@DreddDwarf "To accept the possibility of God you have to accept the possibility of the other, which is absurd."
I accept that both are possible (as in they aren't impossible). We just don't have evidence to claim either are true and therefor I don't believe in either of them.
i hav que.since im atheist i think of morality as nothing but survival tool and may be it is .but u say in other video over population may effect survival.but if population reaches a point where no other way would be effective for survival than sudden and big ass decrease in population by killing using methods not effecting envinornment would it justify.remaining people can live happily they just saved whole planet and other animals by decreasing population of stupid species.it is stupid sorry
admit and when chips are down(batman) they will turn to religious belief and i say this because religion came into existance for some ignorant reason and without dealing with the reality and accepting unfair nature which would be simple. sorry if its big ass stupid idea and if i misinterpreted .if its not reply
i hav another question.as u said in ur other video einstein brain had some part of it bigger than other region.this is wat i understood by that-so einstein had the capabilty to reason.so can it be concluded that "most not all" religious people if raised in such environment cant reason against it simply because they dont hav it in them and not their fault.u can make 1000 videos and it wont effect them and in future it may be they renounce religion because it will become too old fashioned to-cont
e of universe then if you believe such god "may" exist doesnt that make u agnostic.(again im not talking about human all good god only the one resposible for creating universe).forgive me if you already covered that topic in this video.u made me think about things but may be u cant improve my eng understanding (second language thats why)and may be im not bright enough so sorry. reply if its not stupid
im atheist.so i accept that butt elves make more sense than a god who hear prayers,tel people to rite book.&other bullshit.but would it b too difficult for u to imagine a god who spontaneously created universe for no reason ,dont controls universe (may be cant),dont hear prayers and bullshit and only cant b proven because of distance and current tech and i dont kno but do u think "this" idea of god violates science or reason(but if it does,explain) since even science is not certain of purp-cont
@tonyfalca "Don't atheists claim there is no god?"
The short answer is no. Atheists don't believe in any gods. Not believing is not an assertion that a god or gods doesn't exist.
The long answer is that everyone is different. Some Atheists may claim a SPECIFIC god doesn't exist (I claim Helios doesn't exist). Some may say all gods are impossible.
At the end of the day, Atheism is simply not having a belief in any god. Any further opinion after that is extra (positive atheism, strict atheism)
@tonyfalca Well, you said that God is everything in its entirety. We have a better word for that: Universe. No need to call it God. And BTW this is the pantheist definition. I meant of course the theist God. Again: if you define God as my leg, then it certainly exists, because I won't disprove the existence of my leg. That's kind of obvious. By defining God as everything in its entirety, you are the one who's stating that God doesn't exist. Because you call God something that isn't God.
@algi80 It's god to me. Call it what you will, the universe, everything in its entirety, the eternal motion, the animating life force, the one, the all; the list goes on forever. It's all the same. I was eager to hear you attempt to disprove everything.
To me, this argument has sort of devolved into the simple question, "Can a word mean more than one thing?" Yes, that is why they put those little numbers after the words in the dictionary, they show different meanings of the same word. I believe that agnostic can mean someone basically "on the fence" on whether or not there is a god. I also do consider myself an atheist agnostic because I lack absolute knowledge and that is a good way to describe it. There are also atheist Christians. Fun.
Criss, Your technically right by saying : I don't have to prove a negative. But there is a difference between not wanting to prove it and not be able to proof a negative.
Proving that the existence of a god cannot be proved does not make it true but put the burden of proof just on the side of the claimer.
@DoctorCatapultSA Not all knowledge is subjective. Pragmatically, there is the subjective and objective. You can ultimately reduce everything to philosophical discourse, but much like the argument in the video, all parties must agree on the definition of the subject at hand. By the way, Criss is right in that belief and knowledge are not discrete concepts, rather part of a progression.
@MephistosMelancholia "Criss is right in that belief and knowledge are not discrete concepts, rather part of a progression."
I completely agree with you here. At the same time, I disagree with her when she says agnostic is somehow a different or separate view from atheism (or theism for that matter), in her other video.
I use the same scale of belief that she does but "Agnostic" overlaps Theism/Atheism on the low ends of the scale that are before "Gnostic".
I used that exact theory in the fantasy book I wrote at fourteen to have a big twist at the end. but all you do in that relm of thought is get off on how deep you think you are.
You have the argument of a fantasy book......."What if everthing wasn't really there, and all I could prove was my own existence and really not even that!" It's such a trivial and simplistic argument
If we go to the point of using modern definitions then we might as well use the lexicon that Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of god. And if you do not like that definition? Tough luck!
@bulletbikesyke69 My argument is, I think A is stronger then B. You argue that A should be defined as Z and not as A. I reply with the fact that A has constantly, consistantly been used as A.
@bulletbikesyke69 Aside from tearing the point down that A should be Z. I could then argue that my contexted use of A established its meaning in the argument.
Of course if I wished to be cooperative yes, but I don't have to accept it. Not epistemologically I don't. Realistically all you can prove is that you exist to yourself.
All the rest require logical fallacies, read Rene Descartes and learn for yourself. You can use anecdotes all you like, but it only appeals to popularity.
@bulletbikesyke69 A-"I think being gay is wrong" B-"I see nothing wrong with being happy so A is wrong" A-"B, I was talking in the sense of homosexuals" One is right and one is wrong.
All that did was provide context to the definition you wished to use, just like both of them use their terms in the context of the definitions they use. DERP
ZOMG is saying Bionic is wrong, Bionic is saying ZOMg is wrong, and contextually they are both right, while both are wrong about saying the other is wrong.
Here's my approach to the issue of "agnostic atheism": I'm technically as agnostic about the existence of gods as I am about the existence about the tooth fairy. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, just like with gods. However, I don't say "because I haven't disproven the tooth fairy's existence, it may be possible that it exists" (thought it technically is), because it's a fucking fairy tale! And the same applies to the concept of gods: man-made fairy tailes.
What you need to do about a debate is accept the terms used in the context they are given. While you use the appeal to popularity fallacy, BionicDance is using the appeal to tradition fallacy. Neither of which are helpful or prove either wrong. You must compromise for the sake of the debate, or like BionicDance suggested. You are talking past each other.
Technically you are both correct and close minded. YAY!
@bulletbikesyke69 Do you know what these fallacies mean? Do you know how language works? And yes, they were using different terms, but ZOMGits set the precedent for the definition. If you are arguing that she is close-minded because she insists on having precise, consistent definitions for words, then maybe we should all use different definitions for words and "compromise" on their meaning because we don't want to be too "HONK*".
Be that as it may, language is formed through the agreement of people that certain words mean certain things. And while language changes over time, it isn't an appeal to popularity because language and communication fundamentally work through the majority-agreement of populations. And while I would agree that a face-to-face debate would have both parties consent to a single definition, that is impractical here.
That still doesn't change the appeal to popularity fallacy. I understand that it is a axiom, but again the Munchhausen Trilemma shows us how epistemologically both of them are simply offering opinions without any means of cooperative communication. I am not siding with either I am saying they are both right and both wrong in their own respects. Write in their own positions and wrong about their interpretation of the others.
Unless of course you have figured out a way to solve the Munchhausen Trilemma in which I am all ears. Otherwise the axiomatic argument of using the lexicon of language traditionally as Keight does or Modernly as Christina is nothing more than difference of opinion based upon one's own knowledge. You simply cannot recognize one as better than the other. It isn't true and it isn't useful.
You and no one else can prove anything to me without my personal acceptance of 1 out of 3 logically fallacious arguments. The Axiomatic argument (the appeal to popularity) The Circular reasoning (a proposition that is justified by its own existence) of the Infinite Regress ( a limitless amount of questions and answers that gives no sufficient conclusion)
It doesn't make a difference how they argue if neither are willing to compromise for the definitions.
Semantics and lexicon is a infinite regress argument on Hermeneutics which reduces the argument to opinion. Just as there is no written law in language that says modern definitions are the best (even if it is implied in society) just like there is no law of language saying that we must accept the etymological interpretation of words instead. Both have logically qualified their use and both are logically valid arguments. They are simply talking past each other.
@bulletbikesyke69 It sounds to me like you learned a new way of thinking, and have been dying to jam it into an inappropriate forum. Talking past one another means nothing here, one is right and one is wrong. The argument of one was to try and say Zomgits was using the word incorecctly. .
And ZOMGitscriss is trying to say that the other is wrong, both have logically qualified them and are logically valid. Saying on is right over the other is absurd.
@bulletbikesyke69 For the context used by Zomgits, BionicDance is incorrect imeddiately. Which is why she was called out. This is how arguments happen and progress. If BionicDance can defend it then she should. Zomgits is "Close-minded" For siting her opponent accurately, taking down her arguments support structure
@bulletbikesyke69 and asking not to rely wholly on "My definition is better then yours". I submit that YOU are close-minded for saying that, if these two don't argue in the style you deem best they are close-minded. That is a serious implication to give someone. What you mean to say is. "I don't feel these two are discussing this in an appropriate manner".
Given the Munchhausen Trilemma, what would you say is objective truth? If knowledge is only subjective, then how would you go about proving the Munchhausen Trilemma? It is true that the Munchhausen Trilemma is logically sound, but when the theory itself breaks its own foundation, how do we know that it is true. And if it is true, what does that even say about reality, and how is it relevant to reality?
I think therefore I exist, that is all you got. Everything else is perpetual cooperation and doesn't define reality at all. It is a settlement for reasons I am unsure of.
Fair enough, because we obtain knowledge through our senses and our senses can lie to us, we cannot absolutely know anything, correct? If so, what method do you use to determine what is truth? And how is your method any less fallacious than mine? If our methods of determining truth are equally illogical, is there any practical application to any of this train of thought? Isn't this all hypothetical, meaningless bullshit?
It isn't any more valid for me or you, simply if we wish to cooperate (which these two are obviously not concerned with that) we accept each others terms in context and adress that
I see both as being equally valid in context but simply won't accept each others terms as they are using the same words. It's a bitch, but it's simply their opinions.
"Fair enough, because we obtain knowledge through our senses and our senses can lie to us, we cannot absolutely know anything, correct?"
-I agree
"What method do you use to determine what is truth? And how is your method any less fallacious than mine?"
-We both have a method of determining truth based on our standards of evidence and what logic and reason we apply. One person may be using a fallacy or other flawed reasoning to determine truth.
So, if I understand you correctly, every argument is equally true? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that whichever argument is more consistent, is more practical, and/or has more facts supporting it would be the more correct argument? If not, then what is the point of learning facts that cannot be known? And if our opinions are formed from our own knowledge, how do we know that our knowledge is even correct? And do you believe in an objective reality?
As far as being close minded, both are simply unwilling to see past the point of being cooperative for the sake of open discussion. This is simply a difference of opinion. LAMECAKE
Just my opinion, but I believe that Agnostic is a stand-alone view-point.
If you asked me weather or not i believed in Alternate dimensions, I would say : "I don't know."
i don't have enough knowledge on the subject to form an opinion one way or another.
If I answered that question with a "yes" or a "no", i would be lying to you. So i have no clue if this leaves me in agreement with ZOMGitscriss or BionicDance.
@ExCakeProductions "If you asked me weather or not i believed in Alternate dimensions, I would say : "I don't know.""
So, if you don't have justification to believe in it, you don't believe it. You don't know AND you don't believe.
"If I answered that question with a "yes" or a "no", i would be lying to you."
You can "not believe" in something without also claiming with total certainty that "it's false". That's why courts find people "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Not "Guilty" or "Innocent".
@ExCakeProductions A lot of people would tell you that if the answer isn't "yes" then technically it's "no" even if you say "I don't know." Technically it's correct, but it seems too strict to me. One of the things I don't like about religion is the absolutist mentality, and I think that kind of attitude toward the words displays the same black-and-white mindset. I think it stems from a desire to get more people under the same tent, which is fine until it becomes insulting.
@ExCakeProductions "if I answered that question with a yes or a no, I wouldn't be able to believe my own answer.
"
It's just a simple misunderstanding on how belief works.
If I offer the claim that I have a mountain of gold in my backyard - Before I mentioned it, you didn't believe it existed. AFTER I claim it exists but provide no justification, you still don't believe it.
If I then provide pictures and let you see my mountain of gold, you would then believe it.
@ExCakeProductions (Continued) Up until the point where I gave you justification to believe, you did not believe. (Your answer to BELIEF was NO)
The default position to unjustified claims is disbelief. This is what the Burden of Proof provides us and the reason you don't believe every crazy claim you hear until it is disproven.
Reason works the opposite way. We don't believe claims UNTIL there is justification to believe. That's all Atheism is. It's that position in regards to the god belief.
And If it does, the new definition dwarfs the old one so severly that the old definition is only used in reference to the new one. (as demonstrated here.)
@ZOMgitsCriss - Woah, Woah, Woah, I've never even heard that girl's contention before. Agnosticism and Atheism are entirely different. How can people get this mixed up? Agnosticism is not being sure if there is or isn't a God/Higher Power/WTF people come up with, and Atheism is simply the BELIEF of there being no God. Simple terms. And the etymology of the word "Agnostic" is simply the fact that an agnostic won't hold an opinion on either contention. Look it up in a dictionary. Lol.
I do not think you're right here. But this topic is too long to put in a comment. I think the term "agnostic" can not be beyond belief, or non-belief.
Is there a god? There can only be 2 answers, yes or no. BULLSHIT. Nobody knows for sure either way. Anyone who says they know for a fact that there is or there isn't is a fucking liar. Agnostics admit they don't know, like everyone else should. God's never talked to me, has he talked to you?? Thought not. Then you don't know shit.
@IChIDH "Is there a god? There can only be 2 answers, yes or no. BULLSHIT. Nobody knows for sure either way."
The problem with that statement is that the question isn't "Is there a god?". The question is "Do you believe in a God?".
Just wanted to make that clear cause that's exactly where the common misunderstanding of "I'm not atheist because I'm agnostic" arises. They are answers to different questions and not mutually exclusive.
@devious21 I see your point, but belief is irrelevant (to everyone except the believer). I'm speaking of known reality. People may believe, but they don't know. True that belief and knowledge are not mutually exclusive, but my point is that no one through out the history of mankind has ever known if god exists. I believe there could be a god, but I've never seen any proof so I don't really know. That would make me agnostic, correct?
I just want to break this sentence down because I hear this quite a lot.
"I believe there could be a god" - Basically, god is not impossible. As an Atheist, I agree. I just don't believe in it. I don't believe any of the god claims that have been presented to me. That doesn't mean I think is no chance that there could be anything that could be defined as god.
That's another issue is that Atheists aren't defining god. They are responding to Theist claims and definitions of god.
@IChIDH "but I've never seen any proof so I don't really know."
Same here. I have never seen any proof. Therefor I don't know it exists nor do I believe it exists. I'm justified in not believing in it, just as I'm justified in not believing all other claims that have not met their Burden of Proof. "That would make me agnostic, correct?"
Correct. And unless you believed in the god that you have no proof of, it would make you Atheist as well.
@IChIDH "I see your point, but belief is irrelevant (to everyone except the believer)."
I see what you are saying and yes that is correct. But the question arrises when people are asking what you believe in. Eventually someone is curious to know what your beliefs are and that's where this all stems from.
As far as what is known reality, I don't think anyone can honestly claim to "know god" and those that do are misunderstanding the question (e.g. I had a personal experience) or being dishonest.
Because (as you admitted) you didn't read the other posts, you are unfamiliar with the context.
We are talking about knowledge as a subset of belief So, how do you know when you know? There is no independent arbiter of truth that tells you when you got the answer right. Someone who can tell you that what you "know" is true.
And that's why personal knowledge is subjective. It's why 2 different people can "know" different answers to the same question. It's how you can know something and be wrong.
And because our senses and other people are imperfect, it's also why absolute certainty is unattainable.
@devious21 I try not to read youtube comments, because it makes me rather depressed, but I made the mistake of glancing down and seeing.. this one.
While definitions of knowledge may vary across the literature, one thing is absolutely definitely shared by everyone: to know something, it has to be true. If two people knew two different answers to the same question, at least one of them would be wrong (assuming there's a true answer).
(PS I didn't bother reading the earlier conversation below)
Look, damnit, tell the other girl Christina that Random House software definition #3 is the one most people use where god is concerned, not #1 and #2. We know what you mean. She is confused about the semantics. It is more than just about knowledge.
I think a lot of the rancor about this issue is caused by "some" atheists (usually online).
I've been attacked, in comments, by atheists, who call me a coward. I say all religions were invented by men--for men--and thus all religions are wrong about god (if one exists).
But, being viciously attacked--with ad homs--was no fun and I admit it has colored my subsequent conversations on this subject.
Love you ZOMGitsCriss please continue with the great videos.
"Example: I “believe” there is life on other planets. My belief comes from information I have of life on this planet and and others. I don't KNOW if there is life on other planets because I am not CERTAIN in my beliefs. If I discover further justification for my belief in the future, I will consider my belief to be KNOWLEDGE."
And just so there's no confusion. Certainty is not Absolute Certainty. We are talking human or practical certainty.
@residentatheist "Felgercarb, if it isn't absolute certainty it is still a belief."
The reason I clarified that is because you can't be absolutely certain of anything. I'm fairly certain that the sun will rise tomorrow but I can't be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. There is always a chance that earth will explode or time will stop, etc.
As John Stewart Mill put it - "There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life."
@devious21 "I'm fairly certain that the sun will rise tomorrow but I can't be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN."
Correct, that is why you can only believe it will rise tomorrow. There is no confirming evidence to support it will rise tomorrow. This is a good example of: "no matter how close to certainty you get it is still a belief without proof."
@residentatheist "Correct, that is why you can only believe it will rise tomorrow. There is no confirming evidence to support it will rise tomorrow."
I think the sun rising tomorrow is a little stronger than a belief. I would call it knowledge. You really think we have "no confirming evidence to support it will rise tomorrow"? Not our understanding of orbits or it's track record of 4.6 billion years and running?
@devious21 We have evidence. We even have "strong" evidence it will rise tomorrow but we do not have confirming evidence or proof. The time will come when the sun does not rise the next day. Ask me this on that day. This still makes it a belief in spite of it's track record.
-The people making the claim to KNOW the world was flat would be Gnostic Theists.
-Those that BELIEVED the world was flat but weren't certain would be Agnostic Theists.
-People that DID NOT BELIEVE the claim that the world was flat because lack of evidence would be Agnostic Atheists. (They didn't see the justification the theists claimed would be there = "the edge")
People making a separate claim that the world is round, would be Gnostic Atheists.
Who started the atheist/agnostic? We can’t separate belief from knowledge as if they are two separate things. Belief is just a degree of knowledge. Belief means: "I don't know". Belief means I don't have enough knowledge to know the truth. Truth and Belief are mutually exclusive.
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God doesn't exist.
Agnostic: I don't know.
All three are mutually exclusive.
As soon as you enter belief into the equation you are claiming the agnostic position of "I don't know".
@residentatheist "We can’t separate belief from knowledge as if they are two separate things. Belief is just a degree of knowledge."
I agree with you here to an extent. Knowledge is a degree of belief. If you go up the scale your beliefs become stronger and eventually become knowledge (or gnostic if you will).
But once you leave the area that's considered knowledge and head back down the scale (towards uncertainty), the rest of the scale is belief without knowledge.
@devious21 A belief is always a belief. A belief is never knowledge. A belief can only be proven or disproven. Once it is proven true it is no longer a belief, it is a truth. If it is proven false there is no reason to continue to believe it. To continue a belief after it is proven false is foolishness. Knowledge is what causes a belief. This is why belief is a degree of knowledge. False knowledge produces false beliefs as in the case of religious cults.
How does that tie in with what you said before of "We can’t separate belief from knowledge as if they are two separate things". When your beliefs approach certainty, they become your personal knowledge.
"Once it is proven true it is no longer a belief, "
Sure it is. The things that you know, you still believe. I think you are defining belief as a type of faith or something. I'm not sure but those statements don't logically follow.
@devious21 “How does that tie in with what you said before of "We can’t separate belief from knowledge as if they are two separate things".”
Beliefs come from knowledge and/or information. Example: I “believe” there is life on other planets. My belief comes from my knowledge of life on this planet and information I have about other planets in the universe. I don’t know there is life on other planets because I have no proof. Once a belief is formed, it can not be separated from that knowledge.
@residentatheist "Example: I “believe” there is life on other planets. My belief comes from my KNOWLEDGE of life on this planet and information I have about other planets in the universe. I DON'T KNOW there is life on other planets because I have no PROOF."
I highlighted the words above.
You are using the word "KNOWLEDGE" and "KNOW" with different meanings.
You using the SAME meaning for "KNOWLEDGE" and "PROOF".
This is the equivocation fallacy I was talking about.
@devious21 Knowledge is something that is known. Something has to be Proven to become knowledge. Anything else is a belief. All things have only two options. They are knowledge or the are a belief. There is no middle ground here. There are no exceptions to the rule. If they are proven, they are knowledge. If they are unproven they are a belief.
@residentatheist "Knowledge is something that is known. Something has to be Proven to become knowledge"
Yes, proven to whom? Who decides when it becomes knowledge? Yourself. This is why belief + certainty = Knowledge. That would make belief a prerequisite for knowledge and not the other way around as you previously claimed.
@devious21 If it is certainty it is not a belief. Many things are knowledge that were never a belief. We call them discoveries. Every new life species on the planet that is discovered becomes knowledge. They were never a belief.
@residentatheist I'm trying to keep the terms clear but you're using many terms that imply different meaning. Knowledge meaning personal knowledge, human knowledge and the objective truth.
Absolute certainty as certainty even though I explained why absolute certainty is impossible. By just using "Certainty", it would have insured we avoid any confusion and it wouldn't have changed the discussion to any degree. You are now just using "Absolute Certainty" for what I'm calling "Certainty".
@residentatheist "absolute certainty is not impossible. Where did you come up with that one?"
I'll gloss over that it's generally accepted. It's impossible because having absolute, infinite, perfect knowledge is impossible.
Again, I provided the definition of "perfect knowledge that has total security from error". If you are just defining "absolute certainty" as attainable "human certainty", then don't worry about it. I tried to be clear because there is such a thing as "absolute certainty".
@residentatheist I also showed how belief is a prerequisite for knowledge and not the other way around.
If you want to claim that something can only be a Belief OR Knowledge, that's fine I guess. It gets kind of confusing because "do you not believe in the things you know"? That doesn't make sense to me.
Plus as I demonstrated below, with the strict "either/or" you present, it creates a problem for "not knowledge" and "not belief".
@devious21 "do you not believe in the things you know"?
Why would I believe in something I already know? No belief is required. That is what we call Truth or Knowledge. If you have some knowledge that isn't true it is called false knowledge. You know, the kind of false knowledge that the clergy spreads.
Overwhelming Justification = sufficient evidence to Know
Claim + Justification = Belief
Belief + Overwhelming Justification = Knowledge.
Using this, you can see equivocation when saying something like "Many things are knowledge that were never a belief. We call them discoveries." That's obviously not personal "Knowledge" as we are using it. Using knowledge in multiple ways is causing confusion.
@devious21 "Justification = sufficient evidence to Believe" We don't need sufficent evidence to believe something. In fact we don't need any evidence at all to believe something. This is what the clergy calls faith. Faith=belief without evidence.
@devious21 "Overwhelming Justification = sufficient evidence to Know"
This creates "subjective knowledge" but it is still a belief. The problem with subjective knowledge is there is no place to draw the line. How much evidence is required for this kind of knowledge and who determines when enough is enough?
This is what I was alluding to. What is "objective knowledge"? Objective knowledge is absolute truth. Can you obtain that? Can you know when you have obtained it? Have you ever "known" or been certain about something and later found out you were wrong?
"How much evidence is required for this kind of knowledge"
The amount required by your standards of evidence.
You can form a belief with anything. Belief has no boundaries or requirements. You can even form a belief with nothing to support it but that is foolish. Foolish or not the clergy is a multi billion dollar a year industry using belief with nothing to support it.
@residentatheist "You can form a belief with anything. Belief has no boundaries or requirements. You can even form a belief with nothing to support it but that is foolish. Foolish or not the clergy is a multi billion dollar a year industry using belief with nothing to support it."
Just addressed this in the comment defining faith below.
Belief is always belief. You can't add something to it to make it something else. All you can do with a belief is prove it right or wrong. Belief is actually quite useless unless you are a con artist. If you can get people to believe something you want them to believe you can obtain a lot of control over them. Sad, I know, yet religions have been pulling this caper off for centuries.
@residentatheist "All things have only two options. They are knowledge or the are a belief. Something has to be Proven to become knowledge. ANYTHING ELSE IS A BELIEF."
Okay
Knowledge = Knowledge
Not Knowledge(Agnostic) = Belief?
Belief = Belief
Non-Belief(Atheism) = Knowledge?
Your current belief structure has definite problems. Atheism would have to be Knowledge. You could only do that if you shift the Burden of Proof to make non-belief a positive assertion.
There's either an equivocation or misunderstanding on the word "Knowledge". You're using "Know" as the "proof" or the "justification for what you believe". But that's not the Knowledge in the Belief/Knowledge relationship. Both "Belief" and "Proof" are prerequisites for "Knowledge"
The things you "Know" or accept are "Truth" are the beliefs you have that approach certainty.
@devious21 Knowledge is always attached to a belief. Without supporting knowledge you have no reason to believe in something. A belief can not be separated from the knowledge that created it. Belief is not a prerequisite of knowledge but knowledge is a prerequisite for belief.
@residentatheist "Without supporting knowledge you have no reason to believe in something."
As I stated in the other comment, you are using knowledge here to mean "evidence" or "information". Knowledge isn't referring to independent information you are assessing. It's referring to YOUR Knowledge. Your strongest beliefs make up your KNOW to be true.
@devious21 I am using knowledge to mean something that is "known". A belief is not knowledge. They are not interchangeable. My knowledge, your knowledge, all knowledge or any knowledge is all the same knowledge. It doesn't become knowledge until it is verified (aka: truth). Unverified knowledge is more like information. Information can be true or false but none of it is a belief. You have to form a belief with the information and/or knowledge you have to work with.
@residentatheist Imagine an alternate world where everyone thought the world was flat.
You sail to the edge of the world expecting to see "the edge" but you don't. You are not sure if you got lost or if "the edge" doesn't exist.
Then you sail "around" the world. Although, because there a limited maps, you aren't sure if you sailed around a sphere or sailed in a circle over a flat disc.
You're belief that the world is round based on 2 pieces of evidence. You wouldn't call it knowledge because your belief is still approaching certainty.
You also wouldn't call it faith because you do have evidence and justification for believing in it.
Later - Men make it to space and clearly photograph and detail the geometry of the world. This is further justification for you to accept your belief as knowledge. You can now say you're CERTAIN the world is round.
@devious21 "because there a limited maps, you aren't sure if you sailed around a sphere or sailed in a circle over a flat disc."
The "You aren't sure" part should be a clue. It is still a belief. Only when it is confirmed does it become truth, regardless of how much evidence or how close to the truth you are. The only thing that changes a belief is verification.
@residentatheist "The "You aren't sure" part should be a clue. It is still a belief."
That was actually the point of the story, yes.
"Only when it is confirmed does it become truth, regardless of how much evidence or how close to the truth you are."
Yes. But it's confirmed by you. You alone determine when you have enough justification to consider something truth. When it's confirmed, it becomes your knowledge. The actual objective truth could still be something different.
@devious21 Yes, The things we know are true but simply accepting a belief does not make it true. Accepting a belief before reaching certainty is faith. Truths are not beliefs. They only become truths after reaching certainty, at which point they are no longer beliefs. No matter how close to certainty they come the are still beliefs. That would be like saying if you are close enough to death you are dead.
Knowledge is a familiarity with a particular subject or branch of learning and belief is confidence in the truth. They are mutually exclusive. I do not have any familiarity with any god, I know nothing about them. However, I lack a belief in god because I do not have knowledge of god(s) to know if a god claim is correct. If you don't have a familiarity with these gods, then how can anyone claim they know that there are no gods? The fact is that no one knows. I lack knowledge; I lack belief.
I think people make the atheist vs agnostic argument more difficult than it needs to be. It's a boolean question, do you believe in creatures that you'd label gods? If yes, person=theist, if not, atheist. As for disproving gods, it depends on the definition of god. Most I encounter are so vague it's like a game of football between Charlie Brown and Lucy Pelt. When an attribute is assigned however, a person can to some extent debate as to whether or not that claim is even remotely likely.
Agnostic as honestly not knowing if there is or isn't a god but staying open to it or not or Agnostic as in you cannot know if there is or isn't a god and neither can you. Atheist infers sureness "belief" of no gods and if you had alternative theories prepare to back up or debate. Theists culturally subjected to or chose a religious package. Being in existence itself drives contemplatation of our eventuality hereafter. Then one might entertain nothing before "your life" then nothing after.
@GameLevelEditor "Atheist infers sureness "belief" of no gods and if you had alternative theories prepare to back up or debate."
Atheism is the rejection of God claims. If you believe in none of the current god claims, you say "I believe that there aren't any gods" or "I'm an Atheist". That's NOT a statement of certainty. It's a statement of belief.
Atheism doesn't have a Burden of Proof any more than you'd require proof to DISBELIEVE claims of leprechauns. You need proof to BELIEVE in them.
My thoughts on the subject is pretty simple. Theist is one who belives in god or simmilar higher devine power. Agnostic somone who has not yet ruled out that there could be divine enteties going around and about. Atheist somone who has ruled out the possibility of divine enteties.
both the agnostic and the atheist would most likely convert provided that said diety presented itself and provided evidence of its divinity.
"I'd like to see proof for an afterlife, But I do not expect to find it."
@earlgreyfull " Theist is one who belives in god or simmilar higher devine power. Agnostic somone who has not yet ruled out that there could be divine enteties going around and about. Atheist somone who has ruled out the possibility of divine entities."
The problem with that is it forces all Atheists into the realm of gnostic. Atheism is simply not believing any of the god claims you've been presented with. That doesn't mean we know there is no god, we just don't believe in any of them.
Agnostic. Not knowing. I don't know. I don't have a yes or no answer as to whether there is a god or not. I have no clue. I'm not Atheist. I'm not firm in the belief that there is no god. And I'm not theist. I'm not firm in the belief that there is a god. It's not a yes or no question. It's a yes, no, I have no idea, question.
@TheZachary86 Pretty much, yes. I also believe no one can outright prove the existence or non-existence of God. Simply because no one has yet. This doesn't mean my beliefs won't change in the future, but for now, if I was given the question, "Do you believe in God? Yes or no?" I wouldn't have an answer. Both are possible. I don't know.
@ArenBlut " "Do you believe in God? Yes or no?" I wouldn't have an answer. Both are possible."
This ignores Burden of Proof. We have Burden of Proof so all claims of existence aren't as likely as their none existence.
It's there so if I make a claim of a Invisible Leprechaun in my backyard, you don't have to prove it somehow doesn't exist before you can disbelieve it. That's where knowing and not knowing comes in.
You wouldn't KNOW if it was true or not. But you also wouldn't believe it.
@devious21 Here's the thing. I believe in the Big Bang. I don't know what happened before it. That is the only area in which I believe it is possible for God or Gods to exist. Also purpose of life.
But I am also an incredibly scientific person.
My dad's an atheist, my mom's a theist. I have been raised in both ways.
I ignore burden of proof because it does not apply to me. :P
I'm not sure I believe in god. And I'll never have enough knowledge to make a decision. So yeh.
i liked it when the troll was playing with himself
bikeridingpinko 1 day ago
Proof that there is no god: The existence of religion.
KittenKoder 2 days ago
I also believe that Deities are as non-existant as masturbating shoulder trolls.
To accept the possibility of God you have to accept the possibility of the other, which is absurd.
DreddDwarf 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DreddDwarf "To accept the possibility of God you have to accept the possibility of the other, which is absurd."
I accept that both are possible (as in they aren't impossible). We just don't have evidence to claim either are true and therefor I don't believe in either of them.
devious21 1 day ago
i hav que.since im atheist i think of morality as nothing but survival tool and may be it is .but u say in other video over population may effect survival.but if population reaches a point where no other way would be effective for survival than sudden and big ass decrease in population by killing using methods not effecting envinornment would it justify.remaining people can live happily they just saved whole planet and other animals by decreasing population of stupid species.it is stupid sorry
santoshsam333 3 days ago
admit and when chips are down(batman) they will turn to religious belief and i say this because religion came into existance for some ignorant reason and without dealing with the reality and accepting unfair nature which would be simple. sorry if its big ass stupid idea and if i misinterpreted .if its not reply
santoshsam333 3 days ago
i hav another question.as u said in ur other video einstein brain had some part of it bigger than other region.this is wat i understood by that-so einstein had the capabilty to reason.so can it be concluded that "most not all" religious people if raised in such environment cant reason against it simply because they dont hav it in them and not their fault.u can make 1000 videos and it wont effect them and in future it may be they renounce religion because it will become too old fashioned to-cont
santoshsam333 3 days ago
e of universe then if you believe such god "may" exist doesnt that make u agnostic.(again im not talking about human all good god only the one resposible for creating universe).forgive me if you already covered that topic in this video.u made me think about things but may be u cant improve my eng understanding (second language thats why)and may be im not bright enough so sorry. reply if its not stupid
santoshsam333 3 days ago
im atheist.so i accept that butt elves make more sense than a god who hear prayers,tel people to rite book.&other bullshit.but would it b too difficult for u to imagine a god who spontaneously created universe for no reason ,dont controls universe (may be cant),dont hear prayers and bullshit and only cant b proven because of distance and current tech and i dont kno but do u think "this" idea of god violates science or reason(but if it does,explain) since even science is not certain of purp-cont
santoshsam333 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hi
HopeYouReadQuran 4 days ago
Don't atheists claim there is no god?
tonyfalca 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tonyfalca "Don't atheists claim there is no god?"
The short answer is no. Atheists don't believe in any gods. Not believing is not an assertion that a god or gods doesn't exist.
The long answer is that everyone is different. Some Atheists may claim a SPECIFIC god doesn't exist (I claim Helios doesn't exist). Some may say all gods are impossible.
At the end of the day, Atheism is simply not having a belief in any god. Any further opinion after that is extra (positive atheism, strict atheism)
devious21 1 week ago
Om nom nom.
Best part.
xviFallout 1 week ago
my brains hurt...
monkofdeaths 1 week ago
I'm going to porve that there's no God at the moment someone defines God.
algi80 1 week ago
@algi80 Everything in its entirety, and I mean that in a very non-religious sense.
tonyfalca 1 week ago
@tonyfalca Well, in this case there's no point of praying or reading sacred texts and science is the best way to get to know God, not religion.
algi80 1 week ago
@algi80 Hmm.. I'm not sure about praying, but reading sacred texts could be enlightening. But you said you'd disprove god...
tonyfalca 1 week ago
@tonyfalca Well, you said that God is everything in its entirety. We have a better word for that: Universe. No need to call it God. And BTW this is the pantheist definition. I meant of course the theist God. Again: if you define God as my leg, then it certainly exists, because I won't disprove the existence of my leg. That's kind of obvious. By defining God as everything in its entirety, you are the one who's stating that God doesn't exist. Because you call God something that isn't God.
algi80 1 week ago
@algi80 It's god to me. Call it what you will, the universe, everything in its entirety, the eternal motion, the animating life force, the one, the all; the list goes on forever. It's all the same. I was eager to hear you attempt to disprove everything.
tonyfalca 1 week ago
To me, this argument has sort of devolved into the simple question, "Can a word mean more than one thing?" Yes, that is why they put those little numbers after the words in the dictionary, they show different meanings of the same word. I believe that agnostic can mean someone basically "on the fence" on whether or not there is a god. I also do consider myself an atheist agnostic because I lack absolute knowledge and that is a good way to describe it. There are also atheist Christians. Fun.
Mirkwoods 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I seriously see a troll situated on your shoulder playing with himself (cause I'm a bit drunk O.o)
Wait, KNOW THE MOTHERFUCKER'S FLIPPING ME OFF! BASTARD!
wisdomtrek 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
wisdomtrek 2 weeks ago
Criss, Your technically right by saying : I don't have to prove a negative. But there is a difference between not wanting to prove it and not be able to proof a negative.
Proving that the existence of a god cannot be proved does not make it true but put the burden of proof just on the side of the claimer.
maxlandoutsoursing 2 weeks ago
@DoctorCatapultSA Not all knowledge is subjective. Pragmatically, there is the subjective and objective. You can ultimately reduce everything to philosophical discourse, but much like the argument in the video, all parties must agree on the definition of the subject at hand. By the way, Criss is right in that belief and knowledge are not discrete concepts, rather part of a progression.
MephistosMelancholia 2 weeks ago
@MephistosMelancholia "Criss is right in that belief and knowledge are not discrete concepts, rather part of a progression."
I completely agree with you here. At the same time, I disagree with her when she says agnostic is somehow a different or separate view from atheism (or theism for that matter), in her other video.
I use the same scale of belief that she does but "Agnostic" overlaps Theism/Atheism on the low ends of the scale that are before "Gnostic".
What do you think?
devious21 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 Read Descartes?! Hahahahahaha! Nothing more than bullshit rationalism!
MephistosMelancholia 2 weeks ago
I used that exact theory in the fantasy book I wrote at fourteen to have a big twist at the end. but all you do in that relm of thought is get off on how deep you think you are.
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
You have the argument of a fantasy book......."What if everthing wasn't really there, and all I could prove was my own existence and really not even that!" It's such a trivial and simplistic argument
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
a·the·ism
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
^^^^^^ so tough luck?
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
If we go to the point of using modern definitions then we might as well use the lexicon that Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of god. And if you do not like that definition? Tough luck!
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 My argument is, I think A is stronger then B. You argue that A should be defined as Z and not as A. I reply with the fact that A has constantly, consistantly been used as A.
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 Aside from tearing the point down that A should be Z. I could then argue that my contexted use of A established its meaning in the argument.
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
@Jacobyeavello
Of course if I wished to be cooperative yes, but I don't have to accept it. Not epistemologically I don't. Realistically all you can prove is that you exist to yourself.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
All the rest require logical fallacies, read Rene Descartes and learn for yourself. You can use anecdotes all you like, but it only appeals to popularity.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 A-"I think being gay is wrong" B-"I see nothing wrong with being happy so A is wrong" A-"B, I was talking in the sense of homosexuals" One is right and one is wrong.
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
@Jacobyeavello
All that did was provide context to the definition you wished to use, just like both of them use their terms in the context of the definitions they use. DERP
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
ZOMG is saying Bionic is wrong, Bionic is saying ZOMg is wrong, and contextually they are both right, while both are wrong about saying the other is wrong.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
That bitch is ANNOYING. (The blue haired girl) Her voice and way of thinking just pisses me off.
XdisXesXwhyXimXhawtX 3 weeks ago
Here's my approach to the issue of "agnostic atheism": I'm technically as agnostic about the existence of gods as I am about the existence about the tooth fairy. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, just like with gods. However, I don't say "because I haven't disproven the tooth fairy's existence, it may be possible that it exists" (thought it technically is), because it's a fucking fairy tale! And the same applies to the concept of gods: man-made fairy tailes.
ronwisegamgee 3 weeks ago
"Common language definitions"
This is an appeal to popularity Fallacy.
What you need to do about a debate is accept the terms used in the context they are given. While you use the appeal to popularity fallacy, BionicDance is using the appeal to tradition fallacy. Neither of which are helpful or prove either wrong. You must compromise for the sake of the debate, or like BionicDance suggested. You are talking past each other.
Technically you are both correct and close minded. YAY!
bulletbikesyke69 3 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 Do you know what these fallacies mean? Do you know how language works? And yes, they were using different terms, but ZOMGits set the precedent for the definition. If you are arguing that she is close-minded because she insists on having precise, consistent definitions for words, then maybe we should all use different definitions for words and "compromise" on their meaning because we don't want to be too "HONK*".
*Honk, adj. close-minded
DoctorCatapultSA 3 weeks ago
@DoctorCatapultSA
yes I do know what they mean. The lexicon of language doesn't circumvent the Munchhausen trilemma so your question is moot.
bulletbikesyke69 3 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
Be that as it may, language is formed through the agreement of people that certain words mean certain things. And while language changes over time, it isn't an appeal to popularity because language and communication fundamentally work through the majority-agreement of populations. And while I would agree that a face-to-face debate would have both parties consent to a single definition, that is impractical here.
DoctorCatapultSA 2 weeks ago
@DoctorCatapultSA
That still doesn't change the appeal to popularity fallacy. I understand that it is a axiom, but again the Munchhausen Trilemma shows us how epistemologically both of them are simply offering opinions without any means of cooperative communication. I am not siding with either I am saying they are both right and both wrong in their own respects. Write in their own positions and wrong about their interpretation of the others.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
Unless of course you have figured out a way to solve the Munchhausen Trilemma in which I am all ears. Otherwise the axiomatic argument of using the lexicon of language traditionally as Keight does or Modernly as Christina is nothing more than difference of opinion based upon one's own knowledge. You simply cannot recognize one as better than the other. It isn't true and it isn't useful.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
You and no one else can prove anything to me without my personal acceptance of 1 out of 3 logically fallacious arguments. The Axiomatic argument (the appeal to popularity) The Circular reasoning (a proposition that is justified by its own existence) of the Infinite Regress ( a limitless amount of questions and answers that gives no sufficient conclusion)
It doesn't make a difference how they argue if neither are willing to compromise for the definitions.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
Semantics and lexicon is a infinite regress argument on Hermeneutics which reduces the argument to opinion. Just as there is no written law in language that says modern definitions are the best (even if it is implied in society) just like there is no law of language saying that we must accept the etymological interpretation of words instead. Both have logically qualified their use and both are logically valid arguments. They are simply talking past each other.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 It sounds to me like you learned a new way of thinking, and have been dying to jam it into an inappropriate forum. Talking past one another means nothing here, one is right and one is wrong. The argument of one was to try and say Zomgits was using the word incorecctly. .
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
@Jacobyeavello
And ZOMGitscriss is trying to say that the other is wrong, both have logically qualified them and are logically valid. Saying on is right over the other is absurd.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 For the context used by Zomgits, BionicDance is incorrect imeddiately. Which is why she was called out. This is how arguments happen and progress. If BionicDance can defend it then she should. Zomgits is "Close-minded" For siting her opponent accurately, taking down her arguments support structure
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
@Jacobyeavello
Not just one but they are both close-minded since they see no reason to compromise.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 and asking not to rely wholly on "My definition is better then yours". I submit that YOU are close-minded for saying that, if these two don't argue in the style you deem best they are close-minded. That is a serious implication to give someone. What you mean to say is. "I don't feel these two are discussing this in an appropriate manner".
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
Given the Munchhausen Trilemma, what would you say is objective truth? If knowledge is only subjective, then how would you go about proving the Munchhausen Trilemma? It is true that the Munchhausen Trilemma is logically sound, but when the theory itself breaks its own foundation, how do we know that it is true. And if it is true, what does that even say about reality, and how is it relevant to reality?
DoctorCatapultSA 2 weeks ago
@DoctorCatapultSA
I think therefore I exist, that is all you got. Everything else is perpetual cooperation and doesn't define reality at all. It is a settlement for reasons I am unsure of.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69 Okay, mental masturbation then.....DERP HONK CREEEEEEEEAKKKKKKKKKKK! PoPuS PrEtEntIOus JARgEn!!!!! SQUAWK!
Jacobyeavello 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
Fair enough, because we obtain knowledge through our senses and our senses can lie to us, we cannot absolutely know anything, correct? If so, what method do you use to determine what is truth? And how is your method any less fallacious than mine? If our methods of determining truth are equally illogical, is there any practical application to any of this train of thought? Isn't this all hypothetical, meaningless bullshit?
DoctorCatapultSA 2 weeks ago
@DoctorCatapultSA
It isn't any more valid for me or you, simply if we wish to cooperate (which these two are obviously not concerned with that) we accept each others terms in context and adress that
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
I see both as being equally valid in context but simply won't accept each others terms as they are using the same words. It's a bitch, but it's simply their opinions.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
I would accept your terms for the chance at open dialogue, and I wouldn't pretend to be superior. They, are not. So the whole argument is useless.
bulletbikesyke69 2 weeks ago
@DoctorCatapultSA Just stepping in:
"Fair enough, because we obtain knowledge through our senses and our senses can lie to us, we cannot absolutely know anything, correct?"
-I agree
"What method do you use to determine what is truth? And how is your method any less fallacious than mine?"
-We both have a method of determining truth based on our standards of evidence and what logic and reason we apply. One person may be using a fallacy or other flawed reasoning to determine truth.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@bulletbikesyke69
So, if I understand you correctly, every argument is equally true? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that whichever argument is more consistent, is more practical, and/or has more facts supporting it would be the more correct argument? If not, then what is the point of learning facts that cannot be known? And if our opinions are formed from our own knowledge, how do we know that our knowledge is even correct? And do you believe in an objective reality?
DoctorCatapultSA 2 weeks ago
@DoctorCatapultSA
As far as being close minded, both are simply unwilling to see past the point of being cooperative for the sake of open discussion. This is simply a difference of opinion. LAMECAKE
bulletbikesyke69 3 weeks ago
Enough.
Kiss and make up.
jeffiek 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Amashkitotamoes 4 weeks ago
Super Like!
markpatrickwhite 4 weeks ago
Jedi Master FTW
Aaustin747 1 month ago
Just my opinion, but I believe that Agnostic is a stand-alone view-point.
If you asked me weather or not i believed in Alternate dimensions, I would say : "I don't know."
i don't have enough knowledge on the subject to form an opinion one way or another.
If I answered that question with a "yes" or a "no", i would be lying to you. So i have no clue if this leaves me in agreement with ZOMGitscriss or BionicDance.
ExCakeProductions 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExCakeProductions "If you asked me weather or not i believed in Alternate dimensions, I would say : "I don't know.""
So, if you don't have justification to believe in it, you don't believe it. You don't know AND you don't believe.
"If I answered that question with a "yes" or a "no", i would be lying to you."
You can "not believe" in something without also claiming with total certainty that "it's false". That's why courts find people "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Not "Guilty" or "Innocent".
devious21 3 weeks ago
@ExCakeProductions A lot of people would tell you that if the answer isn't "yes" then technically it's "no" even if you say "I don't know." Technically it's correct, but it seems too strict to me. One of the things I don't like about religion is the absolutist mentality, and I think that kind of attitude toward the words displays the same black-and-white mindset. I think it stems from a desire to get more people under the same tent, which is fine until it becomes insulting.
AtheistB1tch 3 weeks ago
@AtheistB1tch
My point though, is that if I answered that question with a yes or a no, I wouldn't be able to believe my own answer.
It's all very confusing.
ExCakeProductions 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExCakeProductions "if I answered that question with a yes or a no, I wouldn't be able to believe my own answer.
"
It's just a simple misunderstanding on how belief works.
If I offer the claim that I have a mountain of gold in my backyard - Before I mentioned it, you didn't believe it existed. AFTER I claim it exists but provide no justification, you still don't believe it.
If I then provide pictures and let you see my mountain of gold, you would then believe it.
devious21 3 weeks ago
@ExCakeProductions (Continued) Up until the point where I gave you justification to believe, you did not believe. (Your answer to BELIEF was NO)
The default position to unjustified claims is disbelief. This is what the Burden of Proof provides us and the reason you don't believe every crazy claim you hear until it is disproven.
Reason works the opposite way. We don't believe claims UNTIL there is justification to believe. That's all Atheism is. It's that position in regards to the god belief.
devious21 3 weeks ago
This kid is AWESOME! I hope she becomes famous and performs in front of stadium sized sell-out crowds some day.
WNYmathGuy 1 month ago
What do you think of The Barking Atheist's video on this?
/watch?v=F8jxcCy3zpE
06mustangCE 1 month ago
Okay, she needed to give a better example than "gay".
Gay was not "originally used to mean carefree, happy, etc."....IT STILL FUCKING IS!!
Sure, it's not as commonly used in that way, BUT IT STILL HOLDS THAT MEANING.
rrpjdisc 1 month ago
@rrpjdisc
Not.... really.
And If it does, the new definition dwarfs the old one so severly that the old definition is only used in reference to the new one. (as demonstrated here.)
ExCakeProductions 1 month ago
@ZOMgitsCriss - Woah, Woah, Woah, I've never even heard that girl's contention before. Agnosticism and Atheism are entirely different. How can people get this mixed up? Agnosticism is not being sure if there is or isn't a God/Higher Power/WTF people come up with, and Atheism is simply the BELIEF of there being no God. Simple terms. And the etymology of the word "Agnostic" is simply the fact that an agnostic won't hold an opinion on either contention. Look it up in a dictionary. Lol.
therightintelectual 1 month ago
I do not think you're right here. But this topic is too long to put in a comment. I think the term "agnostic" can not be beyond belief, or non-belief.
marmjtin 1 month ago
Is there a god? There can only be 2 answers, yes or no. BULLSHIT. Nobody knows for sure either way. Anyone who says they know for a fact that there is or there isn't is a fucking liar. Agnostics admit they don't know, like everyone else should. God's never talked to me, has he talked to you?? Thought not. Then you don't know shit.
IChIDH 1 month ago
@IChIDH "Is there a god? There can only be 2 answers, yes or no. BULLSHIT. Nobody knows for sure either way."
The problem with that statement is that the question isn't "Is there a god?". The question is "Do you believe in a God?".
Just wanted to make that clear cause that's exactly where the common misunderstanding of "I'm not atheist because I'm agnostic" arises. They are answers to different questions and not mutually exclusive.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 I see your point, but belief is irrelevant (to everyone except the believer). I'm speaking of known reality. People may believe, but they don't know. True that belief and knowledge are not mutually exclusive, but my point is that no one through out the history of mankind has ever known if god exists. I believe there could be a god, but I've never seen any proof so I don't really know. That would make me agnostic, correct?
IChIDH 1 month ago
@IChIDH
I just want to break this sentence down because I hear this quite a lot.
"I believe there could be a god" - Basically, god is not impossible. As an Atheist, I agree. I just don't believe in it. I don't believe any of the god claims that have been presented to me. That doesn't mean I think is no chance that there could be anything that could be defined as god.
That's another issue is that Atheists aren't defining god. They are responding to Theist claims and definitions of god.
devious21 1 month ago
@IChIDH "but I've never seen any proof so I don't really know."
Same here. I have never seen any proof. Therefor I don't know it exists nor do I believe it exists. I'm justified in not believing in it, just as I'm justified in not believing all other claims that have not met their Burden of Proof. "That would make me agnostic, correct?"
Correct. And unless you believed in the god that you have no proof of, it would make you Atheist as well.
devious21 1 month ago
@IChIDH "I see your point, but belief is irrelevant (to everyone except the believer)."
I see what you are saying and yes that is correct. But the question arrises when people are asking what you believe in. Eventually someone is curious to know what your beliefs are and that's where this all stems from.
As far as what is known reality, I don't think anyone can honestly claim to "know god" and those that do are misunderstanding the question (e.g. I had a personal experience) or being dishonest.
devious21 1 month ago
gnostic = spiritual knowlege
agnostic = knowledge that can't be known factually
Does she not see the A in front of gnostic. Go back to high school english class...adding a prefix changes the meaning of a word.
IChIDH 1 month ago
im gnostic atheist about her blue hair...i see it and have knowledge of it but i dont fucking believe it. maybe it requires faith...
IChIDH 1 month ago 2
jedi fucking master lol
TheJazuma 1 month ago
@oceanyingtonic
Because (as you admitted) you didn't read the other posts, you are unfamiliar with the context.
We are talking about knowledge as a subset of belief So, how do you know when you know? There is no independent arbiter of truth that tells you when you got the answer right. Someone who can tell you that what you "know" is true.
devious21 1 month ago
i hope my wife thinks and looks like you ;)
Hernameisrenee 1 month ago
@residentathiest I agree.
And that's why personal knowledge is subjective. It's why 2 different people can "know" different answers to the same question. It's how you can know something and be wrong.
And because our senses and other people are imperfect, it's also why absolute certainty is unattainable.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 I try not to read youtube comments, because it makes me rather depressed, but I made the mistake of glancing down and seeing.. this one.
While definitions of knowledge may vary across the literature, one thing is absolutely definitely shared by everyone: to know something, it has to be true. If two people knew two different answers to the same question, at least one of them would be wrong (assuming there's a true answer).
(PS I didn't bother reading the earlier conversation below)
oceanyingtonic 1 month ago in playlist More videos from ZOMGitsCriss
Look, damnit, tell the other girl Christina that Random House software definition #3 is the one most people use where god is concerned, not #1 and #2. We know what you mean. She is confused about the semantics. It is more than just about knowledge.
nash984954 1 month ago
I love these videos and I'm agnostic.
I think a lot of the rancor about this issue is caused by "some" atheists (usually online).
I've been attacked, in comments, by atheists, who call me a coward. I say all religions were invented by men--for men--and thus all religions are wrong about god (if one exists).
But, being viciously attacked--with ad homs--was no fun and I admit it has colored my subsequent conversations on this subject.
Love you ZOMGitsCriss please continue with the great videos.
BoiseLib 1 month ago
does anybody else hate the sped-up chipmunk voice thing that Cristina does all the time? Sometimes Peach does it, too.
kalbahamut 1 month ago
I am an agnostic and this video makes sense. I hate it when SOME Atheists tell me that I am either an atheist or a theist.
philosophermike 1 month ago
This is how I would phrase that same statement.
"Example: I “believe” there is life on other planets. My belief comes from information I have of life on this planet and and others. I don't KNOW if there is life on other planets because I am not CERTAIN in my beliefs. If I discover further justification for my belief in the future, I will consider my belief to be KNOWLEDGE."
And just so there's no confusion. Certainty is not Absolute Certainty. We are talking human or practical certainty.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 Human certainty? Practical Certainty? Felgercarb, if it isn't absolute certainty it is still a belief.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "Felgercarb, if it isn't absolute certainty it is still a belief."
The reason I clarified that is because you can't be absolutely certain of anything. I'm fairly certain that the sun will rise tomorrow but I can't be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. There is always a chance that earth will explode or time will stop, etc.
As John Stewart Mill put it - "There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life."
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "The reason I clarified that is because you can't be absolutely certain of anything."
I know the earth is not flat. I am absolutely certain of it.
You can’t jump from Minnesota to California in one leap. I am absolutely certain of it.
John Stewart Miller was mistaken. I am absolutely certain of it.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "I know the earth is not flat. I am absolutely certain of it."
You're using "I'm absolutely certain" in the colloquial sense that means "I'm certain of it.
Certainty can be defined as either:
1. perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or
2. the mental state of being without doubt
You are using #2 - "I have no doubt that the world is round".
That's not the same as Absolute Certainty which implies perfect knowledge and total security from error.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "I'm fairly certain that the sun will rise tomorrow but I can't be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN."
Correct, that is why you can only believe it will rise tomorrow. There is no confirming evidence to support it will rise tomorrow. This is a good example of: "no matter how close to certainty you get it is still a belief without proof."
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "Correct, that is why you can only believe it will rise tomorrow. There is no confirming evidence to support it will rise tomorrow."
I think the sun rising tomorrow is a little stronger than a belief. I would call it knowledge. You really think we have "no confirming evidence to support it will rise tomorrow"? Not our understanding of orbits or it's track record of 4.6 billion years and running?
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 We have evidence. We even have "strong" evidence it will rise tomorrow but we do not have confirming evidence or proof. The time will come when the sun does not rise the next day. Ask me this on that day. This still makes it a belief in spite of it's track record.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@devious21 Unless you can claim with absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow it is still a belief.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist (cont2)
In that example:
-The people making the claim to KNOW the world was flat would be Gnostic Theists.
-Those that BELIEVED the world was flat but weren't certain would be Agnostic Theists.
-People that DID NOT BELIEVE the claim that the world was flat because lack of evidence would be Agnostic Atheists. (They didn't see the justification the theists claimed would be there = "the edge")
People making a separate claim that the world is round, would be Gnostic Atheists.
devious21 1 month ago
Who started the atheist/agnostic? We can’t separate belief from knowledge as if they are two separate things. Belief is just a degree of knowledge. Belief means: "I don't know". Belief means I don't have enough knowledge to know the truth. Truth and Belief are mutually exclusive.
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God doesn't exist.
Agnostic: I don't know.
All three are mutually exclusive.
As soon as you enter belief into the equation you are claiming the agnostic position of "I don't know".
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "We can’t separate belief from knowledge as if they are two separate things. Belief is just a degree of knowledge."
I agree with you here to an extent. Knowledge is a degree of belief. If you go up the scale your beliefs become stronger and eventually become knowledge (or gnostic if you will).
But once you leave the area that's considered knowledge and head back down the scale (towards uncertainty), the rest of the scale is belief without knowledge.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 A belief is always a belief. A belief is never knowledge. A belief can only be proven or disproven. Once it is proven true it is no longer a belief, it is a truth. If it is proven false there is no reason to continue to believe it. To continue a belief after it is proven false is foolishness. Knowledge is what causes a belief. This is why belief is a degree of knowledge. False knowledge produces false beliefs as in the case of religious cults.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "A belief is never knowledge."
How does that tie in with what you said before of "We can’t separate belief from knowledge as if they are two separate things". When your beliefs approach certainty, they become your personal knowledge.
"Once it is proven true it is no longer a belief, "
Sure it is. The things that you know, you still believe. I think you are defining belief as a type of faith or something. I'm not sure but those statements don't logically follow.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 “How does that tie in with what you said before of "We can’t separate belief from knowledge as if they are two separate things".”
Beliefs come from knowledge and/or information. Example: I “believe” there is life on other planets. My belief comes from my knowledge of life on this planet and information I have about other planets in the universe. I don’t know there is life on other planets because I have no proof. Once a belief is formed, it can not be separated from that knowledge.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "Example: I “believe” there is life on other planets. My belief comes from my KNOWLEDGE of life on this planet and information I have about other planets in the universe. I DON'T KNOW there is life on other planets because I have no PROOF."
I highlighted the words above.
You are using the word "KNOWLEDGE" and "KNOW" with different meanings.
You using the SAME meaning for "KNOWLEDGE" and "PROOF".
This is the equivocation fallacy I was talking about.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 Knowledge is something that is known. Something has to be Proven to become knowledge. Anything else is a belief. All things have only two options. They are knowledge or the are a belief. There is no middle ground here. There are no exceptions to the rule. If they are proven, they are knowledge. If they are unproven they are a belief.
There is no fallacy here.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "Knowledge is something that is known. Something has to be Proven to become knowledge"
Yes, proven to whom? Who decides when it becomes knowledge? Yourself. This is why belief + certainty = Knowledge. That would make belief a prerequisite for knowledge and not the other way around as you previously claimed.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 If it is certainty it is not a belief. Many things are knowledge that were never a belief. We call them discoveries. Every new life species on the planet that is discovered becomes knowledge. They were never a belief.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist I'm trying to keep the terms clear but you're using many terms that imply different meaning. Knowledge meaning personal knowledge, human knowledge and the objective truth.
Absolute certainty as certainty even though I explained why absolute certainty is impossible. By just using "Certainty", it would have insured we avoid any confusion and it wouldn't have changed the discussion to any degree. You are now just using "Absolute Certainty" for what I'm calling "Certainty".
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "I explained why absolute certainty is impossible."
Certainty or absolute certainty is not impossible. Where did you come up with that one?
residentatheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@residentatheist "absolute certainty is not impossible. Where did you come up with that one?"
I'll gloss over that it's generally accepted. It's impossible because having absolute, infinite, perfect knowledge is impossible.
Again, I provided the definition of "perfect knowledge that has total security from error". If you are just defining "absolute certainty" as attainable "human certainty", then don't worry about it. I tried to be clear because there is such a thing as "absolute certainty".
devious21 1 month ago
@residentatheist I also showed how belief is a prerequisite for knowledge and not the other way around.
If you want to claim that something can only be a Belief OR Knowledge, that's fine I guess. It gets kind of confusing because "do you not believe in the things you know"? That doesn't make sense to me.
Plus as I demonstrated below, with the strict "either/or" you present, it creates a problem for "not knowledge" and "not belief".
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "do you not believe in the things you know"?
Why would I believe in something I already know? No belief is required. That is what we call Truth or Knowledge. If you have some knowledge that isn't true it is called false knowledge. You know, the kind of false knowledge that the clergy spreads.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist Going to quickly define some terms.
Justification = sufficient evidence to Believe
Overwhelming Justification = sufficient evidence to Know
Claim + Justification = Belief
Belief + Overwhelming Justification = Knowledge.
Using this, you can see equivocation when saying something like "Many things are knowledge that were never a belief. We call them discoveries." That's obviously not personal "Knowledge" as we are using it. Using knowledge in multiple ways is causing confusion.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "Justification = sufficient evidence to Believe" We don't need sufficent evidence to believe something. In fact we don't need any evidence at all to believe something. This is what the clergy calls faith. Faith=belief without evidence.
residentatheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@residentatheist "This is what the clergy calls faith. Faith=belief without evidence."
Yes. That is why we have a term for it. "Faith". Most people's "beliefs" are usually backed by some evidence.
That is why I defined it:
Claim + Evidence = Belief.
I define faith (as you just defined it):
Claim + No Evidence = Faith.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "Overwhelming Justification = sufficient evidence to Know"
This creates "subjective knowledge" but it is still a belief. The problem with subjective knowledge is there is no place to draw the line. How much evidence is required for this kind of knowledge and who determines when enough is enough?
residentatheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@residentatheist "This creates "subjective knowledge"
This is what I was alluding to. What is "objective knowledge"? Objective knowledge is absolute truth. Can you obtain that? Can you know when you have obtained it? Have you ever "known" or been certain about something and later found out you were wrong?
"How much evidence is required for this kind of knowledge"
The amount required by your standards of evidence.
"who determines when enough is enough?"
You do. It's what YOU know.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "Claim + Justification = Belief"
You can form a belief with anything. Belief has no boundaries or requirements. You can even form a belief with nothing to support it but that is foolish. Foolish or not the clergy is a multi billion dollar a year industry using belief with nothing to support it.
residentatheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@residentatheist "You can form a belief with anything. Belief has no boundaries or requirements. You can even form a belief with nothing to support it but that is foolish. Foolish or not the clergy is a multi billion dollar a year industry using belief with nothing to support it."
Just addressed this in the comment defining faith below.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "Belief + Overwhelming Justification = Knowledge."
Belief is always belief. You can't add something to it to make it something else. All you can do with a belief is prove it right or wrong. Belief is actually quite useless unless you are a con artist. If you can get people to believe something you want them to believe you can obtain a lot of control over them. Sad, I know, yet religions have been pulling this caper off for centuries.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist Where do you think "what you know" comes from? When does something you believe become knowledge and how?
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 Our primary source of knowledge comes from our 5 senses. Other knowledge comes from receiving knowledge from others.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "All things have only two options. They are knowledge or the are a belief. Something has to be Proven to become knowledge. ANYTHING ELSE IS A BELIEF."
Okay
Knowledge = Knowledge
Not Knowledge(Agnostic) = Belief?
Belief = Belief
Non-Belief(Atheism) = Knowledge?
Your current belief structure has definite problems. Atheism would have to be Knowledge. You could only do that if you shift the Burden of Proof to make non-belief a positive assertion.
devious21 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21 "Your current belief structure has definite problems. Atheism would have to be Knowledge."
Correct, this is why there are so few atheists and so many agnostics.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist
"Knowledge is what causes a belief."
There's either an equivocation or misunderstanding on the word "Knowledge". You're using "Know" as the "proof" or the "justification for what you believe". But that's not the Knowledge in the Belief/Knowledge relationship. Both "Belief" and "Proof" are prerequisites for "Knowledge"
The things you "Know" or accept are "Truth" are the beliefs you have that approach certainty.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 Knowledge is always attached to a belief. Without supporting knowledge you have no reason to believe in something. A belief can not be separated from the knowledge that created it. Belief is not a prerequisite of knowledge but knowledge is a prerequisite for belief.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist "Without supporting knowledge you have no reason to believe in something."
As I stated in the other comment, you are using knowledge here to mean "evidence" or "information". Knowledge isn't referring to independent information you are assessing. It's referring to YOUR Knowledge. Your strongest beliefs make up your KNOW to be true.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 I am using knowledge to mean something that is "known". A belief is not knowledge. They are not interchangeable. My knowledge, your knowledge, all knowledge or any knowledge is all the same knowledge. It doesn't become knowledge until it is verified (aka: truth). Unverified knowledge is more like information. Information can be true or false but none of it is a belief. You have to form a belief with the information and/or knowledge you have to work with.
residentatheist 1 month ago
@residentatheist " A belief is not knowledge. They are not interchangeable."
Yes, I don't think that is in dispute.
-You are still using knowledge in multiple places in different ways.
"My knowledge, your knowledge, all knowledge"
The objective truth
"It doesn't become knowledge until it is verified (aka: truth)."
What individuals "know"
"Unverified knowledge is more like information."
Unverified knowledge = information (the justification for belief)
devious21 1 month ago
@residentatheist Imagine an alternate world where everyone thought the world was flat.
You sail to the edge of the world expecting to see "the edge" but you don't. You are not sure if you got lost or if "the edge" doesn't exist.
Then you sail "around" the world. Although, because there a limited maps, you aren't sure if you sailed around a sphere or sailed in a circle over a flat disc.
(cont)
devious21 1 month ago
@residentatheist (cont)
You're belief that the world is round based on 2 pieces of evidence. You wouldn't call it knowledge because your belief is still approaching certainty.
You also wouldn't call it faith because you do have evidence and justification for believing in it.
Later - Men make it to space and clearly photograph and detail the geometry of the world. This is further justification for you to accept your belief as knowledge. You can now say you're CERTAIN the world is round.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 "because there a limited maps, you aren't sure if you sailed around a sphere or sailed in a circle over a flat disc."
The "You aren't sure" part should be a clue. It is still a belief. Only when it is confirmed does it become truth, regardless of how much evidence or how close to the truth you are. The only thing that changes a belief is verification.
residentatheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@residentatheist "The "You aren't sure" part should be a clue. It is still a belief."
That was actually the point of the story, yes.
"Only when it is confirmed does it become truth, regardless of how much evidence or how close to the truth you are."
Yes. But it's confirmed by you. You alone determine when you have enough justification to consider something truth. When it's confirmed, it becomes your knowledge. The actual objective truth could still be something different.
devious21 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21 "Only when it is confirmed does it become truth, regardless of how much evidence or how close to the truth you are."
Also, in that sentence you equivocated truth again. Should read:
"Only when it is confirmed does it become knowledge, regardless of how much evidence or how close to the truth you are."
There's what you "know" and there is what's "objectively true".
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 Yes, The things we know are true but simply accepting a belief does not make it true. Accepting a belief before reaching certainty is faith. Truths are not beliefs. They only become truths after reaching certainty, at which point they are no longer beliefs. No matter how close to certainty they come the are still beliefs. That would be like saying if you are close enough to death you are dead.
residentatheist 1 month ago
Totally disagree with ZOMG. I don't believe that "belief and knowledge" are on a scale.
Or maybe that's because I'm an atheist agnostic.
bersaba 1 month ago
Knowledge is a familiarity with a particular subject or branch of learning and belief is confidence in the truth. They are mutually exclusive. I do not have any familiarity with any god, I know nothing about them. However, I lack a belief in god because I do not have knowledge of god(s) to know if a god claim is correct. If you don't have a familiarity with these gods, then how can anyone claim they know that there are no gods? The fact is that no one knows. I lack knowledge; I lack belief.
roboticsynapse 1 month ago
First video of yours ive seen and wow your well spoken, nice, funny and not too hard on the eyes..you got a fan
vatokiss 1 month ago
I think people make the atheist vs agnostic argument more difficult than it needs to be. It's a boolean question, do you believe in creatures that you'd label gods? If yes, person=theist, if not, atheist. As for disproving gods, it depends on the definition of god. Most I encounter are so vague it's like a game of football between Charlie Brown and Lucy Pelt. When an attribute is assigned however, a person can to some extent debate as to whether or not that claim is even remotely likely.
mistereveready 1 month ago
@mistereveready
AMEN! (sorry)
I think the big problem is that people think Atheist/Theist is not boolean, when it is.
If you don't believe in god(s), you're an atheist. Even if you're fuzzy, you're still an atheist.
bersaba 1 month ago
Agnostic as honestly not knowing if there is or isn't a god but staying open to it or not or Agnostic as in you cannot know if there is or isn't a god and neither can you. Atheist infers sureness "belief" of no gods and if you had alternative theories prepare to back up or debate. Theists culturally subjected to or chose a religious package. Being in existence itself drives contemplatation of our eventuality hereafter. Then one might entertain nothing before "your life" then nothing after.
GameLevelEditor 1 month ago
@GameLevelEditor "Atheist infers sureness "belief" of no gods and if you had alternative theories prepare to back up or debate."
Atheism is the rejection of God claims. If you believe in none of the current god claims, you say "I believe that there aren't any gods" or "I'm an Atheist". That's NOT a statement of certainty. It's a statement of belief.
Atheism doesn't have a Burden of Proof any more than you'd require proof to DISBELIEVE claims of leprechauns. You need proof to BELIEVE in them.
devious21 1 month ago
6:24 LOLRIOT:D The Tooth Fairy's a pedophile too!
incomprehensible14 1 month ago 2
My thoughts on the subject is pretty simple. Theist is one who belives in god or simmilar higher devine power. Agnostic somone who has not yet ruled out that there could be divine enteties going around and about. Atheist somone who has ruled out the possibility of divine enteties.
both the agnostic and the atheist would most likely convert provided that said diety presented itself and provided evidence of its divinity.
"I'd like to see proof for an afterlife, But I do not expect to find it."
earlgreyfull 1 month ago
@earlgreyfull " Theist is one who belives in god or simmilar higher devine power. Agnostic somone who has not yet ruled out that there could be divine enteties going around and about. Atheist somone who has ruled out the possibility of divine entities."
The problem with that is it forces all Atheists into the realm of gnostic. Atheism is simply not believing any of the god claims you've been presented with. That doesn't mean we know there is no god, we just don't believe in any of them.
devious21 1 month ago
I retract my previous statement
TheZachary86 1 month ago
An argument about words. but it helps clear things out. sorry Zomgitscriss, my scale is towards bionic dance.
TheZachary86 1 month ago
Agnostic. Not knowing. I don't know. I don't have a yes or no answer as to whether there is a god or not. I have no clue. I'm not Atheist. I'm not firm in the belief that there is no god. And I'm not theist. I'm not firm in the belief that there is a god. It's not a yes or no question. It's a yes, no, I have no idea, question.
ArenBlut 1 month ago
@ArenBlut i'm confused. so are you withholding belief in a god/no gods because you don't know enough?
TheZachary86 1 month ago
@TheZachary86 Pretty much, yes. I also believe no one can outright prove the existence or non-existence of God. Simply because no one has yet. This doesn't mean my beliefs won't change in the future, but for now, if I was given the question, "Do you believe in God? Yes or no?" I wouldn't have an answer. Both are possible. I don't know.
ArenBlut 1 month ago
@ArenBlut " "Do you believe in God? Yes or no?" I wouldn't have an answer. Both are possible."
This ignores Burden of Proof. We have Burden of Proof so all claims of existence aren't as likely as their none existence.
It's there so if I make a claim of a Invisible Leprechaun in my backyard, you don't have to prove it somehow doesn't exist before you can disbelieve it. That's where knowing and not knowing comes in.
You wouldn't KNOW if it was true or not. But you also wouldn't believe it.
devious21 1 month ago
@devious21 Here's the thing. I believe in the Big Bang. I don't know what happened before it. That is the only area in which I believe it is possible for God or Gods to exist. Also purpose of life.
But I am also an incredibly scientific person.
My dad's an atheist, my mom's a theist. I have been raised in both ways.
I ignore burden of proof because it does not apply to me. :P
I'm not sure I believe in god. And I'll never have enough knowledge to make a decision. So yeh.
ArenBlut 1 month ago