Great video. I happen to be of the opinion that the notion of atheism as a "lack of belief" arose around the concept of atheism as disbelief, as in the Oxford Dictionary. According to the Collins English dictionary and Merrian-Webster, disbelief is doubt, and doubt is a lack of belief. However, doubt is not relevant to a position of agnosticism, it is neither faith nor disbelief in the existence of gods.
@Bourtini Any dictionary defining atheism as disbelief, doubt, or "do not believe" apparently refer to "lack of belief" when you can see doubt, disbelief and/ or "lack of belief" maintaining equal usage in whatever phrasing. I do not understand "lack of belief", though, but I do see some dictionaries addressing atheism in this manner.
@Bourtini Ok, I think I have an idea now of "lack of belief", the misconception is that is it has to do with anyone that holds no active belief in theism, I assume. Lack = not, not believing = doubt = disbelief. So, atheism would be both a disbelief in the existence of a god and belief that a god does not exist, describing weak and positive atheism. Agnosticism and atheism are remaining exclusive.
Atheism is the opposite of religion. It's the lack of religious beliefs. Religion is a practice, atheism is the principle of not practicing or believing religious ideologies. Agnostic is kind of the same in that respect but its basically, depending if you're agnostic theist, or agnostic atheists, one tending to side with the belief or disbelief but still keeping an open mind to the other end of the spectrum. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of god or any other deity.
I think most Atheists balk at your definition of Atheist mainly when it used by Theists to claim supposedly that Atheism is some sort of religion, which is totally bogus.
its simple agnostycizm Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. :-)
As defined in the Oxford dictionary, the term disbelieve or disbelief simply means "lack of belief in", the middle ground are defined as atheists since they lack belief in a god.
In more sophisticated understanding, atheism is often qualified with weak or strong to make it clear if the person merely lacks belief, or if they make the positive assertion that god doesn't exist. Often these 2 positions are clarified as Agnostic Atheist (weak) and Gnostic Atheist (strong)
Without proof of the existence of god theists can hardly claim to be "godly." The word God is a word without any specific referent. To say one believes in an abstraction may serve a linguistic purpose but it has absolutely no meaning unless the referent can be established as fact. Theists are as much without God as atheists until they can establish the connection between the word God and the entity it supposedly refers to.
Atheist - "My God is science, and that's all there is. When I die, I become manure.
That's why I get to have hookers and kill people- becasue I know I won't be judged. Eat and drink, for tommorow we die!"
Agnostic- "I dont know... I'm brain dead... Duh..."
Theist- Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Let us worship the God of the earth and the heavens!... Praise God! When I die, I will have purpose in the afterlife- whether it's reincarnation or ressurection. I must be good so that I can be rewarded.
Atheist - "My God is science, and that's all there is. When I die, I become manure.
That's why I get to have hookers and kill people- becasue I know won't be judged. Eat and drink, for tommorow we die!"
Agnostic- "I dont know... I'm brain dead... Duh..."
Theist- Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Let us worship the God of the earth and the heavens!... Praise God! When I die, I will have purpose in the afterlife- whether it's reincarnation or ressurection. I must be good so that I can be rewarded.
13 seconds into it, and you already have it wrong. NOT everyone agrees that atheists "believe god does not exist", since that's not what atheism actually is. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.
It doesn't matter if someone "doesn't know"(agnostic) since that term is not mutually exclusive with either theism OR atheism.
Basically, if someone asks you if you believe in whatever god they're asking about, and you answer anything other than "yes", you're an atheist to that god.
atheism is not a lack of belief. people who are true free thinkers, people who aren't sure, and don't believe, don't like to be called atheist. atheism is the belief that we came from randomness. Thats is the core belief of atheism. There is also anti-theism, non-theism, etc. Atheism is an ego rush, thats all.
This video is dead on, and very humble. I'm going to England to study soon. I'm black, and for the most part, a Christian. I'm probably going to get into quite a few fights.
@VegasSkateCulture Whether they "like" to be called something is pretty much irrelevant. Theism is a "belief in a god or gods", atheism is a "lack of belief in a god or gods".
"Non-theists" and "anti-theists" are both simply subsets of "atheism". As I said in the post you replied to, agnosticism and gnosticism are not mutually exclusive with theism and atheism. You can be "not sure", and so agnostic, but you either believe, or you don't.
@VegasSkateCulture I'm also not sure where you got the idea from, but atheism is *not* the belief that "we came from randomness".
If you mean evolution, there's no requirement of acceptance of evolution for atheism, and just because you think evolution is true doesn't mean you *are* an atheist.
@VegasSkateCulture And again, atheism has nothing at all to do with anything other than not believing in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with evolution, abiogenesis, or big bang cosmology.
The fact that you are trying to add other attributes to it that have nothing to do with it shows you don't really know what atheism is.
@VegasSkateCulture no, athiests believe tht it just happening has a better chance of happening than an invisible man in the sky who created us than abandoned us. im pretty sure that your outlook on life in the back of ur mind is. idk he might exist with no research whatsoever. there is less than a 1% chance of god existing. so yeaaahhhhhhh you are believing with no background
Most atheists acknowledge that if you want to be pedantic about the terms then technically all "atheists" are agnostics as you cannot prove that god does not exist. However atheist has become the generally accepted term for people who do not believe as agnostic has come to imply that you're sitting on the fence.
You've got the atheist/agnostic bit back to front. And the Oxford dictionary clearly says disbelief i.e. lack of belief. then you claim it doesn't.
Great job on explaining this huge misconception! I have argued with too many Atheists about this and sadly some say they learned it in Philosophy class! The main reason Atheists do like to use it is so that they put the burden of proof on theists. I disagree with you regarding who has the burden of proof. While I support your argument that you shouldn't have to prove that pigs don't fly; however, how many people believe the contrary? There is no need to disprove something no one believes in!
Wow... what a waste of almost 10 minutes of my life. What is the point here? That atheists are different from people who "don't know" about god (we call those agnostics). Honestly though, that was the most cyclic argument I've ever heard.
If you really want me to explain to you what I think you are wrong about in this video and why, I could do so in a message and we could discuss it. I can't do it within the comment character limit. I'll wait on your confirmation though because I'm not going to bother writing you a message you don't intend to read. Fortunately for me, at the moment I do have other things I would rather be doing.
@Mozza314 Umm dude, your #1 point is incorrect. The Greek "a" means without, theos means god, and ism means belief thus Atheism= Without belief of god. In fact Socrates was condemned to death for being an atheist. If you look in a lot of ENGLISH dictionaries or even on Google, then yes they will say "Belief that there is not god", however, this is just a play on words.
@Mozza314 It's pretty obvious actually! Nobody can prove or disprove if god exists. Theist say they believe ( which has nothing to do with knowledge), the rest are just more honest and say they don't know and ( considering the fact that there are no evidences supporting the belief) they simply don't believe it's true. Knowledge and belief are not comparable.
Most atheists I know prefer the obvious definition of "lack of belief in god or gods" because it includes both those who strongly believe there is no god, as well as those who simply lack a belief. The correct way to make a distinction is to divide them into strong and weak atheists. It's obvious, even to a child, that a person who does not believe in any of the supernatural is an atheist.
A large majority of the authors of these definitions can be presumed to be Christians since a very large majority of the the peoples in their respective countries of origin are christian. Not proof but certainly supporting evidence.
Motive: For approximately 2000 years christians have discriminated against nonbelievers, as well as people of other faiths. Facts that speak for themselves.
What do you think motivated them to torture, burn, and murder atheists?
2. Oxford Dictionary cites disbelief, which is defined as: refusal or reluctance to believe. Reluctance to believe can also mean a lack of belief due to insufficient evidence.
actually the oxford dictionary supports the idea that atheism is also the disbelief in a god aswell as the belief that there is no god. there is a difference. besides, what matters is the word and the way that the ppl that use the word to descirbe themselves choose to. if u look at the history, the word is simply to describe ppl without the gods. ppl that were "godless" in the eyes of the greeks i believe. the word theos meaning god and the word a-theos meaning without god.
@keggerous i should also clear things up when i say that being without god is the sam as being undecided aswell as being certain about the unexistence of a god. the two are seperated by the terms positive and negative atheism.
Wrong! The correct definition is: lack of belief in god or gods. By your dumb definition, a person who simply lacks belief in god is not an atheist. So what is he then? I personally don't give a fuck what the old dictionaries say. The old definition, which you for some bizarre reason are defending, is slowly but surely disappearing. And, by the way, a group does have the right to define their own beliefs, much to the chagrin of religious freaks.
I prefer Infidel. The word atheist was selected to terrorize the flock, he is missing something, he has no god, the meaning is still the same, person missing god.
Various american preachers use their own intepretation acording to the inteligence of their followers.
Don't think like a christian, you don't ask for proof on a negative.
When I say there is no god I don't have to prove it because it is a negative,
Only a believer can prove me wrong by pulling god out of his hat.
@Evolvedprimate. So the burden of proof is on the Theist or god to show his or herself exist. interesting idea. i'm not sure I am thinking like a christian but it is difficult not a little because of all those years of bible study & catholic school. I am skeptical. an example I will make is view on Bigfoot. Although Bigfoot existing is unlikly, still cannot entirly rule it out despite never having a corpes of one ever, seeing one in person, closeup picture or having a conversation with one.
You Cannot Prove the existence of God using logic,emprical or physical evidence. Kierkegaard,St Augustine & St Thomas Aquinas tried. St Thomas tried using Aristotal's idea of Causality &The 5 Ways as proof. Had wholes in logical proof. He preassumes existence of God in. He states, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same." God exists because he must exist. St Augustine tried but at least beileved in not taking bible literally.
Faith is the confident beleif in something in absence of logical proof or physical evidence. Its a much better term for religion than belief since belief usually implies something is true based on some reason or data. The "we dont know" group is obviously AGNOSTIC. They believe the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. God Could exist or God may not exist. Therefore have no faith due to lack of logical proof either way.
Just Like U cannot prove existence of God also Cannot Prove God Does not exist using logic, reason, empirical or physical proof. many moden intellectuals are atheists & again many have tried like Friedrich Nietzche to desprove existence of God but have failed. Science Logic and reason may state the existence of God is unlikly but cannot dispove entirly. science has been wrong based on new ideas. Bumble bees should not be able to fly based on all we know of physics. It still flys known the less.
The "we dont know" group is OBVIOUSLY AGNOSTIC. Atheist believe there is no god or dont believe their is an existance of a God. Better term is No faith in God's existence. Is there even a debate. Yes, most people in the Theist group believe all people that dont belive in God or are in doubt are Godless. some extreme religious groups even go as far as beleve they are the only ones that worship God while all other religious groups are Godless. I think it should be Theist Have 'Faith' in God.
The dictionary which might be affiliated with some religious organization is wrong, atheist doesn't mean a person that doesn't believe there is a god, atheist means a person without god.
It comes from the Greek "Αθεος" where A means without and θεος means god, Α-θεος.
If you call yourself an atheist you are admitting #1 the existence of a god, (the one you are without), and #2 you are denying him, her, it, so you are an enemy of the believers around you.
@Evolvedprimate that is one interpretation. Maybe one type of Atheist. But like many words, have many meanings. I prefer 'Without Belief in God or the existence of God'. its all semantics over subtle implied meanings or word derivations. Ether way, if a person says they are an atheist may just have to just ask them what type. 1-believe God exists& are against him 2-God exist& does not care about humans but just exists like the Sun neither good nor bad 3-God does not exists at all.
you are wrong. if someone says they do not know, it is a gnostic answer. you have to ask them if they BELIEVE in god. their answer can not be i don't know. the dichotomy is belief no belief. so if someone says they don't know, they are agnostic, they would then have to answer the what their belief is, which is a yes or no question.
Why is anybody pretending there is some kind of legitimate debate here? It is very simply that theists can't deal with the concept of someone just not believing. You can't attack an absence of belief.
So they fabricate this idea that atheism is some kind of religion or cult that CAN be attacked. That's the only reason for all this equivocation: so they can attack something.
Yeah, sure, who PM'd me: use only the b. definition in Webster after I already gave both.
As an agnostic, I do consider agnosticism as a "middle ground" or "third way" between theism (belief in the existence of a God) and atheism (belief in the non-existence of a God).
Those obscure dictionaries (not counting Oxford) are all you had available? Ever heard of the Internet? Online Webster's:
"2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
Free Online Dictionary:
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
Notice two connotations. So you avoided any dictionary which did not include the connotation of *absence* of belief. Even Oxford is ambiguous in this sense: "Disbelief"?
technically, everyone is agnostic. gnosticism means knowledge. you can be an agnostic atheist or theist. or a gnostic one (claiming to KNOW that god does or does not exist)
Richard Dawkins has I think 7 different ranks of Atheism, 7 means you are absolutely sure that there is no god.
Richard Dawkins has said himself that he is a 6.9
Not because he is doubting all that he stands for but rather that we can't dismiss god as the ultimate cause for everything.
Agnostic has a different meaning to people, Some say it means that they don't give a shit, other say that it's unknowable, other are on the fence and other think their may be a third alternative.
I am not an atheist as I do not believe god does not exist. I just don't believe he exists. The presense of belief makes Theists feel comfortable in the sense that well, atheists need to have a belief to disbelieve God, because he means too much for an atheist to be in standard position and disbelieve him, not believing in God requires a new established position, with belief - To make theists feel more neutral.
Nope. Atheism is based on what you believe and agnosticism is based on what you know. If you think that you do not KNOW if there is a god, that makes you agnostic, but it does not answer the question of whether you actually believe in one or not. That is where theism and atheism come in. If you are not theist, you are automatically atheist. Atheism simply means lack of belief in god, that you are not a theist. Not denying god, not believing there is no god, just lack of belief.
The people that say "I don't know" are agnostics, but an agnostic must be either a theist, a deist, or an atheist. You can still say you have a belief about something even if you aren't sure it is true. You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic deist, or you can be an agnostic atheist.
your deluded. Logic is a natural part of our brain, we can't function with out it.
Atheist are people who misuse the term logic; you damn atheist are the same type of people who would kill ion the name of God, and now your on the other side, with the same hate. Your all fucking rats in a maze.
On to #8. It's an implied straw man. Just because "all atheists lack belief in god" doesn't show that "everyone who lacks belief in god is an atheist," this DOESN'T mean that therefor "everyone who lacks belief in god is an atheist" is always a wrong assertion. You simply picked a rather weak premise so that the straw-logic conclusion would go up in flames.
It is because its saying all atheists lack believe in god and that is why they are called atheists. If p = q and q = r then p = r. And since you brought it up, stop attacking the straw-man by calling every statement a fallacy because that in itself makes for a fallacious argument.
The #5 is hilarious, he's like "don't most people want this? No. And until someone can show me a poll, that won't change." Ummm...why in the hell do you get to say "No" in the first place w/o the poll?
His #6 illustrates his blatant ignorance of what belief is. Take someone who's never even heard of God. By definition they don't believe in God. This does not mean that they believe There is No God. How can they believe there is no God if they don't even know what God means?
In #5, I was merely suggesting what a person should do if they wanted to argue this point. I could have left it out really.
As for #6, you simply haven't understood that part of the video. If they've never heard of God, then it is not true that they don't believe in God. My whole point about raising was to demonstrate what 'don't believe in X' really means. I even made a point of saying that not having a belief in X is a distinct case.
The author of this video makes the fallacy of appealing to the majority: "If most dictionaries state it THIS way, it must be true."
100 years ago, the definition for atheist was "someone who believes there is no God.....and is immoral." Hmmmm...so that must have made it true right? No.
"It is true that words are defined not by dictionaries, but by how they are used and what they are understood to mean."
What I did say was that dictionaries are reliable indicators of the meaning of words. Do you really think that's unreasonable?
Words are merely abstract concepts that we use, if 100 years ago people defined atheists in the way you describe, then that's what the word used to mean, and that's all there is to it.
I'll agree with you on being "reliable indicators" only because we seem to agree that the state of definitions are always in flux.
Key word there is indicator. So the majority of current dictionaries can give us an idication of what something means, but can't actually tell us for certain (practically, not absolute).
If you agree dictionaries are only indicators, why refer to them so heavily in your arguments?
This labeling dispute isn't really a dispute. You have theists, deists, agnostics, atheists/"non-theists". There are a few more labels to fill some of those gaps, but it's not really a subject of dispute anymore. Most of us know that "agnostic" is taken from the latin of "ag", meaning "not", and "gnostic" meaning "knowing". Be careful not to categorize people simply based on belief/non-belief in supernatural deities. For example not all atheists, outside of their atheism share similar beliefs.
I don't like the phrasing "We don't believe in god". It makes it seem on even ground with "We believe in god" by making it just another belief based on faith when it is in fact not. "We see no evidence for the existence of god" is more like it.
Right. It asserts that there is a god and we simply don't believe in it. In fact, like you said, there is no evidence, and that is why we don't believe. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. A rational person would approach anything requiring faith with skepticism.
I make it a point to always use god or gods instead of "God," because I won't pay credence to something that doesn't exist by respecting it with a capital letter. Believers may feel that it's disrespectful, and they would be correct. I don't respect the idea.
I appreciate the time you put into this video and will ignore the other opinions listed in the comments.
I use a very clear distinction between raised phrases. For me, there is a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there are no gods." The latter is a stronger statement of intent, especially using the inclusive, general noun "gods" rather than catering to one idea of a deity by using the proper noun "God."
What a waste of time, anticipating that you might eventually make a point beyond your tedious niceties of terminology. And besides, haven't you ever heard of agnostics??? Look, I can't rule out that there could be, however unlikely, some kind of supernatural being out there. But it's easy to prove, by sheer logic and contradiction, that the biblical God does not, can not, exist. Am I an "atheist"? Yes, for all practical purposes, but more precisely I'm an agnostic.
What??!! I just realized to day that there is a debate about the definition of atheism... This is ridiculous..
the phrase: there might not be a God, represents an agnostic belief
the phrase: there is no God, represents an atheist belief.
Even Winston Churchill (one of the best "atheist" representatives) admitted he is an agnostic but for practical reasons he will call himself an atheist.
This is why atheism is the default position of life.
The survey at 6:28 is completely pointless, just because you do not belong to a religion does not mean you're not a theist. And also the terms like "secularist" are not exclusive with terms like "atheist," or even theist...
I dunno about where you live, but here, saying something like "I don't think it's raining" is NOT the same as "I think it is not raining." And of course "I don't believe in god" is worlds different then "I believe there is no god."
Actually number 8 is true, if you lack a belief in any deities, you are an atheist. If you listen to many debates between theists and atheists, you'll see the definition they use of atheist is the lack of belief. This might be different from the term lay people use.
But, when it comes to my 'activity' as an atheist, speaking with apologists and other atheists, I'm not sure why we could care about a term that only people who are not involved in the issue use.
You read the god delusion right, Mozza? Not even he rates himself on the highest mark of his theist-atheist scale. He does not now for absolute certainty that deities do not exist. Go tell him he's not an atheist, it would be hilarious! :D
Agnostic indecision as to whether there is a god or not.
And in modern society it depends if your parents are religious or not. In a religious family, your 'default position' is typically religious, and will most likely stay that way, until college. Whereas in most atheistic families the children are given the choice, but start out as atheist's.
Putting an "a" before the word denotes lack of when it comes to serious theism discussions.
You're completely misunderstanding. Go to the hospital, and find a new born baby. Look into that little baby's eyes. Does that baby believe a god exists? No, of course not, it would be stupid to think that. You, me, the pope and everyone else was born an atheist. It's the default position of life.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms, you can be both. Theism has to do with what a person believes, and gnosticism has to do with what you KNOW. This may help clear it up:
Ah, but you see: I don't believe in God (with a big G) means I believe there is no God, but it does not mean I believe there is NO DIVINITY OF ANY SORT.
This video is lame. Everyone knows that those who are unsure are agnostic. It's elementary. In fact most people are agnostic to some degree or another. Some lean towards non-belief while others tend to lean towards belief but shy away from organized religion for obvious reasons. There is no controversy here at all.
Also theism is belief in a deity so it would stand to reason that an atheist is the opposite. The whole argument is meaningless as everyone knows this already.
@SkullVodka incorrect. agnosticism is not the position of unsureness. gnosticism or agnosticism makes a statement on what we reckon we can know/prove. i can be an agnostic atheist - i don't believe in god but can't prove either way, a gnostic atheist - i don't believe in god and i reckon i can prove he doesn't exist, a gnostic theist - i believe in god and reckon i can prove he exist, or an agnostic theist - i believe in god but know i can't prove he exists
@SkullVodka No, that's wrong. Agnosticism is not an answer to the question "do you believe in god?" Agnosticism is a position on whether it is possible to know anything (for the purposes of this it is a position on whether it is possible to know whether a god exists). Atheism is an answer to a question of faith, agnosticism is an answer to a question of knowledge.
The most that write themselves off as agnostics are generally unaware of what the term actually means in relation to knowledge and belief. It is on an independent axis from theism/atheism.
So yes, that means that you can be an Gnostic/Agnostic Theist/Atheist.
The most who write themselves off as solely agnostic are usually trying to jump the social clique bandwagon and profess a self-proclaimed intellectual elitism.
that means they neither claim there is or is not a deity. they more or less follow the same principles of Atheistic people because they are not subject to Fundamentalist craziness and don`t particularly feel threatened by the scientific method. agnostics simply do not conjecture that there is or is not deities.
It is derived from French atheisme = "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"
The terms implicit/explicit atheism and negative atheism/positive atheism have been around a very long time (ssince the 1700's). The more common usage now days is strong/weak atheism. Those that say God does not exist are strong atheist, those that merely lack the belief in god are weak atheists.
I don't know much about linguistics, but my dictionary (Macquarie Dictionary) gives this derivation of 'atheism' - "[Gk atheos without a god + -ISM]", so I don't know where you're getting your information from, perhaps both the French and English words have this origin, or the English word comes from the French word, but the French word comes from the Greek derivation...?
Anyway, I sort of concede that popular usage is changing the meaning of 'atheism'.
Yeah..the french term did come from the latin term. Keep in mind that "without a god belief" is different than "godless belief". One is claiming a lack of belief in god, the other is claiming a belief in godlessness. theos = god, theism = god belief, a = without, athoes = without god, atheism = without god belief.
Yes...i saw that part. That is the part I am claiming is wrong (regarding your atheos part). It is "atheos" meaning "without god". It is "theos" meaning "god". It is theism meaning "god belief" (the statement is no longer about god but entirely about belief). It is atheism because it is "without god belief" (again, the statement is not about "without god or godlessness, but rather without belief). You are incorrect on the order.
When a word is extended with a prefix/suffix, to interpret the new word, we do not break down the word into its components and read out the new component with the old components. Because 'atheism' was formed by adding '-ism' to 'atheos', 'atheism' means a belief in atheos. You would be correct if 'atheism' was formed by adding 'a-' to 'theism', but that's not how the word was formed.
You do not seem to get it. It doesn't matter if -ism was added last it still converts it from "without god" to "without god belief", the belief part being attached to god part. Both theos and atheos existed prior to the -ism addition. If you are saying they needed to take away the "a" from atheos, add the -ism, and THEN put the "a" back afterward, ...that is just silly. It is obvious they meant it as the inverse of theism.
me: we do not break down the word into its components and read out the new component with the old components
you: converts it from "without god" to "without god belief"
It's not just silly. I do not know the history, but according to all the dictionaries I've seen, 'atheism' is an extension of 'atheos', NOT 'theism'. Such dictionaries also support that the meaning of the word is consistent with this origin. The '-ism' suffix, is attached to atheos, not the god component of atheos.
Yes...and I am saying that is because "atheos" already existed prior to the -ism of theism, so naturally the ism will be attached to atheos and not theism and then add the a back in. To me it is obvious that the a stands out as without whatever follows, because that is its original intent with "atheos". If we were to say "dog", then "without dog", if we add "pooping" later, it would mean (without)+(dog pooping) NOT a (without dog)(pooping). :)
Yes of course '-ism' is attached to 'atheos', but that is why 'atheism' means a belief in the non-existence of god. It is why the 'a-' applies to 'theos', and not to 'theism'. In your example, I don't see why you think the result would be (without)(dog pooping). How is it that 'pooping' specifically becomes attached to 'dog' rather than 'without dog'?
Because the "a" assumes without anything that follows it, regardless if those items are added later, and ism is attached to theos just as pooping is attached to dog, reagerdless is the without is already before it or not.
My understanding is that once words are formed, they are complete, inseparable words, like a black box. As such, they can change over time, just as 'atheism' is, admittedly, changing as more people jump on the bandwagon of atheism not being a belief. And so because of this, if the origin is to have any bearing on our understanding, what follows 'a-' in 'atheism' is 'theos' because that's how it was originally attached.
actually, no. that's not correct. both atheism and theism are derived from the greek root THEOS. the "a" which was added to theism is taken from another greek root "a-" which is the alpha privative. basically, stick an alpha on the front of a word and you get a partial or total negation of the root of which the alpha is a prefix. there is no root "atheos" though. if anything, the way the etymology was constructed was a + theos + ism. not atheos + ism.
and further, as an actual example of how the greeks used the alpha primitive (and i will probably slaughter the romanization of this word, but oh well) take the word "kindynos," meaning danger. if you attach the alpha to the front, you get akindynos. Akyndynos is and adjective meaning without danger. It doesn't mean an absolute assertion that there is no danger. As theism is a belief in a god, atheism therefore refers to one without belief in a god.
Obviously both words originally came from theos, as atheos is a+theos. This is already established. Do you have a source that can back up what you're saying? If you could look over the conversation again and get back to me that would be great.
I'm a Classics major and I'm actually studying the ancient Greek language. if you'd like a better source, i highly recommend taking elementary greek yourself. but the point isnt just that the root isn't atheos. its that if you stick an alpha in front of a word, its not always a total negation, and that's why saying an atheist must be one who believes there is no god is an incorrect statement. it is true that an atheist MAY believe there is no god, but an atheist IS one without belief in a god.
because it's a lazy man's way of saying "a + theos."
When I say "partial negation," I don't know that it's a technical term. Try this example though: Moral versus amoral versus immoral. Amoral doesn't mean acting with morals in complete opposition to "moral." it means not acting morally nor acting immorally. The point is that it doesn't provide an absolute opposite. It's a rejection of "moral." It isn't an automatic institution of counter-morality (or immorality).
Atheists believe that there is no God in the religious sense as in "god is a man in the sky", that doesn't mean they dont subscribe to the concept of god, which is what god really is, a concept that has not been fully realised, a metaphysical concept we are only beginning to understand.
Nice sarcasm there! Ever heard of the character Greg House? You should watch House, you'd like him.
Seriously though, if you rolled a pair of dice and said the outcome was the result of physics and I said it was actually the invisible pink unicorn who determined the outcome, you should require evidence for my claim before you gave it a second thought.
Also, your bubbble over the "atheists" is inaccurate; it fits agnostics more than atheists because agnostics admit that they don't know while you atheists insist that God's inexistence is an absolute fact, which is what makes you ATHEISTS.
Could you be more specific about this 'bubble'? I'm on a connection at the moment without the downloads to be watching videos.
Also, saying we claim it is an 'absolute fact' is a bit rough, wouldn't this be equivalent to claiming it is a certainty? This would be different from 'belief'.
I find people who define themselves as atheists and theists both intellectually disabled. If you truly dont beleive in god/s then why define yourself as an atheist or as the opposite of someone who does. This makes no sense. Would you define yourself as a round earther simply because some poeple thought the world was flat? I think not. You simply dismiss these people as wrong and continue with life. To define ones existence in that way makes no reasonable sense.
It's not like I greet people with "Hello, I'm an atheist."
I don't understand what you mean by a person defining themselves as an atheist/theist, do you mean *identify* themselves as an atheist/theist?
I would also call myself a round earther, it's only that being otherwise is so exceedingly rare that it's not important to do so. This is not the case with being an atheist though.
One day identifying as an atheist may be analogous to identifying as a round earther, but that's not today.
What was the point of that? What are you babbling on for?? Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist/Spiritualists all have no belief in God(or cannot disprove God). So that does not make them all Atheists.
Their is no middle ground. A weak atheist is an Agnostic Atheist and a Strong atheist is a gnostic Atheist. And you got your agnostic christians and gnostic christians. You have subsets of atheism. humanism, brights, apatheists, even sorts of pantheists.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god until it's proven with evidence and this does not mean bringing up the so-called evidence that god created rivers and that's how we know god is real.
Agnostics are the ones that believe that there is no god or supernatural being what so ever.
just another video trying to find excuses why not to be considered an atheist, as though it's such a bad thing. lack of belief, belief it doesn't exist, etc. atheism. doesn't matter what the dictionary says. an agnostic is an atheist in so far as they don't promote the idea that they believe god doesn't exist. an atheist can be agnostic about the existence of god. the difference is knowing and believing. they're nested concepts, not lateral groupings.
oh well, my point after the first sentence still stands. one doesn't simply have to be either an atheist or an agnostic, one can be both at the same time, in fact i would think most are...trying to come up with defining lines between the terms only initiates stigmas and makes people waste time on something that doesn't matter.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'nested concepts' and 'lateral groupings'. I have no problems with the possibility of someone being an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
I also think the definition of the word 'atheism' is pretty unimportant, it is just a word after all. What matters is the position people actually take, whether or not they call themselves atheists. As such I don't push this definition of 'atheism', and simply call anyone who identifies as an atheist, an atheist.
nested concept: concepts that are within each other or go hand in hand, or coexisting. lateral grouping: separate but on the same level, such as a title, then grouped as such. a burger flipper is not an airline pilot. both job titles but separate jobs.
I find it hilarious you think the def. is moot yet you made this excessively long video about just that.
Your argument about only apply the label to those who identify with it is like saying dont call a duck a duck because it rhymes with fuck.
What I'm saying in that last sentence is...if the duck doesn't like the word duck (because it rhymes with fuck), yet, it is a duck, don't call it one because it doesn't like the term.
Boo hoo.
You don't like atheist because it reminds you of some type of hardcore stigmatized bullshit that you don't want to be a part of. yet, you are an atheist if you don't believe in god. agnostics and atheists think they are mutually exclusive from each other. it only raises infighting amongst irreligious.
Like I said before, I don't have anything against the word 'atheist' and that is why I said I'm proud to call myself one. My point about calling someone an atheist who identifies as such is not creating tension through exclusion on the basis of a part of language. It does not change whether or not I think they are actually an atheist or not.
Great video. I happen to be of the opinion that the notion of atheism as a "lack of belief" arose around the concept of atheism as disbelief, as in the Oxford Dictionary. According to the Collins English dictionary and Merrian-Webster, disbelief is doubt, and doubt is a lack of belief. However, doubt is not relevant to a position of agnosticism, it is neither faith nor disbelief in the existence of gods.
Bourtini 1 month ago
@Bourtini Any dictionary defining atheism as disbelief, doubt, or "do not believe" apparently refer to "lack of belief" when you can see doubt, disbelief and/ or "lack of belief" maintaining equal usage in whatever phrasing. I do not understand "lack of belief", though, but I do see some dictionaries addressing atheism in this manner.
Bourtini 1 month ago
@Bourtini Ok, I think I have an idea now of "lack of belief", the misconception is that is it has to do with anyone that holds no active belief in theism, I assume. Lack = not, not believing = doubt = disbelief. So, atheism would be both a disbelief in the existence of a god and belief that a god does not exist, describing weak and positive atheism. Agnosticism and atheism are remaining exclusive.
Bourtini 1 month ago
Atheism is the opposite of religion. It's the lack of religious beliefs. Religion is a practice, atheism is the principle of not practicing or believing religious ideologies. Agnostic is kind of the same in that respect but its basically, depending if you're agnostic theist, or agnostic atheists, one tending to side with the belief or disbelief but still keeping an open mind to the other end of the spectrum. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of god or any other deity.
andrewdrury1 1 month ago
I think most Atheists balk at your definition of Atheist mainly when it used by Theists to claim supposedly that Atheism is some sort of religion, which is totally bogus.
lessevdoolbretsim 2 months ago
its simple agnostycizm Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. :-)
TheMaqic79 2 months ago
When people make those claims it is called false dilemma. What belief do new born baybies have?
The truth is that you don't have to be theist, atheist or agnostic. You can be unsure, or simply not know.
Being agnsostic, atheist or theist is a claim to know.
It may sound silly but consider what socrates said: "I know that I know nothing"
Maybe he was not agnostic, but it is this claim that can make you agnostic.
I am "strong" agnostic as I believe it is unknowable to know if god exist
steverock85 2 months ago
"Everyone agrees these guys are theists."
(Example stick figures)"We believe in god!"
"Everyone believes these guys are atheists."
(Example stick figures)"We believe there is no god!"
Yes...but why did you leave weak atheism completely out of the picture?
BigLundi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is an atheist? Someone who has turned the sin of unbelief into a lifestyle.
mrtadreamer 4 months ago
As defined in the Oxford dictionary, the term disbelieve or disbelief simply means "lack of belief in", the middle ground are defined as atheists since they lack belief in a god.
In more sophisticated understanding, atheism is often qualified with weak or strong to make it clear if the person merely lacks belief, or if they make the positive assertion that god doesn't exist. Often these 2 positions are clarified as Agnostic Atheist (weak) and Gnostic Atheist (strong)
PCGamingStandards 7 months ago
lamer video, the word for people who don't care or "know" is AGNOSTIC
AGNOSTIC!!
idiots on the internets...
mmikoff 8 months ago
Without proof of the existence of god theists can hardly claim to be "godly." The word God is a word without any specific referent. To say one believes in an abstraction may serve a linguistic purpose but it has absolutely no meaning unless the referent can be established as fact. Theists are as much without God as atheists until they can establish the connection between the word God and the entity it supposedly refers to.
FikTixious 8 months ago
Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief.
KingSkullfuck 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch this You Tube Clip: The Top 10 Reasons Why the Bible is Repulsive
MagicTellaVision 9 months ago
To the question, "Does a god exist?", If you answer anything other than a positive answer, there is no god in your belief.
danielkyleh 11 months ago
I DONT KNOW!!!!!
HomeMediaProductions 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheist - "My God is science, and that's all there is. When I die, I become manure.
That's why I get to have hookers and kill people- becasue I know I won't be judged. Eat and drink, for tommorow we die!"
Agnostic- "I dont know... I'm brain dead... Duh..."
Theist- Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Let us worship the God of the earth and the heavens!... Praise God! When I die, I will have purpose in the afterlife- whether it's reincarnation or ressurection. I must be good so that I can be rewarded.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
Atheist - "My God is science, and that's all there is. When I die, I become manure.
That's why I get to have hookers and kill people- becasue I know won't be judged. Eat and drink, for tommorow we die!"
Agnostic- "I dont know... I'm brain dead... Duh..."
Theist- Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Let us worship the God of the earth and the heavens!... Praise God! When I die, I will have purpose in the afterlife- whether it's reincarnation or ressurection. I must be good so that I can be rewarded.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
Atheism and Theism are all religions. Agnosticism is not a religion. Christianity is the true religion by the way...
Nashhinton 1 year ago
agnostic - i dont care what exists/doesnt exist.
atheist - there is space, stars, planets and universe. nothing like a god
theist - eee owww eee owww
mohamadalikazi 1 year ago
You answerd the question in the 15 seconds.
TheRunningComedian 1 year ago
13 seconds into it, and you already have it wrong. NOT everyone agrees that atheists "believe god does not exist", since that's not what atheism actually is. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.
It doesn't matter if someone "doesn't know"(agnostic) since that term is not mutually exclusive with either theism OR atheism.
Basically, if someone asks you if you believe in whatever god they're asking about, and you answer anything other than "yes", you're an atheist to that god.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@Avicaris
atheism is not a lack of belief. people who are true free thinkers, people who aren't sure, and don't believe, don't like to be called atheist. atheism is the belief that we came from randomness. Thats is the core belief of atheism. There is also anti-theism, non-theism, etc. Atheism is an ego rush, thats all.
This video is dead on, and very humble. I'm going to England to study soon. I'm black, and for the most part, a Christian. I'm probably going to get into quite a few fights.
VegasSkateCulture 1 year ago
@VegasSkateCulture Whether they "like" to be called something is pretty much irrelevant. Theism is a "belief in a god or gods", atheism is a "lack of belief in a god or gods".
"Non-theists" and "anti-theists" are both simply subsets of "atheism". As I said in the post you replied to, agnosticism and gnosticism are not mutually exclusive with theism and atheism. You can be "not sure", and so agnostic, but you either believe, or you don't.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@VegasSkateCulture I'm also not sure where you got the idea from, but atheism is *not* the belief that "we came from randomness".
If you mean evolution, there's no requirement of acceptance of evolution for atheism, and just because you think evolution is true doesn't mean you *are* an atheist.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@Avicaris
It actually *is*. I believe in evolution, and am a theist. Most theist do.
I believe evolution is just the world way of acting out Gods manifestation, and animals are out by-product.
atheism is the belief that it all happed just 'cause. Just......because. Thats bullshit, and all atheist believe this in the back of their head.
VegasSkateCulture 1 year ago
@VegasSkateCulture And again, atheism has nothing at all to do with anything other than not believing in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with evolution, abiogenesis, or big bang cosmology.
The fact that you are trying to add other attributes to it that have nothing to do with it shows you don't really know what atheism is.
Avicaris 1 year ago
@VegasSkateCulture no, athiests believe tht it just happening has a better chance of happening than an invisible man in the sky who created us than abandoned us. im pretty sure that your outlook on life in the back of ur mind is. idk he might exist with no research whatsoever. there is less than a 1% chance of god existing. so yeaaahhhhhhh you are believing with no background
coheedFTMFW 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coheedFTMFW
"no, athiests believe tht it just happening has a better chance of happening than an invisible man in the sky who created us than abandoned us. "
theist don't believe that. We believe we are here for a divine reason. You believe we are all an accident. You guys are losers.
" there is less than a 1% chance of god existing. "
according to what?
there is a 1 in 5 million chance that there is no life after death.
VegasSkateCulture 1 year ago
Most atheists acknowledge that if you want to be pedantic about the terms then technically all "atheists" are agnostics as you cannot prove that god does not exist. However atheist has become the generally accepted term for people who do not believe as agnostic has come to imply that you're sitting on the fence.
You've got the atheist/agnostic bit back to front. And the Oxford dictionary clearly says disbelief i.e. lack of belief. then you claim it doesn't.
dweller26 1 year ago
Great job on explaining this huge misconception! I have argued with too many Atheists about this and sadly some say they learned it in Philosophy class! The main reason Atheists do like to use it is so that they put the burden of proof on theists. I disagree with you regarding who has the burden of proof. While I support your argument that you shouldn't have to prove that pigs don't fly; however, how many people believe the contrary? There is no need to disprove something no one believes in!
zigzagzoo12 1 year ago
also "I think it's not raining" it's different from "i don't think it's raining". basically you don't understand what raising is
Beldinc 1 year ago
"we believe that god does not exist". False. atheists says "we don't believe that god exist". big difference
Beldinc 1 year ago
Wow... what a waste of almost 10 minutes of my life. What is the point here? That atheists are different from people who "don't know" about god (we call those agnostics). Honestly though, that was the most cyclic argument I've ever heard.
adepressedlife 1 year ago
Sigh. Go take a formal logic unit.
moyga 1 year ago
@moyga Could you point out a logical error here? I bet you can't.
Mozza314 1 year ago 4
@Mozza314
If you really want me to explain to you what I think you are wrong about in this video and why, I could do so in a message and we could discuss it. I can't do it within the comment character limit. I'll wait on your confirmation though because I'm not going to bother writing you a message you don't intend to read. Fortunately for me, at the moment I do have other things I would rather be doing.
moyga 1 year ago
@Mozza314 Umm dude, your #1 point is incorrect. The Greek "a" means without, theos means god, and ism means belief thus Atheism= Without belief of god. In fact Socrates was condemned to death for being an atheist. If you look in a lot of ENGLISH dictionaries or even on Google, then yes they will say "Belief that there is not god", however, this is just a play on words.
shadywolf91 1 year ago
@Mozza314 It's pretty obvious actually! Nobody can prove or disprove if god exists. Theist say they believe ( which has nothing to do with knowledge), the rest are just more honest and say they don't know and ( considering the fact that there are no evidences supporting the belief) they simply don't believe it's true. Knowledge and belief are not comparable.
muhomorkaTa1Ha13OP 6 months ago
ty for the vocabulary lesson :)
MirageScience 1 year ago
Atheist is a design word, atheism is a religious term, atheist comes from the Greek “A” without, and “Theos” god, (Άθεος)
Atheos is a man without god; his counterpart is a slave of god. (Δούλος θεού)
Atheos is a design word; it was designed to tell the believers you have something your counterpart lucks, so you are better, not smarter but better.
Because it is a religious term I do not use it, EVER, I’m not an atheist, and I’m liberated.
Evolvedprimate 1 year ago
Most atheists I know prefer the obvious definition of "lack of belief in god or gods" because it includes both those who strongly believe there is no god, as well as those who simply lack a belief. The correct way to make a distinction is to divide them into strong and weak atheists. It's obvious, even to a child, that a person who does not believe in any of the supernatural is an atheist.
ekorre33 1 year ago
A large majority of the authors of these definitions can be presumed to be Christians since a very large majority of the the peoples in their respective countries of origin are christian. Not proof but certainly supporting evidence.
ekorre33 1 year ago
Motive: For approximately 2000 years christians have discriminated against nonbelievers, as well as people of other faiths. Facts that speak for themselves.
What do you think motivated them to torture, burn, and murder atheists?
ekorre33 1 year ago
1. MacGuarie's definition is wrong
2. Oxford Dictionary cites disbelief, which is defined as: refusal or reluctance to believe. Reluctance to believe can also mean a lack of belief due to insufficient evidence.
3. Collins Australian Gem Dict. is wrong
ekorre33 1 year ago
actually the oxford dictionary supports the idea that atheism is also the disbelief in a god aswell as the belief that there is no god. there is a difference. besides, what matters is the word and the way that the ppl that use the word to descirbe themselves choose to. if u look at the history, the word is simply to describe ppl without the gods. ppl that were "godless" in the eyes of the greeks i believe. the word theos meaning god and the word a-theos meaning without god.
keggerous 1 year ago
@keggerous i should also clear things up when i say that being without god is the sam as being undecided aswell as being certain about the unexistence of a god. the two are seperated by the terms positive and negative atheism.
keggerous 1 year ago
Disbelief in a god is atheism.
HimmiJoe 1 year ago
Wrong! The correct definition is: lack of belief in god or gods. By your dumb definition, a person who simply lacks belief in god is not an atheist. So what is he then? I personally don't give a fuck what the old dictionaries say. The old definition, which you for some bizarre reason are defending, is slowly but surely disappearing. And, by the way, a group does have the right to define their own beliefs, much to the chagrin of religious freaks.
ekorre33 1 year ago
nicholaspnys
The idea that you don't have to prove a negative is not a theory it is a fact.
I claim there is no gagaraga something you never heard before.
I said there "is no" what is the reasoning for asking me to prove there is no gagaraga?
Who I sat fault here, me that I can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist or the person who is asking me to prove it.
BTW there is no bible study and if there is did you study do they study war, rape, genocide and so on?
Evolvedprimate 2 years ago
nicholaspnys.
I prefer Infidel. The word atheist was selected to terrorize the flock, he is missing something, he has no god, the meaning is still the same, person missing god.
Various american preachers use their own intepretation acording to the inteligence of their followers.
Don't think like a christian, you don't ask for proof on a negative.
When I say there is no god I don't have to prove it because it is a negative,
Only a believer can prove me wrong by pulling god out of his hat.
Evolvedprimate 2 years ago
@Evolvedprimate. So the burden of proof is on the Theist or god to show his or herself exist. interesting idea. i'm not sure I am thinking like a christian but it is difficult not a little because of all those years of bible study & catholic school. I am skeptical. an example I will make is view on Bigfoot. Although Bigfoot existing is unlikly, still cannot entirly rule it out despite never having a corpes of one ever, seeing one in person, closeup picture or having a conversation with one.
nicholaspnys 2 years ago
You Cannot Prove the existence of God using logic,emprical or physical evidence. Kierkegaard,St Augustine & St Thomas Aquinas tried. St Thomas tried using Aristotal's idea of Causality &The 5 Ways as proof. Had wholes in logical proof. He preassumes existence of God in. He states, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same." God exists because he must exist. St Augustine tried but at least beileved in not taking bible literally.
nicholaspnys 2 years ago
Faith is the confident beleif in something in absence of logical proof or physical evidence. Its a much better term for religion than belief since belief usually implies something is true based on some reason or data. The "we dont know" group is obviously AGNOSTIC. They believe the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. God Could exist or God may not exist. Therefore have no faith due to lack of logical proof either way.
nicholaspnys 2 years ago
Just Like U cannot prove existence of God also Cannot Prove God Does not exist using logic, reason, empirical or physical proof. many moden intellectuals are atheists & again many have tried like Friedrich Nietzche to desprove existence of God but have failed. Science Logic and reason may state the existence of God is unlikly but cannot dispove entirly. science has been wrong based on new ideas. Bumble bees should not be able to fly based on all we know of physics. It still flys known the less.
nicholaspnys 2 years ago
The "we dont know" group is OBVIOUSLY AGNOSTIC. Atheist believe there is no god or dont believe their is an existance of a God. Better term is No faith in God's existence. Is there even a debate. Yes, most people in the Theist group believe all people that dont belive in God or are in doubt are Godless. some extreme religious groups even go as far as beleve they are the only ones that worship God while all other religious groups are Godless. I think it should be Theist Have 'Faith' in God.
nicholaspnys 2 years ago
The dictionary which might be affiliated with some religious organization is wrong, atheist doesn't mean a person that doesn't believe there is a god, atheist means a person without god.
It comes from the Greek "Αθεος" where A means without and θεος means god, Α-θεος.
If you call yourself an atheist you are admitting #1 the existence of a god, (the one you are without), and #2 you are denying him, her, it, so you are an enemy of the believers around you.
Evolvedprimate 2 years ago
@Evolvedprimate that is one interpretation. Maybe one type of Atheist. But like many words, have many meanings. I prefer 'Without Belief in God or the existence of God'. its all semantics over subtle implied meanings or word derivations. Ether way, if a person says they are an atheist may just have to just ask them what type. 1-believe God exists& are against him 2-God exist& does not care about humans but just exists like the Sun neither good nor bad 3-God does not exists at all.
nicholaspnys 2 years ago
ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF.
IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF.
Logic:
a (without)
theism (belief in god)
Atheism (Without Belief in god)
paimail21 2 years ago
you are wrong. if someone says they do not know, it is a gnostic answer. you have to ask them if they BELIEVE in god. their answer can not be i don't know. the dichotomy is belief no belief. so if someone says they don't know, they are agnostic, they would then have to answer the what their belief is, which is a yes or no question.
burgerboy06 2 years ago
Why is anybody pretending there is some kind of legitimate debate here? It is very simply that theists can't deal with the concept of someone just not believing. You can't attack an absence of belief.
So they fabricate this idea that atheism is some kind of religion or cult that CAN be attacked. That's the only reason for all this equivocation: so they can attack something.
Yeah, sure, who PM'd me: use only the b. definition in Webster after I already gave both.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Good video. Ive seen both thiests and athiests bend the meanings of the terms in order to get more people on their side by default.
Its kind of annoying for those like me who are legitimately neither athiest nor thiest.
Taraalcar 2 years ago
As an agnostic, I do consider agnosticism as a "middle ground" or "third way" between theism (belief in the existence of a God) and atheism (belief in the non-existence of a God).
AustralianAstronomer 2 years ago
Those obscure dictionaries (not counting Oxford) are all you had available? Ever heard of the Internet? Online Webster's:
"2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
Free Online Dictionary:
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
Notice two connotations. So you avoided any dictionary which did not include the connotation of *absence* of belief. Even Oxford is ambiguous in this sense: "Disbelief"?
It doesn't matter. There is no God.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Comment removed
AustralianAstronomer 2 years ago
This is an excellent video. i wish more people would watch it.
I am glad that there are level headed people who can actually comprehend what they read that post videos on youtube.
notaperson2012 2 years ago
are people that don't know not just called agnostic
MrJamesyboi121 2 years ago
technically, everyone is agnostic. gnosticism means knowledge. you can be an agnostic atheist or theist. or a gnostic one (claiming to KNOW that god does or does not exist)
xinlo 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins has I think 7 different ranks of Atheism, 7 means you are absolutely sure that there is no god.
Richard Dawkins has said himself that he is a 6.9
Not because he is doubting all that he stands for but rather that we can't dismiss god as the ultimate cause for everything.
Agnostic has a different meaning to people, Some say it means that they don't give a shit, other say that it's unknowable, other are on the fence and other think their may be a third alternative.
Peace.
NilsHolmer 2 years ago
I am not an atheist as I do not believe god does not exist. I just don't believe he exists. The presense of belief makes Theists feel comfortable in the sense that well, atheists need to have a belief to disbelieve God, because he means too much for an atheist to be in standard position and disbelieve him, not believing in God requires a new established position, with belief - To make theists feel more neutral.
laswap1 2 years ago
Atheist isn't neutral, unless it's agnostic atheism. Even if you were an Agnostic Atheist, most Theists are Agnostic Theists.
ogirv101 2 years ago
I think agnostics are people who believe that they can't prove or disprove the existence of gods so are open to either sides
atheists are people who believe 100% that there is no god
MedaX 2 years ago
Nope. Atheism is based on what you believe and agnosticism is based on what you know. If you think that you do not KNOW if there is a god, that makes you agnostic, but it does not answer the question of whether you actually believe in one or not. That is where theism and atheism come in. If you are not theist, you are automatically atheist. Atheism simply means lack of belief in god, that you are not a theist. Not denying god, not believing there is no god, just lack of belief.
DbzmasterdbzNecross 2 years ago
The people that say "I don't know" are agnostics, but an agnostic must be either a theist, a deist, or an atheist. You can still say you have a belief about something even if you aren't sure it is true. You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic deist, or you can be an agnostic atheist.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
It's pretty simple:
All atheists lack belief in god.
All theists lack belief in logic.
pilleyuppo23 2 years ago 34
It's illogical to believe in God. It's also illogical to smoke a pack a day, but it makes you feel good and that's why people do it.
stalefish180 2 years ago
Why? It's illogical to make a claim and not back it up by proving it.
ogirv101 2 years ago
@pilleyuppo23 why so rude?
specialedd13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pilleyuppo23 why so rude?
specialedd13 1 year ago
@pilleyuppo23
your deluded. Logic is a natural part of our brain, we can't function with out it.
Atheist are people who misuse the term logic; you damn atheist are the same type of people who would kill ion the name of God, and now your on the other side, with the same hate. Your all fucking rats in a maze.
VegasSkateCulture 1 year ago
@pilleyuppo23 BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA. thank you
jennalos 1 year ago
Now #1, you never answered, you just pushed it aside essentially saying 'let's just move on.'
You attempt to somewhat justify it by showing atheism = godless belief. To do this you cite the Macquarie Dictionary, which I can do also.
Atheism: 2. disbelief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to theism).
disbelief is "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true."
Now do most "agnostics" not accept that "God Exists" is true?
then boom, they're atheists.
robman419 2 years ago
On to #8. It's an implied straw man. Just because "all atheists lack belief in god" doesn't show that "everyone who lacks belief in god is an atheist," this DOESN'T mean that therefor "everyone who lacks belief in god is an atheist" is always a wrong assertion. You simply picked a rather weak premise so that the straw-logic conclusion would go up in flames.
robman419 2 years ago
It is because its saying all atheists lack believe in god and that is why they are called atheists. If p = q and q = r then p = r. And since you brought it up, stop attacking the straw-man by calling every statement a fallacy because that in itself makes for a fallacious argument.
BuzzcutsFTW 2 years ago
Can you clarify who you're directing this at? It could be toward me, the author, someone else?
robman419 2 years ago
The #5 is hilarious, he's like "don't most people want this? No. And until someone can show me a poll, that won't change." Ummm...why in the hell do you get to say "No" in the first place w/o the poll?
His #6 illustrates his blatant ignorance of what belief is. Take someone who's never even heard of God. By definition they don't believe in God. This does not mean that they believe There is No God. How can they believe there is no God if they don't even know what God means?
robman419 2 years ago 2
In #5, I was merely suggesting what a person should do if they wanted to argue this point. I could have left it out really.
As for #6, you simply haven't understood that part of the video. If they've never heard of God, then it is not true that they don't believe in God. My whole point about raising was to demonstrate what 'don't believe in X' really means. I even made a point of saying that not having a belief in X is a distinct case.
Mozza314 2 years ago
As to #5, agreed, it should have been left out.
As for #6, your examples don't illustrate the complexity of belief. Let me clarify by first asking you a question.
Would you agree that
"I don't believe in God" is equivalent to
"I disbelieve in God?"
robman419 2 years ago
The author of this video makes the fallacy of appealing to the majority: "If most dictionaries state it THIS way, it must be true."
100 years ago, the definition for atheist was "someone who believes there is no God.....and is immoral." Hmmmm...so that must have made it true right? No.
robman419 2 years ago
Did you miss the part where I said:
"It is true that words are defined not by dictionaries, but by how they are used and what they are understood to mean."
What I did say was that dictionaries are reliable indicators of the meaning of words. Do you really think that's unreasonable?
Words are merely abstract concepts that we use, if 100 years ago people defined atheists in the way you describe, then that's what the word used to mean, and that's all there is to it.
Mozza314 2 years ago
I'll agree with you on being "reliable indicators" only because we seem to agree that the state of definitions are always in flux.
Key word there is indicator. So the majority of current dictionaries can give us an idication of what something means, but can't actually tell us for certain (practically, not absolute).
If you agree dictionaries are only indicators, why refer to them so heavily in your arguments?
robman419 2 years ago
This labeling dispute isn't really a dispute. You have theists, deists, agnostics, atheists/"non-theists". There are a few more labels to fill some of those gaps, but it's not really a subject of dispute anymore. Most of us know that "agnostic" is taken from the latin of "ag", meaning "not", and "gnostic" meaning "knowing". Be careful not to categorize people simply based on belief/non-belief in supernatural deities. For example not all atheists, outside of their atheism share similar beliefs.
liberty013 2 years ago
I don't like the phrasing "We don't believe in god". It makes it seem on even ground with "We believe in god" by making it just another belief based on faith when it is in fact not. "We see no evidence for the existence of god" is more like it.
Viniagrette 2 years ago
Right. It asserts that there is a god and we simply don't believe in it. In fact, like you said, there is no evidence, and that is why we don't believe. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. A rational person would approach anything requiring faith with skepticism.
liberty013 2 years ago
Pont 2
I make it a point to always use god or gods instead of "God," because I won't pay credence to something that doesn't exist by respecting it with a capital letter. Believers may feel that it's disrespectful, and they would be correct. I don't respect the idea.
Colorscheme 2 years ago
I appreciate the time you put into this video and will ignore the other opinions listed in the comments.
I use a very clear distinction between raised phrases. For me, there is a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there are no gods." The latter is a stronger statement of intent, especially using the inclusive, general noun "gods" rather than catering to one idea of a deity by using the proper noun "God."
Colorscheme 2 years ago
What a waste of time, anticipating that you might eventually make a point beyond your tedious niceties of terminology. And besides, haven't you ever heard of agnostics??? Look, I can't rule out that there could be, however unlikely, some kind of supernatural being out there. But it's easy to prove, by sheer logic and contradiction, that the biblical God does not, can not, exist. Am I an "atheist"? Yes, for all practical purposes, but more precisely I'm an agnostic.
ApplyUrBrain 3 years ago
What??!! I just realized to day that there is a debate about the definition of atheism... This is ridiculous..
the phrase: there might not be a God, represents an agnostic belief
the phrase: there is no God, represents an atheist belief.
Even Winston Churchill (one of the best "atheist" representatives) admitted he is an agnostic but for practical reasons he will call himself an atheist.
dunkelblau2006 3 years ago
Thiest= Holds a belief in god
Atheist= Without holding a belief in god.
"Is there a god?"
If you say anything but "yes," you're an atheist.
Asexuality= Without sexuality
Atheist= Without belief in a god
This is why atheism is the default position of life.
The survey at 6:28 is completely pointless, just because you do not belong to a religion does not mean you're not a theist. And also the terms like "secularist" are not exclusive with terms like "atheist," or even theist...
MotionFur 3 years ago
I dunno about where you live, but here, saying something like "I don't think it's raining" is NOT the same as "I think it is not raining." And of course "I don't believe in god" is worlds different then "I believe there is no god."
Actually number 8 is true, if you lack a belief in any deities, you are an atheist. If you listen to many debates between theists and atheists, you'll see the definition they use of atheist is the lack of belief. This might be different from the term lay people use.
MotionFur 3 years ago
But, when it comes to my 'activity' as an atheist, speaking with apologists and other atheists, I'm not sure why we could care about a term that only people who are not involved in the issue use.
You read the god delusion right, Mozza? Not even he rates himself on the highest mark of his theist-atheist scale. He does not now for absolute certainty that deities do not exist. Go tell him he's not an atheist, it would be hilarious! :D
MotionFur 3 years ago
no.... but almost.
Theist belief in a god
Atheist belief there is no god
Agnostic indecision as to whether there is a god or not.
And in modern society it depends if your parents are religious or not. In a religious family, your 'default position' is typically religious, and will most likely stay that way, until college. Whereas in most atheistic families the children are given the choice, but start out as atheist's.
as to you 3, adn 4 lines. just no.
what does asexuality have to do with this?
A2FatalAssassin 3 years ago
Asexuality= Without Sexuality
Atheism= Without Theism
Theism= Belief in god
Atheism= without belief in god.
Putting an "a" before the word denotes lack of when it comes to serious theism discussions.
You're completely misunderstanding. Go to the hospital, and find a new born baby. Look into that little baby's eyes. Does that baby believe a god exists? No, of course not, it would be stupid to think that. You, me, the pope and everyone else was born an atheist. It's the default position of life.
MotionFur 3 years ago
People who don't know are called AGNOSTICS!!!!
GormTheElder 3 years ago
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms, you can be both. Theism has to do with what a person believes, and gnosticism has to do with what you KNOW. This may help clear it up:
/watch?v=68X1wbKHX34
MotionFur 3 years ago
Ah, but you see: I don't believe in God (with a big G) means I believe there is no God, but it does not mean I believe there is NO DIVINITY OF ANY SORT.
KriimIanga 3 years ago
READ MY MIND BUDDY
yianki1020 3 years ago
Agnostic 2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
Toomapoosh 3 years ago
This video is lame. Everyone knows that those who are unsure are agnostic. It's elementary. In fact most people are agnostic to some degree or another. Some lean towards non-belief while others tend to lean towards belief but shy away from organized religion for obvious reasons. There is no controversy here at all.
Also theism is belief in a deity so it would stand to reason that an atheist is the opposite. The whole argument is meaningless as everyone knows this already.
SkullVodka 3 years ago 15
@SkullVodka incorrect. agnosticism is not the position of unsureness. gnosticism or agnosticism makes a statement on what we reckon we can know/prove. i can be an agnostic atheist - i don't believe in god but can't prove either way, a gnostic atheist - i don't believe in god and i reckon i can prove he doesn't exist, a gnostic theist - i believe in god and reckon i can prove he exist, or an agnostic theist - i believe in god but know i can't prove he exists
kokorochris 1 year ago
@SkullVodka No, that's wrong. Agnosticism is not an answer to the question "do you believe in god?" Agnosticism is a position on whether it is possible to know anything (for the purposes of this it is a position on whether it is possible to know whether a god exists). Atheism is an answer to a question of faith, agnosticism is an answer to a question of knowledge.
KingSkullfuck 8 months ago
The most that write themselves off as agnostics are generally unaware of what the term actually means in relation to knowledge and belief. It is on an independent axis from theism/atheism.
So yes, that means that you can be an Gnostic/Agnostic Theist/Atheist.
The most who write themselves off as solely agnostic are usually trying to jump the social clique bandwagon and profess a self-proclaimed intellectual elitism.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Group Three are called agnostics.
that means they neither claim there is or is not a deity. they more or less follow the same principles of Atheistic people because they are not subject to Fundamentalist craziness and don`t particularly feel threatened by the scientific method. agnostics simply do not conjecture that there is or is not deities.
Cnidarious 3 years ago
Agnostics dude
ParanoidAndroid696 3 years ago
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
It is derived from French atheisme = "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God"
The terms implicit/explicit atheism and negative atheism/positive atheism have been around a very long time (ssince the 1700's). The more common usage now days is strong/weak atheism. Those that say God does not exist are strong atheist, those that merely lack the belief in god are weak atheists.
trick0171 3 years ago
I don't know much about linguistics, but my dictionary (Macquarie Dictionary) gives this derivation of 'atheism' - "[Gk atheos without a god + -ISM]", so I don't know where you're getting your information from, perhaps both the French and English words have this origin, or the English word comes from the French word, but the French word comes from the Greek derivation...?
Anyway, I sort of concede that popular usage is changing the meaning of 'atheism'.
Mozza314 3 years ago
Yeah..the french term did come from the latin term. Keep in mind that "without a god belief" is different than "godless belief". One is claiming a lack of belief in god, the other is claiming a belief in godlessness. theos = god, theism = god belief, a = without, athoes = without god, atheism = without god belief.
trick0171 3 years ago
I addressed this claim in the video. Please see FAQ #1, which is 2:45 through 3:38
Mozza314 3 years ago
Yes...i saw that part. That is the part I am claiming is wrong (regarding your atheos part). It is "atheos" meaning "without god". It is "theos" meaning "god". It is theism meaning "god belief" (the statement is no longer about god but entirely about belief). It is atheism because it is "without god belief" (again, the statement is not about "without god or godlessness, but rather without belief). You are incorrect on the order.
trick0171 3 years ago
When a word is extended with a prefix/suffix, to interpret the new word, we do not break down the word into its components and read out the new component with the old components. Because 'atheism' was formed by adding '-ism' to 'atheos', 'atheism' means a belief in atheos. You would be correct if 'atheism' was formed by adding 'a-' to 'theism', but that's not how the word was formed.
Mozza314 3 years ago
You do not seem to get it. It doesn't matter if -ism was added last it still converts it from "without god" to "without god belief", the belief part being attached to god part. Both theos and atheos existed prior to the -ism addition. If you are saying they needed to take away the "a" from atheos, add the -ism, and THEN put the "a" back afterward, ...that is just silly. It is obvious they meant it as the inverse of theism.
trick0171 3 years ago
me: we do not break down the word into its components and read out the new component with the old components
you: converts it from "without god" to "without god belief"
It's not just silly. I do not know the history, but according to all the dictionaries I've seen, 'atheism' is an extension of 'atheos', NOT 'theism'. Such dictionaries also support that the meaning of the word is consistent with this origin. The '-ism' suffix, is attached to atheos, not the god component of atheos.
Mozza314 3 years ago
I misread a bit of your comment -
"If you are saying they needed to take away the "a" from atheos, add the -ism, and THEN put the "a" back afterward, ...that is just silly."
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the origin of atheism is:
theos -> atheos -> atheism,
NOT:
theos -> theism -> atheism.
See the difference?
Mozza314 3 years ago
Yes...and I am saying that is because "atheos" already existed prior to the -ism of theism, so naturally the ism will be attached to atheos and not theism and then add the a back in. To me it is obvious that the a stands out as without whatever follows, because that is its original intent with "atheos". If we were to say "dog", then "without dog", if we add "pooping" later, it would mean (without)+(dog pooping) NOT a (without dog)(pooping). :)
trick0171 3 years ago
Yes of course '-ism' is attached to 'atheos', but that is why 'atheism' means a belief in the non-existence of god. It is why the 'a-' applies to 'theos', and not to 'theism'. In your example, I don't see why you think the result would be (without)(dog pooping). How is it that 'pooping' specifically becomes attached to 'dog' rather than 'without dog'?
Mozza314 3 years ago
Because the "a" assumes without anything that follows it, regardless if those items are added later, and ism is attached to theos just as pooping is attached to dog, reagerdless is the without is already before it or not.
trick0171 3 years ago
*Regardless IF the without is already before it or not.
trick0171 3 years ago
Perhaps we need a linguist to help us out :-P
My understanding is that once words are formed, they are complete, inseparable words, like a black box. As such, they can change over time, just as 'atheism' is, admittedly, changing as more people jump on the bandwagon of atheism not being a belief. And so because of this, if the origin is to have any bearing on our understanding, what follows 'a-' in 'atheism' is 'theos' because that's how it was originally attached.
Mozza314 3 years ago
actually, no. that's not correct. both atheism and theism are derived from the greek root THEOS. the "a" which was added to theism is taken from another greek root "a-" which is the alpha privative. basically, stick an alpha on the front of a word and you get a partial or total negation of the root of which the alpha is a prefix. there is no root "atheos" though. if anything, the way the etymology was constructed was a + theos + ism. not atheos + ism.
DogmaGogMagogMa 3 years ago
and further, as an actual example of how the greeks used the alpha primitive (and i will probably slaughter the romanization of this word, but oh well) take the word "kindynos," meaning danger. if you attach the alpha to the front, you get akindynos. Akyndynos is and adjective meaning without danger. It doesn't mean an absolute assertion that there is no danger. As theism is a belief in a god, atheism therefore refers to one without belief in a god.
DogmaGogMagogMa 3 years ago
Obviously both words originally came from theos, as atheos is a+theos. This is already established. Do you have a source that can back up what you're saying? If you could look over the conversation again and get back to me that would be great.
Mozza314 3 years ago
I'm a Classics major and I'm actually studying the ancient Greek language. if you'd like a better source, i highly recommend taking elementary greek yourself. but the point isnt just that the root isn't atheos. its that if you stick an alpha in front of a word, its not always a total negation, and that's why saying an atheist must be one who believes there is no god is an incorrect statement. it is true that an atheist MAY believe there is no god, but an atheist IS one without belief in a god.
DogmaGogMagogMa 3 years ago
I'm not quite following what you mean by partial negation. Also, why do dictionaries say 'atheos + ism' if this is not the Greek origin?
Mozza314 3 years ago
because it's a lazy man's way of saying "a + theos."
When I say "partial negation," I don't know that it's a technical term. Try this example though: Moral versus amoral versus immoral. Amoral doesn't mean acting with morals in complete opposition to "moral." it means not acting morally nor acting immorally. The point is that it doesn't provide an absolute opposite. It's a rejection of "moral." It isn't an automatic institution of counter-morality (or immorality).
DogmaGogMagogMa 3 years ago
ever heard of agnostic? oO
Winterhe4rt 3 years ago
Its actually more complicated than that.
Atheists believe that there is no God in the religious sense as in "god is a man in the sky", that doesn't mean they dont subscribe to the concept of god, which is what god really is, a concept that has not been fully realised, a metaphysical concept we are only beginning to understand.
moyga 3 years ago
What you are describing is what is known as a 'deist' a person who believes that there is a god, but does not subscribe to religious dogma.
Unless of course you were using the Einstenian version of 'god' as a word to describe that part of physics which we do not yet understand.
blithium 3 years ago
How convenient that the belief that is opposite of yours is the one that you require proof of rather than your own.
Cowboy144 3 years ago
Nice sarcasm there! Ever heard of the character Greg House? You should watch House, you'd like him.
Seriously though, if you rolled a pair of dice and said the outcome was the result of physics and I said it was actually the invisible pink unicorn who determined the outcome, you should require evidence for my claim before you gave it a second thought.
Mozza314 3 years ago
Also, your bubbble over the "atheists" is inaccurate; it fits agnostics more than atheists because agnostics admit that they don't know while you atheists insist that God's inexistence is an absolute fact, which is what makes you ATHEISTS.
Cowboy144 3 years ago
Could you be more specific about this 'bubble'? I'm on a connection at the moment without the downloads to be watching videos.
Also, saying we claim it is an 'absolute fact' is a bit rough, wouldn't this be equivalent to claiming it is a certainty? This would be different from 'belief'.
Mozza314 3 years ago
Being an atheist, judging by people like you and Richard Dawkins, means that you are a self-important, nihilistic twit with an English accent.
Cowboy144 3 years ago
I have an English accent?? LOL
Mozza314 3 years ago
English, Australian, w/e. Point is the accent is similar.
Cowboy144 3 years ago
agnostics are the undicided ones
swordmonkey05 3 years ago
I find people who define themselves as atheists and theists both intellectually disabled. If you truly dont beleive in god/s then why define yourself as an atheist or as the opposite of someone who does. This makes no sense. Would you define yourself as a round earther simply because some poeple thought the world was flat? I think not. You simply dismiss these people as wrong and continue with life. To define ones existence in that way makes no reasonable sense.
Saromatae 3 years ago
It's not like I greet people with "Hello, I'm an atheist."
I don't understand what you mean by a person defining themselves as an atheist/theist, do you mean *identify* themselves as an atheist/theist?
I would also call myself a round earther, it's only that being otherwise is so exceedingly rare that it's not important to do so. This is not the case with being an atheist though.
One day identifying as an atheist may be analogous to identifying as a round earther, but that's not today.
Mozza314 3 years ago
What was the point of that? What are you babbling on for?? Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist/Spiritualists all have no belief in God(or cannot disprove God). So that does not make them all Atheists.
gwilli24 3 years ago
Their is no middle ground. A weak atheist is an Agnostic Atheist and a Strong atheist is a gnostic Atheist. And you got your agnostic christians and gnostic christians. You have subsets of atheism. humanism, brights, apatheists, even sorts of pantheists.
dragoonthief 3 years ago
Ummm - theos relates to belief
gnosis relates to knowledge
How can one belief in something they have no knowledge of?
CASEwithscience 3 years ago
Um they should change those dictionary meanings.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god until it's proven with evidence and this does not mean bringing up the so-called evidence that god created rivers and that's how we know god is real.
Agnostics are the ones that believe that there is no god or supernatural being what so ever.
shaewem 3 years ago
If you don't believe in God you are an atheist. simple
hopokuk 3 years ago 4
Not simple. Raising, remember?
Mozza314 3 years ago
just another video trying to find excuses why not to be considered an atheist, as though it's such a bad thing. lack of belief, belief it doesn't exist, etc. atheism. doesn't matter what the dictionary says. an agnostic is an atheist in so far as they don't promote the idea that they believe god doesn't exist. an atheist can be agnostic about the existence of god. the difference is knowing and believing. they're nested concepts, not lateral groupings.
Thrashaero 3 years ago 3
You're wrong. I am an atheist, and I'm proud to say so.
Mozza314 3 years ago
oh well, my point after the first sentence still stands. one doesn't simply have to be either an atheist or an agnostic, one can be both at the same time, in fact i would think most are...trying to come up with defining lines between the terms only initiates stigmas and makes people waste time on something that doesn't matter.
Thrashaero 3 years ago 4
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'nested concepts' and 'lateral groupings'. I have no problems with the possibility of someone being an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
I also think the definition of the word 'atheism' is pretty unimportant, it is just a word after all. What matters is the position people actually take, whether or not they call themselves atheists. As such I don't push this definition of 'atheism', and simply call anyone who identifies as an atheist, an atheist.
Mozza314 3 years ago
nested concept: concepts that are within each other or go hand in hand, or coexisting. lateral grouping: separate but on the same level, such as a title, then grouped as such. a burger flipper is not an airline pilot. both job titles but separate jobs.
I find it hilarious you think the def. is moot yet you made this excessively long video about just that.
Your argument about only apply the label to those who identify with it is like saying dont call a duck a duck because it rhymes with fuck.
Thrashaero 3 years ago
What I'm saying in that last sentence is...if the duck doesn't like the word duck (because it rhymes with fuck), yet, it is a duck, don't call it one because it doesn't like the term.
Boo hoo.
You don't like atheist because it reminds you of some type of hardcore stigmatized bullshit that you don't want to be a part of. yet, you are an atheist if you don't believe in god. agnostics and atheists think they are mutually exclusive from each other. it only raises infighting amongst irreligious.
Thrashaero 3 years ago
Like I said before, I don't have anything against the word 'atheist' and that is why I said I'm proud to call myself one. My point about calling someone an atheist who identifies as such is not creating tension through exclusion on the basis of a part of language. It does not change whether or not I think they are actually an atheist or not.
Mozza314 3 years ago
THIS IS SO BORING
KungFuKing1916 3 years ago
Mozza, the etymology argument stands with "Godless belief". Godless is lacking God.
goph000 3 years ago
Yes but it's belief in the lack of a god. Not lack of a belief in a god.
Mozza314 3 years ago