ALL RELIGIONS ARE WRONG. none of them have any valid evidence for their claim! JOIN ME AND MY BRETHEREN! follow the ways of the all powerful flash light! i have evidence that it exists! join me and see for yourself! all other religions are false!
Thank you! Being a Christian, i honestly thank you for revealing to me the bad habits that i have (or have done) in religious debates. I have a few friends who are atheist. I enjoy hearing their views as well as debating with them. I respect those who's views are different from mine, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have admitted to my fallacies in thinking, but continued to defend them despite knowing its wrong. I agree with you on what constitutes a free thinker.
A True Atheist always is more then a person who are negative to the idea of a God. Such an atheist is also male, have lots of money and want to give me blowjobs.
It is part of the term "atheist". If you read between the letters.
The philsopher Wittgenstein thought many philosophical problems become wordplay, and I agree. I think labels are arbitrary and arguing over the definition of a word is pointless. I'd much rather have a meaningful discussion with someone, after agreeing on definitions of words, like god and existance.
The guy youre responding to is talking about anti-theism not atheism per se. He is conflating both which are quite different. Even though anti-theism could be a general subset of atheism for some.
A true atheist is someone denying the existence of God, gods or any other deities. And there are only true atheists by the way otherwise you are not an atheist at all.
@tubetib This is incorrect, and you are making the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. An atheist is defined as someone who lacks a belief in a god/gods. What you have described is an anti-theist.
@jesuriah I don't agree. 'Lack of belief' is the definition of some dictionaries. I think it is outdated. I don't agree with it because it gives a negative connotation to the concept. So I believe the correct definition is the one I gave in previous message. Some people do not agree but I guest mosts atheist will push this point of view.
@tubetib I agree, defining something by what it is not doesn't seem very useful. However, "atheist" is much easier to say "one who does not believe/believes there is no god". I don't see how "atheist" has a negative connotation any more than the word "theist".
Your definition is incorrect when you look at the etymology of the word. Besides, as I've already stated, we already have a word that is better suited to your definition, "antitheist".
@jesuriah It is really 'the lack of believe' that I don't like in the definition. I don't feel that I lack something at all. I really like the definition on wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." and "Antitheism is active opposition to theism.". I respect your point of view Jesuriah but I disagree. I suggest to do a search on Youtube as "atheism definition" to know more.
@tubetib Bah missed part of this in my post. I think that using most youtuber's definition of atheism still supports my view. I could be mistaken though.
@jesuriah I've never liked using etymologies of words to define their meaning. It doesn't work that way.
All an etymolgy tells us is what inspired the original inception of the word. It does not even necessarily tell us the original definition.
The definitions of words change all the time. If you look at the history of 'atheism,' the word has had multiple definitions throughout history. Such is language.
Holding to a words origins doesn't tell us what the word means now.
Clutch, it will be difficult to simultaneously argue that word's original meaning is immaterial to its current meaning when the original meaning is still the present definition. While there may well be credible arguments to separate it up into shades and flavors of subtlety, all of these potentially discrete categories will of necessity have at their root the rejection of belief in a god or gods. It's simple set theory, really. All particular forms of non-belief are still non-belief.
@jesuriah What I meant was a word's origin does not tell us its contemporary meaning *necessarily*. So saying a definition doesn't fit with the words etymology does not mean that the given definition isn't valid.
If you're arguing for 'definition A' with etymology you have to then show that the meaning still applies today. Like Ashman's tried to do. Otherwise we can still conclude that it once meant A, but has since changed to definition B.
@Clutchology The etymology of "pedo" and "phile" would just mean someone who loves children. That can describe any doting grandmother. But no one doubts pedophile now has a sinister connotation far worse than just a proud grandmother's love of children. The name changed from the underlying words that make up the word's origin.
One thing about atheism is sometimes I wonder where the despising religion comes from. It's entirely possible for people to be brought up secular without religion. Whether or not they agree or disagree with the philosophical beliefs of religions later on in life doesn't necessarily mean they despise religion as much as disagree with what religions teach.
I can see how it's easy to hate religion, judging by how much bad stuff is going on and how much money is being wasted because of it. And in a way it also can get really annoying if you see how many people blindly follow a religion and don't ever think for themselves... and if an annoyance stays around to long, it get's really frustrating and then you start to hate it.
But basing actions upon hate isn't very constructive or smart.
You say you aren't a freethinker because free thought is an ongoing battle and you don't feel comfortable calling yourself that because you haven't "won". Doesn't make sense to me, that... Free thought is the battle, but the people fighting that battle are freethinkers, no? You don't call a soldier a soldier only when he comes back from the war victorious (unless you're a republican and the soldier isn't gay/liberal/intelligent).
I don't call myself a freethinker anyway because I don't feel I'm qualified to make that judgement.
But what I was getting at was, freethinkers generally don't call themselves freethinkers. Because it needs to be a conscious, constant effort. When you start feeling like you've won the battle, then you don't make the effort and slip into old patterns.
Imagine it like, the soldier is a soldier only when he's fighting. If he declares victory and goes home, he goes back to a civilian.
First off, bang on with the "free thinker" statement!
Secondly, just wanted to let you know you've got a big fan in Canada. As a philosophy student, materialist, and libertarian, your videos always deliver information I find very interesting.
Rocks and babies are atheists. It's funny how many debates go sideways due to a simple definition error. Atheist=without god. Anyone care for anti theist? Or is that just too pedantic?
I feel like the idea of hating religion is sort of like hating Christmas stories. And hating god like hating Santa. It's just silly. To "hate" ideas is to acknowledge them as some sort of intellectual threat: essentially saying "Those ideas scare me." Religion is not something to hate, it is something to laugh at.
As an atheist, why do I need to hate religion? Who is this guy dictating hate? I don't think about religion. I find it interesting, but not that interesting. I think for myself and still don't want to go around hating. What does this matter?
ALL RELIGIONS ARE WRONG. none of them have any valid evidence for their claim! JOIN ME AND MY BRETHEREN! follow the ways of the all powerful flash light! i have evidence that it exists! join me and see for yourself! all other religions are false!
michiman57 4 months ago
@below:republicans SUCK!
iamspy11 7 months ago
@iamspy11 Fail troll is fail.
BruceNorris2112 5 months ago
@BruceNorris2112 im not trollin dude.im just sayin.they suck =/
iamspy11 5 months ago
@iamspy11 lol In truth I hate them all equally :) So even if you were trolling I wouldn't give a flying fuck.
tesfan4evr 5 months ago
hey i'm a republican and an agnostic. suck it, bro.
einLesenderArbeiter 10 months ago
Thank you! Being a Christian, i honestly thank you for revealing to me the bad habits that i have (or have done) in religious debates. I have a few friends who are atheist. I enjoy hearing their views as well as debating with them. I respect those who's views are different from mine, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have admitted to my fallacies in thinking, but continued to defend them despite knowing its wrong. I agree with you on what constitutes a free thinker.
gmscorpio111691 10 months ago
Atheism doesn't have "You need to hate all religions", all it is is a lack of belief in a God. So basic, yet so many lose sight of this.
People can build whatever ideologies they want on top of Atheism and it wouldn't matter, they are still atheists.
ResearchDawn 1 year ago
A True Atheist always is more then a person who are negative to the idea of a God. Such an atheist is also male, have lots of money and want to give me blowjobs.
It is part of the term "atheist". If you read between the letters.
GnosticAtheist 1 year ago
I think you are becoming a little more insane every day.....
Kenneth1238 1 year ago
The philsopher Wittgenstein thought many philosophical problems become wordplay, and I agree. I think labels are arbitrary and arguing over the definition of a word is pointless. I'd much rather have a meaningful discussion with someone, after agreeing on definitions of words, like god and existance.
Nourishspam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jud 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
valu777 1 year ago
How about apatheists?
I think my grandma is one of those, if asked what religion she is, I believe she wouldn't be able to answer it..
She has better things to think about, like canning, and baking :P
thefakeyeti 1 year ago
so your doing engadget with games? gamegadget? :P bleh iphone 4... craptastic package that thing is -.-
But hey if it turns out to work good, maybe you could actually get engadget interested and make a games section.. :D that would be awesome!
anyways, thanks for clearing up (again) what atheismn actually is for everyone to stupid to look it up themselves ;)
stoikr 1 year ago
- Atheist = non believe in god, gods or any deity; either throught choice or ignorance.
- Anti-theist = people against religious organization who tend to ratioalize to people on why they should stop believing in that religion.
- Extreme-anti-thiest = someone who think Islamic extremist had the right idea but wrong target and proceeds to mirror their action!
opaldragon75 1 year ago
@opaldragon75 That made me lol.
TheRantingBrit 1 year ago
The guy youre responding to is talking about anti-theism not atheism per se. He is conflating both which are quite different. Even though anti-theism could be a general subset of atheism for some.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
A true atheist is someone denying the existence of God, gods or any other deities. And there are only true atheists by the way otherwise you are not an atheist at all.
tubetib 1 year ago
@tubetib This is incorrect, and you are making the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. An atheist is defined as someone who lacks a belief in a god/gods. What you have described is an anti-theist.
Cheers.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah I don't agree. 'Lack of belief' is the definition of some dictionaries. I think it is outdated. I don't agree with it because it gives a negative connotation to the concept. So I believe the correct definition is the one I gave in previous message. Some people do not agree but I guest mosts atheist will push this point of view.
tubetib 1 year ago
@tubetib I agree, defining something by what it is not doesn't seem very useful. However, "atheist" is much easier to say "one who does not believe/believes there is no god". I don't see how "atheist" has a negative connotation any more than the word "theist".
Your definition is incorrect when you look at the etymology of the word. Besides, as I've already stated, we already have a word that is better suited to your definition, "antitheist".
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah It is really 'the lack of believe' that I don't like in the definition. I don't feel that I lack something at all. I really like the definition on wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." and "Antitheism is active opposition to theism.". I respect your point of view Jesuriah but I disagree. I suggest to do a search on Youtube as "atheism definition" to know more.
tubetib 1 year ago
@tubetib Bah missed part of this in my post. I think that using most youtuber's definition of atheism still supports my view. I could be mistaken though.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah I've never liked using etymologies of words to define their meaning. It doesn't work that way.
All an etymolgy tells us is what inspired the original inception of the word. It does not even necessarily tell us the original definition.
The definitions of words change all the time. If you look at the history of 'atheism,' the word has had multiple definitions throughout history. Such is language.
Holding to a words origins doesn't tell us what the word means now.
Clutchology 1 year ago
Clutch, it will be difficult to simultaneously argue that word's original meaning is immaterial to its current meaning when the original meaning is still the present definition. While there may well be credible arguments to separate it up into shades and flavors of subtlety, all of these potentially discrete categories will of necessity have at their root the rejection of belief in a god or gods. It's simple set theory, really. All particular forms of non-belief are still non-belief.
ashman165 1 year ago
@Clutchology It seems to me that you just said, "a word's origin does not tell us its' meaning". I'm sure you can see why I would object to that.
However that may be semantical and I do agree with your point. "Tight" means "cool" and both have nothing to do with friction, these days.
jesuriah 1 year ago
@jesuriah What I meant was a word's origin does not tell us its contemporary meaning *necessarily*. So saying a definition doesn't fit with the words etymology does not mean that the given definition isn't valid.
If you're arguing for 'definition A' with etymology you have to then show that the meaning still applies today. Like Ashman's tried to do. Otherwise we can still conclude that it once meant A, but has since changed to definition B.
Clutchology 1 year ago
@Clutchology The etymology of "pedo" and "phile" would just mean someone who loves children. That can describe any doting grandmother. But no one doubts pedophile now has a sinister connotation far worse than just a proud grandmother's love of children. The name changed from the underlying words that make up the word's origin.
lanastompanato 1 year ago
@tubetib I agree the word isn't the best, but we are dealing with the limitations of language at this point.
I ask then, why isn't antitheism a better word to describe your definition of atheism, and why does atheism have a negative connotation?
jesuriah 1 year ago
It's good to see you posting again, R.J.!
One thing about atheism is sometimes I wonder where the despising religion comes from. It's entirely possible for people to be brought up secular without religion. Whether or not they agree or disagree with the philosophical beliefs of religions later on in life doesn't necessarily mean they despise religion as much as disagree with what religions teach.
HaleyMary 1 year ago
@HaleyMary
I can see how it's easy to hate religion, judging by how much bad stuff is going on and how much money is being wasted because of it. And in a way it also can get really annoying if you see how many people blindly follow a religion and don't ever think for themselves... and if an annoyance stays around to long, it get's really frustrating and then you start to hate it.
But basing actions upon hate isn't very constructive or smart.
stoikr 1 year ago
Clutch, I missed you.
Br0k3nS41nt 1 year ago
God, you mean atheism has rules now? We can't win!
proteanview 1 year ago
I love fallatio
Steve2323ZX 1 year ago
Anyone who doesn't like a necrophilia themed birthday party is not a true atheist.
FantasticBabblings 1 year ago
I think he confused atheism with antitheism
Xxmalice667 1 year ago
haha i had a christian say the crusades was not christian because they were catholic sect.
patrickledford420 1 year ago
great
IFE10M 1 year ago
this video is very similar to theamazingatheists latest vid..
EarLyVizioN 1 year ago
One point, Clutch:
You say you aren't a freethinker because free thought is an ongoing battle and you don't feel comfortable calling yourself that because you haven't "won". Doesn't make sense to me, that... Free thought is the battle, but the people fighting that battle are freethinkers, no? You don't call a soldier a soldier only when he comes back from the war victorious (unless you're a republican and the soldier isn't gay/liberal/intelligent).
EdwardHowton 1 year ago
I don't call myself a freethinker anyway because I don't feel I'm qualified to make that judgement.
But what I was getting at was, freethinkers generally don't call themselves freethinkers. Because it needs to be a conscious, constant effort. When you start feeling like you've won the battle, then you don't make the effort and slip into old patterns.
Imagine it like, the soldier is a soldier only when he's fighting. If he declares victory and goes home, he goes back to a civilian.
Clutchology 1 year ago 4
I know that's not entirely accurate but it's a metaphor. Roll with me ;-)
Clutchology 1 year ago 2
@Clutchology
Spot on. This is along the lines of one of my favourite quotes - "Believe those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it." ~ Andre Gide
JMC425 1 year ago
haters gonna hate...
jesokingcryst 1 year ago
There is no god and I don't hate any religions. Now what am I!? XD
rozeboosje 1 year ago
@rozeboosje a SATANIST!
Xerxes4242 1 year ago 2
@Xerxes4242 ROFL
rozeboosje 1 year ago
@rozeboosje
Human
ThisBoyTV 1 year ago
@ThisBoyTV Indeed :-)
rozeboosje 1 year ago
First off, bang on with the "free thinker" statement!
Secondly, just wanted to let you know you've got a big fan in Canada. As a philosophy student, materialist, and libertarian, your videos always deliver information I find very interesting.
Keep up the awesome work, friend!
cpynch 1 year ago
congratulations on 100 videos :D
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire Thank you! I think this is the third time I've reached 100 videos =P
Clutchology 1 year ago 3
Rocks and babies are atheists. It's funny how many debates go sideways due to a simple definition error. Atheist=without god. Anyone care for anti theist? Or is that just too pedantic?
newcoyote 1 year ago
I feel like the idea of hating religion is sort of like hating Christmas stories. And hating god like hating Santa. It's just silly. To "hate" ideas is to acknowledge them as some sort of intellectual threat: essentially saying "Those ideas scare me." Religion is not something to hate, it is something to laugh at.
JohnsJava 1 year ago
You're all kinds of awesome.
Put your blog into Opera and my phone, it looks interesting.
jonatcer 1 year ago
@jonatcer Wow, thanks!
I hope you enjoy the future posts.
Clutchology 1 year ago
what app is that talking guy?
BitRobot 1 year ago
@BitRobot TalkingCarl. I think it's 59p/$0.99 in the App Store.
Clutchology 1 year ago
Your comment about "free-thinking" was spot on.
Nice upload. Atheism isn't a "team" where we all walk in lock step. The ONLY condition to atheism is a lack of belief in god(s).
PainAddict666 1 year ago
As an atheist, why do I need to hate religion? Who is this guy dictating hate? I don't think about religion. I find it interesting, but not that interesting. I think for myself and still don't want to go around hating. What does this matter?
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago