Your chart that had the four terms arranged in a cross doesn't even make sense. What would be the middle ground between atheism & theism AND gnosticism and agnosticism? I'm not entirely certain but it's kind of a belief that there may or may not be a god or gods?
"That definition is not up to date." Or in other words it is correct by the original definition, but we've changed it to shift the burden of proof away from our side.
@Sickopath333 I didn’t make that chart. It’s not possible to be between agnosticism and agnosticism in the sense that you cannot be in a position where you are neither. Whether you know or don’t know, you still either claim certainty, or you don’t; there is no middle ground between that, regardless of whether you think something is plausible/implausible, likely, unlikely, possible or impossible. This is the same when speaking of the broad definition of atheism. You either have the
belief ‘god exists’, or you don’t. There is no middle ground. Middle ground means you can’t be in a position where you’re in a state of being neither X nor NOT X.
"Or in other words it is correct by the original definition, but we've changed it to shift the burden of proof away from our side." Absolutely not; nice strawman. It’s a logical fallacy to say that something is correct because it’s the way it was originally used that way. Does gay only mean happy now? Language changes over
time and words are adopted by authoritative dictionaries by our usage. There is usually more than just one distinct definition for a word that is relative to context. When we discover new, useful ways to use these linguistic shortcuts, we do so.
It's also ridiculous and absurd to say one can shift a burden of proof to an agnostic, when the agnostic is not making a positive claim regarding the reality of a god's existence, Let alone that words changing by usage somehow imply shifting a burden of proof that is not there. The burden of proof always and forever will lay with the person making the positive claim. If you add the word no, doesn’t, not, isn’t or any kind of negation that implies something is false, or that you haven't
been convinced it’s true, it’s not a positive claim and there is no burden of proof that you can even shift, especially shift it to somebody else who also lacks convincing of a positive claim.
@Marc167 But usage alone should not determine a word's definition. If someone incorrectly uses a word the definition should not change with it.
And you are absolutely wrong that a negative position has no burden of proof. Let me show you. I deny evolution, BBT, the Earth's roundness, the sun's centrality in our galaxy, etc. That's a negative claim, a disbelief or lack of belief, therefore I have no burden of proof, no need for evidence; no one can demand from me an explanation.
@Sickopath333 Absolutely wrong. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim that evolution does exist. They present the evidence, and if you haven't been convinced or believe the evidence is unjustified and the claim is false, you have no burden of proof, since you are making no positive claim. If you are trying to CONVINCE someone ELSE that evolution is false, only then would you have a burden of proof.
“But usage alone should not determine a word's definition. If someone incorrectly uses a word the definition should not change with it.”
I specifically said that it must be both useful, logically valid in a separate context, and agreed upon by several authoritave dictionaries. Usage is just one of several important, corroborating factors that determines a words definition.
The chart is absolutely fine. It’s epistemically valid and consistent with the contentions in my video; it doesn’t contradict anything in my video and illustrates that theism is a specific belief, atheism is not having that belief, Gnosticism is a specific knowledge and Agnosticism is a lack of that knowledge. All I said was I did not make it, but I see nothing wrong with it.
“I should either make a video or send you a message sometime but your understanding of the knowledge/belief scale(s) seems confused.” That would be both silly and intellectually dishonest if you even read the annotations, since I specifically said my newer more comprehensive version will be uploaded soon, and to stop commenting here as if it was still relative. My script for it already exceeds an hour long and nobody I have engaged in discussion has ever been as knowledgeable as me on
@Marc167 But you used the chart. You have to choose your visual media wisely since it is conveying part of your message for you, and that chart is horrendous. I should either make a video or send you a message sometime but your understanding of the knowledge/belief scale(s) seems confused. Atheism is not a broad definition. I would admit there are different graduations, but it is the denial or rejection of the existence of God(s).
this reasoning is basically from someone who is an Agnostic, but claimed to be Atheist their whole life and needs to find a way to justify their realized beliefs with what they have identified with for so long. If you are open to god existing in any way, shape, or form... your not an Atheist dude.
@gypsyrose713 I never claimed to be an atheist (not believe in god) my entire life. I was raised Christian and was very religious for MOST of my life. I NEVER identified as 'only' agnostic and always found the term largely useless because I care about what people believe (or don't believe); I don't care what they claim is unknown or unknowable because ultimately, they still either believe the claim 'god exists' or they don't. I'm an atheist by definition regardless of what you
baldly assert without any reasoned evidence/argument behind it. Epistemology, linguistics, etymology and the majority of dictionaries in existence all support my view.
@Marc167 If you find the term Agnostic useless, you probably don't understand it entirely. I'm agnostic. I can neither disprove, nor prove, the existence of God, so therefore atheism is just as logically indefensible as theism. The only logically defensible position, vis-à-vis the existence of God, is agnosticism. Being agnostic does not mean "I don't know;" it means "I CAN'T know." A person who holds belief can't claim to be an Agnostic Atheist, the two terms are contrary to each other.
@gypsyrose713@gypsyrose713 I'm making over an hour long video for a script I've been perfecting for over 4 years and you claim I don't understand the term? Atheism is a statement about belief, not kniowledge. I can neither disprove nor prove the multiverse, nor canm I disprove nor prove the existence of an immaterial pink monster in peoples anuses that tells them to do bad things. I care about peoples beliefs. Beliefs inform and influence peoples actions. At the core of it you're
saying you don't know, but the important question is do you acvtually believe it, not whether you think it can be known or unknown, proven or disproven, those are separate things. "A person who holds belief can't claim to be an Agnostic Atheist, the two terms are contrary to each other." That claim contradicts the very definitions you use in your own video. They can be combined. I can not know something and still believe it or not beleive it. I can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic
atheist. Google agnostic theist. The terms do exist and are non-contradictory.. You just lack knowledge about these terms and epistemology. Agnosticism is a useless term to me because it tells me something somebody claims they can't know, when what dictates a persons behavior is their beliefs. What they are convinced is true, not what certainty they lack about beliefs they haven't stated they have or do not have. If somebody says 'I don't know' When asked if they believe in a god, they
@Marc167 There are a million different definitions & we pick the definition that suits our position more. Not all sources are accurate when a person states that they are an Atheist, it GENERALLY applies that a person denies the existence of god. As an Agnostic, I see the definition of Agnosticism a little differently, because I experience it. You can strip it down and just sort of not see the full spectrum of what it stands for, but it comes after one recognizes how making a decision in CONT
@gypsyrose713 "There are a million different definitions & we pick the definition that suits our position more"
That would be fine and dandy if that's what you actually did, but you did not. You picked a definition that fit MY point of view perfectly without contradiction, then you added to that definition; changing it, presenting it as fact for the sole purpose to suit your bias. All throughout the video you present fallacy after fallacy and contradicted yourself several times in
in your own replies. My new video is going to address all of these things. There is not 1 single point of view that you presented that I havent addressed dozens of times.
@Marc167 Good video, although I think the last scene could cause some confusion. You must remind the viewer that even a strong atheist can be agnostic. That is, someone can believe there is no god without knowing there is no god, as opposed to a gnostic atheist who says there is no god and they know that to be the case. Apart from that, good job!
@Marc167 Well, I find it a little ignorant if a person feels like they have to think a certain way even if there are no personal grounds for it. The real argument here is, is knowledge alone grounds for belief? People feel like it is necessary to make a judgement call on god vs. no god. I don't find this necessary. As an Agnostic I make an attempt to not cloud my own ability to judge truth. I feel this is an active goal of an Agnostic. You ask any Agnostic and they will probably agree.
@gypsyrose713 Yes, my definitions were pretty shitty and broad since it served as just an introduction to the heart of what I was trying to say. The fact that your only interest is in a person's opinion in terms of either being in favor of god or not kind of proves my problem with merging the two because Agnostics don't view things in this way at all. There is a lot more to Agnosticism than a very general definition and a lot of it is not feeling the need to box yourself into a category based on
@gypsyrose713 the natural desire to. You keep yourself open to truth, whatever that is, you believe in truth over opinion, I'm okay with not taking a guess at it. It doesn't make my views boring or irrelevant. I believe this is the most beneficial mind set, to be able to think critically in the most truthful way possible. You can't just attach a whole different type of boxed thinking to that. It's not like Agnosticism is the middle ground between Atheist and Theist, it's a completely different
@gypsyrose713 type of rationalization. I believe Atheism and Theism are closer together than Atheism is to Agnosticism. Agnosticism is trying to avoid black and white thinking as much as possible. So there is this whole other element that I feel you are missing. That no, doesn't fit in with my very general definition, but it's still a true and real part of Agnosticism that can't just be dismissed because it's a real reason why Agnostics have sought Agnosticism.
(Conclusion) Also, consider a shopkeeper who puts up the following sign: The shopkeeper hopes that potential thieves will reason as follows: According to the sign, if I shoplift, I'll be prosecuted. I don't want to be prosecuted. Therefore, I'd better not shoplift in this store. According to the traditional theory, if the sign succeeds in deterring shoplifters, then they cannot reason this way! Yet, it is partly because people reason this way that there are no shoplifters.
(Part 7 of Conclusion) Exposure: The traditional theory makes it impossible to reason about empty classes, which might seem to be a small price to pay if all that we had to give up were classes such as unicorns. However, some classes may be empty for all we know, yet we manage to reason about them all the same. For instance, there may be no extraterrestrial aliens, but we cannot even say this meaningfully in the traditional theory, let alone use the class in an argument.
(Part 6 of Conclusion) This has the consequence that some immediate inferences—such as subalternation—and categorical syllogisms which were valid under the traditional interpretation become instances of the Existential Fallacy. Of course, as long as the relevant classes are known to be non-empty, an argument should be considered to be an enthymeme instead of an instance of this fallacy.
(Part 5 of Conclusion) For reasons explained in the Exposure, logicians of the nineteenth century dropped the traditional assumption of non-emptiness, and adopted what is called the "Boolean interpretation"—after logician George Boole—of universal quantifiers. Under the Boolean interpretation, A- and E-type propositions lack existential import, while both I- and O-type have it.
(Part 4 of Conclusion) For example, an A-type proposition implies an I-type, and an E-type implies an O-type: Subalternation: All Catholics are christians. Therefore, some christians are Catholics. Subalternation: No atheists are christians.Therefore, some christians are not atheists. This type of inference is called "subalternation". Unfortunately, subalternation is an invalid form of argument if one of the terms refers to an empty class, such as "unicorns"; see the Counter-Example.
(Part 3 of Conclusion) History: In the traditional formal logic developed by Aristotle and subsequent logicians through the Middle Ages, it was implicitly assumed that the classes of things referred to by the subject and predicate terms of categorical propositions were non-empty. For this reason, certain arguments were considered valid which would not be valid if some class were empty.
(Part 2 of Conclusion) Exposition: A proposition has existential import if it implies that some class is not empty, that is, that there is at least one member of the class. For example: Existential Import: There are black swans. No Existential Import: There are no Sasquatch. To reason from premisses that lack existential import for a certain class to a conclusion that has it is to commit the Existential Fallacy.
(Part 1 of Conclusion) Existential Fallacy: Alias: The Fallacy of Existential Assumption: Any argument whose conclusion implies that a class has at least one member, but whose premisses do not so imply. Example: All trespassers will be prosecuted. Therefore, some of those prosecuted will have trespassed. Counter-Example: All unicorns are animals. Therefore, some animals are unicorns.
Instead of doing agnosticism and atheism you should do gnosticism and theism, seeing as those are the root words. Also a lot of "agnostics" are very confused on the differences between gnosticism and theism, they are separate things. Among many other things, everyone is either a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist. There is no getting around this. Many people seem to assume its possible being neither atheist nor theist- that's fundamentally wrong.
@KeskinTRS "If you`re a pure agnostic who says "currently unknown", don`t let them label you as an atheist!"
A rose is a rose by any other name and it does not matter what you call something as long as you're accurately describing it and correctly representing its attributes in a logically consistent way. I don't label people atheists, just like I don't label people theists, or rapists. It's what they accurately are by definition, and those words existed before i was born. They both have more
than 1 distinct definition. That's just the way things are, whether or not anyone likes them. Your comments were very unlettered and inculcated with intellectually dishonest, and demonstrably false propaganda without and logic behind it, at all. If you go through the vast majority of my comments, you'll find I at least try to be coherent when I leave post. I ask you to please display the same courtesy.
"And there is no logic that can force you into a belief, you don`t have to answer that stupid "do you believe in god" question."
Force you? Nobody is forcing anyone. The point (and logically demonstrable fact is this, something is either X or not X. You either have the belief 'god exists', or you don't. A belief is to think something is true, and this should be a simple question to answer. Regardless if answered, you still either have it or you don't and there is no in between. This is
logic 101 (law of excluded middle). Beliefs themselves are not to be conflated with beliefs you're certain abbout, since there are all kinds of beliefs. "According to this BS even embrios are atheists..." You are absolutely wrong and misrepresenting what I said in my video. According to the annotations on my video, Embryos (not embrios) can not be atheists because they cannot reject (not accept) the claim 'god exists', and the only way you can neither accept or reject (not accept) a claim is if
you've never been presented it or do not have cognition (so you're without conscious comprehension). You must be able to comprehend a concept of a god, and not be convinced the statement (a god exists) is true, which means you would lack that belief; let's not strawman fallacy my video now. Be intellectually honest.
""Because you`re standing on the level of knowledge/truth which is above any theist or atheist belief system."
What do you even mean by that? That is one of the most incoherent
"Atheists are making up definitions as they go just so they can convert everybody into their camp."
You can't (convert) someone into something that is not even a claim or proposition, but a response to the positive claim 'a god exists'. If I tell you about my invisible potato named bob and you don’t believe it, did I convert you? If you haven't been convinced it's true (lack the belief' 'marc's potato named bob exists') there's no conversion.
There is more than 1 distinct definition and the 2nd one is an archaic definition that is no longer used. Definition one says
‘or’: this means that it can be just one of them, and the first one completely agrees with my lack of belief since disbelief is not believing. Most of the dictionaries in act say disbelief, some say absence of belief, some say denial. The ones that say denial usually have the OR ‘disbelief’ thrown in there. Good job using an argument from authority fallacy and no
evidence whatsoever to “support” your bias pseudo-intellectual definition. You found one definition to suit your bias, while ignoring all the others that exist from much more scholarly sources. You are once again being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you.
“A belief is something that you choose and there is no logic on earth that can force me to enter a belief.”
No, a belief is not a choice in the way you most likely mean it to be. If I and my loved ones were being simultaneously tortured, and
all I had to do was believe that leprechauns exist (by sheer will alone; i.e. just because I wanted to), I couldn’t do it. No matter how badly I wanted to believe to make it end (and I would want to believe it); even with a million dollar incentive and the knowledge that the torture would immediately stop if I could believe leprechauns are real, I couldn’t make myself believe it. I would need sufficient valid and sound evidence to convince my mind that they’re real.
“It´s really not my fault that you`re unable to understand that everybody has the right NOT TO ANSWER a question regarding belief.”
Everyone does have the right to not answer the question and I never said they didn’t; don’t put words in my mouth. I never claimed they did not. What I did claim was this logical fact: regardless if they answer the question publically, there already is an answer because there are 2 possible positions one can take to a proposition, and one of them is mandatory. If
you don’t have one, it means you have the other (law of non-contradiction). You either believe a claim or you don’t, regardless of whether you choose to answer it publically, there already is an answer.
“Agnosticism is knowledge/truth based and knowledge/truth can NOT mix with any belief ever. It´s logically impossible!”
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. You must be an internet troll. Everything you know, you simultaneously believe, since a belief is to think something is
is true. The statement, “I know it, but I don’t believe it”, is logically impossible. You can believe things and not know them, but you can’t know things and not believe them. You know absolutely nothing about logical impossibilities since you keep claiming logically impossible things, and when you use the words ‘logically impossibe’ together, there’s a complete lack of understanding regard the laws of logic and epistemology. Either you’re slow, English is not your first language or you lack
education. Please do not comment anymore unless you are going to be intellectually honest and learn a little bit about what your claiming before you post.
“atheism is clearly a belief system”
According to THEE very definition YOU POSTED on here, it’s not a belief system. A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. A single belief cannot be a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system, an ideology, nor a philosophy. Atheism has no tenents, no dogma, no ritualistic ceremonies,
etc. All it is is a single position on a single claim. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. You are a walking contradiction. Can you consistently defend anything you say, at all? Because you haven’t yet.
I forgot to add that not believing something is an involuntary reaction to a deficit of evidence. And the beliefs I do have, none of them have been chosen by sheer will alone. So you saying "there is no logic on earth that can force me to enter a belief ", that is false. Peoples minds can become convinced that something is true even if they don't want to believe it by observing constant and consistent logical evidence that they are able to comprehend.
I could also force people to believe things via brainwashing techniques (although I consider those methods completely immoral). The mind is a very fragile thing that can be forced into belief. But there is a difference between this and believing something ONLY because you want to.
The existence of a god or gods can not be 100% confirmed. Its just too bad some people are not confident enough in their faith so they require a "proof"/story/religion to back them up. "Proof"/story/religion, not faith(for or against), starts fights and wars.
with all respection to agnostic and athiest,,,i found that all u life is questions|?? seems u r lost ,,,,in islam answers of u questions about the god,,,,the god (allah) has 99 names.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 Here is the big hole in your theory. If the supernatural did exist and was the creative cause of the universe the universe could not last. As we know for every up there is a down and for ever right there is a left so for every supernatural creative force there is an equally supernatural destructive force. The supernatural destructive forces would have destroyed the universe a long time ago. Also: Where are all the vampires, werewolves and leprechauns?
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. Whatever similarities exist are due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, not a common ancestor. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 So, if we don't know how something happened now....we should say a magic sky daddy did it? Earlier Humans tried that with lightning. Then we found out Zeus wasn't doing it. Please stop fooling yourself, I can't prove god doesn't exist....you can't prove he does. You're making yourself look silly.
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
I think the confusion is that Atheists simply have not accepted any theology claim because they do not meet the proofs required. Agnostics do not use any burden of proof and simply accept anything can be possible or impossible. No standards required. They haven't either accepted nor denied theological claims. Atheists have. The issue is Atheists have standards of evidence, and Agnostics because those standards themselves could most certainly be flawed themselves... Just my understanding of it.
@residentatheist Santa is a very misleading analogy of God. Let me attack the maniac for example of this idea of being good because santa clause is coming. Actually merits are not limited to candies or toys. Where's for instance, obeying an actual valid and BINDING Divine Commands leads you with merits such as for say atonement and salvation. Augustine said that the price of truth is love.
@residentatheist "What part of an invisible supernatural creature from some other dimension do you consider to be possible?" The analogy of Metaphysical gods are COMPLETELY different from a Supernatural Being. The pagan gods are the concepts of MATERIAL, and physical beings DEPENDENT of space and time. Where's obviously the Bible would stand alone in talking about a God who is INDEPENDENT of space and time. Ironically, all the space time models leaves you with a temporal universe.
@spiritring If it created the natural it has to be supernatural because the natural didn't exist yet. If it didn’t create the natural there is no good reason to call it a god.
@residentatheist still not tangent. The idea hold by pagans was the idea of an eternal and completely material universe. easy. On mainstream cosmology, the model of the universe is subject to relentless grip of general relativity and space time theorems. This leaves you with non eternal model of the physical world.
@spiritring I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said the physical world was eternal. We know the physical world didn't always exist. It is space debris pulled together by gravity and the collisions of other body's of mass in motion.
@kilsya1 religious experience though would imply atonement, reconciliation, praying the rosary, celebrating the holy mass etc which is not evil norms but that is as oppose to let's say communism, committing genocide against religion, infidelity, passing a law to force atheism and suppress all the other freedom on moral truths. Atheism is not a religion. It is a view that can go as far as to a conviction as to anti theism
They're not separated then. The only thing I agree is at 0:09, Atheism implies certainty that God does not exist. Immateriality or being non - physical = nothing I disagree. For say consciousness has non physical MEANING an independent meaning from a brain. A brain is a material meaning. Basically you add gnostic which is a not know position and draw a cross. The gnostic actually is broad on certainty of a particular position of knowledge which includes atheism.
Maybe i'm not agnostic, Im nothing, F*ck religeon it only gets in the way. Nothing is sure so theres np point in trying to prove anything. Do what you can and what and don't care what others think.
@residentatheist Yeah, why not. Santa was a real figure from Turkey. His myth grew and went out of control to where he wouldn't even recognize himself today. Now shut the fuck up and stop treating everyone like they are children. Arrogant piece of shit. You believe you are superior than most of the people in this world? someone will knock that big head of yours down hopefully. Typical Atheist, i swear your worse than the fanatics.
@joshlazarus gays and gay marriage and do not consider themselves perfect at all who drink, smoke and are nothing like the stereotypes. Not all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church(: I'm not a Christian myself...but a lot of people in my family are and it sucks to see them represented by so many of the hypocrite Christians today.
I personally love the thoughts of Agnostics....I think overall they have it figured out because they don't try to say that this is right and this is wrong. I don't know if I'm Agnostic or just a spirtitual person....because personally I lean towards there being a higher power(theism)...but I'm also open to so many different views. @joshlazarus I completely see what you're saying, which is why I don't believe in the Bible...the contradictions it has. But I know many Christians who support
Belief does not have to contain knowledge necessarily , However, Knowledge can stand alone without belief. Therefore, being agnostic has nothing to do with God. It has to do with impartial observation (science). Atheism is not a scientific term as it is subject to one views/beliefs. Agnostic simply clarifies the absence of knowledge rather Atheism that denies. Agnostics do not know if there is a god or not. They live on the things they know only!and this is closer to what we call science today!
I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. You say it's either 'god does exist' or 'god doesn't exist' - I don't claim either! Remarkable how atheists try to DRAG agnostics on their 'side'. I'll NEVER call myself an atheist - I don't have enough faith for that (brilliant t-shirt btw!)
The Agnostics win for the only reason that the agnostic doesn't claim to have the absolute truth on everything... the agnostic is a curious and reflexive person..always seeking for truth and considering all as a possibility. The agnostic is not a proud person that claims to know wether God exists or not, it leaves the question open to any field of science, philosophy or maths to solve it.
Agnosticism is good for you as it lets you ask and doubt, as well as to experiment.
@Komnenit FUCKING THANK YOU...I love that, can i paste your quote on a notepad somewhere on my desktop? "I love being Agnostic" well I love you! I'll credit it to: -Komnenit from Youtube
@Komnenit Yup. Agnostic nonbelief the best way to go Wait until you can actually have evidence of a claim
I'm an agnostic atheist for this reason. I'll never be crazy enough to believe gods don't exist (I can't disprove all of them anyways). And I'm not crazy enough to believe they do until someone provides evidence.
The fact that nobody can be neither a theist nor an atheist remains though, because one position's definition means "not the other". Unless you're a theist, you're an atheist
@Komnenit In the meantime,(while not knowing if god exists or not) you're NOT believing in god...which is Atheism. So.......How does if feel to be atheist?
We're all "Unbelievers" to the theist anyway... even if you can't be certain if it does or does not exist... I could hardly hear the same argument for bigfoot though... I'm pretty sure he's non existent... "but what if" *facepalm*!!! hahahhaahhaha!
I'm an atheist and I could care less about its accuracy its generally correct, agnogs as well, but lets be honest "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ;I have a trillion$ bill! Where? IN my hand but only i can see it! lets not be niave... yes you cant prove or disprove, but any other idea would be laughed off... oh no but its about 'GOD'! haha rid yourself of taboo's...
There is nothing inherently wrong with defining agnostic as a 3rd position on the question of god. There is nothing inherently wrong with defining atheist as the positive statement that god does not exist. In fact, those are the way most people use those words. If there is some objective standard that authoritatively says your defs. are the only correct ones, please clue me in. If it's just your opinion on what "should be", fine, but I have opinions too.
Atheists believe that there is no God and hence they believe that they are each God, bc only God would have the ability to know that there is no God or other God.
People would rather convince themselves that they are sure there is no god, for who could stand the constant awareness that there is a god and they might be going to hell. There is too much insecurity in admitting ignorance. For instance people insist that evolution is a fact even though it cant be reproduced in a lab and it mere guessing at what processes ocurred before any of us was here.
@skoockum Any intellectually honest person is agnostic towards the 'theory of evolution'. There is...very little, if anything we can actually be GNOSTIC about. And science actively says, "We aren't out to prove anything 100%, just get as close as we can." A theory, however, is very, very strong, and evolution being the strongest, we can 'practivally' know that it's true. We can't know for SURE that it's true, but in a practical sense, a useful sense, we do.
@skoockum I understand. I'm just clarifying something. I know what the point is you're trying to make, I'm just clarifying it, any intellectually honest person is agnostic towards any scientific theory, because no science is out there to prove anything for 100% certainty. So, if perhaps the person would have responded with, "No, I KNOW it;s not right!" then they would have been a liar.
@BigLundi Maybe next time you could wait for the other person to actually respond before you 'corrected' his answer. Y'know -- for the sake of clarity.
@skoockum I'm not...correcting...anything...I'm just...commenting. Has it occurred to you that perhaps someone could respond to you without being argumentative?
@BigLundi Yes yes, you were commenting, but the nature of your comment was to refute the position of an imaginary response to my post. What -- did you think I wasn't paying attention? Or are you really so lost that you think your first post actually clarified something for me, despite the fact that it was not under discussion to the point of being wildly irrelevant?
I believe that you think you know what's going on, but it's clear that you're badly mistaken.
@skoockum ...A pre emptive strike, at best. I am aware of what was going on, I wasn't commenting on that. The other guy hadn't responded, so I'm guiding the thoughts into a different direction.
It's not like I KNEW you were aware of what I said in the comment, you said nothing to show that you were.
It wasn't irrelevant, it was a new drection for the conversation, since the creationist has already been trounced. Or, you know, you could choose to just be a douche. That works too.
@BigLundi I wouldn't jive you man ...I think you must have bored me into a coma. It's the only way I could have missed your delightful little "douche" attempt
What people fail to realise at most is that gnostic and agnostic dont necesarely have anything to do with god at all. They are simple claims or non claims to knowledge.
@XanderBBo If you are saying that you reject the possibility of a higher being in a universal sense as well, then yes, you are a hypocrite. There is no way we can possibly know what is out in the rest of the universe based on our limited human perspective as of now.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. Theism/Atheism-->Belief,
Gnosticism/Agnosticism-->Knowledge. Rejecting belief in god does not mean that you claim any absolute knowledge with regards to the existence of such a deity. Fucking morons.
Does it really matter what you're classified as? Being known as an agnostic weak atheist, as opposed to a plain old agnostic doesn't change what you believe, and in the end, your position on the god mystery is much more significant than what it's called.
Your chart that had the four terms arranged in a cross doesn't even make sense. What would be the middle ground between atheism & theism AND gnosticism and agnosticism? I'm not entirely certain but it's kind of a belief that there may or may not be a god or gods?
"That definition is not up to date." Or in other words it is correct by the original definition, but we've changed it to shift the burden of proof away from our side.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 I didn’t make that chart. It’s not possible to be between agnosticism and agnosticism in the sense that you cannot be in a position where you are neither. Whether you know or don’t know, you still either claim certainty, or you don’t; there is no middle ground between that, regardless of whether you think something is plausible/implausible, likely, unlikely, possible or impossible. This is the same when speaking of the broad definition of atheism. You either have the
Marc167 1 month ago
belief ‘god exists’, or you don’t. There is no middle ground. Middle ground means you can’t be in a position where you’re in a state of being neither X nor NOT X.
"Or in other words it is correct by the original definition, but we've changed it to shift the burden of proof away from our side." Absolutely not; nice strawman. It’s a logical fallacy to say that something is correct because it’s the way it was originally used that way. Does gay only mean happy now? Language changes over
Marc167 1 month ago
time and words are adopted by authoritative dictionaries by our usage. There is usually more than just one distinct definition for a word that is relative to context. When we discover new, useful ways to use these linguistic shortcuts, we do so.
Marc167 1 month ago
It's also ridiculous and absurd to say one can shift a burden of proof to an agnostic, when the agnostic is not making a positive claim regarding the reality of a god's existence, Let alone that words changing by usage somehow imply shifting a burden of proof that is not there. The burden of proof always and forever will lay with the person making the positive claim. If you add the word no, doesn’t, not, isn’t or any kind of negation that implies something is false, or that you haven't
Marc167 1 month ago
been convinced it’s true, it’s not a positive claim and there is no burden of proof that you can even shift, especially shift it to somebody else who also lacks convincing of a positive claim.
Marc167 1 month ago
@Marc167 But usage alone should not determine a word's definition. If someone incorrectly uses a word the definition should not change with it.
And you are absolutely wrong that a negative position has no burden of proof. Let me show you. I deny evolution, BBT, the Earth's roundness, the sun's centrality in our galaxy, etc. That's a negative claim, a disbelief or lack of belief, therefore I have no burden of proof, no need for evidence; no one can demand from me an explanation.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 Absolutely wrong. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim that evolution does exist. They present the evidence, and if you haven't been convinced or believe the evidence is unjustified and the claim is false, you have no burden of proof, since you are making no positive claim. If you are trying to CONVINCE someone ELSE that evolution is false, only then would you have a burden of proof.
Marc167 1 month ago
“But usage alone should not determine a word's definition. If someone incorrectly uses a word the definition should not change with it.”
I specifically said that it must be both useful, logically valid in a separate context, and agreed upon by several authoritave dictionaries. Usage is just one of several important, corroborating factors that determines a words definition.
Marc167 1 month ago
The chart is absolutely fine. It’s epistemically valid and consistent with the contentions in my video; it doesn’t contradict anything in my video and illustrates that theism is a specific belief, atheism is not having that belief, Gnosticism is a specific knowledge and Agnosticism is a lack of that knowledge. All I said was I did not make it, but I see nothing wrong with it.
Marc167 1 month ago
“I should either make a video or send you a message sometime but your understanding of the knowledge/belief scale(s) seems confused.” That would be both silly and intellectually dishonest if you even read the annotations, since I specifically said my newer more comprehensive version will be uploaded soon, and to stop commenting here as if it was still relative. My script for it already exceeds an hour long and nobody I have engaged in discussion has ever been as knowledgeable as me on
Marc167 1 month ago
this subject.
Marc167 1 month ago
@Marc167 But you used the chart. You have to choose your visual media wisely since it is conveying part of your message for you, and that chart is horrendous. I should either make a video or send you a message sometime but your understanding of the knowledge/belief scale(s) seems confused. Atheism is not a broad definition. I would admit there are different graduations, but it is the denial or rejection of the existence of God(s).
Sickopath333 1 month ago
this reasoning is basically from someone who is an Agnostic, but claimed to be Atheist their whole life and needs to find a way to justify their realized beliefs with what they have identified with for so long. If you are open to god existing in any way, shape, or form... your not an Atheist dude.
gypsyrose713 2 months ago
@gypsyrose713 I never claimed to be an atheist (not believe in god) my entire life. I was raised Christian and was very religious for MOST of my life. I NEVER identified as 'only' agnostic and always found the term largely useless because I care about what people believe (or don't believe); I don't care what they claim is unknown or unknowable because ultimately, they still either believe the claim 'god exists' or they don't. I'm an atheist by definition regardless of what you
Marc167 2 months ago
baldly assert without any reasoned evidence/argument behind it. Epistemology, linguistics, etymology and the majority of dictionaries in existence all support my view.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 If you find the term Agnostic useless, you probably don't understand it entirely. I'm agnostic. I can neither disprove, nor prove, the existence of God, so therefore atheism is just as logically indefensible as theism. The only logically defensible position, vis-à-vis the existence of God, is agnosticism. Being agnostic does not mean "I don't know;" it means "I CAN'T know." A person who holds belief can't claim to be an Agnostic Atheist, the two terms are contrary to each other.
gypsyrose713 2 months ago
@gypsyrose713 @gypsyrose713 I'm making over an hour long video for a script I've been perfecting for over 4 years and you claim I don't understand the term? Atheism is a statement about belief, not kniowledge. I can neither disprove nor prove the multiverse, nor canm I disprove nor prove the existence of an immaterial pink monster in peoples anuses that tells them to do bad things. I care about peoples beliefs. Beliefs inform and influence peoples actions. At the core of it you're
Marc167 2 months ago
saying you don't know, but the important question is do you acvtually believe it, not whether you think it can be known or unknown, proven or disproven, those are separate things. "A person who holds belief can't claim to be an Agnostic Atheist, the two terms are contrary to each other." That claim contradicts the very definitions you use in your own video. They can be combined. I can not know something and still believe it or not beleive it. I can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic
Marc167 2 months ago
atheist. Google agnostic theist. The terms do exist and are non-contradictory.. You just lack knowledge about these terms and epistemology. Agnosticism is a useless term to me because it tells me something somebody claims they can't know, when what dictates a persons behavior is their beliefs. What they are convinced is true, not what certainty they lack about beliefs they haven't stated they have or do not have. If somebody says 'I don't know' When asked if they believe in a god, they
Marc167 2 months ago
ignorant and fooliosh because I didn't ask them if 'god exists' is known/proven, just if they believe the claim (think its true).
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 There are a million different definitions & we pick the definition that suits our position more. Not all sources are accurate when a person states that they are an Atheist, it GENERALLY applies that a person denies the existence of god. As an Agnostic, I see the definition of Agnosticism a little differently, because I experience it. You can strip it down and just sort of not see the full spectrum of what it stands for, but it comes after one recognizes how making a decision in CONT
gypsyrose713 2 months ago
@gypsyrose713 "There are a million different definitions & we pick the definition that suits our position more"
That would be fine and dandy if that's what you actually did, but you did not. You picked a definition that fit MY point of view perfectly without contradiction, then you added to that definition; changing it, presenting it as fact for the sole purpose to suit your bias. All throughout the video you present fallacy after fallacy and contradicted yourself several times in
Marc167 2 months ago
in your own replies. My new video is going to address all of these things. There is not 1 single point of view that you presented that I havent addressed dozens of times.
Marc167 2 months ago
@Marc167 Good video, although I think the last scene could cause some confusion. You must remind the viewer that even a strong atheist can be agnostic. That is, someone can believe there is no god without knowing there is no god, as opposed to a gnostic atheist who says there is no god and they know that to be the case. Apart from that, good job!
66tomm99 1 month ago
@Marc167 Well, I find it a little ignorant if a person feels like they have to think a certain way even if there are no personal grounds for it. The real argument here is, is knowledge alone grounds for belief? People feel like it is necessary to make a judgement call on god vs. no god. I don't find this necessary. As an Agnostic I make an attempt to not cloud my own ability to judge truth. I feel this is an active goal of an Agnostic. You ask any Agnostic and they will probably agree.
gypsyrose713 2 months ago
@gypsyrose713 Yes, my definitions were pretty shitty and broad since it served as just an introduction to the heart of what I was trying to say. The fact that your only interest is in a person's opinion in terms of either being in favor of god or not kind of proves my problem with merging the two because Agnostics don't view things in this way at all. There is a lot more to Agnosticism than a very general definition and a lot of it is not feeling the need to box yourself into a category based on
gypsyrose713 2 months ago
@gypsyrose713 the natural desire to. You keep yourself open to truth, whatever that is, you believe in truth over opinion, I'm okay with not taking a guess at it. It doesn't make my views boring or irrelevant. I believe this is the most beneficial mind set, to be able to think critically in the most truthful way possible. You can't just attach a whole different type of boxed thinking to that. It's not like Agnosticism is the middle ground between Atheist and Theist, it's a completely different
gypsyrose713 2 months ago
@gypsyrose713 type of rationalization. I believe Atheism and Theism are closer together than Atheism is to Agnosticism. Agnosticism is trying to avoid black and white thinking as much as possible. So there is this whole other element that I feel you are missing. That no, doesn't fit in with my very general definition, but it's still a true and real part of Agnosticism that can't just be dismissed because it's a real reason why Agnostics have sought Agnosticism.
gypsyrose713 2 months ago
Have you ever thought that Belief and Knowledge might be incorrectly and unjustifiably relegated to the different axes you show in your video?
I've been doing a lot of study on Belief and Knowledge and more specifically on;
Whether one can have Belief without a form of Knowledge.
Whether one can have Knowledge without a form of Belief.
Interesting to say the least.
Theobrothers 2 months ago
(Conclusion) Also, consider a shopkeeper who puts up the following sign: The shopkeeper hopes that potential thieves will reason as follows: According to the sign, if I shoplift, I'll be prosecuted. I don't want to be prosecuted. Therefore, I'd better not shoplift in this store. According to the traditional theory, if the sign succeeds in deterring shoplifters, then they cannot reason this way! Yet, it is partly because people reason this way that there are no shoplifters.
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
Comment removed
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
(Part 7 of Conclusion) Exposure: The traditional theory makes it impossible to reason about empty classes, which might seem to be a small price to pay if all that we had to give up were classes such as unicorns. However, some classes may be empty for all we know, yet we manage to reason about them all the same. For instance, there may be no extraterrestrial aliens, but we cannot even say this meaningfully in the traditional theory, let alone use the class in an argument.
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
(Part 6 of Conclusion) This has the consequence that some immediate inferences—such as subalternation—and categorical syllogisms which were valid under the traditional interpretation become instances of the Existential Fallacy. Of course, as long as the relevant classes are known to be non-empty, an argument should be considered to be an enthymeme instead of an instance of this fallacy.
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
(Part 5 of Conclusion) For reasons explained in the Exposure, logicians of the nineteenth century dropped the traditional assumption of non-emptiness, and adopted what is called the "Boolean interpretation"—after logician George Boole—of universal quantifiers. Under the Boolean interpretation, A- and E-type propositions lack existential import, while both I- and O-type have it.
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
(Part 4 of Conclusion) For example, an A-type proposition implies an I-type, and an E-type implies an O-type: Subalternation: All Catholics are christians. Therefore, some christians are Catholics. Subalternation: No atheists are christians.Therefore, some christians are not atheists. This type of inference is called "subalternation". Unfortunately, subalternation is an invalid form of argument if one of the terms refers to an empty class, such as "unicorns"; see the Counter-Example.
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
(Part 3 of Conclusion) History: In the traditional formal logic developed by Aristotle and subsequent logicians through the Middle Ages, it was implicitly assumed that the classes of things referred to by the subject and predicate terms of categorical propositions were non-empty. For this reason, certain arguments were considered valid which would not be valid if some class were empty.
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
(Part 2 of Conclusion) Exposition: A proposition has existential import if it implies that some class is not empty, that is, that there is at least one member of the class. For example: Existential Import: There are black swans. No Existential Import: There are no Sasquatch. To reason from premisses that lack existential import for a certain class to a conclusion that has it is to commit the Existential Fallacy.
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
(Part 1 of Conclusion) Existential Fallacy: Alias: The Fallacy of Existential Assumption: Any argument whose conclusion implies that a class has at least one member, but whose premisses do not so imply. Example: All trespassers will be prosecuted. Therefore, some of those prosecuted will have trespassed. Counter-Example: All unicorns are animals. Therefore, some animals are unicorns.
MyMindTank 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Marc167
the videos keeps on pausing.!!
HeayyArt 2 months ago
Instead of doing agnosticism and atheism you should do gnosticism and theism, seeing as those are the root words. Also a lot of "agnostics" are very confused on the differences between gnosticism and theism, they are separate things. Among many other things, everyone is either a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist. There is no getting around this. Many people seem to assume its possible being neither atheist nor theist- that's fundamentally wrong.
ItsBuckful 3 months ago
Comment removed
WhiteWolf1088 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItsBuckful Humm... Gnostic: ''I KNOW there is a god'' and Theist: ''I BELIEVE there is a god'' - how is it possible to be a Gnostic Theist then?
Because, excuse me if I'm wrong, doesn't knowing something 100% sure, remove ANY need for belief?
Same goes for Gnostic Atheist.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding, I'd appreciate it if you could explain, if I am :)
WhiteWolf1088 2 months ago
If you`re a pure agnostic who says "currently unknown", don`t let them label you as an atheist!
Because you`re standing on the level of knowledge/truth which is above any theist or atheist belief system.
And there is no logic that can force you into a belief, you don`t have to answer that stupid "do you believe in god" question.
Atheists are making up definitions as they go just so they can convert everybody into their camp. According to this BS even embrios are atheists...
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
@KeskinTRS "If you`re a pure agnostic who says "currently unknown", don`t let them label you as an atheist!"
A rose is a rose by any other name and it does not matter what you call something as long as you're accurately describing it and correctly representing its attributes in a logically consistent way. I don't label people atheists, just like I don't label people theists, or rapists. It's what they accurately are by definition, and those words existed before i was born. They both have more
Marc167 3 months ago 3
than 1 distinct definition. That's just the way things are, whether or not anyone likes them. Your comments were very unlettered and inculcated with intellectually dishonest, and demonstrably false propaganda without and logic behind it, at all. If you go through the vast majority of my comments, you'll find I at least try to be coherent when I leave post. I ask you to please display the same courtesy.
Marc167 3 months ago 3
"And there is no logic that can force you into a belief, you don`t have to answer that stupid "do you believe in god" question."
Force you? Nobody is forcing anyone. The point (and logically demonstrable fact is this, something is either X or not X. You either have the belief 'god exists', or you don't. A belief is to think something is true, and this should be a simple question to answer. Regardless if answered, you still either have it or you don't and there is no in between. This is
Marc167 3 months ago 3
logic 101 (law of excluded middle). Beliefs themselves are not to be conflated with beliefs you're certain abbout, since there are all kinds of beliefs. "According to this BS even embrios are atheists..." You are absolutely wrong and misrepresenting what I said in my video. According to the annotations on my video, Embryos (not embrios) can not be atheists because they cannot reject (not accept) the claim 'god exists', and the only way you can neither accept or reject (not accept) a claim is if
Marc167 3 months ago 4
you've never been presented it or do not have cognition (so you're without conscious comprehension). You must be able to comprehend a concept of a god, and not be convinced the statement (a god exists) is true, which means you would lack that belief; let's not strawman fallacy my video now. Be intellectually honest.
""Because you`re standing on the level of knowledge/truth which is above any theist or atheist belief system."
What do you even mean by that? That is one of the most incoherent
Marc167 3 months ago 4
sentences I've had on this video for a while now.
"Atheists are making up definitions as they go just so they can convert everybody into their camp."
You can't (convert) someone into something that is not even a claim or proposition, but a response to the positive claim 'a god exists'. If I tell you about my invisible potato named bob and you don’t believe it, did I convert you? If you haven't been convinced it's true (lack the belief' 'marc's potato named bob exists') there's no conversion.
Marc167 3 months ago 2
@Marc167 Cambridge Dictionary (Atheist): "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist".
A belief is something that you choose and there is no logic on earth that can force me to enter a belief (atheism is clearly a belief system).
It´s really not my fault that you`re unable to understand that everybody has the right NOT TO ANSWER a question regarding belief.
Agnosticism is knowledge/truth based and knowledge/truth can NOT mix with any belief ever. It´s logically impossible!
KeskinTRS 3 months ago
“Cambridge Dictionary (Atheist): "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist".”
I can easily do a google search and find a definition from a dictionary to suit my bias. That isn’t evidence; that isn’t reasoned argument.
The very first search result on onelook dictionary which is a one stop source for several dictionaries versions of a word says this:
1. “
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality"
Marc167 3 months ago 2
There is more than 1 distinct definition and the 2nd one is an archaic definition that is no longer used. Definition one says
‘or’: this means that it can be just one of them, and the first one completely agrees with my lack of belief since disbelief is not believing. Most of the dictionaries in act say disbelief, some say absence of belief, some say denial. The ones that say denial usually have the OR ‘disbelief’ thrown in there. Good job using an argument from authority fallacy and no
Marc167 3 months ago 2
evidence whatsoever to “support” your bias pseudo-intellectual definition. You found one definition to suit your bias, while ignoring all the others that exist from much more scholarly sources. You are once again being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you.
“A belief is something that you choose and there is no logic on earth that can force me to enter a belief.”
No, a belief is not a choice in the way you most likely mean it to be. If I and my loved ones were being simultaneously tortured, and
Marc167 3 months ago 2
all I had to do was believe that leprechauns exist (by sheer will alone; i.e. just because I wanted to), I couldn’t do it. No matter how badly I wanted to believe to make it end (and I would want to believe it); even with a million dollar incentive and the knowledge that the torture would immediately stop if I could believe leprechauns are real, I couldn’t make myself believe it. I would need sufficient valid and sound evidence to convince my mind that they’re real.
Marc167 3 months ago 2
“It´s really not my fault that you`re unable to understand that everybody has the right NOT TO ANSWER a question regarding belief.”
Everyone does have the right to not answer the question and I never said they didn’t; don’t put words in my mouth. I never claimed they did not. What I did claim was this logical fact: regardless if they answer the question publically, there already is an answer because there are 2 possible positions one can take to a proposition, and one of them is mandatory. If
Marc167 3 months ago 2
you don’t have one, it means you have the other (law of non-contradiction). You either believe a claim or you don’t, regardless of whether you choose to answer it publically, there already is an answer.
“Agnosticism is knowledge/truth based and knowledge/truth can NOT mix with any belief ever. It´s logically impossible!”
That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. You must be an internet troll. Everything you know, you simultaneously believe, since a belief is to think something is
Marc167 3 months ago 2
is true. The statement, “I know it, but I don’t believe it”, is logically impossible. You can believe things and not know them, but you can’t know things and not believe them. You know absolutely nothing about logical impossibilities since you keep claiming logically impossible things, and when you use the words ‘logically impossibe’ together, there’s a complete lack of understanding regard the laws of logic and epistemology. Either you’re slow, English is not your first language or you lack
Marc167 3 months ago 2
education. Please do not comment anymore unless you are going to be intellectually honest and learn a little bit about what your claiming before you post.
“atheism is clearly a belief system”
According to THEE very definition YOU POSTED on here, it’s not a belief system. A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. A single belief cannot be a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system, an ideology, nor a philosophy. Atheism has no tenents, no dogma, no ritualistic ceremonies,
Marc167 3 months ago 2
etc. All it is is a single position on a single claim. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. You are a walking contradiction. Can you consistently defend anything you say, at all? Because you haven’t yet.
Marc167 3 months ago 2
I forgot to add that not believing something is an involuntary reaction to a deficit of evidence. And the beliefs I do have, none of them have been chosen by sheer will alone. So you saying "there is no logic on earth that can force me to enter a belief ", that is false. Peoples minds can become convinced that something is true even if they don't want to believe it by observing constant and consistent logical evidence that they are able to comprehend.
Marc167 3 months ago 2
I could also force people to believe things via brainwashing techniques (although I consider those methods completely immoral). The mind is a very fragile thing that can be forced into belief. But there is a difference between this and believing something ONLY because you want to.
Marc167 3 months ago 2
Thanks for explaining it so simply.
The existence of a god or gods can not be 100% confirmed. Its just too bad some people are not confident enough in their faith so they require a "proof"/story/religion to back them up. "Proof"/story/religion, not faith(for or against), starts fights and wars.
secondmotion 3 months ago 3
Theory of Everything will reveal the mystery of the existence of God. Till then i stick to being an agnostic.
eHanHz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
with all respection to agnostic and athiest,,,i found that all u life is questions|?? seems u r lost ,,,,in islam answers of u questions about the god,,,,the god (allah) has 99 names.
MyIslamlove 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 Here is the big hole in your theory. If the supernatural did exist and was the creative cause of the universe the universe could not last. As we know for every up there is a down and for ever right there is a left so for every supernatural creative force there is an equally supernatural destructive force. The supernatural destructive forces would have destroyed the universe a long time ago. Also: Where are all the vampires, werewolves and leprechauns?
residentatheist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. Whatever similarities exist are due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, not a common ancestor. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 So, if we don't know how something happened now....we should say a magic sky daddy did it? Earlier Humans tried that with lightning. Then we found out Zeus wasn't doing it. Please stop fooling yourself, I can't prove god doesn't exist....you can't prove he does. You're making yourself look silly.
evolutionist101 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. Even for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing harm and even extinction, not upward evolution. Genetic similarities are better explained due to a common design for common purposes.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
I think the confusion is that Atheists simply have not accepted any theology claim because they do not meet the proofs required. Agnostics do not use any burden of proof and simply accept anything can be possible or impossible. No standards required. They haven't either accepted nor denied theological claims. Atheists have. The issue is Atheists have standards of evidence, and Agnostics because those standards themselves could most certainly be flawed themselves... Just my understanding of it.
SanguineBullet667 4 months ago
@SanguineBullet667 should be "... and Agnostics 'don't' because ..."
SanguineBullet667 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@residentatheist Santa is a very misleading analogy of God. Let me attack the maniac for example of this idea of being good because santa clause is coming. Actually merits are not limited to candies or toys. Where's for instance, obeying an actual valid and BINDING Divine Commands leads you with merits such as for say atonement and salvation. Augustine said that the price of truth is love.
spiritring 5 months ago
@joshlazarus You siad: "I personally don't believe in God but I am open to the possibility of God."
What part of an invisible supernatural creature from some other dimension do you consider to be possible?
residentatheist 5 months ago
@residentatheist
What is "Siad"? is this a new word you've made up? I think you need to seek weight watchers.
Rao665 5 months ago
@residentatheist "What part of an invisible supernatural creature from some other dimension do you consider to be possible?" The analogy of Metaphysical gods are COMPLETELY different from a Supernatural Being. The pagan gods are the concepts of MATERIAL, and physical beings DEPENDENT of space and time. Where's obviously the Bible would stand alone in talking about a God who is INDEPENDENT of space and time. Ironically, all the space time models leaves you with a temporal universe.
spiritring 5 months ago
@spiritring If it created the natural it has to be supernatural because the natural didn't exist yet. If it didn’t create the natural there is no good reason to call it a god.
residentatheist 5 months ago
@residentatheist still not tangent. The idea hold by pagans was the idea of an eternal and completely material universe. easy. On mainstream cosmology, the model of the universe is subject to relentless grip of general relativity and space time theorems. This leaves you with non eternal model of the physical world.
spiritring 5 months ago
@spiritring I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said the physical world was eternal. We know the physical world didn't always exist. It is space debris pulled together by gravity and the collisions of other body's of mass in motion.
residentatheist 5 months ago
@residentatheist yep. that was on the formation of matter on a vibrant bubbling boiling goo of virtual particles. EVEN THAT is non eternal
spiritring 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spiritring Again you make no sense. What is a "vibrant bubbling boiling goo of virtual particles". What is the point you are trying to make?
residentatheist 5 months ago
Comment removed
Rao665 5 months ago
@kilsya1 religious experience though would imply atonement, reconciliation, praying the rosary, celebrating the holy mass etc which is not evil norms but that is as oppose to let's say communism, committing genocide against religion, infidelity, passing a law to force atheism and suppress all the other freedom on moral truths. Atheism is not a religion. It is a view that can go as far as to a conviction as to anti theism
spiritring 5 months ago
They're not separated then. The only thing I agree is at 0:09, Atheism implies certainty that God does not exist. Immateriality or being non - physical = nothing I disagree. For say consciousness has non physical MEANING an independent meaning from a brain. A brain is a material meaning. Basically you add gnostic which is a not know position and draw a cross. The gnostic actually is broad on certainty of a particular position of knowledge which includes atheism.
spiritring 5 months ago
Maybe i'm not agnostic, Im nothing, F*ck religeon it only gets in the way. Nothing is sure so theres np point in trying to prove anything. Do what you can and what and don't care what others think.
kilsya1 5 months ago
@craigslistflow Are you agnostic about Santa and the Tooth Fairy too?
residentatheist 5 months ago
Comment removed
Rao665 5 months ago
@residentatheist Yeah, why not. Santa was a real figure from Turkey. His myth grew and went out of control to where he wouldn't even recognize himself today. Now shut the fuck up and stop treating everyone like they are children. Arrogant piece of shit. You believe you are superior than most of the people in this world? someone will knock that big head of yours down hopefully. Typical Atheist, i swear your worse than the fanatics.
Rao665 5 months ago
@Rao665 So much anger. Seek professional help.
residentatheist 5 months ago
Comment removed
spiritring 5 months ago
@joshlazarus gays and gay marriage and do not consider themselves perfect at all who drink, smoke and are nothing like the stereotypes. Not all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church(: I'm not a Christian myself...but a lot of people in my family are and it sucks to see them represented by so many of the hypocrite Christians today.
IcyHot311 5 months ago
I personally love the thoughts of Agnostics....I think overall they have it figured out because they don't try to say that this is right and this is wrong. I don't know if I'm Agnostic or just a spirtitual person....because personally I lean towards there being a higher power(theism)...but I'm also open to so many different views. @joshlazarus I completely see what you're saying, which is why I don't believe in the Bible...the contradictions it has. But I know many Christians who support
IcyHot311 5 months ago
Comment removed
Rao665 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Belief does not have to contain knowledge necessarily , However, Knowledge can stand alone without belief. Therefore, being agnostic has nothing to do with God. It has to do with impartial observation (science). Atheism is not a scientific term as it is subject to one views/beliefs. Agnostic simply clarifies the absence of knowledge rather Atheism that denies. Agnostics do not know if there is a god or not. They live on the things they know only!and this is closer to what we call science today!
avonbathbianco 5 months ago
@joshlazarus Exactly, they are hypocrites.
BTW, I just watched the Gandhi movie from 1982 :) That is a great quote from him.
tontsa911 6 months ago
I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. You say it's either 'god does exist' or 'god doesn't exist' - I don't claim either! Remarkable how atheists try to DRAG agnostics on their 'side'. I'll NEVER call myself an atheist - I don't have enough faith for that (brilliant t-shirt btw!)
snuffles1111 6 months ago
The Agnostics win for the only reason that the agnostic doesn't claim to have the absolute truth on everything... the agnostic is a curious and reflexive person..always seeking for truth and considering all as a possibility. The agnostic is not a proud person that claims to know wether God exists or not, it leaves the question open to any field of science, philosophy or maths to solve it.
Agnosticism is good for you as it lets you ask and doubt, as well as to experiment.
I love being Agnostic
Komnenit 6 months ago 5
@Komnenit Finally a guy who gets it
SodaPopDumb 6 months ago
@Komnenit FUCKING THANK YOU...I love that, can i paste your quote on a notepad somewhere on my desktop? "I love being Agnostic" well I love you! I'll credit it to: -Komnenit from Youtube
Rao665 5 months ago
@Rao665 Lol, please add me, you seem to be a very polite and rational person.
Sure you can post it anywhere you like..and thank you :)
Komnenit 5 months ago
@Rao665 Hello! Please add me, you seem to be a very polite and rational person.
Sure you can post it anywhere you like..and thank you :)
Komnenit 5 months ago
@Komnenit Yup. Agnostic nonbelief the best way to go Wait until you can actually have evidence of a claim
I'm an agnostic atheist for this reason. I'll never be crazy enough to believe gods don't exist (I can't disprove all of them anyways). And I'm not crazy enough to believe they do until someone provides evidence.
The fact that nobody can be neither a theist nor an atheist remains though, because one position's definition means "not the other". Unless you're a theist, you're an atheist
Xgya2000 4 months ago
@Komnenit In the meantime,(while not knowing if god exists or not) you're NOT believing in god...which is Atheism. So.......How does if feel to be atheist?
evolutionist101 4 months ago
We're all "Unbelievers" to the theist anyway... even if you can't be certain if it does or does not exist... I could hardly hear the same argument for bigfoot though... I'm pretty sure he's non existent... "but what if" *facepalm*!!! hahahhaahhaha!
buktomsin 7 months ago
I'm an atheist and I could care less about its accuracy its generally correct, agnogs as well, but lets be honest "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ;I have a trillion$ bill! Where? IN my hand but only i can see it! lets not be niave... yes you cant prove or disprove, but any other idea would be laughed off... oh no but its about 'GOD'! haha rid yourself of taboo's...
buktomsin 7 months ago
There is nothing inherently wrong with defining agnostic as a 3rd position on the question of god. There is nothing inherently wrong with defining atheist as the positive statement that god does not exist. In fact, those are the way most people use those words. If there is some objective standard that authoritatively says your defs. are the only correct ones, please clue me in. If it's just your opinion on what "should be", fine, but I have opinions too.
owheydusoapsk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists believe that there is no God and hence they believe that they are each God, bc only God would have the ability to know that there is no God or other God.
j919or 8 months ago
People would rather convince themselves that they are sure there is no god, for who could stand the constant awareness that there is a god and they might be going to hell. There is too much insecurity in admitting ignorance. For instance people insist that evolution is a fact even though it cant be reproduced in a lab and it mere guessing at what processes ocurred before any of us was here.
j919or 8 months ago
@j919or So I'm guessing you're agnostic with regard to evolution...
skoockum 7 months ago
@skoockum Any intellectually honest person is agnostic towards the 'theory of evolution'. There is...very little, if anything we can actually be GNOSTIC about. And science actively says, "We aren't out to prove anything 100%, just get as close as we can." A theory, however, is very, very strong, and evolution being the strongest, we can 'practivally' know that it's true. We can't know for SURE that it's true, but in a practical sense, a useful sense, we do.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi you're missing critical points BigL -- off on a tangent as it were -- one of which is the dry irony of my last post
skoockum 7 months ago
@skoockum I understand. I'm just clarifying something. I know what the point is you're trying to make, I'm just clarifying it, any intellectually honest person is agnostic towards any scientific theory, because no science is out there to prove anything for 100% certainty. So, if perhaps the person would have responded with, "No, I KNOW it;s not right!" then they would have been a liar.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Maybe next time you could wait for the other person to actually respond before you 'corrected' his answer. Y'know -- for the sake of clarity.
skoockum 7 months ago
@skoockum I'm not...correcting...anything...I'm just...commenting. Has it occurred to you that perhaps someone could respond to you without being argumentative?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Yes yes, you were commenting, but the nature of your comment was to refute the position of an imaginary response to my post. What -- did you think I wasn't paying attention? Or are you really so lost that you think your first post actually clarified something for me, despite the fact that it was not under discussion to the point of being wildly irrelevant?
I believe that you think you know what's going on, but it's clear that you're badly mistaken.
skoockum 7 months ago
@skoockum ...A pre emptive strike, at best. I am aware of what was going on, I wasn't commenting on that. The other guy hadn't responded, so I'm guiding the thoughts into a different direction.
It's not like I KNEW you were aware of what I said in the comment, you said nothing to show that you were.
It wasn't irrelevant, it was a new drection for the conversation, since the creationist has already been trounced. Or, you know, you could choose to just be a douche. That works too.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi Sorry for not responding earlier -- your palaver must have caused me to doze off.
skoockum 6 days ago
@skoockum For 7 months? Boy you be trollin.
BigLundi 6 days ago
@BigLundi I wouldn't jive you man ...I think you must have bored me into a coma. It's the only way I could have missed your delightful little "douche" attempt
skoockum 6 days ago
@skoockum Well now you live a sheltered life if that's all it took to put you in a coma now isn't it? : /
BigLundi 6 days ago
@BigLundi It's getting cobwebby in here again You should consider a career writing bedtime stories. You seem to have a rare gift for it.
skoockum 3 days ago
annotations: fine. pausing the video because of it: not fine. other than that: good video
Insomnium2188 8 months ago
What people fail to realise at most is that gnostic and agnostic dont necesarely have anything to do with god at all. They are simple claims or non claims to knowledge.
gulbirk 8 months ago
I'm an atheist and an agnostic.
I'm not 100% certain there isn't a God, therefore I'm agnostic.
I've rejected any claim of a God that I've heard, therefore I'm an atheist.
XanderBBo 9 months ago
@XanderBBo actually, you're a hypocrite.
kmoj12345 8 months ago
@kmoj12345 Please elaborate.
XanderBBo 8 months ago
@XanderBBo If you are saying that you reject the possibility of a higher being in a universal sense as well, then yes, you are a hypocrite. There is no way we can possibly know what is out in the rest of the universe based on our limited human perspective as of now.
kmoj12345 8 months ago
@kmoj12345 Where do I say that?
Can you read?
"I'm not 100% certain there isn't a God" Hmmm.......
I've rejected any claims that there is one.
e.g. The Bible or stupid evidence like "Look at the clouds... that's proof of God"
XanderBBo 8 months ago
@XanderBBo If you aren't certain there isn't a god then you are agnostic whether you deny the bible or not...
kmoj12345 8 months ago
@kmoj12345 I know I explicitly say I'm both an atheist & an agnostic.
The two terms are not mutually exclusive, the term agnostic gets mis-used by a lot of people.
XanderBBo 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For love is joy, the love has been given, Jesus don't let it pass you, love is patient, it is waiting for you, God is waiting. God loves you.
EternallyShikaku 9 months ago
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. Theism/Atheism-->Belief,
Gnosticism/Agnosticism-->Knowledge. Rejecting belief in god does not mean that you claim any absolute knowledge with regards to the existence of such a deity. Fucking morons.
batmanpronz 10 months ago
@batmanpronz God, finally someone who actually makes fucking sense.
kmoj12345 8 months ago
Does it really matter what you're classified as? Being known as an agnostic weak atheist, as opposed to a plain old agnostic doesn't change what you believe, and in the end, your position on the god mystery is much more significant than what it's called.
skyline3295 11 months ago