ok apparently I am close to what people call a "weak agnostic" concerning the knowability of god or gods. But in terms of belief I don't know what I am.
I have also removed all video replies to this video. If you want logical failures and numb replies, just search for anything that says "define atheist".... lol
Atheist cannot be defined. For details see below.
@gklr apparently you have to copy the yout....om/watch?v=jvt2j3A7E9 into the browser bar and then add the "A" < (the last character) to the end of it.
@gklr I am faithful that praying, meditating, and introspecting is a good thing. I am faithful that Jesus was a good person(even if he wasn't)...positive imagination giving soccer balls to gaggers. youtube.com/watch?v=jvt2j3A7E9A
@gklr You - Faith is a matter of conviction we have to a belief. Faith is how convinced someone is of a belief. Ok so according to your definition of faith I do have a lot of faith . I am very faithful that raping a child is a bad thing. I am very faithful that I DO NOT KNOW whether there is or isn't a god or nothing,but I will continue to search with an open mind. I am very faithful that I DO NOT KNOW whether the existence of a deity is knowable or unknowable, but I will continue to search
"I am very faithful that raping a child is a bad thing"
And good of you to realize that it is not a truth. Yes I share the faith that raping a child is a bad thing, knowing all good-bad matters are a subjective issue and I would be repulsed at anyone who did not share that faith.
We prove what does not exist by showing the thing in question to be the subject of a logical contradiction. eg: the ball that is on the table and is not on the table at the same time... cannot exist.
We prove what exists by stating 1 truth about that thing.
We can prove certain proposed gods do not exist. Doing so is not expressing atheism. It is logic at hand then.
eg: allah can do all things and cannot have a son in the koran. That god cannot exist.
@gklr EX. GAY PRIDE PARADE...maybe some of the people in the gay pride parade want their own pride parade : BI PRIDE PARADE or PAN PRIDE PARADE or DEMI PRIDE PARADE or LESBIAN PRIDE PARADE or for the allies, STRAIGHT PRIDE PARADE,etc....
@gklr I agree what you said about names and labels. Example: Pangender is a term used to describe people who feel that they cannot be labeled as male or female in gender. As such it has a great deal of OVERLAP with genderqueer. keyword is OVERLAP. A lot of names labels are just vague descriptions of more specific names and labels. But I do think names and labels are important distinguish things. And when applied to people it can be a source of pride.
@gklr I always considered faith to be a synonym of belief with religion,spirituality, or transcendence in mind. There are many definitions of faith. What is yours? By the way I have thought extensively to arrive at my own mindset of Searcher or IDKtheist. I have considered myself a theist, an atheist, an agnostic at different points in my life. But now none of those fit me perfectly. What is your definition? Just wondering, not going to think any less of you. hoof bump?
@gklr I always considered faith to be a synonym of belief with religion,spirituality, or transcendence in mind. There are many definitions of faith. What is yours? By the way I have thought extensively to arrive at my own mindset of Searcher or IDKtheist. I have considered myself a theist, an atheist, an agnostic at different points in my life. But now none of those fit me perfectly. What is your definition? Just wondering, not going to think any more or less of you. hoof bump?
Beliefs are a type of statement... like truths are. They are a kind of proposition.
Faith is a matter of conviction we have to a belief. Faith is how convinced someone is of a belief.
They are often used interchangeably, but think about it...
there are 3 types of beliefs.... informally I'd say they are assumption, opinion and myth. Formally I'd call them inductive logic, subjective beliefs (including dreams which are not opinions) and fiction.
"Santa exists" is the belief... it's a proposition, an affirmation of what is the case.
Many 5-year-olds have faith that "santa exists" is the case.
So "Santa exists" is the belief.... not whether someone claims it is the case... that is faith to whatever degree it is maintained.
The usage I am giving you here is one preferred by analytical philosophers.. the usage of belief as a condition of the mind where we asert something is the case, is preferred by psychologists
@JamesMorlan , for faith). So I would like to say one more. Peace to all apatheists and IDCtheists. I will never attempt to convert you to an IDKtheist or Searcher...but if you would ever wish to be one...Welcome to the herd :) Have a great day.
If you wish to use words like "Faith" here, then use them properly and don't confuse faith with belief. Thanks.
This channel and this video are about showing formal reasoning, provable logic... not simply gabbing about topics when you don't have the slightest idea of the words you use or how to. Go do that on your own channel.
@JamesMorlan by the way, thanks for the new word, Apatheist, I like it. It also gives me something new to differentiate from... You are kind of like an IDCtheist whereas I am kind of like an IDKtheist. IDCtheist = I don't care theist ...IDKtheist = I don't know theist. I don't know but I do kind of care. My reasons for caring are mostly for peace between all religions and ideas(for others, for science, for skepticism, for faith) , but some are also internal(for me, for science, for skepticism,
@JamesMorlan Then what do you call someone who has no belief in a god one way or the other? ..oh ok yeah I guess I was wrong about the definition of atheism because if you have no belief(you don't care or you don't think about it) you would be a nontheist or an apatheist(whatever you prefer)? An atheist usually says "I don't believe there is a god"...which is a belief. But yeah..if you don't care or haven't really thought about it then ya sure you do have no belief in that part of "thoughts".
@JamesMorlan label...I called myself an IDKeist...but eventually I created a cooler name for what I am: a Searcher. I am a Searcher, that is me(or close to me).
@JamesMorlan there is or isn't a god or nothing. How I describe myself though(or close to it) is this. I DON'T KNOW whether there is or isn't a god or nothing. I ALSO DON'T KNOW if you can ever know or not know whether there is a god or gods but I don't discount the possibility that we could or couldn't know, but I don't stop searching to find out. I don't discount the possibility that there could be god, gods or nothing and I don't stop searching to find out. At first since they didn't a have a
@JamesMorlan know. There apparently isn't a label for what I am concerning besides perhaps "scientist" or "skeptic". But this is concerning the more spiritual and mysterious side of things so they could not really think of a label for it. This is how I described myself to the people on the chat: Atheism is a belief that there is no god or gods.. theism is the belief in god or gods. Agnostics say you cannot ever know whether there is or isn't a god or nothing. Gnostics say you can know whether
@qijino1236 I'd agree with you except for the definition of atheist. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. It does not imply a positive belief that there is no god, it merely is the result of a comparison to one who is theist and determining that one is not that. But, either way, it really doesn't matter to me, which is why I am an apatheist. I think the whole question of whether or not a god exists is pointless. What matters to me is, the universe exists, and we're in it.
"I'd agree with you except for the definition of atheist"
"atheist" is not and cannot ever be defined. It is described. Names and labels never have meaning... only defined words do. Names and labels mean nothing, they refer to things instead.
@gklr I wasn't talking to you, but since you insist on butting in, what does "nothing" refer to, according to your logic, based on what you just said? Since it has a name/label, does that make it a thing? Don't fucking talk to me about logic and language until you figure out where yours fails. One thing I've noticed about you is that you don't grow in your understanding - you're rigid and static like a believer. But that's why I wasn't talking to you, nor will I continue. Good day.
This is my channel and you are spreading misinformation and ignorance on it and I won't have it. If people want stupid, that is what your channel is for. Don't dream of doing it here. You are allowed here, to ask where and why your argument fails and nothing more. You will not be spreading your willful ignorance on my channel. I do not promote stupidity.
Nothing is not anything, there is no such thing as nothing. All things are things.
"according to your logic"
Grow up. There is no such thing as "my logic". Your problem is with propositional logic, not with me, and you act like a child making taunts on things he does not understand. Grow the fuck up.
"Since it has a name/label, does that make it a thing?"
Nothing has no name or label. Names and labels are described. Nothing cannot be described. There is no such thing.
"Don't fucking talk to me about logic and language until you figure out where yours fails."
I don't have my own logic. The propositional logic and set theory I show here is shown and proven true and sticking your head in the ground and acting like it isn't simply does nothing to counter that.
"One thing I've noticed about you is that you don't grow in your understanding"
Well you see, there is a thing called formal logic and it hasn't changed since we last spoke and you still violate it with no concern for the laws of logic at all.
I should start maintaining what I know and can prove is false? Why? To please ignorant people like you? lol.
Except I have formal proof that you choose to ignore and you never have responded to meaningfully. There is the difference. The very logic that theists wish to ignore, you do as well. I've given examples and proof and you care not and just continue on like an ignorant buffoon about it. Go ahead... just don't be doing it here.
That is what you channel is for. This one is about correcting the nonsense people like you say.
"But that's why I wasn't talking to you, nor will I continue. Good day"
Spread that shit here again and you'll be blocked, The only things I permit you to comment on here are in question form regarding where your arguments violate logic.
Under no circumstances will I permit you, or anyone else, to misinform people here. No chance in the world of that. Good day.
@gklr You talk about misinforming people, yet you hold an invalid definition of the term "atheist". You don't need my help in spreading misinformation. Go ahead and block me - it's your channel. I have my own.
@gklr "In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." - Sam Harris
"It does not imply a positive belief that there is no god"
Yes it most certainly does and just displaying ignorance otherwise on matters like set theory and logic is no position to argue from. You have no clue what an atheist is, or logic itself. Consequently you speak in circles worse than theists do.
Nor it seems does logic, set theory, or studying language. That is why you say the nonsense you do. Mind you.... you TRY to speak on these things, you just don't care enough to go learn about them.
@JamesMorlan and unknown universe to prove for a fact that unicorns don't exist and for your belief to turn into a fact. That is what I am saying ||| ..... you- "They'd have to be both not a theist and not and atheist at the same time." WOW! IDK how and why you put that in your paragraph but I like it because i just had an extensive chat about me being not an atheist or theist and also not an agnostic or a gnostic. I was asking them the exact same thing what would you call me..and they did not
and unknown universe to prove for a fact that unicorns don't exist and for your belief to turn into a fact. That is what I am saying ||| ..... you- "They'd have to be both not a theist and not and atheist at the same time." WOW! IDK how and why you put that in your paragraph but I like it because i just had an extensive chat about me being not an atheist or theist and also not an agnostic or a gnostic. I was asking them the exact same thing what would you call me..and they did not know..there
@JamesMorlan Then what do you call someone who has no belief in a god one way or the other? I call them an atheist. If you have no belief in a god you are an atheist. But atheism itself is a belief that there is no god since no one has proven god does or doesn't exist. Just like I can say I have no belief in unicorns, but because no one has proven unicorns do or don't exist then it is a belief. How do you prove unicorns don't exist? You would have to search every location in the known
I repied to this, mistakenly thinking it was James that wrote it.
Saying you have no belief is saying you have something, it speaks about you. It is an application of set theory where you have expressed ownership of an empty set.
Just like saying you have no money in your bank account.
This renders a nontheist, not an atheist. It is false to say such a person is an atheist.
The prefix "a" means non-, ergo a "non-atheist" is a non-non-theist. And yes of course a belief is a position taken by the believer, not a type of statement, and faith is conviction and adherence to that position regardless or perhaps even because of lack of evidence.
I know set theory just fine, and Venn diagrams too. You're pretty cocky for someone who didn't even know that universal statements don't imply existence. Where you using Aristotle's square of opposition or what?
"a" does not mean non at all, it MEANT "without" when the Greek language was formed in the Bronze Age, prior to formal logic being founded by hundreds of years. Here I am arguing and showing Bertrand Russell arguments from 1905, and here you are reciting complete nonsense about the bronze age. Thanks for the update.
You are violating set theory, by saying you know what X is by saying it is a member of a complement set or non-something. I've already explained that you CAN only know 1 thing, that it exists. You want to say "oh no... this is an atheist". False. For all members of complement sets you only know 1 thing, they exist.
Worse... The present King of France who does not exist, is not a theist... and your method says that what is not anything IS something, again an atheist.
Universal statements don't imply existence? This is pretty good proof you have no idea about these topics at all. First off I didn't use a universal. Second off, things that do not exist are not anything, so they are not atheists. Yet your model says they are. Worse... "non-non-theist" is total garbage. Don't come here telling me you know set theory and speak to me that way. I'll just block you. Thanks for the laughs.
Either you come here to learn about your errors and why you are wrong, or you can politely fuck off.
You can ask why and where and then leave. Anything else gets you blocked. Why? Because you are preaching to me complete garbage and I will not tolerate it. I do not have the time to argue with completely stupid people.
That it's true that John holds a belief doesn't mean that John's belief is true. That I don't share John's belief doesn't mean that I'm saying that John's belief is true, false or even falsifiable. Belief is not a knowledge claim about something else. Belief is a statement about oneself.
@gklr said [["Belief is a statement about oneself"
Not necessarily. "there is no god" is a belief and says nothing about me.]]
Oh Geez...
Belief is a statement about you because it's about you being convinced, not about what convinces you, because some people require very good evidence to be convinced while others are convinced when there is no real evidence at all.
@gklr said [[..you don't understand what you are saying.]]
.....
I"ve made it clear several times that atheism, i.e. non-theism isn't meant to define, but rather states that someone is not a member of a certain group. You keep repeating me and suggest that it's a problem because it doesn't specifically define. I think we're done here, Mr. Smartass. If you don't understand that believing is a state of a believer, and what the modern square of opposition is, then I think we're done here.
@Sashajw12345 Every concept gains meaning from context. Causality, for example, is meaningless outside the context of time & space. (Ergo the origin of the universe doesn't require a cause). 'North of the north pole' is meaningless because north only has meaning when one is south of the north pole. Atheist has meaning within the context of a conscious being who could be a theist but isn't. Saying that one is an atheist isn't meant to define oneself above & beyond saying that one is not a theist.
@LucisFerre1 Isn't the concept of "origin" also meaningless outside the context of space and time? Perhaps the entire question of the origin of the universe is an invalid question. Or am I just being unwittingly facetious?
And you're also wrong about truth only applying toward the existent. Modern logic allows for vacuous truths. Something can be true merely because it's unfalsifiable. In modern logic, truth is merely the absence of falsity. All the cats in my pants are grey is true, merely because there are no non-gray cats in my pants. No atheist is saying that there are 'gods' that do not exist. We are not suggesting that existence is a predicate.
@LucisFerre1 "truth is merely the absence of falsity."
Wrong. A truth is a statement that proposes a state of affairs that conforms to reality. "All the cats in my pants are grey is true, merely because there are no non-gray cats in my pants."
LOL For this to be true you would have to have cats in your pants.
You come to forum and play the critic wit these points? Wow
@LucisFerre1 "Dude...seriously, do you not know that universal statements do not imply existence while existential quantifiers do?"
Dude? lol. Its not true that all the cats in your pants are grey if there are no cats at all in your pants. This is obvious regardless of quantifiers.
The very claim is falsifiable via observation with the naked eye.
Atheism isn't a position on 'god', it's stating that we're not theists, who BELIEVES in 'god', not one who says that they KNOW that 'god' exists or does not exist. That's where you're going wrong. Atypical means not typical. Asymmetric means not symmetric, & atheist means not a theist. I can know that I'm not a theist without having to qualify theistic belief much the same way I can know that I'm not a member of the Heaven's Gate cult without knowing that their beliefs are cogent & consistent.
Wasn't my intent to attack you, however, in retrospect, after reading my posts, I can certainly see how that could be understood as my intent. Appologies
I expect to be recognized by now as an atheist and take great amusement at any hint otherwise. Scoring zero on the "are you even awake" meter is a special moment really.
You go easy on people compared to me. This video is a magnet for stupid.
The whole argument leaves slower people in the dust for real.
It is a great opportunity to argue "I am an atheist, but I cannot prove that I believe there is no god"... and "we can't prove anyone believes there is a god (theist) or not (nontheist) nor can we prove anyone believes there is no god (atheist) or not (nonatheist). We can't read minds. We trust anyone is being honest, and they can't even prove it to themselves. Just saying anyone is any of those is a belief. Checkmate.
@gklr Thanx for the reply, just bein goofy. But seriously, considering that man has believed in 10s of thousands of gods which god do you worship and how do you know that this god is the true god and not ALL of the others? Are you a believer at all?, just curious.
@dkthg Did you watch this video or any of the others I made?
"Hi... my name is Greg. I am an atheist" is how I start every video. That means I believe there is no god. That is what an atheist is.
Gods are not true or false. The only things that are true or false are propositions. Do not apply "true" to anything that is not a proposition... it makes no sense to do.
@gklr I actually didn't watch the video all the way but i did have acouple of beers as i was typing my replies. I'm a little tipsy....Hey wheres the nearest sorority house??
Not watching the video all the way through is not justification for missing a point iterated at the very beginning of the video. However I think you watched the video and only heard what you were prepared to hear.
Whether Bald is a hair colour or not says nothing at all about what atheism actually is. Be careful of garbage youtube arguments
@Sashajw12345 Hey, EASE UP! And to be honest...i'm not totally sure if i watched the video AT ALL i might've just read the description below. i was partying hard for a couple of days and being silly on youtube for the helluvit. I know you mean well but sometimes SILLY is SILLY. Trust me, i don't need any debating tips...maybe i need to stop partying so hard.....HELL NO!!! SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS!
@gklr said [[ Did you watch this video or any of the others I made?
"Hi... my name is Greg. I am an atheist" is how I start every video. That means I believe there is no god. That is what an atheist is.]]
That's completely false. That means, "Hi...my name is Greg, and I'm not a theist". That means that I'm not a member of the set of people who hold this wacko beliefs. Theists demonstrably exist. I'm not one of them.
but I CAN'T STAND WHEN ATHEIST says this... ATHEISM is a non-belief. ATHEISM is a FUCKING BELIEF. IT IS THE FUCKING BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD. end of sermon.
@qijino1236 Then what do you call someone who has no belief in a god one way or the other? And don't say "agnostic" or I'll just have to ask, "agnostic of what?" because agnostic is about knowing or not knowing. They'd have to be both not a theist and not an atheist at the same time. How does that work into your logic?
I am not an atheist , I am not an agnostic, I am not a theist, I like being called a culturally Christian agnostic....BUT I AM NOT THAT....I AM MOTHERFUCKING GOD DAMN FUCKING ME ME ME ME . I AM ME . ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL THEIST... ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL ATHEIST... ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL AGNOSTIC...ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL PANTHEIST ...ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL pansexual... ME FUCKING EQUALS ME. ME = ME . ME= ME is the FUCKING ANSWER. I FUCKING LOVE ALL ATHEISTS as long as they are nice,
The god of the bible cannot exist as described in the bible. To say so requires no atheism. The god of the bible is said to be omnipotent, yet could not create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted.... which is proof no being can be omnipotent by the way... not just that proposed god.
The god of the bible is said to never repent, ever... in supposedly his own words too. Then, in his alleged words he repents and repents and repents. That god can't exist. Saying so is not expressing atheism.
Preaching utter garbage here, while polite people try and reason with you... gets your ass blocked fairly fast with me.
If you have no idea how to use a dictionary, you backtrack, bastardize the laws of logic, make up garbage, misquote, misunderstand and apparently need a job... I do not care one bit.
Xgya2000 needs a babysitter, not logic. An endless stream of nonsense is hardly entertaining.
Point to references of definitions and words you use.
This is getting tiresome, doing all the work for you.
If you don't want to refer to a dictionary, refer to a word's etymology and origins, the way it was originally intended to be used.
Do remember that while "atheist" has greek origins ("Without god"-godless), atheism has french origins ("Athéisme", from "théisme" - "belief in god/s" and "a"- "no").
Find the origins of the word "disbelief", and disprove my argument.
Atheism is believeing that tHERE IS NO GOD, OR GOD DOESN'T EXIST! Which makes every 'atheists' Liars!!! why? because NO ONE IN THIS UNIVERSE can disprove God! No one in this universe can even give ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that God does not exist! funny, isn't it?
Agnosticism is the position that man cannot prove there is a god or that there is no god. I know of no-one who is not agnostic, and if I did I could prove they were wrong.
We can prove there is no biblical god and doing so is not atheism and requires no atheism. We can prove there is no god of the koran and doing so is not expressing atheism nor does it require any atheism to do.
That's a pretty easy to answer question. Allow me to oblige.
Yahweh is said to be all-knowing, yet has free will. He knows what he'll think next, which means he cannot do anything other than what he had intially planned. This removes his free will. If he CAN change his course of action, it means what he initially planned was wrong, thus removing his omniscience.
Being all-knowing also means he planned every evil that will ever happen. So he can't be omnibenevolent.
@Xgya2000 "thus removing his omniscience." The interesting thing about this analagy is that in order for it to be the case (proof god does not exist) god must posess an linear style of thinking (like us). It fails as proof on this account because the mind of such a being, if existed, may operate in such a manner that is beyoond our comprehension. This however, does not help the theistic argument either because they claim to know everything about such a being when they cannot.
I could also go on about how inaccurate the Bible is, especially as far as the creation myth goes. Creating light before stars and the moon? (where did that original light go? Did God turn it off?) Creating the Earth and plants before the Sun? Creating the Sun before other stars? I could go on about how wrong the idea of Noah's flood is, and how Leviticus got it wrong... The list goes on and on.
The bible says god never repents and also that god repents. POOF. That god can't exist.
It is possible there is a god, but it is not possible that there is a biblical god or a koranic god. Those gods have been proven to not exist and no atheism is required to say so.
It is not an expression of atheism to be able to prove those gods do not exist, it is an expression of formal logic. No belief required. No atheism required.
atheism is the position there is no god. It has nothing to do with telling believers to eat shit, or to prove anything. No belief is proven true. There is no burden of proof on any belief.
It's been a long time since I touched upon this uploaders video... and I see the debate goes on. I have started to lean towards gklr's view, but I still haven't come to terms with that I've gotten no explanation on how gklr thinks that you CAN say "He is armless", and call that a description, but to say "He is lacking arms"/"He does not have arms" is NOT a description. That's the final hurdle to agreeing with him, too bad this poisons the whole discussion I had with him a long while back.
He is armless is saying something about you... it says you have something, an empty set of arms. This is a non-armed person then, akin to a nontheist... and not an atheist.
"It is not informative about "I" in any way shape or form. I cannot know from that that "I" exists. The statement is valid when "I" doesn't exist... so it is not talking about "I"."
I thought about that statement a bit. You're wrong on this point.
The statement "I don't think this" is invalid if I don't exist. "The glass is empty" is invalid if the glass isn't there. This is all due to contrast and comparison. The "empty" inside the glass is of importance because it is inside the glass.
"The statement "I don't think this" is invalid if I don't exist"
If you do not exist you do not think.
The glass is empty is not valid if the glass does not exist, correct. The glass has an empty set of things inside it, if it is empty... and that would be hard to do considering air or light are things.
Saying the glass does not have anything inside it, is valid if the glass does not exist. Clearly not having something inside is different than "empty".
"If you do not exist you do not think" - This is where it gets complicated: You might THINK you think, all the while being part of someone else's subconscious, or part of a computer program. Also, many things that do not think actually exist (at least as far as we perceive them)
"Not having something is different than empty" - My possibly-existing glass is in a dark void. Empty it is. Without air or light. But were there no glass, saying it is empty would be pointless.
Bear in mind... saying anything about a member of a complement set (non-something) only tells us they exist.
why?
Because they must exist and no other information has been stated about them.
why must they exist?
All members of sets, are members of "sets of things". No member of a set "does not exist" or it is not a member, including complement sets (non-somethings).
We know 2 things about a member of a complement set.
1 it exists
2 it is not something (which doesn't speak about the member)
Bear in mind, saying what is not the case... says what is not real. Saying what is not the case about atheists... like "atheists lack belief in a god" or "atheists are without god"... says what is not real about atheists. It doesn't say what is real about atheists, it is true about what is not the case about atheists. Lack, absence, without.... all use NOT. This is what the atheist ISN'T...
I do not believe in god.... says "It is not the case that I believe in god"... they are equal logically.
"Let's say I flip a coin, don't show it to you, and tell you it's heads. Do you believe me? You shouldn't. If you don't, does that automatically mean that you believe it's tails? Of course not. It's the same with god claims. If someone says "god exists" and I say "I don't believe you" that does not automatically mean that I believe that god does not exist."
"If you don't, does that automatically mean that you believe it's tails?"
If you don't, then I don't know if you even exist. When you did not exist, you didn't believe anything.
When you say you don't believe, you are not talking about you. You are talking about what is not the case about you. What is not the case about atheists is not what is the case about atheists.
@gklr "When you say you don't believe, you are not talking about you." I am.
"You are talking about what is not the case about you." I am stating that I do not hold the beliefs theists do.
"What is not the case about atheists is not what is the case about atheists." Atheism is the name for people who do not hold theistic beliefs, that's it, nothing more nothing less.
"What is not the case about atheists is not what is the case about atheists." Atheism is the name for people who do not hold theistic beliefs, that's it, nothing more nothing less.
Start again on that.... first off "atheist" is the name/label. Atheism is a defined word. Names and labels are not defined, they are described. Defined words and not described.
ie: car, tree, Greg... all point to something
No defined word does that. They are their meaning. Ok?
"For example, chair is meaningless without being differentiated as from couch and other sitting surfaces."
Chair, couch... these are names and REFER to something Defined words don't refer to anything, they ARE their definition. Names and labels have no definition and mean nothing... the only words that work that way.
The only thing between you and having something to say on this is an education.
"Atheism is the name for people who do not hold theistic beliefs, that's it, nothing more nothing less."
This is what you are telling me yes, and it is false.
When you say "people that don't believe..." you have said nothing about those people.
Jim does not believe in a god, doesn't tell me if Jim exists or not. Is Jim even real? If Jim does not exist then "Jim does not believe in god" is valid. No conclusion can be made of Jim at all saying that.
@gklr "If you exist (which is about you) and you do not believe in a god (which is not about you)" Not believing in a god is about me, it is about something I lack and do not believe in. Your philosophical hand-waving is ridiculous.
Not believing in god is not a thing at all, no such "thing" is possible.
Not something, is not a thing.
Where X is something, not X is not something.
Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
Saying atheists do not believe in god is valid, it simply is not true about atheists or say what they do. It says what they do not do, which doesn't require atheists exist to be valid. ie: it says nothing about atheists at all.
@gklr "Saying atheists do not believe in god is valid, it simply is not true about atheists or say what they do."
It is. "It says what they do not do, which doesn't require atheists exist to be valid"
It says what they are not, which does require them to exist, else everyone would be a theist. Non-theist and atheist are the same terms written in two different ways. Just like a-linear and non-linear.
"it is about something I lack and do not believe in"
Correct, and therefore says nothing about you.
We talk about you only when we say things about what you are. When I say I am not you, I haven't said anything about me. It is true I am not you, that doesn't say what I am.
X is not you. What is X? You can't know, X may not exist it still isn't you.
X does not believe in a god. What is X? You can't know, you haven't said anything about X. X may not exist.
@gklr "Correct, and therefore says nothing about you."
It says what I do not believe in not clarifies my position on religion and the existence of god(s). Really how much simpler can I state this.
"We talk about you only when we say things about what you are." No, that's your flawed perception. If someone says 'he's never hurt anyone', then they are talking about that person even if they are describing something that person never did/does.
@gklr "X does not believe in a god. What is X? You can't know, you haven't said anything about X. X may not exist."
It says that X is an entity that does not believe in a god.
Your example is flawed anyway because you create a situation in which nothing is known about X. Whenever people communicate they already know certain things about the other; their name, what form and language they use to communicate etcetera.
Then so too is modern logic since 1905 and Bertrand Russells Theory of Descriptions, his greatest work... AND when I say "god doesn't exist" well I must be talking about "god" then. And since a truth proves an object exists well hey, I must now have proven god exists by declaring the truth that god doesn't exist!
Your way is contradictory and to work needs to look well past Russell and right back past Aristotle too.
@gklr "This is what you are telling me yes, and it is false." No it's not.
Here's the etymology of atheism:
atheism
1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist." Ancient Gk. atheotes meant "ungodliness."
@gklr "Bertrand Russells Theory of Descriptions" Which essentially states that all language is meaningless as it is all subjective and interdependent.
"And since a truth proves an object exists well hey, I must now have proven god exists by declaring the truth that god doesn't exist!" No, you have proven that the idea or concept of a god exists, you have not proven that an entity called god exists.
""And since a truth proves an object exists well hey, I must now have proven god exists by declaring the truth that god doesn't exist!" No, you have proven that the idea or concept of a god exists, you have not proven that an entity called god exists."
I didn't prove a god doesn't exist. I am saying if it is proven true that "god doesn't exist" by your method this would prove a god exists.... showing how contradictory your reasoning is.
"Fortunately Russell is not the godfather of language nor philosophy."
He is on primary and secondary predicates. Show me anyone who has done it before him. Primary predicates are what you are, secondary predicates are what you aren't. You confuse the two and there is your error in logic.
ok apparently I am close to what people call a "weak agnostic" concerning the knowability of god or gods. But in terms of belief I don't know what I am.
qijino1236 1 day ago
I have also removed all video replies to this video. If you want logical failures and numb replies, just search for anything that says "define atheist".... lol
Atheist cannot be defined. For details see below.
Talking to stupid people has no interest for me.
gklr 1 day ago
I will make an actual reply to James Morlan later tonight when I have the time.
Losers like that won't be wasting a moment of my time nor yours on this channel. If you want utterly stupid, I recommend him.
gklr 1 day ago
James Morlan is blocked.... act like that around here and that is what happens. Die ignorant James.
gklr 1 day ago
@gklr apparently you have to copy the yout....om/watch?v=jvt2j3A7E9 into the browser bar and then add the "A" < (the last character) to the end of it.
qijino1236 2 days ago
@gklr that link didn't work..reposting.. youtube.com/watch?v=jvt2j3A7E9A
qijino1236 2 days ago
@qijino1236,
"youtube.com/watch?v=jvt2j3A7E9A"
Cute video.
gklr 2 days ago
@gklr I am faithful that praying, meditating, and introspecting is a good thing. I am faithful that Jesus was a good person(even if he wasn't)...positive imagination giving soccer balls to gaggers. youtube.com/watch?v=jvt2j3A7E9A
qijino1236 2 days ago
@gklr with an open mind. I am faithful that most gay bars and bronies are awesome.
qijino1236 2 days ago
@gklr You - Faith is a matter of conviction we have to a belief. Faith is how convinced someone is of a belief. Ok so according to your definition of faith I do have a lot of faith . I am very faithful that raping a child is a bad thing. I am very faithful that I DO NOT KNOW whether there is or isn't a god or nothing,but I will continue to search with an open mind. I am very faithful that I DO NOT KNOW whether the existence of a deity is knowable or unknowable, but I will continue to search
qijino1236 2 days ago
@qijino1236,
"I am very faithful that raping a child is a bad thing"
And good of you to realize that it is not a truth. Yes I share the faith that raping a child is a bad thing, knowing all good-bad matters are a subjective issue and I would be repulsed at anyone who did not share that faith.
gklr 2 days ago
@qijino1236,
We prove what does not exist by showing the thing in question to be the subject of a logical contradiction. eg: the ball that is on the table and is not on the table at the same time... cannot exist.
We prove what exists by stating 1 truth about that thing.
We can prove certain proposed gods do not exist. Doing so is not expressing atheism. It is logic at hand then.
eg: allah can do all things and cannot have a son in the koran. That god cannot exist.
gklr 2 days ago
@gklr not ex-gay pride parade.....example-gay pride parade
qijino1236 2 days ago
@gklr I'm gonna have a Searcher Pride Parade in my shower today.
qijino1236 2 days ago
@qijino1236,
Not sure what relevence you find in any of this gay pride chat, or ex gay pride chat... but have a blast. :)
gklr 2 days ago
@gklr EX. GAY PRIDE PARADE...maybe some of the people in the gay pride parade want their own pride parade : BI PRIDE PARADE or PAN PRIDE PARADE or DEMI PRIDE PARADE or LESBIAN PRIDE PARADE or for the allies, STRAIGHT PRIDE PARADE,etc....
qijino1236 2 days ago
@gklr I agree what you said about names and labels. Example: Pangender is a term used to describe people who feel that they cannot be labeled as male or female in gender. As such it has a great deal of OVERLAP with genderqueer. keyword is OVERLAP. A lot of names labels are just vague descriptions of more specific names and labels. But I do think names and labels are important distinguish things. And when applied to people it can be a source of pride.
qijino1236 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr I always considered faith to be a synonym of belief with religion,spirituality, or transcendence in mind. There are many definitions of faith. What is yours? By the way I have thought extensively to arrive at my own mindset of Searcher or IDKtheist. I have considered myself a theist, an atheist, an agnostic at different points in my life. But now none of those fit me perfectly. What is your definition? Just wondering, not going to think any less of you. hoof bump?
qijino1236 2 days ago
@gklr @JamesMorlan BTW, a Searcher doesn't even care if they find out before they die but they enjoy the search.
qijino1236 2 days ago
@gklr I always considered faith to be a synonym of belief with religion,spirituality, or transcendence in mind. There are many definitions of faith. What is yours? By the way I have thought extensively to arrive at my own mindset of Searcher or IDKtheist. I have considered myself a theist, an atheist, an agnostic at different points in my life. But now none of those fit me perfectly. What is your definition? Just wondering, not going to think any more or less of you. hoof bump?
qijino1236 2 days ago
@qijino1236,
Beliefs are a type of statement... like truths are. They are a kind of proposition.
Faith is a matter of conviction we have to a belief. Faith is how convinced someone is of a belief.
They are often used interchangeably, but think about it...
there are 3 types of beliefs.... informally I'd say they are assumption, opinion and myth. Formally I'd call them inductive logic, subjective beliefs (including dreams which are not opinions) and fiction.
gklr 2 days ago
@qijino1236,
"Santa exists" is the belief... it's a proposition, an affirmation of what is the case.
Many 5-year-olds have faith that "santa exists" is the case.
So "Santa exists" is the belief.... not whether someone claims it is the case... that is faith to whatever degree it is maintained.
The usage I am giving you here is one preferred by analytical philosophers.. the usage of belief as a condition of the mind where we asert something is the case, is preferred by psychologists
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan , for faith). So I would like to say one more. Peace to all apatheists and IDCtheists. I will never attempt to convert you to an IDKtheist or Searcher...but if you would ever wish to be one...Welcome to the herd :) Have a great day.
qijino1236 2 days ago
@qijino1236,
If you wish to use words like "Faith" here, then use them properly and don't confuse faith with belief. Thanks.
This channel and this video are about showing formal reasoning, provable logic... not simply gabbing about topics when you don't have the slightest idea of the words you use or how to. Go do that on your own channel.
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan by the way, thanks for the new word, Apatheist, I like it. It also gives me something new to differentiate from... You are kind of like an IDCtheist whereas I am kind of like an IDKtheist. IDCtheist = I don't care theist ...IDKtheist = I don't know theist. I don't know but I do kind of care. My reasons for caring are mostly for peace between all religions and ideas(for others, for science, for skepticism, for faith) , but some are also internal(for me, for science, for skepticism,
qijino1236 2 days ago
@qijino1236,
"IDKtheist = I don't know theist"
Saying you do not know... says nothing about you at all and nothing can be concluded about you whatsoever... even that you exist.
X does not know... what is X? Oops, X doesn't exist and so does not know.
Saying X does not know, doesn't talk about X in the slightest way.
gklr 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesMorlan Then what do you call someone who has no belief in a god one way or the other? ..oh ok yeah I guess I was wrong about the definition of atheism because if you have no belief(you don't care or you don't think about it) you would be a nontheist or an apatheist(whatever you prefer)? An atheist usually says "I don't believe there is a god"...which is a belief. But yeah..if you don't care or haven't really thought about it then ya sure you do have no belief in that part of "thoughts".
qijino1236 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan Oh yeah, have a great day too. hoof bump.
qijino1236 3 days ago
@JamesMorlan label...I called myself an IDKeist...but eventually I created a cooler name for what I am: a Searcher. I am a Searcher, that is me(or close to me).
qijino1236 3 days ago
@JamesMorlan there is or isn't a god or nothing. How I describe myself though(or close to it) is this. I DON'T KNOW whether there is or isn't a god or nothing. I ALSO DON'T KNOW if you can ever know or not know whether there is a god or gods but I don't discount the possibility that we could or couldn't know, but I don't stop searching to find out. I don't discount the possibility that there could be god, gods or nothing and I don't stop searching to find out. At first since they didn't a have a
qijino1236 3 days ago
@JamesMorlan know. There apparently isn't a label for what I am concerning besides perhaps "scientist" or "skeptic". But this is concerning the more spiritual and mysterious side of things so they could not really think of a label for it. This is how I described myself to the people on the chat: Atheism is a belief that there is no god or gods.. theism is the belief in god or gods. Agnostics say you cannot ever know whether there is or isn't a god or nothing. Gnostics say you can know whether
qijino1236 3 days ago
@qijino1236 I'd agree with you except for the definition of atheist. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. It does not imply a positive belief that there is no god, it merely is the result of a comparison to one who is theist and determining that one is not that. But, either way, it really doesn't matter to me, which is why I am an apatheist. I think the whole question of whether or not a god exists is pointless. What matters to me is, the universe exists, and we're in it.
JamesMorlan 3 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"I'd agree with you except for the definition of atheist"
"atheist" is not and cannot ever be defined. It is described. Names and labels never have meaning... only defined words do. Names and labels mean nothing, they refer to things instead.
gklr 2 days ago
@gklr I wasn't talking to you, but since you insist on butting in, what does "nothing" refer to, according to your logic, based on what you just said? Since it has a name/label, does that make it a thing? Don't fucking talk to me about logic and language until you figure out where yours fails. One thing I've noticed about you is that you don't grow in your understanding - you're rigid and static like a believer. But that's why I wasn't talking to you, nor will I continue. Good day.
JamesMorlan 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"I wasn't talking to you"
I didn't say you were.
"but since you insist on butting in"
This is my channel and you are spreading misinformation and ignorance on it and I won't have it. If people want stupid, that is what your channel is for. Don't dream of doing it here. You are allowed here, to ask where and why your argument fails and nothing more. You will not be spreading your willful ignorance on my channel. I do not promote stupidity.
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"what does "nothing" refer to"
Nothing is not anything, there is no such thing as nothing. All things are things.
"according to your logic"
Grow up. There is no such thing as "my logic". Your problem is with propositional logic, not with me, and you act like a child making taunts on things he does not understand. Grow the fuck up.
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"Since it has a name/label, does that make it a thing?"
Nothing has no name or label. Names and labels are described. Nothing cannot be described. There is no such thing.
"Don't fucking talk to me about logic and language until you figure out where yours fails."
I don't have my own logic. The propositional logic and set theory I show here is shown and proven true and sticking your head in the ground and acting like it isn't simply does nothing to counter that.
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"One thing I've noticed about you is that you don't grow in your understanding"
Well you see, there is a thing called formal logic and it hasn't changed since we last spoke and you still violate it with no concern for the laws of logic at all.
I should start maintaining what I know and can prove is false? Why? To please ignorant people like you? lol.
No I won't James. Not now and not soon.
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"you're rigid and static like a believer"
Except I have formal proof that you choose to ignore and you never have responded to meaningfully. There is the difference. The very logic that theists wish to ignore, you do as well. I've given examples and proof and you care not and just continue on like an ignorant buffoon about it. Go ahead... just don't be doing it here.
That is what you channel is for. This one is about correcting the nonsense people like you say.
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"But that's why I wasn't talking to you, nor will I continue. Good day"
Spread that shit here again and you'll be blocked, The only things I permit you to comment on here are in question form regarding where your arguments violate logic.
Under no circumstances will I permit you, or anyone else, to misinform people here. No chance in the world of that. Good day.
gklr 2 days ago
@gklr You talk about misinforming people, yet you hold an invalid definition of the term "atheist". You don't need my help in spreading misinformation. Go ahead and block me - it's your channel. I have my own.
JamesMorlan 1 day ago
@gklr "In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." - Sam Harris
JamesMorlan 1 day ago
@JamesMorlan,
"It does not imply a positive belief that there is no god"
Yes it most certainly does and just displaying ignorance otherwise on matters like set theory and logic is no position to argue from. You have no clue what an atheist is, or logic itself. Consequently you speak in circles worse than theists do.
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"merely is the result of a comparison to one who is theist and determining that one is not that"
Complete logic fail. You just said atheists are what atheists are not. They are not theists, so that is what they are?
Go back to your own page and misinform people. This one is about clarifying the very form of ignorance you just offered.
gklr 2 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"But, either way, it really doesn't matter to me"
Nor it seems does logic, set theory, or studying language. That is why you say the nonsense you do. Mind you.... you TRY to speak on these things, you just don't care enough to go learn about them.
gklr 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesMorlan and unknown universe to prove for a fact that unicorns don't exist and for your belief to turn into a fact. That is what I am saying ||| ..... you- "They'd have to be both not a theist and not and atheist at the same time." WOW! IDK how and why you put that in your paragraph but I like it because i just had an extensive chat about me being not an atheist or theist and also not an agnostic or a gnostic. I was asking them the exact same thing what would you call me..and they did not
qijino1236 3 days ago
and unknown universe to prove for a fact that unicorns don't exist and for your belief to turn into a fact. That is what I am saying ||| ..... you- "They'd have to be both not a theist and not and atheist at the same time." WOW! IDK how and why you put that in your paragraph but I like it because i just had an extensive chat about me being not an atheist or theist and also not an agnostic or a gnostic. I was asking them the exact same thing what would you call me..and they did not know..there
qijino1236 3 days ago
@JamesMorlan Then what do you call someone who has no belief in a god one way or the other? I call them an atheist. If you have no belief in a god you are an atheist. But atheism itself is a belief that there is no god since no one has proven god does or doesn't exist. Just like I can say I have no belief in unicorns, but because no one has proven unicorns do or don't exist then it is a belief. How do you prove unicorns don't exist? You would have to search every location in the known
qijino1236 3 days ago
@qijino1236,
I repied to this, mistakenly thinking it was James that wrote it.
Saying you have no belief is saying you have something, it speaks about you. It is an application of set theory where you have expressed ownership of an empty set.
Just like saying you have no money in your bank account.
This renders a nontheist, not an atheist. It is false to say such a person is an atheist.
gklr 3 days ago
@qijino1236,
"If you have no belief in a god you are an atheist. "
False. That is nontheist.
"But atheism itself is a belief that there is no god since no one has proven god does or doesn't exist."
Correct.
We don't prove things do not exist by searching locations. We prove they don't exist by showing they are the subject of a logical contradiction.
eg: the ball that is on fire and is not on fire at the same time, cannot exist.
gklr 3 days ago
(sigh)
The prefix "a" means non-, ergo a "non-atheist" is a non-non-theist. And yes of course a belief is a position taken by the believer, not a type of statement, and faith is conviction and adherence to that position regardless or perhaps even because of lack of evidence.
I know set theory just fine, and Venn diagrams too. You're pretty cocky for someone who didn't even know that universal statements don't imply existence. Where you using Aristotle's square of opposition or what?
LucisFerre1 4 days ago
@LucisFerre1,
"a" does not mean non at all, it MEANT "without" when the Greek language was formed in the Bronze Age, prior to formal logic being founded by hundreds of years. Here I am arguing and showing Bertrand Russell arguments from 1905, and here you are reciting complete nonsense about the bronze age. Thanks for the update.
gklr 4 days ago
@LucisFerre1,
You are violating set theory, by saying you know what X is by saying it is a member of a complement set or non-something. I've already explained that you CAN only know 1 thing, that it exists. You want to say "oh no... this is an atheist". False. For all members of complement sets you only know 1 thing, they exist.
Worse... The present King of France who does not exist, is not a theist... and your method says that what is not anything IS something, again an atheist.
gklr 4 days ago
@LucisFerre1,
Universal statements don't imply existence? This is pretty good proof you have no idea about these topics at all. First off I didn't use a universal. Second off, things that do not exist are not anything, so they are not atheists. Yet your model says they are. Worse... "non-non-theist" is total garbage. Don't come here telling me you know set theory and speak to me that way. I'll just block you. Thanks for the laughs.
gklr 4 days ago
@LucisFerre1,
Either you come here to learn about your errors and why you are wrong, or you can politely fuck off.
You can ask why and where and then leave. Anything else gets you blocked. Why? Because you are preaching to me complete garbage and I will not tolerate it. I do not have the time to argue with completely stupid people.
gklr 4 days ago
That it's true that John holds a belief doesn't mean that John's belief is true. That I don't share John's belief doesn't mean that I'm saying that John's belief is true, false or even falsifiable. Belief is not a knowledge claim about something else. Belief is a statement about oneself.
LucisFerre1 1 week ago in playlist Points of contention within atheism
@LucisFerre1,
"Belief is a statement about oneself"
Not necessarily. "there is no god" is a belief and says nothing about me.
"That it's true that John holds a belief "
Never possible. Prove John holds a belief.
"doesn't mean that John's belief is true."
lol, I don't think anyone here suggests otherwise.
gklr 5 days ago
@gklr said [["Belief is a statement about oneself"
Not necessarily. "there is no god" is a belief and says nothing about me.]]
Oh Geez...
Belief is a statement about you because it's about you being convinced, not about what convinces you, because some people require very good evidence to be convinced while others are convinced when there is no real evidence at all.
LucisFerre1 5 days ago
@LucisFerre1,
Beliefs are a type of statement, not my conviction to that statement.
Whether I hold on to a belief is a matter of faith. Faith is a measure of how convicted someone is of a belief.
gklr 4 days ago
@LucisFerre1.
"That I don't share John's belief doesn't mean that I'm saying that John's belief is true, false or even falsifiable"
That you do not share John's belief, says nothing about you at all. When you did not exist you did not share John's belief.
gklr 5 days ago
@gklr So What?! I don't think you even understand what I'm saying.
LucisFerre1 5 days ago
@LucisFerre1,
"So What?! I don't think you even understand what I'm saying."
That makes sense, as I am confident you don't understand what you are saying.
gklr 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr said [[..you don't understand what you are saying.]]
.....
I"ve made it clear several times that atheism, i.e. non-theism isn't meant to define, but rather states that someone is not a member of a certain group. You keep repeating me and suggest that it's a problem because it doesn't specifically define. I think we're done here, Mr. Smartass. If you don't understand that believing is a state of a believer, and what the modern square of opposition is, then I think we're done here.
LucisFerre1 4 days ago
"What we are is what we aren't".
There is nothing wrong with that. I'm not a member of the set of all theists.
LucisFerre1 1 week ago in playlist Points of contention within atheism
@LucisFerre1 "I'm not a member of the set of all theists"
This says what you are not. Lots of things do not belong to the set of all theists and yet, all these things are not atheists, only some of them are.
Sashajw12345 1 week ago
@Sashajw12345 [["I'm not a member of the set of all theists"
This says what you are not.]]
Right, and that's worth saying. So what?
LucisFerre1 1 week ago
@LucisFerre1 "Right, and that's worth saying. So what?"
Something that is not a theist is not neccessarily an atheist.
Also, what an atheist IS, cannot be what an atheist IS NOT.
An atheist is not a theist is true, but the statement is not a defintion.
It simply says X is not Y. X could be anything except Y and the stament would still be true.
Sashajw12345 1 week ago
@Sashajw12345 Every concept gains meaning from context. Causality, for example, is meaningless outside the context of time & space. (Ergo the origin of the universe doesn't require a cause). 'North of the north pole' is meaningless because north only has meaning when one is south of the north pole. Atheist has meaning within the context of a conscious being who could be a theist but isn't. Saying that one is an atheist isn't meant to define oneself above & beyond saying that one is not a theist.
LucisFerre1 1 week ago
@LucisFerre1 "Saying that one is an atheist"
No object is defined by saying what it isn't
"could be a theist but isn't."
Your getting closer, they could be a theist, but they are not BECAUSE (insert definition of atheist here)
Sashajw12345 1 week ago
@LucisFerre1 "Every concept gains meaning from context"
Yes, but that does not mean you can ignore the difference between IS and IS NOT when it comes to defining what an object is.
Sashajw12345 1 week ago
@LucisFerre1,
"Atheist has meaning within the context of a conscious being who could be a theist but isn't. "
False. That is a nontheist, not an atheist.
A nonatheist is someone who exists and is not an atheist. I'd say that would be you.
gklr 5 days ago
@gklr Non-theist and a-theist are the same thing. The prefix "a" means non-, not, or without.
LucisFerre1 5 days ago
@LucisFerre1,
False. Nontheist is the complement set to theists.
Nonatheist is the complement set to atheists.
Nonatheist does not equate theist.
Nontheist does not equate atheist.
you might wish to learn some set theory. NON-something only ever says 1 thing about the member of the set... that it exists.
We know 2 things when saying a member of a set of non-something.
1. it exists... that is about the subject
2. 1 thing it is not, that is not about the subject at all.
gklr 4 days ago
@LucisFerre1 Isn't the concept of "origin" also meaningless outside the context of space and time? Perhaps the entire question of the origin of the universe is an invalid question. Or am I just being unwittingly facetious?
JamesMorlan 3 days ago
@LucisFerre1,
"So what?"
Well for one it says nothing about you. Saying what you are not does not say what you are.
That's what.
gklr 5 days ago
And you're also wrong about truth only applying toward the existent. Modern logic allows for vacuous truths. Something can be true merely because it's unfalsifiable. In modern logic, truth is merely the absence of falsity. All the cats in my pants are grey is true, merely because there are no non-gray cats in my pants. No atheist is saying that there are 'gods' that do not exist. We are not suggesting that existence is a predicate.
LucisFerre1 1 week ago in playlist Points of contention within atheism
@LucisFerre1 "truth is merely the absence of falsity."
Wrong. A truth is a statement that proposes a state of affairs that conforms to reality. "All the cats in my pants are grey is true, merely because there are no non-gray cats in my pants."
LOL For this to be true you would have to have cats in your pants.
You come to forum and play the critic wit these points? Wow
Sashajw12345 6 days ago
@Sashajw12345
Dude...seriously, do you not know that universal statements do not imply existence while existential quantifiers do?
LucisFerre1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LucisFerre1 "Dude...seriously, do you not know that universal statements do not imply existence while existential quantifiers do?"
Dude? lol. Its not true that all the cats in your pants are grey if there are no cats at all in your pants. This is obvious regardless of quantifiers.
The very claim is falsifiable via observation with the naked eye.
Sashajw12345 6 days ago
Atheism isn't a position on 'god', it's stating that we're not theists, who BELIEVES in 'god', not one who says that they KNOW that 'god' exists or does not exist. That's where you're going wrong. Atypical means not typical. Asymmetric means not symmetric, & atheist means not a theist. I can know that I'm not a theist without having to qualify theistic belief much the same way I can know that I'm not a member of the Heaven's Gate cult without knowing that their beliefs are cogent & consistent.
LucisFerre1 1 week ago in playlist Points of contention within atheism
"Hey, EASE UP!"
Wasn't my intent to attack you, however, in retrospect, after reading my posts, I can certainly see how that could be understood as my intent. Appologies
Sashajw12345 2 weeks ago
@Sashajw12345,
lol @ the chat
I expect to be recognized by now as an atheist and take great amusement at any hint otherwise. Scoring zero on the "are you even awake" meter is a special moment really.
You go easy on people compared to me. This video is a magnet for stupid.
The whole argument leaves slower people in the dust for real.
gklr 2 weeks ago
@Sashajw12345,
It is a great opportunity to argue "I am an atheist, but I cannot prove that I believe there is no god"... and "we can't prove anyone believes there is a god (theist) or not (nontheist) nor can we prove anyone believes there is no god (atheist) or not (nonatheist). We can't read minds. We trust anyone is being honest, and they can't even prove it to themselves. Just saying anyone is any of those is a belief. Checkmate.
gklr 2 weeks ago
@dkthg,
"So...am i a non-stamp collector?"
You are never what you are not.
"Bald is a hair color?"
Nope.
"Is abstinence a sexual position?"
Nope. And none of your examples have anything to do with atheism.
Atheism has no hair and is not bald. Freaky eh?
gklr 3 weeks ago in playlist My Top Videos
@gklr Thanx for the reply, just bein goofy. But seriously, considering that man has believed in 10s of thousands of gods which god do you worship and how do you know that this god is the true god and not ALL of the others? Are you a believer at all?, just curious.
dkthg 3 weeks ago
@dkthg Did you watch this video or any of the others I made?
"Hi... my name is Greg. I am an atheist" is how I start every video. That means I believe there is no god. That is what an atheist is.
Gods are not true or false. The only things that are true or false are propositions. Do not apply "true" to anything that is not a proposition... it makes no sense to do.
gklr 2 weeks ago
@gklr I actually didn't watch the video all the way but i did have acouple of beers as i was typing my replies. I'm a little tipsy....Hey wheres the nearest sorority house??
dkthg 2 weeks ago
@dkthg "I actually didn't watch the video all the "
He identifies as an atheist right at the beginning of the video
Sashajw12345 2 weeks ago
@Sashajw12345 he just TOLD me! you freakin jerk! Can't you let me drunk-type in peace?
dkthg 2 weeks ago
@dkthg "he just TOLD me! you freakin jerk!"
Not watching the video all the way through is not justification for missing a point iterated at the very beginning of the video. However I think you watched the video and only heard what you were prepared to hear.
Whether Bald is a hair colour or not says nothing at all about what atheism actually is. Be careful of garbage youtube arguments
Sashajw12345 2 weeks ago
@Sashajw12345 Hey, EASE UP! And to be honest...i'm not totally sure if i watched the video AT ALL i might've just read the description below. i was partying hard for a couple of days and being silly on youtube for the helluvit. I know you mean well but sometimes SILLY is SILLY. Trust me, i don't need any debating tips...maybe i need to stop partying so hard.....HELL NO!!! SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS! SHOTS!
dkthg 2 weeks ago
@gklr said [[ Did you watch this video or any of the others I made?
"Hi... my name is Greg. I am an atheist" is how I start every video. That means I believe there is no god. That is what an atheist is.]]
That's completely false. That means, "Hi...my name is Greg, and I'm not a theist". That means that I'm not a member of the set of people who hold this wacko beliefs. Theists demonstrably exist. I'm not one of them.
LucisFerre1 1 week ago in playlist Points of contention within atheism
This has been flagged as spam show
"Bald is a hair color?"
Bald has nothing to do with hair colour
Atheism however, is directly related to the context of whether or not there is a god.
Your analagy is faulty
Sashajw12345 3 weeks ago
but I CAN'T STAND WHEN ATHEIST says this... ATHEISM is a non-belief. ATHEISM is a FUCKING BELIEF. IT IS THE FUCKING BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD. end of sermon.
qijino1236 3 weeks ago
@qijino1236 "end of sermon."
Not the most eloquent way of putting it, but I agree:)
Sashajw12345 3 weeks ago
@qijino1236 Then what do you call someone who has no belief in a god one way or the other? And don't say "agnostic" or I'll just have to ask, "agnostic of what?" because agnostic is about knowing or not knowing. They'd have to be both not a theist and not an atheist at the same time. How does that work into your logic?
JamesMorlan 3 days ago
@JamesMorlan,
"Then what do you call someone who has no belief in a god one way or the other? "
This has been explained to you quite thoroughly, so I see no reason for you to ask.
Someone who has no belief that a god exists or doesn't exist is a nontheist and a nonatheist. Babies are a good example.
gklr 3 days ago
I am not an atheist , I am not an agnostic, I am not a theist, I like being called a culturally Christian agnostic....BUT I AM NOT THAT....I AM MOTHERFUCKING GOD DAMN FUCKING ME ME ME ME . I AM ME . ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL THEIST... ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL ATHEIST... ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL AGNOSTIC...ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL PANTHEIST ...ME doesn't FUCKING EQUAL pansexual... ME FUCKING EQUALS ME. ME = ME . ME= ME is the FUCKING ANSWER. I FUCKING LOVE ALL ATHEISTS as long as they are nice,
qijino1236 3 weeks ago
The god of the bible cannot exist as described in the bible. To say so requires no atheism. The god of the bible is said to be omnipotent, yet could not create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted.... which is proof no being can be omnipotent by the way... not just that proposed god.
The god of the bible is said to never repent, ever... in supposedly his own words too. Then, in his alleged words he repents and repents and repents. That god can't exist. Saying so is not expressing atheism.
gklr 1 month ago
I handed Xgya2000 his walking papers.
Preaching utter garbage here, while polite people try and reason with you... gets your ass blocked fairly fast with me.
If you have no idea how to use a dictionary, you backtrack, bastardize the laws of logic, make up garbage, misquote, misunderstand and apparently need a job... I do not care one bit.
Xgya2000 needs a babysitter, not logic. An endless stream of nonsense is hardly entertaining.
gklr 1 month ago
Point to references of definitions and words you use.
This is getting tiresome, doing all the work for you.
If you don't want to refer to a dictionary, refer to a word's etymology and origins, the way it was originally intended to be used.
Do remember that while "atheist" has greek origins ("Without god"-godless), atheism has french origins ("Athéisme", from "théisme" - "belief in god/s" and "a"- "no").
Find the origins of the word "disbelief", and disprove my argument.
Xgya2000 1 month ago
That's agnosticism!
Atheism is believeing that tHERE IS NO GOD, OR GOD DOESN'T EXIST! Which makes every 'atheists' Liars!!! why? because NO ONE IN THIS UNIVERSE can disprove God! No one in this universe can even give ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that God does not exist! funny, isn't it?
madenew000 1 month ago
@madenew000,
atheism is the belief itself that a god does not exist. It has nothing to do with showing proof and no belief ever does.
Proofs apply to truths, not to beliefs.
Someone claiming to prove there is no god at all is not expressing atheism.
gklr 1 month ago
@madenew000,
Agnosticism is the position that man cannot prove there is a god or that there is no god. I know of no-one who is not agnostic, and if I did I could prove they were wrong.
We can prove there is no biblical god and doing so is not atheism and requires no atheism. We can prove there is no god of the koran and doing so is not expressing atheism nor does it require any atheism to do.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr So, prove that there is No God (of the Bible)!
madenew000 1 month ago
@madenew000
That's a pretty easy to answer question. Allow me to oblige.
Yahweh is said to be all-knowing, yet has free will. He knows what he'll think next, which means he cannot do anything other than what he had intially planned. This removes his free will. If he CAN change his course of action, it means what he initially planned was wrong, thus removing his omniscience.
Being all-knowing also means he planned every evil that will ever happen. So he can't be omnibenevolent.
Xgya2000 1 month ago
@Xgya2000 "thus removing his omniscience." The interesting thing about this analagy is that in order for it to be the case (proof god does not exist) god must posess an linear style of thinking (like us). It fails as proof on this account because the mind of such a being, if existed, may operate in such a manner that is beyoond our comprehension. This however, does not help the theistic argument either because they claim to know everything about such a being when they cannot.
Sashajw12345 1 month ago
Comment removed
Sashajw12345 1 month ago
@madenew000
I could also go on about how inaccurate the Bible is, especially as far as the creation myth goes. Creating light before stars and the moon? (where did that original light go? Did God turn it off?) Creating the Earth and plants before the Sun? Creating the Sun before other stars? I could go on about how wrong the idea of Noah's flood is, and how Leviticus got it wrong... The list goes on and on.
Xgya2000 1 month ago
@madenew000,
"prove that there is No God (of the Bible)!"
The bible says god never repents and also that god repents. POOF. That god can't exist.
It is possible there is a god, but it is not possible that there is a biblical god or a koranic god. Those gods have been proven to not exist and no atheism is required to say so.
It is not an expression of atheism to be able to prove those gods do not exist, it is an expression of formal logic. No belief required. No atheism required.
gklr 1 month ago
Comment removed
madenew000 1 month ago
Atheism is "There is no god. Eat shit Believers. We don't need "proof". Wanna claim there's a god? Prove it.
TheCrimsonification 1 month ago
@TheCrimsonification,
atheism is the position there is no god. It has nothing to do with telling believers to eat shit, or to prove anything. No belief is proven true. There is no burden of proof on any belief.
Can you prove they believe in a god? Nope.
gklr 1 month ago
@gklr That's cute...you assume I give a fuck about shit... DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE is my motto and shit. Plus I like turtles. BLAH!
TheCrimsonification 1 month ago
@TheCrimsonification,
"That's cute...you assume I give a fuck about shit... DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE is my motto and shit. Plus I like turtles. BLAH!"
Exit stage left. If you have so little to say as that, I don't give a toot what you have to say. Blocked that fast.
gklr 1 month ago
It's been a long time since I touched upon this uploaders video... and I see the debate goes on. I have started to lean towards gklr's view, but I still haven't come to terms with that I've gotten no explanation on how gklr thinks that you CAN say "He is armless", and call that a description, but to say "He is lacking arms"/"He does not have arms" is NOT a description. That's the final hurdle to agreeing with him, too bad this poisons the whole discussion I had with him a long while back.
JessikaTheGamer 2 months ago
@JessikaTheGamer,
He is armless is saying something about you... it says you have something, an empty set of arms. This is a non-armed person then, akin to a nontheist... and not an atheist.
gklr 1 month ago
"It is not informative about "I" in any way shape or form. I cannot know from that that "I" exists. The statement is valid when "I" doesn't exist... so it is not talking about "I"."
I thought about that statement a bit. You're wrong on this point.
The statement "I don't think this" is invalid if I don't exist. "The glass is empty" is invalid if the glass isn't there. This is all due to contrast and comparison. The "empty" inside the glass is of importance because it is inside the glass.
Xgya2000 2 months ago
@Xgya2000,
"The statement "I don't think this" is invalid if I don't exist"
If you do not exist you do not think.
The glass is empty is not valid if the glass does not exist, correct. The glass has an empty set of things inside it, if it is empty... and that would be hard to do considering air or light are things.
Saying the glass does not have anything inside it, is valid if the glass does not exist. Clearly not having something inside is different than "empty".
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr
"If you do not exist you do not think" - This is where it gets complicated: You might THINK you think, all the while being part of someone else's subconscious, or part of a computer program. Also, many things that do not think actually exist (at least as far as we perceive them)
"Not having something is different than empty" - My possibly-existing glass is in a dark void. Empty it is. Without air or light. But were there no glass, saying it is empty would be pointless.
Xgya2000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Full" is not a thing, but a quality of a thing.
Belief in god is too. Lacking belief is another quality."
A phrase that says object X doesn't have a quality is at the same time a phrase that says object X does have a quality?
good grief
Sashajw12345 2 months ago
Comment removed
Sashajw12345 2 months ago
What a load of bollocks
kts68 2 months ago
@kts68,
That atheism is something that doesn't exist, and a lack of belief doesn't exist, is bollocks.
gklr 2 months ago
Bear in mind... saying anything about a member of a complement set (non-something) only tells us they exist.
why?
Because they must exist and no other information has been stated about them.
why must they exist?
All members of sets, are members of "sets of things". No member of a set "does not exist" or it is not a member, including complement sets (non-somethings).
We know 2 things about a member of a complement set.
1 it exists
2 it is not something (which doesn't speak about the member)
gklr 2 months ago
Bear in mind, saying what is not the case... says what is not real. Saying what is not the case about atheists... like "atheists lack belief in a god" or "atheists are without god"... says what is not real about atheists. It doesn't say what is real about atheists, it is true about what is not the case about atheists. Lack, absence, without.... all use NOT. This is what the atheist ISN'T...
I do not believe in god.... says "It is not the case that I believe in god"... they are equal logically.
gklr 2 months ago
Nope, you are posing a false dichotomy.
As someone else put it:
"Let's say I flip a coin, don't show it to you, and tell you it's heads. Do you believe me? You shouldn't. If you don't, does that automatically mean that you believe it's tails? Of course not. It's the same with god claims. If someone says "god exists" and I say "I don't believe you" that does not automatically mean that I believe that god does not exist."
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"If you don't, does that automatically mean that you believe it's tails?"
If you don't, then I don't know if you even exist. When you did not exist, you didn't believe anything.
When you say you don't believe, you are not talking about you. You are talking about what is not the case about you. What is not the case about atheists is not what is the case about atheists.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "When you say you don't believe, you are not talking about you." I am.
"You are talking about what is not the case about you." I am stating that I do not hold the beliefs theists do.
"What is not the case about atheists is not what is the case about atheists." Atheism is the name for people who do not hold theistic beliefs, that's it, nothing more nothing less.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"When you say you don't believe, you are not talking about you." I am.
No you aren't. You are talking about what you are not, not what you are. You are what you are, you are not what you are not.
"You are talking about what is not the case about you." I am stating that I do not hold the beliefs theists do.
Exactly. That says what is not the case about you. You are saying it is not the case that you believe as they do.
gklr 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"What is not the case about atheists is not what is the case about atheists." Atheism is the name for people who do not hold theistic beliefs, that's it, nothing more nothing less.
Start again on that.... first off "atheist" is the name/label. Atheism is a defined word. Names and labels are not defined, they are described. Defined words and not described.
ie: car, tree, Greg... all point to something
No defined word does that. They are their meaning. Ok?
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr,
correction where it says "Defined words and not described"... should have said "Defined words ARE not described"
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "Defined words and not described." Actually they are. Every defined word depends on other defined words for it´s definition.
For example, chair is meaningless without being differentiated as from couch and other sitting surfaces.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"For example, chair is meaningless without being differentiated as from couch and other sitting surfaces."
Chair, couch... these are names and REFER to something Defined words don't refer to anything, they ARE their definition. Names and labels have no definition and mean nothing... the only words that work that way.
The only thing between you and having something to say on this is an education.
gklr 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"Atheism is the name for people who do not hold theistic beliefs, that's it, nothing more nothing less."
This is what you are telling me yes, and it is false.
When you say "people that don't believe..." you have said nothing about those people.
Jim does not believe in a god, doesn't tell me if Jim exists or not. Is Jim even real? If Jim does not exist then "Jim does not believe in god" is valid. No conclusion can be made of Jim at all saying that.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "When you say "people that don't believe..." you have said nothing about those people."
Yes I have, I have said that those people do not have a belief in X.
"Jim does not believe in a god, doesn't tell me if Jim exists or not." Neither does saying Jim believes in god, again your logic is gibberish.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
gklr: When you say "people that don't believe..." you have said nothing about those people.
Yes I have,
gklr: not even close. You are saying what is not the case for them.
I have said that those people do not have a belief in X.
gklr: and they didn't when they did not exist, proving you have said nothing about them.
gklr 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
If you exist (which is about you) and you do not believe in a god (which is not about you), you are a nontheist... not necessarily an atheist.
By saying anyone is NON-something (set theory), we only know 1 thing about them.... they exist.
The present King of France does not exist, is not a theist, is not a nontheist and is not an atheist.
The present King of France does not believe in a god... and is not an atheist.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "If you exist (which is about you) and you do not believe in a god (which is not about you)" Not believing in a god is about me, it is about something I lack and do not believe in. Your philosophical hand-waving is ridiculous.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"Not believing in a god is about me"
Not believing in god is not a thing at all, no such "thing" is possible.
Not something, is not a thing.
Where X is something, not X is not something.
Where X is anything, not X is not anything.
Saying atheists do not believe in god is valid, it simply is not true about atheists or say what they do. It says what they do not do, which doesn't require atheists exist to be valid. ie: it says nothing about atheists at all.
gklr 2 months ago
"Not believing in god is not a thing at all, no such "thing" is possible."
If you are in France, you're not in Germany, it's possible.
"Where X is something, not X is not something." It is, it is the absence of X.
If someone asks me what I believe (religiously speaking) I will answer I don't believe.
That does not mean I believe there are no god(s), just that I have no knowledge of any that do exist.
Does me not knowing of the Great Kazoo mean I believe it does not exist? No, it does not.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
Not in Germany... is not a place... or anything.
Where X is something, not X is not something.
No such thing as any NOT X, no matter what X is.
gklr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Saying atheists do not believe in god is valid, it simply is not true about atheists or say what they do."
It is. "It says what they do not do, which doesn't require atheists exist to be valid"
It says what they are not, which does require them to exist, else everyone would be a theist. Non-theist and atheist are the same terms written in two different ways. Just like a-linear and non-linear.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"It says what they are not"
Correct and nothing IS what it IS NOT.
Is = is not? Is that the logic you want to sell me?
"Non-theist and atheist are the same terms written in two different ways."
False, just as much so as saying nonatheist = theist. Babies are nontheists and nonatheists.
gklr 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"it is about something I lack and do not believe in"
Correct, and therefore says nothing about you.
We talk about you only when we say things about what you are. When I say I am not you, I haven't said anything about me. It is true I am not you, that doesn't say what I am.
X is not you. What is X? You can't know, X may not exist it still isn't you.
X does not believe in a god. What is X? You can't know, you haven't said anything about X. X may not exist.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "Correct, and therefore says nothing about you."
It says what I do not believe in not clarifies my position on religion and the existence of god(s). Really how much simpler can I state this.
"We talk about you only when we say things about what you are." No, that's your flawed perception. If someone says 'he's never hurt anyone', then they are talking about that person even if they are describing something that person never did/does.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"It says what I do not believe in not clarifies my position on religion and the existence of god(s). "
Which says zero about you or about atheists.
gklr: "We talk about you only when we say things about what you are."
No, that's your flawed perception
Really, so you are all that you are and also all that you are not? Magical stuff! You are everything!
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "X does not believe in a god. What is X? You can't know, you haven't said anything about X. X may not exist."
It says that X is an entity that does not believe in a god.
Your example is flawed anyway because you create a situation in which nothing is known about X. Whenever people communicate they already know certain things about the other; their name, what form and language they use to communicate etcetera.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"It says that X is an entity that does not believe in a god."
Which says nothing about that entity. That entity may not exist and it still doesn't believe in a god.
"Your example is flawed anyway because you create a situation in which nothing is known about X"
No... that is what you do in saying X (atheists = X) don't believe or lack belief in a god.
X doesn't believe in god. What is X? You can't know, it may not exist. (you don't know X is an atheist)
gklr 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"Your philosophical hand-waving is ridiculous"
Then so too is modern logic since 1905 and Bertrand Russells Theory of Descriptions, his greatest work... AND when I say "god doesn't exist" well I must be talking about "god" then. And since a truth proves an object exists well hey, I must now have proven god exists by declaring the truth that god doesn't exist!
Your way is contradictory and to work needs to look well past Russell and right back past Aristotle too.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "This is what you are telling me yes, and it is false." No it's not.
Here's the etymology of atheism:
atheism
1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist." Ancient Gk. atheotes meant "ungodliness."
As you can see it's from a-theos, without a god.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
etymology is not how any word is defined and I showed you why and I am not about to endlessly repeat myself to someone who refuses to listen.
gklr 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"As you can see it's from a-theos, without a god."
It really is too bad you are using stone age logic, in spite of modern advances since 4300 BC.
Your problem isn't with me, it's with logic itself.
gklr 2 months ago
@gklr "Bertrand Russells Theory of Descriptions" Which essentially states that all language is meaningless as it is all subjective and interdependent.
"And since a truth proves an object exists well hey, I must now have proven god exists by declaring the truth that god doesn't exist!" No, you have proven that the idea or concept of a god exists, you have not proven that an entity called god exists.
Big difference.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
""Bertrand Russells Theory of Descriptions" Which essentially states that all language is meaningless as it is all subjective and interdependent"
Good grief. No such thing.
gklr 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
""And since a truth proves an object exists well hey, I must now have proven god exists by declaring the truth that god doesn't exist!" No, you have proven that the idea or concept of a god exists, you have not proven that an entity called god exists."
I didn't prove a god doesn't exist. I am saying if it is proven true that "god doesn't exist" by your method this would prove a god exists.... showing how contradictory your reasoning is.
gklr 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
", you have not proven that an entity called god exists."
I am granting you a typo on that. lol. Prove god exists?
I am an atheist.
gklr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gklr "Your way is contradictory and to work needs to look well past Russell and right back past Aristotle too."
Fortunately Russell is not the godfather of language nor philosophy.
If you adhere to Russell's philosophy all words and definitions become meaningless on their own.
Sorry but I don't think you quite understand his theories.
thomaseshuis 2 months ago
@thomaseshuis,
"Fortunately Russell is not the godfather of language nor philosophy."
He is on primary and secondary predicates. Show me anyone who has done it before him. Primary predicates are what you are, secondary predicates are what you aren't. You confuse the two and there is your error in logic.
gklr 2 months ago