there is a god (IMPOSSIBLE)
Im a weak go weaklings yah
i hate when people say you should prove religion WRONG
religious people should have to prove themselves RIGHT
flamingacdc1 2 months ago
@flamingacdc1,
There is only atheism.
Anyone saying that god is impossible has not expressed atheism.
Saying "I do not have enough evidence" is not talking about "I".
Atheism is the belief there is no god, which allows the possibility of a god. If you do not allow that possibility, you can't be said to be an atheist.
When you didn't exist you didn't have enough evidence, so saying so says zero about you or the atheist.
gklr 2 months ago
I don't think god exist, I also don't think god doesn't exist, but I know I've never seen any evidence of god, but I've also never seen any evidence god isn't there at all. What I can do though is look at the specifically defined god of specific religions and decide whether or not the source material makes sense or is credible. if it's nonsensical or not credible, it would be impossible for a god, as the book describes, to exist.
KevinLounsberry 3 months ago
@KevinLounsberry To further clarify how someone can not believe in something, but also no believe it does not exist at all. Newly discovered species. There are new species of animals and insects discovered on a regular basis. Ones which I doubt you've ever heard of. You don't think they're real, yes? because you've seen no evidence of them? But do you think they don't exist at all? What if I described one to you, and told you it's real, but provided no evidence of it?
KevinLounsberry 3 months ago
@KevinLounsberry,
Saying you do not believe something, says nothing about you. It says what you do not do, which is valid when you don't exist.
gklr 3 months ago
Religion-Bullshit, Atheism-Bullshit, God simply is whatever cannot be explained, IT is the force that drives everything, not a guy or deity of any kind, there are 100's of religions literally so they obviously couldn't all be true, they are that cultures vision of what god is its so clear how dumb r ppl? USE YOUR BRAIN, at least atheists claim they will change their mind in event a particular religion shows evidence! Religions say no matter what evidence comes their special story is correct
PillClinton19 5 months ago
Strong atheism tends to be 'Belief that there is no god'.
Weak atheism tends to be more of the 'rejection of the claim that there is a god'.
The difference is very minimal, but it matters when debating against theists.
ArgueExplain 5 months ago
@ArgueExplain ,
Mungbeanman killed "weak atheism" forever.
gklr 3 months ago
@MyPersonalFavourites I cannot claim god doesn't exist, only that I don't believe.
1992jamo 6 months ago
Great video!
TakesTwoToTango 6 months ago
@MyPersonalFavourites What I like and what I feel in my heart has no bearing on reality. :/
1992jamo 7 months ago
@MyPersonalFavourites .
What makes you believe that your existence has more value than that of a rat ??
tellnet 7 months ago
@MyPersonalFavourites "If we r really a product of chance (chemical scum as Dawkins says) then our life is not more wothy than rats- deep inside do u think this is true."
Some people find it disturbing to think life may have no greater meaning than what we choose to give it. Others, however, find it liberating to think we are the authors of their own destiny.
studentofsmith 7 months ago
@studentofsmith
"our life is not more wothy than rats"
= Absolutely true.
Why discriminate ? Surely rats have an equal right to their existence.
tellnet 7 months ago 2
@tellnet Objectively speaking you are correct. If we were act on this recognition, however, our species would go extinct just as hawks would go extinct should they recognize (and act upon) the idea that their prey has an equal right to exist. Human beings are in competition with both each other and other species for finite resources. Failing to 'put yourself first' is counter-evolutionary.
studentofsmith 7 months ago
@studentofsmith
Not objectivelly - absolutely.
Rats have an exactly equal right to life.
However, that does not determine one's ability to survive.
We are all animals.
We are all prepared to kill to survive.
C'est la vie.
You hardly thought that I said that because rats have an equal right to life that we have an obligation to protect THEIR lives. On the contrary.
tellnet 7 months ago
Well beliving is one way or the other is hard for long periods of time. And yet both camps spend soo much time on the subject. I think both sides needs to spend more time on finding out the truth about its existance or non existance than trying to convince the other side of their BELEIF
Jonzen77 7 months ago
@MyPersonalFavourites There are no signs of god, to suggest the heavens and earth is a sign of God is circular reasoning. Atheists don't suggest everything came from nothing, they suggest it's ridiculous to come to any conclusion at all.
1992jamo 8 months ago
What?!!!
canbuyu 8 months ago
LOL, this comment section is gold. I love how they all think you're telling them what they believe, so they insult you and leave. HILARIOUS!
You, along with gklr, have some serious stamina.
todocambiara2 8 months ago
@todocambiara2
Haha, thanks.
mungbeanman 8 months ago
@todocambiara2 It's a comments section, how can you tell whos left? If someone replies to one of my comments I get a notification I can check on any time I'm signed in to youtube.
KevinLounsberry 3 months ago
@KevinLounsberry Awesome dude!!!
what?
todocambiara2 3 months ago
@todocambiara2 I'm saying that you can't really say someone has "left" a youtube comments section, because you can't tell when they're online or find out if they're coming back, and they don't have to check back on the video's comments in order to tell if someone's replied.
KevinLounsberry 3 months ago
@KevinLounsberry True, i guess. But lurking isn't really anything to note. For those still active, they may as well not be here.
todocambiara2 3 months ago
@KeilanAnaris
Logic isn't about having fun, it's about understanding the world. You lack this logic which is why you have to resort to your emotions to try and settle an argument and why you think that holes don't exist.
I genuinely feel pity for you. There are those who don't even have the oppurtunity to learn logic and then there are those, like you, who squander it. Sad.
mungbeanman 8 months ago
@KeilanAnaris
You're trolling because you keep coming back despite saying that you were done several comments ago with a vile attitude that I will not stand for. There is a disclaimer about trolling on my channel (which you now get a mention in, haha) and why it will not be tolerated. And I couldn't care less if you think I'm lying or not because you are my intellectual inferior and a sad, sad individual who's opinion means nothing to me.
mungbeanman 8 months ago
Mungbeanman, has anyone told you that you sound like Steve Punt?
drumrnva 8 months ago
@drumrnva
Haha, no. But thanks, I guess. There are far worse people to be compared with.
mungbeanman 8 months ago
what the heck, this was recommended to me? not only does this video inaccurately represent both theism and atheism but it completely ignores any and all epistemological (god i hope that is spelled right) standpoints such as agnostic and gnostic. of course i am sure that this has been gone over already but i am slightly peeved that this argument is constantly brought up seeing how it is up to the individual to define the way they belief and not have others say how they think it is.
NihilistMonk 9 months ago