What Does Atheism Really Mean? (Craig vs Zindler)

[bestvalue]

I didn't know William lane Craig debated Captain Kangaroo.

[Badwolf182]

Craig has an incredible mind - love his debates! When Dawkins avoids him, you KNOW the man is goooood

[TheProfWaffle]

Theism and atheism are BELIEF claims, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism are FACTUAL claims. As an atheist I believe there is no god, but I cannot make a factual claim to disprove his/her existence anymore than a theist can make a factual claim to prove his/her existence.

By definition, God's existence cannot be proven nor disproven.

Then question then becomes, why believe in something for which there is no evidence?

[ubermechazillatron]

People neglect God (not disbelieve because his existence is so painfully obvious) because they don't want to feel a weight of responsibility for themselves or humanity. They're selfish little children who want what feels good, and not what is good. They've diluted themselves to a point where they can no longer distinguish good from evil and are more than willing to accept pseudo-science in a pathetic attempt to justify wallowing in ignorance and malice. Too much?

[stallion4life]

Oof! That was brutal. Zindler was dying out there!

When is this video from? I'm surprised Dr. Craig was talking about "village atheists" even back then. Where does the term come from?

[LorenScott69]

The only modern purpose for a belief in God is as a method of self-medication to cure your own feelings of guilt (wife beater, murderer, rapist, child molester, alcoholic, drug addict, etc) or due to some other tragic event that has caused you to feel that this life is no longer meaningful or worthy on its own. Your only hope is that in the "afterlife" something better awaits. Other than as a form of group therapy, organized religion serves no valuable purpose.

[drcraigvideos]

@LorenScott69 You're making the genetic fallacy, and you're begging the question. Can someone not say they're atheist because it's "self-medicating"? If so, that still doesn't say anything about religion (or atheism) per se. Anyway, please stay on topic.

[LorenScott69]

@drcraigvideos My point is that, in spite of a complete lack of evidence for the existence of a God (any God, Christian or otherwise), humans want to feel good (in general as well as about themselves). It is a basic survival instinct. Belief in something like a God is one means of achieving this good feeling. To stay closer to topic, atheists do not share this "need to believe" that theists have. I do not expect you to agree with me.

[drcraigvideos]

@LorenScott69 Well, you're right. Anyway, again, would it kill you to just watch the video and commenting on it (while staying on topic). If you're here to unload your frustrations on Christians, please, do it some place else. Oh, and when you watch the video (especially the parts where Craig gives evidence for God), please do so without plugging your ears. That's helpful.

[sabin97]

just curious

if god is untestable and not subject to science...

how can he know the other guy isn't god and created the universe 3 minutes ago?

[drcraigvideos]

@sabin97 You can't! There are many things that are not falsifiable/testable. For instance, the laws of logic.

[sabin97]

@drcraigvideos

"You can't! "

so why does he say the other guy ISNT god? if he cant?

[drcraigvideos]

@sabin97 Because it's false yet meaningful. You can't disprove that your brain is in a vat being wielded with an electric prod by a mad scientist who gives you the "reality" you see now. But upon proper basicality you'd know that's wrong.

[sabin97]

@drcraigvideos

so if someone comes to you and tells you they are angel sent by god with instructions and that he wont perform any sort of supernatural feat because the lord requires you to have faith...

will you carry out the instructions?

or will you deny the messenger from god?

[drcraigvideos]

@sabin97 Well, I'd know upon proper basicality and warrant that he's wrong. At least I have a defeater: blind faith, according to the Bible, is wrong.

I'd recommend that you look up "proper basic belief" in philosophy. There are many crazy ideas you cannot disprove. For instance, aside from the "brain in the vat" example (which you didn't even touch on), you can't disprove that your neighbor is a mere automaton.

[sabin97]

@drcraigvideos

so how do you know christianity is correct and not islam, or judaism, taoism, the aztec religion, and all others?

the bible books were arbitrarily chosen by a group of romans(probably, and most likely by political reasons)

and most of them are copies of translations of copies of translations of copies of copies of copies.....

anecdotal evidence suggests that manual copying and translations tend to get information lost and added and mutated.....

[drcraigvideos]

@sabin97 Dodge much? Anyway,

The evidence fits with Chrsitianity better than said religions.

Romans had nothing to do with picking the books in the Bible, genius. I hardly doubt that they would want semitical manuscripts in the Bible. Please, do the research.

If the Bibles are copies of copies of copies, etc. then it proves the Christian's point how incredibly consistent the Bible is from the original, because virtually all the copies are identical. Anyway, throw the Bart Ehrman trash away.

[55k3v1n]

They should come up with a new dance: The Atheist Sidestep. It's so convenient for Atheists to not have to use his brain to support his view. Like how could the conditions come about that led up to the big bang when you start out with infinite blackness. Was there some kind of eternal energy that just self-existed? At what point during the eternal existance of this energy did it produce something other than itself, which resulted in the big bang? "We don't know" says the atheist.

[MJFAN666]

@55k3v1n Yeah. We DON'T know. YET. and that doesn't mean God is real... "I don't know therefore God" is a FAIL argument.. Cause I could just say I don't know therefore leprichauns did it, etc. etc.

[telofajoe]

Darkins ran like a coward from Craig, the atheists false idol running like a coward, haahhahahaha.

[z10ffi]

the burden of proof is clearly on the Theists. It's always the one who makes a claim who needs to prove it. For example.. if I say that unicorns are real.. does that mean that they are real until they are proven unreal?? No, it means that I have to find evidence for unicorns being real :-) I love retarded christians. they're so cute and ignorant, tihihi

[drcraigvideos]

@z10ffi " It's always the one who makes a claim who needs to prove it." ... okay, so if an atheist says that "God doesn't exist" he clearly has the burden too. It works both ways, lest you think atheism means a lack of belief in God think again: watch?v=XcuSMQVq5dM

[akaten916]

@drcraigvideos "okay, so if an atheist says that "God doesn't exist" he clearly has the burden too. It works both ways, lest you think atheism means a lack of belief in God think again: watch?"

I hate to bash you out of thin air like this but are you retarded?

[drcraigvideos]

@akaten916 The air is thick where I'm at, and I'm breathing just fine. If you weren't such an airhead, you'd probably leave more room for your brain.

[Devin82m]

@akaten916 Yeah, I'm tired of hearing your argument. I hear it all the time from other atheists, it just doesn't hold up. EVERYONE that makes a claim should provide evidence to support it. Atheist just use this tactic to evade questions of their belief system.Dr. Craig and plenty of other Apologists and Creation Scientists have provided PLENTY of evidence to support the existence of God. You just refuse to listen. Also he provided a video, he didn't just say "watch?" Materialism is handicapped.

[NateKirch]

No one should say , I know that God (whichever God we are talking about) does not exist, because it is impossible to know this. It is equally impossible to "know" that God does exist. All we can do is say, "I believe (some form of) God exists and here are my reasons for believing this." Then we can put those reasons to the test and see how good they are. So far, I haven't seen a single good reason to believe, but I am open-minded and willing to consider any that come my way.

[MPaulHolmes]

It asserts nothing?!  A lack of belief in God? Then my 6 month old baby is an atheist. My dog and my cat are also atheists.

[Galmozzi99]

I Lack belief that Atheists make any sense, and since they continue to provide no evidence that they do make sense , therefore Atheists make no sense.

Oh yeah, I have decided to call this position "Atheism"

[poprockssuck87]

If a complicated math proof were provided by an unknown author, for others without an understanding required for proving to say the proof is valid or not is to make a claim which requires reasoning. Agnostics would remain that neither can be confirmed, while the burden would be on both the affirmer and denier. Furthermore, semantically speaking, if atheism is not making an assertion, a corollary to atheism, unless I'm mistaken, is everything has a naturalistic cause, which needs to be supported.

[Birdieupon]

Zindler looks like a dog sniffing out a biscuit.

[atheist976]

Having no evidence for god might not completely disprove god but it is a good reason to think he does not exist. If you have no evidence the butler committed the murder it doesn’t prove him innocent but it’s a pretty good reason to believe he is innocent. Without evidence you would never convict him of anything. Just because we cannot prove him innocent does not mean he guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is a logical way to approach things, including god.

[Birdieupon]

@atheist976

" If you have no evidence the butler committed the murder it doesn’t prove him innocent but it’s a pretty good reason to believe he is innocent."

Or that he was really good at covering his tracks. In BOTH cases - guilty and innocent - we could expect to see exactly the same absence of evidence.

"Without evidence you would never convict him of anything."

Neither would you say he didn't do it. You'd be agnostic. His not going to jail is purely incidental to the logic involved.

[atheist976]

If there was no evidence either way that someone committed a murder they would not be held in court limbo. They would be let go and considered innocent. I think it’s more plausible to assume people who get let go are usually innocent instead of criminal masterminds. Innocent until proven guilty is used in court and science.

[Birdieupon]

@atheist97

"If there was no evidence either way that someone committed a murder"

Yes and if somebody wasn't theist they probably wouldn't pray and go to church. So what? These are merely social consequences. The whole reason why the verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent" is because failure to prove guilt does NOT default to its negation. The court analogy fails when you consider the jury is only given one claim "X". Extending it, the claim could be "God exists" OR "God does NOT exist".

[atheist976]

@Birdieupon It doesn’t have to be a court analogy it could be a science analogy. Having no evidence one way or the other for the most part brings you to agnosticism. However, if you had to make a guess, it’s more plausible to assume that without evidence it is not true. If there was no evidence against gods existence and no evidence for his existence it’s more plausible to say he probably does not exist; if you and to guess right there. That’s all I’m saying.

[bigJ09z]

@atheist976 Ummm how is that logical?? I know you would say its plausible but I find it illogical to think that really and realistically and logically. Assuming is one of the stupidist things a human can do and thats what atheism more or less does it say's im right because i think im right so I think im right. Plausible yes there is evidence but trying to tell a atheist about evidence is like talking to a brick wall :P Also your evidence is subjective as you can't define same with atheists now.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@atheist976 You wrote: "...it’s more plausible to assume that without evidence it is not true...."

That is why THE WORLD concludes that atheist dogma is not true -- it has no evidence.

Conversely, there is tons and tons of scientific evidence in favor of Theism, which is yet another reason why the entire world is secure in the knowledge that Theism is indeed true and correct, and that atheist dogma is nothing but falsehoods, lies, and utter nonsense.

Thank you for your agreement and support!

[FosterZygote]

@1GodOnlyOne Tons and tons of evidence for which god?

[1GodOnlyOne]

@FosterZygote There is only one God. You have failed to provide evidence for your polytheistic belief that there could somehow be more than one.

[Ingmatter]

@1GodOnlyOne

Actually the number of atheists in the united states alone has doubled in the past decade (Something like 7% to 17%).

But its an honest mistake when you blatantly state things without backing them up with any evidence. As opposed to how you can easily google the statement I just made to confirm it.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@atheist976 You wrote, "Innocent until proven guilty is used in court and science."

Then God is innocent of the charge of nonexistence until proven guilty. Thank you for your agreement and support of Theism!

[Christlovesanimals]

@1GodOnlyOne For the win!!!

[bigJ09z]

@atheist976 What logic?? What logic?? Im tired of hearing this evidence thing ok give me evidence :P logical no emotional more or less yes :P logic no as you have no idea abtoday like out logic or evidence your just a lousy talking head shooting off evidence and logical like the militant atheists like you. So give me evidence ok and stop shooting off talking points :P Logical no illogical you scored at :P

[djacobox372]

LOL saying "false" really loud doesn't actually falsify a claim. 

[djacobox372]

I saw a pokadotted goose, so they obviously exist, and there's nothing you can do to disprove their existence.

[SunimZen]

I do not believe that God exists but I do not consider myself an atheist. I have a belief that it is the compulsion to make ones beliefs known to others about the existence of God that makes one an athheist. if someone just does not believe in God but has no need or desire to proclaim that belief to the world then it is nothing more than an personal thought. it does not, from my perspective, become an opinion unless it is articulated in some way for society to recognize and comment on.

[TVOham]

You realize how many debate offers Dawkins gets daily?

Him declining to debate this "Scientific Philosopher" has nothing to do with "putting up or shutting up." as you so blatently stated on your other video but disabled the comments so I could not view it.

[mbelma6329]

This Zindler guy is a rambling, incoherent phoney. He can't hang w/ Craig

[Prolific85]

I applaud you for bringing sophisticated theism to youtube...too many ignorant atheists on here.

[Pelonetillo]

having no evidence for the existence of something is evidence that it does not exist. this is how we distinguish between something being absent and something being present.

[drcraigvideos]

@Pelonetillo Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence: watch?v=5T76Rp6pS4I. For instance, we don't have evidence that the universe went through an era of expansion after the big bang but that doesn't mean that the era didn't exist. If you believe that atheism is true then you have to give evidence for that.

[Pelonetillo]

it does. youre confusing evidence and proof. no evidence doesnt prove it doesnt exist, so yes, no evidence for expansion doesnt mean it didnt happen but thats just because evidence =/= proof.

[drcraigvideos]

@Pelonetillo Uh, yeah, I'm confusing evidence with proof that's why I didn't use the word "proof" in my previous comment. And even though you just agreed that absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence while agreeing with the illustration too, I guess that means you didn't just contradict yourself either when you said "it does." You're too fast for me, Pelonetillo.

[Breviloquent]

I don't think you're following what's being said, there. Pelonetillo accused you of confusing one word for another; that's likely why you didn't use both words--you're under the false impression that they're the same. Also, didn't agree with you. In fact, he explicitly replied that "it does" when you claimed Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence. Does is the opposite of doesn't... I guess he was too fast for you; you couldn't even follow what was being said!

[NoeLPZC]

@drcraigvideos No, he was saying absense of evidence IS evidence of absense, but absense of proof IS NOT proof of absense. For example, we have no evidence that the moon is made of cheese, which IS evidence that it is not made of cheese. We have no proof that the moon is made of cheese, but that IS NOT proof that the moon is NOT made of cheese.

Understand the difference?

[NoeLPZC]

@drcraigvideos Actually, let me give a better example.

We have no evidence that a second moon exists. This is evidence that a second moon does not exist, since if it did we'd expect to see evidence of it. In the same way you would conclude you're alone if you had no evidence of anyone else in the room.

However, this lack of evidence wouldn't PROVE the second moon doesn't exist, as it's possible one could but has eluded observation somehow.

[allan3141]

@Pelonetillo your argument is all over the place. You mentioned proof! The video that you where directed to made clear points, none of which are addressed by you, you just carry on regardless. What evidence is absent that should be there? Convince me you are not plainly confused or uninformed on this point.

[Birdieupon]

@Pelonetillo

"having no evidence for the existence of something is evidence that it does not exist."

Rubbish. Do you have evidence, therefore, that there is no other intelligent life in outer space? After all, you don't have any evidence FOR it, so that must surely support the contention that it does NOT exist, right?

Or, maybe it DOES exist but is so far away we haven't picked up their emissions yet, and won't for another 100 years? Do you have evidence they DON'T exist? So do they exist!??

[Breviloquent]

There is a frame of reference inherent in your qualifying the request with "other intelligent life" and "in outer-space." This is not a good analogy because there is already evidence of intelligent life in outer-space--our space is "outer-space" relative to other spaces.

[Birdieupon]

@Breviloquent

"his is not a good analogy because there is already evidence of intelligent life in outer-space--our space is "outer-space"

Sorry dude but that's just pathetic. The claim is, specifically, OTHER intelligent life (or, "we are alone in the universe"). The most you can say is that SOME life exists in space, but you've no evidence for OR against ours being all there is. Those are specific premises, and you are agnostic with respect to both claims.

[Breviloquent]

Again, that is "other;" as in, more than that already mentioned. Our planet shares similarities with other planets, and is only one of a great many in the universe--it's perfectly rational to believe life would exist elsewhere given these facts. Evidence doesn't preclude agnosticism; you are thinking about proof.

[1GodOnlyOne]

Prove it.

[waxybadger]

craig's first 7 seconds are wrong

[drcraigvideos]

@waxybadger Are you going to say why, or are you only here to make cowardly drive-by comments?

[waxybadger]

@drcraigvideos erm well atheism is a-theism, so where a theist believes that God's existence is necessary, an atheist does not think that God's existence is neccesary. Oh and please go easy with the aggression :-)

[PEPAspiderman]

@drcraigvideos hey, I've been following dr. craig for the past 4 years, and I've purchased his books and I think he's a great advocate for christianity, but I think you ought to stop making such rude comments. Sure, this wasn't a smart comment, but to call him 'cowardly' is just rude. I subscribe to your account and all, but I think you do make rude comments often. I understand it's a tough job dealing with all this, but I hope you don't take out your frustration on other people. Thanks :)

[PEPAspiderman]

@drcraigvideos hey, I've been following dr. craig for the past 4 years, and I've purchased his books and I think he's a great advocate for christianity, but I think you ought to stop making such rude comments. Sure, this wasn't a smart comment, but to call him 'cowardly' is just rude. I subscribe to your account and all, but I think you do make rude comments often. I understand it's a tough job dealing with all this, but I hope you don't take out your frustration on other people. Thanks :)

[FosterZygote]

@drcraigvideos I find it ironic that you would call someone else a coward when it seems that you have disabled comments and ratings on most of your video postings.

[bathrat]

Zindler really embarrasses himself here.

[allabasterkt]

Zindler, he makes arguments a 5 year old could refute.

[ADAJ3]

dr craig is pretty good

[JinxOz]

Dr. Craig is a badass.

[D9rot]

Facepalm

[D9rot]

you don't rely have a clue

[MrZazomy]

Hey drcraigvideos, check out my new Dawkins video. I think you'll enjoy it.

[piprod01]

*looks up Oxford dictionary*

atheism: "disbelief in the existence of God or gods. "

*looks up Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*

"The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists."

[TheFaithHunter]

Craig looks young here. Like a young Chuck Norris or something. What year is this from?

[drcraigvideos]

@TheFaithHunter Early 90s.

[Birdieupon]

@TheFaithHunter

Alan Rickman in Die Hard. That was my first thought when I saw the young Craig!

[Christlovesanimals]

@TheFaithHunter And he's always had that excellent "YT atheist-to-the-chin-knockout-r­oundhouse."

[girzwald3]

4:20 Ooops, strawman. Fail

[ragnarok297]

regarding your note # 6,

Well its great that you recognize etymology but I've never heard anybody argue using the greek "atheos" and try to say that means "without belief in god", I've only ever heard people say it means "without god". The belief part of it is brought in by the -ism part.

But since theos means god, and a-theos turns it to "without god", while adding -ism to form theism makes it "belief in god", why are you so reluctant to add the a- to theism to form "without belief in god"?

[ragnarok297]

-continued

At best what you can do is try to add the -ism to a-theos with the prefix first to try and make it "belief without god", but that's not making your case much easier...

My suggestion is that if your arguing for atheism to mean "belief that there is no god", you should stay far far away from etymology...

[drcraigvideos]

@ragnarok297 LOL! Why because it makes our case. You haven't even begun to show that atheism means a "non-belief in God." It's just so simple. A means without. Theos means "God." Thus "atheos" literally means "without God." Why spin on the definition?

[Birdieupon]

@ragnarok297

"if your arguing for atheism to mean "belief that there is no god", you should stay far far away from etymology..."

Sorry dude but you're the one who's messed up on etymology. The alpha privative "a-" affixes only to the object, which in this case is "God". "without belief in God" would be theos-a-ism, totally different!

a-theos means "no.without God" just like a-symmetry means "no/without equal mirrored sides". Aymmetrism is akin to atheism here: belief that something's missing.

[ragx297]

@Birdieupon What are you talking about? Neither Symmetrism nor Asymmetrism are real words, why are you making up stuff to use as examples?

And sorry, your "argument" is flawed, you would also have to claim that the suffix -ism, doesn't affix to the object, or that somehow prefixes take full priority over suffixes or something(I'd argue that, if anything, the opposite it more often the case) .

[ragx297]

@Birdieupon

-continued

"would be theos-a-ism"

Umm, no, you can't attach suffixes to prefixes instead of the root word, that makes no sense.

And do you go ahead and using etymology to get to atheos, but then skip the etymology and flat out claim that atheism means something like "belief no gods exist". I'd like to see the second part please.

[drcraigvideos]

@ragnarok297 "...but I've never heard anybody argue using the greek 'atheos'..." With all due respect you haven't read enough atheists then. People from Michael Martin, the aforementioned Zindler, Dan Barker, Gordon Stein, etc. (I can go on and on) have used the etymology of atheos. The "ism" has no consequence to "belief" because "ism" doesn't mean belief. "...why are you so reluctant to add the a- to theism to form 'without belief in god'?" If u actually read what I wrote you know I didn't.

[ragx297]

@drcraigvideos

Hey, this the the user ragnarok297.

I was going to respond to your reply of my comment but it says you blocked me.

Whats up with that?

I read on your channel page:

"Look, it's easy, if you're immature, trollish, disrespectful, mean-spirited, or post off-topic comments...

Where has my comment done any of this? Could you point it out? I've had loads of discussions on your channel, why just randomly block me this time?

[ragx297]

Also, if you wanted to continue the discussion,(I mean you already responded back to me) here's the reply I was going to send:

@drcraigvideos

"Why because it makes our case."

Umm, what are you referring to? I only asked one why question, and your answer is that you are reluctant because it makes your case? Can you please state what your trying to say more clearly because currently its a bit incoherent. "Thus "atheos" literally means "without God." Why spin on the definition?"

??

[ragx297]

When did I spin the definition of atheos? I clearly agreed that it literally means "without god", why state it as if I'm disputing that point??

"With all due respect you haven't read enough atheists then."

Yea, probably, but do these people specifically say something like " the greek 'atheos' means 'without belief in god'.

It would be cool if you could give me a quote.

Because I've seen dozens of articles, videos, posts, etc. on the internet and every one of them specifically say

[ragx297]

@ragx297 'atheos' means godless or without god or something and then go from there.

"The 'ism' has no consequence to 'belief' because 'ism' doesn't mean belief."

Really? So tell me then if the suffix -ism doesn't mean belief, in this word, what does it mean and how does that definition fit into theism meaning "belief in god" and where did the belief part of the definition come from? I would think it was pretty obvious what it meant.

"If u actually read what I wrote you know I didn't."

[ragx297]

Assuming by didn't you mean weren't, what your saying is that you weren't reluctant to add the a- to theism? Where have you done that? All I see is the etymology of atheos on this page, nothing else... Maybe just point it out?

"show that atheism means a "non-belief in God."

Well no, I'm saying that using etymology, atheism would have to mean "without belief in god".

[ElasticGiraffe]

If atheism is a mere lack of belief in God, then vegetables and inanimate objects are atheists. That's fine rhetoric for trying to portray their own position as default and making atheist numbers seem larger by redefining agnostics as (unaware or disingenuous) atheists, but on this definition atheism becomes a non-position that can't even be TRUE! It lacks propositional content which would have truth value. Rhetoric is only reason atheists have for bitterly clinging to this useless definition.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe "then vegetables and inanimate objects are atheists"

Do yourself a favour: watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC Watched the video you directed me to. QS is a bright guy, but he is confused about a lot of things. He is wrong to call "lack of belief" a default position. It is default, but it is not a position; a position is a belief one has adopted for a particular issue, but even exposure to a God concept is not necessary to lack theistic belief. Atheism, on this definition, cannot even be "true" because it has no propositional content. Atheism can, therefore, not be correct. This is contrary to

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC the historical usage of the term, which is certainly that of a position that can be defended. Atheism is the negation of theism, not the mere absence of theism. If atheism is simply a lack of theism, then it is the only -ism of that kind. The rest are all genuine positions with actual propositional content. QS frames it as if theists have conspired to make atheism look bad by defining it AS a real position. Notice he does not discuss the word's etymology, which discredits that notion.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC Oh, and furthermore -- returning to my original comment which you replied to -- if atheism is nothing but the lack of belief in God(s), then yes, vegetables and inanimate objects would still qualify as atheists.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe "then yes, vegetables and inanimate objects would still qualify as atheists"

No, because as QS said, the suffix -ist denotes a person. They would be in a state of atheism, but so what? They'd be unmarried too.

"It is default, but it is not a position"

Then call it a category. It's a category, stance, state, or position one can be in, just like one can be bald by lacking hair, or nude by lacking clothes - they are atheistic by lacking theistic belief.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC An -ist must be a person because an -ism is a belief, and beliefs are not held by non-people. >.>

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe -isms aren't just beliefs - take pianism (the art of piano playing), or nudism (the practice of doing things in the nude that would normally be clothed activities) for example. It can be a label extrapolated from a defining attribute, so "atheism" is an acceptable label for being in an atheistic position/stance/category.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC It is true that -ism may refer to simple states and conditions, such as "rheumatism," but the suffix -ist always refers to someone who is active in believing, doing, producing, etc. An -ist is never someone who is merely a passive bearer of an -ism. Someone suffering from rheumatism is not a rheumatist, but someone who does subscribe to atheism is an atheist.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe "An -ist is never someone who is merely a passive bearer of an -ism."

Fair point, but it doesn't solve the labeling issue. Even if we were to call the default/middle ground "nontheism" the term "nontheist" would be absurd for the same reason. You'd just be replacing one bad word with another, so what's the point?

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC You make a good point, too. I don't think the "non-theist" label is useful for the exact same reason (since their meaning is the same) that I don't find BD's definition of atheism to be useful. Lack of belief isn't occupying the middle ground, though. It's occupying no ground at all, which we agree is the default non-position. If someone believes in the nonexistence of God very strongly or very weakly, this negative belief still makes them an atheist. The same principle goes for theism.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe "Lack of belief isn't occupying the middle ground"

It can be. For example, if I asked you if you believed it was raining in Osaka you'd understand the concept but you probably wouldn't have any beliefs as to whether it is or isn't raining (unless you were observing the weather there). You can not believe it's raining without believing it isn't and still understand the concept, thus lacking any positive or negative belief about the question. I'd call that the middle ground.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC Lack of belief in God does not require that one be familiar with the God concept, but the example you provided -- suspension of belief -- does require that one be familiar with the concepts of "raining" and "Osaka." We might want to locate neutral openness or deliberation in between affirming a positive proposition and affirming its negation, and I would be fine with that, even if it does not constitute a "position" in the proper sense. But this is still more than simply lacking belief.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@ElasticGiraffe *One who believes that p or ~p can be certainly open to changing his view, and the degree of openness depends upon how strongly the belief is held, but this isn't the kind of openness I mean. What I mean is "neutrality" in regard to the truth value of an understood proposition.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe I wasn't suggesting lack of belief requires familiarity with the concept, only that it doesn't require unfamiliarity with the concept. I don't see how a 'suspension of belief' is more than a 'lack of belief'. Surely familiarity with the concept would impact a level of understanding of the concept, but I don't see how it would impact any belief or disbelief regrading the truth of the concept. How has a persons' beliefs changed upon hearing the question if they remain neutral?

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC Suspension of belief does require familiarity with the concepts and claims, whereas simple lack of belief requires nothing at all. A person need not take on an additional belief simply because they have been exposed to a claim. But you were arguing that bare "non-theism" constitutes the middle ground. I think it is more sensible to claim that for suspension of belief than lack of belief because mere lack of belief occupies no ground at all. At least the former are necessarily informed.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe Sure, but I don't see how suspension of belief and lack of belief are different regards to their BELIEF about the claim. They're certainly different with regards to AWARENESS of the claim, but not the BELIEF, so you can't separate one from the other regarding the "middle ground" status of their BELIEF.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC I acknowledge that suspension of belief is a subset of lack of belief -- that neither ignorant unawareness nor informed neutrality nor a state of deliberation are "beliefs" of any kind or can be properly called "positions." This really is just a pointless semantic dispute over whether awareness of the claim and its concepts is necessary in order to occupy the nebulous "middle ground" between a positive proposition and its negation. I doubt these answers have practical implications. :P

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC The reason I think the semantic dispute over the definition of "atheism" is worth having is because it does have consequences for the rhetoric of the God debate. I have noticed that many people on YouTube avoid epistemic burden like the plague. Another example would be naturalism vs. supernaturalism. Naturalists say, "Naturalism is the default position; supernatural events are extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" Supernaturalists, on the other hand...

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC retort, "Supernaturalism is the default position because naturalism, in effect, places a limitation on what claims, evidence, and entities are philosophically admissible; this restriction imposed on explanation requires justification!" Naturalists can argue that naturalism is just non-supernaturalism, just as supernaturalists can argue that supernaturalism is just non-naturalism. Both sides need to admit to their beliefs and quit trying to absolve themselves of epistemic responsibility.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe Supernaturalists are stupid :P

I'm a strong atheist - I'll happily admit to believing no gods exist. My justification is the employment of reason and evidence - a demonstrably reliable method of discerning truth from fiction. There's insufficient evidence to support the claim and so I assume it to be false until further evidence is presented.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC "I believe God doesn't exist cuz reason says so. Anyone who doesn't see it my way is stupid. lolz"

Dang it. You just had to go there. And I was under the impression you were more sensible, philosophically informed, and intellectually humble than the typical YouTube atheist.

[NoeLPZC]

@EG Haha! Very humourous strawman :P

First of all, supernaturalism isn't stupid because I don't agree with it, it's stupid for its own reasons.

Secondly, the reason you're mocking here is the same reason you use on a daily basis to distinguish fact from fiction, and the same reason that has allowed us to advance scientifically at lightning speed. For some reason you feel the claim of God should be exempt from this demonstrably powerful truth filter?

Don't assume my reasons from my conclusion.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC "Haha! Very humorous strawman!"

Haha! No, it wasn't. I stated nothing about the reason you believe supernaturalists are stupid, only that there is a correlation between their stupidity and their disagreement with you. I don't expect you to understand this...

The ubiquitous and all-powerful reason that dictates everything you find yourself believing, yet you cannot describe any more specifically than that. I don't want to get into it with you. You will only disappoint and frustrate me.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe "No, it wasn't"

Yes, it was (and an ad hominem, adding the 1337sp33k). I said that supernaturalists are stupid - you claimed I said "Anyone who doesn't see it my way is stupid". Just because a person disagrees with me doesn't mean they're a supernaturalist.

"yet you cannot describe any more specifically than that"

Have not =/= cannot. Please, cease the strawmanning.

[NoeLPZC]

Furthermore, my assessment that supernaturalists are "stupid" was clearly tongue-in-cheek. All I was saying is that I disagree with their position. How that makes me "intellectually immature" is beyond me.

[drcraigvideos]

@NoeLPZC Your intelligence is beyond you, dude. Please troll some place else.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC And I was not mocking reason, philosophy, science, or anything of the kind. I was mocking your comment. I had hoped you were more intellectually mature than you revealed yourself to be. I see no "reason" to continue this conversation.

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe "I was mocking your comment."

You were mocking me because you don't believe reason is a valid justification for what I believe. You mocked me before I even presented an argument, favouring a strawman instead. You're feeling disappointed and frustrated not because I'm intellectually immature, but because you've already formed a belief that those that disagree with you on this point MUST be intellectually immature. Your reaction to my statement was immature, but understandable.

[ElasticGiraffe]

@NoeLPZC You did not state you believed in naturalism. If you had, I would have had no problem with it. You just randomly insulted the people who disagree with you by calling them "stupid" and went on about how wonderfully reasonable you are. *sigh*

[NoeLPZC]

@ElasticGiraffe Supernaturalists are stupid :P

I'm a strong atheist - I'll happily admit to believing no gods exist. My justification is the employment of reason and evidence - a demonstrably reliable method of discerning truth from fiction. There's insufficient evidence to support the claim and so I assume it to be false until further evidence is presented.

Anyway, I've totally lost track of what we were talking about.

[Immortalsouls]

Lol, Zindler got annihilated by Craig hehe. Funny to watch.

[Super4wesomeGreat]

!!!

[Nyarl3]

This Zindler fellow is supposed to be a powerhouse? Looks like nothing more than your average youtube atheist to me.

[drcraigvideos]

@Nyarl3 Oh, trust me! He isn't that bad! The majority of youtube atheists are absolute idiots. At least Zindler is civil.

[MrRepzion]

This guy got  pwned...

[serpentinessarecute]

@dcraigvideos

Have you watched the recent "debate" between Craig and Dawkins?

[JesusxXxLovesxXxYou]

@serpentinessarecute He has it uploaded already.

[KBrimstone]

@serpentinessarecute Do you know where it can be viewed?

[serpentinessarecute]

@KBrimstone Unfortunately, it was uploaded by a militant atheist youtuber by the name of SvendsenAtheist, which means you have to deal with hopelessly abhorrent atheist comments.

But just look up WLC vs RD

[drcraigvideos]

@KBrimstone Go to youtube-dot-com-forwardslash-r­fvidz.

[KBrimstone]

@drcraigvideos For some reason it isn't coming up

[drcraigvideos]

@KBrimstone Try this: watch?v=QzSXBDzXxk4. Go to the description area and you'll see the link to the debate.

[drcraigvideos]

@serpentinessarecute Yes. Craig and his team won quite easily. The problem is Dawkins and his team did next to nothing to respond and rebut. I'd still like to see a one-on-one debate between Craig and Dawkins though.

[serpentinessarecute]

@drcraigvideos Indeed.

The "reasons" atheists give for the non-existence of God are primitive and intentionally sarcastic, utilized to encourage a forced laugh from the audience to give the viewer and themselves a false sense of "victory."

Something tells me, though, that Richie will never debate WLC one on one.

[sgprailfan]

@drcraigvideos wow I have to find that debate thatnks

[drcraigvideos]

@sgprailfan Start here: watch?v=QzSXBDzXxk4

[KBrimstone]

@drcraigvideos

Thanks I saw it. That whole thing was a one sided mess.

Not enough time for people to talk.

Look forward to a real Dawkins vs Craig debate.

[drcraigvideos]

@KBrimstone I felt the same way. Whoever arranged the format of the debate should be spanked.

[Prolific85]

@drcraigvideos Ya I agree. I think Dawkins really dodged a lot of it...great scientist. Horrible philosopher.

[aveyowyns]

@serpentinessarecute

whaa? they finally debated???

[serpentinessarecute]

@aveyowyns Well...kind of.

The setup for the debate was unprofessional and pitted 3 theists vs 3 atheists speaking for too short time.

[KBrimstone]

@serpentinessarecute Don't forget about Kaku who seems to be a verificationist.

[serpentinessarecute]

@KBrimstone Yea, I remember being confused by his stance on the whole thing...

What is exactly is verificationalism?

[KBrimstone]

@serpentinessarecute It's the Idea that we can only believe what can be empirically verified. So meta physical questions like "Is there a God?" are meaningless.

[serpentinessarecute]

@KBrimstone That's... silly

[KBrimstone]

@serpentinessarecute Indeed.

[drcraigvideos]

@aveyowyns Not one on one. They were in a team. Start here: watch?v=QzSXBDzXxk4